The Feminization of the Masculine Icon
February 22, 2008
With relation to my other post concerning the feminization of masculine characters in Hollywood, I would like to address the topic in a much broader sense. Rather than simply pointing fingers and making radical claims, I shall give supporting evidence of the clear ‘feminist’ movement in Hollywood.
I am not sure how many of you remember John Wayne. He is the classic idol of true masculinity; having the courage, bravery, and the guts to do what had to be done. I am not an ardent fan of his personal life, but what I cannot help but notice is the strong sense of personal character which he carried alongside himself, within and without his Hollywood career.
Wayne starred in many roles in all branches of the armed service, and many a time in the classic boots of the tough-gutted, gun-slinging cowboy. The cowboy is necessarily a part of American culture, being an example of the true masculine figure. Taking care of his family, fighting off bandits, and making a living off of the scrapings of the West. Hollywood has been lowering the standards of the ‘tough’ and ‘gruff’ men, namely with character of Jack
Sparrow in the Pirates of the Caribbean series, and with the mentioned ‘Charlie Prince’ in 2007’s 3:10 To Yuma. Jack Sparrow is portrayed as a drunk,(which is to be expected of a Pirate), a swindler, coward, and most noticeably, having feminine characteristics in his posture and in the way he carries himself. Despite all this criticism of Jack, most views of the movie will realize, it WAS Jack who made the film what it was. But all in all, we must realize, the writers of the film were looking for the ‘dashing’ Errol Flynn-like (Robin Hood/Swashbuckler) character, which in the long run, is everything that Jack is not.
We then find a somewhat similar character in the late 3:10 To Yuma, none other than Charlie Prince, who is the feminine version of the Western Villain. My question to those who are reading this is simple: “Why would they feminize such a masculine figure?” Understandably, it is a very simple reason. In a world where homosexuality is not ‘openly’ embraced by everyone, Hollywood must make an attempt to slowly, (how should I say?) spoon feed us into excepting it? So what other way would be more convenient than to put ‘feminine/gay’ characters into manly roles? It’s a rather interesting thing to note, since, after all, no one seems to be doing anything about it. (Not that we can either… lol)
Ok, just compare Charlie Prince with Angel Eyes in this Clip. You definately know this is a tough, tobacco chewin’, gunslinger. 
Master Paul Xavier
Illustrious marceg
Miss Angela Rose
Lady Kerin
mjlovesballet
February 22, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Sure, there are ‘feminine’ heroes like Jack Sparrow, but there are also still plenty of ‘tough as nails badass’ characters out there (Die Hard 4/Live Free or Die Hard is anything but ‘feminine’, although I suppose that did have a computer nerd shooting people…)
Jack Sparrow is hard to take seriously, but I have just as much trouble taking seriously the ‘John Wayne, tough man’ types. I think it’s good that a character can be a main character in an ‘action’ movie without having to be a charicatured version of what ‘masculine’ means.
February 22, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I don’t know Paul…I don’t really buy the theory that there is some grand conspiracy theory in Hollywood to brainwash us. The Producers want $$$…therefore they want movies that sell well. If a certain lifestyle seems to be something that will sell…that’s what they go for. Individual filmmakers may have “agendas” but a good filmmaker should first and foremost be about telling a story. It might be a story about flawed people…in fact, all stories are about flawed people.
as for the “feminity” of some characters…well, first let me point out that one of the guys you mentioned is the “villian”. Doesn’t that in itself say that such a lifestyle is bad? Another example I would bring up are Bruce Wyane and Dr. Crane from Batman Begins. Bruce Wayne, the hero, is incredibly masculine. Dr. Crane, one of the villians, is not. Would you say that Dr. Crane is a role modal for us to “accept” such behavior? Or someone who just plain creeps us out?
And Jack Sparrow is just plain weird. And also, I think, something of a rarity.
But ultimately, films also reflect a culture. Sadly masculinity is something that is being changed by the people- not by films. I think it is the populace, not the filmmakers, who are affecting this attitue.
February 22, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Money is everything. (In Hollywood,) so that would explain the first motive. A good filmmaker works on telling the story, but alas, there are few good filmmakers. The issue arises within the nature and personal standing of the ‘writers’ of these films. We do not know if they have any agendas…or do they? I cannot see why not? We do not live in a world of Orcs and men, where we know who the enemy is, and how he works, but rather, the enemy is always among us, conniving, plotting, and desiring the destruction of that which Christ established. The world is a more complicated place than we take it for.
I must argue in a simple defense. I am in no way supporting unbiased ‘conspiracy theories,’ but rather, just pointing out the obvious. You are either for Christ, or against Him, and there is no better way to attack the individual than through the media. You are right in the bit about the Dr. Crane scenario, but my ultimate question is ‘why are there ‘feminine’ characters in roles which ought to be tough, disgusting, coldblooded men? (ha, sounds weird…) I’m not saying that they want us to ‘accept’ the feminine nature of a villain, or the characteristics of Jack, but rather, it’s a matter of exposure. If you flash it in front of the audience long enough, when it happens in real life, they won’t be as alarmed. It may not be as much of a Conspiracy Theory, but the question is always there: “Why are the characters feminine in the first place?”
Masculinity is NOT being changed by the people, it is being redefined. Masculinity shall always be masculinity. The films do reflect the culture…as do the music…and art…
February 22, 2008 at 6:18 PM
That got a wee bit paranoid….
February 22, 2008 at 6:27 PM
My husband has been saying for years that people are trying to make everyone *gender neutral* … women are picking up more masculine traits and men are picking up more feminine traits. This is so everyone can be viewed as ‘equal’, of course! Hollywood is definitely magnifying this. Many movies are portraying women as lean, mean fighting machines. They’re still knock-out gorgeous, of course, but tough as nails. Then, you get the new male image such as CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow who is still a good-looking man (of course) but manages to make things happen in a more *lady-like* way. My husband blames all of this on women … at first you might think he’s being chauvinistic, but I think he’s onto something. He said how years ago he gave up on holding doors open for women because some would actually YELL at him…now he doesn’t know what to do! Some women are insulted if he doesn’t hold the door and others are insulted if he does. I can understand his predicament. Women want to be recognized as equals … but they’ve gone about it in all the wrong way. We were created equal, but very different … we shouldn’t be ashamed of our differences … they’re awesome, quite frankly. So … in order for women to be seen as equal, they begin taking on what was always more male interests …. to the point where, in Hollywood, they’re fighting like men. Now, I’m sorry, but I don’t know of too many girls that have that same natural tendency towards *rough-housing* that most boys have … this is clearly something that has become a learned quality. Yet, I see teenage boys now who are plucking their eyebrows and wearing nail polish and makeup … but they’re not gay! I don’t get it. When I was a kid, the boys definitely didn’t care what their hair looked like … nor their clothing style, for that matter. Sure, they wanted to wear Levi’s, but that was about as fashionable as most of them got. So, Hollywood might not be the cause of all of this but it’s certainly helping it along. It’s desensitizing people to it …and no one dares speak out against it because it’s politically incorrect, you know. Didn’t Pompeii end up this way ultimately???
Well, this *thread* should prove to be quite interesting.
Jen.
February 22, 2008 at 8:12 PM
guys,
I need help with some apologetics
Can you go to my blog http://www.onecatholicfamily.wordpress.com
My entry entitled STILL PROTESTING has a response from a gentleman named Neil.
Much obliged.
Also, I wrote about John Wayne in my other blog http://www.jeannecondon.wordpress.com
Parallel thinking!!
Jeanne
February 22, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Jeanne,
I’ve had the greatest *success* with the protestants and this by stating:
(1) Catholics do not believe we are saved by faith alone … we are saved by God’s grace and it is His grace that gives us the faith, which we are then expected to act upon. Usually, they wind up agreeing with this.
(2) then, if you claim to have this faith, then there will be fruit on your trees! Again, this is biblical. It is not the works that save you since without the faith, the works are not edifying. But, if you claim to have faith and then have no works, you are mislead. Again, this is biblical.
(3) If Catholics believed it was the works that saved us (even in a partial sense … as in a combination of faith/works for salvation) then why would priests visit someone on deathrow to hear their final confession when clearly they are unable to perform good works at that point to earn their salvation? They go because Catholics believe that, like the good thief, on this last day they are capable of being in paradise. They can be saved by God’s grace!!
As for Mother Teresa, do these people actually think that this woman could day in and day out do all she did for these people by her own shear energy and luck? Do these people actually believe that God wasn’t guiding her? Even they said how great it was to hear her shut down people like the Clintons for the pro-life movement. I think many people when doing some of God’s toughest work and living amongst the disease and poverty that she did, can feel this deep emptiness. (Heck, I do sometimes and I can’t claim to have done 1-thousandth of what someone like Mother Teresa has done. Maybe if we’re honest, we’ve all experienced this desert. ) God allows only the strongest to endure what she did for the years she endured it. Most of us could NEVER have done all she did, day in and day out, year after year, decade after decade!
Even Christ Himself felt abandoned by God in those final hours. As I’ve contemplated Mother Teresa’s memoirs, I’ve begun to wonder how many of our great saints probably felt this great void and distance from God. We are only human, you know! We get this great ferver and mountain-top experience at our early conversion. Then, you pick up your cross … and Mother Teresa carried a heavy cross.
Well, these are my thoughts … good luck but know that God has rewarded Mother whether these people want to believe it or not! I think she was a threat to non-Catholics because she was so respected. If they can destroy that respect, they think that maybe they can destroy the truths behind her.
Blessings,
Jennifer
February 23, 2008 at 12:19 AM
All right enough is enough. Hollywood is indeed trying to “demasculinize” manly man lead roles in order to push the gay agenda and make it socially acceptable. It is the feminazi way to make the men girly and the woman manly. I am sick and tired of the main male character suckling off the pro-masculine woman character like a newborn baby looking for life sustaining nutrition in most if not all American movies. Don’t get me wrong as an avid Die Hard fan I must say that the sub plot of Die Hard 4 was disappointing meaning that John’ daughter was tougher than the computer geek. I know of what I speak when I say that you have to look hard to find a movie with a positive MALE influence. I worked at Big Blue Video for 5 years and Father’s and Mother’s came to me looking for family movies that had men being men, and women being woman. It was very difficult to find such movies.
In order to sole this problem we as Christian’s need to reflect on Ephesians 5. The WHOLE thing not just wives be submissive…
February 23, 2008 at 9:55 AM
I’ll scoot over there in a little bit Jeanne.
It’s really sad, since the number of ‘masculine’ men in films have gone down drastically. Lord of the Rings is one of the only films which has ‘manly’ men, but in the case of Aragorn, the filmmakers have sort of given him an ‘identity’ crisis role. So even in there we can see a little twist up. But it still ranks as one of my favourite films.
February 23, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Lifelessons,
Oh come on John Wayne is the real deal. Listen to this.
BTW, take a look here at my post on the media muddling of masculinity.
February 23, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Its a shame that John Wayne is cheesy. we need a modern day icon, but, the attempts have failed, mostly because a lot of the cool male charactures in movies are anti-heros. and btw Barbossa was one of the best pirest i’ve ever seen of film, Jack wasn’t really a pirate, he was more of a Hustler and a good one too.
February 24, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Paul,
An well-done post! You make some excellent points and I think are very correct on your analysis.
Keep writing! You have plenty of wisdom to share!
In Christ,
Claire
P.S. The music on your blog is beautiul… so much that I left the window open I so could listen as I work. However, I discovered that a bunch of the chants have the “forbidden” Lenten word in them… just so you know!
February 24, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Hey, Thanks for taking the time to read it!
And thanks for the input on the music. I’ve been told the ‘alleluia’ has been playing here. I had that for the first song in the playlist, but have changed it because of Lent. There are only 4 tracks I’ve deemed worthy to play here, and these are them, so I hope I’m not making any gratuitous offense against the Church.
February 25, 2008 at 6:49 PM
I find the music kinda annoying. Not that i find chant annoying by any means but every time i open go to another place on the site it starts over. AUGH!!!
February 26, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Yea. i agree with marceg. I have to keep on stopping the music to watch videos or whatever
February 26, 2008 at 9:31 PM
at least its not girly music
February 27, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I took it off for now, but I’ll fix it so that it’s has optional playback. Thanks for the feedback.
February 27, 2008 at 7:07 PM
You folks have got to relax. Why is it you are looking back to John Wayne as your model for masculinity?
What do you say for those of us whose kids are more important than demonstrating our pectorals? Nurturance has traditionally been placed in the feminine category of human characteristics. Are you the one to tell me how much time and what type of approach I should use with my kids? Where do I see the John Wayne view of how to deal with offspring?
I think you have one basic assumption that is incorrect. We are not supposed to emulate a film figure, film figures are supposed to come from us and then are distilled to the point that the greatest number of people can recognize the type within themselves.
I shake my head whenever this argument is brought up in a religious context. Isn’t Christ one of the most ambiguous figures in his male/female identity? He certainly didn’t live a conventional life for a man of his time. And why bother with Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” unless there isn’t as much importance on these facts as one’s faith.
That’s enough.
February 27, 2008 at 7:24 PM
The reason we are looking back at John Wayne as an icon of masculinity for the simple fact that that was what he was. Just the true grit tough guy who never let anyone’s opinion of him change his course of action, and having the courage to do what had to be done. I’m not stating anything on the issue of raising your kids this way or that, my post is meant to simply show the fact that there are a lack of ‘true’ men in the films of Hollywood. There always seems to be a feminization of the male character. Exactly! The film figure is supposed to come from us, but the problem is that even ‘we the people’ have lost that sense of masculinity. And in the long run, Hollywood seems to only give their assessment of the situation… Which is nothing more than the support of the homosexual movement. Feminine Men, and Masculine Women.
October 20, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Your point is right on here. The implications cannot be overestimated. Thank you for this insightful commentary on life imitating art.