The Menaissance: The Death Of The Metrosexual And The Rise Of The Retrosexual

Discussion in 'General Freemasonry Discussion' started by RichardRLJ, Nov 28, 2010.

  1. Jamesb

    Jamesb Registered User

    198
    0
    0
    I say what is wrong with being a bit sexist once and while? I am not talking about being mean or disrespectful to women but I am tired of apologizing for something just because I am a man.
     
  2. AhimanBeard

    AhimanBeard Registered User

    29
    0
    0
    I wont lie, I was cringing until it hit him saying "taking what's best from the past and leaving other things in the dustbin". I needed to hear that.

    I will say I have mixed feelings on his ideas as it's certainly true that some men are neither hyper-masculine, nor feminized. I, a large man built for sports, hated them and was often picked on for being so bad and 'playing like a girl', which is an innately sexist comment.

    Also, by defining man's metrosexuality on their care of apperceive is kind of sadly hypocritical. One must remember, the sharp dressing is incredibly (especially the 'mad men reference') precise. In many ways, those who can afford the classy suits are fashion forward depending upon what is 'in chic' (I know this only because my better half is heavily invested in the fashion world).

    I think I like the ideas, but think he should be a little smarter with some (not all, as many are good) examples.

    Whatever "manly" is, is defined by the culture that's being lived in. But all in all, he did have some excellent things to say without going off the sexist end of things, which I appreciate.



    That sums up a lot of what I feel with respect to Gender Aesthetic, which is pretty much what's being discussed.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2010
  3. Heirophant

    Heirophant Registered User

    19
    0
    0
    By "Manly".....I NEVER, EVER, EVER suggested that it be a word to describe women as inferior. I'm a proud father of a beautiful year old daughter. She truly is the pride of my life. With all due respect, (at this point) I'd like to invite FLOTSAM into an open and/or private discussion regarding his MASONIC AFFILIATION here in THE INVINCIBLE STATE OF TEXAS. I find it very curious to hear a MALE-MASONIC-TEXAN so enamored of feminism (homosexual or not).
     
  4. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    Brother, I must confess that I am baffled by your association of feminism and homosexuality, though I can guess how you view both by your implication that tolerance of either is unbefitting a "MALE-MASONIC-TEXAN". Have I got that right?
     
  5. NickGarner

    NickGarner Premium Member

    51
    7
    28
    Johnny,

    These women you speak of sound like real Texas women. It's not that these traits are exclusive to men nor does the author of AoM claim them to be be. A woman that displays the same traits is to be admired as well.

    Heirophant,

    Where you got feminism or homosexuality out of this I can't figure. I know plenty of women in Texas who are have many of the traits discussed here that are definitely not feminists. There are plenty of HOT cowgirls here in Texas that are "rugged individuals"; strong, capable of building their own camp fires, hard working, etc. that have absolutely no use for feminism.

    Now, what started as a fairly light-hearted topic has turned into something less than that. I am no moderator but I would suggest that instead of implying that a brother is somehow effeminate, a feminist, or homosexual we all go back and think about the trowel and the more noble and glorious purpose that we are supposed make use of it for.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2010
  6. ShadyGrove821

    ShadyGrove821 Registered User

    41
    2
    8
    According to Wikipedia (I know; I should go to a real source.): "Feminism refers to movements aimed at establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women."

    I guess that makes me a feminist, Bro. Heirophant. Will you start delivering ad-hominem attacks against me as you did against Bro. Flotsam?
     
  7. Jamesb

    Jamesb Registered User

    198
    0
    0
    In the event of an emergency, nobody runs to the guy who is screaming like a 12 year old girl and weeping; "because he is in touch with his emotions"
    And on the other part of this: I would rather have my wife standing next to me in a fight; she used to be an upolsterer and is a pretty tough chick. Then any "metrosexual"
     
  8. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    I have no idea what this means.

    I come from a background in emergency services that spans three decades. My peers included men and women. The skill, knowledge, ability, and temperament required to be an effective cop, firefighter, or medic is not exclusive to one gender. Then again, neither is the ability to be "in touch" with one's emotions. The effective emergency worker simply has the mental discipline to forgo such reflection until an appropriate time. The ineffective ones, and make no mistake - they come from both genders, don't. To suggest that the presence of such traits is dependent on gender, or one's grooming habits or fashion sense is, to say the least, naive, and bespeaks a view that is perhaps a little too colored by stereotypes.
     
  9. Jamesb

    Jamesb Registered User

    198
    0
    0
    "To suggest that the presence of such traits is dependent on gender, or one's grooming habits or fashion sense is, to say the least, naive, and bespeaks a view that is perhaps a little too colored by stereotypes. "

    To suggest that the writer of :"In the event of an emergency, nobody runs to the guy who is screaming like a 12 year old girl and weeping; "because he is in touch with his emotions"" is naive because an emergency worker who is screaming and crying like a little girl: either man or woman, is not worth a flip and no one would want that in a situation of emergency is also naive and suggests antagonism. By no means do I suggest that a man or woman, with the right skills and temperment, are not able to perform the same tasks, as illustrated by: "And on the other part of this: I would rather have my wife standing next to me in a fight; she used to be an upolsterer and is a pretty tough chick." but what I do suggest is that the "dumbing down" of being a man, ie..the metrosexual is potentailly a problem when you need someone (man or woman) who could focus on the task and work through the situation. Now after the situation is over someone should let their emotions out and deal with it correctly.
    In my honest opinion the term: metrosexual implies that this person is bi-sexual and is not really a man. He is incapable of defining himself by any other means then that of sexual orientation and thus has a character flaw, that just might show itself in a situation where someone without that flaw would be better suited and may cause this situation to become worse when that flaw comes out.
    To be a man who enjoys making themselves look nice and dresses well, does not imply sexual content but shows that this person is aware of themselves and in most cases is an example of real manliness and is just as manly as the guy who worked in the grime all day. Pride in self, and what they are: men.

