|
Masculinity in the U.S. and the World (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Negative Influences of Masculine Image:
- Individualism (Before you jump down my neck, I am talking about having few male friends, breaking laws, etc.)
- Violence (Lower Life Expectency is a good proof)
- High Stress
- Most importantly: Fear
My paper will focus mainly on how fear drives males in how the consume, act, basically how they live. There is a quote from Marilyn Manson in Bowling For Columbine
"You're watching television, you're watching the news, you're being pumped full of fear, there's floods, there's AIDS, there's murder, cut to commercial, buy the Acura, buy the Colgate, if you have bad breath they're not going to talk to you, if you have pimples, the girl's not going to you, and it's just this campaign of fear, and consumption, and that's what I think it's all based on, the whole idea of 'keep everyone afraid, and they'll consume." |
Perhaps you'd be willing to share the body of evidence from which you've drawn the conclusion that individualism causes crime. I would agree that it tends to cause people to have fewer friends, however I'm unconvinced that this can properly be categorized as a "harm." As someone who has "been there, done that" so to speak, it is my experience that having a small number of close friends is overwhelmingly more satisfying than having a large group of friends who you don't really know that well.
I also have to question the claim that violence is a result of masculine imagery rather than neurochemical/biological traits typically exhibited by males. In any case, I don't see how you can blame the media, given that men around the world were typically far more violent in periods of history where exposure to such media was very limited or nonexistent.
I'm also curious as to your basis for establishing a connection between masculine imagery and high stress. It seems rather counter-intuitive given that women consistently report far higher degrees of stress than men. Even if masculine imagery does cause stress, how can we categorize it as causing "too much" stress as opposed to other stressors? I would assume that you would agree, after all, that some degree of stress is healthy insofar as it motivates us to better ourselves and our surroundings.
Additionally, I'm not sure of the particular relevance of the "campaign of fear" described in your quotation above to the issue of masculinity. It seems to me that women have just as much to fear from floods, AIDS, or murder, and it also appears to me that there are far more products targeted to women than to men which convey messages similar to those described. So while I cannot disagree that the phenomenon exists, I simply don't see any relationship with masculine imagery.
| quote: | | Amazing commentary in my opinion. As Arbiter pointed out, however, you can ignore the media, filter out what is being fed to you. This is fine, but this does nothing to combat the fact that in your most fragile years before you know any better images of masculinity are absorbed by your preceptions of television and every day living, and they are embedded in your subconcious, making them far harder to recognize as social constructions (as with you filtering out images currently). You believe these to be your own beliefs, your own values, but really they are those of societies. Your concept of masculinity although may not exactly parrallel our societie's construct of masculinity, it is based around this construct. This process is natural of course, as the transmission of social constructs and norms is what separates us from monkeys. To me, this transmission (masculinity in your subconcious) is obvious, and if this true then you examine the masculine image our society portrays and critique it to decide wether or not it is hurting the male population. |
As someone who has significant experience proselytizing religious individuals to atheism, I'm very familiar with the strength with which many people cling to those beliefs imparted to them during their developmental years. And you're correct, of course, that my conception of masculinity is indeed based upon society's. That is because the process by which I came to my conception of masculinity began with a critical examination of my pre-existing beliefs and biases. I analyzed each trait which I had previously associated with masculinity and attempted to rationally justify its inclusion. Many traits were very justifiable based on utilitarian principles. Others were not justifiable by any rational means, and as a result I no longer possess those beliefs and opinions. In some cases, new traits were included when they were pointed to logically by the course of the inquiry. And it is precisely by means of this process that my conception of masculinity ceased to be society's and became simply "mine." It was my rational and cognitive faculties which made the determination to retain, add, or remove attributes and behaviors from this conception of masculinity, and therefore the resulting product is inherently personal.
But I do have one last question. Suppose we are in the process of making the decision of whether or not "[the masculine image] is hurting the male population." What criteria must be true in order for us to make the determination that it is indeed hurting the male population? We must recognize, of course, that all men are not simply carbon copies of one another, but individuals with different opinions, beliefs, traits, abilities, and behaviors. As a result, we must also consider the possibility that images which "hurt" one man may "help" another man. At what point can the "male population" be said to be "hurt" by these images? Is it when greater than 50% of the population are adversely affected? If so, how can this be determined without an exhaustive detailed investigation of at least enough individuals to establish a majority? Or need only one person be harmed in order for these images to be hurting the male population? If so, we must consider the possibility that all, or almost all images will hurt the male population. On the other hand, if every single male must be harmed in order for our hypothesis to be validated, then we need only find a single man who is not harmed by masculine image in order to refute our hypothesis. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
...it is my experience that having a small number of close friends is overwhelmingly more satisfying than having a large group of friends who you don't really know that well. |
If you really believe that, then why do you post in COR?
In general I find your sentiments very noble and justified, however, I have a problem with your determination to seperate emotions from reasoning: Having emotions, and exercising them at a regular basis/being "in touch" with them, gives you an advantage in many situations where you are interacting with another human being.
Other people let their emotions decide many of their actions, including their reactions to your actions. So if you have little understanding of how feelings and actions interact, because you have supressed this link in yourself for ages, you cannot predict others responses to your actions as well as if you had this understanding. You're not getting efficient communication when dealing with "normal" people. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
If you really believe that, then why do you post in COR? |
I post in the COR because it's sometimes amusing. I have no problem with the people there, but I wouldn't call them friends. And I can't say there are too many of them that I'd be interested in actually meeting or spending time with.
| quote: | In general I find your sentiments very noble and justified, however, I have a problem with your determination to seperate emotions from reasoning: Having emotions, and exercising them at a regular basis/being "in touch" with them, gives you an advantage in many situations where you are interacting with another human being.
Other people let their emotions decide many of their actions, including their reactions to your actions. So if you have little understanding of how feelings and actions interact, because you have supressed this link in yourself for ages, you cannot predict others responses to your actions as well as if you had this understanding. You're not getting efficient communication when dealing with "normal" people. |
It is my experience (from much earlier in my life) that I was never similar enough to most other people emotionally to predict or understand other people's emotional behaviors to begin with. Although this is a personal deficiency I've made attempts to overcome, I've been largely unsuccessful in my attempts to consistently understand irrational human behavior. It has been a problem for me in the past and will continue to be a problem in the future. However, because of my "unusual" personality I do not believe that the experience of reasoning emotionally will provide any significant help.
Instead, I've taken the approach of attempting to identify patterns in the emotional behavior of other people. It is a very challenging undertaking since there exists no reliable way to "measure" emotions or control for other variables. Further complicating the issue is that I tend to gravitate towards individuals who themselves are unusual in a variety of ways. Many of these individuals exhibit patterns of behavior that do not correlate with more general observations that I've made.
For the most part, I've tried to compensate for my lack of "empathy" or understading of other people's emotions by simply explaining my situation to the people I spend time with and asking for them to do their best to communicate with me in literal and unambiguous ways rather than assuming that I will be able to predict or understand their emotional state. Although this does place somewhat of a burden upon them, I've found that most people are receptive to this request and in fact that some people actually appreciate the fact that I'm genuinely interested in a deeper understanding how they think and feel.
Obviously, good and honest communication is key to my relationships with other individuals, even more so than it is between two typical individuals. Because I lack the intuitive understanding of their emotional states and also do not particularly understand many aspects of social ritual, it is necessary to compensate with substantial one-on-one conversation to "fill in the gaps" so to speak. It is of course a work in progress, but I'm fairly satisfied with the progress I've made. It is my hope that I will eventually reach a point at which I can operate with an average or above-average understanding of other people's emotional behavior while maintaining my seperation of emotion and rationality. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
That is corred, I don't need anyone else. Human social relationships are highly desirable in that they open up a large amount of opportunities for satisfying experiences. However if I were to remove myself from my social relationships, there would be no particularly catastrophic consequences. Therefore, it would be appropriate to categorize it as a "want" rather than a "need." |
That's true, you can be completely independent, but rationally, that's not a desirable behaviour.
First because we're limited by our senses, an this fact alone makes independent living undesirable. The more people you have around you, the more different approaches to reality you can analyse through either conversation or mere observation and you'd never have the chance of being pointed out wrong by someone, which can give a false sensation of being correct for absence of known flaws. Besides, no matter how logical someone's action are, they end up being quite useless in the world we live for all we have is - sorry for the cliche - a physical and a psychological world. A physical world for blatantly obvious reasons, and a psychological world because no human being is able to comprehend/absorb more than his body is able to experience so we live in a world full of flaws that happen out of ignorance. |
|
|
| kush paintings |
These discussions always tend to get cloudy and unfocused, so I will try to make my points clear and as concise as possible.
| quote: | | I would agree that [individualism] tends to cause people to have fewer friends, however I'm unconvinced that this can properly be categorized as a "harm." |
Alienation is the harm here. Men are alienated from other men because of the individualism, in addition to homophobia. Alienation isn't good because it prevents males from forming deep, emotional bonds with other males. Is it any wonder why you (and I) have found male friendships unfulfilling?
