(Previously: See here.)
Funny; I did a post a year ago today on ‘Movember‘, as it happens…
But this isn’t about that; it’s about a beard contest, the World Beard Championships, held recently in Germany.
Though there was at least one fellow with no beard but an awesome ‘stache.
Here then, just for fun, are some pics of some contestants. Manly AND eccentric; rock that facial hair!
A year ago, I wrote about the ‘mancave’ phenomenon.
My opinions on the matter are still mixed as they were then – I like the idea of married men having a space or spaces within their home in which they can feel comfortable, and spend time apart from their wives, places possibly with a bit more masculine décor; but, I don’t like the idea that the rest of the house is ‘hers’, to decorate entirely according to her tastes, etc., and that he is only ‘allowed’ such a space on the sufferance of ‘the Boss’, all too common amongst Blue Pill men; a place he feels a need to ‘retreat’ to, rather than merely relaxing in.
But, all that aside, if you’re gonna have a ‘mancave’, or whatever else you want to call such a space, for whatever reasons, I think it’s reasonable to expect that it should be entirely yours, and have nothing to do with your wife, her tastes, her comfort level (since it’s not for her), etc.
Well, today, I read an article in a free daily local ‘zine by a married female columnist that gets it all wrong. There is no permanent link to the story, as the paper’s website doesn’t store articles by text, only displaying pages of each day’s paper as images. But here is a capture of the page with the article in question:
Mrs. Kloet claims to see the value in such a space, but:
I do worry about a space that looks more frat-like than feminine.
Uh, the whole point is that such a space would be HIS, not YOURS, so why should he or we give a shit what you think?
Enter some douchebag ‘design consultant’ guy, who markets himself towards men who don’t want their spaces to be ‘too masculine’, apparently:
According to Damon Snider, owner of D-Type Living, a Toronto-based home design company for the modern man, a man cave should blend seamlessly into the rest of the home without appearing overly macho.
Uh, why? If it’s his space, not hers, why shouldn’t it be more ‘macho’ if he wants that?
And he goes on to argue that:
“The first thing to keep in mind is that you want women to feel comfortable in the space, too,” he says.
No you don’t! They’re not going to be in there, if it’s truly a man cave; if they never go in, what cause would they ever have to feel uncomfortable, anyway? Sheesh!
As one can see, the article goes on to explain how Snider has made it his mission to convert men away from “hard edges and dark colours everywhere” towards a more ‘balanced’ look.
For instance, regarding traditionally-favoured masculine décor such as sports paraphernalia and automotive stuff:
“Display things strategically rather than filling every empty surface with something stuffed with testosterone,” he says.
Ah, yes; heaven forbid that men should decorate their spaces like men!
And don’t be afraid to stray from typical dark leather furnishings and glossy black surfaces. Instead, opt for neutral wall colours and add splashes of colour through graphic artworks, photographs, or “dude-approved” wall hangings to bring the room to life.
Hey, I have an idea; why not let men decide for themselves what they each might want for their ‘den’ or ‘man cave’; some will opt for vintage 19th-century European alcoholic beverage posters, and some will opt for mounted deer heads (of ones they hunted successfully), or sports hero posters; men have varied interests, so one should expect that would be reflected. Why should any one particular look be deemed better than others? De gustibus non est disputandum, as the old maxim goes.
But of course, he goes on to encourage the ‘ladies’ (as Mrs. Kloet says) to ‘lend a stylish eye’ while not ‘going overboard on girlish touches’. As if they have any business giving any such advice to their husbands for such a space – unless he of course asks for it (though I can’t imagine why any man would want to).
So, there it is. Not even the ‘man cave’ is allowed to be free of female or metrosexual design consultant influence, according to Canadian progressive SWPL dogma.
Writing at the Telegraph, he takes a dissident view of the whole ‘Movember’ phenomenon.
