50 Greatest Quotes on Men

This is an entertaining collection of quotes on men, some I like, others not so much. From Think Men Think, here are the (sort of) 50 Greatest Quotes on Men.

Before success comes in any man’s life, he’s sure to meet with much temporary defeat and, perhaps some failures. When defeat overtakes a man, the easiest and the most logical thing to do is to quit. That’s exactly what the majority of men do. ~ Napoleon Hill

Today’s post as you can see from the title itself is dedicated to men. Well, technically women since they would be the one trying to find answers about men. After researching all day I have been able to compile this post with quotes that might answer some questions and some, as always, will remain unanswered no matter how hard we try.

1. I never liked the men I loved and never loved the men I liked. ~ Fanny Brice
2. You can tell the strength of a nation by the women behind its men. ~ Benjamin Disraeli
3. Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power. ~ George Bernard Shaw
   
4. When men and woman die, as poets sung, his heart’s the last part moves, her last, the tongue. ~ Benjamin Franklin
5. Passion makes idiots of the cleverest men, and makes the biggest idiots clever. ~ Francois de La Rochefoucauld
6. If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right. Men will believe what they see. ~ Henry David Thoreau
7. All men’s miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone. ~ Blaise Pascal
8. The world judge of men by their ability in their profession, and we judge of ourselves by the same test: for it is on that on which our success in life depends. ~ William Hazlitt
9. All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does. That’s his. ~ Oscar Wilde
10. God made woman beautiful and foolish; beautiful, that man might love her; and foolish, that she might love him. ~ Unknown
11. Young men want to be faithful, and are not; old men want to be faithless, and cannot. ~ Oscar Wilde
12. It’s not the men in my life that counts, it’s the life in my men. ~ Mae West
13. A man may conquer a million men in battle but one who conquers himself is, indeed, the greatest of conquerors. ~ Buddha
14. Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place. ~ Billy Crystal
15. Men play the game; women know the score. ~ Roger Woddis
16. Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most times he will pick himself up and carry on. ~ Winston Churchill
17. There are some sluggish men who are improved by drinking; as there are fruits that are not good until they are rotten. ~ Samuel Johnson
18. When a man points a finger at someone else, he should remember that four of his fingers are pointing at himself. ~ Louis Nizer
19. Happy is he who still loves something he loved in the nursery: He has not been broken in two by time; he is not two men, but one, and he has saved not only his soul but his life. ~ Gilbert K. Chesterton
20. Few men have been admired of their familiars. ~ Michel de Montaigne
21. Boys will be boys, and so will a lot of middle-aged men. ~ Kin Hubbard
22. If it’s true that men are such beasts, this must account for the fact that most women are animal lovers. ~ Doris Day
23. All men [are] of one metal, but not in one mold. ~ John Lyly
24. Men are like steel. When they lose their temper, they lose their worth. ~ Chuck Norris
25. Adversity makes men, and prosperity makes monsters. ~ Victor Hugo

I only posted 25, so go read the rest at Think Men Think.

Tags: 50 Greatest Quotes on Men, Men Think Men, masculinity, men, quotes, culture

A Gender Deconstruction of "Portal" - A Parody

Portal is apparently some form of video game. If I played games, I might have known this without having to look it up. Anyway, allysaundre posted a very cool deconstruction parody of the game using all the requisite pomo lit-crit gender language. Very entertaining. And brilliant.

Here is an excerpt:

Isn't gaming just another art form? The short answer is no, it is not. Many, however, have taken up this idea with little critical reflection and treat gaming as if objective value judgements can be made of it (to a small extent, they are right, but not enough as entertainment is the central value).

Others have gone further and adopted the waste produce of literary criticism to it (maybe to add legtimacy to the claims). One such waste product is Jacques Derrida and here is an effort which is either a parody or a serious act of phenomenal idiocy. I'll take it as the later here and treat it accordingly for my own parody:

He is entirely wrong beyond the first paragraph on the name. The gun is inevitably a symbol of female agency. As radical masculinists show us, there is a complex matriarchy that works through as subtler agency. The gun is more accurately fitted to the female genitalia, because of its birthing aspect. It is shaped similar to the birth canal and it birthes the agent of death (remembering that death has been personified as a female agency in many things from Slavic and Celtic folklores all the way down to postmodern geniuses like Neil Gaiman). Remember that children (bore from the womb) often represent a loss of personal freedom for the parents and the bullet represents the absolute loss of freedom, therefore the gun represents the objectification of the agency of the matriarchy and the idealised form of female genitalia.

Since militarism is, as seen from the above, an agency imposed upon men by the matriarchy, men cannot choose militarism. Militarism is thus the female-acting-through-the-male, the male becomes the instrument of the matriarchy, which is the Self to the male's Other. The real Self and, therefore, the real gendered view, is female.

