Today, Mark Rose says “Feminists ostracize masculinity in men while at the same time trying to make themselves appear more masculine.”
Lord knows, the evidence of my trying to make myself appear more masculine is all over this blog. So, you know, I wondered maybe if I was just half-failing as a feminist. Maybe, at least, I was succeeding in ostracizing masculinity in men. So, I wandered over to the blog of the man I spend the most time with and what do I find?
Roger Abramson accusing him of being too manly for liberalism:
I found it interesting, for instance, that you (Mack) were one of the prime defenders of the masculine rite of pointing out attractive women to other men, given your generally lefty tendencies. NOTE: I didn’t say it was necessarily incompatible with those tendencies, just interesting. Even more interesting is the fact that that’s not the first time you’ve taken a very strident traditionally “masculine” point of view on something (I remember you getting bent out of shape when I half-jokingly suggested that men should be allowed to carry handbags or purses around–would make it a lot easier to carry our junk with us). You are, in fact, much more traditionally masculine than a lot of male conservative bloggers. [Emphasis mine.]
Well, fuck me. This day was going so well and now I find out that I’m a failure as a feminist.
Damn.
Well, that’s it. I’m growing a handlebar mustache and… and… well, I’m not exactly sure how one ostracizes masculinity, but the second I do, I’m all over ostracizing Mack’s a little bit, just for the sake of our local conservative bloggers.
Edited to add: Wait a second! Do you think “ostracize masculinity” is a euphemism for some kind of sexual position conservatives think liberals engage in? We should have a contest. The person who comes up for the best description of what a straight woman does to a straight man when she “ostracizes his masculinity” wins. I don’t really have anything for you to win, but I would be happy to crochet you something.
Tiny Cat Pants 
Heh… my mind went to balloon animals and some of that body modification you were talking about in the other thread. Suffice to say that it re-rendered the word as “Ostrich-izing” (or in a slightly more gruesome, yet possibly more manly version, “Ostrich-sizing“) and gallopped off into the sunset with the concept.
*winces*
Hello, Aunt B. Before you ostracize masculinity, I think you have to define it. So if your definition is different from Mr. Abramson’s, and you think you are ostracizing what fits his definition, but are actually ostracizing what fits your own, might you find yourself off-target?
Damn it! Now I’m confused. If only people would just be more direct, instead of prancing and prevaricating around the edges of English:
Well, if you’re not suggesting that pointing out attractive women is incompatible with being a liberal/progressive (i.e. ‘lefty’ males aren’t ‘manly’ enough to openly display a heterosexual appetite), then why juxtapose the two ideas? Why not just say that, instead of feigning a contemplative posture with the “interesting” diversion?
Sorry, got carried away there. It’s just that I visited Mack’s place and read a whole bunch of people complaining about why comment threads devolve into pissing matches. When you deal in inflammatory stereotypes– no matter how eloquently you do so– you can expect to get that kind of bomb-throwing in return.
Maybe that’s an answer to your conundrum, Aunt B.: maybe “Ostracizing Masculinity” is when a straight woman responds to a straight man’s verbose love poetry by throwing him face down and penetrating him with a strap-on. (The reasoning being, of course, that if a man wastes so much energy yakking instead of getting right to the point [by whipping it out, for God’s sake!], he’s really just begging to get fucked.)
Just a thought.
You’re all over-intellectualizing this. Ostracizing is obviously what happens when a woman wears an oyster shell over her genitals, and a guy puts his penis into her vagina so fast that he doesn’t take the oyster shell off first, so he gets not only the usual penis-inside-vagina fun, but also the gentle teasing of the oyster shell bumping up against his penis (and, of course, vice versa), which as anyone who has tried it could probably tell you, adds to the usual merriment.
Or else it’s what happens when a bunch of sexy feminist women get together with a sexy liberal guy, and each of the women writes her name on an oyster shell, and they put the shells with the names on them in an amphora, and the guy pulls one out, and he and the woman whose name is on it get to do whatever they want to do, but all the rest of the women have to leave.
Now that’s creative, NM.
Clearly, he is using a metaphorical conceit whereby feminists (you) do to masculinity (him?) what the Ostrogoths did to the Huns at the Battle of Nedao in 454 AD. Considering the multiple interpretations of feminism and the loose alliances that various feminist viewpoints have with each other, I have to say that this isn’t such a bad figure of speech.
Or else it’s what happens when a bunch of sexy feminist women get together with a sexy liberal guy, and each of the women writes her name on an oyster shell, and they put the shells with the names on them in an amphora, and the guy pulls one out, and he and the woman whose name is on it get to do whatever they want to do, but all the rest of the women have to leave.
