Machocracy: How Male Domination Was Built, from Prehistory to the Gym

To make its case, the film follows a man it simply calls Samuel. The narrator presents him as someone everyone knows: a high school buddy, an ex, a big brother, an uncle. Samuel considers himself manly and proudly says so, but the film specifies that he is not an "ultra-toxic" masculinist. That is why he supposedly agreed to go along with the demonstration of his own free will.

Everything takes place over one night in an empty gym. Samuel starts on a lat pulldown machine, runs five kilometers on a treadmill, hits a punching bag. Each exercise serves as a pretext for a stage in the history of manliness. The first interviews set the tone. A boy is told not to cross his legs. The feminine is associated with instability and the masculine with stability. So-called manly sports create spaces where violence is legitimized, even encouraged. The male body must be muscular and well proportioned, and a speaker talking in German explains that muscles symbolize the capacity to act, to get moving, to be active. Samuel also knows that courage, composure and ambition are expected of him.

Before getting to history, the film clarifies the concepts. A speaker points out that society often confuses sex and identity. A passport says "sex: male/female," when it generally refers to the person's identity, and therefore rather to gender. Gender expression, in turn, refers to the way one shows one's gender to others: clothing, hairstyle, makeup, posture.

Biological sex refers to the sexual differentiation of the body, that is, the process by which an individual becomes a mature male or female, capable of reproducing. There are anatomical differences, differences in size and performance, and two distinct reproductive strategies. The speaker stresses that this does not mean one sex is better than the other. The narrator points out that in our mothers' wombs, we were at first neither male nor female. It was hormones that steered the formation of a vulva or a penis, and then, at puberty, the growth of body hair or breasts.

Hormones also weigh on behavior. A speaker uses the example of hunger: when the body lacks resources, hormones push us to go eat. Among them, testosterone plays a central role "from the womb to the gym," and the film insists that it doesn't concern men alone.

Several observations qualify its importance. According to the speaker, adding testosterone to a man doesn't change much and doesn't suddenly make him want sex more. She does, however, cite studies showing that giving it to a woman with low desire after menopause increases that desire. The idea she wants people to remember is that a hormone does not induce a behavior; it increases its probability. She mentions sports fans at a match: their testosterone drops when their team loses and rises when it wins. Even so, having more testosterone does not justify any violent behavior.

A sociologist then describes the mechanism that, in his view, underpins the gender system: a set of behaviors is biologized and naturalized. Male sexual violence, for example, is explained by "urges" or "needs," when it is actually something learned, organized within the family and in spaces of socialization from a very young age. The narrator speaks of a vicious circle. Domination is justified by biology ("us guys, that's just how we are"), which encourages the expression of traits that further reinforce the place of masculinity. The speaker concludes that most of what influences our behavior comes down to context, the people around us, our past, traumas and culture. "We are not slaves to our biology," even if its influence can't be ignored. For the film, it is mainly through cultural and social influence that male dominance persists.

A biologist recalls the definition he presents as universal. Males produce small gametes in large numbers, females produce large gametes in small numbers. These two strategies are found at the level of individuals as well. The one producing many small gametes attempts numerous, unselective reproductions. The female is more careful in choosing her partner. Schematically, according to him, these two strategies explain the overwhelming majority of male and female behavior in animals and plants.

He describes two mechanisms. The first is competition between males for access to females: since size gives an advantage, selection favors larger males, which explains why they are larger in many species. The second is female choice, which can produce extravagant ornaments in males, as in the peacock. He nonetheless points out that these biological and genetic influences do not mean we are determined. A person who has, on average, more testosterone may display more socially dominant behavior, without necessarily being more violent in practice. The narrator sums up: biology doesn't explain everything, and the difference in reproductive roles doesn't excuse everything.

While Samuel finishes his fifth kilometer without going anywhere, the film asks how all this became a model for society. Among primates, the biologist explains, hierarchy is often linear: an alpha male, a beta male, and so on. But the alpha isn't always the strongest, because he dominates through alliances. The alpha relies on the beta to keep watch over the next one down and to prevent the beta from allying with him. According to the narrator, humans transposed this system onto their first societies, in the form of a network of alliances that ensures domination without relying solely on violence.

