Random Observations from Disaster Movies – Patriarchy Edition
November 11th, 2009 by SocProf and tagged Culture, Gender, Movies, Patriarchy, Sexism
Have you all noticed how patriarchal disaster movies tend to be? Think about it and consider the following recent disaster films, for example:
- The Day After Tomorrow
- 2012
- The Road
- War of the World (the one with Tom Cruise)
In all of these, the disastrous civilizational collapse permit men to be “real men”, that is fathers as protectors of families… and only their families, they don’t really give a damn about the rest of society, there is no common good, or society anymore – by definition – so, Margaret Thatcher’s vision has finally come true, no such thing as society, just people and their families. It is interesting that this conservative vision only comes as outcome of a catastrophe of planetary magnitude.
But the point is this: in these movies, men start as failures as fathers, that is, as real men. Society and societal norms (such as nominal equality with women who have divorced them and teenage children who don’t respect their authority) have emasculated them. The disaster takes away the societal shackles and patriarchy can fully rule again. Then and only then, do these men reclaim their masculinity and patriarchal status by being able to survive and save their families precisely BECAUSE society and its norms no longer restrain them.
In this pseudo “return to the wild” situation, only real men can survive and once all the niceties of civilization are taken away, the “real” standard is once again the norm: a father in position of authority over women and children. Someone who carries authority and commands respect AND, of course, uses violence when necessary, that is, when his family is threatened.
In this view, the only social structure that matters is the patriarchal family as the other social institutions have collapsed: the economy was based on technologies that no longer function, the polity was composed of corrupt politicians, the educational system proved useless when survivalism is what matters, etc.
The patriarchal man then owes nothing to no one except protection to his family whose members submit to his authority then, in exchange for protection.
All these movies reminded of this abominable Heinlein novel that is a monument of racism and sexism. As much as I love science-fiction, I find Heinlein loathsome.
Posted in Culture, Gender, Movies, Patriarchy, Sexism | 4 Comments »
November 12th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Very interesting. I read something similar here:
http://www.lacan.com/zizfamily.htm
From the article:
This brings us to the first psychoanalytic rule of how to read catastrophe movies: we should avoid the lure of the “big event” and re-focus on the “small event” (familial relations), reading the spectacular catastrophe as an indication of the family trouble. Take Steven Spielberg: the secret motif than runs through all his key films – ET, Empire of the Sun, Jurassic Park, Schindler’s List – is the recovery of the father, of his authority. One should remember that the family to whose small boy ET appears was deserted by the father (as we learn in the very beginning), so that ET is ultimately a kind of “vanishing mediator” who provides a new father (the good scientist who, in the film’s last shot, is already seen embracing the mother) – when the new father is here, ET can leave and “go home.”
[Reply]
SocProf Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
@Dangger,
Whoo hoo, I’m as smart as Zizek!
[Reply]
December 5th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Completely agree. These movies express a desire for disaster, the end of the world thought of as a liberation for “real men”. I didn’t see the movie, but in The Road, the novel, though, it’s a little different.
The father doesn’t give orders, he doesn’t really carries authority and command respect, and his son reprimands HIM when he uses violence. Moreover, and it seems essential to me, the mother is dead because she killed herself (which is not very traditionnal family like…).
So yeah, there is something in The Road that is slightly better, there is no total assimilation between “nature”, “survival” and “traditionnal family values”.
[Reply]
SocProf Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 12:59 am
@Damien Babet,
“the mother is dead because she killed herself (which is not very traditional family like…)”… Unless it was a fatalistic suicide according to Durkheim’s typology!
I have not read the book nor seen the movie (it’s the trailer that really looked like the usual “men can finally be men” trope).
Actually, the fact that the book was featured on Oprah’s book club provoked an instant “I won’t read that” reaction from me.
[Reply]