When Men wanted to be virile

BigDuffman

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/when-men-wanted-to-be-virile?mbid=social_facebook some refreshing and thought provoking writing.

johnnyskeleton

Got about 1/3rd the way through. So bascially we should emphasise restraint of passion as a masculine ideal? Or does it get any better?

One eyed Jack

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Got about 1/3rd the way through. So bascially we should emphasise restraint of passion as a masculine ideal? Or does it get any better?

It really doesn't unfortunately. It ends up with cocooning puppies and children, after it's done with the usual nonsense about men behaving too much like men.

I have to say OP I didn't find anything thought provoking or refreshing in the article. Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what it was you personally found was thought provoking or refreshing about it?

Wibbs

I found it interesting because of the below stuff.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It really doesn't unfortunately. It ends up with cocooning puppies and children, after it's done with the usual nonsense about men behaving too much like men.

Interesting in the sense that in one article it sums up modern western thinking, more confusion about manhood and what it is to be a man.

kunst nugget

Wibbs wrote: »

I found it interesting because of the below stuff.



Interesting in the sense that in one article it sums up modern western thinking, more confusion about manhood and what it is to be a man.

It seems men are inherently arseholes unless they do some army service. And look after puppies. And know how overrated the Woodford Reserve bourbon is.

BigDuffman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have to say OP I didn't find anything thought provoking or refreshing in the article. Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what it was you personally found was thought provoking or refreshing about it?

kunst nugget wrote: »

It seems men are inherently arseholes unless they do some army service. And look after puppies. And know how overrated the Woodford Reserve bourbon is.

What I have taken from it was the convoluted and confusing nature of modern day masculinity;

"Could virility cut itself loose from masculinity, leaving behind its misogynistic baggage to become a post-gender ethic of disciplined vigor"

The article for me highlights the current popular trend of male apologists. it explores the celebration of virility without misogyny. Attaching positivity to masculinity has become a backward notion (from my limited cultural observations). The notion of masculinity is polarized with the emergence of the hyper-masculine "Gym Bro" culture balanced by what could be deemed as the normalization of effeminate men. Today's modern interpretation of masculinity has become utterly confused. To declare oneself as wanting to engage in or encourage masculine pursuits can lead to rebuke (as we have observed with regards to the raising of children in a separate thread).

One eyed Jack

BigDuffman wrote: »

What I have taken from it was the convoluted and confusing nature of modern day masculinity;

"Could virility cut itself loose from masculinity, leaving behind its misogynistic baggage to become a post-gender ethic of disciplined vigor"

The article for me highlights the current popular trend of male apologists. it explores the celebration of virility without misogyny. Attaching positivity to masculinity has become a backward notion (from my limited cultural observations). The notion of masculinity is polarized with the emergence of the hyper-masculine "Gym Bro" culture balanced by what could be deemed as the normalization of effeminate men. Today's modern interpretation of masculinity has become utterly confused. To declare oneself as wanting to engage in or encourage masculine pursuits can lead to rebuke (as we have observed with regards to the raising of children).

That's actually a damn accurate term for the writer in this case. I tried to read the article with an open mind, but the whole false dichotomy he sets out on portraying virility and masculinity as negative qualities - it's not Western society is doing that. It's authors like this chap who are actually doing that. I read a few of his other articles (difficult with that garish font), and it's basically more of the same, but through a very American almost stereotype of "guess who the nerdy kid in school was?". His blog posts are practically dripping with thinly disguised contempt for masculinity that makes me imagine he was on the receiving end of a fair few wedgies back in his school days :pac:

I'm somewhat confused as to your take on the gym bro culture. I would have classed that sort of preening over their physiques as incredibly vain, effeminate behaviour. Perhaps that's what you mean by the confusion? I would have classed the gym bros in the same effeminate behaviour as metrosexuals and gentrosexuals and so on. I don't think metrosexuals are actually aiming for masculinity though, are they? I thought they were more a rejection of masculinity? Couldn't be too sure about virility, I have to admit - they do surprisingly alright with the ladies in fairness! :pac:

I genuinely don't think the interpretation of masculinity and virility, nor even femininity for that matter, have changed at all tbh. I think some people are trying to promote their own agenda that paints ideas like masculinity in a negative light (and if you say "Misogyny? Would you ever go and shyte!", you get back - "See? I told you he was a misogynist!!"). They're right, in their own minds, whatever way you argue with them, and that's why I just don't. It's not that I think I have anything to be ashamed of in being masculine. It's that I simply couldn't be bothered entertaining nonsense like that and being made to feel like I have anything to apologise to society for on behalf of my gender.

