Via Michelle Malkin comes this rather idiotic essay reprinted by Jen Martinez. The original is here; it's by Gramaugus of Frizzen Sparks, and contains a lot of hand-wringing about how men just aren't masculine enough any more:

Ok folks, I have had it. I've taken all I can stand and I can't stand no more. Every time my TV is on, all that can be seen is effeminate men prancing about, redecorating houses and talking about foreign concepts like "style" and "feng shui." Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, trans-sexual, metrosexual, non sexual; blue, green, and purple-sexual-bogus definitions have taken over the urban and suburban world!

Real men of the world, stand up, scratch your butt, belch, and yell "ENOUGH!" I hereby announce the start of a new offensive in the culture wars, the Retrosexual movement.

Of course, those real men who want to publicly belch and scratch their butts may find it more difficult to behave like heterosexuals . . . unless heterosexuality is only a matter of reading skin magazines with one hand. Or resorting to Jen Martinez. Of course, Martinez won't be interested; she's hopped into her time machine to look for a cro-magnon.

Some characteristics are given for the ideal male, a "retrosexual":

A Retrosexual will have hobbies and habits his wife and mother do not understand, but that are essential to his manliness, in that they offset the acceptable manliness decline he suffers when married/engaged in a serious healthy relationship - i. e., hunting, boxing, shot putting, shooting, cigars, car maintenance.

There's some sort of masculinity point system in play here; men must have lots of macho in the bank, so that they can take the "acceptable manliness decline" it takes to get married. In contrast, my husband gets more masculine with each passing year. Of course, some of us see real masculinity, done right, as a mature shouldering of responsibility, rather than a cheap conglomeration of superficial traits.

Apparently, real men are also adept at dealing with snow:

A Retrosexual man can drive in snow (hell, a blizzard) without sliding all over or driving under 20 mph, without anxiety, and without high-centering his ride on a plow berm.

There are therefore no Real Men in the entire South or Southwest. Unless they moved from somewhere else. If such men do drive in a snowy region they should do it drunk, so they can be free of "anxiety."

Naturally, I was reminded of this stupid chestnut by Kim du Toit, "The Pussification of America," in which he essentially tried to tell me that my brother and father weren't masculine because they don't work on cars, and that my husband is only masculine enough because he owns guns—and barely so, as I understand it. When I first read it I was astonished that someone would actually attempt to dictate to men what their hobbies should be:

Men shouldn't buy "self-help" books unless the subject matter is car maintenance, golf swing improvement or how to disassemble a fucking Browning BAR. We don't improve ourselves, we improve our stuff.

Beautiful, I remember thinking at the time. So if you're an asshole, you get to stay an asshole, because that's more manly. Damned convenient. Character, apparently, never enters into the du Toit conception of masculinity.

HereÂ’s another way of looking at it: a real man doesnÂ’t need to be told by any idiot blogger what hobbies he may or may not have.

My husband got shot while serving his country, and in fact he does like to get together with his best guy friend and watch Westerns. But if he were cooking or knitting or gardening or buying clothes for himself—or, yes, figuring out how to improve the feng shui in the house—heÂ’d damn well have earned the right to do that.

IÂ’m really fed up with people—men and women—who purport to tell us exactly what Real Masculinity should look like, in every particular. They are not liberating us from the stultifying realities of modern life. They are simply dictating, Taliban-style, what society should look like.

Good God, Jen. Find yourself a nice caveman, by all means. And all of you: leave my husband, my brother, and my father alone.

UPDATE Jen apparently didn't write the essay; she reprinted it (without making it a blockquote; hence my [and Michelle Malkin's] confusion). I've re-written the opening paragraphs as best I can and added a link to the original.

Posted by: Attila at 02:51 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 736 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Miss Attila, I'd like to point out a couple things. For starters, I don't know your family, therefore I wasn't talking about them. If you noticed the first sentence I wrote, in italics, before the Retrosexual content, you would have seen that I wrote, "FROM THE MAILBAG, I DON'T KNOW WHO WROTE IT BUT DAMNIT I LIKE IT." I didn't write the piece in question, Graumagus did. At the time I posted it, I didn't have the author's information. You will find his original version here: http://www.frizzensparks.com/archives/000104.html As for your husband, I'd like to say "thank you for your service to our country, you are appreciated by this American." One last thing, I'm not a "bimbo" and I don't know this du Toit person you speak of. Jennifer Martinez sends

Posted by: Jennifer Martinez at August 03, 2004 07:29 AM (+wynJ)

2 To be fair, the opposite of a "metrosexual" is not the butt-scratching, belching, neanderthal. Think Gary Cooper from High Noon.

