Can a man appreciate vintage and be metro?

Real Men

Just the begining but apropos...


JOE JACSON'S REAL MEN

Take your mind back - I dont know when
Sometime when it always seemed
To be just us and them
Girls that wore pink
And boys that wore blue
Boys that always grew up better men
Than me and you

Whats a man now - whats a man mean
Is he rough or is he rugged
Is he cultural and clean
Now its all change - its got to change more
cause we think its getting better
But nobodys really sure

And so it goes - go round again
But now and then we wonder who the real men are


AND THIS

Those Winter Sundays
by Robert Hayden

Sundays too my father got up early
and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.

I'd wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he'd call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house,

speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love's austere and lonely offices?

Hoppes #9 on a woman is better than Chanel #5.

Baron,

I agree with you on the futility of trying to split up traits. There are differences, but they are all dependent on the individual in expression and so not worth trying to gerneralize to any purpose.

I can't remember who posted it (Lizzie?) but I view the line of "inappropriate dress/grooming/care etc)" as being drawn at the point of doing things for the purpose of impressing other people.

Real men, and women, just are. You do your thing, your way. If people notice, fine, but you aren't doing it for them. Like character, it's what you do when no one is watching.

A "fop" to me is someone who only takes pains so he can, subtly or not, make people know what pains he's taken. If no one was there to impress he might not take the time.

I hate "look at me"-itis. Makes we want to smack the arrogance out of a person.

But, then, I have to respond with violence, because its the only thing I know.

I think the confusion comes from thinking of metrosexuals as being effeminite. THe term actually describes a straigth hetero man who acts like a gay man (steriotypical gay man anyway) by caring about his clothes, grooming, body etc. But I don't consider gay men's habits to be particularly effeminite. Just not much like your average hetero american man. I don't think they are too different than plenty of europeans.

I imagine there wre gay men back in the day, and I imagine they were inclined to be in the arts, clothing design etc, and I imagine they were well groomed, fastidious, and cared about their appearance grooming and clothes.

So any person that was into vintage that actually cares about those things as much as a gay man or straight man that resembled them back in the day, could be called a metrosexual. I think mot of the men on this board are closer to metrosexuals than to your average straight american, beer chugging, baseball cap wearing slob.

I think a dandy of the eighteen hundreds would be pretty much like a metrosexual today.

I have no use for steriotypical make role models. The golden era can keep them. However, I think many of the traits are worth keeping by choice.

I think all men are better off beign able to choose how they want to be. the problem is many male traits have been portrayed as negative or bad. It was an unfortunate fallout of the women' movement. It was necesseery for women to be liberated, but it did have some negative ocnsequences, resulting in a generation of men who do not know much abot being men. add to the the industrial revolution and now the corporate world. Now young men do not spend much time with older men at home or work. they have lost that learning opportunity.

I am learning to embrace certain traditional characteristics. the term alpha male, whil describing one who displays dominance over other males, can also be seen as being in control and in charge of yourself, and commanding the situation. In other words, stepping up and being a leader.

Yet, I definitely appreciate the opportunity to be in touch with my feelings, care about things that are not taditionally male and do what I please. I would not be considered very manly by past standards. but i am happy with myself.

Miss Neecerie said:

Metrosexual is a word describing men who have a strong concern for their aesthetic appearance, and spend a substantial amount of time and money on their images and lifestyles. Though the term has undergone a transformation from its original meaning (a heterosexual man who appeared or acted as if he were homosexual), current trends have seen the metrosexual label placed upon masculinity's embracing of practices usually perceived to be feminine, rather than those specifically associated with the homosexual.


Ok...so the first sentence of this....is -all- of you...you wouldn't be posting on a message board about fedoras, $300 umbrellas and armholes on suits...otherwise. Trust me, I have been shopping with some of you and you all take it -way- more seriously then most women I know do.

So I assume that where you are all disagreeing is the 'practices usually percieved to be feminine' part. In light of the first part of the 'wiki' definition, I take this to mean things like shopping, spending time analyzine ones self in front of the mirror etc....that used to be the exclusive domain of 'those women, always late to everything because they have to look just -so-'....'Man, my wife spends all that money on dresses and I can't even tell them apart'

Newsflash...most of the universe cant tell your hats apart either..or your flight jackets...or any of it. So regardless of thinking 'well hats are masculine, so there!', the trait of spending time on the details of shopping for just that perfect hat to go with a suit...and don't forget the pocket square also...means that shopping is now a hobby....oooh...wait...shopping as a hobby, how feminine! *gasp*

Much ado about labels...once again.

