You may think me alarmist, but demagogues have destroyed Republics many times. Plato referred to democracies falling to tyranny over 2,000 years ago. The Gracchi brothers damaged the Roman republic allowing Julius Caesar to destroy it. The French revolution was dominated by demagogues. The 20th century saw the fall of so many republics to demagoguery that a world war became inevitable.
The demagogue will always exist. It will be possible to prey on our base nature. We are human.
But, in order for a demagogue to gain power, there must be capitulation. Without Hindenburg's assent, the Reichstag Fire Decree does not get issued. Without a telegram from King Victor Emmanuel III, Mussolini does not become prime minister. At the time, those involved may have thought they had no alternative. Throughout history demagogues have benefited from chaos, violence, and unrest. In some cases, they incited the events, but in other cases they simply rode the wave of unrest to power.
Now, it is 2020 and again a government has capitulated. The Executive Branch of the United States government has claimed that the Legislative branch has no authority. The Legislative Branch has agreed. They have given up their power. They had their reasons, although I can not fathom them.
Many will say, that this is just a "blip". That the government of the United States will cycle and normalcy will return. I do not believe that. I believe that precedent has been set. The fall may not occur tomorrow, but it will come.
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Chasing rainbows
It does not claim the title "Emerald", but green stretches for hundreds of kilometers.
It is Autumn here. I can't say if the rain differs by season. Over the last few days it has come and gone quickly. The train I am on has passed several rainbows this morning. I don't get up to photograph them.
This country has 2 monarchs. Its largest cities named after Europeans, the rest of the country named in Maori. This land like my own, saw much bloodshed. Unlike my own, it sought redemption.
Branches slither by the window reminding me that the mind applies patterns to things unfamiliar.
The huge chunks of concrete atop cars reminding me that the ground moves here.
People speak of the land I left behind. I wish they would stop. No good news comes from that land.
The deer are herded here. Sending venison to places where people eat such things.
A man waves as the train passes by. The sheep either panic or ignore our passing.
The green goes on and on.
Friday, April 27, 2018
Masculinity (Safe Spaces: Part 2)
As a discussion went on yesterday, I realized that the concept of masculinity seems to be a topic of conversation much more often than I would expect. I apologize if the following seems tedious, but as anyone that has read a treatise knows, the first thing we must do is define our terms.
Let us start with the easy part: "male" and "female". These are sexes. They have very little to do with gender. Every cell created by a male human has a marker indicating it is male. This simple definition is used for clarity and to cover biological variations such as Klinefelter syndrome.
Gender, on the other hand, is not a dichotomy. The English language in its current state implies this which sometimes makes discussion difficult. I can not change the language single-handedly and so I will use the terms I have. I personally use the terms "man" and "woman" as honorifics. They are statements not only of gender but for a host of other things.
"Masculinity" and "femininity" are culturally variant allowing them to form a bridge between the binary sex and the culturally variance found in gender discussions. I will focus on masculinity. The fact that traits can be considered both masculine and feminine based on perspective is just a further indicator of their fluidity.
Merriam-Webster lists several definitions for "masculine"1:
A human is male. Whether or not that person has masculine attributes, is variant both to the individual and over time. Very few of us would describe an infant as masculine, however, some people do to use the, currently, gender-aligned term "handsome" to describe infant males. I consider this simply a cultural error and a desire to begin gender delineation far too early. We would not describe an adult male having similar features as "handsome". I also believe that the term "beautiful" should have far less gender bias associated with it. However, heaping praise on infants in any form is a positive thing in my opinion, and I would never discourage it.
What do we mean in 2018 in the United States when we refer to "having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man"? Humans have been applying allegories and analogies to descriptions of masculinity and femininity throughout our history. What do the historical views have in common? How have our views changed over time?
A wise man once told me of a vision he had. He found himself before his goddess and god. He looked upon the goddess with the devotion due her station. He looked upon the god and snarled. The masculinity embodied by this being carried with it all the pain males had caused. He saw this being as an enemy, a force that only destroys. He then looked upon the pair. The goddess leaned against the god, not because she had to, but because she chose to. The both smiled upon him. They both knew that he was confused and angry. Many years and events had brought this wise man to false conclusions. The goddess and god would be patient as he came to realize that both the masculine and feminine must exist and that neither was inherently destructive.
As I have mentioned previously, I do not discuss the "divine". I will, however, discuss the physical manifestations of male and female and how they seem linked to our concepts of masculine and feminine. Let us start with the broad concept that "assertiveness" is considered a masculine attribute. In the case of sexual organs, the male asserts (generally). This should not be confused with aggressiveness. Aggressiveness is not a masculine attribute, it is a foolish one.
