Archives for category: Social Criticism

No two superheros are more iconic than Batman and Superman. If you’re a Marvel fan, I’m here to tell you you’re wrong. Go home. Though both are similarly dedicated to the pursuit of justice and both similarly possess righteous infallibility, the ways they approach their superhero-ing business are quite opposite. Superman is good-natured and morally upstanding: the boy scout. Batman is broody and outside the law: the dark knight.

Now, as much fun as I would have talking about Batman for an entire blog with a few snippets about Superman here and there, I’m going to link the celebrity of each of these Superheros to the cultural state of mind of their respective eras. Though both originated in the late 1930s, the popularity of Superman was at its height probably from the 1940s until the 1970s, whereas Batman didn’t really come into his own until the late 80s/early 90s. You could argue that the Adam West Batman gained some popularity for the character, but I’m talking about when Batman really developed his own pathos. Adam West was an interchangeable guy in tights who solved mysteries akin to those solved by Scooby Doo and the gang. More camp than character. Batman is grim, spawned in heartbreak and isolation, and he is just as deranged as the villains he faces off against, with the only difference between them being Batman’s rigid and absolutist moral code.

Superman, on the other hand, landed just outside of Smallville: an idyllic, rural countryside where he was lovingly raised by two wonderful parents, Ma and Pa Kent. There are those who claim that Superman is exceptional because the Kryptonian, Kal-El, is the real persona of Superman, and it is Clark Kent that is the mask. This is contrary to all the other superheros out there, but I would disagree. Superman is Clark Kent, not the other way around. The boy raised in Smallville, who loves and intermingles with the populace, dedicating his life to humanity, is who Superman is. That’s what he fights for: humanity. Lex Luthor, as any good antagonist will be, represents the direct counterpart to his hero. Just as Superman represents the best aspects of humanity, truth and justice (and shut up, work with me here), Lex Luthor represents the worst, greed, power-mongering, and cruelty. They are two sides of the same coin, fighting for the perpetuation of their own version of human nature.

That’s why the symbol on Superman’s chest represents hope. Superman is the hope that humanity can overcome its dark side. That we can recognize the value of compassion, truth, and humility: the attributes of Clark Kent, and that they can survive the dark times we live in and be reborn anew when the time comes. This is why Superman was popular during the conflict years of World War 2 and Vietnam. We wanted to believe we could be better, and Superman was a symbol of that longing.

Then, in 1992, Superman died. As explained in the video in the hyperlink, DC was trying to make Superman relevant again. For some reason, the ideals of Superman had lost their allure. Cue the world’s greatest detective.

Batman is dark. Like, seriously dark. The Killing Joke in 1988 is a perfect example of that. Batman doesn’t fight for the happy return of ideals once lost because Batman’s past is filled with just as much suffering and strife as his present. Batman fights to keep his head above the water. There is an apathy, an unfeelingness, to his brand of justice as he resorts to scare tactics and bullying to dole it out. There is no hope in Batman, just the certainty that criminals are a superstitious cowardly lot, and that we are in an unending war against them.

Society today is deeply cynical. Possibly more cynical than we’ve ever been before. We suffer a deluge of horrors every day in the form of our news media coverage, and this oversaturation of atrocities has dulled our reaction to it. We are desensitized and demoralized. As much as we might think that we are more compassionate, our apathy and laziness reduces any idealism into a status update or a meme. We still recognize that the world is a terrible place, but there is no hope anymore. No wishful thinking of better days to come, just a melancholic acceptance of the state of the world. We idealize Batman because he maintains his Sisyphean battle against the ills of the world, but we embrace his mythology because of its recognition of the ultimate invariability of it.

Today, Batman is successful because he is as brutal and miserable as the world believes itself to be. We also haven’t had a good Superman movie since Christopher Reeve because now we’re trying to turn the boy scout into the dark knight, which is like trying to fit a square peg into a bat-shaped hole. So now we must ask ourselves, will a renascent Superman rekindle humanity’s hope for the future, or must we wait for a cultural revolution before we get a good Superman movie again?

I am genuinely afraid to write this, and not because I fear reprisals; I will not be harassed, or bullied, or suffer in any way shape or form because of my actions in writing this. In all honesty, I will likely be lauded as a forward-thinking, sterling representation of what a man “should” be. I am a “good” person for writing this. So why the trepidation? Why not stride out boldly into the limelight to accept the accolades for being a man speaking out against the horrific nature of violence towards women?