The PCs in FPS games are almost always men turned into the instrument of objectifying and making Other males through the agency of the females, i.e. the matriarchy. In Portal, however, we see the matriarchy taking a full hand because it is not stated that the character is male or female unless one passes a mirror or somesuch. The character's lack of overt sexuality indicates she represents the matriarchy directly, as the normally sexualised females are symbolic of feminity's power to subtly objectify men through the use of sex (as in pornography, which should be banned as a symbol of matriarchal oppression via the control of men).

Go read the rest of the post.

Tags: Deconstruction, Portal, A Parody, humor, gender roles, culture, games, matriarchy, female-acting-through-the-male

How Do We Define the New "Real Man"?

[a real man?]

While I think it's important that men embrace their maleness, within reason, it's equally true that we are more than testosterone and beard stubble.

Pip Cornall, at the Sustainable Masculinity blog, posted recently on constructing the new “real man,” to deal with today’s global crises. He rejects a lot of the programming men receive (dominance, stoicism, lack of emotional intelligence, and so on) as destructive not only to ourselves, but also to our cultures and our planet. I tend to agree.

Here is his take on things:

On my website and in previous blogs, I talked about how masculinity is a social construct. Since the old constructs of masculinity (dominator) are root causes of violence and limited thinking (reductionist), there is an urgent need to construct a new masculinity, one which will not hasten the end of humanity, one which is sustainable. The old male behaviours and mindsets are simply not up to the task.

Today, as never before, we all have an opportunity to shape evolution - to create the type of future that is best for all of us - and is best for the planet. This will take considerable and courageous inner work for a large and critical mass.

Males have an important role to play not only because much of our programming is so pervasive and harmful but because we are still predominantly in leadership roles in commerce and government.

No blame: As I’ve said previously, we (males) are not to blame for our programming but unless we make positive changes, we will wear the dreadful consequences - as will all those who are in relationship with us.

I cannot make that point powerfully enough - the programming is not our fault BUT unless we free ourselves from its effects - we will continue to harm ourselves, those we love while destroying the planet at the same time.

Yes it takes enormous courage to break away from the old male paradigm and the ”real man” mindset - yes at times we will be called names (usually a gay or sissie variant) and isolated from our peers who are yet to wake up.

However, unless a critical mass of males can make such changes, we will not be able to think outside the box, to think holistically enough, to resolve the looming global crises. We will just continue making war on everything.

The courage is necessary because ultimately, the only war is with ourselves. Embracing the partnership model is the new masculinity and that work begins as we adopt partnership principles in our mind, body and soul.

The danger is when we “don’t know that we don’t know.”

I'm all for embracing the partnership model (culturally: male and female power in balance), but this isn't as easy as it sounds. Men are agentic creatures -- we are about action and doing. The partnership model has a definite feminist, and feminizing agenda.

Riane Eisler has done more to promote the partnership model than anyone else. Here is a brief statement of the model's intent:

Partnership is a commitment to a way of living, it is a way of life based on harmony with nature, nonviolence, and gender, racial, and economic equity. It takes us beyond conventional labels to a future of flourishing untapped human potential.

It is part of our human nature to be caring, sensitive, and creative, to seek pleasure and avoid pain. During much of our prehistory, humanity was rooted in the partnership model. This is our lost heritage. Through a cultural shift, history became the familiar tale of violence, injustice, and domination.

We need to restore our Earth and renew our communities. We need social and economic inventions based on partnership. This is the mission of the Center for Partnership Studies. Based on the groundbreaking research and writings of authors, Riane Eisler and David Loye, The Center for Partnership Study offers everyone a new hope for the future.

Nice intent, but faulty history. Human beings did not evolve through prehistory with anything resembling the partnership model:

Much of the archeology that she relies on for her argument has been discredited by later scholars, particularly the work of Marija Gimbutas. Even in the case of Crete where the material evidence is suggestive of an egalitarian society, Eisler’s claims are grossly overstated. She makes far-reaching statements about social structure, the nature of Minoan religion, and the relations between the sexes essentially on the basis of a limited set of paintings, buildings, and figurines. In contrast to most contemporary archaeologists, who are hesitant to make any certain claims about the Neolithic due to limited data, here the speculations of a few now-discredited archaeologists are reported as proven fact. The lack of illustrations in The Chalice and the Blade prevents the reader from coming to her own conclusions about the artifacts on which so much of Eisler’s argument rests. Further, Eisler’s cultural history is both oversimplified and full of minor errors.

But that's OK, we are moving in that direction now.

However, I think that her views -- and those of those of partnership model folks -- are more than a little dismissive of men and male qualities. It all sounds well and good on the surface, but the more I read (and I have read Eisler's main books), the more I suspect that it's less about partnership and more about making men more like women.

I have to admit -- I went through this phase in my 20s, thinking that men are all that is wrong with the world. And we have certainly made our share of horrible decisions through the centuries. But on the other hand, we wouldn't have indoor plumbing, the internet, or the Corvette if it weren't for men.

