Not Mutually Exclusive
Irradiated by LabRat
At this point I’m considering creating a category just for lengthy responses to and/or twists on something Peter has posted. “Civilized culture wars”, perhaps. Or “tea and vehemence”.
Anyway, this week it’s a post about another post, one of the better of the “reclaiming America’s lost manhood” genre. I have some (fairly minor) issues with that post, which I’ll address at the bottom, but what I really wanted to respond to was this from Peter:
I guess I don’t altogether ‘get’ the anti-masculine emphasis among feminists and their ilk. Perhaps that’s because I come from Africa, where to be ‘manly’ (in the classical sense) is rather more important than it is in other parts of the world. Sure, you can be a ‘metrosexual’ in a big African city (if you don’t mind being laughed to scorn) . . . but drive a few miles out of town, where there are things with teeth and horns and hooves that don’t like you, and see how far your ‘metrosexuality’ will get you (and your loved ones) as a survival skill!
Then, just so we’re all on the same page about exactly what we’re talking about, I’ll excerpt the first part of the bit he did:
I grew up with sitcoms that bashed the cigar-smoking, poker playing man. Tide commercials with women wrinkling their noses at the presence of a man’s laundry. What was communicated was that there was something wrong with men in general. Or at least that was what was driven into me.
But the caveman was fixed by making him a sensitive wimp. The gruff man was emasculated. Cut down, not improved. Man became polyester disco weenies, man became preppy effeminate pansies. And now what does the world have as a result?
The caveman could be called upon to change the oil in your Chevy. The caveman would repair a woman’s roof, build things. Kill spiders. The caveman might have grunted too much, may have drank too much. Wasn’t polite in mixed company. But the caveman was a man.
A transition occurred. It was once that the “Wifey” served up a steak meal for her man. Unfair and sexist, and fuel for a positive change. The change, though, turned modern man into a weak passive herbivore. Modern man was forced to fix his faults by no longer being a man.
The fix to ‘improve’ man took away too much. Watered a strong man down to a woman that could grow facial hair - but wouldn’t of course. Men were conditioned to be sensitive, but as a result became nonsupporting. Men would cry with you, but no longer have a shoulder to cry upon.
Okay then.
The first thing I want to point out which is necessary to my argument making any sort of sense, is that there is nothing whatsoever about cigars, steak, poker, oil changes, or spider slaying that actually relates to having testicles and producing small gametes with them. It’s entirely a cultural construction of masculinity, or a culture of manhood if you prefer. It doesn’t rest on any one thing, but many things are included in the idea and culture of manhood being discussed, including physical courage, stoicism, a sometimes confused blend of assertiveness and aggression, and all sorts of pastimes and arcana of man-ness, which (most) American men want to defend and reclaim and (some) feminists would rather see dialed back if not destroyed altogether.
Anyone who has met my better half knows that I am not in that camp of feminists. I enjoy men and masculinity, and for the most part I enjoy a lot of “man culture” as well- I’ll take a pass on the sports and farting contests, but cigars and meat and muscle cars and table-pounding straight talk are awesome. That said, I see two major reasons for why that camp of feminists exists, and while I heartily disagree with it, I also can easily understand it and see why it’s probably not going away for a long time if ever.
The first is that, just as a regrettable amount of misandry is bound up in feminist culture as a whole and can’t be completely separated out in an honest discussion, an equally regrettable amount of misogyny is bound up in the culture of manliness. The unreconstructed caveman’s major flaw isn’t that he’s rude, it’s that his idea of manliness often includes a lot of internalized notions that part of being manly is controlling and using women. The greatest harm and indignity to Wifey wasn’t that she was expected to damn well serve him a steak, it’s that he was given tacit cultural permission and even a certain degree of expectation to force her back into line if she didn’t- by beating if necessary*. African machismo is actually a perfect example of what feminists have a problem with- it may be the land where a man’s a man and slays the lions/rebels/other danger, but it’s also the land of a grotesquely high rate of rape and abuse. South Africa in particular is maybe the world’s capital for rape, and that’s rooted partially in general social chaos, but also in a notion of manhood that accepts the idea that women are there for the use of men**.
