It's Not Okay to be a Man

    There was a time, long ago, when the survival and continuance of our species was still in question, when the fundamental drives that make us men were not only acceptable, but were not questioned (primarily because we had not formulated any means of higher thought) because they served to keep us alive.

    In caveman times, the urge to kill or hurt something was out of a sense of protection, and served to feed our family and keep us alive against predators. Now, like a tennis ball on a football field, the core mechanics that make us human haven't changed, but our situation has. We still possess the "fight or flight" adrenal reflex against any real or perceived threats (even if it's simply someone yelling at you or challenging your authority on something minor) and, some of us more than others, find ourselves in a sort of barely contained rage on more occasions than we would care to admit. One moment of weakness - lose your resolve for just a second and give in to instinct - and BAM, an assault charge changes the rest of your life. Violence is no longer needed for survival (excluding extreme scenarios) and society does not tolerate it for any reason other than controlled sport. Yet the drive to be violent remains.

    We also used to have to have sex with as many women as was possible in order to give our genes the highest probability of saturating the gene pool. Those with the stronger genes, as we still observe in other animals in nature, are more likely to successfully mate and successfully pass on those stronger genes to subsequent generations. This results in a stronger overall population of a given species over the course of many many generations. Genes that do not result in traits that favor species survival and propagation in a given environment die out, while those that do help us survive and mate are passed on. Thus we end up with different looking people in different locations (races) depending on terrain related survival and evolution.

    The drive still exists in the males of the human species to propagate with as wide a variety of females as is possible. Of course, society dictates (with the exception of some select lifestyle choices that are become gradually more popular) that this behavior is no longer socially acceptable. Instead, we are told that only monogamy is acceptable, and anything else has even become criminally punishable! Can anyone but a male relate to how hard it is to NOT mate with someone when the opportunity is available, regardless of marital status? Marriage is social and is based on love and commitment. Sex is a drive akin to hunger or thirst, controlled by an entirely separate portion of the brain. I would like to be clear that I do not advocate people fornicating, maiming, or killing one another with reckless abandon. I aim only to illustrate how the fundamental drives of men have become socially unacceptable.

    Even something more mild, such as theft, is relevant. In prehistoric times, if food was not readily available, those who were big and strong enough (the cream of the genetic crop) would steal from their neighbors, if they could, to fight off the potential starvation of themselves and their families. I still think, in dire times, a starving person should be able to steal a loaf of bread. Why is this a crime? Do we not all have the basic human right to ensure our own survival? Ignoring the fact that there are many circumstances that can prevent this situation or the fact that there are programs in place to help the needy, no one can ignore that a truly desperate person can run out of options. In fact, this happens more than we care to admit to ourselves. And ultimately, it is a drive we possess, albeit a milder one.

    What this boils down to is that men, males of the human species who have remained fundamentally identical to their prehistoric counterparts on a chemical level, are no longer able to give into their basest drives. Nor do I believe we always should. However, just because we are capable of logical thought (some of us at least), does not mean that fighting those urges is not a daily struggle. Not all men who cheat are cheaters. Not all those who steal are thieves. Just because a man was violent with someone does not make him an abusive monster. Sometimes, yes these things are true, when someone has no self control at all, but even the best of us falter in times of weak restraint. All I am saying is that this fact should be taken into account.

    What makes it worse, is that we are not allowed to act like women either. If we cry or share our feelings, the vast majority view this as an unknown, and it has been proven time and time again throughout history, as well as daily, how we react to something that scares us like an unkown. We are put down, berated, and called weak. We are not men if we cry. So, if we cannot be men, and we cannot be women, is it any wonder why most of us find ourselves in some strange amalgamation of functional behavior and (at least semi-) social amorality?

    The consensus is in: it is not okay to do what we feel the need to. It's like not eating when you are hungry. How long can you truly repress those urges? They do not go away completely, ever. So while the world may agree that we are always going to be wrong, no matter the scenario, could you at least cut a break for those of us who successfully manage to maintain our self-control the majority of the time?

    We are, after all, only human.