Let us go further and note that masculinity and femininity discussed outside of a community are of little use. It is within the confines of our interactions that we discuss these terms. Our concepts of masculinity and femininity are a product of and component of our culture. Given this context, I put forth that "straight-forwardness" is another attribute we consider masculine. Different speech patterns being considered masculine as well as the references in Definition 3 above allude to this. A masculine person conveys information succinctly and clearly. A masculine statement can be parsed easily. I would further state that masculinity is not duplicitous.
Related to "straight-forwardness" is the quality of "confidence". A masculine body posture is open. It is not timid or defensive, nor is anything concealed. A masculine individual meets others as an equal. This is a far cry from "cocky" which is simply a cheap presentation of confidence. Stemming from or allowing for "confidence" is "courage". The confident individual must have courage and the courageous individual will develop confidence. One could say "fearlessness" was a masculine attribute, but I think that is overreaching. Masculinity is not a rarely attainable state or the description of a rare individual.
And finally, "strength" is considered a masculine attribute in many forms. Physical strength is the simplest reference. However, physical strength is of little import in the culture I live in. The strength most often associated with masculinity is that of stability. The masculine can be a reliable support. We often use analogies such as a pillar or an oak or the mythical Atlas. "Strength of conviction" can either be considered simply "strength" or a combination of "strength" and some of the other attributes.
Closely related to strength, the term "unyielding" would also be a masculine attribute. I feel that the term "unyielding" provides us a far better masculine adjective for discussion. We are not talking about an idealized human being. Someone who only has masculine traits will be difficult compromise with. The purely cognitive traits of "reasonable" and "logical" benefit all, they are not masculine by nature.
I will refrain from adding "dominant" to the list. I have my own biases as all humans do. I believe that the traits above lead to dominance. I also believe that these qualities can inspire others to follow. However, the qualities necessary for leadership are not distinctly masculine.
Masculinity has been tied to conflict throughout history. The combination of the traits above can easily lead to conflict and conflict often illuminates traits. The masculine attributes above can lead to heroic acts. However, we honor the warrior not the war. The traits existed before the conflict. The attribute may not have been as apparent, but it was there.
I have kept this list short. Many try to analyze all attributes and place them within the false dichotomy of masculine and feminine. There are far more attributes that speak to our humanity rather than our masculinity. I feel that the false dichotomy has aided some in claiming that many attributes that they consider positive are masculine and further that attributes they do not value are considered negative. If the false dichotomy is applied to those things noted above, it would appear that "weakness" would be a feminine trait. Such a supposition is flawed at best and arises from false pretenses and at worst is a malicious attempt to claim that masculinity in some way is more positive than femininity. Without both masculine and feminine attributes, a human being will not be successful.
I would also like to note that seemingly linked traits are not necessary masculine. "Strong" and "hard" are separate concepts when describing materials and humans. "Hard" objects and "hard" individuals are often brittle.
I do not expect this to become the defacto description of masculinity. I am simply a male human observer that has seen a term misused often. The concept of masculinity has changed and will continue to change based on the culture in which it is being used.
References:
Let us start with the easy part: "male" and "female". These are sexes. They have very little to do with gender. Every cell created by a male human has a marker indicating it is male. This simple definition is used for clarity and to cover biological variations such as Klinefelter syndrome.
Gender, on the other hand, is not a dichotomy. The English language in its current state implies this which sometimes makes discussion difficult. I can not change the language single-handedly and so I will use the terms I have. I personally use the terms "man" and "woman" as honorifics. They are statements not only of gender but for a host of other things.
"Masculinity" and "femininity" are culturally variant allowing them to form a bridge between the binary sex and the culturally variance found in gender discussions. I will focus on masculinity. The fact that traits can be considered both masculine and feminine based on perspective is just a further indicator of their fluidity.
Merriam-Webster lists several definitions for "masculine"1:
- a: male - masculine members of the choir
b: having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man - a masculine voice - of, relating to, or constituting the gender that ordinarily includes most words or grammatical forms referring to males - masculine nouns
- a: having or occurring in a stressed final syllable - masculine rhyme
b: having the final chord occurring on a strong beat - masculine cadence
A human is male. Whether or not that person has masculine attributes, is variant both to the individual and over time. Very few of us would describe an infant as masculine, however, some people do to use the, currently, gender-aligned term "handsome" to describe infant males. I consider this simply a cultural error and a desire to begin gender delineation far too early. We would not describe an adult male having similar features as "handsome". I also believe that the term "beautiful" should have far less gender bias associated with it. However, heaping praise on infants in any form is a positive thing in my opinion, and I would never discourage it.
