A Response That Accidentally Turned into a Blossay

First off, allow me to offer my apologies for the lateness of this response. The reading “Bruce Lee’s Fictional Models of Masculinity” by Jachinson W. Chan was dense and thought provoking and it has taken some time for me to figure out how to appropriately respond to it. Masculinity and femininity are difficult subjects to approach, and one must be incredibly careful when discussing them, as are people are quick to jump to conclusion and be unnecessarily offended.

                To me, the most pressing matter in Chan’s article is introduced in the title itself. Bruce Lee’s version of masculinity is derived not from Bruce Lee himself, but his fictional characters. This is problematic for a few reasons. To begin, it implies that individuals are gathering their own information on what it means to be a man or to be masculine not from the real world, but from fictional, non-existent characters. It seems foolish to look to something that is not real for something so important (or at least seemingly so) to the self. Yet, that is entirely the case, and not just for Asian American men looking for a way to be masculine in American culture. It is true for teenage girls of all races. It is true for parents looking for answers on how to raise their kids. It is true for young couples trying to figure out how to form a healthy and functioning relationship, and how and when to end that relationship. All of these demographics (for the most part) seek out answers through the media, which is not only fictional, but rarely mirrors how the real world actually functions. There is actually a great study on how individuals have higher expectations of relationships after watching a romance movie or even a romantic comedy. As a result, relationships of these individuals tend to be shorter and less satisfying, and are more likely to believe that their significant other should be able to ‘read their mind’ and ‘just know what they want’. The point is, I don’t think that it is a good idea AT ALL for Asian American men (ar anyone for that matter) to be seeking out a place in American culture by looking for role models in fictional medium.

                Second, fictional characters are, at best, one-dimensional caricatures of real life demographics, and at worst, completely detached from reality. The implicit narrowness of fictional characters prevents individuals from ever being able understand a character on a deeper level without investing personal experience or other outside assumptions into the movie. It doesn't matter how well developed a character’s past is, it is still sparse in comparison to a real human being. The same can be said of a character’s motivations and emotions. Take, for instance, when we were looking at the screenshot of Chiao Mei in Thursday’s class. The interpretation of her gaze by the class varied, but that is exactly the point. Each person was bringing in outside factors while analyzing her face. Even while moving around the room, the impression of Chiao Mei changed. Personally, when I looked at Chiao Mei, I saw an empty person; a flat character that can be filled with whatever I wanted her to be. I could see the potential of each suggestion, whether the suggestion was that her gaze was lustful, studying, or amusement. No one interpretation is less valid than and other interpretation. So, how is that problematic? The problem is that when a person is looking at a one-dimensional character for answers like what masculinity is, they are coming up with a perverted and diluted version of what they themselves would answer if they would seriously reflect on the question on their own.

                The biggest issue I have with Chan’s article, and to a larger extent society, is the underlying assumption that masculinity must be intertwined with violence in some way for it to be culturally acceptable, and that homosexuality and masculinity cannot mix. I actually don’t know where to begin with how absolutely ridiculous that is. I have no interest in power or violence. Does that mean I  cannot be a man? And if I embrace violence and power, I may become a better man, but I would be a far worse human. How can we as a society progress if we are continually obsessed with forcing ourselves into the dichotomy of masculine or feminine? It is little wonder that the world is such a mess with every biological male vehemently pursuing the abstract concept of masculinity via the roads of power and violence. It is my belief that the focus of the individual should not be to become a better “man” or a better “woman”, but that the focus should instead be on becoming a better human being.