Throughout the world, there are ancient paintings and carvings in caves depicting men and how they used tools to defend themselves from, and even attack, creatures. It goes without saying that these men were rather good at using violence, and violence was needed to survive. Today, men find many different ways to prove their masculinity; violence is one of the most basic ways men achieve this. In Michael Kimmel’s Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men, he states masculinity is a performance guys put on for other guys. In David Fincher’s Fight Club violence is used as an important emotional appeal to connect to its predominantly male audience, but the two main characters, Tyler and Jack, also exercise violence as a means to perform and express their masculinity on each other. Violence is exhibited throughout the movie as a bonding ritual between the members of fight club, as a means to destroy consumerism. The main characters of Fight Club are similar to the men Michael Kimmel is describing in that both parties are in a “between stage,” discovering who they are and what their meaning in society is. I believe that Jack embodies cultural homogenization, the culture of protection and liminal space better than Tyler. Jack, the protagonist of the movie, embodies cultural homogenization more than Tyler. Micahael Kimmel defines cultural homogenization by suggesting it is “a flattening of cultures” (Kimmel 26). What Kimmel means by this is that there is no regional flare; outside of guyland, guys do not have any alternative masculinity to perform. Ultimately, their masculinity becomes tied in with consumerism. This example is evident in Jack’s lifestyle: “If I saw something clever like a coffee table in the shape of a ying-yang. I had to have it” (Fight Club 1999). Jack is not happy living this lifestyle and is aware of his unhappiness and, to compensate, he projects an alter ego: Tyler Durden. Tyler is the manifes