Editorial:
Men and Emotions
By Steve
Ciccarelli
Ahh, the wonderful
differences between men and women! Were it not for this
broad range of eternally explored distinctions, each and
every one of us would be out of a job. What is it about
this ever-spiraling dance we do which fascinates generation
after generation? Is this continued attention more a celebration
of sexual diversity or are the differences between the
sexes so huge and so insurmountable that we really can't
understand each other?
There has long
been a huge body of stereotypes on both sides which appear
to be wholeheartedly supported by the media. In truth,
some of these seem to be based loosely on fact but are
often taken to extremes in weak attempts at extracting
a laugh. What seems disturbing to me, as a man, is that
the vast majority of such stereotypes seem to apply to
the male gender and that the shallowness and frequency
of their use seems to be increasing over time.
I, myself,
have been confronted with such preconceptions. As far
as literary genres are concerned, I have two great loves
in life, romance and science fiction. On the day I sat
down in front of my computer and contemplated writing
fiction, I made a conscious choice between these two.
My reasons were many and varied for selecting romance
(and are often revisited!), but select it I did. To this
day, when I surface this decision to others, I'm invariably
asked why I chose Romance. After all, wouldn't a man prefer
to write about sub-orbital tachyo-positronic mind control
devices?
The statistics
are compelling. With the exception of a small (I like
to think "elite") handful of other male romance writers,
we're very much in the minority. Science fiction is far
more diverse. The same trends occur when analyzing readership:
romance's audience is predominantly female while science
fiction's is almost 50/50. Why is this? What is it about
romance which scares men -- both readers and writers alike
-- off?
At the risk
of sounding like an authority, I'd like to explore these
questions a bit further. The fact is, I am decidedly male,
but this hardly allows me to act as spokesperson for the
entire testosterone-tinged population. Rather, I'd like
to take this opportunity to explore my own experiences
and share my own opinion as to why romance and relationships
in general scare the hell out of the average male.
Some of the
more humorous (and accurate) stereotypes about men center
around our being single-minded of purpose. It's true.
When faced with a challenging task, we can often immerse
ourselves wholly in the moment. Often times our very self-worth
becomes inextricably intertwined in its successfully completion.
This ability
to focus (or perhaps, inability to unfocus) applies equally
to unsticking rust-bound bolts off of a carburetor as
it does to successfully driving to a destination without
assistance. As the formidability of a challenge rises,
a mix of pride and personal value comes into play, any
outside interfer..er, assistance implies that we are incapable
-- that somehow our facilities are less than up to the
challenge. See, men thrive on challenges. They give us
immediate feedback that we are strong, be it mentally
or physically. And that directly translates into a capacity
to impress (and hopefully mate with) females. Mind you,
when this stubborn persistence manifests itself in driving
around the block for the fifth time rather than stopping
to ask for directions, few men take the time to realize
that their chances of mating with the person in the passenger
seat are, minute by minute, plummeting. Ahh, the drawbacks
of being overly focused! But I digress.
So, how does
this apply to emotions?
Early on in
the process of socialization, children learn that there's
a pecking order to things. I've watched my own kids have
this taught to them as they've grown over the years and
I've reflected back on my experiences during those formative
times. Little has changed. The strong and the beautiful
trade their genetic currency for popularity while the
weak and homely stand aside and wish. For the most part,
I think it's these latter groups who come out ahead in
the long run as they're forced to compensate for smaller
biceps and more severe acne with personal growth, insight
and determination which will serve them well in their
later years. Again, I digress - this is a subject for
another article. For now, it's sufficient to point out
that all the players in this juvenile game learn one thing:
Life's all about strength. To be weak, especially as a
male, is to be shunned and labeled everything from sissy
to ... well, worse.
Peer pressure,
as a kid, is overwhelming. So for guys, while our emotional
outlook toward life and the opposite sex is being formed,
we're subconsciously being beaten over the head that the
very emotions we're discovering are bad. Never mind that
each of our peers is feeling the exact same thing. Emotions
(read: NEEDS, and hence read: WEAKNESS) are unwelcome,
and are to be avoided at all costs. It's all part of "big
boys don't cry."
