I Love “Friends”
But wow there’s a lot of toxic masculinity
I was sitting at my kitchen island half-watching “Friends” and half-working on my computer when a voice caught my unconscious attention:
“I only know two surefire ways to shut a man up, and one is sex.”
Yeesh.
You can probably tell by the byline: Yes, I’m a Gen Z’er. But regardless of what generation you were born in, if you’re alive today (and presumably watching “Friends”) you’d have a hard time overlooking the toxic masculinity in at least some of the episodes of the popular late-’90s/early noughts sitcom.
Toxic Masculinity
[ tok-sik mas-kyuh-lin-i-tee ]
noun
a cultural concept of manliness that glorifies stoicism, strength, virility, and dominance, and that is socially maladaptive or harmful to mental health (dictionary.com)
- This definition uses stoicism as our society currently knows it, not how it was originally meant by Stoic philosophers, but that’s another article :)
Here’s another, more detailed, definition:
“Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits — which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual — are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.” (https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/what-we-mean-when-we-say-toxic-masculinity)
Some Background
So, here’s the scoop on this episode. Rachel is about three dates deep with Paul, the father of Ross’s 20-year-old former student and current girlfriend.
In a throw-away conversation while heading out to dinner, Rachel tries to get Paul to open up emotionally, arms around his neck. At first, he gives one-word answers to questions like, “What about your childhood?” (“fine”) and, “I know still waters run deep. Tell me about you” (initial silence).
And then he gives her a seemingly innocuous story about getting a chicken toy as a gift as a young child and all the kids calling him “Chicken Boy! Chicken Boy!” It’s a little weird, a little short, and not much for Rachel to go off of.
But we all wait a couple seconds, and he seems to realize for the first time what a huge impact that experience had on him. He starts to whimper into a cry. Pretty soon it’s been hours, his head is in Rachel’s arms and it’s clear she has gotten more than she’s bargained for.
Over the rest of the episode (probably a few days) we see Rachel and her friends live in the presence of a man who only wants to continue digging deeper into his psychology and feel all his unfelt emotions at once.
The Advice
Now, all the friends are gathered around the kitchen table at Monica’s apartment, as they so often are. Rachel asks Monica for advice:
How do I get Paul to stop blubbering his emotional past all over our relationship? Is the gist.
Monica: “Is he still doing that?” (paraphrased). Rachel: “Like a little girl.”
Problem 1: Real men don’t cry and *internalized misogyny.
- This comment covers two parts of toxic masculinity already: The notion of “Toughness” (men should be physically strong, emotionally callous, and behaviorally aggressive), and the idea of “Antifemininity” (men should reject anything that is considered to be feminine, like showing emotion or accepting help)
- Rachel insults her gender’s relative acceptance of vulnerability while belittling the vulnerability of her boyfriend.
*Internalized misogyny is relevant here because it is also a construct that “relies upon a narrow definition of acceptable gendered behavior and asserts that some members of a gender are ‘real,’ and others are not. Both assume that women are basically lesser creatures” (Rachel Wayne “The Disturbing Link Between Toxic Masculinity and Internalized Misogyny”) They are both toxic gender “ideals.”
So, after Rachel spouts that her boyfriend is still weeping “like a little girl,” that’s when Monica delivers the ever-so-confident line, “I only know two surefire ways to shut a man up, and one is sex.”
Problem 2: All men must be hypersexual. In context, Monica is essentially saying that this man must be so excessively concerned with sex that it will be more than enough to make him forget his currently felt all-encompassing emotions — some of which are in response to situations he even appears to perceive as trauma.
If it wasn’t enough that Rachel saw herself as a sufferer of Paul’s sudden emotional (r)evolution, she breaks up with him over it. Which brings us to
Problem 3: Many people cannot accept the sensitivity they ask for from a person, especially when that person is a man.
In short, Paul is not allowed to have strong emotions and he just MUST be hypersexual (like all men must be, right?).
The Nuance
I have to admit, Paul’s (Rachel’s boyfriend) emotional awakening was comically dramatic and drawn out; he started reflecting and crying seemingly without stopping, and it went on for days. There was nothing gradual or subtle about it. And this is where the show’s genre comes in and mucks it up: it’s a comedy. Paul’s emotional enlightenment is a comedic device (called Hyperbole), and the audience is well aware that his reaction is exaggerated.
I do think comedy is an accessible and often effective way to approach the construct of toxic masculinity. But so often “Friends” has used the construct as a quick way to get a laugh. I explored this episode because toxic masculinity was actually a core plot.
Second, it was true that Rachel would not be qualified to help him out with all his ponderings because she’s not a psychological therapist (as she points out to Paul).
More to this point, maybe the writers needed an excuse to remove Paul’s character from the show and had to concoct a reason for him and Rachel to split up.
But there seems to be no tolerance from either the men or the women in the “Friends” group of Paul’s change in the way he’s expressing his manhood. What’s more, to Rachel his vulnerability — i.e., turn from the media’s version of masculinity — makes him a man not worth dating.
My dilemma is this: What was the message of the episode? Were the writers trying to advocate against toxic masculinity by showing a man with strong emotions on TV? Or were the “Friends” cast’s comments just a lazy ploy for laughs? Or some mixture of both? What do you think.
