DevilWithaHalo said:
What does Masculinity mean to you?
Out of context. Nothing.
The word really doesn't mean anything specific at all, but denotes a vague sense of impression or affect. Even then, the precise affective dimension is context dependent.
I guess one generalization I'd be willing to make is that masculinity seems to be related in some sense to social anxiety about the position of men, and it tends to come into play at times when those concepts are being discussed on a wider level.
DevilWithaHalo said:
How have others defined Masculinity to you? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
I've heard many hundreds of attempts to define masculinity, although most can be fitted into several broad trends. From worst to best and also (coincidentally) in broad historical progression.
Essentialist approaches tend to see masculinity as defined by some singular attribute which all men possess. This never, ever works because they tend to focus on accounts which are very obviously culturally constructed and aren't present in all societies, let alone all individuals.
Positivist approaches tend to say that masculinity is whatever men do. Again, it doesn't work because if it was then the whole concept would be meaningless. Nothing a man did could not be considered masculine, in this case, even if it was profoundly non-normative or "sissy".
Normative approaches tend to view masculinity as some kind of normative standard for men, i.e. what men
should be like. This is an order of magnitude better, but still basically doesn't work because it implies a kind of monolithic social consensus which very clearly doesn't exist. Norms only really make sense in particular contexts.
Political/feminist approaches to masculinity tend to view it as an ideological formation which naturalizes male dominance, making it appear natural, deserved or correct although the precise strategies can change across time and context. This goes a step beyond the normative approaches but the outcomes are still relatively fixed in a way which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. How men win can change, but somehow they still always win.
Discursive/Semiotic approaches to masculinity vary enormously but ultimately come down to the notion that masculinity cannot be defined on its own. It only makes sense either in relation to wider systems of arbitrary meaning (e.g. X is masculine because it's not feminine) or in the specific political context of its use. as far as I'm aware, this is the only theoretical model of masculinity which actually works.
DevilWithaHalo said:
Do you think Masculinity is important for the self identification of men?
Depends on the men, presumably.
DevilWithaHalo said:
Do you think being Masculinity and being a man are the same thing?
See the essentialist and positivist approach to masculinity, above.
DevilWithaHalo said:
What does a "man" mean to you?
In what sense?
"Man" can function as an anatomical observation, a means of social signification, a fairly ludicrous claim to particular attributes or qualities (positive or negative). It's nowhere near as vague as masculinity, to be sure, but you still kind of have to specify the context.
DevilWithaHalo said:
What do you want a "man" to mean?
Do you mean this in some sort of terminological sense, or in some kind of social-transformative sense where I can wish that all men were big and beefy and super-cool so that the world fitted with my insane prejudices.
You do have to be kind of careful not to confuse those two.
