Kali Holloway - Identifying Dudes: From Bros to Douchebags and Beyond

From Alternet, Kali Holloway sardonically breaks down the Dude branch of the male species. Yes, these are cliche categories with somewhat offensive labels, but there is some truth to all of her categories of dude.

If you are easily offended by things not politically correct, please move along.

Identifying Dudes: From Bros to Douchebags and Beyond

Dudes are a specific kind of guy, but knowing their subgroups requires even more nuanced information.

By Kali Holloway / AlterNet

February 13, 2015

This being the Internet and all, we thought it would be a good idea to start the proceedings by stating, unequivocally, that there are plenty of great, wonderful, smart, kind, giving, loveable guys. And many fantastic and endearing kinds of guys. So many, we couldn’t make a list of them all because that list would be so long, we would all grow old and die reading it. To be clear: We’re not saying, in any way, shape or form, that there aren’t amazing, incredible, terrific guys out there (although someone will definitely say in the comments that we did).

What we are saying is that there are also a lot of different kind of dudes out and about. And we mean very specifically dudes – not guys, not boys, not men – but dudes. This is important. Dudes – and again, dudes are a particular variety of male – are out there, like, being dudes. But not all dudes are the same, and lumping them all together creates a kind of chaos and confusion that can and should totally be avoided. So, to more distinctly identify each type of dude from their brethren, here is a list that makes clear where the boundaries for one dude end and another dude begin. Below is a detailed report on the unique traits that identify douchebags, bros, dicks, assholes, scumbags and tools.

Douchebags. Semi-awful. Definitely the most wealth-obsessed of all the categories of dudes. Complete lack of self awareness means he constantly refers to other dudes as “douches” and – on his most terrible days (i.e., every day) – “d-bags.” Brings coke to parties but doesn’t share with anyone except for the woman he’s trying to sleep with, who he’s actually vaguely aggressive with about snorting it. (If she doesn’t have sex with him, definitely decides she’s “a lesbian.” Also: Isn’t totally sure how words work.) Finally got hip to the AXE Body Spray / douchebag connection and instead started wearing TAG Body Spray. Broke up with a girl once because he thought her ankles were a little fat. Not cankles fat, but fat enough. Definitely fucked that one waitress in Cabo. If he’s trying to pick up a girl and her phone goes off, says cheesy stuff like, “You’re blowing up!” Mentions he has a six-pack hoping you’ll ask to touch it. (When you don’t, calls you “a lesbian.”) Wants to live in a world with only Kanye, Diplo, Scott Disick and Evan Spiegel. Says he loves music but really only listens to shitty EDM.

Bros. More innocuous and sweetly earnest than douchebags. Really enjoys chilling – probably has some of his frat bros coming over this weekend to, you know, chill. Spends the entire summer in flip flops, even – no, especially – at inappropriate events. (For this reason, should never be allowed to choose dress-up party attire for himself.) Still thinks Williamsburg is “artsy” and “kinda weird.” Misquotes Fight Club and Dylan lyrics, but really is trying. Benches 120, flexes in the mirror, thinks: “Fuck yeah.” Earnestly believes he has something insightful and deep to contribute to the conversation, which is adorably wrong. It should be mentioned that this category now includes a hipster-bro hybrid who wears ‘50s style white t-shirts with skinny jeans and is into artisanal pizza, suspenders, bespoke drinks and high-end shaving kits. Though it’s been said a million times and is obvious to the point of absurdity, Matthew McConaughey remains the Alpha and Omega of Bro. (If they were manufactured in a factory, bros would be made out of a super common material called McConaughite.) Is best friends with one bro exactly like Owen Wilson and another bro exactly like Ryan Lochte. Says he loves music but only listens to shitty EDM and Bob Marley’s “Legend.”

Dicks. Full-on awful. Is endlessly arrogant to cover up the deep well of insecurity he still carries from being picked last for kickball so many times as a kid. Is technically quite smart, but so insecure he can’t help but constantly prove it in super obnoxious ways. Pretends not to get your references. Creates uncomfortable silences in conversation on purpose. If you tell a joke, says something rude or cutting afterward to prove that, oh, he got it, he just didn’t think it was funny. Enjoys being “politically incorrect” and then playing dumb when challenged on it. Actually lies to his therapist, making the whole exercise a tremendous waste of money. Spends the first five minutes after meeting you trying to figure out your points of emotional vulnerability. Secretly cries after masturbating. Hates himself, and deep inside knows there is a hole that can never be filled. Role models include Vincent Gallo and Andy Dick (ironically). Says he loves music but mostly just enjoys collecting music facts so he can tell people they’re wrong about songs they love.