If you think this strain of thought and feeling is absent in modern American manhood, it’s not. It’s what makes the strong majority of stalkers men stalking former girlfriends or women who they feel SHOULD be their girlfriend, it’s what underlies the problems this pastor is talking about in getting clergy to respond usefully to domestic violence, it’s what makes otherwise ordinary and rational people question what an eleven-year-old girl could have done to cause her gang rape, it’s what led people to listen to Mel Gibson threatening to kill his girlfriend and conclude Mel was the wounded party most deserving of sympathy. It’s not gone. It’s not even far away from Google; it’s a very short trip when searching for men’s-rights and masculinist material to find ravingly misogynist writing. Art of Manliness (a site I like a lot) and Roissy might both have the same general goal in mind, but the latter also thinks, in addition to real men being in too-short supply, that a real man has sex with as many women as he can, prevents his partners from doing the same, and controls every relationship strictly on his own terms.
The second thing bound up within the culture of manhood we’re discussing is the idea that the worst thing in the world is femininity. Oh, it’s fine for girls and women, who simply can’t help it and have some other stuff going in their favor like being sexy, but the worst possible thing a boy or man can do is be girly. Sissy, pussy (female genitals), girly-man, even the various gay-related slurs all have to do with being somehow womanlike. For reasons that should be obvious but perhaps are not, feminists are somewhat perturbed by the notion that being like a woman is an absolutely horrible thing that any right-thinking man must do his best to avoid. It doesn’t put women in a great position, and being able to have babies and cry isn’t nearly as much a consolation prize as it might seem***.
Now for my quibble with the original post.
A transition occurred. It was once that the “Wifey” served up a steak meal for her man. Unfair and sexist, and fuel for a positive change. The change, though, turned modern man into a weak passive herbivore. Modern man was forced to fix his faults by no longer being a man.
Since when? Metrosexual and effeminate men aren’t anywhere near to being a majority, here and maybe not anywhere else. I agree the best and finest kind of man is in shorter supply than he should be, but a young man today is far more likely to be swallowed up in the culture of Bro than the culture of eye shadow and weeping. Bro culture is a lot of things, but effeminate it definitely is not and it sure as hell keeps all that I just described as worst about traditional notions of manhood. Not even feminists think we won out here.
The part with which I very much agree:
It is the passionate carnivore that is needed. Modern man needs to be a man. A man that is masculine, but still a gentleman. A man that will show strength FOR a woman, not just TO a woman. A man that will work not for a wage, but for a family - for the honor and integrity of completing an honest day’s work to provide and protect.
You can be a gentleman that has the caveman’s masculine skills, but not bluntly delivered. Strength, not aggression. Character, not abruptness. Polite presence, not boorish intrusion. Persevere, don’t retreat.
Step away from what others have defined for you. Don’t be the man watered down by political correctness. Be an improved man for your wife, girlfriend, lover, friends, and family. Define your masculinity by the strength of your character.
In short, “be a good man, not merely a man”. It’s a terrible thing for anyone, male or female, to define themselves as people based around a fuzzy idea of what the opposite sex wants or expects of them. I’ve written before how much I appreciate that, for Stingray, masculinity is entirely about him and cannot be reduced or diminished by anything I or any other woman does.
That said, I don’t think it’s such a terrible thing if men are being sensitive or less than the manliest stoic because that’s actually who they are and they now have greater cultural permission to be that way. I know my tastes in men definitely run to the traditionally masculine, but a lot of my female friends really do like more sensitive, less rough-edged, and even pretty men- that are actually that way and not adopting a cultural pose to please anyone, including other men. And that’s okay- there’s plenty of middle ground in between the stoic provider and a useless weeper. Forced to choose between a manly soldier that treated my emotions as being akin to my period in being a messy woman thing to be dealt with as little as possible and a poet who was afraid of spiders, I think I’d probably go with the poet. One thing my girlfriends and I can all agree on is that we want a lover and a friend first, everything else second- and for the record, I fucking hate those “dad’s a dolt” sitcoms and commercials too.
*The US has a comparatively admirable if far from perfect legal history of condemning wife-beating, but I think we can all agree the culture of manhood goes back a lot further than the United States. The culture that gives us the word “virtue”- whose root translation basically IS “manliness”- also considered women to be the legal property of men.
**Here’s a rather hilarious distillation. Very NSFW.
***One of those posts I’ve never been able to punch into shape is a much longer discussion of how almost all real virtues are defined as manly traits, and most “feminine” traits aren’t really virtues, are virtues generally considered to be unisex but women are somehow better at, or are of extremely limited use.