Don’t be fooled by the manly moustaches – Movember is all about turning blokes into sad, sober, simpering wrecks
By Brendan O’Neill
It’s Movember! Yes, the month previously known as November, until it was hijacked by health-obsessed hipsters with ‘taches, is upon us. This means that for the next 30 days, your Facebook and Twitter feeds will be clogged up by blokes imploring you to check out Instagram photos of how their pencil ‘tache, handlebar or Fu Manchu is progressing. The aim of Movember – a hilarious mashing together of the words “moustache” and “November”! – is to get guys around the world sprouting facial hair in the name of charity, specifically as a way of raising awareness about male cancer. The idea is that fuzz starts to form atop your gob, someone asks “why are you growing a ‘tache?”, and then you tell them all about Movember and its various prostate and testicular cancer initiatives. So you get to look dashing and be totally socially responsible all at the same time. Win.
God, I hate Movember. And not only because growing a ‘tache for cancer encourages men to make a big, hairy, public display of their caring, charitable side, which overlooks the wise advice of historian William Hutton: “The charity that hastens to proclaim its good deeds ceases to be charity, and is only pride and ostentation.” No, even worse than that is what Movember has done to the moustache. It has completely ruined it. It has single-handedly reversed the entire meaning of the mo’. In the past, men grew ‘taches to demonstrate their masculinity, to let the world know they were strong and virile and maybe a bit mental: think bushy Burt Reynolds or ‘tache-tastic Tom Selleck. Now, courtesy of Movember, we’re invited to grow ‘taches to show that we’re “in touch” with our bodies and feelings, that we’re “health aware”, that we are willing, in the words of the Movember website, to imitate “the efforts of women, who proactively and publicly address their health issues in a way not traditionally seen with men”. In short, where growing a ‘tache was once about saying “I AM MAN”, now it’s about publicly advertising one’s effeminacy.
Don’t be fooled by the seemingly manly ‘taches – the true aim of Movember is to remake men as permanently panicked navel-gazers who never smoke or drink or eat junk food and instead have interminable conversations with their mates about their testicles and prostates. The overseers of Movember complain that young men are “indifferent towards their health”. Apparently blokes have a problematic “‘it’ll be alright’ attitude”, which leads to a “reluctance” to openly discuss “health issues”. Men need to be more like women, says the Movember website; we are currently “trailing the women’s health movement” and thus lots of “established taboos and barriers relating to men’s health [must be] broken down”. Movember aims to do this by encouraging men everywhere to regularly examine their testicles for lumps, get prostate check-ups, go to the doctor whenever they feel remotely unwell, and stop being “embarrassed to discuss health issues”.
Movember has lots of health tips for us dumb, I’m-alright-Jack blokes. First, of course, “Don’t Smoke”, because that’s really bad for you. Also, you must “Know Your Body” – that is, feel yourself (no, not like that!), look for lumps, gawp at yourself in a mirror, and “if something seems out of the norm, alert your doctor”. We must “Eat A Healthy Diet” – “fill up with fruit, vegetables and whole grains!” “Stay At A Healthy Weight”, too, because being overweight “poses a major risk for chronic diseases”. And here’s a biggie: “Drink Alcohol Only In Moderation.” Ideally we should “not drink more than 3-4 units of alcohol each day, the equivalent to a pint-and-a-half of 4% beer”.
Here, we can see the New Labour-like petty authoritarianism and health freakery that lurks behind the super-ironic veneer of the Movember campaign: what presents itself as a jokey, blokey international sporting of hilarious ‘taches is in fact a drive to make men, especially young men, into smoke-free, sober, fruit-chomping, testicle-checking bores who should never drink more than a pint-and-a-half of beer in a day (are they serious?). What this uber-patronising campaign overlooks is that if young men really do have an “‘it’ll be alright’ attitude”, that’s because it probably will be alright: young men, and young women too, are healthier than they have ever been, and are less likely than any generation in history to die in the workplace or contract a serious illness or fail to make it to middle age. It is perverse to encourage young men who have the privilege of living in a safe, medically advanced society to spend more of their time panicking about their health and darting off to the doctor’s at the merest hint of a cough or ache. They surely have better things to do, like eat steaks, get drunk, have casual sex.
If anything is bad for our health, it is the demand that we become ever more health-obsessed. What good can come from making men panicky, insecure, freaked out every time a bit of their body looks a bit different to how it looked last week? Indeed, studies suggest that the constant promotion of the cult of testicular self-examination among young men, which Movember fully supports, is leading to more and more “false positives”, with blokes having chemotherapy and even surgery that they don’t actually need. This is the irony: Movember – or at least the hectoring, health-obsessed thinking behind it – can make you sick. Don’t fall for it, lads. Don’t cave in to the demand that we should be more “aware” and constantly on alert for ailments and troubles. Screw Movember. Shave off the mo’. Be a man.
The word ‘bro’ is an obvious abbreviation of ‘brother’, and to the extent that I use it, which is exceedingly rarely, that’s how I’ve always used it; whether to denote a male friend one is close to, or just as the equivalent of saying ‘man’ or ‘dude’ or ‘guy’, etc. to a male acquaintance (as in the well-known phrases “Don’t taze me, bro!” or “U mad bro?“) Wiktionary defines it similarly, too, as does UrbanDictionary in the first part of the first definition.
However, UrbanDictionary also supplies some other definitions which affix certain characteristics, interests, fashions, tastes, and personal hobbies to the term ‘bro’. I have encountered this in other places, too; if one Googles the term ‘bro’, one comes across the site Brobible, which is a site dedicated to various male interests: girls, sports, partying, music, entertainment, ‘gear’, etc. Then there’s also the term ‘bro code‘, to which a number of sites are dedicated to explaining as a set of principles to live by…
Recently, the Atlantic’s new channel “The Sexes” featured an article by some chick named Eleanor Barkhorn, entitled “Toward a Working Definition of ‘Bro’“, which examined a recent Craigslist posting from the Washington, D.C. area, which has since been pulled, but of which they got a screencap before it disappeared. The Craigslist posting was entitled “$800 Seeking Renaissance Bro to Assimilate into Existing Bro Community” – the posters were apparently looking for a roommate who meets their definition of what a ‘bro’ is, hoping no doubt to find someone quite similar to themselves in terms of interests, and one might even say, worldview, so they’d have not just a roommate but a new bud to hang out with, etc. The chick journo from the Atlantic quotes a portion:
Let us define the term bro. We’re not the “bro” you see on MTV, or any “bro” you see wearing Ed Hardy/Affliction T-shirts. We’re not bros with Nantucket red shorts, boat shoes, and croakies. We’re not the Magic The Gathering/D&D Bros. We are just sensible guys that enjoy immature forays on weekends and intellectual box socials on weekdays. We enjoy the outdoors and traveling. We read a lot of books and discuss the best way to layer the contents of a BLT. We’re not all fart jokes and dildo-hats though. We both have legit 9-5 jobs, graduate degrees, and high levels of general awareness. We have a strong group of bros (approx 30-45 across the eastern seaboard) that come in and out on a regular basis throughout the week/weekends for Monday/Thursday night football, movie night, or bro dinners at sick steakhouses. I know this is a lot, and there is no way I can cover all areas of our bro community, but I hope this weeds out some of the unsavory “bros” out there.
And then she snarks:
So, bros are immature, intellectual, jet-setting, social-butterfly foodies. Got it.
The posters also seem to act as if ‘bros’ should talk in a certain way, given the wording of their ad (some of it just strikes me as bizarre, even if in jest; for instance, when the guy says “My roommate and I are 29 years old, have known each other since freshman year of college, and can basically describe each others’ taints with our eyes closed.” WTF? That comes across so gay, even though I highly doubt they are; guess I’m just too ‘old-school’ to talk like that.).