What do we mean in 2018 in the United States when we refer to "having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man"? Humans have been applying allegories and analogies to descriptions of masculinity and femininity throughout our history. What do the historical views have in common? How have our views changed over time?
A wise man once told me of a vision he had. He found himself before his goddess and god. He looked upon the goddess with the devotion due her station. He looked upon the god and snarled. The masculinity embodied by this being carried with it all the pain males had caused. He saw this being as an enemy, a force that only destroys. He then looked upon the pair. The goddess leaned against the god, not because she had to, but because she chose to. The both smiled upon him. They both knew that he was confused and angry. Many years and events had brought this wise man to false conclusions. The goddess and god would be patient as he came to realize that both the masculine and feminine must exist and that neither was inherently destructive.
As I have mentioned previously, I do not discuss the "divine". I will, however, discuss the physical manifestations of male and female and how they seem linked to our concepts of masculine and feminine. Let us start with the broad concept that "assertiveness" is considered a masculine attribute. In the case of sexual organs, the male asserts (generally). This should not be confused with aggressiveness. Aggressiveness is not a masculine attribute, it is a foolish one.
Let us go further and note that masculinity and femininity discussed outside of a community are of little use. It is within the confines of our interactions that we discuss these terms. Our concepts of masculinity and femininity are a product of and component of our culture. Given this context, I put forth that "straight-forwardness" is another attribute we consider masculine. Different speech patterns being considered masculine as well as the references in Definition 3 above allude to this. A masculine person conveys information succinctly and clearly. A masculine statement can be parsed easily. I would further state that masculinity is not duplicitous.
Related to "straight-forwardness" is the quality of "confidence". A masculine body posture is open. It is not timid or defensive, nor is anything concealed. A masculine individual meets others as an equal. This is a far cry from "cocky" which is simply a cheap presentation of confidence. Stemming from or allowing for "confidence" is "courage". The confident individual must have courage and the courageous individual will develop confidence. One could say "fearlessness" was a masculine attribute, but I think that is overreaching. Masculinity is not a rarely attainable state or the description of a rare individual.
And finally, "strength" is considered a masculine attribute in many forms. Physical strength is the simplest reference. However, physical strength is of little import in the culture I live in. The strength most often associated with masculinity is that of stability. The masculine can be a reliable support. We often use analogies such as a pillar or an oak or the mythical Atlas. "Strength of conviction" can either be considered simply "strength" or a combination of "strength" and some of the other attributes.
Closely related to strength, the term "unyielding" would also be a masculine attribute. I feel that the term "unyielding" provides us a far better masculine adjective for discussion. We are not talking about an idealized human being. Someone who only has masculine traits will be difficult compromise with. The purely cognitive traits of "reasonable" and "logical" benefit all, they are not masculine by nature.
I will refrain from adding "dominant" to the list. I have my own biases as all humans do. I believe that the traits above lead to dominance. I also believe that these qualities can inspire others to follow. However, the qualities necessary for leadership are not distinctly masculine.
Masculinity has been tied to conflict throughout history. The combination of the traits above can easily lead to conflict and conflict often illuminates traits. The masculine attributes above can lead to heroic acts. However, we honor the warrior not the war. The traits existed before the conflict. The attribute may not have been as apparent, but it was there.
I have kept this list short. Many try to analyze all attributes and place them within the false dichotomy of masculine and feminine. There are far more attributes that speak to our humanity rather than our masculinity. I feel that the false dichotomy has aided some in claiming that many attributes that they consider positive are masculine and further that attributes they do not value are considered negative. If the false dichotomy is applied to those things noted above, it would appear that "weakness" would be a feminine trait. Such a supposition is flawed at best and arises from false pretenses and at worst is a malicious attempt to claim that masculinity in some way is more positive than femininity. Without both masculine and feminine attributes, a human being will not be successful.
I would also like to note that seemingly linked traits are not necessary masculine. "Strong" and "hard" are separate concepts when describing materials and humans. "Hard" objects and "hard" individuals are often brittle.
I do not expect this to become the defacto description of masculinity. I am simply a male human observer that has seen a term misused often. The concept of masculinity has changed and will continue to change based on the culture in which it is being used.
References:
- Masculine | Definition of Masculine by Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masculine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)