Assholes. A close cousin of the dick but not quite as sharp. When he agrees with something you’ve said, starts his response with, “No, but..” and then repeats exactly what you just said, exactly the way you just said it. Starts talking while you’re talking and then keeps talking louder and louder until you finally give up. Thinks women don’t get him but doesn’t understand the actual problem is that  they get him all too well. Blatantly steers the conversation back to his areas of knowledge when it starts to drift toward things he doesn’t know about, which is a lot. Feels most at home screaming at waitresses until they tear up and leaving lengthy notes on the backs of receipts explaining why he didn’t leave a tip. (tl; dr: Because he’s an asshole.) Is only semi-aware that every fuck has been a hate-fuck for him. Blissfully unaware of how awful he is. Likes the way Mike Love does business and still chuckles to himself remembering mean things Simon Cowell said. Thinks Biff from Back to the Future had his good points. Says he loves music but then argues with you about Every. Single. Band.

Scumbags. Here’s the thing about the scumbag: He is actual slime and kind of a sociopath, and by far the most dangerous dude on this list. Lies about weird stuff like what he had for breakfast this morning but is unfailingly honest about the disgusting and immoral way he treated some nice girl last week. Thinks telling people he’s about to have sex with that he has an STD “ruins the mood.” Constantly suggesting to women he’s just met that his “tongue never gets tired.” Currently dating a woman who doesn’t speak a word of his language because it’s “just easier.” Stands out in front, waiting to walk into a party until he can go in with another friend who actually brought a bottle of wine. If you resist his (inevitably gross) advances at a bar, keeps coming up every 15 minutes to ask, “Would you want to make out now?” If he’s in a band, secretly lives in the practice space. Learned just enough about feminism to get laid. Admires John Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas and thinks Dov Charney of American Apparel got a raw deal. Not that it needs to be mentioned, but really looks up to Terry Richardson. Says he loves music and, actually, has pretty good taste.

Tools. Although the term feels a little outdated, it’s an an oldie but a goodie that still applies in a startlingly large number of cases. Thinks he’s projecting an image of roguishness and suave sophistication when, in fact, he is projecting the reality of a tragicomedy with legs. Women can smell the stench of desperation coming off him a mile away, but he mistakes their indifference as “playing coy.” In high school he was always “dating a model who lives in France.” As an adult, he frequently drops boastful, unsubtle hints about the number of women he’s slept with to distract anyone from guessing the actual number is two. Misuses hip-hop slang in a way that feels not just embarrassing but borderline offensive. Has a guy he hangs around with all the time who he doesn’t realize is making fun of him. When he finds himself in a conversation where he doesn’t quite get what’s going on, tries to look really deep in thought so people mistake his confusion for depth. Doesn’t get the David Brent character from The Office UK because it’s too much like looking in a mirror. See also: Piers Morgan. (Despite these examples, isn’t necessarily British. Tools have no home country.) Says he loves music, and will now prove it by making a scene with that guitar he found in the corner. 

"Fathers Who Care About Parenting" Are Not a Revelation (via Esquire)

Can I get an "Amen!"? This short article from Esquire tries to help dispel the myth that men who are trying to be actively involved and caring parents are some kind of aberration.

"Fathers Who Care About Parenting" Are Not a Revelation

By Stephen Marche on December 23, 2013

The recent government survey of American family life is mostly good news. American dads are heavily involved with the lives of their children in a variety of important ways. Among other things, most fathers read to their children several times a week, help out with homework, and eat meals with their kids. Given that new research shows just how powerful time spent with a father can be, particularly in the lives of boys, these are all signs of genuine and substantial hope. The only really bad news about the government survey is that it's news at all.

"Fathers who care" are the new "women who work." Haven't we all moved beyond this question by now?

We all know that fatherhood matters to men. When my own father died a year and a half ago, I discovered for myself just how much. The new survey shows that the symbolic power of fatherhood is increasing. Young men want to be fathers more than young women want to be mothers now. But the trends the new government survey identifies are pretty mild. The amount of father's attention to their children has "increased slightly" since 2002.

So when the AP writes that "the detached dad, turning up his nose at diapering and too busy to bathe, dress and play with his kids, is mostly a myth," I have to ask: Whose myth?

This idea of fathers coming home to retire to the den to build bottle shops and suck back old-fashioneds has not been viable for a generation at least. That may be how today's grandfathers remember their own grandfathers, but for everybody else, it's history.

