Sunday, May 31, 2009

The man in me

I look around me from time to time. I mean, I look around in the abstract sense, obviously I look around everyday, when I cross the street, etc. It has been particularly interesting to look around in these months where I have been idle and dealing with my less-than-stellar circumstances. I have felt a certain level of impotence as a result of unemployment and being cash poor. It has dented my self-confidence and made me question my ambitions. I find that, as I think about what “A Man” should look like, what he should possess, and how he should behave, I realize that I in fact have very few of the “masculine” qualities. As I think about it, that goes for traditional as well as modern.

I’m not a provider, a procreator or a fighter, I don’t have a car, a job, a house, etc. This makes me insecure, because I see many men who have these things. I had a car once, and the experience was kind of a disaster; I don’t even really care for driving. The point being, I clearly don’t fit the mould, the GQ stereotype of what a Man should be. But fine, I survive right? My masculinity is not really in question, at least not with people who count. So why do I care?

Because when-ever I do venture into abstract thought, I realize how alienated I am from the world; from the modern concept of what I am supposed to be. I’m not that competitive, relatively of course, and I prefer quiet reflection over fast development. This begs, in my mind, the question: where is the problem? Is it with me or with the definition of masculinity? Well, I’m not perfect, far from it. But I’ve also never met anyone who fits the GQ stereotype, not really. I’ve met chumps who try hard to be that way, but they are totally transparent. So is the definition of masculinity even an attainable thing? Clearly, if I’ve never met a Mr GQ, then there must be a whole host of insecure men in this world, because it means the perfect man is few and far between.

I’ve always been insecure about the car thing, particularly in my relationships with women. In America, the car is such a defining object, and traditional roles would dictate that I should be mobile, and behind the wheel, but 99% of the time, I have people drive me around. In my relationships, the women have always driven me around. The car, amongst men, represents status, and I don’t have one, so I feel, stupidly perhaps, that I am always starting with a negative, that even when a woman is attracted to me, and clearly doesn’t mind that I have no car, I still fear losing her to some dude with wheels. Madness!

Well, I digress. My argument is that the definition of masculinity is in fact the problem, and not me. In reality, insecurities aside, I do fine. I don’t fit the mould, but I still get jobs, respect, love and attention. The next question is: why is it like this? Why do men, none of us being Mr GQ, and thus perpetual failures, accept this condition? Perhaps it is the product of a competitive, marked based economy: in order to expand the market, and get people, in this case men, to invest in the product or image you are peddling, you need to offer something new on a regular basis. People need to be convinced the product is necessary for continued enjoyment of life (hence Adorno’s pleasure industry). If we don’t feel like we need it, we would not, and do not, buy the damn thing. This goes for image as much as for ideology or material. Ard also mentioned that American culture defines itself through productivity and ‘being busy’, thus idle time is problematic, anti-social and counter intuitive.

So, here I am, with my natural state of being, preferences and routines, all of which are being defined by the fact that I somehow feel inadequate. I am driven forward by this fear, by the fact that people are buying into this folly, and if I don’t do so myself, I risk being left behind. And ye gads, we cannot have that! So the unattainable image is in fact the perfect market mechanism. We men are like a bunch of starved and crazed donkeys chasing after that magically floating carrot that is just in front of us, yet always just out of reach. But because we are hungry, we must give chase.

No comments: