Before anything else, let it never be said that I do not brag about my very accomplished siblings. My sister Elizabeth is a company member with RJC (Reggae, Jazz, Contemporary) Dance company of Leeds; they’ve been on tour all over England (from Ilfracombe to Sunderland) this summer. A very nice review in last week’s Guardian, though I’m at a loss as to why our family’s nationality had to be mentioned. After all, we have US and UK passports. I am a proud eldest brother.
We had a very happy father’s day visit with my Pa in Santa Barbara yesterday. I may have some photos up later today.
I’ve been thinking about the comments below my "marriage" post from last Friday. (No, not the one where a Mr. or Ms. Snowglobe tells me I am very definitely going to be burning in hell. It’s always bad form for one believer to make presumptions about the state of another’s salvation, but given that this poor person is living in perpetual intellectual and spiritual winter, I can be understanding.) Rather, I’m thinking about something Mr. Bad said to me that’s been in my head for a day or two:
You… have a very inaccurate, uninformed and distorted view of healthy, normal masculinity. You instead are much more attuned to feminist and homosexual (i.e., gay and lesbian) issues than most people. There’s nothing wrong with that - in fact it’s necessary and informative - but the fact remains that IMO you’ve shown yourself to be clueless on the topic of normal, healthy masculinity.
Rather than respond in anger, I’ve been thinking about the ways in which this might be true. Am I, I wonder, really out of tune with "mainstream masculinity", whatever that is? From an academic standpoint, I’ve read a great deal of the still small canon of work on men’s studies. I’m familiar with everyone from Michael Kimmel to Warren Farrell to Robert Bly to Shepherd Bliss to Bill McCartney to R.W. Connell. From an activist standpoint, I’ve trained with groups like Men Can Stop Rape. From a volunteer standpoint, I’ve helped lead men’s retreats at places like All Saints Church and Fuller Seminary. And Lord knows, I’ve participated in enough group therapy (I was in two long-term men’s groups in my late teens and early twenties)!
But what does that teach me about "normal guys"? The academic in me wants to pretend that normalcy itself is an artificial construct. But part of me is reacting to Mr. Bad with the realization that my own life experiences are radically different than those of the majority of American men. Of course, anyone who does any academic work at all in gender studies is participating in a classically "feminine" activity, in that we presume that "normal" American men have no interest in the thoughtful analysis — and subsequent challenging — of traditional relationships among the sexes. Thus studying and teaching the subject become proof that I am not an authentic man, and thus excellent grounds for dismissing my conclusions.
It’s true, I wasn’t raised with "All-American" guy concerns. My father, whom I love with all my heart and with whom I have a very close relationship, was born in Austria and raised in England. (He knows the rules of cricket, not baseball.) He taught me to kick a round ball, not throw one; he taught me to appreciate the life of the mind and classical music. My father and I didn’t go to baseball games or learn how to barbecue together. We did go to Gilbert and Sullivan operettas and Jean Renoir retrospectives. (Despite his influence, however, I did develop some stereotypical American interests, chief among them an interest in college football that has only grown more passionate in the two decades since I first entered university.)
I have lots of male friends today. How normal are they? Most of my male friends are straight and married; a few are gay and a few are single. Most, but not all, are college educated white guys between 30-55. Half have children. About half are serious Christians, but others are agnostics, Unitarians, and students of Kabbalah. Most are liberal Democrats, but a few are solid Republicans. But there’s one thing every one of my close male friends has in common: we are all, to a man, quite concerned with the appearance and performance of our bodies.
Mr. Bad commented, with a grain of what I acknowledge is truth:
Almost every day you post something about yourself, often times shallow and/or silly, and usually relating to your body with a healthy dose of your feelings thrown in. For this reader, you come across on this blog as having a very strong "mirror, mirror on the wall…" princess approach to your life. So, considering that your professinal focus has been on women and homosexuals, I humbly suggest that perhaps that’s the basis for the model you’re projecting as the "typical" male you keep trying to offer up. And because of this, you’re missing the mark vis-a-vis typical men by miles and miles.
Yes, I have my shallow and silly qualities. But I’m convinced that Mr. Bad is wrong when he implies that an intense concern with one’s own appearance is not "typically male." Every one of my male friends works out. Many are marathoners and ultrarunners and triathletes. In that sense, we are a self-selecting group. We are perhaps a shade more neurotic about our bodies than your average Joes. (On Saturday, my two running buddies and I discussed the details of the cleanse I’ve been on for quite some time, as well as having a heartfelt discussion of the nagging problem of "lower-back fat deposits.") But Mr. Bad is wrong when he implies that most American men are utterly unconcerned with their appearance.
Here I don’t have to rely on anecdotal evidence. See here. See here. Note the proliferation of men’s fitness magazines which focus not on health but on appearance. I don’t think these magazines are raking in fortunes off a few unusual narcissists! Rather, the evidence is overwhelming that American men are rapidly becoming as concerned with body image as women have been. The fact that they are not yet as vocal about it — outside of the fitness community — does not mean that the anxiety isn’t growing to the point of being omnipresent! (See books like The Adonis Complex, the very subtitle of which makes clear the nature of the problem: The Secret Crisis of Male Body Obsession.)
