Remember when I said I had a good deal more to say about hegemonic heterosexuality? I hope you didn’t think I was kidding.
Look, I downright love SMBC Theater. Never mind that they’re nerdy, progressive, and innovative, they did the best “Who’s On First?” parody I’ve ever seen, including the Kids In The Hall one. But they also did this other one, which is basically a literal fucking diagram of hegemonic heterosexuality. Note that it ends with a “victory” by the woman, phrased specifically as “Relationship Acquired”, and that the move that gained her victory was willingness to perform kinky sexual acts in which she is presented as having no personal interest. I don’t want to claim that’s exactly what I said, but that is, exactly, what I said. Note also that the guy at the end seems unhappy and defeated at the idea of holding hands with his girlfriend. Think about what a depressing and grim definition of “being in love” you would have to have for that to be acceptable.
Likewise, I’ve talked before about how I enjoy Cracked.com and their wacky, factoid-based gender enforcement. And now they can help me out again, because some of you reading this are thinking “Gosh, I still don’t understand hegemonic heterosexuality, and that thing you described as a literal diagram was not literally a diagram. Could you diagram things a trifle more literally?” You got it, buddy. Actual, no-comedic-license diagrams of hegemonic heterosexuality. You’re welcome.
You may think I’m kidding. Did I seriously just cite two comedy websites, two good comedy websites, as examples of a real social phenomenon? You’re damn right I did. Comedy exists within societal context. One of the most difficult barriers to understanding the jokes of the past is that it’s hard to decode which set of offensive stereotypes they’re using. I had a hell of a time understanding dirty jokes from the 1920s until I figured out that “drummer” and “travelling salesman” were the same job. Comedy tells you a lot about the stereotyped assumptions of the era it’s from. Look at how gay jokes have evolved just in the last few decades.
So these jokes I cite, which are quite explicitly that-always-happens jokes, are observable symptoms of an ugly societal phenomenon, the set of bullshit assumptions we call hegemonic heterosexuality. Without those assumptions, the jokes don’t make sense. They’re as reliably diagnostic as deducing a virus by the presence of antibodies to that virus.
Now here’s the fucked-up part. The two actors in that “Date Wars” video? They’re married. To each other. On, presumably, purpose.
Think about that. There are three possibilities here. Possibly Zach Weiner literally does think of his marriage as being founded on his defeat, his knuckling-under to a relationship he does not want, and his brilliant wife Kelly agrees with that assessment of their relationship. Possibly they know that their relationship is based on mutual love and respect, but assume that everyone else’s relationship is based on a vicious struggle between stupid and crazy. Or, and for the sake of my sanity I have to assume this is the case, they know that it’s basically bullshit, but figure since that’s the model everyone else seems to take for granted, and it’s what all the other comedy seems to be based on, why not just go with the flow, run with the obvious assumptions the audience will understand, and basically not rock the gender-role boat?
It is a bitter condemnation of our culture that the third one is the least depressing possibility.
aliarasthedaydreamer
Ami Angelwings
Hershele Ostropoler
Cheradenine
jlandrith
kaija24
2020
noahbrand
Cliff Pervocracy
ozymandias
Shora
sirgabe
figleaf
John Hawkins
No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz? 
The smbc theatre video I took as a parody of hegemonic heterosexuality (not that I knew the term the first time I saw it). It’s the relationship struggle we-all-know-everyone-has-am-i-right (no) played out like a sci-fi wizard’s duel. The joke relies on a negative stereotype, but it fucks with it. As such, I am not depressed 🙂
I tend to agree with Jared, I think portraying hegemonic heterosexuality in a Harry Potter meets PokĂ©mon way mocks the popular “war of the sexes” idea.
I always saw the SMBC skit as a reduction to the absurd, with cool special effects.
Let us not forget Cracked are also the ones whom I’ve seen mentioning “all men like sex, no woman does” in at least two articles along the lines of “5 stupid myths about sex that totally aren’t true”; actually, from my experience with them, I always saw them as more likely to critically subvert gender roles through their humour than to enforce it; the question does come of what they deem acceptable in one contet or another. what Ozy mentions is a photoplasty, the same ideas probably wouldn’t have flown in a more fact-based article because there wouldn’t be much “fact” to support it. Though, yeah, it’s interesting how subversion and enforcement of gender roles can coexist.
@Noah:
Though I think the SMBC skit is an excellent example of hegemonic heterosexuality, there are signifiers there that suggest the two actors are mocking hegemonic heterosexuality: the exaggerated expressions of dismay at a successful “counter-attack,” for example.
Nevertheless, it’s POSSIBLE that the SMBC skit is an example of “this-always-happens,” but I think the SMBC skit can also be interpreted as “hey-don’t-do-this.”
Noah: One of the most difficult barriers to understanding the jokes of the past is that it’s hard to decode which set of offensive stereotypes they’re using. I had a hell of a time understanding dirty jokes from the 1920s until I figured out that “drummer” and “travelling salesman” were the same job. Comedy tells you a lot about the stereotyped assumptions of the era it’s from. Look at how gay jokes have evolved just in the last few decades.
Yeah. And by the same token, I don’t get the dating-jokes from right now.
Have things really deteriorated between men and women to this grim point? I think I would rather go back to the early 60s and Frankie and Annette. Ugh.
What a great post. Your blog has shot up to the top of my required reading list. Thanks for that.