So, where does
that leave romance writers? It leaves them without heroes.
A man without needs is a man without motivation. And a
man incapable of expressing himself emotionally isn't
someone we want our sexy, brazen, or otherwise empathetic
heroines to hook up with.
Moreover, where
does this leave us male romance writers? Perhaps this
ingrained and reinforced submergence of emotions/needs/weakness
from such an early age goes far in explaining why there
are so few of us. And perhaps it explains why so few modern
males seem to have those qualities which we characterize
as heroic. For a romance hero, it's often sufficient for
his post-dark-moment epiphany to be his recognition that
he has needs in the first place. It's not that those needs
didn't exist before, it's just that he was fully unaware
of their presence. Growth in a male romance hero is often
something as simple as coming to terms with the fact that
he's not an island.
From this side
of the gender fence, it seems this issue isn't very compelling
to women. While the larval male is out on the playground
beating each other senseless in dodge ball, young women
are learning the ins and outs of forming emotional support
groups. They're discussing desires and needs and immersing
themselves in the notion that emotional turmoil is a constant.
For them, the ultimate question isn't whether they're
needy, it's how to manipulate their support infrastructure
to obtain the answers they want to hear.
Thus, when
the inevitable emotional conflict arises between the oblivious
male and the oversensitized female, she does the one thing
which spells doom for men and women ever coming to an
understanding: she asks every single person on the planet
why he did what he did except the one person who can give
her the answer she needs -- the guy who did whatever it
was which perplexed her in the first place! This initiates
a whole spiral of speculation which whirls around and
around, feeding on itself until the response she finally
applies to the situation is wholly inappropriate to the
initial event. Then the poor guy just stands there and
thinks, "Where the hell did that come from?" And thus
the stereotypes are reinforced.
Maybe it's
a good thing, for all our sakes, that this gap in communication
persists. I can only imagine some cro-magnon romance heroine
wandering off past that big rock to the west of the clan's
cave and banding together with her prehistoric emotional
support group to discuss why her less-than-completely-stooped,
dark and hairy man was so uncommunicative after bagging
the prior night's mastodon-steaks. I'm sure they probably
came up with some wonderful theories. Perhaps he didn't
like her hair. Or perhaps the furs she'd been wearing
for the past few seasons suddenly made her hips look too
wide. Meanwhile, Ugnack is back by the campfire wincing
and nursing a set of bruised ribs from the earlier tusk-to-the-chest
hunting accident. Why didn't he just speak up? Perhaps
he was too busy reveling in the adoration and other interpersonal
rewards of being a good provider to mention to her just
how stupidly close he came to losing his life.
So perhaps
it's just as well we are the way we are. I'm sure that
everyone from Mary Kay to the divorce litigation industry
would agree with me.
Heaven help
us if guys somehow became more in touch with the forces
within them and became comfortable being needy. I, for
one, would be massively upset. It's kind of neat being
one of three or four other guys at the RWA Nationals.
I'm not sure if I'm up to sitting around a table with
a dozen other guys talking about emotions and brazen women
and the twelve stages of intimacy. It's a lot more comfortable
to be talking about manly things like killing mastodons
and unsticking rusty carburetor bolts. After all, this
emotion stuff makes most of us feel all squooshie inside.
And squooshie is too damned close to being weak and needy
for most men's tastes. I guess we don't have much choice
but to revel in the status quo, at least for the time
being. If romance does catch on with guys, expect a sudden
surge in both readership and the number of writers at
nationals. I'll believe it when I see it.
Oh, and as
a side note to all the single women out there - start
taking a second look at those smaller-framed wallflowers
from your old yearbooks. Chances are their acne has cleared
up nicely by now. You may be pleasantly surprised just
how emotionally well adjusted -- if still a bit shy --
they are. I'll give odds they're worth the search.
Steve Ciccarelli appears to have risen above the general
cluelessness of his gender and now writes contemporary
romances. His agent recently submitted a revised manuscript
to Harlequin and he's working to complete his second book
before the April retreat.
Click
here for more information on upcoming events
