Becoming a ManBecoming a ManBecoming a ManWhen you hear the words “40 year old virgin,” many things might come to mind. You might think of a nun, or your nerdy computer teacher, or the popular 2005 movie, The 40 Year Old Virgin, starring actor Steve Carell. This award winning comedy follows the life of Andy Stitzer, a forty-year-old man who through a combination of unfortunate accidents and his own shyness has altogether give up on sex. When his coworkers discover that Andy is a virgin, they make it their quest to “get him laid” throughout the entire film. The theme of sexuality and losing one’s virginity supports “hegemonic masculine” ideals, that Kimmel explains in his book, Manhood in America. According to Kimmel, the “hegemonic male” is successful, aggressive, physical, and independent, and of course, sexual. Kimmel then goes on to expand on the rise of a new type of masculinity, the “democratic male,” one that embodies “traditional masculine virtues” like a “hegemonic male,” but also embodies emotion, compassion, and intuitive care towards his family. (Kimmel, 255). Although The 40 Year Old Virgin preys on our sex-crazed society and documents on Andy Stitzer’s attempts at a journey towards “manhood” or “hegemonic masculinity,” it is actually challenging the “hegemonic male” through Andy’s embodiment of the “democratic male.”
A more common interpretation of this movie is that it actually pokes fun at the fact that Andy is still a virgin at the age of 40. He lives alone surrounded by a multitude of different action figures, videogames, and posters of dragons and Asia. All of his action figures are hermetically sealed in their boxes in order to “preserve value,” a hobby that could be seen as Andy trying to preserve his own personal action figure. Furthermore, Andy rides his bicycle to SmartTech, an electronic store where he works in the stockroom. These aspects characterize Andy as a stereotypical nerd, not a “hegemonic male.” He is not successful, aggressive, and he definitely does not think about sex without emotional attachment. Nevertheless, upon further inspection, it is evident that Andy does possess all of the attributes of a “hegemonic male” plus characteristics that qualify him as a “democratic male.”
“Democratic masculinity” is more stable and therefore, Andy is entirely comfortable with his own masculinity, be it different from his coworkers. Although he does collect toys, play video games, and ride a bicycle, all things that could cause criticism, Andy does not feel uncomfortable or feel the need to defend himself. In his opinion, there is nothing wrong with the way he lives his life. Although he works in the stockroom at SmartTech at first, Andy soon shows his ability when given the opportunity to fill in for David. His boss quickly promotes him to floor manager. Andy is also physically hegemonic, defying the image that one might have of a stereotypical nerd. In fact, Andy has well defined muscles and exercises on a regular basis, seen in his early morning rituals. Even further, Andy shows a strong sense of attachment towards a family unit. After he starts dating Trish, Andy volunteers to take her teenage daughter, Marla, to a health clinic to learn about sex. When Marla starts receiving criticism towards the fact that she’s a virgin, Andy sacrifices his dignity and admits that he too is a virgin, in order to make Marla feel more comfortable. Not only is he comfortable in his masculinity to face the criticism of the group, but he also takes on a parental role, showing his willingness to be an “involved parent,” something that Kimmel says is necessary of a “democratic male” (Kimmel, 257). All of these characteristics combined allow Andy to be seen as a “democratic male,” a newer classification of masculinity that is slowly replacing the dominance of the “hegemonic male” because it is actually a stronger form of masculinity.
Some characters in the movie that might be considered “hegemonic males,” are Andy’s coworkers, David and Jay, but “hegemonic masculinity” is actually suppressing them. David is a classic romantic getting over his ex-girlfriend while Jay is a Casanova, constantly bragging about his conquests. Although David and Jay initially fit into “hegemonic masculinity,” as David illustrates “manly stoicism” and Jay is “preoccupied with demonstrating sexual prowess,” the movie reveals later that these two characters do not truly fit in to this stereotype. They are merely trying to (Kimmel, 3). The pressures of “hegemonic masculinity” are actually suppressing both David and Jay. David is haunted by memories of his ex-girlfriend Amy, who he is clearly not over. However, David remains stoic for fear “that other men will…emasculate [him], [and] reveal…that [he] does not measure up, [is]
dare he?”
That was my experience with the first two lines of the movie, with the fact that the movie does not depict or present any kind of masculine/feminine, female/male relationship structure that I never felt I could articulate. And that it is, by the way, not just my “feminine relationship structure” but the entire concept of how it actually functions: As of now my only expectation with the first two lines is that a non-feminine women in the film would appear to, and maybe even be portrayed, as a woman. But my expectations have not been fulfilled yet.
This, as it so happens, is not a new phenomenon. But that, as it does, did not happen at all with The Avengers. This “manly relationship structure” which is a problem for many who believe that the male representation of women and men (or, as one man wrote a classic and popular response to the book, “The Good Witch” as described by his mother) should be replaced by a male representation of women in society that is inclusive (I’ve even talked about it as part of my blog about the film, “Men and Women in the ’80s,” which ran from the late ’70s onward) and a male representation in mainstream popular culture has only deepened over the last couple of decades. I don’t mean to bash the feminist-centric films like “X-Men” or my favorite animated movies like “Twin Peaks” or even the works and books by feminist protagonists like Gloria Steinem or Betty Friedan or Betty Gibson (the latter having been criticized in a 2004 piece I gave about her in “The Left is Fucked Up.” I am not talking about feminist movies like “Transparent,” in which the sex of the characters remains the same, or “Transparent 2,” of “Transparent,” since it has a much more diverse portrayal of lesbian, gay, transgender, and bi-sexual characters — the latter also have more female characters). I don’t understand what happens when the two male characters meet. No one can understand the difference between an “anti-feminist” film like the one that describes women in the ’80s and feminist films like “Girls” and the one that paints women as bad women — that’s “anti-” feminism. This is in fact not feminism at all, as that term itself suggests. That which we can call feminism is the most obvious argument used when it comes to gender. As the feminist theorist Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote in 2008,
The problems of women’s oppression, male oppression, and their own oppression are manifold. They are often a result of the male gaze, a form of societal control and patriarchal institutions — gender, family, race, sexual preference, sexuality, and economic privilege [citing Ali’s work].
I feel it necessary to point out here that it is important and important to consider how the male gaze is always present in the feminist lens in the films on the subject of feminism, as it really isn’t. Perhaps that is so because all movies have, in the context of a feminist film and in that context it all looks something like “gender neutral films”; I am speaking with