Christopher Hitchens and l’homme de hier

In 2011, one of the things we’re seeing a lot of on the cultural front is the depiction of the new man.  Who is the new man?  Some weeks ago a blog called Feminist Ryan Gosling went viral on Facebook, the contents of which featured images of the heart-throb Gosling with enticing feminist theory captions (example: ‘hey girl, we can be supportive of gender variance even while we get our bounce on’).  What is interesting here is that Gosling figures as the new man par excellence; he stands in for an idea that has gained appeal for many and has an almost endless number of cultural signifiers.  The new man is left-leaning; diplomatic, cosmo-metropolitan; he apparently respects gender equality, is chic and fashionable, and totally in touch with his emotions, all while preserving the highest kernels of masculinity (Gosling’s good-looks, sense of justice, etc).  What the new man has rid himself of is the sum quantity of all the negatives of the old-man (chivalry, bigotry, stupidity, etc.).

Though culture and a certain demographic seem to be more and more invested in the new man, there are those for whom the idea seems less the wrapped up gift it is offered as.  In a daytime interview with Jennifer Byrne, Christopher Hitchens for instance said that he alone supports his wife Mrs. Hitchens, and ‘does not think she should have to work if she doesn’t want to,’ a comment that Byrne took up with a contrarian’s interest because, presumably, it seemed aloof with the new man’s account of women.  The exchange went as follows:

Hitchens: ‘No, I’m not having any woman of mine go to work.’

Byrne: Christopher, you’re going to get in trouble if you go down there…’

Hitchens: ‘No, they don’t need to work.  They can if they like, but they don’t have to.’

Byrne: ‘You are joking?’  You really mean that?  You don’t think women should go and work?’

Hitchens: ‘No, I said they’re welcome to do that.  I’m thrilled if they want to.  But they don’t have to.’

Byrne: ‘Is this you being ironic?  Is this your famous attachment to irony?’

Hitchens: ‘No, what’s so difficult about it?’

Byrne: ‘It’s just wrong.  It’s absolutely wrong.’

Hitchens: ‘They’re called the gentle sex for good reason.  I don’t want to see them coarsened in the labour market, no.  Not if they don’t want to.’

Byrne: ‘You’re 61 Christopher, not 180!’

Hitchens: ‘I’m here to look after them.’

Byrne: ‘Christopher, I’ve given you every chance to opt out of that last line…’

Hitchens: ‘No.  That’s my view.  I don’t think that Mrs. Hitchens should have to work.’

Hitchens’ point of view is interesting here in that it is firmly against the one we might expect the new man to espouse: women, having equal rights, are just as entitled to work as men.  Clearly, Hitchens doesn’t deny that, he just says he believes it should be a choice for her and that he prefers that she doesn’t work.  But even stating this nuanced opinion, it seems to rather fall on deaf ears for Byrne, who seems unable to process the comments as anything but sexist rebukes.

Personally, I like Hitchens opinion here, because it rejects a simple ‘new man’ response and tacitly says something people seem increasingly scared to say at all; namely that there are differences between the sexes and that they should be accounted for.  Saying that isn’t to introduce a hierarchy of power that demands immediate dismissal.  What Hitchens holds onto, in my opinion, seems to be some of the positive elements of the man of yesterday; the man as provider, carer, etc.  Whether that’s a good thing or not is subject to interpretation.