    It's ok to be a man. It's also ok to be a woman. Just try not to be both
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2010
  10. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    Agreed. Now take a deep breath and relax, brother. No one is trying to antagonize you. I would, however, ask you to thoughtfully reconsider your assumptions.
    Another good point, dispelling another useless stereotype (that of the "helpless female").

    But then...
    You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts.

    Let's start with the term "metrosexual". IMO, it's one of those silly linguistic contrivances that was meant to sound clever but never really made it past, well..., contrived. At any rate, according to the writer who actually coined the term, Mark Simpson, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation, so let's get that part right. While it's undeniably true that gay men "provided the early prototype for the 'metrosexual'", it's a rather large jump to say that appearances are any kind of reliable indicator of sexual orientation. Don't you think?

    Speaking of sexual orientation, your phrase "...bisexual and is not really a man..." is troubling. Do you really mean to suggest that homosexual or bi-sexual people are somehow not really men, or women? Really? If so, why? How is it that one single trait renders an individual "not a man" or "not a woman"?

    Really? So David Beckham, Simpson's "Metrosexual Poster Child", was "unsuited" to be one of the best, if not the best, professional soccer player in the world, simply because of his particular taste in clothes and grooming accessories. Jeez, the guy wears nail polish and his wife's underwear, but he still managed to pull himself together and perform on an almost superhuman level out on the pitch.

    We are defined by all of the things we think, do and say, and I can tell you, with some authority, that the things you seem to be focusing on have nothing to do with a person's ability to function in an emergency, or in a soccer match, for that matter. Nothing. "Real" men (and women), the one's you would want to be there for you when you needed their particular talent, be that firefighter, paramedic, soldier, athlete, baker, teacher or upholsterer, come in all colors, genders, religions, and yes, sexual orientations.

    Character flaws? We all have them, some more than others. I've known some pretty screwed up gays and lesbians. They don't hold a candle to some of the straight "train-wrecks" I've known, but then I don't know that many gays and lesbians. The point is that none of us, by virtue of our sexual orientation, is imbued with an inherently superior, or inferior, "character". Trust me, Brother. As someone who has seen enough of the best and worst examples of "character" to really know, I can tell you that both types come from someplace quite apart from that which makes us choose a particular type of clothing, hairstyle ...or partner.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2010
  11. Jamesb

    Jamesb Registered User

    198
    0
    0
    First: I am not really that antagonized as I really prefer a good debate; especially with someone who can hold their own without falling out, if you know what I mean.
    Second: I do not have a problem with someone who is gay/lesbian/other, but I do take issue with those who by thier own admission "hate" the opposite sex, but then emulate it: ex. The lesbian who "loves" women yet dresses, acts like man concentrate, while the whole time showing their distain for men.
    David Beckham is a great soccer player. Admitted, he dresses very nice and shows the pride he has in himself on and off the field, ok he also wears his wifes underpants. (In the same situation who wouldn't?) But he doesn't use his sexuality to define himself in his job or personal life and the term "Metrosexual" in his case is really derogitory.

    I do not spend my life introducting myself as hetrosexual. It is not who I am, and none of your business. If I choose to make it your buusiness it shows I have not definition of myself and thus shows a flaw in my character. "I do not know who or what I am"

    My name is James, I am an Estimator for Oilfield Fabrication, I am married to "Lumber-chick", I am 46 year old. Now we have a base line for conversation. If I had come up to you and said: "Hi my name is James, I am an Estimator..., and this is my Lover...The conversation would've had an air about it that I define who I am by sex and expect you to understand that. (Flaw) I could've said "Partner" "Companion" "Friend" and it would not be an issue. If I chose to use "Lover" you get a mental image just as when I said "Lumber-chick" you think of trees and flanel. (My wife makes furnature and does remodeling- thus the nick name).

    I too know some "trainwrecks" in all groups, but to put the topic back on track....the recent tumble of having to be embarased about who we as men are, and the new term that is made to soften manliness (metrosexual).
    In the 20"s-50"s it was expected that you would always wear a hat in public, a suit and tie was expected in every office, if a woman came up to you, you would remove your hat, open doors etc...Executives got manucures. Then the sixties came and everyone got dirty for a while. In the PC would of today, someone who goes and takes care of themselves like the did before the 60's, the PC's needed a term so that we wouldn't say Man or any derivitive of that (manly etc,,,) So metrosexual is born...All that I am saying is lets define it for what it is: By being a Man...Sound in mind...and looking damn nice. (sex is optional)
     
  12. AhimanBeard

    AhimanBeard Registered User

    29
    0
    0
    This is how I define feminism and have had no issue considering myself one for it.

    Again, I think a lot of people are getting gender aesthetics (What is manly, what is feminine) confused with rights (for me to want women to get treated like men on the job is an example of a woman's right...ect..)
     

Share My Freemasonry