So my question, then, is how do we honor the agentic qualities of men and the communal qualities of women (and there really is a huge overlap in these traits between men and women) without compromising either's essential being?

[Defintions: Agency manifests itself in self-protection, self-assertion, and self-expansion; communion manifests itself in the sense of being at one with other organisms. Agency manifests itself in the formation of separations; communion in the lack of separations. Agency manifests itself in isolation, alienation, and aloneness; communion in contact, openness, and union. Agency manifests itself in the urge to master; communion in noncontractual cooperation.]

This definition is a little biased. There is nothing inherent isolating and/or alienating about agenctic drives. Both agency (making distinctions, defining limits) and communion (group focus, inclusiveness) are crucial to men and women, but each has been identified with only one gender. Nearly all the defintions you will find of agency (and generally, agency = masculinity) make it seem like a negative trait? Why is that? Has feminism been that successful as a meme?

The new "real man" will be fueled by testosterone (the agentic hormone), but he will harness its use and power for more positive goals. Not war, but peace. Not dominance, but egalitarianism. Not conquest, but discovery. And so on.

He will also turn his gaze inward and develop the tender heart of the warrior. All that warrior energy that comes with being a man can be used to explore and soften our hearts -- to becoming sensitive but not weak, compassionate but not pitying, tender but not soft. We can be fiercely loving of those in out lives, and those around us, without losing our masculine nature.

What do you think will define the new real man?

Tags: culture, emotions, masculinity, warrior heart, testosterone, Sustainable Masculinity, Constructing the New Real Man, Riane Eisler, Partnership Model, agency, communion

In Defense of Testosterone

[image source]

As I'm sure any man knows, testosterone is widely considered the "evil" hormone. Feminists have blamed T for making men violent and aggressive. As though it were only a chemical, and by ridding men of the chemical there would be no more violence.

In fact, Alan Alda, of all people, coined the phrase, suggesting that T levels in men -- based on their behavior -- should be considered a form of poisoning. Carl Sagan gave that notion, and the phrase testosterone poisoning -- credibility, false though it was.

Testosterone poisoning is a pejorative neologism that refers not to actual poisoning, but to a negative perception of stereotypical aspects of male behavior. This speculative and controversial expression is based on a belief that men and boys with more masculine traits have more negative traits than they would otherwise. Masculinity, as represented by the androgen testosterone, is associated with "poisoning" or a negative outcome.

However, the science does not support such a belief. As noted in recent research, testosterone might be associated with dominance and/or aggression, but aggressive behavior actually creates an increase in testosterone levels.

T not only affects behavior but also responds to it. The act of competing for dominant status affects male T levels in two ways. First, T rises in the face of a challenge, as if it were an anticipatory response to impending competition. Second, after the competition, T rises in winners and declines in losers. Thus, there is a reciprocity between T and dominance behavior, each affecting the other.

So, while T does influence our behavior (increasing risky behavior like hunting, fighting, and defending the tribe or culture, or conversely, stock trading, mountain climbing, and driving fast) and biology (increasing sex drive, muscle mass, and self-confidence, not to mention bone density and heart health), it isn't the only factor.

Biology is not destiny, as the say.

Over at Testosterone Nation, they worship T as the defining male hormone. While men are much more than this, and shouldn't limit themselves to such a narrow definition, there is much to love about men with healthy T levels.

Here is an article in praise of T.

ATOMIC DOG
I am Not a Man; I am Dynamite
by TC

Those who float through the ether to find T-Nation are no doubt perplexed. They probably wonder where exactly they turned up, whether they mistakenly took Morpheus' blue pill instead of the red pill.

Or maybe they ask themselves if this is the home base for some mad monk squadron of iron-worshipping iconoclasts, or whether T-Nation is populated by mad chemists who strive to alter their God-given physiology with alchemy. Or, yes, yes! This must be where Tyler Durden lives! The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club!

But that doesn't seem exactly right, either. Damn it, is T-Nation animal, vegetable or freakin' mineral!?!

Others simply make an instant mind-gut connection and think, "Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in...and I must be there."

So how, really, does one define T-Nation? Why even bother might be a better question because sometimes analysis or over analysis detracts from the magic of something; it's somehow diminished when looked at under a high-powered microscope.

However, for those that are new to the site, and maybe for those that feel that every once in awhile a little analysis brings clarity, I'm going to try to capture in words that which is intertwined: the essence of T-Nation and the essence of man

Why are the two intertwined? Because the "T" in T-Nation stands for Testosterone. T-Nation bestows holy status on this hormone of hormones. We seek to elevate and maintain Testosterone levels in the high-normal range, because if Testosterone equates to manhood and manhood is good, why not be as good as we can be?