Yes, I’m very concerned with my body’s appearance and athletic performance. Yes, I’m vain. Yes, I do something straight men aren’t supposed to do, which is talk about these concerns in a very public way. But the research (and abundant anecdotal evidence) suggest that my friends and I are far from alone. In blue-state cities it may be easier for men to discuss these anxieties and obsessions openly, but the evidence suggests that they are becoming universal. In that sense, men who are open about their "body image issues" are fully and completely "normal" — perhaps just more candid than some of their more truculent and inarticulate counterparts.
All in all, I think it’s counterproductive, even dangerous, to question the masculine credentials of those who do gender work. Given the rigid rules of American sexual culture, it’s all but certain than any man who does speak critically about male behavior will have his manhood questioned. Indeed, it’s a standard debating tactic, usually employed by those who oppose progressive agendas, to suggest that feminists and their allies are "out of touch", "elitists", who don’t "get it" or who aren’t "real women" or "real men." One of the hallmarks of the pro-feminist men’s movement has been a resistance to this false dyad of "real men" and "girly men" (which, after all, is more or less what Mr. Bad’s language implies). The authentic men’s movement sees masculinity as a continuum, not a fixed point.
Snowglobe questions my Christian faith; Mr. Bad questions my masculine credentials; some (not all) of my erstwhile allies are so irked by my post on marriage that they may be questioning my feminism. It’s one thing to dismiss our opponents’ arguments as poorly reasoned, another to engage in ad hominem attacks. At the same time, my own choice to bring in my own personal experience — a strategy and a technique I learned from feminism — makes these attacks all but inevitable, if disappointing.
Pshaw. You seem normal enough to me, if maybe a little bit more open to criticism than most men. If “man” is defined as so misogynist that he must eschew anything remotely feminine, including bathing and caring about others, than “man” is a terrible thing indeed.
Bwa ha ha! Y’know, Hugo, there really, truly needs to be a corollary to Godwin’s Law for just this sort of thing…something like, “when discussing gender issues, pulling the ‘real man/real woman’ card instantly cedes the argument.”
It has been my humble experience that blue collar guys don’t stress over the “real man” image—they don’t have to. Popular culture seems to immediately grant “real man” status to guys who use power tools and get dirt under their fingernails on the job. My union brothers seem to be far more comfortable stretching the boundaries of pop-culture notions of manhood than their white-collar counterparts; for example, kilts are fairly popular around here (even though a lot of non-Celtic folks call ‘em “skirts”) and baby slings are a staple anymore for fathers (who are more than happy to launch into an Attachment Parenting 101 lecture for your listening pleasure!). I think there’s more of a societal pressure on white-collar men to “prove” their “toughness”, since their job doesn’t automatically do it—there’s still a notion that “toughness” is primarily a physical trait.
I think it relates to this stupid notion that masculinity is something that can be taken from you, or something that doesn’t really occur naturally….that a man has to “prove” his masculinity. I see more and more young men rejecting this idea, the same way feminists did with stifling limits on femininity.
I guess the glib answer is that the problem starts with the notion that anyone is entitled to hold a constant, narrow view of what it means to be masculine, and further, to expect that others will follow along. It strikes me that there is only one constant, unshakeable criteria required for masculinity, and no, it’s not what you think it is — it’s having one’s 23rd chromosome comprised of an “x” and “y.”
I realize that since society sends powerful messages of what men should act like in any given situation, the glib answer doesn’t provide much guidance to real men, and that all people seek external cues in order to reduce the uncertainty of their actions, uncertaintly that is borne out of insecurity and confusion. That is why, one hopes, that all people develop a strong sense of conscience that guides them to do the right thing regardless of how it appears to the Bad’s of the world. So, Hugo, since you obviously have a strong conscience and the strength of character to follow your better angels, most of the time, and you apparently do have an x and y on your 23rd chromosome, you can tell the Bad’s of the world to kiss your a**.
Or, to put it more succinctly, “real men don’t really care what other men think.” So, by definition, if you need the Bad’s of the world to define your masculine nature, that’s a sure sign it’s deficient.
Moreover, in my judgment “real men” don’t tell other men how to act — a sure sign of an insecure twerp is the need for constant reaffirmation from those around him that they are doing just what he’s doing. That’s what drug addicts do.
First off, Hugo, I’m not trying to “attack†you as a person, I’m criticizing your ideas, stereotypes, biases, etc. Let’s just get that straight (no pun intended) from the start.
