ypsi~dixit

Mencken long ago wrote everything you need to know about men's studies, in his "In Defense of Women."

Excerpt:
The Masculine Bag of Tricks

"What men, in their egoism, constantly mistake for a deficiency of intelligence in woman is merely an incapacity for mastering that mass of small intellectual tricks, that complex of petty knowledges, that collection of cerebral rubber stamps, which constitutes the chief mental equipment of the average male. A man thinks that he is more intelligent than his wife because he can add up a column of figures more accurately, and because he understands the imbecile jargon of the stock market, and because he is able to distinguish between the ideas of rival politicians, and because he is privy to the minutiae of some sordid and degrading business or profession, say soap-selling or the law. But these empty talents, of course, are not really signs of a profound intelligence; they are, in fact, merely superficial accomplishments, and their acquirement puts little more strain on the mental powers than a chimpanzee suffers in learning how to catch a penny or scratch a match. The whole bag of tricks of the average business man, or even of the average professional man, is inordinately childish. It takes no more actual sagacity to carry on the everyday hawking and haggling of the world, or to ladle out its normal doses of bad medicine and worse law, than intakes to operate a taxicab or fry a pan of fish. No observant person, indeed, can come into close contact with the general run of business and professional men--I confine myself to those who seem to get on in the world, and exclude the admitted failures--without marvelling at their intellectual lethargy, their incurable ingenuousness, their appalling lack of ordinary sense. The late Charles Francis Adams, a grandson of one American President and a great-grandson of another, after a long lifetime in intimate association with some of the chief business "geniuses" of that paradise of traders and usurers, the United States, reported in his old age that he had never heard a single one of them say anything worth hearing. These were vigorous and masculine men, and in a man's world they were successful men, but intellectually they were all blank cartridges."

Since when is masculinity a noun? I'm perfectly comfortable with my masculinity, I don't need to do any navel gazing about it. As I have gotten older I have confirmed more and more that the old axiom about men veing rational and women emotional is absolute bullshit. First of all you cannot generalize descriptions like that. As with all things involving human behavior there is a continuum, with people being all along the continuum and most people being at many places depending on the circumstances. When it comes to humans there is only one absolute. We will die at some point, other than that anything goes.

One thing I left out. If there is any generalization to be made, then men definitely tend to being far more emotional than women.

Sam: That has got to be the most intriguing comment made today.

Let's have at it: are men more emotional than women?

I recently heard an extremely intriguing NPR story about a woman who dressed in drag and passed as a man, in order to explore gender & then write a book.

The degree to which men were tightly constrained by societal expectations was an eye-opener to me. There was a very strict code, and it was immediately noticed if you violated it. The woman used the word "cute" in commenting about another guy's shirt, for example, and that raised eyebrows.

She said she thought men were just as emotional as women but far, far, more controlled and taciturn in expressing it.

Back to Sam's proposition: are men more emotional than women?

Gender studies. Heh.

That was one of my pet peeves about Ann Arbor. No where else in this great nation of our did I encounter such drivel.

It's a study where acedemics can talk about dating all day, which makes them happy, even if they go home alone at night.

It's a way to for the uninitiated undergrads to turn their college education into amateur group therapy. The ideas they teach are as old as myself, and they are unchanging. The approach their study with the fervor of Bible camp. It's almost always a study of sex or violence, as base as anything on the television after 10:00 pm.

On the AA public radio mix, in the 90's at least, I recall a show devoted to Men's stuides that was absolute agony for a rational listener. Discussing whether men should be barred from Women's Studies classes, how to not beat your wife, oh, and that stupid male sea horse that carries the baby sea horse, oh, how beautiful. This was one episode.

I'm all for studying a culture within a culture, the history of a group within a nation is a historical study of merit. Like the Creole culture in Louisiana, that's a great history.

When I was last in Ann Arbor, it struck me that this penchant for gender studies had something to do with how difficult it is to meet members of the appropriate sex.

The dating scene is as harsh as it is boring. It seems the only way to be alluring is to be aloof, to run hot and cold. Driving times factor into every encounter.

Gender studies in Michigan are more a product of two many lonely nights driving home from Clutch Cargos than any real pursuit of knowledge or understanding. A slow and meticulous licking of wounds.