So what the hell is a ‘bro’ / what are ‘bros’? Just a term to denote a fellow guy? Just guys who are close friends with similar interests? Or does it describe a somewhat specific subculture of sorts, to which one doesn’t belong if one doesn’t meet certain criteria? (If so, no doubt no ‘theater fags’ or non-sports-fans need apply…) Or is it all or none of these things? Or is it beyond precise definition? And just what the hell exactly is ‘bromance‘?
What do y’all think?
Here at Patriactionary, we consider our blog to be more or less at the intersection of the manosphere and the tradosphere / orthosphere, in terms of our interests and foci (‘focuses’ for the Latin-challenged) as ‘Red Pill’ patriarchal reactionary traditionalist Christian men.
Really? How sad, that sodomites have so captured the word ‘man’ that any association with it somehow seems homo in the minds of some.
As for the supposed replacement ‘cocktagon’, actually referencing the male organ sounds way more queer than just referring to our common masculinity in the term ‘manosphere’, no? It does to me, as does ‘cockosphere’…
I agree that neither ‘androsphere’ nor ‘homosphere’ are suitable (they’re both worse, and even more queer-sounding)…
Why not just leave well enough alone?
Stop being over-sensitive, you ‘manosphere’-term haters! We’re men; why not acknowledge that in our name?
While I’m on the subject, are men who take an interest in dressing well, cooking, the arts, etc., any less manly than those who prefer professional sports? Because the fear of the term ‘manosphere’ strikes me as the sort of hyper-masculine bullshit that gets people who like the arts labelled ‘theater-fags’, even if they’re straight. Why can’t straight guys like theatre, the arts, even dancing, the way true ‘renaissance men’ did in times past?
Why let the outside world dictate what is and isn’t ‘masculine’? Why can’t ‘real men’ eat quiche or drink wine?
Really, that attitude is all a case of realmannspracht, and if the manosphere is to be about anything, shouldn’t we free ourselves from allowing outsiders to tell us what constitutes a ‘real man’? Especially, shouldn’t Christians take their cue from Scripture? All men are real men, simply due to being created in the image of God, thus bearing the Imago Dei. That’s what a real man is, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Or tell you we shouldn’t identify as men, in terms of that phrase ‘manosphere’, nor like things other men don’t.
Fuck that. I’ll like what I like, and not like what I don’t like (e.g. I’m not much for sports), and I don’t care what others think of me for my tastes / preferences. What could be more manly than not caring what others think?
Why not NOT let queers capture terms like ‘man’, NOR let others dictate what is and what isn’t ‘truly’ manly? Why not tell both of them to get stuffed – and go your own way…
(Like me using emoticons, or linking Cracked articles in my linkfests; not toeing any party line, am I? Hmmm.)
“Everyone knows that testosterone, the so-called male hormone, is found in both men and women. What is not so well-known, is that men have an overdose… Until recently it has been thought that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from testosterone poisoning.”
The theorized link is between male hormones and aggressiveness. Does the link hold? Well, Wikipedia further down tells us that “Neuroscientist Christoph Eisenegger at the University of Zurich has conducted a study and concludes that the evidence debunks the myth that testosterone causes aggressive, egocentric behaviour, suggesting instead that the sex hormone can encourage fair play, particularly if it improves a person’s status. According to a study published in Nature, ‘a single dose of testosterone in women causes a substantial increase in fair bargaining behaviour, thereby reducing bargaining conflicts and increasing the efficiency of social interactions. However, subjects who believed that they received testosterone—regardless of whether they actually received it or not—behaved much more unfairly than those who believed that they were treated with placebo.’” (emphasis and italics added)
Also from Wikipedia:
“The ultimatum game is a game often played in economic experiments in which two players interact to decide how to divide a sum of money that is given to them. The first player proposes how to divide the sum between the two players, and the second player can either accept or reject this proposal. If the second player rejects, neither player receives anything. If the second player accepts, the money is split according to the proposal. The game is played only once so that reciprocation is not an issue.”
