{"id":1428,"date":"2018-02-13T15:02:41","date_gmt":"2018-02-13T13:02:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/?p=1428"},"modified":"2018-02-13T15:02:41","modified_gmt":"2018-02-13T13:02:41","slug":"the-return-of-the-gentleman-a-proposal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/2018\/02\/13\/the-return-of-the-gentleman-a-proposal\/","title":{"rendered":"THE RETURN OF THE GENTLEMAN: A PROPOSAL<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

I taught yesterday an MA seminar on my research, mixing Cultural Studies and Gender Studies. I gave examples of the work I have done within the area I specialize in: Masculinities Studies (and popular fictions). As happens, the aspect of my research that generated the greatest discord was my proposal that we bring back gentlemanliness as a necessary code of behaviour for men. I have dealt with the need to offer specifically young men new ideals in the post following the Barcelona terrorist attacks of August 2017 (http:\/\/blogs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/2017\/08\/21\/indoctrinating-young-men-in-search-of-ideals\/<\/a>) and I have praised good gentlemanly men in another post, about Dickens\u2019s Bleak House<\/em> (http:\/\/blogs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/2015\/11\/05\/in-search-of-good-men-as-anti-patriarchal-role-models\/<\/a>). However, I have not addressed the topic of the gentleman directly and this might be a good chance to do so.<\/p>\n

One of the students in class, a young woman, reacted very negatively when I explained that we should welcome a renewed code of gentlemanliness. She complained that the gentleman\u2019s behaviour is patronising, using the classic example of the man opening a door to let a woman pass. I replied that this is a courtesy I would not personally reject and that in order to make it less patronizing (which I don\u2019t think it is) we just need to make it mutual: you open the door for me, I open the door for you. Actually, this renewal of general courtesy seems to me more urgent than ever: getting off the train at my university\u2019s station is terribly stressful, as absolutely nobody gives other passengers way. A walk I took in Barcelona last week turned out to be everything except relaxing as I had to dodge constantly other pedestrians who insisted on going their way even at the risk of crashing onto me. At full speed\u2026 <\/p>\n

I do take into account, as another student reminded me, that gentlemanliness was used hypocritically by many men throughout the 19th century. Of course, both R.L. Stevenson and Oscar Wilde, among many other authors, exposed this hypocrisy with the extreme cases of Dr. Jekyll and Dorian Gray. Yet, unless I am utterly deceived, most Victorian men who wanted to be respectable in society abided by the codes of gentlemanliness: politeness, protection of those in need, restrained behaviour, firm management of aggressive urges, care of one\u2019s person in looks and manners. Not bad, I should think. And not just upper class: remember that working-class men have always made a great deal of being respected by their community. Perhaps being a gentleman is about making the most of the best qualities that a man possesses.<\/p>\n

As I explained yesterday in class, unlike the Spanish \u2018caballero\u2019 which simply alludes to the medieval figure of the knight who possessed a horse (\u2018caballo\u2019, of course), the Anglophone \u2018gentleman\u2019 signals that to be an ideal man one must be gentle (not just own a horse!). \u2018Gentle\u2019, unfortunately, came to be identified with that awful American word, \u2018sissy\u2019 (which derives from \u2018sister\u2019, see how misogyny always lurks behind patriarchal insults). Today, as I acknowledged in class, no man appreciates being called a \u2018gentleman\u2019, particularly the young ones, because they see that as something bland and phoney. In short, ridiculous. (Here I need a footnote to remind readers that possibly older classy men like George Clooney, or similar, do enjoy being called \u2018gentlemen\u2019).<\/p>\n

In part, the loss of the gentleman is to be blamed on WWI, when the horrified soldiers on all sides discovered that in that atrocious, mechanical war the codes of knighthood and of gentlemanliness so far ruling in warfare no longer applied. Gassing your enemies is not what gentlemen do, nor kill them by blasting them off the face of Earth and into gory smithereens. Yet, the biggest blow against the gentleman, as we know, was the feminist rejection of all notions of chivalry as patronizing (the word my student used, remember?). This does not mean that all women rejected the gentleman, as the continued popularity of fantasies like Austen\u2019s Darcy prove. What I mean is that WWI (and later wars, like Vietnam) and 1970s radical feminism told men, in one way or another, that they needn\u2019t pretend to be gentlemen because at heart they were only patriarchal barbarians. Many men told themselves, \u2018ok, so that\u2019s what we are\u2019 and stopped acting as gentlemen. Others, better behaved but more puzzled, simply stopped obeying any specific ideal of manliness and got by as they could in life, navigating with great difficulties between Scylla and Charybdis, or feminism and patriarchy.<\/p>\n

I will insist again and again that gentlemanliness was not only a pragmatic set of rules for respectable men to follow but also a great shaming mechanism. A man who engaged in what the American press defines coyly today as \u2018misconduct\u2019 or \u2018inappropriate behaviour\u2019 could be told \u201cyou\u2019re no gentleman!\u201d and be shamed, in private and\/or in public. Honestly or dishonestly, most men were wary of keeping up a reputable image and an upright behaviour was part of that. Now, what do you tell the likes of Harvey Weinstein, or simply a man that puts his hands were he should not? How do you shame them? \u201cYou\u2019re an abuser?\u201d \u201cYou\u2019re a monster?\u201d The justice system and the threat of a jail sentence is not working, as we all can see, so there must be something else that acts as a deterrent against intolerable patriarchal behaviour.<\/p>\n

The shaming mechanism that is currently used is absolutely counterproductive because what we\u2019re screaming at these patriarchal abusers is \u201cYou\u2019re a man! What a shame!\u201d Sorry to disagree with many other feminist militants but I firmly believe that men are not all the same. By not distinguishing between gentle\/men (if you don\u2019t like gentlemen) and \u2018cads\u2019 (to use another quaint Victorian word) we\u2019re failing to find solutions for the problem of generalized patriarchal violence. Tell Donald Trump, \u201cYou\u2019re no gentleman!\u201d and he won\u2019t care because this means nothing today (though I think Barack Obama would care); tell him \u201cYou\u2019re a man!\u201d and Trump will say, \u201cExactly, that\u2019s what I am, and proud of it\u201d. So, it boils down to this: unless we have a way to label good men in such a positive way that most men want to be viewed in that way, we\u2019re lost (we women, but also they, the good men). And unless we do find an insult that clearly defines what patriarchal abusers are, we have no effective social and personal shaming mechanism.<\/p>\n

Can a man be a \u2018feminist gentleman\u2019, as an ex-student used to define himself? I usually find that the men I know and that fit that label do not proclaim their own gentlemanliness (or feminism), for part of being a gentleman is restraint\u2013no need to proclaim out loud what other should see for themselves. Restraint, on other hand, does not mean an inability to show feeling, a problem that indeed plagued the old-fashioned Victorian version of the gentleman. No, restraint means here the ability to show positive feeling and control negative feeling: gentlemen do cry if they feel moved to tears but do not hit others in anger. Bullying and intimidation are not part of their conduct, either. <\/p>\n

I\u2019m beginning to sound, I know, like an etiquette book, but, then, I\u2019m not alone in this: Margaret Atwood recently declared that men need \u201cetiquette books on how to behave\u201d and even a Mr. Manners\u2019 column in 1950s style (https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/books\/2018\/feb\/06\/margaret-atwood-modern-men-need-etiquette-books<\/a>). I understand that speaking of etiquette and gentlemanliness in 2018, rather than the pre-second wave 1958, may sound obsolete but, believe, it is not. <\/p>\n

I\u2019m taking these days a course for teachers on how to detect sexual violence in a university context and we were shown yesterday what can only be described as a lesson in etiquette. This is a video published by Thames Valley Police in 2015 which very cleverly compares sexual consent with having tea. Take a look: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ<\/a>. I complained that the tone is childish, and wondered whether young men shown this film would resent being treated as not too bright. But a younger female classmate patiently explained to me (thank you!!!) that the sexual etiquette which the video explains makes perfect sense for girls, who are often unsure about how to show or withdraw consent. She said that it\u2019s a common experience for women of her generation to engage in sex they don\u2019t really want (see The New Yorker<\/em>\u2019s popular story by Kristen Roupenian \u201cCat Person\u201d, https:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/magazine\/2017\/12\/11\/cat-person<\/a>). This means that women are suffering not only because gentlemanliness has been lost but also because we also have lost our own etiquette in the generalized rush to free ourselves, sexually and otherwise.<\/p>\n

The difference is, let me explain, that whereas we women are constantly surveilled and punished by a hundred different shaming mechanisms (from \u201cYou\u2019re not a lady\u201d to \u201cYou\u2019re a fat, ugly, old bitch!\u201d), men are not. Let me correct myself: patriarchal men do use \u201cYou\u2019re not a man!\u201d to mean \u201cYou\u2019re not acceptable as a member of patriarchy\u201d but this is not at all the kind of shaming mechanism we need to support. Nor is the radical feminist cry \u201cAll men are the same (kind of bastard)!\u201d If you\u2019re thinking that all shaming strategies are barbaric and should be suppressed please consider that there is an enormous distance between body-shaming someone who is not normative and shaming publicly and privately a physical or psychological abuser of any kind.<\/p>\n

In short, I believe that we do need a new version of gentlemanliness to deprive patriarchal men of the privilege of deciding who is a \u2018real\u2019 man and who is not. We, women, need to inform each other of who is a good man and who is a patriarchal bad man, just like that. What we\u2019re currently telling each other is that all men are patriarchal abusers, without distinction, which is why, perhaps rightly, some personalities are complaining that there is a risk of generalizing a witch hunt. Of course, when Donald Trump is the one complaining we need to dismiss his words, for he is only protecting himself. But when a woman like Margaret Atwood sends this kind of warning, perhaps we need to listen (I say perhaps because I\u2019m certainly not listening to Catherine Deneuve, see my previous post). As for the good men, whether you like being called gentlemen or not, you need to oppose the idea that all men are the same type of patriarchal abuser with more determination. \u201cNot all men are rapists\u201d does not sound to me like an effective defence of masculinity; \u201call men should fight patriarchal abusers and absolutely reject rape\u201d does.<\/p>\n

I know what you\u2019re thinking: so, how about women as ladies? Women rejected ladyhood, beginning with the suffragettes, because it was an unsustainable burden, which limited our chances to be educated, make sound personal choices, be economically independent and, in short, full human beings. Whereas gentlemanliness limited men and regulated their behaviour in a way that benefitted them socially, it was the opposite for women oppressed by ladyhood. However, just as gentlemanliness can be recycled as a valid code for men today, I believe that ladyhood is perfectly compatible with feminism. This is not 19th century ladyhood but a 21st version by which a woman makes the best of her own personal qualities. For me, being a lady is about being self-possessed, knowing how to behave, being sure of your own codes, insisting on mutual courtesy, treating the good men with respect, supporting other women. <\/p>\n

There is no way I can exactly translate into English the Catalan \u201cquedar com una senyora\u201d (um, \u201cmake a ladylike impression\u201d?) but this is certainly my own personal maxim. Now, I invite all men to make a gentlemanly impression\u2026 and reject toxic, barbaric patriarchal masculinity.<\/p>\n

I publish a new post every Tuesday (for updates follow @SaraMartinUAB). Comments are very welcome! Download the yearly volumes from: http:\/\/ddd.uab.cat\/record\/116328. My web: http:\/\/gent.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I taught yesterday an MA seminar on my research, mixing Cultural Studies and Gender Studies. I gave examples of the work I have done within the area I specialize in: Masculinities Studies (and popular fictions). As happens, the aspect of my research that generated the greatest discord was my proposal that we bring back gentlemanliness […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":98,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[212],"class_list":["post-1428","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sin-categoria","tag-gender-studies"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1428","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/98"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1428"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1428\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1428"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1428"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}