March 17th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Hey have you ever wandered around through other people’s blog rolls and clicked on a random entry and found that blog entry to be all about you?
Yeah, it is a strange feeling. *snort*
Now that I look, my blog entry does have a link back, but still it was an odd feeling getting here the way that I did.
Just to note: There were some general statements in the “Wifey” paragraph which were more cultural perception than statistical fact. Also I don’t object to men that are not masculine.
Best is a mix of how you want to be. More like my reply in Peter’s post. “I am the best man I can be. No apologies to society.”
I like your analysis. Thanks!
March 17th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
“my furious genitals”
Rock on!
March 17th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Lyrics with translations (and band’s explanation of the song) to footnote two here: http://theinternettoday.net/music/die-antwoord-evil-boy-lyrics-and-back-story/
March 17th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
North- I felt kinda bad because I really do agree with the spirit of your post and with Peter’s, it’s just the quibble was still an important point to me. And glad you’re here.
Wing- yeah, I figured I was missing a lot of cultural context, but even so, y’know? It’s kind of difficult to see how the evil albino woman connects…
March 17th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
I think we had this discussion at Blogorado
I still say a ‘lot’ of the issue is marketing to women for various products, and to do that successfully, portraying the man in a negative is the most effective sales tool (e.g. the laundry detergent one)…
Also, as discussed a LOT of it is about perceptions, how you perceive us, and how we perceive ourselves. Peter’s allusion to the jungle is, I think, more about the persona and action/reaction to situations where your life is on the line; and you don’t have ‘time’ to switch personas e.g. metro (where you worry about what she will think) to manly (where you need to kill it now, and think later)…
March 17th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Yeah. A point I had meant to include and then dropped as a tangent is that advertising and sitcoms really don’t speak of/to the best in us, though it still does reflect something.
You are correct about perception. In part what I really meant to do here was give the feminist/anti-“manly” perception- as to why that persona can seem thoroughly menacing to a woman more than just obnoxious/gross/un-PC.
March 17th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
As someone who was in college in New England during the late ’80s, the misandry of feminism was brought home to me frequently. I have met a woman who chose to live in an all-woman community, and who did amnio to ensure her baby was a girl-she aborted the male. I perceived a lot of male rejection in that atmosphere. I realize a lot of these people were people of privledge rebelling against their parents, but it made things uncomfortable. I also noticed that the ones who did the most whining were the wealthy, and they seemed to care very little for the blue-collar types on campus. But that is another subject.
Personally, I’m a big, big believer in autonomy, and I refuse to define what is manly or not by other people’s rules. So yes, I knit, and I can cook. I also go to crime scenes and dissect dead people and carry a firearm. I know that I am a man.
I think the world would be better served by emphasizing honourable, manly behaviour. For instance, it doesn’t matter what orifice one puts one’s penis in, but a man doesn’t have sex with anyone who doesn’t want to. (To steal an example from Andrew Vachss). A man is loyal, and takes responsibility, and cares for the people who need it.
As a physician, sometimes I feel women view me as a walking meal ticket with gonads, for that’s what they want from me, sperm and support. Until they smell me after working on a decomp, when nobody wants to be around me. In college, being large, furry, and autonomous got me the reputation for being dangerous and scary. The folks who got laid like bunnies at my school were either 1. granolas or 2. loudly hated their penises.
Bottom line, being brusque and aggressive is easy. Being a man, a good man, is not. It’s not about how many partners you have (of either gender) but being a good person to them is the important. I find that immature women find autonomy in a man…threatening.
March 18th, 2011 at 2:43 am
Heh. The video is “not available in my country”. Which is strange, since Die Antwoord * (which I gather this video is about, based on Whim’s reply) comes from my part of the world.
We’re probably the *reported* rape capital of the world, yea. And “corrective”** rape is somewhat popular too.
But up north from here there are continual civil war type scenarios where I suspect the rape figures are even higher.
But hey, at least we don’t have Roissy
* “The Answer”… my reply to this is if they’re the answer the question must be pretty banal… but anyway.
