Walking through the kitchen, I heard the song being repeated for about the 40th time that afternoon. Catching the familiar lyrics in a fresh light, I realized the contradiction in the image being created and any reality.
James Bond was in the air again, as he always is when a new movie version is released. It probably doesn’t matter which one.
What was hitting me was the idealized masculinity that depends on no one, acts impulsively without reflection of consequences, takes what he wants, uses and then disposes gorgeous women who are somehow supposed to flock to him anyway, be the “winner who takes all,” as Tom Jones’ “Thunderball” insists.
Yes, there’s an inclination in our society to accept the concept of the perfect male as someone who willingly breaks hearts, readily fights any and all, and never has regrets. In some ways, it sounds like the perfect soldier or marine. But he’s a sociopath.
His loyalties are only to himself, and even when he’s fighting on the “right” side, he’s destructive to those around him. You could never build a family or an organization with him in the midst.
Actually, he’s starting to sound like the Trickster figure – someone like Coyote – but without any of the tender sides.
Me, I’d stick with Coyote. He’s softer and fuzzier, for starters. He even seems to have a sense of humor, in that bungling sort of way.
Jnana's Red Barn 
I tend to share your perspective; as a remedy, it might be worth taking a look at another Bond–that of the 1967 version of Casino Royale.
Thanks for the perspective. But we’re still left with that archetypal male as strong, solitary, emotionless — something that can probably traced far back in not just Western thought but elsewhere as well. Samurai, for instance?
I think it’s a model most boys have, to some extent, been expected to emulate, and I know from my experience, it’s been costly.
Then I think for the modern “ideal” we can look even more to–ironically–the 1960s version of Mr. Spock. He was certainly the person I tried to emulate! And yes, it’s costly. I think (though I could not prove it) that Western thought has been bamboozled in this regard by the mind-body problem.
So why was Spock so likeable?
I suspect the answer’s much longer than we want to tackle here, but I’m up for your insights. Too bad we can’t sit down over a brew at a favorite pub downtown and start conversing. With or without the choice metaphors.
Agreed on the discussion.
I think Spock was likable, in a way, in spite of himself. We lived to see him slip, as on the occasions (virtually every show!) when he acted in a way that was patently irrational (and had to justify himself) or when a plant or other force made him fall in love, or when he just slipped, glad to see Kirk alive (“Jim!”). His occasional slip let us know that deep inside that logical being, there was someone like us–that the logica WAS in fact a defensive shell.
My $.02.
You’re right on, and we’ll leave it there for now … maybe somebody will follow up with the PhD dissertation. Or a ballad.
Enjoyed reading this 🙂