I do have a birthday coming up…
Just sayin.
Bridgett, I thought that was the Gepids. Because all the Ostrogoths did was throw Boethius in jail.
Oh, weren’t there Gepids and Rugi and Suavi and a whole mess of others? The Goths were poking at things with their pokey-sticks and the Gepids had swords, so I guess I reasoned that this was why the Gepids got more play in subsequent accounts.
But the closest Mark Rose gets to being like Boethius is watching Wheel of Fortune…
ok…I’m totally confused. How is what Roger said about Mack a reflection on you and inferring you “failing” as a feminist?
Yes, I’m tired, I’m overwhelmed, and I’m slow on the draw today. I’m afraid I’m just not following your train of thought.
Also, is Boethius related to Bocephus?
Well, Ginger, Boethius was all about the consolations of philosophy, and Bocephus is all about the consolations of partay-ing, so I think not. Bridgett, there were lots of Germans there. I’m sure the Goths were just as nasty to the Huns as any of the others, I just, as a Hispanist, happen to have a soft spot for Goths of any type.
Ginger, stick with me. See, according to Mark Rose, feminists ostracize men from their masculinity. I am a feminist. I hang out a great deal with Mack. Therefore, if I were a successful feminist, by Mark Rose’s definition, I would have ostracized Mack from his masculinity.
But, since Roger recognizes Mack as being more masculine than even most conservative bloggers, I have clearly failed to successfully ostracize him from his masculinity.
Unless, of course, before Mack met me he was even more masculine and what we see before us now is the emasculated version of him, which would indicate a frightening level of masculinity heretofore unseen in the history of mankind.
I also don’t recall Boethius having to talk about his daddy all the time. But then then I’m not a Boethian scholar (but I work with some who are).
I’m trying to get through the grammatical briar patch this has created. How can one ostracize someone FROM something? I thought one could just ostracize someone — i.e., banish or expel the individual from the group and/or cast him/her out of favor. We can’t ostracize behavior, as the Rose logic (gaah, what?) suggests; we ostracize individuals FOR that behavior.
And I personally think many men smell too good and are too smart and kind to animals and children to be banished or ostracized. So I guess I suck as a feminist too. Sigh.
In reference to the “ostracize” challenge, does it involve a blender? I think it might.
I also don’t recall Boethius having to talk about his daddy all the time.
Bwahaha! I guess we could conceptualize the spirit of philosophy as his mama, though. But, really, Bocephus is just too masculine. We’ll have to ostracize him.
But, really, Bocephus is just too masculine. We’ll have to ostracize him.
lol, see…I knew there was a correlation between Bocephus and this post!
Ok, I gotcha now, Aunt B…(like I said, when I get like this, I need things spelled out)…and as I see it, you celebrate Mack’s masculinity (and god knows, it should be-ha!)…therefore, yes, you are definitely falling short as a feminist. I’m so glad Mark Rose is here to point out our failures. bwah!
Grandefille, I think what Aunt B.’s definition implies is that if you ostracize someone because of their masculinity, then they’ll either lose some of it or they’ll get the hell away from you because they ain’t about to give up no masculinity for no uppity feminist broad.
But you see, Grandefille, men who smell too good and are too smart and kind to animals and children are already feminized, so there’s no need to ostracize them for their masculinity. The same goes for men who are liberal and lefty and men who use the word nuance without a churlish smirk.
…
Ah, to hell with it. Let’s just call a spade a spade: Vote Republican or your dick will fall off.
*SNORK*
Awesome.
“Feminists ostracize masculinity in men while at the same time trying to make themselves appear more masculine.”
Well, ostracize is derived from ostracon, or shards of pottery. Among the ancient Greeks, if enough of them with the same name on them were thrown into a jar at the right time, the person thus voted out would be exiled from the city-state for ten years.
So my best guesses at what the quote above means are:
1. Someone has a voodoo doll of me and keeps ramming shards of pottery into it (I’m not sure how else one would ostracize something *in* somone).
2. “Whinewhine, women don’t like me because they’ve noticed I’m a jackass, whiiiiiiiiiiiiiine.”
Originally ostrakon meant oyster shell. Which is why I think we should use them instead.
“The person who comes up for the best description of what a straight woman does to a straight man when she “ostracizes his masculinity” wins. I don’t really have anything for you to win, but I would be happy to crochet you something.”