You said: †Of course, anyone who does any academic work at all in gender studies is participating in a classically “feminine” activity, in that we presume that “normal” American men have no interest in the thoughtful analysis — and subsequent challenging — of traditional relationships among the sexes. Thus studying and teaching the subject become proof that I am not an authentic man, and thus excellent grounds for dismissing my conclusions.â€
Studying the topic doesn’t mean that you’re not an “authentic man,†however, we have to be real here: What is termed “gender studies†in academia is most commonly women’s studies and at best feminist studies in the sense that any “men’s†component of “gender studies†is approached from a decidedly feminist perspective. From my experience (I’m assuming that I’m allowed the luxury of anecdote too, right?) feminists are often hostile to normal masculinity and many times see it as outright pathological. Thus, while feminist “men’s studies†might be informative vis-à -vis the feminist perspective on men and masculinity, it sorely lacks credibility because one of – if not THE – major stakeholder groups are missing: Men who are sympathetic to normal, healthy masculinity.
And when you say †anyone who does any academic work at all in gender studies is participating in a classically “feminine” activity†doesn’t mean that it has to be that way, but from my experience academic feminists are very threatened by and afraid of schools establishing independent men’s studies departments, IMO because they wouldn’t be able to control the topics, debate, etc. Campus feminists vigorously object whenever the issue of men’s studies departments arises; I’ve seen this on our own campus several times over the 15 years I’ve been here. I think that there should be separate men’s studies departments, wholly and specifically separate from feminist and women’s studies influence, to provide true diversity and balance to the topic of gender studies. And there are plenty of non-feminist men who could staff these departments if they would just be allowed to exist.
You go on: †But Mr. Bad is wrong when he implies that most American men are utterly unconcerned with their appearance. Here I don’t have to rely on anecdotal evidence. See here. See here. Note the proliferation of men’s fitness magazines which focus not on health but on appearance. I don’t think these magazines are raking in fortunes off a few unusual narcissists! Rather, the evidence is overwhelming that American men are rapidly becoming as concerned with body image as women have been.â€
Actually Hugo, I believe that this is anecdotal evidence and thus I don’t accept your thesis based on the evidence you present above. There are lots of probems and questions re. it: For example, who is the target audience, e.g., gays, straights or “metrosexuals?†What is the circulation of these magazines? Is the readership greater than, say, “Sports Illustrated,†“Playboy,†“Soldier of Fortune,†“Esquire,†“Wired,†etc.? I really don’t believe that these rags are indicative of trends in “maleness†as much as they are indulging in a marketing ploy to the new brand of men labeled “metrosexuals†(who BTW IMO the jury’s still out on whether or not those guys are normal, healthy trendsetting males vs, short-term urban anomolies). However, if the rags that you offer up last as long as the ones that I listed, then you might have a case, but for now I’m not accepting it.
Another thing that have a big problem is that you limit your definitions and evidence to white American culture. I think that even you wouldn’t argue that men in Latin America, Asia, India, some parts of Europe, etc., are more traditionally “macho” - or at least different vis-a-vis masculinity - than the skin-waxing, eyebrow-plucking, makeup-wearing, nipple piercing (you knew I’d throw that in sooner of later, right Hugo? ;)) American metrosexual. This not to say that, e.g., Latin American men are not interested in their bodies, but IMO it’s a different dynamic and more, well, male.
You continue: †All in all, I think it’s counterproductive, even dangerous, to question the masculine credentials of those who do gender work. Given the rigid rules of American sexual culture, it’s all but certain than any man who does speak critically about male behavior will have his manhood questioned.â€
Not true. Many priest, preacher, deacon, et al., regularly speak critically about men and don’t have their male credentials questioned. And frankly, I don’t question you “male credentials†– I assume that you’ve got the requisite equipment. What I do question is the ability of a feminist to take a sympathetic, understanding approach to normal, healthy masculinity when for the past several decades they’ve spend a great deal of energy pathologizing it. Also, for you personally, you offered up a picture of the “characteristic male†that looked surprisingly like you, thus, my allegations of transference and projection (sorry Michael).
You also said: â€Indeed, it’s a standard debating tactic, usually employed by those who oppose progressive agendas, to suggest that feminists and their allies are “out of touch”, “elitists”, who don’t “get it” or who aren’t “real women” or “real men.”
Actually, I’ve not noticed this in MRA circles (and I’ve traveled in them extensively for years), but I have noticed this tendency in feminist circles, where men who challenge feminist dogma are labeled “misogynist,†“knuckle-draggers,†etc., simply for criticizing various aspects of it.
You wrap-up: â€One of the hallmarks of the pro-feminist men’s movement has been a resistance to this false dyad of “real men” and “girly men” (which, after all, is more or less what Mr. Bad’s language implies). The authentic men’s movement sees masculinity as a continuum, not a fixed point.â€
Interesting that you claim to be a spokesperson of “the authentic men’s movement.†Just when were you anointed this position, and what do you consider “the authentic men’s movement?â€
This has been one of the basic issue in the men’s movement for a long time, i.e., who were are, who will be our leaders and spokespersons, etc. And what we all have mostly unanimously decided is that we will decide who we are and not let feminists or others do so for us. Hugo, I challenge you to go over to StandYourGround and post there as a spokesperson of “the authentic men’s movement†and see whether you are accepted as such. Glenn Sacks is acknowledged as a leader, and we already saw how you (and Amanda) were received by the community of men and women in the men’s movement after appearing on his show.