People is people. Times change, otherwise you would all be wearing tights and codpieces. Those guys were still men right?

Click to expand...

Very well put. I must agree. For that matter, a traditional man of means who was well dressed would probably spend a lot of time at the tailor, but very little time talking about it. There was a certain masculine quality of not caring wrapped up in it. You were supposed to look incredibly well dressed by accident. I fear all of us would fail at that test.

Rafter said:

What's so wrong with being the stoic, self-denying, male that doesn't shop enough. Advertisers created the "metrosexual" for their profit, this kind of man, less certain of his identity and much more interested in his image.

Whenever there's a trend, such as the "metrosexual", there's going to be a reaction against that, almost immediately after that, where you see a stronger man, kind of the "machosexual".

Advertising looks like it's starting to catch up. A Miller Lite ad shows a round table of guys debating "man laws." Actor Jim Belushi published an advice book titled "Real Men Don't Apologize," and Vince Vaughn's brute in "The Break Up" rocked the box office.

The new macho is the old macho. It is about being competent and feeling traditional, filling traditional male roles. I think guys are still in touch with their feminine side but not wearing it on their sleeves.

Click to expand...

Interesting thought, but I see the trend of masculinity exagerated as just another marketing ploy. They don't sell real masulinity. They sell this ridiculous characterization that can be had for the price of a six pack. As Bill Mahr said once, the old beer commercials usd to promis that if you bought the beer you would get the hot girl. NOw they don't even try to sellthe fantasy of that. They show guys having a beer with their buds as a respite from their annoying girlfriends.

In other words, they sell us this watered down image of sad sack anachronistic guy who is left to the last bastion of masculinity, a dirty garage and a barbecue. Pretty pathetic and not my idea of being a man at all.

A man can no longer be dressed well by accident, or appear that way, because it's difficult to achieve that look with what we have to work with. Thus, all our talk about it here.

BTW, I also belong to a vintage Mustang website. It doesn't mean I'm overly obsessed with my Mustang, even though an outsider may disagree, given that (surprise, surprise) there's an awful lot of talk about Mustangs at the site.

Baron Kurtz said:

Not to be confrontational . . .

What is considered to be an effeminate trait for a man?

bk

Click to expand...

Must you ask?? It's three in the morning, a noise outisde disturbs the young couple. Upon hearing the noise the young girl expresses concern and says "Please go see what that is". The young man replies "My God no, it could be dangerous YOU go see!". That is an example of an effeminate man. A real man would obviously see that it could be dangerous, but would know that the young lady is concerned, perhaps even fearful. So out of respect and concern for her feelings he decides that though dangerous, and though he may not want to do so, he should investigate the noise. The idea being that if someone must meet with danger, better it be himself than her.

A tire is flattened on a cold, rainy higway while the young couple are on the way to a nice dinner dressed their best. The young girl, though she is capable of changing the tire herself, looks at her mate and says "I don't want to get dirty, please change the tire" (Which she needn't have had to say in the first place). The effiminate male responds "Are you kidding? These pants are brand new". A real man would have pulled over and changed the tire without any question and without needing to be asked. The idea being, If someone is to get dirty and sick, better himself than her.

I have no patience for men who refuse to get dirty when their is a need for it, or who complain constantly about minute details. I absolutely cannot stand any man who does not act when action is called for and who avoids confrontation at the expense of his dignity or that of his family's.
This is not relegate to only "traditional male" jobs. If your wife is sick and you aren't washing dishes, doing laundry, or changing diapers because you feel that is beneath you, than you are no man in my book.

Senator Jack said:

A man can no longer be dressed well by accident, or appear that way, because it's difficult to achieve that look with what we have to work with. Thus, all our talk about it here.

BTW, I also belong to a vintage Mustang website. It doesn't mean I'm overly obsessed with my Mustang, even though an outsider may disagree, given that (surprise, surprise) there's an awful lot of talk about Mustangs at the site.

Click to expand...

Ah ...well that explains it all! Blame the Mustang...

and note, I never said obsessed....I went with the Wiki 'strong concern about'...

herringbonekid said:

in that case, the gangs of effeminate pretty boys are of no threat to you at all and 'men's men' can live side by side with 'pretty boys' in perfect harmony. no ?

