At the end of The Ladies Man, Leon Phelps is confronted by the boyfriends and husbands of women that slept with him. There are actually also, apparently, a few brothers and sons of women who chose to have sex with Leon Phelps. The men encircle Leon and declare that he "stole their manhood" by having sex with these women. Leon correctly points out that the reason he had sex with these women was because they wanted to, mostly because their own partners were unfulfilling in some way. One man, the one with a gun, realizes that Leon didn't seduce his wife at all, but instead, he "was the problem," indicating that he was doing something to make his wife turn to other sexual partners. It is a tenuous lesson, the women aren't out and out identified as the agents in the situation, and the men go from blaming Leon to blaming themselves. Thats all well and good if the man's behavior is the source of the problem. But its possible that the man is doing everything right - listening, respecting, being an equal partner, etc... - and the woman in the relationship just really wanted to have sex with Leon Phelps anyway.
The film borders on feminism and is a cute little story. It doesn't, however, venture far into feminist ideology and seems to flirt with maintaining the idea that men are only men if they "have a woman." Of course, it also clearly indicates that monogamy and starting a family can be healthy, fulfilling things. But no one ever expressly negates the idea that Leon having sex with a man's wife is tantamount to castrating that man. There are plenty of movies that involve fights between two men because one woman decided to have sex, kiss, flirt, or otherwise express affection for both of them. Sometimes, the woman in question might not even like one of the guys, but the men have this notion that the only way they can "have" this woman is to beat up some guy. In this animalistic ritual, the woman's concious choice doesn't have an effect. Sure, women fight over men too, but they don't seem to be concerned about losing a core part of their identity because their male partner cheated on them. You'd never hear a woman fighting another woman claiming "you stole my womanhood!" But for men, being unable to "keep" a woman from having relationships with other men (whether sexual or not, depending on the culture OR the man) is apparently a key element of "being a man."
It is actually pretty pathetic. Rather, it is awfully pathetic. I know humans are just animals, but we have conciousness, which allows us to control these base urges and moderate them. Unfortunately for many women, the men of many cultures around the world have codified the ownership of women. Many of them feel as if they have the right to torture and mutilate women. Why? Some deep seated insecurity, for sure. Sometimes, I'd like to find those men and beat the shit out of them with anything I can find. Lucky for them, there numbers are too vast and I have too much of a sense of self-preservation to comit a crime similar to theirs.
I guess this isn't a new theory, the problem is that the phenomenon isn't going away. Granted, its only been a generation and the generation of Americans raised after the second wave of feminism is really only in its 20s, no where near being part of "the establishment." I go back and forth between frustration about change not happening right now and taking the big picture view of lasting change, over time. We can't be discouraged every time feminism doesn't prevail, but that doesn't give much solace to the woman hiding from an abusive man, or the woman with no face anymore, or the woman abandoned by her family after a vicious gang rape. Their reality cannot be debated, and anyone that can justify their reality does not deserve life. If manhood means owning a woman, it is a stupid concept.