It is a model for social interaction. As the book Priceless tells us (page 120):
“The ultimatum game has become an ur-experiment, the scientific equivalent of a catchy riff that lends itself to endless sampling and remixing. It has been played with members of the globe’s diverse cultures; with children, the autistic, the high-IQ, and men having exceptionally high levels of testosterone; with players who have been given a hormone that increases trust in strangers; even with chimpanzees splitting a prize of ten raisins. The game’s continuing fascination rests on how behavior changes, or doesn’t change, with context. Like a well-oiled weathervane, the experiment’s archetypic economic choice is sensitive to subtle pressures that affect us all the time yet usually go unnoticed.”
Different cultures react differently:
“‘My Israeli game theory professor was proud to note that Israel is one of the few places where low offers were given and accepted’ in the ultimatum game, economist Presh Talwalkar wryly noted. For what it’s worth, the ‘Israeli myth’ owes to a 1991 study comparing behavior in Pittsburgh, Ljubljana, Jerusalem, and Tokyo. The most common proposer offer was 40 percent among Israelis, versus 50 percent for Americans. That’s not much of a difference, really (as we will see). But it led to a mystique of Israelis as the chosen rational people—or else it played into the old Shylockian stereotypes. One of the four-city study’s coauthors, Hebrew University’s Shmuel Zamir, recalls a young Israeli coming up to him, ‘visibly upset.’ He complained, ‘I did not eam any money because all the other players are stupid! How can you reject a positive amount of money and prefer to get zero? They just did not understand the game! You should have stopped the experiment and explained it to them.’
When Colin Camerer described this ‘crosscultural’ study to UCLA anthropologist Robert Boyd, Boyd objected that it was no such thing. ’Pittsburgh is not a culture,’ he said, ‘it’s a place on a map.’”
It is interesting that some cultures are less inclined to an even 50-50 split. Other research showed that what Fukuyama called “high-trust” cultures are more given to the even split. This leads to an intriguing question: what happens in a culture of low trust? Does such exist?
“To an anthropologist, all four cities were part of the same homogenized global culture. The story got more interesting when one of Boyd’s grad students, Joe Heinrich, performed ultimatum game experiments with the Machiguenga people of eastem Peru. ‘He came back and said, can you come and look at my data?’ recalled Camerer. ‘So I went over to UCLA, and Joe said, “I think I made a mistake because they made a lot of low offers, and they were all accepted. Except for one, and that was even suspicious because I had a Spanish-speaking assistant with me who spoke the local dialect, and that guy kind of bullied him into it: ‘I don’t think you should take that.’ So I think they all were accepted.” ‘
The Machiguenga are among the most asocial peoples on earth.” (emphasis added)
The Israeli who was annoyed at people who wouldn’t accept even token amounts when he would get the lion’s share was doubtless sincere in his confusion. We have moved from a society that valued social cohesion and group progress to one of a “winner-takes-all” mentality. As the Ultimatum Game shows, however, there is an inbred cultural meme in most successful cultures to punish narcissists who profit at the expense of others. This is necessary to social peace and societal advancement. Where does the meme arise, and how is it enforced?
Terence Burnham has also played the Ultimatum Game:
“The ultimatum game is a simple negotiation with the interesting property that people frequently reject offers of ‘free’ money. These rejections contradict the standard view of economic rationality. This divergence between economic theory and human behaviour is important and has no broadly accepted cause.”
He wondered at the effect of that violence-causing, society-destroying androgen, testosterone.
“In a variety of species, testosterone is associated with male seeking dominance. If low ultimatum game offers are interpreted as challenges, then high-testosterone men may be more likely to reject such offers. In this experiment, men who reject low offers … have significantly higher testosterone levels than those who accept.”
So, as this experiment shows, high testosterone men will go out of their way to punish “cheaters” who violate accepted social norms, even if it means foregoing personal gain in the process. That our society has grown less just as it has become more feminized, and that more and more people have a cavalier disregard for established social norms, is part and parcel of the same syndrome. Restoration of Patriarchy, led by manly men, is essential to justice and social harmony.