But there are those that don't think much of Testosterone. They use terms like "Testosterone poisoning" when a man acts in an immoral way. We don't pay much attention to those people because Testosterone in fact represents the heroic in man. Testosterone is James Bond, Dirty Harry, Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker and even that long-limbed beauty from Alias.

However, the whole concept of being an über-man in today's society has elements of both irony and tragedy. High Testosterone individuals created society; they fought the wars, conquered the land, and built the skyscrapers. But the civilization they built has no use for them! High Testosterone gets men in trouble! High Testosterone scares the soccer moms and their rosy-cheeked children! These men are an anachronism, a wild beast roaming the countryside and as we all know, wild beasts don't mix with society because they sometimes say things that will make your ears wilt. Hell, they might even mark their territory on the sofa leg!

With no real place in society and no battles to fight except for the occasional high-tech war that rarely involves much mano a mano combat, we try to focus our energies and raw animal passions into other pursuits, other battles. For many of us, that pursuit is training the body through weights. We get bigger and stronger in preparation for a battle that will probably never come.

Yes, we call it bodybuilding, but our type of bodybuilding has as much to do with prancing on a stage in bikini underwear as playing Flight Simulator on a PC has to do with flying a real F-16. Sure we appreciate the esthetics of a great body but when we build muscle, we want it to be functional, too. We want to be every bit as powerful as we look. We are not only show, but go.

While T-Nation writes unique articles that are pure bodybuilding, we also write unique articles about strength training, or power lifting, or Olympic lifting because not only do those activities contribute to muscle growth, they make muscle functional. T-Nation also writes often-amazing articles about how to maximize that muscle through nutrition or chemistry. If there's ground to be broken, chances are T-Nation will break it months or years before anyone else.

Beyond the muscle-building aspects of Testosterone, we admire the psychological aspects of Testosterone. It is the ultimate recreational drug. It lets us enjoy life to the fullest. Nietzsche once wrote, "I am not a man; I am dynamite." Well, that's what Testosterone makes us feel like. Testosterone is confidence, vitality, health and raw animal drive.

T-Nation is irreverent toward things that deserve irreverence and occasionally reverent to those things that deserve reverence. We are lusty, even bawdy. We are Tom Sawyer, Tom Sawyer with cut-off sleeves and plenty of muscle looking up Becky's skirt as she climbs a tree. We love women. Maybe some of us are too in love with women. Maybe we feel that were it not for women, we could have been great men, but were it not for women we wouldn't have wanted to be great men. It's a conundrum, but we wouldn't have it any other way.

We abide by the law, but when the law is silly, we practice our own form of civil disobedience. We want to tell society to go ahead and live your safe little lives, but let those of us who have the courage to take our bodies to a new plane do what we...see...fit.

How best to describe us? Virtuous bad boys. We'll help the old ladies cross the street and fight injustice when we see it, but we sure as hell don't mind indulging in a little debauchery and a little decadence.

But beyond the physicality, the philosophy, and the intense sprit is the mind. T-Nation works as hard to build the mind as it does the body, for what is the body but a vehicle for the mind? And if you have a vehicle, it might as well be something ballsy with lots of horsepower.

Maybe these words by the Bard said it best:

What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In form, in moving, how express and admirable! In action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals!

You tell 'em, Hamlet. Never mind that he disparaged man in the next sentence, we like the original sentiment.

T-Nation represents all these things. It's the library at Alexandria, the mystic on the mountain, the market place for magical hardcore "spices" that enhance the body and the mind, and when you see our symbol, our "tribal logo," we want it to serve as a reminder of everything we've said in this message, to send a synaptic bullet into your consciousness that reminds you of what you are — a man — and what you stand for.

So rage, rage against the universe, existence itself, your limitations, and the injustices of the world, but take solace that there are others like you here at T-Nation.

© 1998 — 2005 Testosterone, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Tags: Testosterone, masculinity, culture, TC, T-Nation, Atomic Dog, I am Not a Man, I am Dynamite, Testosterone poisoning

Secure Masculinity

Jim Carrey is secure in his masculinity. That's a little easier when Jenny McCarthy is on your arm . . . although that suit did look much better on her.

Tags: Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy, masculinity, secure, humor, cross-dressing

Australian Aboriginal Men Issue Historic Apology to Their Women

[image source]

I found this interesting -- and moving. One of the deep traits of a mature masculinity is being able to take responsibility for our mistakes and make amends. That always begins with a sincerely felt apology -- and a desire to be better men.

Men say sorry for abuse, violence
By Tara Ravens
July 03, 2008 04:46pm

HUNDREDS of Aboriginal men from across Australia have issued an historic apology to their women for the "pain, hurt and suffering" indigenous men have caused them.

For the past three days in the icy desert of Central Australia, men of all age groups from Cape York, the Top End, Central Australia, NSW and WA have discussed ways to be better fathers, husbands and sons.

