Fighting Over The Future Of Manhood
In
an article dating back to 2003, columnist Steve Sailer manages to start with what I thought was going to be
one of those boastful "'real men' are back" articles and turn it into something I find rather fascinating. I guess it has to do with Sailer being a conservative and his article not jumping on the bandwagon.
"In the distant past, a man who dressed stylishly and enjoyed art, theater, and sophisticated music would have been praised as a "gentleman," but today his sexual orientation is automatically called into question. The average person's "gaydar" has become so sensitive that a long list of traits associated with civilized living are now assumed to be prima facie evidence of homosexuality."
Now, I'm not going to act like an expert in this kind of thing, but I can't help but be reminded of an event earlier this week with some bunch of fools on the bus. One had a portable DVD player and decided to play the remix of
Chris Brown's "Gimme That". Following
Lil' Wayne's rap portion of the song, one of the other guys immediately starts chanting "Chris Brown is a fucking faggot!" over the singing verses. It didn't take me long to figure out the mentality at work here...that a man singing is apparently regarded as 'sissy' (exceptions include Luther Vandross, Barry White, etc.) and meant only for women, while the 'thug' attitude is supposed to be more manly. Unsurprisingly, the group not only acted like hoodlums, but also looked the part.
"And then there's those new boxes on wheels, such as the Honda Element, that are designed to evoke a college boy's dorm room (just add empty pizza cartons). The hilariously homely new Toyota Scion bears a striking resemblance to Dumpy the Dump Truck in the little boy's storybook. I guess the appeal is: "Nobody's gonna think I'm gay when I'm driving one of these monstrosities!"
I personally find this kind of attitude sad and pathetic, but it does fit with one of my pet theories. The theory goes that while a minority of heterosexual men are actually straight and comfortable with it, most heterosexual men are not so much straight as desperate to not be seen as gay, and that there is a world of difference between the two. The first actually realize sexuality is more of a matter of hormonal reactions and sexual desires, but the second somehow sees sexual orientation in fashions, colors, mannerisms, and other things, thus becoming haunted by a spectre that should not even exist - a spectre that elicits exclamations of "that's gay!" toward inanimate objects.
"If James Bond were introduced today, the New York Times would describe him as a metrosexual rather than as a gentleman. I fear, though, that if you called him a metrosexual, he would make a witty quip, flick some invisible dust from his perfectly tailored lapels with his manicured hands, and shoot you."
This is something that I would wholeheartedly support, though a lightning-fast
iaido strike would be cooler. After all, I've never heard of a man being called a fag for running around and kicking people's asses; that's for men who don't immediately jump at the opportunity to commit violence or fuck an attractive woman, so it would seem.
Though Sailer's essay doesn't address much of the reason behind the "straight flight" phenomenon, all in all, it's a good article.
Now for the boastful article, courtesy of Sara Stewart and the New York Post:
"A lot of men feel that a lot of what they like to do has been marginalized," explains Tucker Max, author of the best-selling book "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell" and self-proclaimed bad boy of what's been referred to as the "retrosexual" movement - or, if you prefer, the "menaissance."
"Men have been emasculated by the media," rants George Ouzonian, aka Maddox, author of "The Alphabet of Manliness" and another ringleader of the guys-being-guys groundswell. "You don't really see the manly men anymore."
...
"But when pressed to elaborate on what exactly about that trend had been keeping men down - what has inspired such a cringe-inducing backlash of beers and leers - both Max and Maddox came up a bit short."
Though both Max and Maddox try their hardest to avoid directly saying it, I'm convinced that the best explanation for this 'backlash' is simply a fear of being thought of as
gay or
feminine. It's not like you need the X-ray Visor to see through that. All these concerns about emasculation are purely linked to pretty boys and their grooming habits. Not one iota of attention is given to the
staggering rates of incarcerated men in America, or to
boys' underperformance in schools, because neither can be directly traced back to those pretty boys and their hair gel. On another note, Max and Maddox are among many who conveniently leave out that there were times in history where men were flam
boyant without their precious sexuality being questioned.
I swear, as soon as we 'feminize' loutish and criminal behavior, we'll see a significant drop in crime and lewd activity. However, it seems that "The Establishment" - for lack of a better term - refuses to give it a shot, and only the ignorant have no idea as to why that is. The worst I can see happening out of such an attempt would be the crime rate staying stable (or rising slightly) and men not giving a fuck who calls them something less than manly. It still wouldn't be as bad as breeding the next generation of men to go berserk when their sexual orientation is questioned (how hard can it be to just say the goddamned answer and leave it at that?!).