You’re making some claims that I don’t think you can back up.
I’ve not got the time to go over this piece by peace, but the “authentic men’s movement” is the pro-feminist men’s movement of NOMAS, Men Can Stop Rape, XY Online and so forth. I am hardly a leader in that movement, just a humble fellow traveler. I defer to the Michael Floods, the Michael Kimmels, the Jackson Katzes. (Google ‘em all for links).
Barbara,
So when feminists discuss negative aspects of masculinity (e.g., all men are potential rapists, violent, abusive, wife-beaters, exclusively blame us for war, etc., simply because we’re ‘masculine’ men), we should all be free to tell them to “kiss [our] a**?” Cool. I trust you tell them that too, right?
Barbara, though I agree with your greater point, there are plenty of transmen out there who’d take issue with your “unshakeable criterion”! Biological maleness isn’t as simple as a chromosome count.
So when feminists discuss negative aspects of masculinity (e.g., all men are potential rapists, violent, abusive, wife-beaters, exclusively blame us for war, etc., simply because we’re ‘masculine’ men), we should all be free to tell them to “kiss [our] a**?
Uhm, Mr. Bad? I seem to recall you making a comment about “knuckle draggers” in reference to someone who’s former USMC, a rodeo medic, an “alpha male,” and a small-time rancher, as well as a Linux Guru. (OK, so I left out the Linux Guru portion earlier.) You’re not being consistent with your comments.
Mr. Bad brings up an example that counters his own point about the alleged lack of masculinity of men like Hugo who care about their appearance–men from cultures other than white, middle-class American culture.
Latino, European, and African-American men have a tradition of taking great care of their grooming and clothing. There is a real tradition of dandyism among Italian and African-American men– yet I would also consider both of those cultures pretty “macho.”
So what’s the distinction between an Italian dandy or a cologned Latino and an American “metrosexual?” How is that they are somehow “more male,” as Mr. Bad puts it? I don’t get it, nor do I get why it matters.
cmc,
Have you ever seen a cowboy get all dandied up for Friday or Saturday night? Or clean up for church, for that matter? Some of them clean up *really* well. ;-)
Mr. Bad,
Your comment is a non sequitur. I.e.:
“So when feminists discuss negative aspects of masculinity (e.g., all men are potential rapists, violent, abusive, wife-beaters, exclusively blame us for war, etc., simply because we’re ‘masculine’ men), we should all be free to tell them to “kiss [our] a**?”
My point is that rape and violence are wrong irrespective of whether they are masculine or feminine traits. There is no point in reducing behavior, good or bad, to an ideal (or archetype if you will) of feminine or masculine — when it comes down to it, it doesn’t matter whether “rape” is a masculine trait, what matters is that men and women understand that it is wrong. Calling it masculine doesn’t make it right or wrong any more than calling some stereotypical feminine trait right or wrong. Redeeming a bad trait by calling it entrenched in masculinity is one step away from saying “Boys will be boys.” Condemning a trait as inevitably male does not give enough consideration to those men who don’t exhibit it.
FWIW, I agreed with your criticism of Hugo on his marriage thread, that is, that not being married is not a sign of male immaturity, etc. I loathe the idea that people cannot be complete unless they have been married. I also loathe narrowly laced gender stereotypes just as much.
kilts are fairly popular around here
Where I am, kilts aren’t so much popular as they are an acceptedly commonplace item of clothing. Of course, when my husband got his out yesterday and wore it to church and around town, we got different looks, depending upon which part of town we were in. Some people asked if we were in costume for something. (I was wearing the Ukrainian blouse the mother of our Ukrainian “son” sent me, with my favorite good red skirt, and I cover.) At a store that sees people from many different cultures, someone asked if there was a Celtic festival this weekend. When we said no, noone batted an eye.
And yes, Hugo, my husband was wearing “The Loud McLeod” (which isn’t called loud because of the pipers!) to Austin Mennonite.>/a>
gotta fix that dropped coding.
I know that most men are obcessed with their bodies! I just thought you were different because you’re so connected with the female mind.__ Personally,I consider your ‘female’ attributes as an asset to your masculinity.__ The fact that you’re a typical jock is rather disappointing.__Oh well, so you’re not perfect! You can’t be a feminist intellectual all the time!
Since when, Mercedes, are an interest in athletics and feminism mutually exclusive? A passionate interest in the life of the mind does not mean a disdain for competitive sports, or vice versa. I want to write well, I want to teach well and I want the six-pack abs I had not so long ago. I also want to get back under a 3:30 marathon and get some articles written and submitted to publishers. Healthy body, healthy mind, and all that.
Hugo,
The great thing about you Hugo, is that you ‘do’want all those other things in addition to staying in top physical shape. Unfortunately, you and your circle of friends are a minority. There aren’t that many jocks out there that are interested in developing their minds!