Click to expand...

Believe me, effeminate men pose no threat to me or my self esteem. There is plenty of room in the pack for all, even the pups.

As a side note I have noticed that their seems to be a Trans-Altalntic differnece among thoughts when it comes to the idea of what is effeminate and its "tolerance" or sympathy of. Interseting is it not?

Interesting thread, and as usual I am impressed by the courtesy with with all are accepting each others' views.
Here are a few thoughts I have from the San Francisco Bay viewpoint:
1. I think many people are sexually attracted to someone who is relatively hard.
2. I think many people are attracted to someone who is soft.
3. Many people are attracted much more to one than to the other; many people think that the other is grossly unattractive.
4. In the "golden era," men were expected to be the hard ones. This made sense at that time. Society had barely gotten finished with its phase in which 95% of the people had to do hard field work. Men's generally larger frames and statistically higher upper body strength made them more suitable for hard tasks.
5. The people of many eras, certainly including our "golden era," especially the artists and filmmakers, fetishized this difference. The difference was fetishized by many many people. This created many beautiful forms such as the "classic" women's high heels and the man's fedora. What else are you going to do with a difference BUT fetishize it? It will be there either way and you might as well have fun with it and find it arousing.
6. Once heavy labor was farmed out to other populations, the difference diminished. The difference continued to diminish after about 1960 or so.
To some people, the difference is absurd, useless, a remnant of the past, and associated with sexism and violence. To others, the difference is a sign of vigor, the beautiful product of centuries and millenia of social evolution and millenia of biological evolution and it's here to stay. To others, it's quite arbitrary but it's sexy and it looks good.
7. Various movements have tried to recapture this difference. The exaggerated slobby "manliness" of the stereotypical high school jock, for example. Various movements have gone out of the way to underplay it, criticize it, or assert that its existence is strictly socially constructed.
8. Yet even after all is said and done, people STILL LIKE THIS DIFFERENCE. They still find it appealing. Sexy. Meaningful. Titillating. They still fetishize it. Examples: often one see lesbian couples in which there is a clear tough looking butch top and a clearly feminine bottom. This is very interesting and beautiful in its own way. Each member of the couple likes to be a certain way and is attracted to the opposite. The difference has been reinvigorated and resexualized.
9. I don't think there is anything wrong with difference. I think, however, women today should have the right to be hard if they want and men today, if they want to be soft, should have the right to do that (I personally don't but that's just me). Certainly we would all agree that men today must respect women as their equals. I regard this as a fine thing. If individual men are attracted to women who are attracted to softer men, they will become soft to get those women. More power to them if they both continue to find this satisfying for many decades.
10. Personally, I like difference. I am attracted to women who are feminine and who have made an art of being feminine, who find something beautiful about femininity. And the women who attract me like difference too. They don't want someone who is like them, soft and curvy with a higher voice, long hair, jewelry, and so on. They are attracted to a man in a suit who has notable backbone, who can, when necessary, do certain things, who is not wishy washy, who is ... well, "traditionally" manly (without being an overly aggressive jerk).
11. To me, the whole issue of gender is illuminated best by two things: evolutionary psychology/sociobiology (although it can be abused to support very silly arguments) and the study of sadomasochism. We like and fetishize difference because it is around us and because the alternative is to be repelled by it and that isn't much fun.

I dunno.

I'm actually fairly comfortable with traditional sex roles - as long as people fall somewhat naturally into them thru being who they are, and don't seem to be acting out some cartoon exaggeration for kinks (the butch-top/femme-bottom couples you mention, or male-dom/female-sub couples). Not their problem, mind you; just my taste. YMM most definitely V.

Consider this, tho. "Soft" used to be a not-very nice thing to call someone. But so did "hard." A man didn't want to be a softie - someone who couldn't work and sweat, someone who whined and gave out early. But he didn't want to be a hard guy either - that meant someone with no heart, no common decency. Probably a tool, bought and paid for, running scared, who would just as soon give you a crack in the chops as a little human understanding.

Now that distinction we've largely lost. People like Michael Barone sing the praises of "Hard America" without knowing or caring what it used to mean to be "hard." Hard shot at strikers rather than give them a living wage. Hard kept independent women out of the workplace and the movies. Hard whipped school kids, starved families, lynched people. Hard laid waste to civilized Europe. What's sexy about that? Even 3/4 century later it's pretty damn repulsive.