Because I am a man. I have been conditioned since birth to treat women as a conquest. I maintain a tally of the women I’ve slept with, and I consider it low despite it probably being around average for my age group. I feel shame if I hear of someone who has a higher count than I do. My masculinity, and by extension my very personhood, is defined by the number of women I have had sex with. Is it wrong of me to keep this tally? To think like this? A solid percentage of those women meant a great deal to me at the time, and here I am trivializing them into a statistic; into a notch on my belt. A few of these women I felt more than comfortable telling them I loved them, and this is the respect I have for them now.

I am not impervious to the culture that I live in. I am bombarded, constantly, unceasingly, by media images that tell me to treat women as sexualized objects. I am surrounded by like-minded individuals who are a part of that same culture, and they too espouse similar ideals of male sexual dominance over women. In fact, it was actually a woman who told me that I should lie about the age I lost my virginity in order to appear more masculine. To think that any of us, man or woman, can wholly remove ourselves from a culture that sexualizes women and asserts male dominance is incredibly naïve.

That is why I am afraid. What I have been told a man “should” be is not someone who speaks out against violence; it is probably closer to the opposite. Men are tough as nails, and can handle any shit the world wants to hurl down on us. Beyond that, men are reserved, independent, and hard-working. This is what I’ve been taught, and I would be lying if I said I wasn’t unconsciously affected by this definition, if not consciously.  To say that men need to change is to go against an entire culture, an entire worldly paradigm. To say that men need to change is to go against all that I have been told, all of the experiences that have evolved me into an adult, all of the conditioning that has made me into who I am today.

I still keep a tally of the women I’ve had sex with, and here I am, saying that I am wrong. I have to admit that I am flawed in front of the whole world. I have to overcome my beliefs about who I am in order to write this. It’s kind of freaking me out a little bit. But I do it because men *need* to change. When we think of violence against women, we barely acknowledge men. We’re not even in the name: Violence Against Women. I am sure there exists some amount of women committing violence against women, but the statistics of men being the perpetrators are so high that a generality is forgivable.

It is men who commit violence. Not just against women, but against other men as well. We are the aggressors in nearly every instance of violence in the history of the world. As a man, I am offended by this. It’s disgusting and it reflects poorly on me as a person. Is it selfish to want to go on a first date, and not have the girl sitting on the other side of the table worrying about if I’m going to assault her or not? Absolutely. Imagine the position she’s in! She is afraid because she knows that there is a higher chance of me committing some form of violence against her than her committing some form of violence against me, simply because I am a man.

I honestly can’t think of any argument beyond this. I’m sure if I put some research into this I could come up with statistics to back up what I’ve been saying, but I think most people deep down recognize the truth to it. In movies where violence is the focus, it is almost inevitably being committed by a man. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Harrison Ford, Jason Statham, Jackie Chan, Kurt Russell, Bruce Lee, Sylvester Stallone, Robert Downey Junior, and many, many others compared to… Sigourney Weaver in the Alien franchise, Sarah Michelle Gellar in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Milla Jovovich in the Resident Evil movies and maybe a few token others? Even if turning women into aggressors was somehow the solution to the problem of a culture dominated by male violence, female action stars are still typically sexualized to the point where the message of “women are sex objects” is still being projected as the norm.

As it stands today, men commit violence. Violence is bad. We need to stop violence. Men need to change. I feel like a kindergarten teacher, but maybe putting it in childish terms is the proper means to get the point across.

Of course, everything is always easier said than done. How do we upheave an entire culture that teaches us that women are a sexual conquest? How can we create a revolution that will lead to a society that doesn’t teach boys that violence is a necessary form of control?

That’s another reason that writing this frightens me. I don’t have the answers. I work in a butcher shop. I don’t have a degree saying that I know what I’m talking about. Those who began to read this were probably hoping for some harebrained scheme by the end of it that would offer an easy solution to a multi-layered, global problem. I feel like a liar and a cheat for exposing myself like this without giving away any payoff. It seems almost narcissistic that all I’m writing about is myself and a little bit of a social critique without offering anything more tangible.

But maybe that’s all it takes. Maybe if more men admitted they have a problem with the way they view women; maybe if more men took a step back and critically examined the influences that shaped them; maybe if more men no longer wanted to suffer the embarrassment of being the gender that has committed the worst atrocities against our fellow human beings, then maybe change would come.

At the recovery house where I volunteer, one of the most disturbingly poignant comments that one of the clients made was that everyone wants to help you when you’re sober. People go to bat for you, they help you make ends meet, they are supportive and loving. When you’re on drugs, however, you are a pariah. Doors close, relationships are destroyed, and nobody helps you because they don’t trust that you’ll receive it in good faith.