We all know that the family as it currently stands comprises mothers who work and fathers who help with the children. That is the way the vast majority of families work. To remark on fathers who care is to imply that the norm is for fathers not to care. To remark on women who work is to imply that it's unusual. And this attitude of surprise has consequences.

American work life and American family life have arranged themselves so that women are punished for having children at the workplace and discussions of family leave are almost entirely discussions of maternity leave. Treating the current family as some weird outlier makes discussions of family policies separated from reality.

The latest Pew research shows that 40% of households with children under 18 have women as breadwinners. This comes as a surprise to exactly no one who is paying attention. The current model of the standard family, insofar as such a thing exists at all, involves both partners bringing in income, and both partners helping to care for the children. (Housework is a different matter.) This is not news anymore. It is simply established reality.

The most important and substantial trend in American family life is not that men and women are in separate spheres, but that they're struggling in both, that government and business policies around family-life balance in America are virtually non-existent, and that they haven't properly been thought through yet. "News" that treats the current lives as men and women as alternative reality doesn't help.

Let's stop being amazed that men and women are living the way they are. Let's start doing something to help them.

Tom Matlock - Is It Fair to Believe Men Can Be Summed Up By Our Desire to Drink, F*** and Swear?

This is a nice article from Tom Matlock at the Good Men Project on the ways that cultural stereotypes about men reduce us to one-dimensional stick-figure human beings. He rightly argues that men are more complex and have greater depth than the stereotypes allow - but we must be willing to look past the surface.

Is It Fair to Believe Men Can Be Summed Up By Our Desire to Drink, F*** and Swear?

November 25, 2012 By Tom Matlack

Here is an excerpt from the much longer article - be sure to go read the whole thing.

As much as I have tried over the last four years to stick to first person narrative to speak the truth about manhood (if such a thing exists), I have gotten sucked into the broader discussion about men and gender.

At first I was honestly baffled by the idea that men can be summed up by our desire to drink, fuck and swear (not that I don’t have a strong interest in all three). Although I’ve described men as simple, because I understand other men more easily than I do women, this distillation of men struck me as not just wrong, but offensive. Having heard so many men spill their guts, this image of men just didn’t square with the yearning and internal turmoil I have witnessed. Over time, this image made me angry.

♦◊♦

One of my friends has a neurological problem whereby his vision is roughly equivalent to being on a constant acid trip. The condition was caused by a freak brain tumor when he was a kid. The tumor was removed, but the condition is degenerative. He also suffers from acute obsessive-compulsive disorder and alcoholism. (He’s been sober for over a decade.)

To meet him you would probably never guess any of that is going on. He’s a good-looking guy in his thirties, loud and gregarious with an infectious laugh. He has a good job, beautiful wife, and two kids. He lives to play golf, watch football, and listen to rap.

But I know better. There’s the guy that the world might dismiss as some kind of skin deep moron and there is the guy with a soul as deep as any I have encountered, striving to overcome a heap of problems not of his own making. He doesn’t necessarily want to go on the “Today” show to talk about it but if you ask him he will tell you how hard—how complicated—his effort to be a good man is.

Every guy I know has his own version of this story. The difference between the stereotype and my friend is like the difference between a two dimensional line drawing of a man and the three dimensional flesh and blood and guts of a real, individual man. Not even close.

♦◊♦

But I can’t speak for any other guy. When I watch a commercial or read another in the endless stream of mischaracterizations of manhood—as sexed-crazed dogs or slackers or just stupid—I certainly get upset because of all the men I know and have interviewed. But I also get offended on a personal level.

What do all these portrayals say about my struggles and successes as a father and husband? About my passion for seeking out men’s stories? About, in the end, my commitment to telling the deepest truth I can about myself and in so doing, inspiring others to face themselves?

NPR - Congratulations, Television! You Are Even Worse At Masculinity Than Femininity

Sadly, it's very difficult to expect anything good about men on network television. Perhaps, as a culture, we get the depictions of masculinity we deserve. If we want to see better images of men, we need to do better as men (and those who are Good Men might need to become more visible), and thereby change the expectations.

Here is the key point to me, a too common message that puts men in a double bind:

But there is something about this narrative hectoring about men not understanding manhood that seems particularly brutal in that it specifically attacks them for emotional ineptitude while simultaneously attacking them for having emotions.

The idea of the psychological double bind goes back to Gregory Bateson - he perceived that double binds are employed as a means of control, a way to do so without visible coercion. The subtle creation of confusion in the recipient of the double bind inhibits resistance or response. This is the position a lot men find themselves in right now, consciously or unconsciously, in terms of how to be masculine.

This is from the Monkey See blog at NPR.

