Masculinity: An Unfair Expectation

A common definition of masculinity is that it is whatever pertains to man or men, which really doesn’t tell us what masculinity is at all, does it? This incredibly ambiguous definition could mean that masculinity is anything, really.  Which in turn means that masculinity is what society defines it to be, and therefore there are many different definitions of masculinity depending on where you live. This is a generalization though, because masculinity will be regarded differently by every individual no matter where you come from, but to gain a better understanding of the term you need to examine society’s definition.  In lecture, we were taught that throughout history young boys were instructed how to be “men” by didactic stories like Gilgamesh. In this story, Gilgamesh displays qualities of strength, bravery, and eventually love, friendship, and compassion. He is large, powerful, feared, and very, well, “manly”. Gilgamesh starts out in the story as an uncivilized monster that terrorizes Uruk, but as the story progresses and he meets Enkidu, he learns what it is to be a real man, who is not only brave and strong, but also compassionate and thankful.  In society, these qualities are ascribed to “masculine” men, and have been considered masculine throughout history.

In George Orwell’s 1984 a very different society is created: Oceania. This dystopic society is very different from our own, and in some ways their definition of masculinity is different, but it some ways it is the same. In the novel, Winston expresses insecurity about his body and how it is pale, thin and weak, which are all qualities that are not typically viewed as masculine (Orwell 128). In the novel, O’Brien really seems to epitomize masculinity, being described as large and intelligent (Orwell 12). He also holds a position of high authority in the Party, putting him in a position of power and success, which enhances his masculinity (Orwell 13). These staple qualities of physicality and status do not differ from our own society, but there are minor differences upon closer inspection. Being complacent with the Party can also be considered being masculine, as that is the most desired quality of men in Oceania. O’Brien also fits this definition, as in the novel it is revealed that he is actually orthodox.

In our modern society, it is expected that in the family men will be a sort of “rock” for the rest of the family. Men are generally expected to be the main financial supporter, and the level to which they are able to support their family is indicative of their job status which is an indicator of a man’s masculinity.  I don’t think that this is very fair at all, but in my Planning 10 class we had a guest speaker come in to talk to us and she told us that generally, what men crave the most is respect, and what women crave most is love. So, I suppose it does make sense that men, whose egos are very tightly wound up in their jobs, would naturally assume the position of main financial supporter of their family and be able to almost “prove” their masculinity in that sense. Interestingly enough, it would also appear  that a woman’s sense of accomplishment is also wrapped up in her husband’s status, as a woman could be a stay at home mother with no job, but be considered a successful woman solely because her husband is successful. I think that this is an unfair amount of pressure to put on men, and I also think it is unfair that a man could find it intimidating and emasculating for a woman to be financially independent and successful. This is only society’s view of masculinity though, and I’m sure that many couples do not fit this patriarchal mold, which gives me some hope.

Orwell, George. 1984 . London: Penguin. 1949.

Dictionary.com. IAC Corporation, 1995. Web. 14 November 2011.

Blog Topic Number 1- Freud

Compromise is a wonderful thing, and I even think that it can make a person happier than if they had just fulfilled their wants and desires. Take a mother, for example. Perhaps what this particular mom wants to do most is relax after work, maybe kick back with a cup of tea and do some reading. BUT her son has hockey practice, and her daughter has ballet, so, instead of relaxing like she wants, she sacrifices her time and afternoon to cater to their needs. Instead of making her feel unhappy or unfulfilled, this makes the mother very happy. Her kids are happy, and therefore she is happy.

Sigmund Freud believes that a person can never really be happy, because the ID and the Superego are constantly in a state of deprivation and are continually being suppressed by the Ego, which in turn is not quite right because it has undue amounts of pressure on it to keep everything else in balance. So, a person is never getting exactly what they want or desire, and this makes them unhappy. I do agree with the dynamics of his theory, but I don’t necessarily think that releasing and acting upon suppressed desires would bring a person happiness. Maybe people are discontented because they are always suppressing desires, but I think that small amount of discomfort is nothing compared to the happiness that a person could obtain from compromising their desires and doing something that benefits them, and even others. Freud seemed to think that happiness concerned only yourself and your own needs. That’s not real life though, is it? A person can be happy seeing others that they care about be happy, like family and friends, even if it means compromising what they want. And you know what? I don’t know if it would be so great to get exactly what you want either. As Oscar Wilde said, “There are only two tragedies in life: one is getting what one wants, and the other is not getting it.” I think that everything is subjective though, and happiness is what you make it. Maybe you don’t get exactly what you want, but it is possible to be happy otherwise.