Admittedly we are in a bit of a retrograde phase culturally. Squared-away order-followers and outlaw anti-everything wild-boys get more cred than the guy next door with an imagination and a head on his shoulders. Raw power and money trump every other trait in a man, even when a woman has her own. Self-aggrandizing blatherskites like Camille Paglia preach that true liberation includes a woman's freedom to submit to extreme, ritualized power.

It just strikes me somehow that "sexy" used to be something people came to on their own, rather than got trapped in as an inevitable consequence of some predetermined lifestyle calculus. Sometimes I think we've constructed all that just because the idea of romance (whatever the hell that meant) makes us snicker, sneer, or get sick to our stomachs. Don't ask me why we got that way, though. I am a cynic because I am a romantic.

ValleyBoy said:

Must you ask?? It's three in the morning, a noise outisde disturbs the young couple. Upon hearing the noise the young girl expresses concern and says "Please go see what that is". The young man replies "My God no, it could be dangerous YOU go see!". That is an example of an effeminate man. A real man would obviously see that it could be dangerous, but would know that the young lady is concerned, perhaps even fearful. So out of respect and concern for her feelings he decides that though dangerous, and though he may not want to do so, he should investigate the noise. The idea being that if someone must meet with danger, better it be himself than her.

A tire is flattened on a cold, rainy higway while the young couple are on the way to a nice dinner dressed their best. The young girl, though she is capable of changing the tire herself, looks at her mate and says "I don't want to get dirty, please change the tire" (Which she needn't have had to say in the first place). The effiminate male responds "Are you kidding? These pants are brand new". A real man would have pulled over and changed the tire without any question and without needing to be asked. The idea being, If someone is to get dirty and sick, better himself than her.

I have no patience for men who refuse to get dirty when their is a need for it, or who complain constantly about minute details. I absolutely cannot stand any man who does not act when action is called for and who avoids confrontation at the expense of his dignity or that of his family's.
This is not relegate to only "traditional male" jobs. If your wife is sick and you aren't washing dishes, doing laundry, or changing diapers because you feel that is beneath you, than you are no man in my book.

Click to expand...

Iguess I wold be the guy to change the tire. But when you think about it, there is no inherant reason why the guy should investigate the noise or change the tire. People are people. Firstly, I think this is the not so bad side of the same attitude that expects men to chain themselves to desk, not see their family, go to war and die and kill, all for some strange idea of what a man should be. Secondly, I do love women who can do physical stuff. My idea would be a woman who looked feminine and sexy, but also knew her way around a hammer or a tire iron.

ValleyBoy said:

Must you ask?? It's three in the morning, a noise outisde disturbs the young couple. Upon hearing the noise the young girl expresses concern and says "Please go see what that is". The young man replies "My God no, it could be dangerous YOU go see!". That is an example of an effeminate man. A real man would obviously see that it could be dangerous, but would know that the young lady is concerned, perhaps even fearful. So out of respect and concern for her feelings he decides that though dangerous, and though he may not want to do so, he should investigate the noise. The idea being that if someone must meet with danger, better it be himself than her.

A tire is flattened on a cold, rainy higway while the young couple are on the way to a nice dinner dressed their best. The young girl, though she is capable of changing the tire herself, looks at her mate and says "I don't want to get dirty, please change the tire" (Which she needn't have had to say in the first place). The effiminate male responds "Are you kidding? These pants are brand new". A real man would have pulled over and changed the tire without any question and without needing to be asked. The idea being, If someone is to get dirty and sick, better himself than her.

I have no patience for men who refuse to get dirty when their is a need for it, or who complain constantly about minute details. I absolutely cannot stand any man who does not act when action is called for and who avoids confrontation at the expense of his dignity or that of his family's.
This is not relegate to only "traditional male" jobs. If your wife is sick and you aren't washing dishes, doing laundry, or changing diapers because you feel that is beneath you, than you are no man in my book.

Click to expand...

Iguess I wold be the guy to change the tire. But when you think about it, there is no inherant reason why the guy should investigate the noise or change the tire. People are people. Firstly, I think this is the not so bad side of the same attitude that expects men to chain themselves to desk, not see their family, go to war and die and kill, all for some strange idea of what a man should be. Secondly, I do love women who can do physical stuff. My idea would be a woman who looked feminine and sexy, but also knew her way around a hammer or a tire iron. I have little patience for any person who does not take action when it is called for or who complains. I do not think this is about men and women for me.

