Force Majeure shows shaming men is now a feminist act

For nearly half a century, we have been told that the question of how gender roles are policed and by whom, is essentially a one-way street – something men do to women, and often also to each other. And that’s pretty much the end of it.

But a new film not only exposes another age-old, yet rarely-spoken truth — that women also use shame to control men — it also seems to say that this particular form of gendered expectation is perfectly OK.

In fact, Force Majeure goes even further, because it manages the extraordinary intellectual feat of implying that to shame a man for cowardice, is actually to strike a blow for equality.

In the opening scenes, the genteel skiing holiday of a perfect couple and their children is thrown into disarray as an avalanche threatens to engulf their ski resort. The disaster is avoided, but in the few moments of mayhem, the father instinctively jumps up from their table, leaving behind his wife and children.

Toe-curling laughs

The film explores how that split-second moment of fear strips a man of his wife’s respect, threatens to destroy their family and ultimately leaves him staring into an abyss of doubt and self-loathing.

But what’s most-telling, is that although the film lifts the lid on this uniquely male form of shame, at no point does it invite the audience to condemn the behaviour of his wife and their female friend who are entirely responsible for imposing it on him.

Instead, the film portrays a series of set pieces – all played for toe-curling laughs — in which the husband is effectively put on trial by his wife and their friends, as they unpick the moment to expose his cowardice and knock down what are shown as his pathetic attempts to portray an alternative, less unforgivable interpretation of events.

Both in its treatment of the issue of male shame and in how it has been received, Force Majeure proves this most-ancient of taboos has lost none of its force.

Bloated male ego

But the film and its reviewers also manage a particularly modern hypocrisy — often the very same voices who are happy to shame men for being afraid, are now also those who would never tolerate any attempt to impose traditional gender roles on women.

In fact, humiliating the lead male character for his fear is cast as a quasi-feminist act – a timely expose of the bloated male ego that long-suffering women have had to tolerate while doing the truly heroic work of holding together hearth and home.

In one scene, as a couple who are friends of the two lead characters go back to their room following the group excoriation of the husband’s cowardice, the girlfriend of the couple asks: “I wonder how I would react if you did that to me?”

She then tells her boyfriend, that as he deserted his previous wife and children, why should she expect him to stand by her in a moment of danger?

Worst Man Cry Ever

For reviewers too, the film has been framed as a timely dissection of fragile male egotism and puffed-up immaturity.

Director Ruben Ostlund, told the Times, “It’s men who act egotistically when it comes to a crisis” and said he drew inspiration for one viciously humiliating scene from a YouTube video called “Worst Man Cry Ever”.

Salon, while acknowledging that the wife is far from perfect, maintains that “Tomas is the person who has displayed unforgivable cowardice and solipsism” and Slate describes the film as “a biting critique of modern masculinity”.

But Force Majeure isn’t the only recent piece of pop-cultural entertainment to embrace the idea that shaming men for cowardice is a powerful expression of female emancipation.

A satisfyingly grizzly end

In the latest and last of Peter Jackson’s adaptation of The Hobbit, one of the most repellent characters isn’t an orc or a goblin, he’s a man.

At the heart of the film’s opening sequence, is the comical greed and cowardice of a despotic chief and henchmen as they try to escape with coffers of the town’s gold.

The chief soon meets a satisfyingly grizzly end, but one of his henchmen, Alfrid, is washed up alive and goes on to become a source of derision throughout the film. The reason? He’s a man who is an unrelenting coward.

In one key scene, we’re suddenly shown a group of townswomen huddled in a corner, before another woman charges in and declares they are as brave as the men and should go and fight alongside them.

‘You’re not a man, you’re a weasel’

One woman however stays bent over and whimpering, refusing to go. The other woman pulls her round, only to reveal it’s the villain Alfrid dressed in women’s clothing. She spits in his face: “You’re a coward. You’re not a man, you’re a weasel.”

In one short moment, the film simultaneously celebrates a woman for emancipating herself from the traditional female role of being weak and in need of protection, while at the same time she shames a man who doesn’t conform to the traditional role of brave protector.

But the most astonishing example of this ugly sentiment, is Sky’s comedy series, Chickens, about how a village of women treat the only three men from their town who have not gone to fight during WW1.

The show is essentially a series of set pieces in which the three men – a conscientious objector, a man who is medically unfit to fight and man who is simply afraid – are shamed, laughed at and humiliated by scores of empowered and emancipated women, including those who are Suffragettes.