Of course, it makes sense. When people are addicted to drugs they tend to prioritize those drugs over anything else, and to assume otherwise is a dangerous gamble. Often the mentality is that the person must hit rock bottom, and make the choice for themselves to recover, and when they are on the road to sobriety, that is when the support rolls in. To offer support beforehand prevents the necessary rock bottom that is the prerequisite for redemption.

But why withhold love for a person at their very weakest? Addicts, on top of the physical properties of addiction, continue their habit because their sober life is more miserable than their intoxicated one. Rock bottom is subjective, and is entirely irrelevant to the myriad of roadblocks that occur on the path to recovery. Allowing a person to get to the worst possible position in their life will not necessarily grant them the insight towards a healthier lifestyle, but it will increase their chances of killing themselves. Sobriety must be shown to be the better alternative to addiction, and social exclusion, cultural alienation, and insufficient resources to maintain a decent sober life preclude that imagery.

One might argue that love does remain, but I would disagree and say that the love is there for the person who once was: whoever existed before “the addict” came into the picture, not the addict themselves. The addict is no longer worthy of love, and is seen only as a symbol of what used to be. The continuance of love becomes conditional on the addict returning to a state as close to the original as possible. Only an addict can truly bond with another addict, hence the Anonymous program. The broken understand the broken, and there develops a community of outsiders out of necessity.

This leads to shame. No one likes being damaged. The addict tends to hide it. They pretend it’s not as big of a deal as it is, or that they’re doing better when they’re not, or that they’re not actually an addict. I’ve heard a fair number of stories of addicts who have maintained steady sobriety who then crumble to pieces when invited to a party, and are too embarrassed to reveal their deficiency and relapse simply because they don’t want people to know how defective they are. Of course, if no one cares for the broken, why would they ever admit to it?

Maybe I’m being too cynical, but let’s look at the damaged across the board. Say your best friend got dumped, and all they did was whine and complain about how heartbroken they were. How long would you tolerate it before the two of you started drifting apart? A week? A month? A year? Say your sibling became an addict and started stealing from you. How much of your material wealth would you have to lose before you gave up on them? Or someone who got in with the wrong crowd and started committing crimes. At what point does it become unforgivable?

Compassion is a finite resource. We can only ever hold out so long. Social workers, whose entire job is to care about the broken, have one of the highest burnout rates of any profession. We’d rather take Tough On Crime measures than care for our criminals. We’d rather avoid eye contact with homeless people panhandling for change. We change seats to escape sitting next to the man muttering to himself on the bus.

I’m pretty sure everyone unconsciously knows this, so we all try to hide our problems as best we can. Our social media profiles border on the hedonistic in order to disguise any faults we have. Our gratuitous greetings of, “Hi, how are you?” to strangers is inevitably met with a standard “fine” or a “same ol’ same ol'” because mediocrity is still better than having an issue that you’re struggling to deal with. Our healthy veneer only cracks in front of the close friends and family members whom we trust not to abandon us the instant we show any sign of weakness, but even then we still try to portray ourselves as the protagonist when we reveal our gripes, despite all the unseen doubt, guilt, and insecurities that cripple us.

I’m sure there are biotruths out there that suggest that only the strong survive, and it’s our Darwinian nature to desire strength and dominance and shun weakness. You can only care for the fawn with a broken leg for so long before you have to leave it for the wolves out of necessity. However, making up “biotruths” to justify abhorrent and selfish qualities as a means to dismiss them as simple human nature is defeatist and counterproductive.

However, we’re all fucked up. We all have insecurities, faults and flaws and any “biotruth” that dictates a desire for strength doesn’t take that into account because it would mean that we’d desire those who are best at hiding their faults, not those who are the most faultless.

We may be fucked up, but what constitutes “broken” is entirely subjective. Are sex workers “broken”? Are the diseased and the disabled “broken”? Are functional addicts “broken”? Can we really dehumanize anyone to the point where defining them as “broken” is ever even appropriate? Can people get to a point where they are truly beyond repair? Those we may perceive as “broken” might see themselves otherwise, and who is to say which of us is correct?

We avoid the broken because we fear that they will take us down with them. The addict will steal from us; the emotionally damaged will depress us; the criminal will become a liability. And maybe they will. But we are healthy. We are stable. We are fixed. We can be resolute because we are not broken, and we can help bring them up rather than abandon them out of the fear that they will take us down.

But we don’t. Maybe we’re not as stable as we let on, and we worry that our own little deficiencies will be exacerbated by any contact with the broken. So we all keep hiding, never truly being authentic. Showing any weakness or vulnerability could have devastating consequences, after all.