** “Lesbians are just women who havn’t had sex with a *real* man yet”.
March 18th, 2011 at 3:13 am
Emasculated (whether by their own choice, or the culture in general) men abound in Portland, OR. I call them SNAGs (Sensitive New Age Guys), the city is littered with them, and I cannot stand them. My husband — who isn’t a fan of cigars, sports, or cars but does love steak, guns, and serving in the military — calls the female equivalent “vaginatarian” and I can’t stand them, either.
March 18th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Hi Labrat, Peter, and other bloggers whose writings I enjoy,
What I find frustrating in these discussions of “manly” virtues is that I would insist on any daughters I would have to develop them too… I strongly feel that they are not inherantly “manly” but, rather, human…
In a lethal force confrontation, I expect my wife to have my six, thank you very much, and to slay dangerous insects right alongside me. I expect her to be strong, to persevere, to have honor, integrity, and strength of character. I would insist my daughers do the same.
What is equally frustrating is the ginourmous force driving the socializing of these virtues right out of any girl showing sings of them. You mention how boys and men are stigmatized for being girly or sissies. What about women who are stigmatized for being strong and asssertive. Why are such women denigrated as pushy, bossy, bitches? Furthermore, it is entirely reasonable to encourage people to cultivate these values without developing a hatred or resentment for the opposite sex, regardless of their gender.
It’s as you stated in your third footnote: for the longest time, the noblest human virtues were defined as inherently male.
The world needs more women like the young girl in “True Grit”. Hopefully, such women can find a man who won’t feel threatened by their strength in today’s world.
I also suspect, Labrat, that you are such a lady…
March 18th, 2011 at 9:53 am
I really cringe at the “revival of the Caveman” movement. Real men are not cavemen. I’ve always thought that a Real Man is a combination of Gilbert & Sullivan’s “A British Tar”, the two main characters of “Lonesome Dove”, and Robert B. Parker’s “Spenser” character…..a well-educated gentleman who treats women with respect and evil with contempt. That should be what’s being revived in our society….the Revival of the Real Man….
March 18th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Marc- one of the reasons I really like Art of Manliness is that, amidst all the discussion of how to be a good man, father, etc, there is not-infrequent mention of raising daughters with the same values, as you would a son, despite any temptation to spoil them because they’re “cute”. And, I try to be… a lady that is, not cute.
William: yeah, I find it all too easy to ignore those women as I suspect most good men find it all too easy to ignore the Roissys of the world- they’re terrible people, and I simply don’t include terrible people in my voluntary associations. The reason the terrible people of the opposite sex stand out more is we are their targets…
I suspect truly strong autonomy is deeply threatening to men and women alike who would otherwise seek a codependent or victim.
wrm: ‘spect you’re right about reported rates and things likely being worse. SA just stands out because of some of the more hair-raising stats and data actually gathered.
March 18th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Seeker_two, I concur. One of the annoying things about the “men’s movement” is that, well, they’re not manly. Being a “caveman” is easy, and it’s a parody of manhood. It’s still annoying, and only slightly less annoying about whining how “unfair” things are. Is life. Is not fair.
The ideal is Spenser, who comes directly out of the “Knight in Sour Armor”, an ideal articulated by Raymond Chandler in the Simple Art of Murder
. Chandler, I’ve heard, stole that phrase, but it’s as good as any. I always admire people who do the right thing, even if it costs them, because it is the right thing to do.
March 18th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Wing: I’m less concerned about the backstory than I am with when the Orkin man is going to take care of that freaky pale thing.
March 18th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Labrat,
Further discussions with Calmer Half last night to try to figure out the video led to, not outright hostility, but mutual puzzlement.
The video itself is very clear, with cultural understanding: it’s an attempt to break as many taboos at once as possible. The spiky-creature shown is one of the Boogeymen that You Don’t Talk About. The refusal to be circumcised in the bush, too. The albino - apparently, to be albino is bush Africa is either to be killed at birth or to be raised and then butchered for your organs for magic. So a man lying with an albino is taboo, as they’re subhuman. An albino getting the better of the man - leaving him tied up and stealing his money - is apparently roughly the equivalent of Dykes on Bikes in the 4th of July parade with PissChrist as the centerpiece of their float.
It Was Explained To Me that in the tribe, there is no such thing as individual rights - just as a woman is the property of a man, the men are proprty of the tribe, and to refuse circumcision is to not only refusing manhood, but depriving the tribe of another warrior, and being a burden to them. And that these young pissants who are in-your-face about breaking the tribal taboos should be shot, and probably will be. The only proper way to disagree with the tribe is to move very far away, very quietly, and never say anything bad about them while never going back.
