[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
So… you guys have made a lot of claims of what a masculine man should be… but there are literally no examples.
What are some examples of what a masculine man should be?
Arnold?
Hulk Hogan?
Khal Drogo?
James Bond?
[/quote]
I personally think we would do better to look to actual men for our examples as opposed t actors/fictional characters. Here’s a few in no particular order.
Alexander the Great, Marcus Aurelius, Abraham Lincoln, Elisha Kane, Lt. Audie Murphy, Winston Churchill, Geronimo, Jim Bowie, William Wallace, Andrew Carnegie, Nelson Mandela the list goes on.
I also find reading accounts of common working people, pioneers etc provides some good illustrations of masculine values in action. Loggers on the pacific coast, railroad men, frontiersmen and early steel workers all demonstrated some simple masculine virtues worth remembering.
[/quote]
How about MLK, Jr.? Ghandi? Muhammad Ali? What about people who stand up for what they believe in, even in the face of massive opposition?[/quote]
Great examples, I just stopped typing at a certain point.
I feel that most of the folks on my list stood up for what they believed in, even in the face of massive opposition as well. That was a big part of my selection criteria.[/quote]
Just to play devil’s advocate a little bit, how do we decide in absolute terms what is worth standing up for and what is not. For instance, I don’t think anyone would argue that Hitler didn’t stand up for what he believed in, yet that conviction in his beliefs and all that shit hardly made him masculine. Do those beliefs that people stand up for have to be an advancement of something that is good for humanity, and if so, how exactly is that defined?
I would argue that as long as what that person believes does not necessarily involve the death and destruction of their opponents, then everything is fine and in order. Hitler would have had to destroy a LOT of people to carry out his beliefs; MLK Jr, Ghandi, and so forth didn’t need to kill anyone in aggression to carry their message to others.
When I was a kid I hit the game-winning homerun in a baseball game that was, shockingly for that age, tied at 0-0 in the last inning with the playoffs on the line. My coach told the rest of the team that I was a hero because I had succeeded where everyone else had failed. That stuck with me for a long time, admittedly for all the wrong reasons for a long time too.
But I think that might be a good measuring stick to keep in mind. Heroic men are masculine, but by my coach’s definition heroism does not have to be relegated to the battlefield. I like your examples except for one thing: for the most part they were warriors who advanced their own cultures and the safety of their own people, but at the expense of other civilizations (Alexander and Aurelius, specifically).
I LOVE the inclusion of Abraham Lincoln in your list. People will argue forever about whether or not he was a good President (Push and I really went at it about this a couple years ago) but the bottom line is that he corrected a MAJOR injustice that many people opposed. Whatever his methods were is totally immaterial when considering that what those methods led to was the end of slavery as an institution. Many will criticize the fact that he sidestepped the Constitution in some ways in order to get it done, but like I told Push at the time, I’d just as soon wipe my ass with the Constitution if it made it easier to end slavery. So yeah, I think he is definitely a very masculine man in that sense.
In fact, I would argue that Lincoln is the most masculine of all of our Presidents. I’m sure many would argue that Teddy R. was, but probably for all the wrong reasons. And no, I have not seen “Lincoln” and I don’t plan on doing so anytime in the near future.[/quote]
I’m glad you brought this up. Just to clarify, I am not directly equating “masculinity” with “goodness”. I believe that a “good” man must possess certain qualities that I would describe as masculine in order to be effective in life. He must also possess certain qualities that I would describe as feminine. However, man can be my mortal enemy and a very “bad” man and still possess qualities that I would recognize as “masculine”. Hitler absolutely possessed masculine qualities such as incredible strength despite all the madness and evil. To deny this in the face of all he accomplished is just deliberate blindness in reaction to the disgust we feel about his purpose.
I have more to say on this subject, but I’m out of time for the moment.[/quote]
Well, I would argue that he didn’t possess any strength at all and that his “accomplishments” were made possible by the weaknesses and ignorance of those around him. Hitler was actually a coward and revealed as much the day after the Beer Hall Putsch when he fled from the oncoming police forces rather than stay and physically fight/risk his life for what he believed in.
He is a very interesting case study for psychoanalysts and psychohistorians in that many argue that he was not pathological at all and quite in control of his emotions and that sort of thing. According to this school of thought, Hitler was simply a pragmatist who used the latent anti-Semitism in Germany at the time to his own advantage, a Machiavellian manipulator of the worst kind.
I agree with the second school of thought, that he had many, many pathologies that had their roots in a very high-functioning but very serious form of pathological narcissistic personality disorder, amongst other things (necrophilia, coprophilia, etc.)