Hugo,
I did not mean to attack you personally in any way.I believe that being married to a jock for 23 years has made me a terribly prejudiced person. Unfortunately, my spouse is not interested in anything else, so I have a very distorted picture of male athleticism.
No offense taken, Mercedes. Caitriona, that’s a heckuva kilt. Rock on, Mr. Cait.
Hugo,
Great pictures. You are so lucky to have your dad!…Nice family.
Gotta go now.
I just have to laugh about claims that “real men” don’t obsess over appearance. I remember my teenage brother pumping iron in order to bulk, since he clearly was too small to make the football team. Who on earth ordered those “Charles Atlas” exercise sets advertised in comic books, if not individuals of the XY genotype? Now ads for those exercise sets have been aimed at anxious teen boys since at least WWII, if not earlier.
mercedes,
As someone who, in high school, played basketball (7th-12th grades), was in French Club, in Beta Club, in choir, in FHA, in the Sr. play, and in the group of students for whom the school arranged an *extra* science class because we’d already taken all the available math and science, I’m not quite sure how to take your comment about jocks. ;-) Oh, and as the oldest grandchild on the farm, I also had to help haul wood and all that jazz. lol
I think your feminist allies would have been less likely to question your feminism, Hugo, if you hadn’t set the marriage thing up as your faith trumping your feminism. Actually, with your announcement that feminists found this “maddening,” it sort of seemed to me that you were trying to provoke your feminist allies. Was that not your intention?
The thing about Mr. Bad is that he seems to want it both ways. On the one hand, he thinks that masculine gender norms are oppressive. For instance, the dictate that men ignore their bodies leads to men being less healthy than women. On the other hand, he’s perfectly willing to reinforce those oppressive gender norms when it suits him, such as by implying that Hugo is unmanly because he pays attention to his body. It seems to me that if Mr. Bad was genuinely interested in changing society to liberate men, rather than in halting changes in society that liberate women, he’d consistently oppose the gender norms that he claims oppress men, rather than resorting to them to score cheap, nasty points. Right?
I don’t mean to sound at all judgemental Hugo, and as a recovering anorexic and bulimic I’m really not in a position to be judgemental. But have you considered that being open about your body issues might actually reinforce them? I think that’s often how it works with women: we encourage and rationalize each others’ body image problems by discussing them. One of the things I did to kick my eating disorder was remove myself from all discussions of weight, calories, fat, etc., and it seemed to help a lot. I suspect you’re right that urban sophisticates are just more open about problems that are plaguing a lot of guys, but I think being open about it might make it worse.
I’m constantly getting in trouble for saying that, because openness and sharing seem to be the cornerstones of our theraputic culture, and “repression” is the big, bad bogeyman. But I’ve actually found openness about body image to be kind of problematic. Maybe that’s just because I’m really crazy, rather than neurotic in a normal way, when it comes to these issues.
Well, I know that discussing body image issues is problematic for exactly that reason. I’m very careful to control discussions amongst my youth group to prevent that kind of preventative sharing that isn’t as therapeutic as it first sounds.
I am not anorexic, bulimic, or filled with loathing of my own flesh. I’d like to be leaner and stronger, and am willing to devote attention to that goal. Of course I’m trying to conform to an ideal. But it’s an ideal I’ve appropriated for myself, and I’m working towards it using natural, healthy, non-surgical methods. I don’t think that one has to surrender one’s vanity in order to speak authentically on body issues! I want to see a wider, more diverse notion of what constitutes the beautiful in our culture. But I have no desire to see us cease to pursue the beautiful entirely.
Sorry: I didn’t mean to imply that you had an eating disorder!
Honestly, I wouldn’t mind one little bit if people completely ceased to pursue the beautiful when it came to body shape. I’m as vain as the next woman, so it’s not that. It’s just that I feel like attempting to alter body shape leads to a lot more misery than, say, plucking our eyebrows or wearing lipgloss. YMMV, obviously, and it probably does.
There’s a sort of dark underbelly to the “real men don’t care about their looks” thing, which is of course that not caring about being attractive while demanding it of women is another way of saying that female sexual desires are irrelevant and male ones are all-consuming. Just a thought.
Indeed, Amanda. On the other hand (still another hand), some folks assume that my care about my body is linked to a desire to be found attractive by women. Other than my fiancee, I don’t seek out that validation. I’m just interested in living up to an ideal that I’ve chosen to pursue, regardless of how unattainable it surely is.
