No Pain!

Men are often expected to show no signs of weakness...a mere grimace from pain after taking a bullet in the arm is all that is acceptable. Recently, I watched Black Dog on TV, staring Patrick Swayze. The particular scene that seemed to scream MASCULINITY! to me took place on the back of a Semi-truck speeding down the highway. Patrick is fighting another guy in the space between the cab of the truck and the trailer, meanwhile, Meatloaf was driving next to them shooting a revolver in their direction. Patrick grimaced a little, but kept fighting as if he felt nothing. Later, after that battle had settled, Patrick was scene on the side of the road pouring gunpowder in his wound and then lighting it to coderize his gaping bullet wound. Did he cry out in pain? Of course not, that wouldn't be very masculine for a hero to do.

This is an excellent example of how pain perceived from a masculine point of view. To show pain is to show weakness. Men are expected to always be strong. In order to be viewed as strong, a man can not show weakness, thus can not reveal his pain. This idea is confirmed in society from the time we are little boys. Often, little boys are told to "suck it up" if they get hurt, while the little girl is consoled. This tells us that it is not ok if a boy shows pain, but needs to be tough enough to keep going. I can remember getting in trouble if I fell and hurt myself when I was a boy. My dad, who was also a Marine, would say, "you messed up, now get up." Then he would call me a scuzzy maggot and I would give him a hug and tell him I love him too and go on playing, showing off my newly aquired battle wounds.

This type of behavior can be seen in many aspects of our lives and is especially prevalent in action movies. The hero must appear invulnerable to his enemy or he might reveal a weakness that could lead to his defeat. As a young boy, watching this type of mindset on TV implants the idea that "I can not show weakness either if I want to be great"...and people usually want to be great.

Augmentational embarrassment

In an episode of House, a female patient, who is trying to fly for NASA, is faced with a dilemma: choosing between her life or her dream. It is revealed that this patient has either lung cancer or a genetic disease that causes the growth of cysts in her lungs. Because of the program she is trying to get in at NASA, she cannot reveal any kind of medical implication that might disqualify her from achieving her dream of flying in outer space. If she were to allow Dr. House to operate on her lungs, scars would be left behind that could possibly disqualify her. In an attempt to accommodate her dreams and still save her life, it is suggested that she have breast augmentation to act as an innocent explanation to the nature of her scars. She is reluctant to agree to the procedure because she fears she would not be taken seriously if she had breast implants. This is a very powerful statement about the image of women in the professional world.

Can women who have had breast augmentation be taken seriously in an array of professions? This is something I have not considered, or payed any attention to, in a long time because nowadays breast augmentation is more common and more widely accepted. For this patient to fear being taken less seriously brings to light a possible stereotype still associated with breast implants--but what exactly is the stereotype? Is it the "bimbo" title? I think in the past, women who had breast implants were usually those that were in the "entertainment industry" and that connection was carried over to the average woman who wanted to improve their appearance. Overtime, that negative connotation has been replaced with acceptance on the larger scale.

Women can be taken seriously even though they have augmentation. One of the doctors explained it in a way that made the patient feel better about the decision. He explained that he'd known great people who were able to achieve their greatness because they were unafraid of being laughed at.