Manly man

Overheard at the cashier’s counter at my local grocery store:

Woman: Can you pick up Ashley’s ballet costume tomorrow? I have a meeting at 5pm with an important client and I can’t ditch the meeting. My boss will have my head if I do.

Man: I’m not going to pick up that darn costume! Who do you think I am?

Woman: But...

Man: Look. Haven’t we discussed this? That store is right next to Tom’s place. And you know what a pushover he is. I can’t be walking around with a tutu on my arm! Heck no!

Woman: Come on. You can’t be serious.

Man: Hey, hey, hey. I don’t want any old nutter thinkin’ I’m doing ballet or some frou-frou woman shit, O.K?

(I don’t usually eavesdrop or anything, I swear. They were speaking loud enough to be heard by the whole line, especially him, with his bizarre nasally excuse for a voice. Ok, enough digression)

And it went on and on; his whiny diatribe about not wanting to be perceived as doing ‘some frou-frou woman shit’ for about 2 whole minutes until someone from the back of the line yelled at him to get a move on. What stood out for me in his singularly bland albeit slightly ridiculous speech was his rabid need to not be apprehended as doing anything remotely feminine, even if it meant picking up someone’s else’s ballet clothes. The fact that he considered the simple act of picking up a woman’s or a girl’s clothing as an affront to his manhood (as indicated by his expression, his tone of voice and the vehemence with which he spoke) was a revelation, in itself.

I’m not a man (gee, you didn’t know?) and I can at best, base my postulations about conventional manliness on my interactions and observations with the male of the species and to an extent, the media. But I would assume that something must be frightfully amiss with the popular tenets of masculinity, if something as ridiculously straightforward as picking up a woman’s clothing from a store or whatever is deemed ‘unmanly’ and therefore avoidable.

And then I look at something like this, or this and I can’t help but gape with wonderment at the sheer idiocy of striving to be a manly man. As far as I can tell, being a manly man is all about –

+ Stifling all your emotions except maybe anger, as anger is a good, manly emotion.

+ Being in charge, all the damn time.

+ Cultivating an inner disconnect from anyone because god forbid a real man be perceived as ‘needing’ someone.

+ Always having the last word in arguments.

+ Trying to ‘fix’ everything in your wake, be somebody else’s problems or a leaky tap, without actually ever wondering if the ‘fixing’ is necessary or even called for.

+ Enjoy, follow and indulge in sports and only sports, because real men cannot pursue other forms of recreation except maybe hunting.

+ Never admitting you’re wrong for fear of being perceived as weak or vulnerable.

+ And finally, going out of your way to prove that women do not control you, be it your partner or any other woman in your life.

It seems* to me that manly men use all of the above to cope with their alarming insecurities and fear, and by the same tenets they also successfully enthuse this formula of fear and insecurity in other men, while basally upholding a pledge to manliness and men and the system of patriarchy as a whole.

Now, I am definitely not the poster-child of hyper-femininity, but I like guys who can emote. I like guys who are intellectual. I would prefer a guy who does not interrupt me a bazillion times with tips on ‘what I should have done’ when I’m talking to him about my problems. If that isn’t an example of ‘oh look you have the problems, I have the answers, so I’m totally in control’, then I don’t know what is. I would like a guy to understand that if I really want a solution, I’ll ask for it. I like guys who dress nice and groom themselves and not be ashamed about it. So obviously I guess real men just aren’t my type.

Which brings me to the following questions, which I have been mulling over for quite some time now:

What are your expectations of masculinity?

What should manliness represent, in its most positive sense?

And do you think masculinity is in a rut? If so, how? And why?

And I want you, yes YOU, O’ long-suffering reader to answer them for me in the comments space in any which way possible. You can answer them all if you want, or you can answer one and leave out the rest. It is entirely up to you.

The comments box is yours.

* For those of you planning to jump down my throat for that statement, it was only a thought. Hence the 'it seems'. Jeez.


The Stig said...

It all comes down to perception. Your idea of a "manly" man, as gathered from the media and "interactions/observations" (clearly the wrong crowd) is as ridiculous as the notion that all feminists hate men. If you can relate to that, you know how most are gonna feel about this post. Good luck with the comments section. You're gonna need it.

