The look of a masculine man differs depending on the viewer and has undergone significant change over time. Knights in shining armour were definitely more heavily clothed than most of the print ad models of today. However, I do think that there are masculine ideals that remain unchanged, and I find the most prominent of these to be that of a leader.
The idea of masculinity being equated with leadership seems to be so rooted that we can even see it in little boys who pretend to be superheroes, police men, cowboys, firefighters, race car drivers, soldiers or any role that involves some level of valor or strength. Men also generally seem to prefer action movies (or at least opposed to the majority of females). It is almost as if being a leader is paralleled with being a hero. This is evident in the case of marriages where men are usually depicted as being the ones to lead the family by having a good, stable job to provide for his wife and kids. It’s like the father figure is basically Superman saving Lois Lane (his wife) from the danger of finances and stress. The leader/hero figure is also evident in the workforce, where men appear to value big leadership positions (eg. Being a C.E.O.) or jobs where they can feel the extent of their contributions to humanity (eg. Being an architect or an engineer). Most print ads also do a pretty decent job of trying to show the physical embodiment of a hero—which is generally some buff guy with smoldering eyes, and either minimal clothing or a sharp business outfit. Perhaps it’s unrealistic, but it’s probably just an exaggeration of a man’s underlying desire for strength. And I don’t think most guys would disagree with me if I said that they’d want to prove that they "have what it takes" to succeed, whether to themselves, or the rest of the world (Eldredge).
Whether this leader-hero-man is in the form of little boy dressed up as Captain America or a grown man trying to work his way up the corporate hierarchy, a masculine man seems to always be striving for that sense of heroism, control or leadership. I’m not trying to objectify men by saying that all men SHOULD be in control. I’m just speaking from the observation that most men appear as if they want to be.
Whether this leader-hero-man is in the form of little boy dressed up as Captain America or a grown man trying to work his way up the corporate hierarchy, a masculine man seems to always be striving for that sense of heroism, control or leadership. I’m not trying to objectify men by saying that all men SHOULD be in control. I’m just speaking from the observation that most men appear as if they want to be.
In 1984, George Orwell portrays Winston Smith as a seriously repressed dude. He has a job he detests and he can’t have sex. I am NOT saying that I think that chastity and an unfulfilling job equal emasculation; not at all. Rather, the role of Big Brother and the Party as having complete control over all of Oceania, and the severe scrutiny of their citizens (Orwell 5), deprives Winston of feeling entitled to his own happiness at all. If Winston doesn’t have ownership of his wants and thoughts, how is he supposed to find any assertion in his masculinity? Winston’s frustrations towards Big Brother and the Party in wanting to destroy them (Orwell 19) begin to consume him so much that they eventually intertwine with his feelings for Julia. Therefore, having sex with her is not so much out of love as it is a form of revolt against Big Brother (Orwell 133). If anything, it is almost Winston's desperate outcry/attempt to regain his sense of control over his life. Winston exemplifies that too much repression can result in violence. Likewise, he embodies the struggle to establish a sense of identity when one is repressed; in this case, his masculinity. (This is where I would like to subtly congratulate Sigmund Freud for his work in this topic, even though Civilization and Its Discontents was painstaking to get through).
1984 is a perfect example of what happens when masculinity, perhaps even human nature in general for that matter, becomes so repressed that it results in explosion. (Again, thanks Sigmund Freud). It is a story of a man trying to re-establish his masculinity, and the extent that people would go to in order to find themselves when their identities are jeopardized.
Works cited:
Eldredge, John. Wild At Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. 2001. Print.
Orwell, George. 1984. Ontario: Penguin Books, 2008. Print.
Needless to say I was taken a back when I saw what you were discussing, at first, but I might add that many of your conclusions are surprisingly correct, but as a member of the lesser sex, I believe it is my duty to remove some misconceptions from your post. Please bear in mind, that my comments may sound brash, but they are merely meant to remind you of the inconsistencies that society has seemingly instilled in all those of humanities younger generations...
ReplyDeleteFirst, your self made definition of masculinity reads remarkably similar to that of the dictionary I just referenced that stated that masculinity is, "having the qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men." I tend to agree that this definition while apt, has been melded so severely by the media it is no longer truly accurate, more on this later...
Your observation that masculinity and leadership go seemingly hand in hand, is also, in my opinion flawed, but not flawed in the sense that you have observed this wrongly, but rather it is flawed because the media and popular culture has instilled it in our generation. I've always been a firm believer in the old world quality of chivalry, which to once again reference my dictionary, is defined as , "the medieval knightly system with its religious, moral, and social code", later on it is defined as, "the combination of qualities expected of an ideal knight, especially courage, honour, courtesy, justice, and a readiness to help the weak", and the last definition being, "courteous behaviour, especially that of a man toward women." To me, and probably few other men, chivalry acts as a guide in my everyday life, while I may enjoy being a leader, or dressing well, I also take great pride in opening a door for someone, or giving a courteous wave or nod to someone I know and yet do not have the time to speak with.
The idea that all men must either be either a glorified social whore of humanity with large oiled muscles and skimpy clothing is one in which we have allowed society to degrade our manhood and our masculine features to a point in which there is few ways to recover. Even the idealized view of men as sharply dressed businessmen walking to work through the busy, and bustling city streets, working a ten hour day, etc, is a cheap degradation of masculinity because the idealized view of the businessman also goes hand in hand with the sharply dressed womanizer, who shamelessly flaunts his man made (pardon the pun) power in a way to gain sexual preference from women. This is a truly sickening world, where the idealistic view of man, as being the despotic whore, or the tuxedo clad womanizer has become accepted.
Sadly, I believe that the issue that society faces is breaking free of the stereotypes that have been instilled among us by the media and popular culture. Your views are not controversial, rather they are not yours, they are the medias, and pop cultures. A media and pop culture, that I might add, has also severely degraded the standing of all women in society, as well.
Once again, I so not mean to insult your wonderfully crafted response, nor your well written response, rather I want to spark a conversation on what you truly believe is masculinity or femininity, not what you think will be accepted because it is socially acceptable to say so. In your aptly coined, "world of mature thought", you need not be afraid of being rejected because your thoughts may be controversial or cut against societies grain. Stand firm, and shout your convictions from the rooftops, never let your fear of rejection stop you from keeping your dignity and your convictions firm.
Sincerely,
Your faithful reader,
~Surrey's last poet...
I'm quite sorry for having to doubly comment on your post in quick succession without receiving any reply, but this was warranted because your blog does not allow replies of more than 4000 characters...
ReplyDeleteHere is what the end of my comment should have read:
I leave you with an excerpt from William Shakespeare's play, Henry the Fifth, which I feel manifests quite well the old worldly ways of masculinity.
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Henry the Fifth, Act IV, Scene III.
Once again,
Sincerely,
Your faithful reader,
~Surrey's last poet...
Abby, this is an excellent response! I am particularly impressed by the connections you make between issue of gender in Orwell's novel and some of the Freudian concepts we have dealt with throughout the semester. Your cultural examples are excellent, as well. Actually, as gender theory is one of my areas of research, I think you may have a better grasp on these issues than 'Surrey's last poet'. ;)
ReplyDelete