The Internality of Bro-ness

by whynotbeme

Here is a clip of Jerry Seinfeld talking about candy as a child. Exchange the word “candy” with “girls” and up the age a few years.

This is not unlike what it feels like to be a bro. Am I right?

Books, films, TV shows, and other media have also been dedicated to exploring what it’s like to be a guy (whereas the female experience has historically been marginalized. A fine example of bro-thinking, which is gross and offensive to some women I have met, is the short story “A&P” by John Updike). One thing most of us can all agree on as human beings is that sex is important and desired. In our heteronormative society (one in which heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships are considered normal, while non-heterosexuality and its manifestations are considered abnormal), “sex” is depicted in the form of what are often called “hot girls.”

We see “hot girls” everywhere we look: in movies, on TV, in books, on the internet, in cartoons, in video games, at sporting events, on magazine covers, on billboards. Breasts, buttocks, midriffs, crotches, lower backs, and even faces are depicted as purely sexual objects (what’s called “sexualization“), often separated from the rest of the women in a technique called fragmentation.


Desire. Embodied. Except that you can’t own a woman.

These images are a large part of how we determine what is “hot” and what is not hot. Secondarily, we see variations on “hotness” in real life, girls who may possess some “hot” attributes: at school, at work, the cute cashier at the pharmacy, the city girls walking down the street in fashionable jeans, walking around all over the place. A guy understands early on that he may not obtain that ideal “hotness” as it is depicted in movies and magazines right off the bat. But he can work up to it. All he needs to do is get his foot in the door.

And women are this door. That’s how we’re taught to see them; sex is something we want, and women have it (I forget where I’m borrowing this idea from but when I find out, I’ll post a citation). And as long as we start somewhere, and overcome that whole virginity issue, we have a chance to SOMEDAY achieve Angelina Jolie-level hotness. It’s a reflection of the same pursuit-of-happiness thing like the one in the Constitution. And think how happy that will make us! We’ve wanted it our whole lives; how could it not?

We’re reminded, or we remind ourselves, that the human race is dependent on the urge to procreate as a justification to objectify women this way (backhandedly making it seem healthy), yet we men are also taught not to want kids, because kids mean commitment and loss of independence. So we are told to want to fuck a lot, with no consequences.

With this logic, women possess both the most desirable thing on earth (sex) and the most undesirable thing (motherhood). How are we supposed to see women as complete, consistent human beings with this ridiculous contradiction spinning away in our heads? We must divest ourselves of it; it’s the single greatest cause of objectification. Is a woman truly no more than a thing to be fucked and run away from?

The answer is no. The urge to judge a woman based on her looks must be placed under control in order to curb any manifestation of this flawed mentality. The “male gaze,” as it is sometimes called, is a judging gaze in which her value is being assessed based on her looks. Therefore, if she is not seen, she has no value.

NO! SHE HAS VALUE BEFORE YOU SEE HER! SHE HAS IDEAS, DREAMS, INSIGHTS, KNOWLEDGE, POWER! You don’t know her. You don’t know anything about her, except that she is human. Think of it this way: her sexy curves might be turning your brain to jello, but she doesn’t know anything about you either. Maybe she’s judging you as an ogler, a pig, a scumbag, a creep who can’t keep his eyes to himself. But women are so often made to feel dependent on men for their own identities, not to mention financially. So men, then, also possess the most desirable thing to women (security), and the least desirable thing (no respect as a human being). DOES THIS DESCRIPTION SUM YOU UP? IS THIS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU?

No. It shouldn’t be. You don’t know her, she doesn’t know you. Remember that, and keep your eyes to yourself. Keep your tongue, your whistle, your comments, et cetera, to yourself. She is more than an object, and you are more than a subject.

Additionally, she might very well be judging you on your looks, too, but in a country where “one in 4 college-aged women report experiences that meet the legal definitions of rape or attempted rape” (source: Dr Kathleen Young) you have a lot less chance of getting sexually assaulted for it. So, from one bro to another, back off with that argument.