Who Is A Man...A Realistic View

This meme has been posted on the Internet and circulated on WhatsApp ostensibly to correct the negative impression of men created by modern day feminism. In my opinion, it only makes things worse. Men have been celebrated and venerated in different ways throughout the course of history, often at the expense of women. I believe that we do both genders a disservice by exalting one over the other. How much easier it would be to recognize that men and women are not adversaries but complements of each other and we build stronger families and more peaceful communities by working together to appreciate and bolster each other. So I decided to modify the message to make it more inclusive:

Who is a MAN?

A man is a beautiful part of God's creation who starts compromising at a very tender age...because if only one side wins, everybody loses. He is beautiful because he is born from a woman's labor and the miracle of new life is always a beautiful thing.

He sacrifices his chocolates for his sister...but he will still get to enjoy them because his sister has been taught to always share with her siblings.

He sacrifices his dreams for just a smile on his parents face...without knowing how much they sacrificed for him because their biggest dream is to see their son happy.
He spends his entire pocket money on buying gifts for the lady he loves just to see her smiling...and she is happy knowing that he has remembered to recognize her for what she has brought to his life.

He sacrifices his full youth for his wife & children by working late at night without any complaint...because that is what he was taught was the responsible thing to do when you have a family. His wife also works hard at nurturing the family while he is busy working so he can enjoy being with them when he comes home.

He builds their future by taking loans from banks & repaying them for lifetime...because he wants to have a comfortable lifestyle and it may take time and help to achieve.
He struggles a lot & still has to bear scolding from his mother, wife & boss...because achieving success and building character require hard work and his mother only scolded him because she wanted him to grow up to be a responsible man who respected others. His wife scolds him only when he is not attentive to the needs of his family and his boss scolds him if he doesn't put his best effort into his work.

His life finally ends up only by compromising for others' happiness...but he may take for granted the many times others have compromised for his happiness.
If he goes out, then he's careless...because he doesn't realize that his family may want to spend time with him.
If he stays at home, then he's lazy...if he has free time and is not helping his wife when she asks for it or finding ways to keep his family safe and secure.
If he scolds his children, then he's a monster...if his words deliberately hurt and humiliate them and make them feel worthless.
If he doesn't scold them, then he's an irresponsible guy...or one who believes that the best way to teach your children is to model the behavior that you want them to follow.
If he stops wife from working, then he's an insecure guy...or a man who knows how hard it is to juggle the responsibilities of work and home and wants to make life easier for her by easing some of the burden.
If he doesn't stop his wife from working, then he's somebody who lives on wife's earnings...only if he doesn't have a job and refuses to contribute in other ways. He knows that his wife finds validation through her work just as he does through his.
If he listens to his mother, then he's a mama's boy...or a man who knows that his mother always has his best interests at heart and her advice comes out of her love and concern for him.
If he listens to his wife, he's his wife's slave...or a man who believes that marriage is a partnership and to have a strong and healthy relationship, her opinions and feelings are just as important as his.

Comments welcome

Don't Run Away, Stay and Fight, But Do it Right

The idea that love, which should be the bedrock of an intimate relationship between two people, is equated with a battle of supremacy, where the victor gets the spoils is not a new one. In 1579, English poet John Lyly first introduced the expression in his novel "Euphues: The Anatomy of Wit." It was modified to its present form in 1850 by Francis Edward Smedley in his novel "Frank Fairleigh." The battle of the sexes, to adopt a conventional construct, is not a new idea either. But the battle has escalated to a new-and to my mind, a disturbing level. There are a number of Youtube videos about the MGTOW movement, which argue that it is the women who have the advantage in the battle, due to several technological and ideological changes.  Those who subscribe to the MGTOW school of thought won't find love, because the movement is based on the idea of relationships as a power struggle. An article on Medium.com claims that "Love is a terrible unveiling and an absence of power. This means it is inaccessible to those who can only think in instrumental terms." Proponents of MGTOW seem to believe they can still achieve their goal of finding happiness and satisfaction by not making even a token foray onto the field.

The benefits of a stable loving marriage or long term relationship are things that are impossible to put a monetary value on, like steady companionship, shared responsibility for the daily tasks of life, and emotional support, which creates a strong foundation on which to handle life's challenges. Yes, it is possible to live a happy, successful and fulfilled single life but it pales in comparison to life with a committed partner. While I sympathize with the anger and bitterness of men who make the decision to get married only to see it break down, I think that the reasons given by both men and women for not wanting to marry are rationalizations to avoid coming to terms with the fact that marriage is not a fairy tale but a binding social contract between two individuals and both sides must honor its terms for it to thrive. Needing an incentive to commit or the idea that one side inevitably gains at the expense of the other or that the obligations of the relationship come second to personal whims imply that it is nothing but a temporary business agreement that can be easily terminated if its terms are outdated or inconvenient.

It is the lack of commitment to the good of the relationship as a whole that is responsible for the combative nature of love. It becomes a selfish enterprise where each side becomes focused on personal benefit. Both partners need to have a shared vision and to continue to value the other partner in the relationship for it to work. But that requires looking through a different and more objective lens. Fairy tales rely on the superficial qualities of each partner to establish the relationship and imply that those qualities will be enough to hold it together over the long term. A compatible partner may not be aesthetically stunning, stylish, have overwhelming sexual dynamism or social cachet, but may have other qualities that are more vital to sustaining the relationship. If either partner has unrealistic expectations, the foundation is already weak.