Not so revolutionary, after all?

In one scene, after a woman demands that Cecil – who incidentally is the one discharged as medically unfit – justifies why he hasn’t enlisted, he says: “I really believe in this war and I’m really keen to help.” She replies: “Rubbish, if you were really keen to help you would have killed yourself to raise morale.”

The writers describe Chickens as “a quasi-feminist sit-com” and according to one of the lead actresses: “What’s great is to see a village full of women who are just really getting on with it, just couldn’t give a toss that the men have gone, really, except for basic plumbing issues and the occasional need for someone to shag them.”

There’s a line of argument that states feminism doesn’t really overturn traditional gender roles at all — that in both pre and post-feminist worldviews, women are seen as deserving of protection and it’s men who must step up and prove their worth.

If these recent dramatic offerings are anything to go by, that analysis seems pretty close to the truth. The question is, why are men still prepared to tolerate it?

By Dan Bell

If you liked this article and want to read more, follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook

Also on insideMAN:

disqus_QL05BqU79X

Feminism is just the latest name for a chivalric code that has been the state doctrine in the west for around 1000 years, perhaps longer. Once people are exposed to the roots of gynocentric ideology in the UK – and so very few people are – from Poitevin rule to today’s #HeForShe campaign, it’s plain to see that men’s natural, biological roles as providers and protectors are not only now enshrined in legislative rulings (and enforced by the Crown’s “police”) but also their utter expendability. Men who do not, will not or cannot sacrifice their earnings, property and lives when deemed necessary are branded as the lowest of cowards. It’s barely any wonder so few men wish to marry and breed these days. The joy, passion and wonder of marriage and family have been turned into a live-or-die series of coin tosses for most ‘ordinary’ men.

Women are not to blame for being raised into the doctrine from childhood; feminist leaders of both sexes are to blame. Until their criminal activities are exposed and punished, and the bigoted tenets no longer taught to primary school children, this will get worse – much worse – before it gets better.
ghebert

Why do men still tolerate it? Because their self-worth is based on female approval and they know they won’t get any unless they are useful to women.
Richard Collins

An utterly brilliant article. Can this not be published in the DT for example? Well done that man!
The question needs to be asked, are men cowards in real life, generally?
- Groan
  
  It is interesting that this question is never framed thus for women. In effect acknowledgement that the “default” setting for females is to run or freeze. Thus a woman who dues something brave is lauded as such yet generally there is no expectation of bravery beyond calling for help. Cowardice , as a description of behaviours, is almost exclusively reserved for males especially men but often quite young boys. Males are assumed to be brave as the default “setting” being not brave is thus to be dealt with. It is not that women or men are brave but that men can’t not be brave without being called cowardly.
  One need only observe any disaster , danger, or even unpleasant event to see that almost uniformly the “active” people dealing with it will be male. And for this to be simply ” business as usual” rather than noteworthy bravery. Warren Farrell talks movingly of his brother’s death testing out the snow for his partner and his observations of the ubiquity of males taking the risk however small or large have been supported by decades of research. Indeed the “risky behaviour” men are often castigated for is just a part of the general male socialisation not to focus on their own comfort and safety until all others are sorted.
NickyB

It’s very important for the Western culture to create a sense of female supremacy. The drive is to detach women from the mothering role and utilise their economic potential. For many women it is satisfying to feel this new sense of superiority: it is part of a measurement of success for the modern woman to know she can overcome men. He is an add-on product, he runs alongside her: She needs to feel this particular form of empowerment crafted by feminists and disseminated through advertising and other popular media.

Juxtaposed to this however are societies disenfranchised men. Men who have been cultured in education to belive they were all powerful and responsible – and now accountable – for the historic suppression of women (nothing to do with their bodies pre-contraception); men who have the self-belief of success based upon reproduction, provision and protection (innate or socialised); men who not only failed as boys to gain a solid education but who now don’t quite have the right skills for the modern workplace.

For the cultural crafters in advertising and the movie industry, mocking men may be an essential ingredient: it may help to flatter the emancipated woman and embed her sense of strength and security against the ‘weaker sex’. However given the current suicide crisis amongst ‘the men who don’t make it’, the sacrifice of ‘him’ as a man in our culture (even women make better men) leaves a somewhat bitter taste.
Pingback: Force Majeure (2014) | orbit diary()

Share article