You know, Hugo, a lot of times when I’ve seen someone questioning others’ salvation, masculinity, feminity, etc, it’s been the person questioning who was the most insecure in the area questioned. I wouldn’t worry about it, if I were you. (Or if I did, my husband would tell me to stop it. hehehe)
Hi Hugo
I’m with Mr Bad on this one, though to be honest my thoughts on this predate his post by a couple of months. Ever since one of your posts on the masculinity course you teach listed the resources you use, it occurred to me that you, Kimmel, Flood and somebody else whose name escapes me at the moment all have the same predilection - a kind of romanticism, which is nothing at all new and certainly not abnormal in any way. The antics of 19th century male romantics are legendary. Where would modern Wiccan praxis be without them after all? Anyways, this theory of mine neatly accounts for why you use Kimmel, Bly and a ball breaking piece of fiction - (Fight Club, I think) for your course thereby relegating anything that might be vaguely familiar or comfortable to the majority of males to the margins. Now, the only problem is getting around to collating this mass of material I’ve compiled and write something.
Hugo said: “I’ve not got the time to go over this piece by peace, but the “authentic men’s movement” is the pro-feminist men’s movement of NOMAS, Men Can Stop Rape, XY Online and so forth.”
Bwaa hahahahaha! Heheheheheheheheh. Hmmph, hmmmph, hmmph - Whahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha! Kimmel? Bly?!
Bhaaawhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Caitriona,
I think the problem I’m having with this issue has a lot to do with my spouse. After 23 years of having to listen to things like, “I beat this guy going up the mountain(on the mountain bike)and as it turned out the guy was half my age.”……”What a wimp!”……This is what I mean by jock talk…..I guess I’m a little tired of validating masculinity as a result of his athletic prowess.__And this guy wants validation!
lol… I can understand where you’re coming from, mercedes. I know the type. But there are more and more people who *don’t* fit that stereotype and who can’t be pigeonholed.
Heaven forbid men should start subjecting themselves to the same self-scrutiny and self-loathing that women have subjected themselves to for decades (granted, we’ve had some help). I mean that seriously, not sarcastically. I don’t view it as a step forwards for men to start knowing how women feel in regards to their bodies, rather in doing so we’re doubling the number of people who feel crappy about themselves. I wish we could just get over the whole thing alredy, men and women included.
Sally wrote: “The thing about Mr. Bad is that he seems to want it both ways. On the one hand, he thinks that masculine gender norms are oppressive. For instance, the dictate that men ignore their bodies leads to men being less healthy than women. On the other hand, he’s perfectly willing to reinforce those oppressive gender norms when it suits him, such as by implying that Hugo is unmanly because he pays attention to his body. It seems to me that if Mr. Bad was genuinely interested in changing society to liberate men, rather than in halting changes in society that liberate women, he’d consistently oppose the gender norms that he claims oppress men, rather than resorting to them to score cheap, nasty points. Right?”
Wrong. Actually, I don’t find the masculine gender norms “oppressive” because that implies that an external factor (person, entity, etc.) is actively forcing men to, e.g., ignore their bodies (which BTW, they don’t - they just don’t fixate on them). I consider some masculine gender norms to be unhelpful and others admirable and valuable. As far as “implying” that Hugo is unmanly because he pays attention to his body, that’s your interpretation of what I wrote and thus I take no responsibility for how you (mis-)read my comments. I meant what I said, not that Hugo’s unmanly per-se, but that Hugo seemed to be projecting his personal characteristics onto the general case of men and masculinity as a whole, and I supported my statement with observations re. his website. Nothing more, nothing less. And people here keep making the same logical fallacy, i.e., taking unusual cases (e.g., Charles Atlas, et al.) and generalizing it to all men and masculinity.
I don’t want to halt changes in society that liberate women; rather, I want to halt changes in society that discriminate against and disadvantage men. Unfortunately, in many cases the changes that “liberate” women do just that, discriminate and disadvantage men.
I’m fairly one-track about sexism these days - because IMO discrimination against women is non-issue in our society, I focus on issues re. discrimination against men. If that often times puts me at odds with feminists, then that’s just too bad.
“Hugo,
The great thing about you Hugo, is that you ‘do’want all those other things in addition to staying in top physical shape. Unfortunately, you and your circle of friends are a minority. There aren’t that many jocks out there that are interested in developing their minds!”
Mercedes: see more jocks.
“Hugo,
The great thing about you Hugo, is that you ‘do’want all those other things in addition to staying in top physical shape. Unfortunately, you and your circle of friends are a minority. There aren’t that many jocks out there that are interested in developing their minds!”
Mercedes: see more jocks.
Unfortunately, in many cases the changes that “liberate” women do just that, discriminate and disadvantage men.
Taking away an unfair advantage or a privilege certainly “disadvantages” anyone. Abolishing legacies “disadvantages” children of alumni; does that mean we shouldn’t do so?
You’ve posted before that you’re hoping feminists “go away,” that you warn young men about females, and now you’re insisting that discrimination against women is a non-issue (for you, it clearly is). It’s a little late to try to retrofit yourself as merely and rationally concerned about how sexism affects men.
Okay, Mr. Bad, I call.
What is it that makes you and your positions more “authentically male” than Hugo and his positions?
Hi mythago,
You wrote: “You’ve posted before that you’re hoping feminists “go away,” that you warn young men about females, and now you’re insisting that discrimination against women is a non-issue (for you, it clearly is). It’s a little late to try to retrofit yourself as merely and rationally concerned about how sexism affects men.”