Drunken Master said...

a) - Putting women in their place, the kitchen.
- Crying only when "our teams" lose.
- Not remembering marriage/dating-related anniversaries.
- Not having to shave one's chest.

b) - Showing a woman who the boss is.
- Taking one for the team.
- Eating and killing one's own food.
- Nailing that shit.
- Beer and BBQs.

c) Masculinity is totally in a rut. Why? Too many Metros.

So there.

Krish Ashok said...

I am not qualified to theorize on subjects related to the gender divide but then hey, my cave man dna is speaking. Not me.

I read that a lot of this palaeolithic manliness fundas came from well..the palaeolithic age. Given that most of our evolution (cough cough) happened in the 2 million years designated as the "Stone age", the mindboggling social changes of the last 50 years have made little or no dent in the fundamental psychological makeup of men. Deep inside, most guys I know still believe they are cave-men hunters. They need to show off. They need to appear strong and powerful. In the stone ages, the strong guy got the pick of the ladies. Since the "Women are weak" bias is millions of years old, strengthened by perceived stone age needs (Man hunt, woman cook), bolstered by religion and mirrored by the 20th century corporate world, the manly man is a species caught like a wwe wrestler with his pants down in the ring. He was always fake in any case, but his facade is breaking up faster than he can handle. Our mental make-up still expects to find the woman subservient to us, but they have become CEOs and bosses way too fast for our DNA to keep up pace. Not an excuse, but

The other I have always felt is that almost all our religious symbols, rituals and practices keep subtly reinforcing the male superiority myth - examples include the monthly-once-uncleanliness thing, men-eat-first thing, pray-for-boy-child thing, girl-pays-for-wedding thing amongst others.

I think it's important that we start cleaning up our religious and social symbols of male superiority first (at least the interpretations).That way, at least our children will grow up not exposed to an avalanche of religiously sanctioned manliness.

Anyway. Sorry for the long rant.

Indian Stallion said...

That guy was a pussy. If that was me, I would have agreed, proceed to the store to pick up the costume and bring it over to Ashley.

And then just as she puts her hands out expectantly to receive it, I will rip it to shreds with my bare manly hands and yell "RAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRR!!!!!!".

That's what a real man (AKA me) would do.

anonymouse said...

As a guy, if I ever discuss problems with other people, I am looking for a solution. If I am going to rant, I clearly state that I am ranting.

I wonder why most people cannot be as clear about it (this applies to both men and women, especially those in the non-technical fields. Sysadmins, programmers and Internet old-timers tend to be the easiest to communicate with, especially those who understand that emotion is detrimental to reading text without emoticons). Tell me your default is rant mode, and I'll automatically switch to listen mode.

As for emotions, and dressing nice, I really don't care about such minor things. Sports are pretty boring though, but extreme sports are nice to participate in.

As for being perceived as being weak/vulnerable/not-a-real-man, what makes you (generic you) think I give a flying fsck about other people's opinions?

-- Just a crusty old BOFH.

??! said...

you're taking the extreme example, and assuming all men are like that. sure, some idiots in Bihar and Texas may be like that, but most men aren't.
point in case, define a womanly woman, and you'll see you can actually be put off by the extreme version therein.

the wannabe indian punkster said...

@ Drunken Master: I want to see you kill and eat your own food. I'll even pay you to watch this debacle, whoops I mean food gathering. :P

@ Krish Ashok: I’m not too sure if the cave men as hunters tag works. We don’t know if cave men were in fact, hunters or gatherers. Don’t get me wrong, but to irrevocably state that men were in fact hunters and the women stayed behind, is dubious. We don’t know for sure if that really was the case. To state that women never hunted or women didn’t foray out and hunt, a proof of that action’s impossibility is required, which we don’t have. So in all probability, women could have very well been the hunters-gatherers, no? Think about it. :)

@ Indian Stallion: ROFL! Will you refund her money for the tutu?

@ A'mouse: Nice. But I do care about people dressing nice. I am a faithful adherent of shallowism, after all. ;)

@ ??!: No, I specifically picked on the stereotype of the manly man and the popular ideals of masculinity. I am not assuming anything. If it came across as me assuming something about all men, then that really wasn't my intention.

Artful Badger said...

I think you confuse masculine with crazy alpha male.

