This kind of conversation is always fraught, as questions about aesthetic ideals for a man (or a woman) touch on a lot of different levels of meaning. So it's worth reposting this cautionary image as well:
Another Look at Ideas on Male Physique
Since the discussion below turns on what is a reasonable ideal for a male body, here's another cartoon. This was sent to me by the strongman friend of mine some time ago as as defense of his own approach; I'm not sure where it originates.
This kind of conversation is always fraught, as questions about aesthetic ideals for a man (or a woman) touch on a lot of different levels of meaning. So it's worth reposting this cautionary image as well:
This kind of conversation is always fraught, as questions about aesthetic ideals for a man (or a woman) touch on a lot of different levels of meaning. So it's worth reposting this cautionary image as well:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
OK, don't hate me for saying this but the text for the naturally developed muscle guy (who looks nothing like the cartoon) says,
"...in fact, if a person puts on a lot of muscle bulk without fat in a short time, that suggests steroid use".
Which is what that cartoon suggested (to me, an audience of one). Not a normal guy who is very strong, but a guy who builds muscles for show.
And doesn't your second graphic suggest the same thing? (unrealistic body standards are "unrealistic".... why?). Because most people will never attain them. They're the exception, not the rule.
I'm not taking it personally, but I do think we disagree about two things.
1) Whether the cartoon is a picture of steroid use, or of praiseworthy hard work.
2) Whether it is proper to describe these things as an ideal, or as an unrealistic standard.
Even if one accepts praiseworthy hard work as the model, there are different ideals that people strive for. Some people strive to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Others strive for the body that will let them deadlift many hundreds of pounds. The point of the first graphic here is to educate people that a strong man doesn't necessarily look like He Man (or Arnold). He may be a lot bigger about the waist because of the need for stabilizing muscles. It depends on which ideal he is pursuing.
What is important with ideals -- physical or moral -- isn't that you ever get to the ideal, but that you pursue an ideal rather than drifting. Presumably we all fall away from ideal behavior sometimes, but that doesn't mean that we abandon an idea of what right looks like.
Nor do I think the ideal has to be the same for everyone. Recognizing what's involved in developing the V-shaped chassis may be a good reason not to pursue that model. Desiring functional strength instead may be a good reason to accept looking more like a rectangle in the body.
I think that's all fine, and it's important to remember not to let your striving for an ideal warp your sense of worth. It's worthy to strive, and perfection in any sphere is impossible to obtain. What struck me as weird about the cartoon is to demean the idea of looking like someone who strives.
OK, don't hate me for saying this but the text for the naturally developed muscle guy (who looks nothing like the cartoon) says, "...in fact, if a person puts on a lot of muscle bulk without fat in a short time, that suggests steroid use".
I don't hate you for saying it. In fact, if you go back to the previous discussion, you'll see I said the same thing. The guy in the cartoon looks somewhat fat about the arms, without 'cuts' that would indicate steroid use. That was one piece of evidence (along with the 'testosterone' rather than 'steroid' shirt) for my thinking he was meant to represent a kind of developed natural masculinity, rather than an unnatural drugged sort.
By the way, in terms of the difference between an ideal and an unrealistic standard, I would suggest that the dividing point isn't perfect attainability. It is the ability to pursue the standard at all.
For example, a lot of people value tallness in determining male attractiveness. If you did, you might set a standard that a man should be at least six fee tall. But the average human male is 5'6". There's nothing at all they can do about that. Thus, you've set a standard that most men can't even pursue. The Barbie doll example is like that in some respects: her measurements are out of line with reality, regardless of work, because human females aren't shaped that way.
The ideals, by contrast, are things to strive for even if you can't quite get there. That's true of moral as well as physical ideals. It is an ideal that one always speaks the truth. Practically, most people can't bring themselves to speak the truth all the time. But that doesn't make truth-speaking an unrealistic thing to strive for; it makes it an ideal to pursue as fully as you are able.
I think you're "philosophizing" a bit here :p
I realize these distinctions are interesting to you, but insofar as the cartoon is concerned, I was only interested in what I think the artist was trying to portray.
And since I still don't know a single human being - despite almost 60 years of living - who looks anything near like that cartoon figure (and since his physique, like He-Man's above, looks unrealistic and exaggerated to me), I stand by my observation that - detailed discussions of steroid use aside - the cartoon evoked an unnatural (as in, rarely if ever found in nature) overdevelopment of muscles most commonly associated with steroid use :p
We will have to agree to differ, but I don't see how ideals come into it except as an interesting aside :)
I think you're "philosophizing" a bit here :p
Heh.
