Tuesday, February 23, 2010

A Gentleman That Doesn't Have To Be Gentle

I find this new trend in men talking about masculinity really interesting. It seems that everywhere you look there is a new example of how men are trying to prove their still men. Like this post via feministing.

Details magazine had an article this week that defined a new masculinity. It instructs men to get their balls back, find something they want, and go for it.

The goal is to move away from:
"The average 21st-century guy is a quilted man, tucked under a fluffy coverlet and surrounded by throw pillows. His world is one of comfort and frippery. His idea of agony is getting his chest waxed—which, to be fair, is said to be agonizing—and his idea of frustration is trying to unclog the john while his wife makes fun of him."
Our new man is:
"a man of words and action. A refined badass. He's a gentleman, absolutely, but that doesn't mean he always has to be gentle."

He should do things like love poetry and be okay with playing a gay men in movies but still should be able to kick ass. Basically Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes meets James Franco.

My question is does this new masculinity include being respectful of women? Or is it just like all the other masculinities of the past that don't take into account what women think or feel? And why does this new man still have to be violent? Can't he be strong willed and still get what he wants without having to beat people up?

This isn't necessarily the new masculinity we had hoped for. But maybe it's a step in the right direction??

No comments: