Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

 

This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well.


Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat.


I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that the would-be Bond emulators interact with.  Again, I like the movies, but I'm glad I decided what masculinity is for myself.


To me, there is a "gathering aspect" of masculinity.  I think about resources too much, but one way to put what it means to be a good, adult man is, this person identifies and secures all of the resources that he needs to succeed and help his family and friends, as desired, succeed.  The good man, in the USA at least, is just a squirrel trying to get enough nuts for himself and his family.


There's really no antidote for the Bond phenomenon.  The movies are popular, and they're already made.  It's hard for me, at least, to imagine the idea of a different kind of movie that somehow challenges the tough guy images in a powerful and effective way.  Sure, there's room for jockeying for position between other tough-guy action films, such as The Terminator...but a character who is portrayed as eschewing the Bond version of masculinity for the purpose of a resources hunt is not going to "work" as a sort of "cultural rebuttal" to the Bond movies.


Thus, if you agree with what I'm saying...the best answer is, hang tight, watch movies responsibly, and raise your kids carefully and with full explanations about what is and isn't real in movies!  I know that if I ever let my kids play Tales of Symphonia or Zelda, the video games, I will sit down with my kids and do a good "reality vs. not-to-be-emulated fun drama" talk or something of that nature.  I will be sure to debrief them in a preamble-oriented fashion about James Bond movies, too.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more