Masculinity: In the Eyes of the Beholder

In my eyes, and what I see as being brought forth by the media, masculinities are ways of being a man or showing characteristics that are seen to be “manly.”  Masculinity surrounds concepts viewed both on television, and appear in the ways that many individuals of the male gender act both in their appearance, speech, and the way men carry themselves.  The media has had, and still contributes, to conceptions of masculine behavior which is acceptable to society.  For example, from their tender toddler years, boys are placed with ideas of masculinities in TV shows or video games, and even by their fathers or other males in their lives.  Among my own family and friends, the males I know love to influence the younger boys into how they should act, what they should like, and even how they should dress.  I can easily recall many times when my male friends have commented on how boys younger than themselves are acting and what fits into their eyes of “masculinity.”  Among my surroundings, older men influence the younger generation whenever they see anything that is seen as being out of order.  For example, my friend mentioned that my little cousin takes too much interest in “feminine” topics rather than, in his words, “doing the things that all boys should be doing.”  What exactly was this “feminine” act, you ask?  It was the way that this young boy was speaking to my sisters and I; in my eyes he made comments that I thought were very cute such as compliments on my outfit or wanting to sit around with the girls in my family, but apparently they went against “masculinity.” Ha!  Perhaps the mannerisms have decreased nowadays, and maybe men in today’s generation have to also be talking a certain way in order to be considered “masculine.”  The thing that is especially unsettling to me is the fact that even literature has taken an idea of masculinity and contributes to what is acceptable of masculine behavior.   George Orwell’s 1984 also appeared to show what masculinity is in the mere concept of “Big Brother.”  Throughout Oceania, there are constant reminders in the posters all around the city saying that Big Brother is viewing all of their actions, subsequently adding into the idea that a masculine behavior or tendency is being a shield of some sort.  Big Brother promotes the fact that a man is watching over the city, and the notion of fearing men.  The title of Big Brother in itself makes the citizens think that Big Brother is a man, further contributing to the idea that the main guardians of the citizens are men.  Overall, the concept of masculinity and what does or does not fit into the category has been relevant in both the past, and in my belief will remain for the present and the future.  The uproar of TV shows, movies, video games, and masculine figures makes this just one of those topics that remains in what are the accepted views or behaviors of today’s society.

“What we call happiness in the strictest sense comes from the (preferably sudden) satisfaction of needs which have been dammed up to a high degree.” – Sigmund Freud

            Both Freud’s influence and input on the twentieth century raise a question of happiness.  In general, Freud adds some food for thought to any thinker asking the same question as many: “Is it possible to be happy?” 

Freud mentions civilization, in particular, as an expression of humans.  He makes a point that humans must always be controlled by things such as civilization, which brings discontent into the picture. In particular, Adam Curtis’ movie The Century of the Self, mentions that Freud was strong in his beliefs when it came to people and happiness.  Freud thought that man does not want to be civilized, therefore civilization brings discontent.  At the same time, he points out that discontent is necessary to survival; man must be discontent.  In Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents he argues that for humans, discontent emerges from three main sources: ‘the superior powers of nature, the feebleness of our own bodies and the inadequacy of regulations which adjust the mutual relationships of human beings in the family, the state and society’ (Freud 274).  The third “source”, in particular, provides that discontent is especially apparent in our relations with other people. For example, families may prevent members from maturing on their own because of thoughts or ideas on how family works; this goes on to allow discontent to occur. Civilization can be thrown back into the equation at this point as there are particular demands in civilization which may not be met by many around us, therefore leading many to discontent. According to Freud, the society inflicts frustration which in turn leads to discontent as well.   Society forces demands upon us which lead to restrictions, such as laws, taboos, and regulations.

Although this may slightly go off track, I found a specific aspect of Curtis’ The Century of the Self rather interesting: the taboo of women smoking.  Curtis’ documentary mentions this taboo which can be taken into account for discontent.  This showed Freud’s nephew Edward Bernay’s setting out an experiment on human minds involving the taboo of women smoking cigarettes.  This experiment included rich debutante’s who took part in an Easter parade; Bernay’s signaled them to light their “torches of freedom” and observed the reaction from the public.  As a result of this experiment, smoking among women became more common and made them powerful and independent.  This experiment shows to be a worthy example when looking at how civilization’s taboos can make one discontent and happy at the same time. More specifically, women may have been discontent and more private about the smoking taboo at first, but when it was seen as an action done by other powerful women, it appeared to be okay.

Freud also mentions the pleasure principle which describes the concept that people seek out pleasure (happiness) and avoid pain (discontent); we seek out things such as wealth and forget about the things that should truly be looked at in order to seek out happiness. In turn, the pleasurable things in life may as well make one discontent in the first place. Overall, Freud brings many factors into play when glancing at if it indeed is possible to be happy; these are viewed as answers to the questions one may be seeking out the answer to. The perceptions on happiness may as well change and be looked at differently, but Freud mentions particular aspects of discontent which must be commended.