I'm not aware of something I should have observed with regards to the raising of children though? I mean, in the context of what we're talking about here?

BigDuffman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's actually a damn accurate term for the writer in this case. I tried to read the article with an open mind, but the whole false dichotomy he sets out on portraying virility and masculinity as negative qualities - it's not Western society is doing that. It's authors like this chap who are actually doing that. I read a few of his other articles (difficult with that garish font), and it's basically more of the same, but through a very American almost stereotype of "guess who the nerdy kid in school was?". His blog posts are practically dripping with thinly disguised contempt for masculinity that makes me imagine he was on the receiving end of a fair few wedgies back in his school days :pac:

I've never read anything else by the author (and don't feel particularly pushed to do so either). I found the article when read in isolation to be quite thought provoking and raised a lot of differing opinions amongst my peer group. With some taking it as an affront to masculinity and "virility", other not agreeing with the separation of the two traits and others missing the point entirely! For the record, by me being interested it does not necessarily imply that I agree.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm somewhat confused as to your take on the gym bro culture. I would have classed that sort of preening over their physiques as incredibly vain, effeminate behaviour. Perhaps that's what you mean by the confusion?

I see the Gym Bro culture as being the pinnacle of hyper masculinity to the point that it becomes a parody of itself ( See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ARGgOTuSK0 for reference) whereby in a bid to man up by getting some gains, the effeminate behaviour follows shortly afterwards as can be observed in gym changing rooms through out the country with hair dryers fake tan and ridiculous hair cuts.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I genuinely don't think the interpretation of masculinity and virility, nor even femininity for that matter, have changed at all tbh.

I'd disagree, based on the same reasons you say that some people are trying to promote their own agenda. This in itself is ensuring the change.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not aware of something I should have observed with regards to the raising of children though? I mean, in the context of what we're talking about here?

My mistake, comment made out of context I've edited previous post RE a separate thread.

silverharp

BigDuffman wrote: »

I see the Gym Bro culture as being the pinnacle of hyper masculinity to the point that it becomes a parody of itself ( See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ARGgOTuSK0 for reference) whereby in a bid to man up by getting some gains, the effeminate behaviour follows shortly afterwards as can be observed in gym changing rooms through out the country with hair dryers fake tan and ridiculous hair cuts.

you would think more of something is normally better but "hyper masculinity" for me anyway means they have fallen off the cliff in some way. a "gym bro" guy is a failure in many ways because the social signal is that the guy has far too much time on his hands so he is unlikely to be a mover or shaker in society, a successful businessman wouldnt have the time to be a "gym bro". traditionally its women that sent out social signals that they didnt have to work by having a look that takes time and is as impractical as possible. I guess someone like Arnie Schwarzenegger was an example of doing it right, he wasnt a "gym bro" because there was a purpose to it. so yep I would class a "gym bro" as signaling effeminate behaviour

Wibbs

silverharp wrote: »

you would think more of something is normally better but "hyper masculinity" for me anyway means they have fallen off the cliff in some way. a "gym bro" guy is a failure in many ways because the social signal is that the guy has far too much time on his hands so he is unlikely to be a mover or shaker in society, a successful businessman wouldnt have the time to be a "gym bro".

It very much depends. Yes if some guy looks like a steroid stuffed condom full of walnuts then OK there might be some truth to that. However I know plenty of men who exercise as a hobby, some of whom lift very heavy things, many of whom are "movers and shakers". It takes far more effort and attention to that effort than time. If your average man was to lift heavy things for the same length of time it takes to watch an episode of Game of Thrones every day(while being aware of his diet), that average man will get bigger and certainly more toned and in under a year with it. Hell, if I spent as much time exercising as I do talking shíte on the interwebs I'd look like Adonis' bigger brother. Instead I look like the skinny before picture from a Charles Atlas advert. Though I could kill you with a keystroke and my ire gland would win international competitions.

Plus men were always or nearly always the peacocks of the genders. The office drone in a blue suit whose ostentation stops at cufflinks is a relatively recent thing and being more out there and displaying fashion and style has tried to make a comeback more than once in the last century(mostly in the young from birth of the teenager). I saw this illustrated a while back in an odd way. I collect military watches. All business and macho. Until I saw an early advert for same from the First World War and with the plain and "manly" there were models in gold with flouncy art nouveau numerals in the mix too. Look at the evolution of the military uniform. In pre camouflage days you could see an army coming from miles away with their bright colours. Even in post camouflage days look at dress uniforms.

In this debate about "manliness" there can be a touch of the "nerd" V "jock" dynamic going on. So a man honed by some gym time can be regarded by the less physical man as a "meathead". I personally prefer the Renaissance ideal where the complete man was encouraged to be a heavy lifter of both ideas and weights.

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

It very much depends. Yes if some guy looks like a steroid stuffed condom full of walnuts then OK there might be some truth to that. However I know plenty of men who exercise as a hobby, some of whom lift very heavy things, many of whom are "movers and shakers". It takes far more effort and attention to that effort than time. If your average man was to lift heavy things for the same length of time it takes to watch an episode of Game of Thrones every day(while being aware of his diet), that average man will get bigger and certainly more toned and in under a year with it. Hell, if I spent as much time exercising as I do talking shíte on the interwebs I'd look like Adonis' bigger brother. Instead I look like the skinny before picture from a Charles Atlas advert. Though I could kill you with a keystroke and my ire gland would win international competitions.

Plus men were always or nearly always the peacocks of the genders. The office drone in a blue suit whose ostentation stops at cufflinks is a relatively recent thing and being more out there and displaying fashion and style has tried to make a comeback more than once in the last century(mostly in the young from birth of the teenager). I saw this illustrated a while back in an odd way. I collect military watches. All business and macho. Until I saw an early advert for same from the First World War and with the plain and "manly" there were models in gold with flouncy art nouveau numerals in the mix too. Look at the evolution of the military uniform. In pre camouflage days you could see an army coming from miles away with their bright colours. Even in post camouflage days look at dress uniforms.

In this debate about "manliness" there can be a touch of the "nerd" V "jock" dynamic going on. So a man honed by some gym time can be regarded by the less physical man as a "meathead". I personally prefer the Renaissance ideal where the complete man was encouraged to be a heavy lifter of both ideas and weights.

I'd agree with all that, the guy that is passionate about his hobby and has one thing he excels in is expressing his masculinity. All the innovations in sports for example have been because of groups of men taking risks, being innovative and developing a sport out of nothing, among the numerous examples, surfing , wind surfing, latterly the wing suits. So weightlifting as a hobby is absolutely in the middle of all that because its all about testing oneself.

And yep peacocking for sure is a male thing. Its probably morphed away from looking ostentatious into other things like the car one drives, whether your suit looks tailored but at the heart is signalling dominance and or a desire to be noticed by women.

Wibbs

silverharp wrote: »

or a desire to be noticed by women.

and other men. That's a lot of it. Take the aforementioned watches. Women almost never notice them, it's all about other men who might. Even such a niche area as surgery to make the willy larger. The surgeries generally only affect the flaccid size and surveys of men who went for the procedure were more concerned about being seen in the locker room and unless the locker room is in a hippie commune it's other men's views they worry about. Like that old story of women dress for themselves. Yes, but it's first filtered through how men but more how other women may judge them on their clothes.

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

and other men. That's a lot of it. Take the aforementioned watches. Women almost never notice them, it's all about other men who might. Even such a niche area as surgery to make the willy larger. The surgeries generally only affect the flaccid size and surveys of men who went for the procedure were more concerned about being seen in the locker room and unless the locker room is in a hippie commune it's other men's views they worry about. Like that old story of women dress for themselves. Yes, but it's first filtered through how men but more how other women may judge them on their clothes.

I did not know that about the willy thing . But the "noticed" by other men is in terms of dominance , its broadly about pecking order based in a lot of cases signalling the ability to have access to resources. On the flip side you will have very rich men be proud of the fact that they wear a 20$ watch or get their shirts in Dunnes because their reputation precedes them and what not.
But yeah there are multiple reasons why something is popular, the high heel and the older Asian funny shoes that women wore were partially thus to trigger our response to want to help women yet now is part of career girl attire around town. The 18th century "Dandy" look was partially to signal (I guess) Aristocrat who didn't have to work , I gather there is some correlation today with "trust fund kids" and hipster which is the 21st century equivalent