Let me just comment on the statements you made.

+ Stifling all your emotions except maybe anger, as anger is a good, manly emotion.

To an extent true. I think men don't emote in general not because they are chauvinistic but because they don't think about things in an emotional context.

+ Being in charge, all the damn time.

10-15% of guys. Thats how guys get attention. Its like the girl who dresses like a skank and does all weird stuff to get people to look at her. It can be quite annoying to the remaining 85%.

+ Cultivating an inner disconnect from anyone because god forbid a real man be perceived as ‘needing’ someone.

Goes back to point one.

+ Always having the last word in arguments.

Not specific to guys. There exist as many girls who want the last word in arguments as there are guys. It is a general personality trait.

+ Trying to ‘fix’ everything in your wake, be somebody else’s problems or a leaky tap, without actually ever wondering if the ‘fixing’ is necessary or even called for.

I think this statement is actually the opposite of what I think is true. Girls have the tendency to be the saviour and fix imaginary faults. Guys generally don't care. That might be a problem though.

+ Enjoy, follow and indulge in sports and only sports, because real men cannot pursue other forms of recreation except maybe hunting.

Well I like sports because I like sports. Competition is fun. The rush is exciting. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Maybe you mean the rockstar image? "Hunt" in the clubs? Heh.

+ Never admitting you’re wrong for fear of being perceived as weak or vulnerable.
True though I dont think its gender specific.

+ And finally, going out of your way to prove that women do not control you, be it your partner or any other woman in your life.
Most of the guys I know are quite happy to do what the girl wants. Yes they do crib, but with a smile.

Been a while since I have commented.

Krish Ashok said...

You have a point there, although it will make it hard to explain how religiously sanctioned male domination came about in the first place if there never was a million year old gender role delineation. Ofcourse, women hunted and gathered, but the whole sport of ganging together and exhibiting machismo to each other seems like a male thing no?

anonymouse said...

Hmmm, IMHO (I am not an expert, but I do lurk on a mailing list with some people who are), the probability of men being hunters while women would be gatherers is higher than the other way round. Note that this doesn't mean that the inverse wouldn't happen, just that more men would be hunters.

Oh, and wrt the dressing nice, I seem to remember a threat involving really short purple dresses and alcohol.

Indian Stallion said...

Refund Shemefund, it's better for Ashley to learn the (barbaric) ways of men earlier rather than later.

If you think about it, I'm actually doing her a favor.

"Welcome to the real world, Ashley! RAAAAAARH!!!!"

Sudha said...

ok, here goes -

a & b - nothing is more masculine than being secure in your own skin. secure enough to know that a little grooming will go a along way, that independance in a woman is actually sexy, that there is no task too feminine for you, that sometimes listening is all we ask of u, and ofcourse that your size falls somehwere near the 50th percentile.
the guy in your post was driven by insecurity and nothing else.

c - mmmm, not really. there r a lot of incredibly good men out there, ya know. times sure are changing and not every guy is out to do the "mine is bigger than yours" routine. But i think it takes a certain age and maturity for men to reach that stage. Most guys on the lower side of 25 r still raging balls of hormones.

that said, there still r the older types at the workplace who wud give a female co-worker hell, becoz she is a woman and cannot be better than a man at ANYTHING.

??! said...

the problem with stereotypes is that they represent an extreme. Usually a non-convertable extreme. Preaching to the stone-deaf in the middle of a blizzard, sort of.
Also, Krish is right here, the concept of the male hunter-gatherer/female home-maker isn't just a theory - its based on archaeological evidence.
It's all due to testosterone, really.
But I agree with you - a man who can't pick up a dress is an ass. More than anything, it shows he cares more about his image, than his child.

Drunken Master said...

Wow, you truly underestimate my propensity for actually coming through on my claims.

Name your animal of choice, and please be reasonable (don't ask for a hippo or a giraffe). By the way, you're welcome to chow on it too.

And make sure your credit score is good, you're gonna need it for that loan you take out to pay me!

Anonymous said...

I cant believe you are seriously troubled by that second link of yours.

Cant you take a good joke ? Take it easy punk..

Besides, Whats so wrong and repulsive about that idea of manliness.