Also, alienation causes those who are alienated too feel as outsiders of society. Men do worse than women in school, men have higher rates of suicide, and men are more likely to be involved in crime. The roots of these problems is a disconnection with society.
| quote: | | In any case, I don't see how you can blame the media, given that men around the world were typically far more violent in periods of history where exposure to such media was very limited or nonexistent. |
My arguement is not examining the media, but rather the social construct of masculinity. In today's society, however, the media is constantly constructing new symbols, while erasing old ones, and therefore must be examined as it is responsible for the masculine image in society. In societies of old, there were masculine images just as there are today. These images were brought upon in myths and traditions rather than the media. These myths and traditions gave justification for violence, so as long as the male was killing what was believed to be a threat.
| quote: | | It seems rather counter-intuitive given that women consistently report far higher degrees of stress than men. |
That's just it, though. The masculine image teaches men to internalize emotions, and if you have ever been to a psychologist or taken a psychology course (as I'm sure you have) then you know this only multiplies the amount of stress.
| quote: | | Additionally, I'm not sure of the particular relevance of the "campaign of fear" described in your quotation above to the issue of masculinity. |
The "campaign of fear" is relevant, as it is fear that drives the masculine image. The image of the "true" male is something that can never truly be achieved, just as with the "true" female image. I have this quote which I found.
"I have never met a man who didn’t feel uneasy about masculinity, who didn’t feel that in some way he wasn’t living up to what it meant to be a man. There’s a reason for that: Masculinity is a fraud; it’s a trap. None of us is man enough." |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| @Arbiter: Ok, I see your point, and agree that for someone in your position, there's no gain from letting emotions and reasons intermingle. But, as you got my point and didn't contest it, you must also realize that your philosophy cannot be said to benefit people in general, as they do not share your natural "handicap", and therefore it's not commendable for you to try to push it on to them. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Arbiter, I guarantee that if you live in solitude or disassociation from other ppl you will realize you have an emotional "need" and not a "want." |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Alienation is the harm here. Men are alienated from other men because of the individualism, in addition to homophobia. Alienation isn't good because it prevents males from forming deep, emotional bonds with other males. Is it any wonder why you (and I) have found male friendships unfulfilling?
Also, alienation causes those who are alienated too feel as outsiders of society. Men do worse than women in school, men have higher rates of suicide, and men are more likely to be involved in crime. The roots of these problems is a disconnection with society. |
It seems to me that the deduction that alienation follows from individualism is an example of the complex cause fallacy. Individualism only results in alienation combined with the presence of one of two other factors:
- An otherwise homogeneous group of individuals, or
- the a priori assumption that what is different is to be viewed with contempt and/or suspicion.
In both cases, the other cause seems to me to be the one which is genuinely troubling. A homogeneous body of male individuals would indicate to me a troubling lack of individual thought. In the cases where I've found male friendships unfulfilling, it seems to me that it was precisely their lack of individuality which was problematic. It is obvious, I would hope, that automatic negative reactions to that which is different or unique is a behavior that is very unhealthy.
| quote: | | That's just it, though. The masculine image teaches men to internalize emotions, and if you have ever been to a psychologist or taken a psychology course (as I'm sure you have) then you know this only multiplies the amount of stress. |
But what evidence do you have to support the belief that men do in fact have the degree of stress you suppose and are simply misreporting it? Although it may be true that men are likely to avoid admitting to high levels of stress, it seems to be a stacking the deck fallacy to assume that those stress levels are high unless you have some reliable alternate methodology to determine the true stress level of an individual.
| quote: | | The "campaign of fear" is relevant, as it is fear that drives the masculine image. The image of the "true" male is something that can never truly be achieved, just as with the "true" female image. I have this quote which I found. |
Upon further consideration, it seems to me that the problem is not necessarily the content of masculine or feminine imagery portrayed by the media, but the widespread notion that these images are somehow objective and "correct." My conception of masculinity as I've described above is something I consider to be a personal opinion - not a standard to which I expect everyone to adhere.
