masculinity

what is it to be a man? to be masculine?

through the rise of the feminist movement, women have reevaluated what it is to be a woman. they ask, “what am i – not, mind you, what makes me different from a man, but what am i independent of him?” – and have come to their numerous conclusions. these conclusions affect the word variably, and most notably influence those who happen upon it whilst earning a real-world certification of edification. although, sadly, culture is more pervasive than genius, and i hardly know a girl who calls feminine as did beauvoir.

the conclusions however, still remain, there to be read by any searching soul. and i am one of those. and you who now read after i have finished writing, are perhaps as i will be in the future wondering as also i am now; what defines a man?

feminism is there, but where is her brother? what is his name? is it masculinism? or perhaps it simply is western philosophy as a whole? after all, men have dominated that field for years, and cultivated various theories which originated in the heads of men (and perhaps from the heads of women, equally, but without credit), but who can surely say so? i for one, hesitate to say so at all, nevermind surely. for although it may be argued that masculinity has seeped into philosophy by way of the very origins of western philosophy (the heads of so many men), a gap remains – the very subject of masculinity.

yes, masculine themes may be observed between the lines of philosophical works, but rarely have i encountered it as the very subject of the work itself. whereas the feminist philosophers labored over that very idea – because at the time, it needed a more accurate definition, which necessitated endless speculation into the nature of femininity. and it should not surprise one that such speculation occurred. it can be plainly seen that the oppressed often speculate optimistically about themselves, and often pessimistically about the oppressors.

i would speculate that this type of thinking originates from the posing of a most simple question, “why?” in oppressive circumstances. the oppressed ask themselves “what is my nature that my oppressors so despise me?” and through speculation, reason, and experimentation, reveal numerous hypothesis on the subject of both oppressor and self. the fruits of such thought are highly regarded amongst the liberated, the semi-liberated, those who feel liberated, and those who are not liberated but imagine themselves to be.

so is it any great wonder then, that masculinity has not been adequately examined? or rather that it has not been examined in the same way that femininity has? must we be oppressed before we discover ourselves? i think not, and on this subject i intend to devote a great deal of thought.