Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“Outlander” and Manliness: Why American Women Love This Show
The Starz TV series “Outlander” has become something of a phenomenon. In three seasons, it has done more to explain why women are longing for real manliness in their counterparts. The observant can see the vast difference in the men in this show and the man on the street. It is partially a function of time travel; the men women are particularly enamored of are the men in the 1700s. This cannot explain all of the fascination.
Kilts. It’s the kilts.
It isn’t, really, but it is the manliness and security required to wear clothing that could expose the most sensitive and vulnerable parts of a man. It should come as no surprise that Outlander (the book) has been studied for its intense and nuanced views of male/female interactions. There is even a popular paperback book called Finding Fraser which describes the modern woman’s lament and search for her own version of James Fraser, the male lead.
In order to really dive into the deep end of this, the show and the books need to be examined. I may mention character names without explanations. This is partly to save the show for people who want to be surprised, but pretty much everything that I am writing about requires a…
SPOILER ALERT
I hope that at this point, those who want the show to be a surprise have left off.
Let us begin with a quick overview.
Outlander is a book about a WW2 combat nurse, Claire Randall, who accidentally travels through time back to 1742 Scotland. She travels back 202 years. During that time, she arouses suspicion as a well-spoken Englishwoman in the Highlands during another conflict between the English and the Scots. During the course of the show, Claire attempts to find a way to travel back to her husband in the 1940s, an MI-5 agent Frank Randall. Unfortunately, the suspicion aroused by her sudden appearance puts her in danger, requiring an arranged marriage to a Scottish outlaw, James Alexander Malcolm MacKenzie Fraser (JAMMF, in the fandom). Of course, there’s a love triangle and of course, things get complicated. But this is enough of a summary for our purposes of discussion here.
Claire finds herself in a new world. Scotland in the 1700s was not a welcoming place for women. Even by 1940s standards, Claire was an independent woman. The Highlands would be particularly dangerous for a woman who felt her worth. Men were not used to being disobeyed or neglected. The concept of toxic masculinity could be placed here and would not be exceptional for the time. While there are the negatives of being placed in a time where women had limited options to support themselves, there were also positives.
Men were expected to be the protectors. They were expected to support a woman. Men served a purpose. Diana Gabaldon, the author of the series, describes it from JAMMF’s perspective (emphasis mine):
“What in God’s name do you think a man is for?” he asked at last. He spoke quietly, but in tones of complete bewilderment. “Ye want to keep him as a pet, is it? A lapdog? Or a caged bird?” — Jamie (JAMMF) in Fiery Cross, Chapter 79
This is an essential understanding of the traditional interaction between men and women. Men should not seek to lord their strength over women, but instead use it toward their protection. In this way, women cannot control their men. There is a wildness and viciousness to the nature of man; it is untamed. To tame a man is to make him ineffective. It is to take his power away and to make the marital unit weaker, as there is no designated protector. There are no designated roles. Predictability of roles and expectations helps people to understand one another, as well as come to agreement. It does not change the strengths of each gender. Both maintain strength, but tend to use it in different ways.
“There comes a turning point in intense physical struggle where one abandons oneself to a profligate usage of strength and bodily resource, ignoring the costs until the struggle is over. Women find this point in childbirth; men in battle.” ― Diana Gabaldon, Outlander
Modern women have been seduced by the idea of equality in all things. The simple fact is that though they are equal in nature, they are not identical. At their core, even feminists know this. Cosmo, Elle, Vogue, and other left-leaning magazines applaud “Outlander” frequently for it’s feminism and for the female perspective given to the show. While applauding, they seem to ignore how very traditional their praise for the show is. Even though the husbands are nominal feminists for their time, their roles are all very traditional.
Women do not just like this. Women need this.
There is an unspoken desire for women to be taken care of by their men. They need their men to be pillars of strength. Magazines are too proud to admit or even maintain self-awareness that they are also bringing the need for tradition to the fore. Strength does not require men to be perpetually stoic during all times of adversity, foregoing any display of emotion, but it requires men to adhere to certain traditional gender stereotypes. Whether or not it is explicit, much of the popularity of “Outlander” is from the acknowledgement that even in changing times, with changing roles, with Claire becoming a doctor and having her own career, men need to be the men in the relationship. Women need that complementary role, but more importantly, women need protectors.
There comes a point later in the books when Claire is sexually assaulted. I sincerely hope that the TV series does not change this scene, since it is very human. Some of the men are of the mentality that sex is power, some violent, but some are pathetic, lonely, sad men who see this as their only way for human connection and female compassion. One of the offenders even cries during the entire exchange. Claire, though violated, still feels a sense of regret and remorse from this man and recalls him in later books.
Sexuality is nuanced in both the books and in the series. The traditional roles are explored, but also the idea of woman as aggressor and as violator (see books 7-9). There is a very clear delineation between the natural and the unnatural. There is a clear line between positive sexuality and negative sexuality. More importantly, the sexual politics are approached with a strong bias toward value. What is the value of the sexual act? What is the value of the human beings involved? Is human value being respected?
The sexual act is always framed with respect to the humans involved. Women everywhere appreciate this. In every sex scene there is, there is an emotional component. Everything has meaning. People are not simply props for some salacious exposure of skin. People have value. Men respect that value.
When women are violated or sex is used as a bargaining chip, the questions are brought forward, not only by the women, but by the men in their lives.
“And if your life is a suitable exchange for my honor, why is my honor not a suitable exchange for your life?” ― Diana Gabaldon, Outlander
Indeed. In modern times, the idea of honor is almost completely lost on the current generation. We do not even have a discussion about honor anymore. This is another point of seduction in “Outlander.” Honor? Men? Women? They are speaking of honoring one another and a sense of value!
Ultimately, the reason why “Outlander” is so popular is that it treats men as men. It judges men by their own standards: courage, strength, ability to protect, honor. It does not judge the men with today’s weakened and softer sensibilities. It judges them by their standards and by standards they have been genetically called to meet. It does not excuse them for being men, nor does it ask them to be something other than what they are. There are good men and there are bad men, but they are judged as men.
And it is refreshing.
Published in Entertainment
My brother Caleb married a Catholic girl. When my Texan friend, who happens to be a Calvinist, saw her copy of “Not by Faith Alone” on her shelf he bought them a copy of “By Faith Alone” to stick next to it. You don’t have to sell me on the potential for conflict.
Did a Battle of the Books ensue?
It’s not that she is worth more. It’s that we each have duties and a man knows his.
I once failed to convince a friend that Black Hawk Down is a film worth seeing. “It [the historical event] was a disaster. America lost! Why would I want to see that?” Because our soldiers did not lose, I replied.
They honorably fulfilled the “Leave no man behind” dictum, thereby acknowledging that the way in which one lives is more important than life itself. We often weigh losses of life numerically because we can imagine no other way. But a life given is more worthy of life. No one has greater love than this.
To quote another great movie, “And because of our traditions, every man knows who he is and what God expects of him.”
Yes.
Yes.
Doesn’t matter. Women and children first. What if the child had a fever, and will never be able to produce progeny? Doesn’t matter. Women and children first.
Not the right question. Right question is: what makes a man a man? The ability to stand and ensure that women and children are first priority. All of them.
Lo, there…
So no society can be a suicide pact; hence women & children first. But if Heinlein had any flair for psychology, he would have understood that the reason to form a cult of women & children first has nothing to do with women, & everything to do with men-
Nailed it.
Anyone who wants evidence, just look up this thread to @bossmongo‘s answers. He’s walking-talking advertisement for what civilization means to men!
Is it not bigamy if the second marriage occurs 200 yrs. before the first, or do we judge by the time traveler’s timeline?
This chick listed to about half the first book from Audible.com and I’m grateful it was so easy to return. I can’t remember a book that disappointed and angered me as much as that one did.
Do tell!
I’ve not read it; & only seen two episodes or so; but I’ve still managed to drive TheRightNurse sick at least twice because of my moral & intellectual objections to it!
That is one of the major points of conflict. She is married, but it’s 202 years in the future…so…given that her survival depends on it, she kinda goes with it. Different people feel differently about this. Frank didn’t exist when she married Jamie, so it’s kinda not bigamy. The interesting thing, though, is that she married Frank in a civil ceremony at the registrar’s and when she married Jamie, it was a church wedding.