There are all kinds of men out there, effemenate, soulbearing, gay, nerdy etc. This is just one mroe type. Afterall it takes all kinds to make this world. Its not our fault that we are more popular and talked about. Especially by women like you. Infact the intensity of your emotions is directly proportional to the manliness meter of the man you need. You wont be satisfied with someone who just quietly nods. You need some roughage.

anyways, Most women like such men, thats why the manly man's gene's have prpopogated accross generations and those genes continue to live on. Its called, Law of natural selection.

You are picking the wrong cause to battle. Nature rules. If the manly man rules, thats how it is.

Swallow it... Oops sorry.. pun unintended. Hope you have enough sense of humour left to take a joke :D.


the wannabe indian punkster said...

@ Artful Badger: Just as I replied to ??!, my post was only an observational commentary on the stereotype of the archetypal manly man or what popular masculinity is made out to be. Nowhere did I say that it applies to every, single, man out there. :)

@ Krish Ashok: See, I cant help but throw a wrench into the whole men as aggressive hunters theory. While I will not deny that men were hunter-gatherers, I cannot help but balk at the women didn't hunt-gather at all, part. :)

@ A'mouse: Purple sequined top and a pleather skirt. Get it right. Heh.

@ Indian Stallion: Very nice. I hope your enlightening show of hyper-male-studliness doesn't scare Ashley silly. :)

@ Sudha: Very interesting. And thanks for answering!

@ ??!: Right, I'm not denying the existence of archaeological evidence, I'm only stating that lack of enough evidence does not necessarily represent impossibility. I will dig around and find some sources to expand on this.

@ Drunken: Oh pshaw! And you call yourself a manly man. How 'manly' are you in the truest sense of the word if you cant even tackle a herbivore like the giraffe? Hmpf. And yes. Take this as an affront to your 'manhood', wonly.

@ triceps: Isn't roughage what you eat in order to pass good bowel movements, like fiber and the like? So are you saying that true manliness prevents unyielding bowels? I didn't know that I needed the illustriousness of a 'real' man to cure constipation! Wow, you learn something new everyday.

Drunken Master said...

Ooi Maa! I just pooped myself! Not!
You're obviously quite clueless and misquoting me. Why would I (read REAL man) even bother harming pesky grass eating carnivore food?

Take your pick from any of the fierciest predators on the planet. Make that two. And I'll chug alcohol before I shoot. You have to pay up front and come along for the trip, since we'll prolly be on a continent other than North America.

While we're there, I'll prove my manhood in more ways than one.

Bow down to the Drunken Master...
Haw Haw.

Deepali said...

The second link made me laugh - I doubt it was written with an iota of seriousness but probably with 100% tongue in cheek :D

Vincent said...

Manly men play console games.

PS2 print ad 1
PS2 print ad 2
Art Director: Purushottam Lala
Copywriter: Luv Kalla
New Delhi, India

Anyways, back to Shadow of the Colossus.

the wannabe indian punkster said...

@ Drunken: Oh ho! Enough with the chest thumping! Let us see some action, I say! And werent you the one who clearly stated that you wanted something, reasonable? You want unreasonable your maniness? I'll give you unreasonable. So there.

@ Deepali: I'm not saying that it wasn't tongue in cheek.

@ Vince: And feminist geeks beat manly men's asses in video games. I finished shadow of the colossus a year ago (also check out Ico by the same game director). And if you own a PS2 (which I'm assuming you do) have you played God of War 1 and 2? I finished God of War 2 about 4 weeks ago. Shelled out 50 effing bucks for it, but it was completely worth it.

Now back to Devil May Cry 3 on the PS2 and Resistance on the PS3.

anonymouse said...

drunken master, all right. Hunt down two samples of the most dangerous game on earth.

The targets: The president and vice president of the USA.

(You thought the most dangerous game lived in the jungle? Those animals have nothing on humans. Kids these days ...).

Anurag said...

I suddenly feel very sad for the childhood of Archbishop Desmond. :(

Anurag said...