They also sought to repair the damage caused in the 12 months since their communities were denounced as hotbeds of violence and abuse.

Since the federal intervention to combat child sex abuse was launched in June last year, John Liddle - from the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress - said Aboriginal men had been painted as brutal and uncaring.

"We are not all bastards," Mr Liddle told the gathering at Ross River outside of Alice Springs.

"We need to acknowledge the hurt and pain that has been caused by violence which has shamed many indigenous males who are not violent."

But he conceded good men had sat in silence, and today they issued a collective apology.

"We the Aboriginal males from Central Australia and our brothers from around Australia ... acknowledge and say sorry for the hurt, pain and suffering caused by Aboriginal males," the statement said.

"We also acknowledge that we need the love and support of our Aboriginal women to help us move forward."

One of the authors of the report which sparked the Howard Government's emergency response, Rex Wild QC, said the apology was "very powerful and very moving".

He said child abuse was not just an Aboriginal problem and it had been unfair of governments to single them out.

"They are not acknowledging there is a higher rate, they are acknowledging there is a rate, that there is a level of domestic violence that they have now said sorry for," he said.

Major General David Chalmers, who is heading the intervention roll-out, denied the intervention had "put a bad name out for Aboriginal men" and called for a "total solution" to child abuse.

"It has to come from within communities and government can only facilitate that solution," he said.

Peter Yu, chairman of the board that will hand the Rudd Government a 12-month review of the reforms, said he would consider the summit's recommendations, including community-based violence prevention programs and men's shelters.

Joe Hayes, a father who lives on an outstation 25km from Alice Springs, said he walked away from the gathering "a proud Aborigine".

"We have got to try and be responsible parents and our attitudes have got to change ... saying sorry is the best part of healing," he said.

Tags: Australia, Aboriginal, Men, Apology, masculinity, culture, violence, responsibility, indigenous men, abuse

Fight Club - Slaves With White Collars

A few classic scenes from the film Fight Club, a modern classic.

This is a film many women didn't get -- but anyone who has felt as though they are "working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need" will understand the anger that runs through this film.

Some of the frustration is distinctly masculine. How they handle the anger is not so mature, but it satisfies a need some of us feel for cathartic relief. The violence is principled, in a way.

I think many men have a Tyler Durden lurking within, screaming to get out. Maybe if we see it as a part that needs our attention, we can find healthier ways to satisfy its needs.

Anyway enjoy the scenes.

First, The Ikea Scene:



Slaves With White Collars:



This Is Your Life:

Tags: Fight Club, Slaves With White Collars, Ikea, This Is Your Life, film, culture, masculinity, Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, Violence, Tyler Durden

Embodying Masculinity, Part Three - Know Thyself

[image source]

As part of the project to embody a healthy masculinity, I feel it is important to know who we are. And if you think -- because this is what you have been told -- that there is a single you, whoever that might be, you are mistaken.

We all have a core self, the perspective from which we operate on most days (even this is an illusion, but that's a whole other topic). But beneath that ego or persona, there are a whole mess of other, lesser selves. Each of these parts take on specific roles (most simply: father, son, brother, husband, employee, and so on, including more complex roles such as the inner critic, the pusher, the inner child, and many others).

Subpersonality theory explains these other selves (referred to as parts, selves, subs, schemas, ego states, and so on) and how they develop. Nearly every branch of psychology has a version of subpersonality theory, though there is little agreement among them as to how these parts operate.

As we get to know our parts -- and most people have between three and twelve distinct parts (and no, this does not mean you have dissociative personality disorder) -- we begin to understand why we act in the ways we do.

Have you ever totally blown a fuse over the littlest thing, then wondered what the hell came over you, as though for a few minutes you were a completely different person? Well, for those minutes you were -- you had been hijacked by a part. Most part "hijackings" are associated with specific scenarios, often ways in which we were hurt or shamed as children. We have grown up, but those protective parts have not.

There are many ways to get to know our parts, and one of the best ways was developed by Hal and Sidra Stone, the Voice Dialogue approach. One of their students was Genpo Roshi, who adapted their voice dialogue model to something he calls Big Mind/Big Heart.

What follows is a series of videos of Genpo performing the Big Mind method, with the purported goal of inducing a higher state of consciousness (that's up to you to decide). What this will do, however, is introduce you to the process of sorting out your various selves. Don't be worried if you don't have some of those he mentions, just follow along to the next one. And you'll likely have some parts not mentioned, no worries, explore them on your own.

You might want to make some notes as you go along.

Part One:


Part Two:


Part Three:


Part Four:


Part Five:


Part Six:


Part Seven:


Part Eight:


Part Nine:


Part Ten:


Part Eleven:


OK, so that is the Big Mind, Big Heart method. How many parts did you get a clear feel for? Are there others that you think might be there?