"When pressed for specific examples, Max cites the images of well-groomed men in print advertisements. "Those guys with perfectly gelled, coiffed hair," he says disgustedly. "And ones that portray guys as wanting the latest, coolest gadget or the newest striped shirt."
Max goes on to compare the psychological fallout from these ads to the scourge of eating disorders in young women inspired by rail-thin models."
A very good point. I can understand this sentiment somewhat, but I still remain skeptical. It's not like making most future ads portray the ideal man as a musclebound chick magnet won't alienate some constituency of heterosexual men out there. Actually, that's probably how we got into this mess in the first place, and if we fail to learn and apply the real lessons of this now, the cycle will merely be repeated so that future generations will get to suffer just like us.
How will they suffer, you ask? It's simple to understand once you realize that some men out there are
compelled to adopt identities that women claim they desire, whether that man is cut out for it or not.
"The gender wars are full of wishful thinking and self-deception. In the meantime, I'm heading back to the electronic croft's darkened room, before getting in touch with my inner caveman. Again.
Sometimes it's hard to be a man."
While the first sentence above may be true, the consequences of the "gender wars" are very real and far-reaching. Actually, the division of heterosexual man into metrosexual, retrosexual, ubersexual, and
cross-sexual is probably the greatest divide-and-conquer tactic yet in this silly game. It has undoubtedly done a great job at turning men against one another over mostly trivial and superficial matters.
There's a solution to this societal travesty out there somewhere, in which men must be secure in their own identity, in which men must not try to change only to impress women or other men, in which indignation must be directed more at relevant problems than nonconformance to personal preferences, and in which heterosexuals are not automatically repelled by supposedly homosexual connotations. Will we find this solution soon? Probably not, as long as we allow popular perception to act as if the default setting for heterosexual masculinity is always set to "act coarse, chase after women, and be ruthlessly violent". Instead, we'll be treated to more sensationalized news coverage and a bunch of thugs being propped up as
the definition of manliness.
BOO!
What's that? You say you're not scared? That's great, since I wasn't exactly trying to scare anyone. Also, before anyone asks, no, this post will not discuss any dating tips or relationship advice. If you and your boo are having some kind of problem, I'm afraid you'll be better off on a website geared toward that kind of stuff.
So, what's the ruckus about then? Well, let's just say it combines
something that I like but don't really use, and
something that I use but don't really like. If you've checked out those two links in the last sentence and are still interested, then allow me to introduce you to
The Boo programming language. Combining Python's simple syntax and interpreter with C-Sharp's (C#) access to the .NET library classes and ability to compile straight to executable, Boo is the kind of thing I've spent the past few weeks looking for.
There's also something called
IronPython that looks to be highly similar, but I haven't played around with it yet. In the event that I find out IronPython is even better for my coding/programming preferences than Boo, I'll make the switch...and possibly dedicate a future post to it.
Trying To Game In Las Vegas
The way in which I found out that
Working Designs is set to come back as Gaijinworks was quite amusing now that I think about it. Somehow, I missed this news when it broke out, just learning of it last week when I saw a copy of Elemental Gearbolt for sale. I suppose I was too busy playing
NeoGeo Battle Coliseum [YouTube video] inside the store to ask how much it was then. Later, when I did a Wikipedia search, I didn't find any direct info, but I eventually followed enough links to arrive at
the Gaijinworks entry, and then to a review of Elemental Gearbolt later. As I expected, when I went to the store again today, the game was gone. Not that I'm upset or surprised...more like tickled pink.
Now, if that little event could qualify as a setback, then I guess the fact that I haven't seen any
Guilty Gear XX Slash [YouTube video] or
King of Fighters XI [YouTube video] machines in all the places that I've been to within Las Vegas is highly disappointing.
Seeing as that this year's
Evo2k tournament is later on this month, I'll be strapped for practice time - if I still really want to go. It would really suck to pay at least $40 only to get humiliated (or 'pwned') by someone who's played more matches against skilled human competition then I've ever played period. At the very least, that means I'd only really have good odds in two of the 10+ games that will be played there.
"Care to come with me and miss the point, dear sir?"
As I expected from a Christian website,
some article in the archives manages to disapprove of Brokeback Mountain, ignore a glaring double standard, and leave out certain bits of conventional wisdom. Here, the author - one R. Albert Mohler Jr. - gets so caught up in his disapproval of homosexual men that he misses the point as badly as the author that he criticizes - one Christopher Orr. Apparently, Orr thinks that there's something wrong with the way that two men in today's society have to be very careful around each other lest anyone think they're gay. Mohler then accuses Orr of missing the point (his point), that because homosexuality has found more acceptance than in past generations, two men practically have to walk on eggshells in their personal relationships. There's so much points being missed here that anyone really aware of the issue should see...