The turning point, according to the biologist, is the Neolithic. Agriculture and animal husbandry make it possible to accumulate resources, some individuals accumulate more than others, and the first hierarchical societies emerge independently in North and South America, Africa, Asia and Europe. Every time material resources were accumulated, there was also an accumulation of "reproductive resources." One of the aims of war was to capture women to give to the fighters, which the narrator translates more bluntly as "an abduction followed by a rape." The biologist cites the European invasion of the Americas as an example of this logic: the conquering men monopolize reproduction and shut local men out of it. The narrator sees in it almost the scenario of the rape of the Sabine women, when the men of the young Rome, lacking women, went and took them from their neighbors. The narrator's conclusion: in becoming civilized, man doesn't switch off his system of domination, quite the opposite.

In antiquity, a historian describes an "extremely gendered" division of society. Men's combat is military, women's is childbirth, and these are the only two situations in which an individual is entitled to recognition from the homeland. In Sparta, the names of the dead never appeared on funerary stelae, except for men who died in battle and women who died in childbirth.

In Rome, the idea of a "feminine danger" prevails: women supposedly don't have the same access to intelligence and reason. In the eyes of the Romans, this belief justifies male domination, since women would have to be controlled, "kept on a leash." Reproduction is at the heart of the relationship between men and women, and men want to tame women's bodies, above all their wombs. One speaker sees this as one of the main causes of the virilist system: at birth, you always know who the mother is, never with certainty who the father is. For the Roman head of household, what matters above all is control over his descendants and the authentication of his heirs.

This system was then displayed in public very bluntly. A historian asks us to imagine children, women and old people strolling through a Greek city where the male member is on display everywhere: in the streets, in courtyards, around temples, under porticoes. He describes a genuine cult of the erect phallus, which was credited with the magical power to drive away demons, the forces of evil and misfortune. The narrator notes, not without irony, that Samuel doesn't remember learning this in school. He was taught that the Greeks invented democracy. Didn't they rather set up a machocracy?

Asked about the legitimacy of the term, the speakers accept it. One deems it "indisputable": whatever the word, the reality is that men hold power, and it is a genuine ideology that entails expectations and behaviors. A historian sums up Roman manliness as a mix of courage, composure and domination over beings considered inferior: women, foreigners, slaves. For the narrator, this system, whether called machocracy or patriarchy, rests both on explicit laws and on unspoken rules.

One figure concentrates all power in Rome and in the centuries that followed: the pater familias. He rules over the familia, which includes his wife (the matron), his children and his slaves. As long as their father is alive, his children are never independent. They can neither establish their own household, nor write their will, nor conclude a major business transaction without his consent. He is also the one who chooses his sons' wives, in agreement with another pater familias, which the narrator calls "a transaction like any other."

The wife's position shows the father's power. A historian explains that it is prostitutes who show themselves outdoors in colorful clothing. The matron must be chaste, meaning she has sexual relations only with her husband, and modest, meaning she speaks little and goes out covered, veiled. The masculine ideal is for women to be talked about as little as possible. Demosthenes reportedly put it bluntly: an honest woman is one whose name isn't even known.

Politics is entirely male. Women do not have the right to vote, there are no female magistrates or senators, and they are even barred from entering the Senate. A woman involved in politics is therefore always illegitimate. There were some, however, such as Cleopatra, who always ruled alongside a man but was still perceived as illegitimate. The consequence, according to the historian, is an extremely negative portrayal of these women in power, depicted as obsessed with money, power and sex. An image conveyed since antiquity, she says, "I would almost dare say up to the present day." The narrator concludes that ancient civilizations meticulously built a system in which women, and some men, are subjugated both in private life and in society.

