This is a central question that men of today face. Indeed, though the present situation is unique because of the constraints that modern society imposes on them, one could argue that men have always had to contend with it: because, "what is masculinity?" is another way to phrase, "what is the measure of man?" Like the buffoon that you are, you posed the question in jest. Still, I'll humour you because though these fools devoid of reason are detrimental to the whole, so are you and those of your kind (
@Knuckles Red ) with your counterfactual thought that devolves into nihilism.
There's no philosophical debate on what masculinity is. There can however be one on what masculinity should be (and Satan knows your kind is trying to mold it towards a certain direction), but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. The problem is language, or rather, not so much language as our sometimes inability to convey from it meaning that is understood and agreed by all. When naming things, there is less ambiguity when it comes to the natural world since it is tangible; though also not perfect, it's easier to understand and agree on what a rock is, or water, or fire, or once upon a time a man and a woman. With concepts and ideas there is more room for error since what is bounded to the name is often less tangible and thus more mutable or open to interpretation. However, since the concept of masculinity precedes both you and I, it might be useful to look at the long history that also precedes us and that gave context for the concept. When you do this, what you'll find is that masculinity is intrinsically connected to competition, and thus, dominance and submissiveness. That is, though the great sophists of our age would have us believe that just like patriarchy, masculinity was an evil that men loosed upon the world leaving in its wake female oppression, rape culture, and manspreading, that was not the intent nor the result: historically it was understood as the right way to be a man; not toxic but instead virtue.
And what is it? Ultimately it defaults to one thing: my will be done.
Again, we understood masculinity as the proper way to be a man. And what is the proper way to be a man in a world that is often hostile to life? where resources and time are scarce, and lack of knowledge makes them scarcer? where competition is ever present and we are preyed upon by everything from beasts in the wild to our fellow men (and women)? We are in conflict with nature and masculinity is what enabled us to put into motion our inner desire to subdue and dominate it. To be masculine was understood (if only tacitly) as to exhibit those traits which best aided one affirm and impose their will upon nature, all of it. Though unlike a rock, masculinity is not tangible, still one can see the behaviours that it promotes in both individuals and groups.
Masculinity is tough, masculinity is strength, masculinity is patient, masculinity is cautious, masculinity is disciplined, masculinity is cut-throat, masculinity is violent, masculinity is loyal, masculinity is vengeful, masculinity is daring, masculinity is sacrifice, masculinity is self-serving and yet masculinity is fair though it does not believe in fairness (ask yourself why), masculinity is structure, masculinity is pride, masculinity endures...
Masculinity is the will to power.
Or was... Indeed a good way to answer "what is masculinity?" is to ask what does it aim to achieve? Make no mistake its chief concern was mastery (you'll fail to understand what this is beyond the facade). It was - as an analogy - our imperative knowledge, the how to method to the problem posed by our existence. In case you're wondering, the question was: "how do we survive much less thrive and multiple in such a hostile environment?" The answer of course was "be masculine", that is, master and subdue and shape it after our will: domesticate that which is hostile. This was masculinity.
to be continued...
