c Aichinger 1c

S. R. Aichinger

Dr. Latchaw

ENGL 800: Feminist Rhetoric

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

My Masculinity?

I¶d like to note a passage in the Robert Connors chapter, ³Debating Causality: Women

and the Demise of Rhetorical Education.´ It is clear that Walter Ong¶s exploration of other

cultures was cursory, surface-level, and ethnocentric. The ³self-mutilating Sun Dances of the

Plains Indians´ that Connors cites was not and —

 be likened to pissing contests. They

were not ³physical tests of bravery and ability to withstand pain´ (402). They were  
rooted

cultural and spiritual traditions that cannot be summed up in a single sentence. The physical

mutilations were not ways of showing more manliness that others in the community, but

complex displays of reverence. Indeed, spilling blood was, as I understand it, a way to connect

with other levels of consciousness, make spiritual connections, and offerings of humility and

gratitude. I¶m sorry I don¶t have any academic sources to cite²I learned this from a Plains

Indian.

It is clear to me that this sort of flawed perspective is at least partly to blame for many of

the world¶s cultural and social misconceptions, fears, and anxieties. If one only attempts a

passing understanding of a people, a practice, or a trend, how is that even remotely a scholarly

practice?

I found this issue irksome as I read through the entirety of Connors¶s chapter, and I found

my frustrations mirrored by Roxanne Mountford¶s review of Connors¶s work, ³Feminization of

Rhetoric?´ What is surprising about the ways in which she and I agreed on the trouble with
c Aichinger 2c

Connors¶s work is that mine stemmed from ethnic oversimplification and misunderstanding

(though I think i ——  implies a benign mistake for which I think Connors does not

deserve reprieve) and Mountford¶s from a gender blindness credited to what seems to be

Connors¶s desire to assert his maleness. To which I say, 

—.

In fact, I think many men in America today are far too eager to remind themselves and

others of their astounding masculinity. I dare say this is not limited to American men, but I won¶t

be so silly and crass as to cite cultural practices with which I am not familiar. In any case, it

seems to occur as a way to combat anxieties and insecurities that emerge from oversaturation of

hyper-masculine portrayals of men in popular media and the sexual ambiguity of men whose

actions don¶t reflect totally or in part the images projected within the crazy carnivalesque theater

that is American media. And if the use of sex to sell ideas weren¶t harmful enough, it has become

apparent to me that — — must be sold to us in order for that cultural practice to be a useful

marketing strategy.

What does this do? Well, from my perspective, the way we (men) are trained to be

prudishly sexual (more on that in a minute) means that we are molded to do and see sexuality in

certain ways so as to make the images of unrealistically beautiful and sexually powerful men the

minimum standard. We are to bed women by force (but not too much force). We are to conquer

our sexual partners (but with her consent). The rape scenarios offered to us on shows like

  and  i  — and in so much pornography is meant to titillate (but we must not

act on it).

There¶s that prudish sexuality thing.

On the one hand, we¶re supposed to have sex (and lots of it), but only certain kinds of sex

(not the kind we see in the media) and only with certain kinds of people (women). Certainly I
c Aichinger 3c

know and agree that sex must be consensual, but because sex is tied so necessarily to an animal

instinct, how are men supposed to negotiate and manage the unconscious desires spurred by the

almost exclusively violent portrayal of sex in America? I¶ve seen to many animals in the throes

of ecstasy to even consider entertaining the notion that sexuality is something we can control. Is

sex not both pleasure and pain? Attractive and terrifying? Does it not unite us and divide us?

Define us and shroud us in ambiguity?

Why else would homosexual sex (something that commonly occurs in nature and has

occurred in the human population for thousands of years) still be so negatively stigmatized, not

to mention illegal in many cases? As Mountford points out in her criticism of Connors¶s funny

analysis of the prohibition of women from doing classical rhetoric, rules aren¶t created on a

whim, from thin air. The thing that is prohibited must have occurred prior to the passing of

judgment on it. In Nebraska it is illegal to fly a plane drunk (www.dumblaws.com), and for good

reason. But that law is there because it happened. That same website claims that it is illegal for a

man ³to run around [in Omaha] with a shaved chest.´ Again, this law exists (if it exists) because

it happened, but more importantly, the law exists because it was perceived as a threat.

Why was running around in Omaha with a shaved chest ever a threat? Perhaps someone

with political influence was insecure about his shirtless appearance. Or maybe some guy with

political influence found out that his wife was having a steamy affair with a more masculine,

more sexually potent man who often appeared about town with a bare, shaved chest! I know the

examples I¶m pulling are silly, but I think they make my point. Sex is natural and fun and

productive (both as procreation and as a way of bonding with friends and lovers). Sex has been

around both as utility (making babies) and as a hobby (open to almost any page of Foucault¶s

  —


 

i). Regulating sex and preaching the superiority of one
c Aichinger 4c

particular expression of it that has been prescribed as ³normal´ is useless. It exasperates an

already dissonant tension between men and women, heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals,

adherents to sexual dogma and rejecters of it.

And I¶m writing this on the day I¶m wearing purple for the kids who have killed

themselves because their sex was labeled bad and awful and gross and wrong. It wasn¶t. It was

just different. It was theirs and it was as beautiful as they were.