I still don't know a single human being - despite almost 60 years of living - who looks anything near like that cartoon figure...
Really? I know lots of guys who approximate that cartoon, taking into account its caricatured nature. It's a pretty common body type for the firefighter community, for example.
I know lots of guys who approximate that cartoon, taking into account its caricatured nature.
I suspect you and I are thinking of different things, Grim. Lou Ferrigno looks kind of like that. Arnold Schwarzennegger looked like that in his heyday.
I've seen a lot of firefighters, and have never seen one who looks like that.
In the old days the heroic form was more or less a factor of which artist was drawing it.
Bill Finger, Wayne Boring, and Curt Swan drew Batman and Superman in the "strong man" style, solid thru the middle.
Gil Kane drew Atom, Flash, and Green Lantern more like "runners" -- slender but with defined form.
Joe Kubert and Jack Kirby drew Hawkman or Tarzan like the triangular "body builder" -- except with extra unnatural muscles, like on Thor, were somehow called for.
Dikto drew Spiderman or Dr Strange pretty much like ordinary, if somewhat boxy, people.
At some point the Neal Adams "ideal" caught on. And hasn't caught "off" since.
I've been watching highlights from the current Grand Sumo tournament in Tokyo.
All the wrestlers I've watched so far have been from the top 5 levels. They do not look anything in those drawings. The lowest wieght I've seen was 167kg. They're not small. And yeah, Sumo is an extreme, but still. Whoa. Lot of muscle, lot of everything.
Sumo is a different sport, and it's an ideal that is quite separated from either of those. On the other hand, if that's your game, go for it.
I think it's a sport whose mental aspect is underappreciated. I've watched a bit of it, and I've never yet failed to pick the winner correctly by watching their behavior before the match. The one who seems mentally focused and present to me always ends up winning the matches I've seen, in what you would think is the most physical of all possible sports.
Going back to the original cartoon a couple of posts down, I don't think either an ideal or a unnatural body type are intended. This is just the grown up version of the high school football player / bully of nerdish myth and legend. "Testosterone" is key, not steroids.
If we were the intended audience (and we're not), we should be thinking this man has spent far too much time developing his body and not nearly enough developing his mind. Look at the proportions of brain case to jaw. Clearly, he's an ox, powerful but stupid.
In their minds, he's violent (TESTOSTERONE), he's angry, he's dumb, and he's coming after them.
If I had to put a name on him, it would be Mr. Toxic Masculinity.
What's amusing is, they probably see this image the way we look at the image of Pajamaboy.
If we were the intended audience (and we're not), we should be thinking this man has spent far too much time developing his body and not nearly enough developing his mind. Look at the proportions of brain case to jaw. Clearly, he's an ox, powerful but stupid.
I wasn't the intended audience, and I don't see the cartoon as a positive representation of masculinity. Looking like a "powerful but stupid ox" is not state most folks aspire to (per the "is this supposed to be an insult?" tag) :p It's certainly not how I see masculinity (or men in general).
It is, however, how many progressives see men in general.
Nor do I see the cartoon as a masculine ideal, though some may. It's a caricature - a grossly exaggerated figure intended to evoke distaste rather than admiration.
So I suppose we can defend the caricature, if that makes sense. But I'd rather defend a more realistic representation of how the vast majority of men actually are in real life than something that looks like He-Man. FWIW, I have no interest in defending Disney princesses or Barbie as avatars of femininity, though there are actually a fair number of women in real life that resemble those figures. I've known many, many women IRL who focus enormous amounts of time and money on their appearance (it's almost a full time job), but I don't consider that something to emulate.
It's performance art, and I suppose I prefer more substance.
I feel like my actual point is being lost here (though I certainly have no right to steer the conversation in any particular direction). That said, I'd like to make it clear, just in case I have failed to do so before.
Watching all of the outrage peddling (that's going on on both sides), I often find myself feeling that my emotions and loyalties are being manipulated or played upon. We have two teams, and each team attacks what they fear or despise and defends what they value - often using mascots (Sowell's mascots of the anointed - or the underdog, for that matter).