Civilizations eventually run out of steam. A historian explains that Roman society collapsed between the 3rd and 5th centuries, and that women's place is always greater after a social collapse than in a well-structured civilization. In the 6th and 7th centuries, there was therefore "a window for women." But it didn't last: as soon as a new order took shape under Charlemagne, he never left the slightest power to a woman, not even to his wives.

A speaker talking in German generalizes this pattern. Every time women gain ground, conditions become favorable to a manly, very physical, aggressive masculinity. She cites the 1970s, when the second wave of the women's movement gained momentum. She also mentions, in a partly inaudible passage, a more recent period when women challenged men's right to take "whatever they want and whoever they want." The narrator draws from this the idea that machocracy, faced with its first obstacles at the dawn of the Middle Ages, mutates so as not to fall behind.

A medievalist historian explains that the Roman texts defining what a man (vir) is remain present, since people continue to write in Latin and copy these texts. But the world has become Christian, and the Church adds a second layer with its own conception of manliness. Ancient heroes and mythological figures remain, but the male model par excellence becomes Christ. She considers it legitimate to speak of machocracy, or at least patriarchy, for the Middle Ages: male superiority over other models of masculinity and over women, and clerical male superiority. Fear of the afterlife, of hell and purgatory, is used to bring about changes in behavior. The narrator sums up: the model of Christ "remixes" ancient manliness; the music changes but not the lyrics.

This education begins at birth. According to the historian, a newborn boy had to be rubbed with salt and rose oil, following principles from Arab medicine taken up by medieval authors. The aim was to prepare his body for action, for leaving a mark on the world, whereas girls were associated with passivity and the inside of the home. Very early on, people sought to mark who would become a warrior or a slave, a man or a woman. She cites a 6th-century child's grave discovered in Cologne: the child was buried with small swords, small shields and a coat of mail in his size. These objects were not for fighting but for showing that he was a warrior in the making, even though he died very young.

In the Middle Ages, and still largely today according to the narrator, one only becomes a man in adolescence, through rites of passage. For Samuel, that would be the spring of his first scooter and of his hand slipped under the tank top of Aurélie, from eighth grade. The historian identifies two important medieval rites. The first is the presentation of arms, which marks entry into society, probably around age 14 or 15. The second is the right to wear long or medium-length hair that sets one apart from the rest of society. Added to these are moral norms to be acquired gradually: reason, mastery of the body, emotional stability. It is a clerical ideal transposed onto laypeople, that of a performative masculinity that is not innate and must constantly be proven.

The manly man of this era is not the ordinary soldier but the elite fighter, the general, the king. Over Charlemagne's reign of nearly 60 years, the historian counts only three years without war. Going off to war, she says, was almost "the summer job" of young men. Clerical discourse tried to rein in this violence and the appetites of the flesh. But according to her, if this discourse existed, it was probably because there was a need to contain violence that was very much present in everyday practices.

For the narrator, violence is a primary aspect of machocracy, and the way it is tolerated, channeled or controlled is a strong marker of manliness. A sociologist explains that violence is intrinsically linked to the construction of gender. From a very young age, educators, parents and teachers are far more tolerant of violence in boys ("he's a scrapper, he'll grow out of it"), whereas in girls it is immediately punished, because "it's not feminine."

This difference in treatment is reinforced by a sharp separation of the sexes. Girls are kept in the private sphere and in domestic activities for as long as possible, while boys go out and take part in leisure activities and sports on a much larger scale. In the Middle Ages, the historian specifies, this all-male circle may have been less pronounced than in antiquity, since men and women ate together and exclusively male meals were rare. But there was one part of the meal reserved for men: the drinking bout, which lasted until the end of the night and brought together the few dozen warriors surrounding the chief. They lived together, ate together, died together. The narrator sees it as "a new installment in a hit franchise." Samuel then understands how violence and the all-male circle have shaped generations of men, himself included.

A historian of the early modern period refuses to speak of a "crisis of masculinity" during the Renaissance. Men remain demographically significant, even if women become more numerous under the Ancien Régime. The most important development, in his view, is the rise of courts, which are not homosocial spaces since men and women mix there. In the 17th century came the salon, also mixed, and often run by women. The narrator sums up the era: the collapse of the feudal system, the reform of Christianity, the acceleration of colonization, and above all a greater presence of women. But machocracy chooses to bounce back rather than disappear.

The historian describes what was then expected of the courtier: to master his passions, be prudent, and not display a dominant stance in his interactions, particularly with women. What was valued instead was physical dexterity and bearing, acquired for example in riding academies. Riding a horse well was the image of an upright man. There one also learned to dance and to move with ease, and the games that were promoted became less dangerous.

Popular male games are, according to the narrator, the ancestors of modern sport. They don't serve merely as an individual outlet, like Samuel's punching bag, but make it possible to regulate "half of society, the half that has the hardest time crossing its legs." A sociologist reports that statistics show a sharp drop in physical assaults and murders over the past few centuries, with both less recourse to interpersonal violence and less tolerance of it. One means of regulation consists of creating spaces where violence is both controlled and tolerated: sport, leisure, fights between gangs of young people.

The historian also mentions forms of learning masculinity among young people: violent games between villages such as soule, or taking part in festivals and processions. Carrying and tilting the banner became a weightlifting exercise, an opportunity to "show off your muscles." For the narrator, manly violence is encouraged and exalted, but above all channeled: machocracy does not tolerate violence that would threaten its authority, but knows how to use to its advantage the ardor of young men eager to prove their manliness.

The army is the prime example. A German-speaking speaker reports that many young soldiers experience going off to war as the moment they become men. The historian adds that while honor remains expected of the soldier, he must, unlike the medieval knight, have esprit de corps: be disciplined, obey, be courageous, without putting his personal glory ahead of the collective interest.

One constant runs through all these mutations: to belong to the "manliness club," one must meet a set of physical and moral requirements without ever stepping out of line, on pain of exclusion. The historian notes that there will always be people to accuse men of being in crisis or effeminate. Protestant pastors considered the Catholic clergy effeminate because its priests were clean-shaven and unmarried. Europeans portrayed Native Americans as childlike or effeminate, because they lacked beards, to justify enslaving them.

In the 19th century, according to a German-speaking speaker, hegemonic masculinity was clearly heterosexual, and any homosexual inclination automatically excluded a man from this model. This also applied to colonization, since Europeans considered colonized men to be homosexual, "to a certain degree." For the narrator, every cultural difference between colonizer and colonized then becomes proof of the European man's superiority. The speaker gives the example of alcohol, so central to European male identity that it was thought a certain level of civilization could only be reached by drinking. Some movements believed Muslims had to be made to drink in order to civilize them. The narrator adds that at a time when, in Europe, patriarchy was being shaken by political and industrial revolutions and technical modernity sometimes made men superfluous, the colonies allowed them to "rebuild the muscle" of their manliness. The speaker speaks of an adventurer's and explorer's masculinity, both in the colonized territories and in the competition between European nations.

The same speaker finds it interesting that capitalism developed at the same time, since it values decision-making, conquering drive, the appropriation of forces and the ability to prevail in the struggle for scarce resources. The narrator shows machocracy bearing down with all its weight on the economic and professional sphere: every step class and every exchange with his "N+1" reminds Samuel of the same precepts of competition, results and risk-taking.

But this model doesn't affect all men in the same way. A historian disputes the idea of an unchanging manliness: several forms of masculinity always coexist. A German-speaking speaker stresses that in the 19th century, being a man did not mean the same thing for a white, bourgeois entrepreneur as for a Black man enslaved in the United States. People say men have always voted, the historian points out, but it was first male elites who voted, before a gradual expansion to men of other social classes, and much later to women. According to the speaker, it was white, heterosexual men who were deemed capable of using their freedom responsibly and productively. The narrator sees in this the whole art of machocracy: a majority of men buy into the project and want to be manlier than the next guy, but only a minority actually benefit from it. Samuel begins to understand which category he belongs to.