It seems to me that if people simply recognized the idea of the "ideal" man or woman as an [/i]opinion[/i], which is what it is, then people would feel more free to create their own opinions and own judgments about what they in particular choose to value. Accordingly, it seems there would also be less pressure to conform to the so-called ideal if everyone realized that it was simply a personal opinion which varied from person to person.
It is my opinion, therefore, that this is an issue that needs to be addressed at the educational level, preferably as early as possible in a child's development. There needs to be a stronger academic distinguishment between facts and opinions, and people need a greater understanding of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Not only would this help solve the widespread misconception of a agreed-upon "ideal," but it would also encourage people to form their own opinions and think more individualistically.
| quote: | | "I have never met a man who didn’t feel uneasy about masculinity, who didn’t feel that in some way he wasn’t living up to what it meant to be a man. There’s a reason for that: Masculinity is a fraud; it’s a trap. None of us is man enough." |
Well you'll have to introduce me, then. :)
But in seriousness, I agree that the idea of an objective masculinity is inherently a fraud. It is no more comprehensible than the idea of a "best color."
I'd also like to restate my earlier question which you seem to have neglected to answer:
| quote: | | But I do have one last question. Suppose we are in the process of making the decision of whether or not "[the masculine image] is hurting the male population." What criteria must be true in order for us to make the determination that it is indeed hurting the male population? We must recognize, of course, that all men are not simply carbon copies of one another, but individuals with different opinions, beliefs, traits, abilities, and behaviors. As a result, we must also consider the possibility that images which "hurt" one man may "help" another man. At what point can the "male population" be said to be "hurt" by these images? Is it when greater than 50% of the population are adversely affected? If so, how can this be determined without an exhaustive detailed investigation of at least enough individuals to establish a majority? Or need only one person be harmed in order for these images to be hurting the male population? If so, we must consider the possibility that all, or almost all images will hurt the male population. On the other hand, if every single male must be harmed in order for our hypothesis to be validated, then we need only find a single man who is not harmed by masculine image in order to refute our hypothesis. |
I don't mean for it to sound too condescending, so I apologize if it sounds that way. But it seems to me to get to the heart of the issue of whether or not masculine imagery can be looked at as a phenomenon affecting the "male population" or only men individually, which was the original topic of our exchange. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
@Arbiter: Ok, I see your point, and agree that for someone in your position, there's no gain from letting emotions and reasons intermingle. But, as you got my point and didn't contest it, you must also realize that your philosophy cannot be said to benefit people in general, as they do not share your natural "handicap", and therefore it's not commendable for you to try to push it on to them. |
For the most part, I agree, but ultimately, that will depend on my success in adapting myself to understand other people's emotional behavior. If that disadvantage can be negated by other means, then my philosophy would not be problematic even for individuals without my handicap.
As a general rule, however, the only aspect of my philosophy which I strongly advocate that others follow is to create their own philosophy, rather than just finding one they can live with and accepting it. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Arbiter, I guarantee that if you live in solitude or disassociation from other ppl you will realize you have an emotional "need" and not a "want." |
An interesting hypothesis, but unless you can provide some evidence to support your position other than "try it and see," you'll have to understand that I can't take it any more seriously than the religious fanatic who tells me I'll have to answer to God when I die and I'll find out he was right when I'm dead. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| Arbiter having read your responce to the worst thing you've done thread, I recon all that stuff about not caring about what people think or needing them or whatever is pretty weak. Why would you care what happened to that girl if you were only bounded by reason? You were exposing yourself to risk by doing it. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
Arbiter having read your responce to the worst thing you've done thread, I recon all that stuff about not caring about what people think or needing them or whatever is pretty weak. Why would you care what happened to that girl if you were only bounded by reason? You were exposing yourself to risk by doing it. |
I was about to say the same thing...... except I was too sleepy and couldn't formulate anything more complex than "cor blimey" :p
However, more than what Dervish said, if you're independent, you're not changed by someone's actions, as you do not depend on this person's attitude or behaviour. Therefore, doing something for/to her would be a sample of dependent behaviour, otherwise he would've ignored and moved on. Not to mention that, such strong bias toward (or against) that jury is a form of dependence as well.
Right? |
|
|
|
|