Real world masculinity - the garden variety we see all around us every day, that supports families and raises kids and defends civilization and enforces the law and designs bridges and roads and computers and all sorts of marvels we take for granted - is valuable for itself. If someone wants to create a caricature of manhood and heap scorn upon that straw figure, my response is, "OK, you're attacking a straw man because you can't think up credible arguments against the real thing, which actually looks nothing like that."
Are veiled attacks on manliness that rely on distorted, He-man-esque cartoon figures meant to be insulting? I'm pretty sure they are. Though you'll notice this guy isn't drawn to look heroic. He looks menacing in both his body language and angry facial expression. That's no accident.
My point is that I would prefer not to be emotionally manipulated into defending some caricature of what I truly value. I would prefer to recognize intentional distortions when I see them. I feel no duty to defend straw men.
And much of this reminds me of how feminists reflexively defend any perceived attack on anything that touches on women, no matter how extreme or destructive or idiotic the behavior, just because they fear attacks on [all] women. To attack even an outlier is to attack all of us, or something. But "women" aren't monolithic. Men aren't either. We're complex beings with both positive and negative traits. The positive, I honor. The negative I feel no need to defend.
If Grim views that cartoon character is virtuous or representing the masculine ideal, then he should defend that ideal. But I'm pretty the most people don't see that cartoonish character as either flattering or an accurate representation of "men in general".
If real men have to look like that to be considered "men", God help us!
Nobody has suggested that, I think. All I said was that it was no insult for a man to look strong -- even very strong.
The turning point for my attitude about this was, I think, The Expendables. I grew up with He Man and Conan the Barbarian, which were all right but never really piqued my interest; I thought most of the genre (Commando, the later Rambo movies, most of the Rocky movies) was a little silly. Professional wrestling was cartoonish.
What struck me watching The Expendables was how strong these same guys were still able to be in their 60s. Suddenly the value of what they were doing became apparent to me. What had looked ostentatious in their 20s now looked like the serious discipline of an ordered soul.
There is a nobility in that kind of struggle, one that mirrors the kind of Northern Heroism that Tolkien is supposed to have revived. The doom of death is certain, but they do not resign themselves to despair: they conduct themselves well, and maintain strength and order while they can and for as long as they can.
When I was myself in my 20s, I never thought "Oh, I'd want to spend a lot of time picking up heavy objects." As I get older, though, and think about what kind of an old man I'd want to become, there's a lot to be said for the ideal of strength in age. I only took up lifting weights at all in my 30s, but now it's something I take seriously as a means to that end -- a pursuit of that ideal, if you like.
Actually, when I think about it, what struck me about the physicality of Conan the Barbarian most when I was younger was how much joy they took in running. It was inspirational in a whole different way then: what would it be like to be able to run through beautiful spaces that way, with pleasure and endurance?
So that was a different ideal, one that I pursued at one time.
Cass, why didn't you just say so? :-P
All I said was that it was no insult for a man to look strong -- even very strong.
Well then I totally misunderstood what you were trying to say :p Which isn't the first time (and probably won't be the last!). If all I had gotten out of that cartoon was, "He looks strong (not that there's anything wrong with that)", we would have started and ended in violent (!) agreement :)
When I was myself in my 20s, I never thought "Oh, I'd want to spend a lot of time picking up heavy objects." As I get older, though, and think about what kind of an old man I'd want to become, there's a lot to be said for the ideal of strength in age. I only took up lifting weights at all in my 30s, but now it's something I take seriously as a means to that end -- a pursuit of that ideal, if you like.
Heh :)
I started to comment earlier that both my husband and I have lifted weights for most of our adult lives. But it would have (or so I feared) come across as argumentative rather than informative, and so I refrained.
I totally understand discipline and strength as values to be aspired to. In fact, the most painful part (to me) of having severe migraines for several decades was when they got so bad that I could no longer work out vigorously (or really, in my 50s, at all!) without ended up throwing up for 3 days, worthless to my husband and essentially a pathetic weakling who - because he loves me - he felt torn about not being around to care for.
Going on blood pressure meds was the best thing that's happened to me, because I am actually beginning to be able to lift weights again. So I really am sympathetic to that ethos - I have always prized my (decidedly feminine) strength, because it allowed me to do things around the house and play with my boys and get more physical work done during the day. It sounds silly, but I couldn't be more thrilled :)
That said, I don't want to look like a bodybuilder. I do value being stronger, having more stamina, burning more calories, and frankly, looking more toned as I slouch slothily towards senility...
Post a Comment