The film insists that even men of the manly elite are trapped. According to a German-speaking speaker, elite masculinity was defined by a physical ideal that was hard to attain. In a fragmentary passage, she mentions prohibitions related to sexuality, such as masturbation, which was supposed to lead to impotence, premature aging, epilepsy, even death. Another speaker describes 18th-century devices placed on the penis at night: in the event of an erection, a ring tightens, spikes prick, and the person wakes up. For the narrator, these instruments illustrate the manly man's conflicted relationship with his body, which he wants to control at all costs without trying to understand it.

The same speaker sees in this history the origin of a taboo around male sexuality. There are medical specialties devoted to women's bodies, gynecology and obstetrics, but according to her there is no equivalent for men, no andrology, and there still isn't today. The narrator concludes that the manly man, obsessed with controlling everything around him, has never asked himself a question that is nonetheless fundamental: what is a man?

A German-speaking speaker takes up the debate around "toxic masculinity": it is toxic not only for others, but also for men themselves. The narrator lists the risks Samuel runs simply by being a man. He eats more fatty meat, drinks more alcohol, and is at greater risk of workplace accidents, committing a crime, prison and an earlier death. Being a "real" manly man drains one's strength and becomes dangerous because of increased risk-taking. Is this a mental and physical burden specific to men, even among the elite? Perhaps, the narrator answers, but the observation is nothing new. A historian of antiquity speaks of a demand for the perfect body and of a virilism that is a trap for some men. Ovid, she says, confides that this virilism makes him sad and anxious, and that he longs for something other than what Roman virilist society offers.

In every era, machocracy has been hard on men who deviate from the norm. The medievalist historian cites the criticism leveled at those who dressed too well, spent too much time with women or didn't fight when their kingdom was under threat. A king of the late 9th century combined these flaws, and it was said of him that he behaved like a woman. A German-speaking speaker adds that some men, particularly queer and gay men, are victims of a dominant model of masculinity. Another emphasizes the intersection of factors of domination: gender relations are bound up with ethnic origin and social class. The narrator concludes that machocracy crushes everyone.

Samuel, according to the film, already knew the essentials, give or take a few anecdotes. He wonders how he could have missed it. A speaker answers that men have the most privileges, and that is precisely why they don't know they have them. You only notice them when you're deprived of them, when you wonder why you can't vote or open a bank account. The narrator recaps: manliness turned biological impulses into a social obligation and survived every reversal of history by mutating to adapt.

One last question remains. A speaker points out that today the law proclaims equality between men and women, and that women have, at least in theory, as many rights as men: patriarchal authority no longer has a legal basis. A German-speaking speaker observes, however, in a partly inaudible passage, that recent years have shown just how resilient this masculinity is. It is once again being mobilized and forcefully celebrated, particularly in the political arena.

The speakers also discuss possible paths forward. Since forms of masculinity were constructed, others can be too: alternative masculinities, and perhaps alternative femininities as well. One speaker points out that gender theory consisted of recognizing that masculine and feminine are not givens but social constructs, which depend on history, era and culture. We have a body and a sex, and what interests her is what we do with them socially. A German-speaking speaker mentions men's movements and men's groups that have sought to move away from patriarchy, to stop seeing themselves solely as breadwinners tasked with demonstrating their strength, and instead as fathers who lovingly care for their children and their family.

The biologist returns to the animal world. Among bonobos, there are many cases where females dominate all the males. In his view, this shows that the dominance of one sex over the other can evolve, and therefore that the male dominance observed in every known human society can also change, just as it changed in the bonobo lineage. A historian speaks of a construct that is not fixed and can be deconstructed, because it depends on the values and the political and economic questions driving a society at a given moment. A final speaker refuses to reduce all this to binary categories, and finds it beautiful precisely that "we are all completely different."

Outside, day is breaking. Samuel has lost track of time and burned more than 3,000 calories, but now it's his mind that is overheating. The gym is about to reopen to the public, and he will once again be around women and, above all, the narrator stresses, other men. The film ends there, without saying what Samuel will do with what he has understood.