Also realized that the only games I am good at are mind games. I couldn't even clear level 10 in tetris!

the mad momma said...

wow..to think I settled in with a bag of popcorn before I saw the comments and there were no fireworks. I wish I could deal with comments the way you do :)

Emme said...

it would be a manly man to be a gentleman.

a true man should not feel like his masculinity is being compromised if he has to help his wife wash the clothes, hang, collect and fold them for her.

a manly man should be able to do all things girly and womanly and not be ashamed for being a helpful gentleman and still keep his masculinity and macho intact.

because this is the kind of man all women would love to have. this is the kind of man, women would have high regards and respect for. this is the kind of man other women would be envious of for not having as their own.

Alas, this is the kind of man we need more of in today's world. because trust me, this kind of man are higly scarce.

Vincent said...

Colossus and Ico are incredible genre defining games. The SOTC sequel alone would be reason enough for me to get the PS3. I didn't like the mindless button mashing in the GoW series. The equivalent of $4.00 was spent on them and I want my money back. Hey check the bargain bin for Indigo Prophecy and Half-Life(port of the 1998PC game) on the PS2. They're totally worth it.
That said, the sex of the person makes no difference in a test of mental agility. Yep, there are girls who can pwn all-male clans in CounterStrike and uber manly men who play Tomb Raider. :)

the wannabe indian punkster said...

@ Vince: I disagree with you on the GOW games. They are two of the best games you can find on the PS2 for the action/adventure genre! Yes there was button mashing but it really wasn't to the extent to which you seem to portray. It had a decent storyline and plenty of great puzzle elements along the way. There were also several combos you could use and are forced to use, with varied weapons and powers, in the combat system of both the games. Did you actually bother with playing the games through? Or did you just give up after a few hours?

Vincent said...

Story line? Jerry Bruckheimer's Pearl Harbor was more engaging and historically accurate.
It's basically bad guy killed my family and I need to exact revenge, with Greek gods and mythical monsters thrown in.
Combos? You've played DMC. Those are combos. And button mashing in DMC is way more fun. The button prompts during boss battles in GoW was infantile, something you'd see in Magic Schoolbus.
Puzzles in GoW were okay, but nothing challenging enough to require lateral thought.
That there's no way to control camera angles doesn't make things any better.
I'll give it marks for good graphics but graphics and gameplay are two entirely different things.
Let's just agree to disagree on GoW, okay?
Anyways, we do agree on the sheer awesomeness of Ico and SOTC. I also recommend checking that bin for Onimusha: Warlords.
I advise we end the matter here since we're one comment away from a fanboy mentioning the Xbox360 to start a flame war.

Drunken Master said...

Anonymouse, I'd rather take down animals I can eat and ones where I will not have bounty on my head for, no matter how much money I get. But I must say, your choice of animals is most agreeable.

To the Punk I say, SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!

Also, while I bask in the glow of my righteousness and manly man-ness, where the hell is Ranvir to back me up, men?

The Stig said...

Pardon me for jumping in...
"Story line? Jerry Bruckheimer's Pearl Harbor was more engaging and historically accurate.
It's basically bad guy killed my family and I need to exact revenge, with Greek gods and mythical monsters thrown in."

I'm sorry! The what now? God of War's storyline wasn't historically accurate? Erm.. wasn't that already mentioned? Oh wait.. are you one of those pedants who go about calling Call of Duty a shite game because there isn't much of a story line? If yes, fair play, if not, oh bugger off.

"Puzzles in GoW were okay, but nothing challenging enough to require lateral thought."

The point is to strain the mind a little while leaving the focus on gameplay. Not to pull your hair out or cause temporary insanity with puzzles. The emphasis is/was on gameplay, which is absolutely fantastic. What do you want? A Rubik's cube for a puzzle?

However, I do agree with the parts about the combo buttons displayed on boss battles. That bit was annoying indeed. And for some reason, game developers seem to think they know camera angles better and don't want the users to have control of it. Which was a MAJOR gripe of mine with Legacy of Kain : Defiance. The previous 4 parts had brilliant gameplay and gave the user complete control of the camera for some amazing gaming. Of course, the gameplay ended up being great in Defiance, but having control of the camera angles would have made a few stages even better.

And no, I'm not a GoW fanboy. I rate the Legacy of Kain series (incidentally the reason for me choosing the PS2 over the XboX 360) more than GoW."