"Justice that love gives is a surrender, justice that law gives is a punishment." - Mohandas Gandhi

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

In the reading for Plato’s Apology, Socrates happens to put forth, in what my mind, stands for quite the compelling argument.  Socrates is put in quite the situation where he must prove his own innocence. But there is a difference in how today’s society and how the Athenian society portrays Socrates charges “of engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger, and of teaching others these same things” (Plato, 23).  Allow me to put Socrates in today’s society where he would have no apparent label on his charges: innocent or guilty, rather Socrates would remain innocent until proven guilty. Now if I were to place Socrates back into the appropriate time of charges I must acknowledge the fact that Socrates is already charged as being guilty and is required to prove his innocence.  This along with contributing facts discussed anon force me to believe that these charges against Socrates are indeed illegitimate, and that this trial stands to be unjust.

Socrates approaches his defence as a matter of proving that he is innocent by speaking of the prejudices against himself, one these being that he wishes to make profit through his “teachings.”  Socrates goes on to develop his argument by stating “[He] is so busy in this pursuit that [he has] never had leisure to take any part worth mentioning in public matters or to look after [his] private affairs (28). Socrates continues this by stating he is “in great poverty as the result of [his] service to the god” (28), and carries on to prove his innocence by addressing the charges of “corrupting the youth” as being involuntary.  In this argument, Socrates points out that the law does not give Meletus the authority to “prosecute [him] for an error which is involuntary, but to take [him] aside privately and reprove and educate [him]” (31).  In Socrates’ defence, Meletus nor attempted to educate him and correct him, rather he resorted to prosecution and brought men for his sentence.  Furthermore, Socrates provides the fact that he has been directed by god to scrutinize men in each way possible, and if this was not the case then the families of the so called “corrupted youth” would have come forth in the trial to take their own revenge.   This is wrapped by Socrates in his words of defence,

“Those of them who have been already corrupted might perhaps have some reason for supporting me, but what reason can their relatives have who are grown up, and who are uncorrupted, except the reason of truth and justice— that they know very well that Meletus is lying, and that I am speaking the truth.” (41).

Now if I were to assess Socrates charges and bring them back to today’s society, the fact that he was condemned to death is a tragic event given the fact that many of his defences were legitimate in the twenty-first century.  This compels me to conclude with considering Socrates defence in the trial itself.  Socrates put forth an argument that allowed me to justly believe that his charges were illegitimate and that this was an unfair trial. 

"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas"

   2. Although the people of Omelas are fully aware of the child's suffering, those who remain in Omelas don't seem to feel any guilt. In fact, Le Guin reinforces this in her story.   Do you think it's possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others?  Please explain and provide examples.
 

    “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K Le Guin was a striking, and quite disturbing read for me.  I found myself trapped in a moral dilemma when I put myself in the shoes of a citizen of Omelas. Would I be the one walking away from the issue or would I ignore the mere fact that a child’s happiness is non existent, impossible perhaps, for the people of the city and remain in Omelas?  “One thing I know there is none of in Omelas is guilt” (Le Guin 2), but is this possible?  Would I let such a thing slip in my mind or would I constantly face a battle of guilt.  But of course, Le Guin reminds me that guilt is indeed non existent and that at as a citizen, I must repress any guilt I have inside of me. I would begin this battle of guilt by first seeing the child for myself.  I will probably want to cry, but in my utopia tears are a sign of weakness, and weakness is a characteristic utopian’s do not possess.  I may not feel guilt, but I would probably catch myself thinking about him constantly.  But how many days can I keep on thinking about the same child? In this utopia I do not feel any sadness.  This goes back to the question I am faced with: Do I think it is possible to constantly feel guilty about the misery of others?  In a perfect world, I want to say of course!  However, when I think about my own greediness I contradict myself.  I may feel guilty about the circumstances of an individual.  My eyes may even glaze over when watching a documentary on the Africans deprived of resources readily available to us in our society. But the real question I face is how long will I remember their situations and how I felt?  I won’t.  Rather, I will push away any guilt and slap a smile on my own face.  I will become greedy and remind myself that I am not in their shoes, and that one person helping won’t do much no matter how much I may believe that.  Yes, I may become committed to their aid, but it won’t last any longer than a year and even that’s pushing it. I would love to say that I am a selfless individual, but I simply know that I cannot feel guilty about the misery of others constantly.  In my eyes, it is not possible.  Now when I take myself out of the equation, I still have the same opinion about the majority of others.  It is not possible to constantly dwell upon the misery of others and always feel guilty.  Some may be able to go out of their way to help others, but as a whole many will have their own problems to deal with.  Humans have dilemma’s going on in their own lives; everyone is facing their own problems therefore, they are not able to always feel guilt for others.  This is exactly what appears to happen when there is an issue being faced by everyone.  Take Japan’s tsunami for example.  At one point this catastrophe was all over the news and people felt guilt.  Many donated money, and took time to watch the news and discuss the problems being faced by Japan as well.  What about Japan now?  How many times in the last month has Japan’s condition been broadcasted over the news?  Truth be told: feeling guilty about others misery is not as possible as we may want it to be. Yes, we may all want to be sympathetic and feeling guilt when we see others going through hell, but we will all somehow forget and move on with our own lives just as those who stay in Omelas.