Posted by: Christopher Cross at August 03, 2004 09:41 AM (tcOxi)

3 And while they are shutting up about what makes a "Real Man", I'd appreciate it if they'd shut up about what makes a "Real Woman" too. I think I'm gonna scratch my butt, then let out a big belch.

Posted by: Kathy K at August 03, 2004 10:24 AM (lOTMi)

4 I dunno, Chris. A metrosexual is merely adhering to the standards of dress for his place and time. George Washington did this when he dressed up for the balls that were held in Revolutionary-era society--and no one had more physical courage than he did. Urban men have always had a stricter dress code than rural men; this doesn't mean they don't have occasion to show true character. It merely comes out in different ways. I love that Gary Cooper character, but I don't see a contradiction between, on the one hand, taking a little care with your personal appearance when the occasion demands and standing up for what is right when called upon to do that. Apples and oranges: different situations.

Posted by: Attila Girl at August 03, 2004 11:54 AM (SuJa4)

5 I have always had an odd time explaining what I think of that Kim du Toit essay because I agree with a good deal of it but not all of it. I've also had the experience of speaking to Kim du Toit and discovering that he's actually a soft-spoken, sweet guy, which suddenly makes you realize that sometimes when he writes and sounds angry he's not angry at all, he can say something that'll make you chuckle but when you just read it it sounds angry or mean. If you want to get a better perspective on this, I strongly recommend reading Christina Hoff Sommers' THE WAR AGAINST BOYS, especially if you have any sons under the age of 25. Growing up a boy in the '80s, I definitely felt many of the forces of disapproval and nastiness that essays like this address; we're made to feel "immature" for our normal sexual urges, for not having the same interests or the same attitudes that are standard for girls, and worse, we're not supposed to notice sex differences that we see around us every single day, even made to feel like there's something wrong with us if we just see what we see. Or God Forbid act on it.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at August 03, 2004 02:05 PM (LOj+R)

6 Because being a metrosexual is something quite a bit beyond "dressing for your times and place"--to bring it back to George---it'd be akin to being a "dandy" One can be fashionable and still be masculine--but the whole "metro" thing strikes me as being far more concerned with the fashionable to the point of calling into question the mascluinity. Had George spent hours upon hours powdering his wig until it was "just right"--then yeah, it wouldn't have been unreasonable to wonder a lil bit about his military prowess. So that's my stance: a metrosexual is your modern day dandy.

Posted by: Christopher Cross at August 03, 2004 04:35 PM (tcOxi)

7 Chris, I think we're arguing over precise matters of degree. Suffice it to say that I think the "cave man" lobby is suggesting that a man shouldn't be interested in his appearance at all, which is not very fun for heterosexual women, and not very healthy for him. FWIW I'll concede that there's a level of obsession over appearance that comes off as "foppish" (or "dandy-like") to me. Of course, there is the same thing with women--most of us like to look good, but some women (who aren't models) make it into a job. Dean, we're in the process of adopting, and we'll probably stop at one child. So it could go either way (unless we manage boy-girl twins). But I'm very much in favor of boys, and I want them to be free to be the high-energy kids they are. I don't approve of drugging kids, or anything like that. And I know male and female brains work a little differently, though it makes me crazy when people use this to suggest that women are intellectually inferior.

Posted by: Attila Girl at August 03, 2004 07:36 PM (SuJa4)

8 So we're in agreement that (1) men should bathe fairly regularly (2) farting/belching should be kept to a minimum unless in a competitive setting or near an open flame (applies to both men and women) (3) men should not take longer than women to get ready to go out (4) "if it has a hole in it--throw it out"

Posted by: Christopher Cross at August 04, 2004 10:58 AM (WrswG)

9 1) yes; 2) yes, please--I don't want to see it, hear it or smell it; 3) I would find this off-putting, but if his woman is okay with it, good for them; 4) yes, unless dry cleaner (or tailor) thinks he can fix it.

Posted by: Attila Girl at August 04, 2004 02:00 PM (SuJa4)

10 Christopher, about your #4, "if it has a hole in it, throw it out", you meant except for underwear, right?

Posted by: Doc Rampage at August 05, 2004 03:00 PM (Jdlik)

11 "real men" don't sit around thinking about what constitutes a real man, they just are. Bill

Posted by: bill at August 05, 2004 09:27 PM (Y2hLf)

12 Where can I follow up for more information

Posted by: Sarah at November 06, 2004 01:12 AM (WgEFB)

13 Um. About what? You might follow the links in the original post to see what it is we're talking about. Are you a real person, or a 'bot?

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 06, 2004 04:36 AM (SuJa4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment