Comments on: The Decade In Masculinity

By: Link(s): Sat, Dec 26th, 4pm to Tue, Jan 5th, 2pm | Your Revolution (The Blog!)

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:16:29 +0000

[...] The Decade In Masculinity [...]

By: Joe Clark

Joe Clark — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:39:05 +0000

If only your publication did not resort to tactics more reminiscent of Russian spammers, viz breaking up articles into separate pages to inflate pageviews, thereby annoying readers and defrauding advertisers.

By: The Metrosexual Noughties | MARK SIMPSON .com

The Metrosexual Noughties | MARK SIMPSON .com — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:12:32 +0000

[...] in review’ pieces that appeared at the end of December this one by Amanda Hess at The Sexist stood out as one which actually managed to offer some observational cultural insight, rather than [...]

By: John Dias

John Dias — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:47:28 +0000

I was just saying that archetype is such a snooty little academic high speech word. Har har.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:19:17 +0000

John, I'm not sure how you've detracted from my point that discussing cultural shorthand is not the same thing as endorsing said shorthand. Would you call a critic who mentions racism in popular culture a "racist'? It's such a lazy rhetorical trap.

By: John Dias

John Dias — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:30:20 +0000

And of course, we can also discuss the archetype of individuals who use the word "archetypes" 4 times in the space of 5 sentences.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:12:58 +0000

Pat, I believe you are missing the point. Amanda Hess is not dehumanizing individuals; she is writing about the cultural shorthand that is used to generalize individuals. Writing about common cultural tropes - archetypes that are used in cinema, television, and literature - is a way of deconstructing them and pointing out any problematic aspects of those archetypes, as you suggest.

Discussing archetypes is not the same thing as endorsing their ideals or suggesting that people who fit into those archetypes are somehow lesser or unindividualistic.

Just my 2 cents.

By: Pat

Pat — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:26:18 +0000

I find this kind of sweeping categorization of people to be quite disturbing. Massive generalizations of certain groups of people are the first step toward wholesale dehumanization. Those damn [Jews, blacks, gays etc.] are so [greedy, lazy, morally corrupt etc.], completely forgetting that there is more variation within the groups than between them. No division is more fundamental (or easy to emphasize) than the difference in our genital plumbing, however, as before there are many more differences within the two groups than between them. Artifical categorization (like this) does nothing but tap into primal "my team vs. your team!" urges deep in the darkest part of our psyche and can lead to very nasty outcomes. Appeals to primitive, gut-level reactions are, in my opinion, the anti-thesis of enlightened, progressive solutions to (real or imagined) social inequality. This blog is called "The Sexist"... still trying figure out if it's meant ironically. In any case, for a blog that ostensibly (I assume?) supports gender equality and civil rights, I believe that this type of writing undermines that goal. I commend the author's intelligence and writing ability, but the overall content is too divisive to be effective. Just my two cents.

By: The Decade In Femininity - The Sexist - Washington City Paper

The Decade In Femininity - The Sexist - Washington City Paper — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:34:26 +0000

[...] that we’ve exhausted the decade in masculine trends, it’s time for us to take a look back at the aughts’ many cultural incarnations of [...]

By: cminus

cminus — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:23:39 +0000

How did I forget the Pick-Up Artist??>

And how can you help the rest of us do so?

By: Amanda Hess

Amanda Hess — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:56:59 +0000

@Quinn: You're so right! The PICK-UP ARTIST. How did I forget the Pick-Up Artist??

By: Christina

Christina — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:01:21 +0000

Hm, looks like some of you dudes have once again missed the point.

By: Quinn

Quinn — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:26:27 +0000

Amanda, you forgot to mention Roissy! Where does his either real or satirical hatred for women fit into all of this?

By: Argentine Gay Marriage a First for Latin America | Xenia Institute

Argentine Gay Marriage a First for Latin America | Xenia Institute — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:05:33 +0000

[...] The Decade in Masculinity | The Sexist Metrosexuality reflected a conspicuous consumption of masculinity in a way that had previously been reserved for women. According to Mark Simpson, who is credited with coining the term, metrosexuality revealed a willingness to incorporate aspects of gay culture into heterosexual maleness. Metrosexuals, like gay men, were “decidedly single, definitely urban, dreadfully uncertain of their identity (hence the emphasis on pride and the susceptibility to the latest label) and socially emasculated. . . . gay men pioneered the business of accessorising–and combining–masculinity and desirability.” Interestingly, metrosexuality began appropriating gay culture before mainstream America was entirely comfortable celebrating men who were actually gay. Please Share and Enjoy: [...]

By: Comrade Al Gonzales

Comrade Al Gonzales — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:19:57 +0000

Apparently there was no masculinity whatsoever in the 00s. Men, virgins, & Studebakers were not made after 1964, b/c they were considered obsolete.

Girls, if you want a man, find an old one. These young ones have no sperm & no testosterone - look at any scientific study & you'll see that both are declining by 50% every two decades / generation.

Next time you see some girlie boys in a bar, you'll know what I mean. The only men left in America are over 45. If you don't know what I mean, you must be , 45 years old. Good luck to you, b/c you're going to need it in the new world of no men.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:30:51 +0000

I'm sorry I know this, but Edward's sexual history is in the Twilight series -- he was a virgin because he was way too good for any other woman. Also he wouldn't do Bella before marriage.

Yes I did read all 4 of those awful, awful books just so I could understand exactly how awful they are.

By: Erin

Erin — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:18:40 +0000

every generation has their virgins.

anyone remember Hanson?

By: John Dias

John Dias — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:06:59 +0000

I'll tell you how much I make for commenting here if you tell me how much you make for writing the posts.

By: Amanda Hess

Amanda Hess — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:49:25 +0000

I do get paid to write this! Do you get paid to comment on my blog?

By: Former Staffer

Former Staffer — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:40:34 +0000

Wow, as a man I feel demasculinated by the post. I'm pre-hipster and post-stoner and none of the rest. So does that make me less or more of a man for not following decade/generational trends?

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:38:11 +0000

What's with the multiple page posting? You know that these things will stretch out forever right?

By: Hill Rat

Hill Rat — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:56:04 +0000

Funny stuff, but I remember seeing most of these archetypes back in the 80's. Guidos, androgyny (think Duran Duran), boy bands, and stoners all had their day back in the 80's. There's nothing new under the sun.

By: John Dias

John Dias — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:43:36 +0000

Amanda, do you get paid to write this?

By: Christina

Christina — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:07:12 +0000

Lovely. I could talk all day about the indoctrination of social norms.
For example; back when they decided it would be a good idea to assign colors to sex(victorian age I believe), there was a camp that believed in blue for girls and pink for boys. Who knew that little girls loving pink isn't genetically coded!

By: Therese

Therese — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:51:46 +0000

Regarding female stoners: My favorite is Anna Faris as Jane, the hilarious pothead from Gregg Araki's too-little-seen 'Smiley Face'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780608/