FUCK! If only the PM function on this site worked properly! I wrote a paper about this for a historiography class I took at Pepperdine while earning my history degree. It was basically a critique of the various ways people have tried to psychoanalyze Hitler and the inherent problems with trying to psychoanalyze a historical figure as polarizing as he was. It simply isn’t feasible to post it in here since the thing is about 22 double-spaced pages, plus the bibliography. I don’t have the disk that it’s on with me anyways and won’t be back at my home for a few more days.
One of the psychoanalysts that I thought got pretty close to the truth regarding him was Erich Fromm. Well, I shouldn’t he got close to the truth since we’ll never know what the truth of the matter really was, but he makes as convincing a case as anyone I researched. If this sort of thing interests you I HIGHLY recommend a book by Ron Rosenbaum called “Explaining Hitler”. Excellent reading.
But like I said, I would argue that his actions were motivated primarily by fear, pathology and rampant self-loathing, not any inner strengths of his. If he was as genuinely fanatical about his beliefs that the pathology crowd asserts (and this is by far the more populous crowd amongst historians and psychoanalysts) then he was driven by that pathology, not strengths.
This discussion is probably best suited for another thread, but I’m willing to carry it on with you here if you’re interested. If the mods ever get this PM thing figured out I will send you a copy of the paper when I am done visiting with my parents for the holidays. I think you’ll like it, and if I do say so myself, it is a very well-written paper. An easy way to put things is that some viewed Hitler as a sort of Michael Corleone figure (evil but in control of his faculties) while others viewed him as a sort of Joker-like figure (totally insane but in control enough to convince others around him that he was on top of his shit long enough to get them to go along with his maniacal plans).[/quote]
I agree that the “was Hitler strong?” discussion is probably better suited to another thread, and I would be interested in pursuing it (and reading your paper if the PM thing ever gets sorted out) at some point. For now, in the context of this thread, I am only using “strength” in reference to a person’s ability to take forceful and effective action for the purpose of achieving his own aims. This exists independent of the ethical clarity to choose aims that are just in the first place. Strength of will is not necessarily strength of character. However, I do agree that Hitler was primarily driven by his own fears and insecurities, which doesn’t fit into my view of “masculinity” at all, so now I am less sure of my position. Like you said, that’s probably best left for another discussion.
Regarding the other examples in my post and your statement that they were primarily warriors who advanced their own cultures at the expense of others’: I agree that this is true in the cases of Alexander and Aurelius. The whole ethics of conquest thing is a another discussion as well. However, I do believe it is a fundamentally masculine impulse. The desire to expand, to strike out to create opportunities for advancement and enterprise where they did not previously exist is a motivation that historically speaks louder to men than it does to women. Our world was born out of the constant brutal struggle of competing cultures and ideologies. We are in North America because our forefathers saw fit to strike out into this land in pursuit of certain opportunities at the terrible expense of the Native American population and ultimately, the land itself. It was not necessarily “good” per se, but I am glad to be here, and like I said I am not directly equating masculinity with goodness. Returning to the Greek and Roman conquerors, right or wrong, how many of the social, technological and cultural advances we enjoy today were born out of the primacy of Hellenic and Roman cultures and by extension the aggressive expansionism that allowed them to reach such ascendancy?
It is not my intention lay out a generic, androgynous set of traits or virtues that make a “good” person and then define any guy who possesses an abundance of those traits as “masculine”. A person can be a very good man without being particularly masculine. Ignoring the physical aspects for now, there are certain qualities which are, IMO, more inherently masculine while others are more inherently feminine and others still are neutral. For example courage, aggression and drive are more masculine virtues while nurturing, empathy and tolerance are more inherently feminine ones. Intelligence, temperance, and curiosity are neutral. To be a well-adjusted person, regardless of gender, everyone needs a blend of all these traits. Everyone exists somewhere along the continuum and will move back and forth throughout their life. A more masculine guy is simply someone whose personality is more heavily biased toward one end of the spectrum. It doesn’t mean that he’s a better, or more effective guy in every situation, and it certainly doesn’t necessarily make him a better human being. I know a very talented clinical counsellor, for instance, who is not particularly masculine (according to most of my criteria anyway), but who is an excellent and very effective person.
I strongly believe that men and women generally are and should be fundamentally different. I am highly resistant to the idea that we should move toward a future where it is harder and harder to distinguish between the two, both in terms of physicality and character. I feel like socially, culturally and even chemically this is the direction in which we are being propelled. I freely admit to having a somewhat “old school” sensibility as to how I choose to think and act as a man. As such I tend to gravitate towards/admire men who demonstrate similar traits. I also admit that the old school had its limitations which is why things are changing and men must change with them. However, I don’t that abandoning all the old ways wholesale is the answer either.