After finally getting around to reading "Guyland," what can I say about Kimmel's assertions except that they are confusing? He insists that "Guyland" is mostly the territory of wealthy, college-educated white males aged 16-26, yet at the same time tries to define it as a new stage of development which society is recognizing and coming to grips with, much as it did with adolescence. Under this definition, he proceeds to superimpose some observations he's made about the narrow demographic mentioned above on young men in general. On its face, "Guyland" seems merely a straw-man crafted in order to criticize men, because the demographic he's talking about (unemployed 16-26 year olds who have no career ambition and often live in their parents basements) is a demographic of losers almost by definition.
Kimmel proposes that "guys" act the way we do because we are all insecure in our masculinity, want to prove ourselves and are afraid of being tormented by "bullies and hotshots," a mysterious phantom conglomerate of jerks that serve as universal villains and the ultimate architects of "Guyland." To Kimmel, the behaviors and lifestyle (i.e. being lazy, homophobic, drinking, womanizing) that he thinks characterize men between 16 and 26 are not the fault of those who engage in these behaviors and lifestyle, but rather can be blamed on a combination of peer pressure (from men), social norms (historically determined by men), and the socioeconomic conditions into which they were born (which of course were created by rich, mostly white males).
This is all despite acknowledging the role of feelings of entitlement and inflated self esteem in Guyland, which I was left to conclude are a result of poor mothering (because in Kimmel's view fathers are too distant and peers are busy putting down boys when they step outside the boundaries of a narrowly defined masculinity). In criticizing homophobia and citing it as a driving force behind conformist attitudes and behaviors, Kimmel seems to blame men exclusively for being insecure about their masculinity and blames the "bullies and hotshots" for making straight guys afraid of being mistaken for homosexuals. Yet when trying to debunk the idea that you can tell a person's sexual orientation through day-to-day behaviors, he cites young women who said they assumed any man that dressed well, listened to what they say, or didn't hit on them was gay. Could it be that the fear of never getting laid because women think they're gay is at least partially responsible for why guys in Guyland engage in shallow, immature, and womanizing behavior? Kimmel completely ignores this possibility, because it would take up valuable space that could be used to hurl criticisms at his straw-man.
Finally, Kimmel sets forth what he calls the "guy code". In his view, there's a strict code of behaviors and attitudes to which men must conform rigidly or risk being marginalized and abused by their peers. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I agree that there's an unwritten image of what society says a man should look and act like, but in my opinion it is more akin to a composite scoring system which judges people based on a set of complementary virtues than a series of man-laws. Case in point: Rock stars can be skinny, have high voices, and dress flamboyantly, but largely avoid criticisms of their masculinity because they compensate by being notorious for attracting throngs of women. Likewise, even though Sylvester Stallone's character John Rambo never quite manages to get laid in the course of four movies, his masculinity is seldom criticized in popular culture because he displays an abundance of violent aggression and martial skill, and is therefore considered masculine.
In summary, Kimmel has written a book on a subject with which he is still not well acquainted. It is clear from reading it that his biases and desire to say something new about the subject have kept him from achieving a true understanding of young men, despite interviewing what he thought was a representative sample. In criticizing the fact that society marginalizes males who display behaviors indicative of weakness (crying, laziness, lack of ambition, submissive attitudes, etc) Kimmel seems not to believe that psychological endurance and the ability to deal constructively with hardship is an adaptive trait that we should foster in those currently stranded in "Guyland".
As to my solution to the problems Kimmel sees within our society, I'll state my opinion in the words of one person he cited dismissively. "They had a solution for those kids in the 1960s; it was called the United States Marine Corps"
Support independent student media
You can make a tax-deductible donation by clicking the button below, which takes you to our secure PayPal account. The page is set up to receive contributions in whatever amount you designate. We look forward to using the money we raise to further our mission of providing honest and accurate information to students, faculty, staff, alumni and others in the general public.
Donate NowRead More
Film Fridays: Three Study Break Films
By Sassan Fahim | May 3, 2024
OPINION | The sustainability standoff
By Taylor McKie | April 14, 2024