men (discursive)

the title alone could send people into fits of ‘not all men’-isms. why does masculinity resist definition so aggressively?

i mean, any representation of a human subject, should, ideally, resist definition. it could mean anything to be a man. it could be a space to play- like a dad joke, or a bow tie.

it is, to be sure, this currency as a valid human subject- as being human enough, for rights, justice, etc. that compels the resistance to generalisation. historically, the state has found that to be easier to recognise in men.

think to the discursive use of ‘man’kind or even just ‘men’ to encompass the human race in books written by men for men.

again, at the risk of being specific, books written by white savarna men.

so, meet men- a word that means nothing but could mean anything but should mean everything especially when only talking about some things.

you are no more man than i am.

still, i say, “you're such a man” and you say “not all men” and round and round we go.

it is not that the problem with men arises from some essential feature of their man-ness. if i use it to taunt you it is because that is precisely what you blame all your vices & indulgences on.

that's your excuse for it. & that is also why your world excuses you for it.

your masculinity is fun to make fun of because it's exactly the thing you're most insecure about.

you are no more man than i am. i am no more woman than you are.

but you make it about essence. you say ‘kya karu oh ladiez mai hu aadat se majboor.’

kya kare, oh ladies, kya kare?