Actually all of the above are ways that men experience sexism against them: Feminists are the most prominent and most numerous sexists in our society so for them to “go away” would rid our society of its most significant contingent of sexists, which IMO would be a good thing. Our society privileges females to the point that when men interact with them (e.g., marriage and the family court) those men expose themselves to considerable risk, so I warn young men of the potential dangers and consequences of dealing with women - why do you see teaching young men to avoid dangerous situations as bad? And yes, IMO discrimination against women is a non-issue because for the most part it doesn’t exist; at worst one finds only isolated, trivia instances, at least in our society.
I believe I’ve been quite consistent.
Hi Jeff,
You asked: “Okay, Mr. Bad, I call.
What is it that makes you and your positions more “authentically male” than Hugo and his positions?”
I don’t believe that I’ve ever claimed that my positions are more “authentically male” than Hugo and his positions. However, I would argue that I am more in line with the mainstream, ordinary male than Hugo is. For example, unlike Hugo, my nipples are not pierced and I’ve never worn rings in them; I don’t proselytize (sp?) feminism; I don’t obssess about myself (appearance or otherwise, in public or private); I’m not “vain” (as Hugo describes himself); etc. All of these attributes (and a whole lot more) are far out of the mainstream of what currently passes for normal masculinity in Western cultures.
As I’ve said before, I think that Hugo is probably authentically male. However, he is an outlier vis-a-vis common, normal masculinity; i.e., he’s out in the ‘tails’ of the normal distribution.
I think you’re mistaken about the level of vanity possessed by most males, American or otherwise. About the only time I see American males who aren’t vain is when they are under the age of 15 or so. (I’m anxiously waiting for that vanity phase to hit my 15yo son.)
You might be correct about adolescents and young adults, but most men grow out of the vanity phase by their mid-20s.
most men grow out of the vanity phase by their mid-20s.
Really? Who’s buying all those hair-plugs, then?
And paying for all of the plastic surgery for men that has become epidemic, not merely in Los Angeles but nationwide?
I’ve got a post coming up on this — and here, loads of evidence (not mere anecdote).
Feminists are the most prominent and most numerous sexists in our society
Dude. You need to do a little more eavesdropping on groups of ‘traditional’ women and non-feminist mass culture for women. That stuff makes a NOW chapter meeting sound like phallus worship.
La Lubu wrote: “Really? Who’s buying all those hair-plugs, then?” and Hugo promised: “And paying for all of the plastic surgery for men that has become epidemic, not merely in Los Angeles but nationwide?”
Do either of you claim that this is normal for the majority of average, normal men? My guess is that guys who are getting hair plugs might represent, maybe, 0.5% of all men in Western cultures, and those getting plastic surgery (for vanity’s sake, not to fix disfigurement due to accidents, cancer, etc.) are even less.
Hugo, be sure that “evidence” you promise to get us is legit (i.e., peer-reviewed) and contains useful info like sample size, population characteristics (e.g., age, race, SES, geographic region), etc., so that we can attempt to determine whether or not the study can be generalized beyond the sample population (e.g., “metrosexuals” in New York City and/or Los Angeles).
Is AC Nielsen legit enough for you?
“n just the past year, ACNielsen reports that unit sales of men’s hair coloring products grew by 7.6 percent, to 23.7 million units, while women’s hair color sales rose 3.2 percent, to 223.2 million units. Granted, men’s hair dyes still constitute barely a tenth of the total hair color market (in terms of both dollar sales and unit sales), but that share is climbing steadily, guided primarily by young men who are increasingly driven to change the look of their locks.”
From American Demographics
That’s cheating.
Yes, it may be .5% of all men getting hair plugs, or having pierced nipples, or whatever. And there may be plenty of other factors that only apply to a tiny percentage of men.
But to turn around and say that such factors disqualify one from representing “average, normal men” is disingenuous. Say there’s a thousand such factors. Your “average, normal man” will exhibit five of them; 0.7% of men will exhibit none of them. If you want to paint Mr. Average there as unrepresentative, you can claim that only .0000000003125% of men exhibit that particular combination of factors.
The difference is that Hugo’s subjected himself to more scrutiny than others have, so it’s easier to point out where he breaks with the “norm.” We can’t as easily identify where you or I deviate.
Start with this article:
But figures just released by the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS) show that not only are American men now finding plenty of male company in the doctor’s office, it may not trouble them in the least to talk about their treatment.
According to ASAPS, 1.1 million American men underwent cosmetic surgery procedures during 2003. By contrast, ASAPS reports that in 1997, only 287,000 American men were cosmetic patients. That’s a six year growth of 269 percent, or an average increase of about 45 percent per year. That same study showed that 74 percent of the men interviewed said they wouldn’t be embarrassed if others knew they’d had cosmetic surgery.
1.1 million. No one is suggesting that men are having surgery done at the rate that women are having it — but an increasing number of men are exhibiting a remarkable amount of concern about their bodies.