When we can learn to see our parts, and know them, we have more control over when and how they manifest. Rather than getting defensive when someone offers criticism, you can acknowledge that your inner critic was triggered and is beating up on you, which makes you feel defensive.

The person most likely to trigger our parts is our romantic partner, the person who knows us best. Our inter-locking parts are often what draw us into relationships (this link explains bonding patterns and was written during a previous relationship), which is all well and good at the beginning. But over time they can become habitual ways of treating each other, and they can limit who we are with each other.

When we can see a part (for example, a dismissive father voice who gets angry when your partner feels to you to be a helpless little girl) get triggered and step outside of it, then we are much freer and more expansive in our ability to respond to our partners. And we respond with more maturity and compassion.

A great exercise to practice getting outside of our parts is the disidentification exercise from Psychosynthesis -- it essentially helps us get into the observing self (this link is also an exercise), or aware ego, of higher self. what one wants to call it.

Do this work often, share it with your partner (if you have one). The better know who you are, the more you can embody a mature form of masculinity.

Tags: embodiment, psychology, subpersonalities, Big Mind, Big Heart, Genpoo Roshi, parts, selves, observing self, disidentification exercise, Psychosynthesis, Hal Stone, Sidra Stone, Voice Dialogue, ego, persona

The Man Crush Gone Wrong

Nothing wrong with a little bromance. Sexual attraction is a spectrum, not an either/or scenario. Nothing wrong that is, unless -- as in a truly romantic crush -- we become blind to the flaws of the object of our affection.

A recent Vanity Fair article -- Mad About the Guy -- by James Wolcott, looks at the issue of the man crush in politics. Seems too many in the media are feeling a bromance for John McCain -- to the point where few are questioning anything about him or his agenda.

What's up with that? James Wolcott investigates.

Mad About the Guy

Lots of men go gaga over other guys. George Clooney goofs about his attraction to Brad Pitt. Nicholson Baker pines for his literary idol, John Updike. Giants fans nurse a thing for Patriots quarterback Tom Brady. It’s really kind of sweet. But in the realm of politics—where Tony Blair and Karl Rove were enslaved by George Bush’s ersatz cowboy cool, Bush fell for Vladimir Putin’s soulful eyes, and half the media is in love with John McCain—such passion is perilous. The author examines the Man Crush, and why it can end in tears.

by James Wolcott July 2008

Senator John McCain surrounded by journalists (clockwise from top left) Richard Cohen, David Broder, and David Brooks. Illustration by Edward Sorel.

‘I love the guy,” professed New York Times columnist David Brooks one Sunday on The Chris Matthews Show, that church service of chipmunk chatter. The lucky guy on the receiving end of Brooks’s blown kiss was John McCain, the rare politician with the magical property to make otherwise finicky journalists go misty and let drop the chastity belt of objectivity. As MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough wisecracked about the reporters on the campaign beat this season, “I think every last one of them would move to Massachusetts and marry John McCain if they could.” A silver fox with an even more silvery, foxier wife, McCain is the Sinatra of the congressional hallways and campaign highways, the Chairman of the Bored whose Rat Pack is the traveling press corps, which laughs and groans at his old gags like a collective Ed McMahon (“McCain has been doing a version of the Straight Talk show for so long that the veterans know all the lines”—Ryan Lizza, “On the Bus,” The New Yorker, February 25, 2008). Now that McCain is no longer an insurgent but the presumptive Republican nominee, his words aren’t as unguarded as they used to be, but his loyal claque don’t hold it against him, making allowances for gaffes, goofs, and flip-flops that they wouldn’t tolerate in a Democrat, especially those that they damn as stuck-up, salad-eating, and aloof—Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama. Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank wryly noted the clashing contrast in hospitality accorded to McCain and Obama when they spoke before the nation’s newspaper editors in April: “The putative Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. The likely Democratic nominee was likened to a terrorist.”

The press and McCain share a bond, a fraternal order forged during the endless bull sessions on the “Straight Talk Express” bus in 2000, when the candidate and those covering him became buddy-roo, fellow vaudevillians. Columnist Richard Cohen of The Washington Post experienced Peter Pan delight at being part of this rolling jam session of free association. “Reporters sit with him in the back of his campaign bus and ask him anything they want. We talked about the Vietnam War and Kosovo, Chechnya and gun control, abortion, homosexuality, campaign finance, Marlon Brando movies, great books, flying off a carrier, reciting movie plots to his fellow POWs, going over the wall at the Naval Academy lo those many years ago, and that dish from Rio, the fashion model he had such a crush on.” That dish from Rio is only a diversion. The true crush is the raging Man Crush that Cohen tenderly nursed for McCain, its embers of passion still aglow despite the passing of the seasons that have turned his beard snowy white. Cohen still can’t quit McCain, any more than David Brooks can, or Don Imus, or The Washington Post’s resident Polonius, David Broder. Even when McCain is pandering, Cohen wrote in a column, it’s hard to hold it against him, because his innate honesty creaks through. “McCain’s true virtue is that he is a lousy politician. He is not a convincing liar, and when he adopts positions that are not his own, they infect him, sapping him of what might be called integrity energy.” John McCain isn’t the only one losing vital sap.

jerry: You know, I think George has a nonsexual crush on him.
elaine: I think he does too.
jerry: I mean, every time I see him, it’s Tony this, Tony that. George is like a schoolgirl around him.…

kramer: You know, I think you’re in love with him.
george: What? … That’s ridiculous!
kramer: No no no, I don’t think so. You love him. —Seinfeld, Season Five, “The Stall.”

