Masculinity and Masculinities

TheFreeDictionary.com defines masculinity as follows:

mas·cu·lin·i·ty  (msky-ln-t)

n. pl. mas·cu·lin·i·ties

1. The quality or condition of being masculine.

2. Something traditionally considered to be characteristic of a male.

When I think of the word "masculinity" I think of it as meaning how "masculine" a man is, how much he is showing or radiating "manliness". "What is this manliness?" we could ask. Well, breaking it up it is 'manly-ness'; the essence of the manly, or what makes someone manly. And what might that be? What makes a man—or a woman I suppose—manly?

A man is really a man when he [fill in the blank]...when he is strong? when he is handsome? burly and gruff? if he is willing and able to protect those weaker than himself? And what about caring; should he have a heart of stone? or should he be kind and gentle when it comes to women?

If masculinity is a "condition of being masculine"...

Miriam Webster defines masculine as follows:

Definition of MASCULINE

1

a : male b : having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man

2

: of, relating to, or constituting the gender that ordinarily includes most words or grammatical forms referring to males <masculine nouns>

3

a : having or occurring in a stressed final syllable <masculine rhyme> b : having the final chord occurring on a strong beat <masculine cadence>

"[H]aving the final chord on a strong beat", I quite like that one. "[H]aving qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man" is the main definition that I think would actually relate to what I am talking about. This definition seems relatively vague, and of course it would be, how people see men, and what is associated with them is probably subjective and differs between cultures. Here, most of us, I would assume, think that "as real man" treats women with respect and doesn't fool around, and strives for goal and all that. While, in another country perhaps, a man might be expected to show no emotion what-so-ever, or be considered weak. I know that Japan can be like this, men are expected not to show much emotion, to be mostly concerned with their work, and to not like sugary things.

Advertisements and the media... how they screw up our sense of how things should be. What is masculine in advertisements? Maybe it's those men with their perfectly gelled hair, almost-angry demeanour, and scantily-clad women hanging off of them. You are a real man if you buy this cologne!/these clothes!/this car!

I asked my brothers (sixteen-year-old twins) what they thought being manly was. One of them said "being out in the freezing cold with only a tee-shirt on" .....The other said "not being a wimp or a sissy". They both also said a lot of "umm"s and "I don't know"s. What does it mean when teenage boys don't even really know what it means to be a man?

Looking back to Orwell's novel, I would have to say that I believe that mean are de-masculinised. I think that a lot of men associate some part of their manliness with their sexual behaviour; who can get the most women. In Oceana, sex is basically forbidden except within non-affectionate marriages. The only way to get sex outside of marriage, really, is to go off with a dirt-poor prole prostitute. Also I think that men cannot really feel manly because they have no control over anything. Men need to, or at least are driven to, have control. Control is one of the main causes of spousal abuse, and probably a main drive behind becoming successful in the workplace. If he works hard, he gets to be the boss. Big Brother is the absolute power figure above all other men. Whether he is a real person or not seems irrelevant. Men are being upstaged by another "man", and can do nothing about it. I doubt men in Oceana would feel very masculine after being forced into submission by the Party.

Civilization's discontent

"For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, is it possible to be happy?  Why?"

According to Curtis' Happiness Machines, no, we currently are not and cannot be happy. We know at least the first of those to be true, as we know we ourselves are not happy, at least not entirely. We are too consumed by, well, consumerism to be happy, and this consumerism itself is what makes us unhappy, or keeps us that way. To save us from ourselves, apparently the animalistic and violent selves that we hide away, we are to be in a constant state of dissatisfaction. Curtis suggested that if we were allowed to be happy, this could be dangerous, as we would, sort of, 'let go' and release the inner desires and drives.

We are allowed little bits of happiness, to keep us from being entirely unhappy, but we are really never satisfied. Consumerist culture feeds on this, and we can never get enough. No matter how much we buy, how many items of clothing, jewellery, electronics, etcetera, we seem to never be completely satisfied.

According to Freud's psychodynamic theory of psychology, we have the id, the ego, and the superego. The id is our innermost desires and our primitive instincts, where our animalistic actions would come from. The id harbours our lust, glutton, and jealousy, and all other drives and desires that are meant to be kept suppressed. The ego is basically what we know we are supposed to do, it's the little angel on our shoulder, while the id is the devil on the other. If we only had an ego we would all, likely, be fantastic people, as none of our personal desires would really ever reach our consciousness. It would be like following only that little angel. Though, while we were following what we thought was good, we would never be serving ourselves, and be even more unhappy. This is what the superego is there for; it sort of mediates between the two. It takes into account what we want, and lets it come out in a way that is still socially acceptable. Instead of letting those desires be completely unattainable, we are allowed to experience them the 'proper' way in society. Not only the id is suppressed, but aspects of the ego are also, in a way, suppressed. We might, for example, not do something the ego wants, because it would hurt our pride. The superego, keeps us content, but not 100% satisfied.

It would appear as though we are doomed to an eternity, not of unhappiness, but one without ever being able to reach absolute happiness. I believe that, unless we are one of the odd few, that don't live within societal norms, and find their own ways around life, we cannot achieve absolute happiness. Although, even those living in some different way, will not be one-hundred percent happy, it is just not possible. This is kind of a sad truth, we can be happy, but there will always be something there to keep us from being completely happy.