About the point that Calmer Half was saying with utter sincerity, “The tribe isn’t oppressive. [Die Antwood’s] just been infected with the western idea of individualism…” That my bisexual goth geek self realized again just how very different our cultures are, and how glad I am to be an American.
March 18th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
There are no virtues exclusive to men or women; if it’s not a virtue in another gender it’s not a virtue at all. But there are some that are more commonly cultivated by men or women. Partly for reasons of culture and tradition; partly, perhaps, for reasons of temperament due to the differences in our typical hormone blends.
March 18th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
That my bisexual goth geek self realized again just how very different our cultures are, and how glad I am to be an American.
Amen.
March 18th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Civilization began in Africa. It did not continue.
March 18th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Labrat, good essay. I’ve read it several times, as well as the comments. However, I’m not going to reply here, for the simple reason it would take an article-length comment to do so! I’m working on an elaboration of my perspective, including some of the discussions I’ve had with Wing (to which she refers above), and I’ll try to put it up on my blog this weekend.
Thanks for continuing the discussion. This promises to be an interesting debate.
March 18th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
I look very much forward to it, Peter.
March 18th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Whoo boy. “Boy” in the non-gender-specific sense, of course …
Maybe it’s because I grew up in the 1960s, but this really jumped out at me:
If you think this strain of thought and feeling is absent in modern American manhood, it’s not. It’s what makes the strong majority of stalkers men stalking former girlfriends or women who they feel SHOULD be their girlfriend …
None of the men who were my role models would have had anything to do with those jerks. They would have seen nothing “manly” there; on the contrary.
They would have recognized a collective punishment not far different from what gun owners feel when confronted with “common sense” gun control laws.
Just sayin’.
March 18th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
So much good commentary (as usual) and so much to agree with. I would just add (in any generation)- ignore the fashionable stupidities of the day, and be unembarrassed about your passions.
You two know me, my stepson, our formidable but delightful un- pc wives. I am 61, a gun nut, writer, rare book and art collector, long- haired like like a 60’s relict but NO SNAG!- think libertarian/ conservative; L a paleoarchaelogist turned Himalayan guide turned cook turned clothing exec turned small town postal worker; J also a climber and wilderness guide, once the youngest licensed on rivers, linguist, blogger,photographer, opera critic; his wife N runs a law office, and like him graduated with a classics degree. We all keep odd animals and shoot. I don’t think any of us has ever given much thought as to what is “appropriate”.
Perhaps the models for such behavior and interests are from the 19th and early 20th century, mostly male and upper class because they were able to do it- no reason not to extend the franchise.
Of course you and Stingray are as weird as we are (;-)
March 18th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Tribalism is a throwback, and a poor survival strategy.
I would suggest reading Ringo’s The Last Centurion, for a good look at tribalism’s shortcomings in the face of adversity.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Marc, Mousie: FTW.
The virtues — yes, vir, I know — I aspire to are the same I find attractive in others. Competence tops the list. Metrosexuals annoy me for the same reason that girly-girls annoy me: deliberate abrogation of competence (which seems to involve the misidentification of “assertiveness” as “aggression”).
March 19th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Hear Hear, bluntobject!
Competence. Simple competence. The most underrated quality. The quality I least expect, and most desire, in the people I deal with. If i have to hire someone, I’ll take competence, with a dash of personal initiative, over all the degrees in the world. Even in my engineering or MBA classmates, it was still suprisingly rare…
Here’s to competence…
As to it’s deliberate abrogation, as you so well put, my wife and I have seen it wayy to often in girls and young women, who are ostracised by their own peers if they show too much, and left alone by to many insecure guys. It is too weep….
March 20th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
“You are correct about perception. In part what I really meant to do here was give the feminist/anti-”manly” perception- as to why that persona can seem thoroughly menacing to a woman more than just obnoxious/gross/un-PC.”
Ah, understood LR, that was a point I missed. My bad…
March 20th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Not really, I was fairly unsatisfied with this thing when I hit “post”, just couldn’t see how to fix it further at the time.
March 21st, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Labrat, the first part of my response is at this URL:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4hj4zc2
Part 2 will follow tomorrow evening. I look forward to hearing what you think of it.