As a strictly hormonal attachment, the Man Crush can be an innocent infatuation, a species of hero worship indulged in by armchair athletes whose glistening pinups of Michael Jordan, David Beckham, Alex Rodriguez, Tiger Woods, and other gods of round-ball games become a way of perpetuating boyhood deep into doughy maturity. It’s toying with homoeroticism while maintaining an ironic distance from that darling little inn just off the interstate. “It’s not that the two of you want to move to Cape Cod and open a small glass-blowing studio,” insisted ESPN.com editor Mike Philbrick a mite defensively in a New York Daily News article about the Man Crush cult of the cleft-chinned New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, whose off-field exploits—fathering a child with actress-model Bridget Moynahan, dating Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bündchen—have made him the envy of rubberneckers, for whom his jockstrap overfloweth. When the Giants played the Patriots in this year’s Super Bowl, ambivalence plagued Giants fans bitten by the Brady bug. “When Brady’s on the field, we just hope that the defense pounds him into the ground,” Manhattan-based architect Michael Chiat told the Daily News. “But then he gets to the sideline, takes his helmet off, and it’s like wow—he’s got a good head of hair.”

“This trend is not limited to athletes,” Josh Kilmer-Purcell wrote in Out magazine. “George Clooney jokes about his attraction to Brad Pitt.” Movies have hoisted too many Man Crushes to count, from the looks Stephen Boyd shot Charlton Heston’s way in Ben-Hur to the career of Will Ferrell, whose comedy protagonists luxuriate in a furry Man Crush of self-love that they insist on sharing—in their underwear—with the world. Anchormen such as NBC’s Brian Williams and the late Peter Jennings, with their well-groomed suavity and droll self-deprecation, inspire(d) Man Crushes in many a budding broadcaster. The preposterously handsome John F. Kennedy Jr. and his rich hunk of hair made him a Man Crush icon from the moment the future publisher of George took the stage at the 1988 Democratic convention to introduce Senator Ted Kennedy and a close-up of his head mesmerized the screens. In his collection Politics: Observations and Arguments, 1966–2004, Hendrik Hertzberg recalls the mass hush of mind-blown amazement: “Introducing his uncle from the podium, John F. Kennedy, Jr., was poised, calm, and so handsome that Walter Isaacson of Time, who was standing next to me, remarked that the roof almost buckled from the sudden drop in air pressure caused by the simultaneous sharp intake of so many thousands of breaths.” Adonis-hood isn’t an ironclad prerequisite for Man Crush status. Money, storied achievement, and executive aura can make certain middle-aged hearts pitter-patter to a Dixieland rhythm.

Read the rest of this article.

Here is one key passage -- and this is more politics than anything, but it reveals more than a little about our culture's obsession with "cowboy" masculinity, which is hardly mature and often destructive.

The political-ideological-religioso Man Crush, however, is heavily land-mined with peril for all concerned. This Man Crush can pathologize into a personality cult, subordinating reason and will to a redeemer or warrior figure—a charisma load wielding or seeking to wield a big stick capable of sending men and women into battle, launching missiles into distant sands, denying rights to interrogees, and subsuming every prerogative under the iron umbrella of the unitary executive, all for the greater goal of leaving a permanent boot print in history. It was the rough-diamond glory beheld by Karl Rove in his first glimpse of George Bush that would be later tricked out in cowboy-flyboy getup to bedazzle the entire world in Bush’s flight-deck victory stroll after the invasion of Iraq—the “Mission Accomplished” rooster strut. “He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West,” Chris Matthews proclaimed on May 1, 2003, intoxicated by the deus ex machina cool of the First Dude. A week later, the afterglow of Bush’s photo op still steaming the goggles, Matthews hosted one of the most breathless testosterone effusions ever heard on cable news, with guest ogler and convicted Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy kvelling over how the president’s parachute harness had boldly outlined the picnic basket of his “manly characteristic,” letting us in on a big little secret: “You know, all those women who say size doesn’t count—they’re all liars. Check that out.” As Eric Alterman wrote in “The Many Man-Crushes of Chris Matthews” (The Nation, March 22, 2007), “Matthews’s man-crush on Bush continued longer than that of most of the mainstream media, leading him, for instance, to assert that ‘everybody sort of likes the President, except for the real whack-jobs,’ at a moment when the percentage of Americans telling New York Times/CBS pollsters that they ‘liked’ Bush had fallen to 37 percent.

If you believe Wolcott's analysis, and I think he makes some good points, McCain is the macho man-crush material in the current race, while Obama is too, well, metrosexual.

Tags: Man Crush, Bromance, John McCain, Barack Obama, Chris Matthews, metrosexual, politics, culture, masculinity, Vanity Fair, James Wolcott, Mad About the Guy, macho

Not Being a Real Person: The #1 Self-Development Anti-Hack

[image source]

This could just as easily be about not being a "real man," because when it comes right down to it, there is little about what our culture thinks of as being a "real man" that has anything to do with mature masculinity.

This post comes from The Growing Life.

My ex-wife Amanda used to cut her own hair. But occasionally she’d have her hair done by a professional. She referred to this as having her hair cut by a “real person” and she’d sometimes say things like: “I really like having my hair cut by a real person.”

The term caught.

Years after Amanda and I separated, I started using the term “real person” more broadly. In graduate school, for example, I referred to anyone who was done with school and had a “real” job as a “real person.”

But in my mind, being a “real person” wasn’t just about having a respectable job, it was about . . .

The End of Stepping Stones

So many of us live “stepping stone lives.” We spend the majority of our waking hours working for goals that are merely stepping stones to other goals. For example:

• We do well in high school so we can get into a good college.
• We do well in college so we can get hired by a good company (or get into a good graduate school).
• We do well at our jobs so we can get even better jobs and make more money.
• We join committees to pad our resumes or impress our bosses.

(Question: what would your life be like if you cut out all the stepping stones?)

So anyway, a few years ago I referred to anyone done with a formal education (who was working full-time) as “a real person.”

In my mind . . .

• Real people get up between 5 and 7am and go to work on weekdays
• Real people have the weekends off
• Real people own property
• Real people are grown ups
• Real people aren’t what their former selves wanted to be when they grew up
• Real people are married (to other real people) and tend to have children
• Real people don’t get to take a lot of chances
• Real people do not take mini-retirements or engage in long-term travel
• Real people have separate home lives and work lives
• Real people’s daily realities are owned by institutions (their pay, how they spend their time, and what they think abut during their most productive hours are determined by their employers).
• Real people gain legitimacy from schools, institutions, monetary income, etc.

Real people, however, most definitely do not get to . . .

• Take naps in the middle of the day
• Take a long Christmas vacation
• Quickly and readily implement structural changes in their lives

Back in the day, I wanted to be a real person. I wanted to be done paying dues. I wanted to be done preparing for life (so I could just start living it).

Needless to say, I don’t want to be a real person anymore. So . . .

I’ve Given Up on Being a Real Person

Read the rest of this post.

I want to also offer up his views of an "unreal person," since they also seem like a good starting point for being an unreal man.

An Unreal Person

Let’s talk a little about unreal people.

Unreal people . . .

• Tend not to live in a regimented context.
• Are light on their feet; they can implement change on a dime.

Unreal people . . .

• Understand the cost of radical growth
• Have won the battle for their minds
• Tend to do engage in alternative lifestyle design

Furthermore, unreal people tend to . . .

• Set unrealistic goals
• Not live in the “real world”
• Pay themselves (they typically aren’t paid by employers)

All of this sounds great, right? It does to me, but the trick is to not live . . .

The Fake Unreal Life

So often, people who’ve left the “real world” and “real jobs” end up working for an even more effed up boss. Themselves. They leave their screwed-up jobs only to recreate them all over again at home.

I don't think one needs to become self-employed to become an "unreal man," but it sure helps. Working for myself was one of the best choices I ever made, once I got past the inner pusher who was much more dictatorial than any boss I ever had at a real job.

Despite the work I have done on my psyche and in restructuring an unreal life for myself, I still have those voices in my head that tell me I need to work more or harder, that I need nicer things, that I should have more money saved, that I should own a house, and on and on.

That is the conditioning a lot of us grew up with and spend a lifetime trying to get beyond (or trying to satisfy if we buy into the stories we hear about who we should be). This all relates to being a man, or being masculine.

A lot what of Clay says in this post is about what a means to be a "real man," not simply a real person. An unreal man has won the battle for his mind, or at least is winning the battle; an unreal man engages in and seeks radical change in his life; an unreal man is flexible and fluid in his life, open to new ideas; and an unreal man knows who he is and what he values, to the point that he can't be manipulated.

As Clay suggests in his post, "real" people aren't born, they're made -- by their families, education, culture, society, employers, and so on. They live other people's reality, not their own -- the same is true for men. Unreal men live their truth.

Tags: masculinity, culture, psychology, Not Being a Real Person, The Growing Life, real people, real men, unreal people, unreal men, expectations, grown ups