All that said, give the Legacy of Kain series a shot. You'll have to play the first four parts on the PC since they were before the consoles were out (althought one or two might be on the original PS/XboX) and the last installment is on the PS2. (Legacy of Kain : Defiance)


anonymouse said...

drunken master, you claimed to hunt the most dangerous game. I thought of asking you to take out a few Afghans in the mountains or a couple of Israelis, but I figured that mentioning these two would (a) benefit the world, (b) bring this blog to the detailed scrutiny of the No Such Agency, and (c) give you some fun in figuring out how to hunt them down.

Oh, and you can eat them if you like. Meat *is* meat.

Vincent said...

GoW's main emphasis is on combat and it's flawed.
That's like a car racing simulator with bad handling.
If you were entertained by GoW, good on you, mate. I'm not going to judge you. I may think it's nothing more than a pretty looking overrated generic hack and slash title but I'm actually very happy God of War happened to the PS2.
**It pushed the graphics engine to its limits and made other game developers realize the capabilities of the 7+ year old PS2 hardware.
**GoW II sales figures made the industry take notice to the fact that PS2 games still relevant and highly profitable to produce.

The gaming industry needs games like God of War much the same way movie production houses need to dish out rank garbage like the Pirates and Spidey sequels where they have the budgets to research & introduce state of the art SFX, sound and CGI that sets standards for future movies. Filmmakers can always use this route to make enough money to bounce back summer even if ten quality indie productions fail.
so.. Wooo Hoo! Go Kratos!!

nevermind said...

This is all getting rather typical, isn't it? The women address the question and the men (with some exceptions) end up talking games.

Q1: 'expectations of masculinity'

The European ideal of the 'Renaissance man' suits me perfectly, for an ideal expectation. In practice, being a good cook, housekeeper, DIY fix-it-all, host, party planner, all season jock, someone who keeps alive his creative side e.g with art/music, money manager, wildly successful professional (both intellectually and financially), emotionally supportive and sensitive partner, rock in crises, open to adventure, am cheery about monstrous hangover-let's go to that art gallery today type, always ready to go running with partner when she needs a push, knows when to keep quiet and just listen/when to respond and offer helpful suggestions/but never EVER offer solutions, because that's so male, sense when it's time for a caipirinha and when it's time for a dosa, go shopping on Regent St. for 4 hrs without that 'hungry and glazed' look appearing on your face (Hide it, you shit), go bawl a bit with her at some Bollywood tear-jerker, then toddle off for some French arthouse and love that as well, don't sleep right away because she wants to talk for 10 minutes after lights out yadayadayada-

is bloody difficult. But you keep trying, get better at some things, get worse at some, realize some of it is unchangeable, reach compromises with your own expectations (and hers), and realize that that's just life.

Q2: Manliness for me represents a mixture of old fashioned courtesy, sensitivity, generosity, grace, responsibility, decisiveness etc. combined with a socially, politically, sexually and interpersonally liberal and libertarian lifestyle (no, that doesn't mean swinging and doing coke) where you respect everbody's views and give them the space to do what they want without a second thought, but are willing to take a stand, if something comes along that calls for it. It also includes things like mentoring, leading, taking sensible risks, disagreeing when necessary etc.

Q3: 'Masculinity in a rut?'

Masculinity is not in a rut, it's as exciting and full of adventure as you can make it. And that's entirely up to you. But it's still painful hard work, but then, what isn't?

Look at it like this, you've got 75 odd years to live, on average. Might as well make the most of it.

stewie said...

Right. This was all getting rather typical till we had a doctor man show up with his Miss World idea of masculinity. Why, thank you sir.
successful indian intellectual doctor, reprezent!

Wendelin said...

I wish men would really, REALLY, internally start considering women HUMAN (and equal). Goodness knows we're so far ahead of them in so many ways - is this too much to ask?

My specific real-world example is the adult Harry Potter fandom, which is all women. For a long time I simply couldn't understand it. Men seem to have no problems geeking out over comparable works like Star Wars, Star Trek, Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Stephen King or even Christopher Paolini. But Harry Potter? You mean, that girly fantasy series written by a *woman*? Men wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Those that do would consider it beneath their dignity to like it. Those that like it shrink back in horror at the thought of calling themselves 'fans'.

