I lied when I wrote that I hadn’t been reading anything
while writing
We Don’t Always Drown.
One of the most interesting things on the web in the last couple weeks was
Paul S. Kemp’s attempt to explain why he writes “masculine fiction,” which promptly
exploded in a feminist fireball. Kemp is not an author I read frequently, which
made his explanations more interesting because they were purely theoretical.
They were also grossly gender-prescriptive and problematic.
 |
| My idea of a manly character. |
Kemp has been taken to task by many writers, including
Teresa Frohock and
Sam Sykes. Most responses have either been contrasting his
ideology with their own fiction, or yelling “Screw you.” Both are understandable
responses. But I’d like to break down one specific paragraph from his post, in
which Kemp listed criteria for what makes a character “traditionally masculine.”
So brace yourself for some meat-headedness and follow me to
the bold quotes.
“They answer violence with violence.”
-That sounds like boring storytelling, but is hardly
exclusively masculine. I know plenty of women who both respond with and
instigate violence. What’s worrisome about this being the first criteria is the
possible inference that women have another default – particularly that they may
cower and be passive in the face of violence. If that’s your inference, you
instantly resent Kemp. I hope, naively, that he means women have a broad range
of reactions to violence rather than always punching back, so that some
characters in his world are dynamic. But we doubt that’s what he means, right?
“They’re courageous
in the face of danger.”
-No feminist is listening to you after this point. If
courage in the face of danger is masculine and not human, then some other
response is feminine. Even if he didn’t intend it, holy shit does it sound like
he means that traditionally women are meek and need saving in the face of
danger. Is it true? I don’t know, nor do most of the people who are mad at him
right now. Most don’t care because the misogynist inferences are too easy,
especially after…
“They’re stoic in the
face of challenges/pain.”
-A marginally less offensive version of the highly offensive
previous item. This one I’ve also never considered masculine because I’ve known
so many women who are stoic in the face of challenges. And not to downplay the misogyny
of his claim, but it’s also incredibly harmful to a young male reader’s psyche depict
men’s default response to pain as stoicism. More of that in the next item.
“They have their
emotions mostly in check.”
-This one speaks to me. For my whole life I’ve felt like American
culture was telling me to bottle up or strangle my emotions, and that feeling
and sharing were privileges for girls and women. “Be a man” means shut off your
heart and serve. It’s messaging that screwed me up and several men who have
been dear friends of mine, not all of whom are still alive. And thus this is
the most troubling item on the list, because it suggests Kemp writes stories endorsing
this psychologically scarring horse shit.
“And they act in
accordance with a code of honor of some kind.”
-Hey, most of us like codes of honor, at least safely
removed from our world and cemented in fiction where
it never revenge-kills our families. This is the one where I’d need to be a Kemp reader to know what the heck
he’s talking about. I hope that he’s not writing stories in which men are the
only ones with honor or morality. However, I don’t know a tradition in which women
have none of this. Systems that seek to strip it from them, yes, but that’s
something grotesque that also deserves ripping apart.
"Thematic elements in
a lot of my work that square with this involve the obligations of fatherhood,
the depths of friendship between men who’ve faced death together, the bonds of
brotherhood (figuratively)."
-If this is what he led with and emphasized, I’d be down.
Who would blame any one author for being interested in these themes? That’s
half The Iliad right there. But it’s
hard to read it as just “my interests” after so much hard gender-prescription
in front of it, and Kemp later tries to justify it by saying he believes men
should die on ships before women and children, and if that doesn’t convince
you, also offers the credentials of being irreligious and a Democrat.
There’s the temptation to yell at Kemp, but there are two
sides to this. It’s a great service to see a man name off the things he thinks
are expected of him, and Kemp makes it plain in the comments that he feels
these sorts of behaviors are expected of a man. The aggravating element is that
he’s also endorsing these things, and endorsing them as gendered. Saying women “can”
do these things but they are still more masculine is so frustrating that… well,
the internet might yell at you for doing it.