Whether women have the greater power or men do is immaterial if that power is used not to build each other up, but to destroy and invalidate each other's worth. The current wave of feminism and the media have so completely tarnished men's images and diminished their worth that there is no advantage for men to pursue romantic relationships or permanent commitments with women, so they have given up in disgust and frustration. And their surrender is the greatest danger for the stability of society as a whole.

The Beauty Ideal

 “A woman’s beautiful face attracts a flirter/A woman’s beautiful heart attracts a lover/A woman’s beautiful character attracts a man…”

This idea may be true in theory, but falls woefully short against the harsh truth of reality. A woman’s beauty should depend not on how others judge her, but whether she believes herself beautiful and has the confidence to go out into the world every day with pride in who she is and what she has to offer.Ovid’s Pygmalion is a story of a young man who constructs a statue out of ivory and falls in love with his own creation. He created a physical ideal that no real woman could live up to, an image that has been perpetuated ever since. Today, entire industries are devoted to the marketing of female physical beauty through clothing, makeup, and diet, all of which tell women that if we don’t conform to a certain standard of attractiveness, we are valued less, no matter how many other admirable qualities we have. 

At birth, all babies are beautiful, regardless of gender. Where do women get the idea that their self worth depends on their looks? As they grow up, girls are complimented for their “style” which includes their pleasing manners and how they present themselves, while boys are praised for their intelligence, assertiveness and ambition.  Much of a women’s sense of her own attractiveness comes first from her mother and then later from her female peers and from the amount of male attention she gets. It’s a doubled edged sword. A beautiful woman is threatening to other women, because she gets attention from the male population, whether she wants it or not. At the same time, she attracts the notice of other women, who hope to be the residual beneficiaries of some of that attention. A less attractive woman by contrast has to try harder to stand out and be accepted. Just look at Sandy, from “Grease.” On her own, she was a sweet, pretty, gentle girl. But until she underwent her dramatic transformation at the end of the musical, she was ignored for her plainness and shamed for her value system. It was the change in her outward appearance that gave her the confidence to be assertive, rather than confidence in her character.

A girl or woman who is interested in math or science or more intellectual pursuits finds herself isolated from the same female peers who function as her support system. When I was growing up, dinner table conversations were always about what happened in the world or at school, about ideas and self-edification, rather than self- beautification. It was no surprise then that I preferred to spend my time with my nose buried in a book rather than curling my hair or painting my nails or trying on make up. I never felt the need to experiment with the latest styles in fashion. Not having that particular experience of “female bonding” in my youth was a distinct disadvantage because it isolated me from my female peers. As I grew older, I had to learn how to put myself together on my own for interviews or other public events and I lacked the knowledge to do it well. 

Granted, what is considered beautiful varies from culture to culture. But most of us can generally agree on a set of common characteristics that generally define physical attractiveness:  a svelte but curvy figure with symmetrical proportions, a smooth complexion, light skin, not being too tall or too short, long hair and big eyes. Add the right kind of clothes and shoes and artfully applied cosmetics to enhance those physical features and voila, a modern Galatea! The tragedy is when women begin to believe that their looks are the only thing they have of value and the only way they can achieve success in the world.While we have come a long way in dispelling some of the myths about what is considered beautiful, it is an ongoing battle against new and more sophisticated techniques aimed at undermining the foundations of female identity.

The Bonds of Loyalty

I normally never cry when I watch dramatic movies, but Kenneth Branagh's modern adaptation of Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express was an exception to the rule. Seeing the movie after Thanksgiving, as families gather all over the country, uniting to celebrate with each other was particularly poignant. There have been a number of TV and film adaptations of Christie's classic mystery over the years, but from a strictly storyline point of view, this one touched an emotional chord. Anyone who has read the story is already familiar with the ending. Earlier adaptations had an all white cast. Branagh's version utilizes the amazing talents of a stellar and diverse cast to bring the tale into the 21st century. Setting aside the aspect of political correctness, at its heart, this is a story of love, loyalty and justice.

In the 2010 movie starring David Suchet as Poirot, the detective objects to self administered vigilante justice, exclaiming, "You behave like this and we become just savages in the street...the rule of law...it must be held high, and if it falls, you pick it up and hold it even higher!" The murder of an innocent child violates a fundamental notion of right and wrong and it is that superior principle which motivates the actions of the executioners. The earlier version concentrates on the contrast between sin and innocence and the struggle between the man made rule of law and the divinely sanctioned need for justice.

All of the characters are emotionally tied to the events leading to the murder that is the focus of Christie's tale. With the exception of the mother and sister, the rest of the characters are employees of the Armstrong family. Normally, there is an impersonal relationship between employer and employee. From Poirot's perspective the travellers on the train are simply "strangers pressed together for days with nothing in common but the need to go from one place to another and never see each other again." But each one of the individuals who participates has a deeper connection to the family, which fuels their desire to see justice done. The pain of their employer's loss is a personal injury, one that creates, as the 2010 version illustrates, a "hell on earth for those wronged."

Branagh's adaptation concentrates on the emotional bonds between the characters as an extended family and the way they protect and support each other in the implementation of a morally difficult task. The murder of Ratchett is the execution of a man who destroys a family with his cold and conscienceless act. The characters have united to commit an immorally pragmatic act for an emotionally righteous reason, a burden they will carry with them forever.   Each of us is imperfect and longs to find love and the acceptance of our imperfections in our families and when we cannot, living with that burden fractures the soul, much as the inability to seek justice did for the characters in Branagh's movie. Perhaps the critical message is that only by sharing our pain can we find healing for our wounds and acceptance of our flaws.