I do give thought to what it means to be a man. How to be an attractive fellow. How to be clever, confident, and generous. In a word, fetching. If the cover of Cosmo is any indication, it's a preoccupation for women as well.

I want to be money. Vegas, Baby. Vegas!

I don't pass it off as a civics lesson.

Zowie wowie woo! Preach it, brother! :)

Gender studies in Michigan are more a product of two many lonely nights driving home from Clutch Cargos than any real pursuit of knowledge or understanding. A slow and meticulous licking of wounds.

Zing! Bang! Pow! Take that, you gender-studyin' doofi!

Alan, I tip my hat to you--you said it twice as zingily as I could. This is a keeper!

Alan: Oh, and I also love this one:

It's a study where academics can talk about dating all day, which makes them happy, even if they go home alone at night. (snort!)

It's a way to for the uninitiated undergrads to turn their college education into amateur group therapy. The ideas they teach are as old as myself, and they are unchanging. The approach their study with the fervor of Bible camp. It's almost always a study of sex or violence, as base as anything on the television after 10:00 pm.

(another trenchant zinger!)

Heh.

It struck most when I first got back to Ann Arbor.

Women discussing Women's issues always seemed to be just one more AA dating gambit. Peculiar bar talk. They were not talking about sex, no, they were talking about sexuality, you see. Which is like sex, but depressing.

I'd have to simply have to listen with the knit brow one furrows for someone who's only hurting themselves.

The only thing more pathetic is the notion that Men are going to turn the tables harness the power of gender-pity and taboo for themselves.

They were not talking about sex, no, they were talking about sexuality, you see. Which is like sex, but depressing.

Hahahaha! Another astute, and hilarious, observation. And that sort of "conversation" *does* sound miserable.

OK, Ill stop reprinting every word Mr. G. says, so that you don't have the scho chamber effect (contrite).

One more.

oh, and that stupid male sea horse that carries the baby sea horse, oh, how beautiful. (ha!)

When I say men are more emotional, I don't mean that men express more emotion openly. My experience is that men actually make decisions based on emotion and gut reactions more often than than on rational thought. Men seem to have more anger issues and they also tend to follow the head that is not attached to their neck. I do agree that in many ways men are more constrained by societal norms.

Why don't they have Robert Bly? And drumming circles? No way am I going...

I think men at least in American society (based on no real evidence except that I am one), are really constrained in their ... I don't know if I would call it emotions, but in the way they relate to one another.

There is also a high level of homophobia among American men.

One thing my sister noticed when she visted me in Germany: many more men out with their young kids on the streets (strollers and what have you).

My verdict: the real problem ultimately is that there are very few American men who ever end up being able to have deep and satisfying friendships with other men. That's why so many of them are miserable in their marriages, beacuse then they have no one to turn to apart from their wives. Not that it's bad to turn to your wife, but 24/7 can be a little narrow, and I get the sense the wives don't like that kind of full time attention either.

On the other hand, precisely because of this American male culture, if someone were to start a movement to try and overcome this, he or his movement would probably be described as "gay" by a lot of guys.

Even imagining such a movement myself, I think of it as "lame" or "unmanly" - and I know better! It's more conditioned response than rational thought. You're just supposed to tough it out as a man in America, and if you find yourself saying to yourself "I don't have any satisfying male friendships" then you certainly would never say anything to anyone about it ... just deal with it by drinking or going hunting and shooting something.

Well, it's not as simple as all that, but I still think that's a major problem in American culture that you don't find in Italian, German, or Greek or French culture (the cultures I have the most experience with). No (or few) significant male friendships.

Sam: After listening to the NPR story, I felt that as a woman I was much freer to express emotion. It was surprising.

Daniel: Those are very interesting comments. I hadn't thought of the male-friendships angle. You are right, that seems much less common, even to me (as a relative outsider) than in the cultures you mention (and in Arabic cultures, where male friends are very physically expressive with each other, to my knowledge-walking hand in hand or arm in arm in streets).

Here's a somewhat related article on the topic from the Eastern Echo that may or may not be tongue-in-cheek.