Metal and Masculinity: Pt. 2

Here's the second part of "Metal: A Headbanger's Journey" about gender and sexuality. I would like to examine a couple points in this documentary and expand on them a bit.

Sam: "And of course the big debate perhaps is that groupies are percieved as being objectified and powerless--"

Pamela: "That is so lame! Because they're exactly where they want to be. Women who are hanging out with bands are not dragged and coerced into the bands' bedrooms or back stage or buses or anything. They want to be there. They make every effort in the world to get where they can be with these bands, and they're doing exactly what they want to do."

The assumption that groupies are objectifies and powerless is, in and of itself, a sexist sentiment. It assumes women aren't sexual beings, don't want to be sexualized, that they all aspire to the ideal of the proverbial virgin. If anything, the people being objectified as sexual objects in this relationship are the male performers. They're the ones who are the sexual trophy, they're the ones being conquered by these women. To assume that this can't happen is also a sexist sentiment. It assumes that all men want lots of sex, which may not always be the case.

"And then finally you start realizing, shit, this is a job too. You know? It's a business. It's not just constant partying."

"When I got off the road and I decided I was done, it took me a long time to be able to embrace a woman, with any integrity at all; they were all pigs. And you start to, you know, it, a lot of these guys, you know, are still headfucked about it. You know what I mean? A lot of these guys still try to live that lifestyle because they don't know anything else. But, you know, you become a product of that environment."

Vince Neil of Mötley Crüe (first quote above) seems to have been horribly impacted by the "sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll" philosophy. His name is associated not only with the band, but with sex tapes and multiple accusations of assault on sex workers. It would be hard to argue this has no relationship to the lifestyle he maintained in his band. Having a 24/7 all-you-can-eat buffet of women may have made it very difficult for him to mature and adapt to normal society, and in a way he was a victim of that lifestyle. Much like how women sex workers may start stereotyping all men as pigs, heavy metal artists who were contantly exposed to sexually driven women may have lost respect for all women. With such a loss of respect comes consequences.

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that heavy metal and rock 'n' roll are the devil's music, and bad for everyone, and should be banned. Absolutely not. But I would suggest that, when it comes to the sex part of "sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll", all parties have a responsibility to consider the gender consequences of their actions. Treating men as sexual objects is playing into patriarchy in just the same way as the objectification of women is.

"When we get on stage, people give us a great deal of respect, which is fantastic. But, um, I've been in bands before Girlschool, but I've been on stage, people asking me if I'm 'tuning the guitar for the guitarist' or, you know, that sort of patronizing comment. 'Cause they don't expect a female to get up and play guitar. But, you know, that's the way it's always been."

That's one thing that metalheads pride themselves in, is that they're equal-opportunity, and show a great deal of respect for people who participate but are not the mainstream. This doesn't just apply to women; when non-whites begin participating, the community is enthusiastic and embracing, and shows a great deal of respect toward them. At the same time, there's always the risk of tokenizing them.

When I suggest metal is a "celebration of masculinity" one of the first things opponents do is point to females in bands. They completely disregard the fact that these women are respected specifically because they perform as men, that they demonstrate and embody masculinity. If they don't embody masculinity, if they speak of women's issues and the experience of girls, if they demonstrate any sort of femininity, they are rejected, in the same way nü metal and hardcore bands are. Take for instance the band Kittie, who frequently speak directly to female listeners in their lyrics. Like Slipknot, this band is not taken very seriously in by metal purists, and often rejected from the genre entirely. While they don't get called "pussies" or "fag music" like a male band might, you might hear someone say "they don't count."

"They tried to put me a little bit more into the, you know, female sexy image, but without power. And I didn't like that. And the people at the record company said, 'Get rid of the black leather. That's number one. Be more of a girl.' And I said, 'Oh no no no no no I can't, you know, I can't do it. And I don't want to do it. I definitely want to, you know, be myself.'"

So while fans love to see women "wearing the pants" in metal, that's not to say they haven't faced resistance in the scene. Record labels know that sex sells, so the assumption is that, if you have a female artist, you need to sexualize them to make bank. Even the members of Kittie feel pressured to look good in order to be successful. This is a conflict male performers don't really have to deal with. But for the women in metal, they find themselves more successful when they resist being turned into sexual objected, and, I would argue, would fail or be rejected if they gave in.

Sam: "Is having kind of a tough persona on stage, is that important to you"

Angela: "Yeah, yeah. Because I am tough on stage. You know? I feel very strong on stage, and I want to give that to the people in front of that stage. If you can just have a lot of strength and power, and want to give it to these people and they take a bit of that home."

Even though they are women on the stage, in a way they are still participating in homosociality, in that they emulate masculinity for a masculine audience (regardless whether the audience members are male or female). The main goal is to share that masculinity, that power, that rebellion, that freedom, with the audience. It doesn't matter what the sex of the performer is.

Destroying Something Beautiful: A Critique of Masculine vs. Feminine in "Fight Club"

I first saw Fight Club as a junior in high school and, though it clearly exudes the qualities I will discuss, never acknowledged it as definitively masculine film or broke down the parts that reiterated that attribute. It is the visual equivalent of an adrenaline rush which can make certain elements lost on viewers, but there are a great deal of societal critiques of masculinity in forms of autonomy/freedom, the lust for and interest in violence seated within the film, and relations with women.

Our generation is bombarded with the idea of a new masculinity. What many people saw borne out of the pages of “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” and metrosexual fashion trends was an idea of toned down masculinity and, in some extreme cases, many found this change due to the rise of feminism. In men’s health magazines, articles are written about the rise of an “Estrogen nation,” as more and more men throughout the United States have higher levels of the hormone estrogen in their bodies than ever before. While the rise in estrogen is largely due to a rise in sedentary living (body fat is directly tied to estrogen production), many health magazines have alluded that this hormonal imbalance is changing the very masculine framework of our postmodern society… and this is precisely where Fight Club comes into play, critiquing the “feminized” present day, adhering to notions of traditional masculinity, and pursuing violent endeavors to persuade and assert dominance and virility.

The film starts with the main character, or Narrator (a traveling salesman), and the introduction to his general dissatisfaction with life. He attends support groups for the terminally ill, a group in which he doesn’t necessarily belong on advice from his doctor to witness a semblance of “real” suffering as advice per his doctor to help with his insomnia and general emotional state. We are introduced to Bob “Big Tits” Paulson who has become a victim of hormone replacement after suffering through testicular cancer, the intention clear immediately and upfront: this man now has qualities of a woman, and had lost his very virility in the form of his testicles. This cancer is representative of the feminization of culture that later comes up in the film, the testicles (“masculinity”) being removed due to it. The Narrator is disgusted; the Narrator watches this character cry, furthering this notion of femininity. Through these meetings, the Narrator meets the lone female of the story – a character mostly seen as psychotic and despicable (yet sexually alluring) throughout the film’s entirety.

The Narrator meets Tyler Durden, a suave and charismatic individual who ends up taking the Narrator (sometimes referred to as “Jack”) in after problematic living situation circumstances. Tyler Durden pulls the Narrator in with his nihilistic philosophy, and eventual turn towards violence. At a point, Tyler explains his vision in the following lines:

We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.

In Fight Club the men have lost faith in their roles as consumers and want to experience a "real" sense of being that can only be achieved through pain. Tyler and the Narrator form a fight club, which pairs men together in abandoned places to gain physical contact with one another in the most violence and typically “masculine” ways possible. They consider these fights to be the catalysts into their neo-post-modern manhood and masculinity. This alludes to our previous readings, such as the one in Men’s Lives, in which it was explained in terms of gendering violence that “[m]en are honored for activity (ultimately, violent activity); and they are dishonored for passivity (pacifism) which renders them vulnerable to the charge of being a non-man…” (Gilligan 554). The lust for and pursuit of violence, therefore, tie directly into the resurrection of masculinity that Tyler and the Narrator try to bring back, which eventually leads to Project Mayhem. Project Mayhem becomes an amalgamation of masculinity (violence, powerful, anti-authoritarian, and generally pleasure seeking) seeking to pursue anarchic and nihilistic stunts.

The first goal of the fight club itself seems to be autonomy and freedom. The fight club exists outside of cultural restraints of order, safety, and precaution – something seemingly common in the society the film takes place in, paralleled to modern day Anywhere, North America. Another line that Tyler Durden speaks in the film is representative of this desire: “All the ways you wish you could be: that's me. I look like you wanna look, I fuck like you wanna fuck, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.” Tyler Durden emphasizes the idea of freedom in terms of being a real man. A real man sets his own rules, a real man is proud of who he is, a real man. This idea of masculinity has been reflected through our readings throughout the course. It appears that power dynamics are often linked to the performativity of masculinity and, within Fight Club, individual power (which appears to be the most concentrated form of it) is held above all else.

The relations with women in the film (or perhaps I should say clarify by saying “woman” since there is only one) are some of the most intriguing, as they validate this new ideal of masculinity, but also dismantle it (while then again preserving it). I know that sounds confusing, so I will try to explain without fully inundating with spoilers galore. There is only one woman present in the film, and that is Marla Singer. She plays a fiendish crazy woman who is basically a sexual outlet and little more. The Narrator does not even know if he enjoys her as a human being, Tyler Durden uses her as a receptacle more than anything, and yet she provides a catalyst. Initially, Tyler doesn’t hesitate to explain that women were the cause of the world that they now inhabited. Later, however, after the Narrator has been made extremely uncomfortable by Tyler and Marla’s sexual escapades, it is clear that there may be some sort of emotional investment within him after all. When the final stunt of blowing up buildings with credit card company records (to reduce the debt to zero) and Tyler’s interest in killing Marla become apparent, the Narrator is possessed by the idea of standing in the way of these hyper-masculine acts of violence and destruction, while still retreating to the antiquated notion of masculinity by rescuing the damsel in distress. While maintaining somewhat hurtful (sometimes literally) notions of masculinity, Fight Club also ends up serving as a call to arms to dissatisfied American men. This idea may be why it’s such a popular film across young men, but at the same time reinforces patriarchy. There are no positive women in this film, only men are allowed to take part in Project Mayhem, and the group ends up being cult-like and dysfunctional and literally turning against itself. It is an interested critique about the general laziness befallen on the middle-class American white male, while still not offering a solid solution. It may provide violent allure, but still critiques its ability to bring about change.