Martin LeFevre: The Vanishing Man in America

There is no better indicator of the zeitgeist in America than Super Bowl commercials. The trend in this year’s ads was summarized by such headlines as: “Appealing to the Downtrodden Man;” and “Super Bowl Commercials About Women Emasculating Men.”

In perhaps the most riveting, and representative one--a Chrysler Dodge Charger commercial--a young man is lying in bed, staring blank-eyed at the ceiling. A resigned voice says, “I will get up and walk the dog at 6:30 am…I will say yes when you want me to say yes…I will be quiet when you don’t want to hear me say no…”

On and on he drones, until he gets behind the wheel of his Chrysler Dodge Charger. Then he's free and comes alive. Who dat?

Are we supposed to feel sorry for these dweebs? Are we supposed to identify with them?

I wonder if whoever coined the term ‘the war between the sexes’ knew that if people took that term seriously, women would eventually win a pyrrhic victory?

Women are generally the stronger sex emotionally, and smarter cognitively. But the cliché doesn’t begin to explain why men, almost en masse, have quit on life, in America at least.

Is it because once the outer world of nature was ‘conquered,’ and men were no longer needed for protection, or as providers, the vast majority of men felt they had no purpose, and so surrendered in the war between the sexes?

I know that many men feel useless, no matter how much money they may be making, or how many enemies of the nation they may be killing. But I don’t think that men surrendered to women; I think men quit, and women felt they had no choice but to take up the slack.

So they took charge of the house, outside the house as well as in, and raised the children, and worked a job on top of it. Then men really felt they weren’t needed, and subconsciously realized that their wives and girlfriends were stronger.

‘OK,’ men said in unison, ‘go ahead, you can have it all. Somebody has to be in charge, right?’

Is that how many men let women dominate them, not in bed necessarily, but in the direction and management of their lives?

The first principle of feminism was equality. The women’s movement wasn’t meant to replace brutish male domination with velvet-gloved female domination.

My father, as a typical ‘60’s father, was the center of the house. What he said went, and my mother made the four of us hop to when he was coming home from work. She didn’t work, but cleaned a lot, as I recall, and visited with her friends in the same dreary boat.

Now, like many old couples, their roles have reversed. Much like in America generally.

Women have tried to ‘have it all,’ and ended up having to take care of it all. Men may be more helpful around the house, and manageable outside of it, but as the commercials attest, neither men nor women are happy.

Men have to find a new purpose.

When I was in Russia nearly 20 years ago, shortly after Americans were first allowed to stay with Russians in their homes (or rather apartments), I was appalled at the male domination. My mouth would literally drop open at the openly autocratic, often degrading manner of the men toward their wives.

Seeing my shock and dismay, and well aware of their situation, a group of Russian women took me to dinner my last night in the country. It was a very interesting conversation, to say the least, covering differences between our cultures, and between our sexes.

Near the end of the dinner, a Russian woman said without rationalization, “We have a proverb: ‘Men go first, and if it works, women follow.’”

It’s interesting to see the reaction I get from American women when I tell them that proverb. Most are aghast at the very idea, but it contains a deep truth, as well as a clear falsehood.

The falsehood is obvious: Why should women follow men? They shouldn’t.

But the truth is harder to see. For tens of thousands of years, men have gone first into the wild to hunt; gone first to protect family and group against attacking animals or marauding enemies; gone first in the exploration of new lands; and gone first in developing heavy industry.

But what new territory can men go first into now? The outer world has been ‘conquered.’ Space is not a final frontier for many, but the distant dream of the few. The only frontier that remains is within, and few men or women want to go there.

Even so, is taking the greater risk and going first necessary for men? It seems to be the good part of our natures. But where’s the new frontier?

The unexplored inner territory of human consciousness is not just a new frontier; it’s potentially a new dimension of being, full of inchoate dangers and nameless evils. Can that be the new calling for men?

Not that women can’t go there equally, and as well. But most simply won’t, just as only a few good men are going within now.

Anthropologists used to say, “women are the culture bearers.” That still rings true, even when the culture is dead. Sadly, men have quit, and women are keeping this dead culture going.

Women see no alternative. Men need to step up.

Going first is associated with taking the greater risk. But most men have become risk averse. Can that change guys?

- Martin LeFevre is a contemplative, and non-academic religious and political philosopher. He has been publishing in North America, Latin America, Africa, and Europe (and now New Zealand) for 20 years. Email: martinlefevre@sbcglobal.net. The author welcomes comments.

© Scoop Media