Whatever Happened to Masculinity?
It is a disturbing time that people seem to live in nowdays. The fury of one person is casually unleashed upon the innocent passerby, making them the cannon fodder for social frustration that are not only not caused by them, but not even really related to them in any way. The bloody mess in a subway carriage in Taipei recently is followed by a drive-by shooting in the UC Santa Barbara campus in California, in both cases instigated by young man whose unique concerns with their own, rather different forms of social disgruntlement were suddenly exposed to a society unprepared to receive them in the way it did.
Looking a little beneath the surface of the carnage that drew soul-searching, shock, and sorrow from, well, everyone that came to its knowledge, there has been a very glaring similarity between the motivations for these two killings (as well as those of countless other ones in the past). That is, the killers felt that they are socially inadequate beings who are not being respected for who they are --- they were not being considered fully men. The rejections by females, the isolation from the crowds, despite prominent family backgrounds and privileged upbringings. It is unfair, they thought, and the world had to know in the most terrible way.
This blog has explored the topic of "manliness" from days into its very inception, particularly its sensitivity among the Asian male population. But previous writing has only touched upon how others may perceive the subject's masculinity, and not how the person himself would see him as a shining example as "epitome of the perfect man" or more likely, the concept's very contrast. Yet, aside from casual observation of how others interact and communicate on this issue, masculinity is fundamentally a concept that is explored by the self, one that a person learns more by self-reflection rather than, say, openly asking others.
That only makes the two shooting incidents in Taipei and UCSB so special as a subject of study for what the average male (well, perhaps not so much average) thinks about his own masculinity. The self-proclaimed "darkness of the past" in terms of rejected women and the juicy details on the social backgrounds of the killers as dug up by the diligent mass media folks only serve to illustrate just how different what another person sees as masculine in a person vs. what that person thinks of masculinity within his own identity. It is this gap that is ultimately drawing the questions on why the killers felt so, well, not masculine.
Reviewing the profiles of the two killers, the average onlooker's thought process goes like this, "wow, this guy is not too bad-looking, and very very well-off. So what if he doesn't have social skills? He can just buy a girl's love. Certainly plenty of girls out there will date someone for that kind of money." The UCSB killer was especially keen on showing off his expensive BMW to certainly impressed females. And it is because of such thoughts that they were doubly pissed when no girl refused to touch them. So rich yet so lonely, what is wrong with society?!
And here lies modern society's powerful assumption about masculinity. It is that manliness can be equated to wealth, both in financial and materialistic terms. Because to be rich is, after all, a symbol of success, and to be successful, well, has to be manly, right? This is precisely why people show off their wealth through endless conspicuous consumption, despite all sensible logic that tell them how physically dangerous to publicly show off wealth. The media has shown people hot women with ugly but wealthy men, and for all the not-so-good-looking men out there, that is the ideal to strive for at all costs.
None of these guys ever bothered to talked to the rich guy who has tried, and, gasp, failed at this supposedly fail-proof methodology...until too late. When the UCSB killer struck, people are shocked not by his killing (after, random killing happens in America all the time), but by the fact that the killer should not be a disgruntled member of society. The kid got no worries on food, money, career, and for most people's convention, that means he will have all the girls he want. Perhaps the killer himself also thought of it that way, and felt severely ashamed of himself when he found out that's not the case.
At the end, though, the problem is with society. The very definition of masculinity people live with is pretty much forced upon them. Given certain positive traits, you must succeed; otherwise, you should be ashamed of yourself. Being a virgin like the UCSB killer, that's just plain unacceptable, given his money and decent looks! Quietly, the social stereotypes took its toll on the young man. He couldn't find excuses to explain his failure anymore, so he had to start blaming society at large. It is too unfortunate that his death has not brought about a fundamental change in the society's mainstream view of masculinity.
Looking a little beneath the surface of the carnage that drew soul-searching, shock, and sorrow from, well, everyone that came to its knowledge, there has been a very glaring similarity between the motivations for these two killings (as well as those of countless other ones in the past). That is, the killers felt that they are socially inadequate beings who are not being respected for who they are --- they were not being considered fully men. The rejections by females, the isolation from the crowds, despite prominent family backgrounds and privileged upbringings. It is unfair, they thought, and the world had to know in the most terrible way.
This blog has explored the topic of "manliness" from days into its very inception, particularly its sensitivity among the Asian male population. But previous writing has only touched upon how others may perceive the subject's masculinity, and not how the person himself would see him as a shining example as "epitome of the perfect man" or more likely, the concept's very contrast. Yet, aside from casual observation of how others interact and communicate on this issue, masculinity is fundamentally a concept that is explored by the self, one that a person learns more by self-reflection rather than, say, openly asking others.
That only makes the two shooting incidents in Taipei and UCSB so special as a subject of study for what the average male (well, perhaps not so much average) thinks about his own masculinity. The self-proclaimed "darkness of the past" in terms of rejected women and the juicy details on the social backgrounds of the killers as dug up by the diligent mass media folks only serve to illustrate just how different what another person sees as masculine in a person vs. what that person thinks of masculinity within his own identity. It is this gap that is ultimately drawing the questions on why the killers felt so, well, not masculine.
Reviewing the profiles of the two killers, the average onlooker's thought process goes like this, "wow, this guy is not too bad-looking, and very very well-off. So what if he doesn't have social skills? He can just buy a girl's love. Certainly plenty of girls out there will date someone for that kind of money." The UCSB killer was especially keen on showing off his expensive BMW to certainly impressed females. And it is because of such thoughts that they were doubly pissed when no girl refused to touch them. So rich yet so lonely, what is wrong with society?!
And here lies modern society's powerful assumption about masculinity. It is that manliness can be equated to wealth, both in financial and materialistic terms. Because to be rich is, after all, a symbol of success, and to be successful, well, has to be manly, right? This is precisely why people show off their wealth through endless conspicuous consumption, despite all sensible logic that tell them how physically dangerous to publicly show off wealth. The media has shown people hot women with ugly but wealthy men, and for all the not-so-good-looking men out there, that is the ideal to strive for at all costs.
None of these guys ever bothered to talked to the rich guy who has tried, and, gasp, failed at this supposedly fail-proof methodology...until too late. When the UCSB killer struck, people are shocked not by his killing (after, random killing happens in America all the time), but by the fact that the killer should not be a disgruntled member of society. The kid got no worries on food, money, career, and for most people's convention, that means he will have all the girls he want. Perhaps the killer himself also thought of it that way, and felt severely ashamed of himself when he found out that's not the case.
At the end, though, the problem is with society. The very definition of masculinity people live with is pretty much forced upon them. Given certain positive traits, you must succeed; otherwise, you should be ashamed of yourself. Being a virgin like the UCSB killer, that's just plain unacceptable, given his money and decent looks! Quietly, the social stereotypes took its toll on the young man. He couldn't find excuses to explain his failure anymore, so he had to start blaming society at large. It is too unfortunate that his death has not brought about a fundamental change in the society's mainstream view of masculinity.
Comments
Post a Comment