I often joke with my fiance, “you are great because I am great” and we often hear in media “behind every great man is a great woman.” My question is simply how are these thoughts any different from those of the courtly lover?

You see, in the middle ages courtly love was a huge deal, but the broader category romance was an even bigger deal. In these genres one would often find a man that is madly obessesed with a beautiful woman. It often begins with “when I saw her, I at once knew,” this is where the idea of love at first sight stemmed. And in this love, the men throw themselves at women. Some have argued that the men loses themselves in this love and are then at that beck and call of the woman who objectify these men.

In Zizec’s theory we get the understanding of how that statement is false. The person that is truly being objectified is the woman. The woman that is being loved because of her beauty, not for her wit, humor, or intellect. These men that “fall victim” to these women only use them as a reflection of themselves. The woman in a sense becomes the imago, that the men strive for. In courtly love we get the unattainable woman, the beautiful married woman that the man seeks. In a romance, we get a beautiful woman that everyone in the land wants. She is fair, she can thread, and she is usually humble, but rich. in the case of the romance the woman may be attained but only by a worthy man. She is then rewarded to him as a trophy, as proof of his valor, wit and skill.

Much like courtly love, a romance works in that it objectifies the woman. Making them the sought after perfection only to validate the man. Her sole purpose is to be beautiful, but her beauty is proof of his power. He is the id and she is the imago, while feeding into his narcissism.

So to answer my above question directly…

That statement is similar to the complex of courtly love characters. When I tell my partner he is great because I am. That is me projecting myself onto him, I am looking at him and seeing myself. The same applies to “behind every great man is a great woman.” Though this is sorta like the reversal where the man is the imago of which the woman projects herself.

We as people are constantly trying to categorize things, it is how we conceptualize and understand. Saussure says, “in language there are only differences without positive terms.” In this way we may only know what something is by what it is not. A bear is a bear because it is not a cat, a bear is a bear because it is not a dog, and a bear is a bear because it is not a book. We create this positive through a series of negations, but in a sense that “bear” means nothing. The word “bear” is something intangible, but for us it signifies the object and it only signifies that object because we have associated it to be so. The issue that becomes with the sign, signifier, and signified, is that these are all merely human constructs that were created so that things could be categorized and further understood. Language was created by man, bear does not call itself bear, and because of this man-made construction we have become subjected to it.

There are two options, you are either a man or woman. You, Professor Alred, are not a woman, so by default you are man. And in being man you must exert manliness, or else you will bring confusion to society. I as a female, must exert feminine behavior. You will build stuff, I will clean. You will watch sports, I will watch children. You will be a doctor and I will be a nurse. All of these thoughts are social constructs for your designated sex. It was not until recently that sex and gender became independent things. This social construct was created to understand people or put them in a box. Professor Alred, you have been put in a box and you are not allowed to move! I, along with the world, am holding you to that standard, you signed a contract.

The issue that now comes with words and its social construct is that not everyone fits into that box. Judith Butler explains in her theory how drags brings a differentiation between anatomical sex, gender identity and gender performance. Their performance may say my outer appearance is feminine but my inside essence is masculine while at the same time say my appearance outside my body may be masculine but my inner essence is feminine. And both of those true statements contradicts the other. In this sense they can not be put into a box, they can not be subjected to the normal construct of language. We can not do a process of elimination with them and so they belong to no box.

Language is not as fluid as people. Language, in a way eliminates all other possibilities so you and I are defined. This is the negative conotation of language, those of us that do not fit in the language box are then othered. That brings this question to mind: Can we make language as fluid as gender? and if so, would that confuse our understanding of the world?

Judith Halberstam examines masculinity, its confines and why men are so intimidated by their masculinity being seen in anyone else but themselves. She reflects on homosexuals, lesbians and their ability to function just as the straight, masculine man is able to, and how that poses a threat to the unsuspecting, masculine junkie of a man. Perhaps men just get a little twitchy when they see a woman able to take care of business, but Halberstam explains it as their inability to properly grasp the idea of their masculinity being one in the same with that of a woman’s. Men are supposed to be tougher and rougher than any lady around, so it doesn’t come as much of a surprise that a man would have a negative connotation towards a masculine female. The gender equality that has become such an argument between men and women have ‘meninists’ questioning why women don’t start doing labor themselves, holding doors for themselves or reaching high shelves for themselves… Ironically, Halberstam hits this nail right on the head.

For masculine men, their masculinity is not a social construct, but a large part of their identity. Their ability to identify as a man as a gender comes from their masculine features and actions. The manlier they are, the more man they are. Not only does it serve to solidify their understanding of what it takes to be an anatomical man, but also their actions. A man’s privilege to be ‘above’ a woman comes from the power their masculinity gives them. Masculinity is associated with power, and power is associated with being on top without any room for any others. A man’s actions are reliant on who can out man who, who can be the bigger man, who can take more pain than the other man, who has more power than the other man, etc.

Notice how I’ve done nothing but compare men to other men? Because masculine men cannot cope with being put on a level field with a woman, or worse to them, a homosexual who may be just as ‘manly’ as they are. A woman is below a masculine man, and a gay man is even lower. Both types of people are the exact opposite of ‘manly’ to a ‘manly man’. What I really loved about Halberstam’s analysis of men was her examples of movies and plots where a man must compete alongside another woman or gay man for the affection of the gorgeous leading lady. Because a ‘manly man’ doesn’t get beaten, its more wounding to get ‘beat’ by a woman or homosexual.

In 2015, it’s hard to imagine that people still live in this ‘manly man’ perception, but it is true. There are men who still feed into gender roles, and apply their expectations of individuals around them according to their gender or sexual orientation. Once again, as has been touched upon countless times within this semester, labels do a disservice. Maybe everyone just wants to be the most powerful, or maybe manly men should learn how to suck it up. Either way, everyone is entitled to what’s theirs, and to act however they want, whether it be masculine, feminine, animalistic. The social strains embedded into people’s heads should probably stopped at this point and this article was a prime example as to why. People should be threatened by others by their abilities, not because of a self denial of perhaps not being as good as getting the girl as a woman or gay man who are probably more deserving of the beautiful lady than the ‘manly man’.