One is sanctified, the other isn’t.
Does that change anything?
That’s a lot useless stuff about hiding who this woman really is. A lot of ‘well, it’s complicated’–when it really isn’t…
So much sturm-und-drang to justify being attracted to pretty boys in skirts! ;)
I don’t think I agree, Boss. I don’t think there is any inherent truth which says women and children first or else a man isn’t a man. There are practical reasons it’s been true in some societies, but that’s hardly universal and different arrangements can lead to different practical axioms. However, I do think that Christ’s teaching leads to it.
“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.”
“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” (yes, this is St. Paul)
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (St. Paul again)
We are called to treat the world as brothers and friends. We are called to lay down our lives for our friends. I think this ties into St. Paul’s writing on marriage: yes I have a specific duty to my wife, but I have a broader duty to sacrifice for others – including sometimes as a surrogate for husbands or fathers of other women and kids.
But don’t women Christians have the same calling? In the broader Christian sense I think they do. However, in the practical and narrow sense St. Paul wrote about, the nature of their duty and sacrifice is a little different than men’s. Good thing these duties are generally complementary and often aligned with our basic biological instincts and urges. That’s how women and children first becomes a thing.
“There is no greater love…..” and “what you do to the least of my people…..” are radical ideas in human history. These can make sense from a utilitarian point of view, but that’s not what Christ means. He means that this is the way and the truth.
But what about non-Christian societies? Heck, even Christian societies? What happens when one or the other not only refuses the duty but rejects the very notion of a duty or even takes advantage of someone who believes in the duty? Catholicism teaches that these duties do not enable violating the dignity of the human person, that this does not mean we’re obligated to endure a one way street of accepting neglect or abuse while always giving more more more. Even here it’s an exchange recognizing the dignity and worth of individuals.
So doesn’t “women and children first” only work where there is broad agreement of mutually expected duties? (or it works if a man is a Christian).
Before there were kilts, there was
STEEEEEVE REEEEEVES
Traditions tend to be about norms. They are about what works best (sometimes among all imperfect options) for most people; for “average” situations.
The stupidity of our age is that we keep trying to redesign everything around outliers. If society is kept strong and functional by maintaining good traditions, then the exceptions and the weakest have plenty of stable families and communities in which to find help.
We can’t serve the weakest and compassionately tolerate innocent deviance by just letting the freak flag fly.
Is he the one between the guy in the dress and the basketweaver? ;)
Honestly, I love all those old epics… but not for the tunics and togas.
Welp, @TheRightNurse, I went and did it. Here’s my review of Marquez’s work of highly literary smut, complete with thorough plot synopsis and smutty Decameron reference.
Might interest @nandapanjandrum and other Catholics as well.
I’d tap that.
Are we disagreeing here, @edg? I don’t see where we’re disagreeing.
As long as the two husbands’ lifetimes don’t overlap, I don’t see the problem. If a widow remarries, we don’t call her a bigamist, right? So since her second husband will surely die before her first husband is even born, there’s no bigamy.
Maybe not. I just don’t think it’s automatic, and I can be petty as much as I try not to be. I’d have a hard time answering the call in an environment where the duties are not viewed as reciprocal.
If my husband goes back in time and screws around, he is a dead man.
Tartan trews can be wonderful, too, can’t they, TRN?
Yeah, maybe the plot description leaves out some elapsed time, but “I time travelled and landed in danger so……. I had to get screwed by ahem I mean marry some hot guy in a kilt” sounds like rationalizing.
But Honeeeeyy, it was time travel.
Yeah, I think the lovely and talented Mrs. Mongo is trackin’ right there with you.
I am convinced that one of the reasons feminists ignore or outright reject the concept of chivalry is because they know they are violating it, mainly through abortion. I love, admire and very much appreciate men who are willing to protect women; I believe that I also have an obligation to protect and if necessary die for those weaker than me-namely children and other women. Men should protect women and children; women should protect children and each other. Abortion is obviously a violation of this. Chivalry says that the strong should protect the weak; feminism says that the weak only have value if the strong want them.