Isn’t every human being’s goal to achieve absolute happiness? Civilization is discontent.

The Trial and Judgement of Socrates

"1. Do you think these charges are legitimate? Is this a fair trial? "



            Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth and introducing new gods. I think that they decided to bring him to court purely because he was disturbing the peace. There really is no legitimate charge. The people of Greece seemed to make up some reason for Socrates to be tried, I mean, does "corrupting the youth" really sound like an offence? Introducing new gods, on the other hand, could possibly be more of a reason to bring someone to court, as the gods were a huge part of their culture. I still think, though, that they just needed a reason to go to court.

            To answer the second question, I ask the question: can someone's trial be considered fair if their charges are illegitimate? Socrates in Euthipho debates with Euthiphro about the reasons behind his charges. He is a very logical person, and his charges don't seem to be born out of any logic at all. It would be quite difficult to battle with logic, against something illogical. If there is no logic in the accusation, than logic isn't likely to help him in his defence.

            Socrates probably knows how the culture works, as he lives in Greece himself, but he doesn't necessarily believe everything the other Greeks do. Since his accusers can relate to majority of the people in the country, I would assume, Socrates doesn't stand much of a chance. It is unfair, but there would be a whole lot of bias in the court, and that is one thing that logic won't help him get out of.

Heroes...?

  

What defines a hero? I think it depends on the person, what does the word 'hero' mean to each person?

To me...well, I think I probably have many heroes, almost like different categories of heroes. I have heroes that are fictional and superhuman, non-fictional and superhuman (or not, but you have to admit that would be pretty cool), and just seemingly-ordinary people. 

I am a huge fan of the comic book heroes, such as Spiderman, Batman, Iron Man, and other fictitious people with super powers (or in Batman's case, a ton of money and the willingness to fight the bad guys). I don't know if these men would be my personal heroes, but I am a fan of them, maybe not much more than that though. I don't exactly look up to them or anything like that, they're just entertaining and cool and whatnot. 

In the real world my 'heroes' might be people that I admire, that I look up to, respect. I could list various psychologists, maybe political leaders, I could also throw in some policemen/firemen/paramedics. Again, these people I hold some admiration for, but I don't feel that they mean too much to me. They are not personal heroes.

When I was into more artsy hobbies, such as drawing, I looked up to a few "mangaka" or Japanese graphic novel artists. They could be heroes, or they could just be idols. I believe there is a difference.

Maybe a hero is someone closer to me, that I personally know, and have watched face hardship, or achieve something incredible.  I think of my uncle as he battled for his life against cancer. Even when it won, he still was someone I could admire, for his bravery, and how hard he fought.

I don't think a hero is only one person to me, or even one type of person. I have many different kinds of heroes, many people that all mean things to me in completely different ways. I admire a quality in them, or I just think they are unrealistically cool.

I feel like the definition of hero varies widely from person to person, and even to a single person. There is no way I can truly define what or who a hero is, but whoever they might be, I respect them.

Would you walk away from Omelas?

  Would I walk away from the city of Omelas? Leave the lovely city described as nearly perfect and overflowing with unadulterated joy?
   My first reaction, without thinking, would likely be one leaning towards "yes". Thinking about the short narrative for a few moments longer, I would retract my answer. We could think that anyone would want to walk away from the horrible truth being hidden in a dark basement broom cupboard. No one would be able to witness the suffering child and be completely alright with it, even in the short story, the citizens were appalled by the sight of the child. They decided to sacrifice guilt to the betterment of their society, to keep it perfect. We read the piece and shake our heads in disbelief at the people of Omelas. How could they be so selfish? Why don't they see what's wrong with the suffering of the child in exchange for their happiness? How can they still be happy knowing what the cost is?
   If I put myself in their situation I begin to feel a little guilty, coming to realize that I might not actually walk away. As much as I would like to think I would walk away, tear myself away from the beliefs of everyone around me, I don't know if I really would. I don't know if I would be able to leave the way of life that I was used to. I don't know if I would have the courage to leave alone, destination unknown. I don't know if I would be able to leave my family, friends, and the happiness. To leave Omelas would mean leaving utopia, leaving the happiest place on Earth, no other place would or could compare to that. Then again, I'm not sure that I would be able to stay, given that I knew the perfection was all a lie. Maybe that's why the young people of Omelas got over being disturbed; they felt like they didn't have a choice. There would be a sort of eternal misery and guilt, and guilt is unheard of in Omelas, it simply does not exist. The citizens swallow the information they are presented, whether they like it or not. They cannot stay being torn, they must choose whether to deal with the suffering child living under one of the most beautiful buildings in the city, or leave everything.
   I don't know if I would have the courage to leave, to be so bothered by the injustice that I would turn my back on my own city. On the other hand, maybe the people that leave are actually cowards, they cannot deal with the reality and run away from it. This might seem more bold than cowardly, but none of them does anything to change the situation, they just leave.
   I do not think anyone would be able to say what they would do until they were actually in the situation. It's unimaginable.