Free Northerner writes:
The Bookshelf: Willpower
Right off the bat, I’ll say that the book was excellent and I’m glad it was recommended to me.
Essentially the book is a discussion of willpower, how it works, how to use it to your advantage, and how to strengthen it.
It’s written in a typical self-help masquerading as popular science style. Introduce an issue, show some studies, show some real life examples, and then show the practical applicability of the previous. The writing style is solid; its engaging, accessible, well-written. Not quite as engaging as, say, Malcolm Gladwell, the big player in the self-help as popular science genre, but it’s also much more in-depth and informative than Gladwell’s breezy style (gentle mockery here), so overall I think it functions better.
The book argues that willpower exists and, along with IQ, is the strongest universal predictor of success. Levels of self-control as a child are tied to future life outcomes. Willpower is biologically based and is dependent on your glucose levels. The biggest lesson of the book is that you have only a limited amount of willpower, which is steadily depleted as you resist temptation and make decisions, and is restored through eating and sleeping. Your available willpower is somewhat innate but can be strengthened. So, you should try to avoid depleting willpower unnecessarily and conserve willpower for when you really need it.
The various chapters explain how to use to-do lists to optimize your productivity, how making decisions and will power effect each other, how to apply willpower to your spending, strengthening willpower, how belief in higher power/values can strengthen willpower, raising children with willpower, and that perennial self-help favourite, dieting.
There’s too much in the book for me to go through all of it here, so I’ll highlight some manosphere-related things that stood out to me.
As mentioned, there’s a discussion on glucose and willpower, and the book recommend eating low glycemic foods such as meats, veggies, nuts, and fruits rather than sugary foods and refined carbohydrates. In other words, eating paleo/primal can help build up your willpower. Although, in times of decision/willpower fatigue a quick boost of energy from something sugary can be a good temporary willpower pick-me-up.
Also, on diet and health, the authors conclude that, contrary to popular opinion, self-control has only minimal effect on physical health. They recommend heavily against “dieting”, saying that dieting itself causes long-term weight gain and unhealthiness as it overrides your body’s natural hunger signals. There’s some advice on how to increase your odds of becoming healthier.
There’s a discussion of the SMP. Essentially, your brain is reluctant to forgo options, so as you’re given more choices you become more reluctant to choose. So, as your mating choices expand you are more likely to increase your criteria for a potential mate, increasing the likelihood of ending up with no mate at all. This explains why some women (and men) can have long, impossible criteria for potential partners.
One section discusses the “hot-cold empathy gap”, where in peace you can not appreciate how you’ll behave in the heat of the moment. So, when in the heat of temptation you are much more likely do something that you would not consider otherwise. This is applied to men; when aroused men were a lot more likely to be willing to engage in sexual activities they would not have considered in a “cool” state. Not surprising, but something to for aspiring patriarchs to keep in mind.
The self-esteem movement is excoriated as it causes narcissism while not actually providing the promised benefits.
There’s a discussion of how single-parenting is heavily detrimental to children as children in single-parent homes are monitored less and monitoring is essential to the development of self-control.
On the topic that led to EA’s recommendation to read this book, video games are encouraged in this book for children as they exercise willpower. There’s further useful advice on raising children to have willpower and self-control.
In other words, the science of willpower more or less validates the arguments of the manosphere/alt-right at very turn.
The book concludes with some helpful and practical advice, such as know your limits, pick your battles, monitor yourself, use a to-do list, and reward yourself. This advice is not stunningly original, but it’s good to have it provided along with the backing science.
This book is excellent. If you ever desire to improve yourself or accomplish something difficult, Willpower is a must-buy. It will explain to you how to better harness your willpower to succeed. I can not recommend this book enough.
If you don’t ever plan on accomplishing anything, you might enjoy the science but the book’s not for you. Also, you should really consider why you have resigned yourself to mediocrity and failure. Upon consideration you should choose to improve yourself, then read the book to help do so.