Anyone know how many guys are prescribed rogaine or propecia every year? I’d be curious to know.
Mr. Bad wrote: My guess is that guys who are getting hair plugs might represent, maybe, 0.5% of all men in Western cultures and Hugo, be sure that “evidence” you promise to get us is legit (i.e., peer-reviewed) and contains useful info like sample size, population characteristics (e.g., age, race, SES, geographic region), etc.
Uhm, it’s alright for you to guess, but those with an opposing opinion have to have peer-reviewed information?
Caitriona wrote: “Uhm, it’s alright for you to guess, but those with an opposing opinion have to have peer-reviewed information?”
No, only if they offer their opinion as “fact.” If Hugo were to say “my guess is that(e.g.) men are just as vain as women are” then I would take it at that - just a guess. But Hugo doesn’t do that - he presents his guesses and opinions as ‘fact,’ thus, I call on him to provide information supporting his ‘facts.’
Also, BTW, a few of the raters at rateyourprofessors.com have commented on Hugo’s “arrogance” and the risks one takes when/if challenging him in the classroom re. the opinions he presents during his lectures. Therefore, I’m not the only one to notice the above-cited phenomenon.
Ok Hugo, let’s analyze this.
You wrote: â€According to ASAPS, 1.1 million American men underwent cosmetic surgery procedures during 2003.â€
According to the U.S. Census Bureau , as of 2003 the population of the U.S. was 291,049,000. If men represent 49% of the population, then that gives a figure of 142,614,010 men. That means that according to your data, 0.08% of men in the U.S. underwent cosmetic surgery. Hugo, dude, that’s a pretty small number, and I would argue is hardly representative of average, normal, healthy men, at least in the U.S. Add to that the fact that your number doesn’t tell us how many of those men had cosmetic surgery for purposes other than vanity (e.g., reconstruction after injury, cancer, etc.) and the number you give is even less impressive.
Your quote continues: â€By contrast, ASAPS reports that in 1997, only 287,000 American men were cosmetic patients. That’s a six year growth of 269 percent, or an average increase of about 45 percent per year. That same study showed that 74 percent of the men interviewed said they wouldn’t be embarrassed if others knew they’d had cosmetic surgery.â€
Ok, so there was big growth in a phenomenally small, miniscule societal sub-group. So what?
Like I said, guys getting cosmetic surgery are not representative of average, normal, healthy masculinity.
Gong – try again.
average, normal, healthy masculinity
I was always told that normal is the average of all the abnormals in the world. How do *you* define ‘normal?’
Also, BTW, a few of the raters at rateyourprofessors.com have commented on Hugo’s “arrogance” and the risks one takes when/if challenging him in the classroom re. the opinions he presents during his lectures. Therefore, I’m not the only one to notice the above-cited phenomenon.
He’s far from the only poster here to have a bit of arrogance.
Caitriona,
I define normal as what is ‘normal’ for the particular individual. For instance, I’m certainly not normal as far as normal goes about nutrition, or the body. When I was in my twenties I would do a cleansing fast once a month!…. I sometimes bathe three times a day. This is certainly not normal!
You know, I was really hard on Hugo about body obcession, but I realize that I’m probably more obcessive about the body than most people. I think I was just really jealous that some people were doing all this exercise and cleansing and I was turning into the Pillsbury dough boy. I wasn’t able to exercise for almost two months due to school and other commitments.
Caitriona,
I’m not sure if I understand your last comment…..I’ve been a student in Hugo’s classes and the reason it’s difficult to challenge him is because he’s a really bright guy and very quick to find flaws with your argument. I think that the problem lies with the students, not with Hugo. As a student we need to find the fortitude to stand up to our convictions and challenge our professors.__I wouldn’t say Hugo’s arrogant or difficult to approach. Actually, it’s the opposite, he asks the students for questions and he wants to include them in the lecture.
I’m off to to work on my ‘female body anxiety.’__I’m back to running, it wasn’t easy after such a long hiatus….today I’m climbing up the mountain.
Caitriona asked: “I was always told that normal is the average of all the abnormals in the world. How do *you* define ‘normal?’”
I define “normal” as whatever the vast majority (e.g., +/- 1 standard deviation) of a given sector of society looks like, in this case, how masculinity is expressed by men. As for average, you’re correct, it is the arithmetic mean of the sample population, but I don’t consider folks out in the tails of the (usually normal) distribution to be “normal” or “average” - they are by definition “outliers.” So, as I said before, while I accept Hugo as a genuine male, IMO he’s an outlier vis-a-vis healthy, normal masculinity.
But how do *you* define “healthy, normal masculinity?”
The problem is, your definition of “healthy, normal masculinity” is probably at least slightly different than every other persons’ definition. That’s why I posted that about normal being the average of all the abnormals. *Noone* is completely normal.
“Normal” is not a neutral term.
Girls wear pants, why can’t men wear dresses? We shouldn’t be bias in letting women do one thing and then not let males have the same freedom.