Congratulations, Television! You Are Even Worse At Masculinity Than Femininity


by LINDA HOLMES

David Hornsby and Kevin Dillon star in CBS's How To Be A Gentleman. 

Tonight, CBS premieres How To Be A Gentleman, a brainless buddy comedy presenting a dichotomy in which men can be either delicate, ineffectual, sexless weaklings or ill-mannered but physically powerful meatheads. Says this show — over and over, in both its marketing and in its actual dialogue — there aregentlemen, and there are real men, and each might need to be a little more like the other.

Yes, yes, it's a sitcom, and caricatures are common, and on its own, this wouldn't make much of an impression. But this is not just any season. It's a season that also brings Tim Allen whining about what ever happened to "real men" in Last Man Standing, three guys lost in a universe of "pomegranate body wash" in Man Up, and — sometime in midseason, unless the universe blissfully swallows us all before then — two men in drag in Work It trying to overcome the entirely female-driven economy in which they literally cannot support themselves without dressing as women.

And in that environment, How To Be A Gentleman and its overt and unapologetic sexist stereotyping, in which only certain kinds of men are "real men," represents a kind of tipping point: Television right now — at least broadcast television — is even worse at managing its ideas about masculinity than about femininity.

Now, this is a pretty high bar and therefore an accomplishment to be taken seriously. But at least The Playboy Club and Pan Amknow enough to rely on nostalgia. Neither NBC or ABC would put a show on the air in which a physically unattractive woman was trained in how to be a "real woman" by an idiotic but beautiful personal trainer, and if they did, they would not say that she needed to learn how to be a "real woman." 

Other fall shows demonstrate some of this same complete lack of faith in the inherent emotional intelligence of men. Patrick Wilson plays a doctor on A Gifted Man who needs a dead woman to counsel him on how to have feelings. NBC's Free Agents features a female lead who has to counsel the male lead in how not to act like a weepy ... well, a weepy woman, in stereotypical terms. How, in other words, to man up.

I honestly think the men on television now resemble the men I know even less than the women on television resemble the women I know, and at least women are not being out-and-outinstructed that there is only one way to be a woman.

That doesn't mean women are being well-served when television turns its attention to their gender. They're not. But when you see the four men on How To Be A Gentleman — Kevin Dillon as the meathead, David Hornsby as the nice weakling, Rhys Darby as the dopey husband of Hornsby's sister, and an utterly out-of-place Dave Foley as the buffoonish boss who can't age gracefully — it really begins to look like men are the new women, when it comes to being mercilessly pigeonholed and mocked for failing to represent an impossible ideal of perfect behavior and perfect looks.

It's woven into the DNA of this particular show: Dillon telling Hornsby that the sooner he starts working out, the sooner he can get "an adult male body." Foley telling him that the "holy grail" demographic for their magazine is "men in their mid-to-late thirties who act like they're fifteen." Hornsby asking Dillon, "What does a person like you like to read?" and being told, "Sports scores!" And yes, Dillon telling Hornsby — in the revelatory line that sets up their new friendship and the show — "You know everything about being a gentleman, and nothing about being a man."

So yes, the guy who only reads sports scores is going to teach about "being a man." And Tim Allen is upset about what ever happened to men. And the Man Up men are not men the way their fathers were.

There are plenty of silly women in new fall shows — Zooey Deschanel on New Girl and Whitney Cummings in Whitney, just to name two. But at least they are not presented as women who are being women incorrectly. Yes, The Playboy Club idealizes the Bunny, and that's plenty problematic, and the producers' efforts to co-opt the idea of female empowerment to put a shine on it is obnoxious and disrespectful.

But there is something about this narrative hectoring about men not understanding manhood that seems particularly brutal in that it specifically attacks them for emotional ineptitude while simultaneously attacking them for having emotions. Men who are emotionally reactive (like Hornsby's character here) are weak; men who are emotionally inert (like the Man Up guys) are clueless. In both cases, women don't want to have sex with them, even if they're married to them.

I cannot help asking, even more than I usually do when I watch scripted comedies: Where, on television, are the men who both like football and remember birthdays? Where are the men who can have a highly insightful drink-and-talk with friends? Where are the men who are great dads, great husbands, great boyfriends? Where are the men who are dedicated to important jobs? Where are the men who aren't seeking reassurance about what it means to be men? Where are, in short, all the men I rely on in my day-to-day life?

It really takes some effort to match television's historically disastrous relationship with femininity, but at this point, I'm prepared to say it: Right at this moment, I'm more comfortable with what scripted television thinks being a woman means than I am with what scripted television thinks being a man means.