Manhood?

Howdy.

The hiatus has mostly been due to laziness, but for the past week I've actually had a legit excuse due to my computer getting fucked over by the elements. See, I've been at a summer music program hosted by Berklee School of Music. The first night I got here, I put all my shit in my room, set up my laptop on the generic desk given to each student here, then left to go meet people and the like. The desk I've got here happens to be situated under a window, which I left open, since it has a tendency to get hot as balls in a room with four windows and no air conditioning. That night, it rained. On my computer, iPod, and PSP. The iPod and PSP were totally fine, but my computer was fried. Fortunately, Apple makes awesome shit, so a week later, once everything dried out, everything was fine, hence the whole "holy shit there's a blog post" thing.

Anyway, last night me and my roommate somehow got on the topic of manhood. As in the age-old question of "at what point does a boy become a man?" Now me, in all my libertarian glory, laid out my usual response of "when he is really and truly independent; that is, he's paying his own bills, buying his own food, and generally supporting himself." My roommate, offended, said "so you're saying I'm not a man?", to which I responded, "yeah, but neither am I."

Now, my roommate is a pretty smart dude who also happens to be Canadian, which may have contributed to his rebuttal, in which he asked me if I thought that a person supported by his government was not a man. This actually got to me. Having had a little time to think about it, I came to the conclusion that no, in fact, someone supported by his government is not, in my eyes, a full-fledged man. That is not to say that one dependent on his government is a mere boy, but I still think that one who is dependent on his government lacks that essential element on independence.

But what about married men? Old motherfuckers? Does someone have to be completely independent to be a "man"? Must a man be an island?

I don't think so. I think my revised definition of a man depends more on the idea that a man should have the means and ability to be totally independent, but does not necessarily have to be supporting himself. A man living with a partner who helps keep up the household is still a man, so long as he is not totally dependent on that partner for his well being.

Also, like most philosophical arguments, the whole "when does a boy become a man" argument is actually pretty stupid and in reality, I think it's better just to get on with your shit and stop worrying about everything.

Which, in itself, is a philosophy. Fuck.

Peace out bitches.