I will offer only one meager observation, with regard to the “everybody does it, so I guess I do” bit: One of my wife’s older female relatives has trust/honesty issues. She cheated like mad on her husband, and is now in a monogamous relationship (we’re pretty sure; hah) with one of the guys she initially cheated with.
Over the years, as we’ve had discussions, something pops to the surface of conversation that’s so slight that I didn’t see it at first. When talking about public figures or authors or scientists (or whatever) she will note when someone was a ladies man. It’s always with a tsk-tsk scorn, but there’s an edge to it…
Richard Feynman was the last one. She noted how he slept around. The subtext was that “it’s wrong,” but I suspect that, in a world where she wasn’t weighted down with a Catholic guilt complex, she’d be a poly. But hey: Not acceptable, right? I shrug.
Just wanted to share. Thanks Noah [and your gang of pretty damned cool commenters]. It’s always illuminating to read this stuff.
Having met and hung out with the two of them a couple of times, They are very much in the making-fun-of-the-fact-that-people-think-this-how-it-works camp
Gender roles waste such huge portion of our common human potential. That is all I am going to say about this right now. Ahem!
Agreed that the SMBC Theater is a parody; whether it’s a parody of fighting games or “hegemonically heterosexual”* relationships I’m not clear**, but it’s pretty cleared signaled by the video and just the fact that SMBC Theater is ALL parodies that it’s a parody.
*: I do not like this term, because “hegemonic” does not mean anything useful in it except as an analogy to “hegemonic masculinity”. Not all social norms are hegemonic; hegemonic masculinity means that masculinity is defined by a “hegemon” (really archetype) and all men are masculine to the extent that they match the behaviors of the “hegemon”.
But “hegemonic heterosexuality” is just the (or “a”, I’ll come back to this later) social norm around relationships. There’s a “normal” kind relationship, yes, but then other kinds of relationships aren’t more or less “relationshippy” by their closeness to it. A man who honestly loves his girlfriend SHOULD totally break the model, and be totally scorned by people who have the “proper” kind of relationship… but that doesn’t happen. If anything the “man and woman both sincerely love each other” is the “ideal” kind of relationship and the “man and woman looking to trade sex for love” is the kind of relationship people think actually happens.
**: I suspect both, but not totally sure. And I’m also not sure how shallow the parody is; it seems pretty shallow at first glance but then if you look closer many of their “weapons” make no sense whatsoever. Who makes up a whole fucking country to be fake-deployed to? More importantly, how the fuck is memorizing sonnets supposed to get you OUT of a relationship?
I thought that the SMBC Theater sketch had a more of a tongue-in-cheek flavor, poking fun at the stereotype rather than actively or passively enforcing it.
How do you like that version of “Who’s on First” better than the original Abbot and Costello? o.O THOSE MEN WERE BOSS!
“There are three possibilities here.”
Alternativelyternatively a fourth possibility:
They are satiring the statement driven by the mass media: a statement very few people actually believe.
Or maybe a fifth possibility:
They randomly decided on the script.
Or maybe a sixth possibility:
His wife feels like she failed and is trying to cash in on the relationship by making movies.
Or maybe a seventh possibility:
One of the two is a human trafficking victim brainwashed into the marriage.
More on SMBC
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=901#comic
I sort of imagine a similar interaction in the history of many MRAs
This one leaves me confused about just what point is being made (none, I think)
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1918#comic
And this one is relevant to all our interests
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1626
🙂
I liked the SMBC skit, and (I haven’t followed tv for quite a while) am a bit surprised to see it played by ordinary looking people. I literally have no idea what message, if any, is conveyed by it not being done by media-pretty actors. Thoughts? Guesses?
Whoever mentioned the midwest as the home of hegemonic heterosexual relationships— I have a bit of confirming evidence. It’s the only place where I’ve sold buttons at conventions, and had men say that they were buying buttons as a gift for their wives to make things easier. They actually seemed frightened. On the other hand, this was only a few men, not a large proportion of my customers. (Probably 10 or 15 years ago.)
“Paradise by the Dashboard Light” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK-FRac7m58
or the hegemonic heterosexual relationship, act one. This is the first time I noticed that it ends with them *both* praying for the end of time.
@Nancy – The lack of media-pretty actors is probably just because it’s a low-budget web-only thing, rather than a statement (note the co-producer, co-writer and director being one person, and another as co-producer, co-writer and co-star).
Ha! I finally found it, the poem Zach Weiner read before making their marriage vows!
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1896#comic
Seems relevant if we’re going to discuss their attitudes towards relationships
Ohhh, I love Meat Loaf.
The man, I mean, not that gross thing people eat.
Nah, there’s at least a fourth personality: they don’t believe that’s how their relationship works, but they do believe it’s how it started. I think there’s at least some versions of hegemonic heterosexuality that can include the idea that eventually, once a relationship is long established, men can decide that emotional closeness is sort of nice, especially if it comes with sex. It’s just not manly for men to actually desire and seek out emotional intimacy, so women have to trick them into it, the way you’d trick a toddler into eating vegetables for his own good by pouring ketchup on them: one day he’ll thank you for it.
The weird thing about this kind of comedy is that it makes heterosexuality seem so unpleasant. If people actually could choose their sexualities, and heterosexual relationships actually worked this way, who wouldn’t be same-sex attracted?