There are many of us that does not fit the stereotypic gender roles, like the definitions of "real men" (and "real women") that some of the loungers express here.

You would not know it by looking at us, but me and my husband does not fit the stereotypes. We look the part, him in fedoras and suits, me in my high heels, red lippy and feminine dresses. But it ends there. Neither of us matches the descriptions of how a man/woman are supposed to think, feel, or behave. And frankly, we are both fed up by people assuming things about our personalities based on what body parts we are equipped with.

When I try to define my identity, my personality comes first and is most important. Then, my interests, friends, family, knowlegde etc. And the comes my sex. In other words, I define myself first as the person I am. My sex/gender is less important.

So, I find the stereotypes and expressions of what a "real man" or "real woman is/should expressed here or elsewhere in the society, both arrogant and ignorant. There are many ways to be a person, and a gender, and it is not up to any of us to define it for others. If you fit the stereotypic, traditional role, fine. If you don't. why on earth should that be wrong? (The pseudo-scientific arguments are very arguable and not at all conclusive, so they don't work on me.)

So maybe I should be offended that some people thinks that me and my husband are not a "real man" and a "real woman." But frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn, because we are real people. And happy with that.

ValleyBoy said:

Must you ask?? It's three in the morning, a noise outisde disturbs the young couple. Upon hearing the noise the young girl expresses concern and says "Please go see what that is". The young man replies "My God no, it could be dangerous YOU go see!". That is an example of an effeminate man. A real man would obviously see that it could be dangerous, but would know that the young lady is concerned, perhaps even fearful. So out of respect and concern for her feelings he decides that though dangerous, and though he may not want to do so, he should investigate the noise. The idea being that if someone must meet with danger, better it be himself than her.

A tire is flattened on a cold, rainy higway while the young couple are on the way to a nice dinner dressed their best. The young girl, though she is capable of changing the tire herself, looks at her mate and says "I don't want to get dirty, please change the tire" (Which she needn't have had to say in the first place). The effiminate male responds "Are you kidding? These pants are brand new". A real man would have pulled over and changed the tire without any question and without needing to be asked. The idea being, If someone is to get dirty and sick, better himself than her.

I have no patience for men who refuse to get dirty when their is a need for it, or who complain constantly about minute details. I absolutely cannot stand any man who does not act when action is called for and who avoids confrontation at the expense of his dignity or that of his family's.
This is not relegate to only "traditional male" jobs. If your wife is sick and you aren't washing dishes, doing laundry, or changing diapers because you feel that is beneath you, than you are no man in my book.

Click to expand...

Me and my man would probably check the noise, change the tire and defend our dignity together. And i think both men and women should be able to take care of themselves.

Helen Troy said:

So maybe I should be offended that some people thinks that me and my husband are not a "real man" and a "real woman." But frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn, because we are real people. And happy with that.

Click to expand...

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

Helen Troy said:

Me and my man would probably check the noise, change the tire and defend our dignity together. And i think both men and women should be able to take care of themselves.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

The times that I have had that flat tire, and had to change it myself, outnumber the time that someone has offered to help.

This includes changing a tire in front of my house, while a group of 'men' (I will refrain from calling them gentlemen, as surely you will argue that they were not, or would have offered to help), basically watched me do the entire process, until I was literally tightening the nuts on the spare, and then one walked over and pretended to help me, all while expressing surprise that a girl knew how to change a tire.

My answer to him, 'every girl needs to know how, you wouldn't want your wife to end up sitting on the side of a road for hours alone, rather then her learning to change a simple tire, now would you?"

While yes...it would be lovely to have someone offer to help me with these things, if I had never learned to care for myself....I would be sitting by the side of a road in Bakersfield somewhere...since 1988.....

I think the delicate-flower-female thing comes out of class privilege more than anything else: you didn't find too many swooning maidens among the working class. The housemaids and the washerwomen and the factory hands of the first half of the 20th century didn't have the luxury of fluttering their eyelashes and letting a big strong mans do the heavy lifting. Indeed, it was their backs and their muscles that usually freed up the middle/upper class ladies of the day for all their shopping and bridge parties and cream cheese sandwiches...