First of all, why in the hell do two men have to care whether others are going to think they're gay if the two make it clear to one another that they are not (or at least that it's just being friends, and not some fuckin' coercive act)? Isn't part of being a "real man" not giving a goddamn what others think about you? I've sure heard a lot of people say something to that effect. It's almost as if Mohler is too afraid to just "come out" and say that he thinks men should care deeply what society thinks of them - except when it comes to doing such-and-such in the name of God, that is (like starting wars, killing people, getting filthy rich, etc.). Perhaps he should just compel men to form real close friendships (football and beer don't count here) as part of God's will, but I doubt he can give up his anti-homo stance for that long.
Second, why doesn't this seem to affect women as much? Sure, it's been said a lot that women are more sociable/talkative/friendly than men, but that doesn't explain enough. If greater acceptance of homosexuality causes men to repel each other with fears of teh gayness, then what keeps women from doing the same? Why have I overheard many women refer to something they didn't like as "gay", as well as using that same term to try to shame men that don't fit their expectations? Contrary to what you may have heard, men aren't the only ones to do this. Could it be that neither the church nor society itself actually wants to bash lesbians with the vigor that they'll gladly dedicate to maligning gays? If so, then the church is clearly engaging in the moral relativism that it so despises. Surprisingly enough, Mohler doesn't account for this at any point in the article.
It's not like Brokeback Mountain is the only recent pop culture offering that depicts a homosexual relationship. I'll give the critics credit for citing the whole "violation of marriage" thing, but I fail to see how it's much worse than stuff like Child Support and the Andrea Yates verdict, which I haven't seen the church attack nearly as much. Until the church actually makes it clear that such matters as
the glaring disparity in jail sentences for men and women and
pedophile hysteria are bigger problems than two men wanting a private relationship without fear of being attacked, I refuse to take much of what it says seriously. How can I, when it's clear that attacking homosexuality (and gays in particular) is one of it's highest priorities, even higher than getting out of bed with certain politicians?
Another article, linked to from the one above, covers more ground but still leaves one very important thing out. As a "normal" heterosexual man, I have to ask: How weak do these people think male heterosexuality is? For all the hype about heterosexuality being normal and a gift from God, I'm left with the impression that heterosexuality in men is an extremely fragile thing, something that can easily be overriden and lacking any trace of permanance. It seems that anything from mere words to certain clothing or colors to interests and hobbies can throw a man's heterosexuality into question, as if it's everyone else's business to begin with. Even worse, because gays and lesbians have appropriated certain things, now us straight men have to abandon ship? To hell with that bullshit! Where's the people that say men should fight for what they want now? Shouldn't we see more men passionately fighting (tooth-and-nail if need be) for the right to be recognized as close friends without having to fear teh gayness? Or is the 'majority' content with letting gays and women take what they want from straight men (be it fashion, mannerisms, etc.) and leave those straight men with the scraps? I swear, these people would have me fearing that teh gayness is contagious if I didn't know enough of the truth.
The truth, though some people can admit it easier than others, is that straight men bear some responsibility for letting the whole "gay appropriation" thing happen. Oh, I'm sure that it's manly to fight against something that is considered to be a threat , and that it's rather wimpy to just idly stand by and admit defeat without much of a fight (if you don't believe me, just talk to one of the more passionate supporters of the war in Iraq or the Israel-Palestine conflict). However, there appear to be certain caveats, the easiest to remember being, "Once women appropriate something, men must give up that something...unless they want to be called 'feminine' or 'gay'". Yet another
short article doesn't go into much detail, but manages to point out the absurdity of gentleness being appropriated by females to the extent that men are expected to run away from it and become boorish to compensate.
Instead of missing the point as badly as Mohler (and on a lesser level, Orr), I'd rather try to counter all of this male heterosexual doomsdayism by offering up some optimism in its place. Instead of fearing teh gayness, become that fearless manly man that society supposedly adores. Make it so that being a 'risk-taker' applies to human interaction as much as to business and technology. If you really want others to believe that you don't give a fuck what you think of them, you may as well mean it and live by example once the accusations of "eww, he's gay" come at you. Anything less will only serve to shrink the circle of acceptable straight men's behavior for future generations. Keep in mind that there's also the subject of psychos who think they deserve the right to attack gays just for being gay, or any random guy who can be identified as gay. Caring what they think will only seem like a defense mechanism for so long...then it'll be more like a prison in your own mind. At any rate, a crowbar and a shotgun will protect you against the psycho more than giving a rat's ass about them ever could.
On the other hand, if you'd rather cling to mommy and fear teh gayness, I have one last thing to violate your mind with...
...and this is where the fanboys/fangirls scream, "
OMG! It's Buri-chan!!!!11".