Apology Blog Topic Number Two

Last year in my Law 12 class my teacher told us about a group of animal rights activists who were willing to die for their personal and philosophical beliefs. What they would do was break in to horse slaughter farms with a video camera, and film the horses being killed and tortured, because the only way to charge the perpetrators of any crime would be to have all of this on film as proof. This was extremely dangerous as they would often be shot at, and if any of them had been caught they would certainly have been killed. If we apply what this group does to Apple’s definition of a martyr-figure as “a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration,” we can clearly see that they are not a group of martyrs. It is true that they display their discomfort or distress by “taking a stand”, but in no way do I feel that they do it to obtain sympathy or admiration on their part. They do it because they love horses, and because they want people to know what injustices occur, and because they want them to stop. To put it plainly, they do it because of their personal and philosophical beliefs.

Part of the blog topic is asking if it possible to separate somebody who is willing to die for their personal and philosophical beliefs from a martyr, and in the case above I think that the two are separate. Are they separate in the case of Socrates, though? While on trial, Socrates philosophizes that some may ask him, “ Are you not ashamed, Socrates, of leading a life which is very likely now to cause your death?” to which he would answer, “ My friend, if you think that a man of any worth at all ought to reckon the chances of life and death when he acts, or that he ought to think of anything but whether he is acting justly or unjustly, and as a good or a bad man would act, then you are mistaken.” (Plato 34). When I think of a martyr, I think of somebody who wants to be seen, and maybe only superficially. I don’t feel that Socrates’ answer supports that, because he’s saying that the only thing he takes into consideration when he acts is whether or not it is just or right for himself. He doesn’t want sympathy or admiration; he just wants to do what is right, similar to the animal rights activists. In “Crito”, Socrates even declines Crito’s offer to break him out of the prison, saying that you cannot solve one unjust action with another unjust action. (Plato 59). Socrates declines Crito’s offer even though he has young children who are inevitably going to be left fatherless, and you would have to have pretty strong personal convictions to do that, in my opinion. That is not the action of somebody with shallow beliefs; somebody who only wants sympathy or admiration. That is the action of somebody who is willing to die for their personal and philosophical beliefs.

Work Cited: Plato. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:  Prentice Hall, 1948. Print.

Is it possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others?

A few years ago I was driving home from swim practice in my friends Mom’s van when I realized that I had forgotten my younger sister at the pool. Cold dread filled my stomach. I was supposed to have found her after her practice had finished and taken her home with me. She was eight years old, so obviously she didn’t have a cell phone, and she probably wouldn’t know to go to the front desk and ask for help. I felt so guilty about leaving her that I was shaking as I told my friends Mom about my mistake. I kept imagining her wandering around on her own, wondering where I was. I felt ill as we drove back to the pool to find her. She was fine, but my parents were upset with me and I remember feeling guilty about the incident for days. I eventually forgot about it and life went on, but occasionally I do remember the events of that night. It doesn’t happen regularly, but whenever it does I feel a twinge of guilt.

In the short story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” the author explicitly states that no guilt is felt by any of it’s citizens, even though their happiness is based entirely upon one child’s abhorrent state of deprivation. You could think, then, that they are unaware of the child’s existence, but this is not the case. This concept confused me at first, until I realized how similar to our own society it really was.  I wear clothes made by young girls in developing countries working in a factory for less than a dollar a day because they have no other options. I would say most people do. We eat food grown by laborers in other developing nations, whose standard of living is much lower than our own. By doing this, we are in essence supporting exploitation. Our happiness, and our standard of living is dependent on substandard  living conditions elsewhere in the world. The deprived child in Omelas represents this. People in our world obviously feel guilt about this because we have charities and various organizations that work to improve the lives of others, and I think the same would be the case for Omelas if they did not have specific rules against showing kindness to the child.  Whenever I think about my comfortable life in comparison to others around the world, I feel guilty; I feel guilty writing this right now! But do I constantly feel guilty? No. I do not think that it is possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others. Every once in a while I dwell on the unfortunate circumstances that others live in, and I feel horrible. I know some people may assume that teenagers maybe don’t care about anything other than themselves, and that they pay little attention to the world around them, or that they aren’t grateful for the lives that they lead, but if going to school has taught me anything, it’s that teenagers just feel disenfranchised. The problems are too big, and they as one person are too small to make any real difference, so they just stop thinking about the problems. I also feel that sometimes living life gets in the way of feeling the guilt. I’ll go to Wal-Mart and buy the most inexpensive coffee maker and clothes even though I know they are the result of cheap labor, because I have a University education to pay for. Should I feel guilty about wanting to be successful? Like I said, life gets in the way.