Look at it in the larger context. 80% of the book-buying population is female. Remember when only males were taught to read, and all the head-patting patronising and marginalisation of women that came along with this exclusive power? The great theories of how women simply weren't 'built' to be great readers and thinkers? Now, reading's become thing dumb ol' boring thing that women do, while manly men run off and play with oooooooh!shiny!gadgets.

If, in their heart of hearts, men didn't consider women inferior, this would not happen. What women enjoy is automatically beneath men's dignity. So much for having already won the battle of feminism.

the wannabe indian punkster said...

@ Stewie: And you come in, brandishing your brand of, oh wait, what exactly? Pathetic attempts at being snarky? The utter coolness (not) or should I say lame-gangsta way of misspelling represent? If you are incapable of contributing to the discussion, the least you can do is refrain from making personal jibes at other people, for fucks sake.

@ Wendelin: Brava! [I will answer your comment in detail, when I'm done with my exam, today]

Anonymous said...

Everyone need to chill and try this. more peace is needed.


sarah said...

i find all these comparisons between what men are like versus what women are like kinda silly. and somehow, i don't get why half the things that piss women off about men are so annoying? the toilet seat thing boggles my mind. my husband never puts it back down and i've never asked him to, cause i'm perfectly capable of doing it myself. we fight often about doing the laundry and the cooking but there aren't any gender defined duties in our home.

i'm a shallow bitch that spends hours on her make-up on weekends, and then spends the rest of the week reading or on the laptop. men are equally complex, even if they'd like us to believe otherwise. they put on the show in front of others (if they're insecure) but i've seen many, many of them cry (when i dumped their ass!!). i've heard many talk about their emotions and many have listened to me for hours. these same men are also football fanatics, workaholics, burping/farting beer drinkers, gamers, djs, musicians, geeks.

masculinity isn't in a rut, it's just a lot more complex. just like femininity. neither can or should be stereotyped or boxed.

that guy in the queue was obviously an insecure ass. you should have tripped him!

Drunken Master said...

Anonymouse, has sarcasm truly lost it's bite???

But let's turn this around for a moment. What guy would not be in love with a woman who:
- Enjoys a cookout and beer without balking and chiding the man for drinking?
- Will go out with him just to watch brain-dead action flix on the big screen?
- Has absolutely no problem that the guy has watched porn?
- Will direct his attention to that insanely hot hottie bouncing about in the club?
- Can trash talk him to tears?
- Can talk/watch sports just as easily as bitching about celebs and their clothes/looks/hook-ups?
- Finds a day at the ball park just as good as one at the museum.
- Has an opinion and fights for things she believes in, even if it means disagreeing with him?
- Can hang with him in alcohol consumption?
- Can beat the shit out of him?

Turn the above questions around and make the necessary cosmetic changes to get the girl's POV. If a guy answers positively to most of them, then he is one who is truly manly.

So there.

nevermind said...

@ Punkster. And one more thing, while I'm at it, I'm beginning to think that what the right-religious-loon-types say about it being impossible for 2 people in a partnership to have equally successful careers may have some truth in it. Someone inevitably ends up taking a temporary backseat at some point of time; problem is, we live in such a competitive environment, that that temporary backseat runs the real risk of making that person fall off the ladder. The way society is conditioned, it's inevitably the woman who finds herself in that position (with rare exceptions). That, in turn, leads to a crisis both ways, that of femininity ( whatever it stands for in that context) and of masculinity (ditto) and that, in turn, can lead to both roles falling into a rut. This can be a very difficult rut to break out of, whatever you do, since you cannot bring back the time one/other person has lost. And as far as careers go, timing is obviously crucial. Unfortunately, if you cannot find a solution to this, you run the real risk of the end of a relationship, for obvious reasons.

And I think that is a real problem when you have 2 equally ambitious, clever and aggressively competitive people in a relationship. And this is not just a man-woman thing, the same thing happens in homosexual relationships. Maybe the very idea of long term commitment is in a rut. And now it strikes me that this is precisely what Vij wrote about sometime ago. Not very reassuring, I know, but that's just my take.

anonymouse said...

drunken master, text doesn't convery sarcasm well. Remember to use sarcasm tags.

Oh, and you forgot the other important points "is good with technology and proud of it" and "loves reading".

Grafxgurl said...

my husband definately has issues about what he is comfortable with and uncomfortable with...
and i give him hell.