****************************
Gee…I dunno, the only thing that comes to mind when I think of a woman LITERALLY ostracizing a man’s masculinity…….is lobbin that pecker off “Lorena Bobbit” style. But, let’s see if I can tap into ye ole dirty mind here…….what about IF she chops off said pecker and THEN fucks him w/it??? Doggie-style, of course…..gotta make ABSOLUTELY SURE that we COMPLETELY ostracize that masculinity…wouldn’t want him thinkin that there’s ONE SHRED of HOPE that he’ll ever get it back! Wait! Chop off da pecker, screw him w/it, WHILE you’re wearing a business suit and carrying a briefcase and HE’S in one of those French Maid numbers. Whoa, I think I just turned myself on there…….dontcha feel BAD for my husband????? :P
I still think that reshaping their manhoods into ostriches would be a good read on it. After all, it would explain both the intense fear people evince when threatened by it as well as the curious drooping posture said manhood retain when so threatened.*
* Yes yes, I know, ostriches don’t actually hide their heads in the sand. But doesn’t that popular image just say it all?
B —
I truly wasn’t accusing him of that. That wasn’t what I meant at all. It’s just interesting, that’s all.
Chruch Sercretary —
You clearly did not read what I’ve written elsewhere that started all of this. Not that that really surprises me, given what I’ve seen of your writings. But I suggest you check it out before spouting off as you do.
I heart this conversation.
Church Secretary —
And, by the way, saying something is “interesting” is not always a dodge, nor is it even necessarily some kind of judgment one way or the other. Frankly, I find most people kind of boring, so wen I say someone is interesting, I usually mean it in a positive way.
Roger, if you ruin my attempts at being funny with facts, I will fight you.
Roger, I know you weren’t, but this thread still tickles the shit out of me. Wait, can a manly man use the word tickles?
AHHHH, so confusing!
I’m too lazy to find that purse post, but I’m surprised that I felt it would be emasculating. Perhaps it was tongue in cheek?
Eh, you’re probably right. CS–>my apologies. I haven’t had my third cup of coffee yet.
To anticipate a possible question: to me, Mark Rose is the epitome of boring.
Mack —
It was tongue-in-cheek, mostly, but that’s not the point. The point is that you said it. Like I said, I like interesting people, and, to me anyway, you’re interesting.
No apologies necessary, Mr. Abramson. I must ask you to forgive me. I tend to choose my words very carefully when writing; it is an advantage one doesn’t always have when speaking. So when I see words and phrases arranged in a certain order– an order that oozes and spurts with meaning– I can’t help but see that meaning. A stereotype-laden statement followed by a noncommittal disclaimer is either tongue-in-cheek, prevarication, or prevarication thinly disguised as tongue-in-cheek (not one of these options necessarily indicates specific intent). Perhaps the statement Aunt B. quoted was taken out of context; I’d be happy to peruse the entire post, if you’d be so kind as to provide a link.
Shorter Church Secretary: No sweat, Dude.
Hey, guys, will you pick up the fallen antlers on your way out?
See, this thread is the epitome of what I wish MCB’s threads could be like…civilized, and then at the end of the day, all of the guys are hugging and making nice…er, or maybe shaking hands…that’s more masculine.
Ginger —
You’re a wuss.
Not so fast, Roger, Ginger may be on to something here. I have seen your picture…I say bring it.
Disclaimer: I gotta drive though, sorry, it’s how I roll…
No, I’m sorry. I have too many gay friends to allow the Mack/Roger “pairing” to happen. There are men out there who have hot man-on-man fucking, hard bodies entangled in a mess of sweat, spit, and cum, and I applaud those men and encourage them to keep on keeping on.
How they’re supposed to do that with the thought of Mack and Roger, eyes shut, faces scrunched into the “I just tasted something awful” position, as they even just try to bring themselves to kiss plastered in their brains?
It’s impossible. It almost puts me off smooching and you all know how I love to smooch.
Mack —
I submit that I will indeed be probably an underdog. But I will go down with pride!
Long-distance running–and endurance sports in general–are my forte. Strength stuff, not so much.
Well, shoot, nevermind. I’ve been looking for someone to do that for Mack for his birthday and if you’ll go down with pride, Roger, I’ll shell out $50 for it.
I don’t do that for anything less than $500. That’s also in my contract.
*ahem* I’ll do it for $50. ;)
It’s a little long distance, but I think, manly as Mack is, we’d be able to manage. I mightn’t even need to leave the house!
Yeah, but just think of the backup on I-40 throughout the country if we had to close one lane from here to there for the “unfurling.”
Ha, I tickle me.
*snorts* True enough. But the highways are near closed anyway, with the string of accidents we’ve had recently. I think the latest one was an 80,000lb crane in the middle of the 405.
… on the other hand, rubbernecking accidents would probably go through the roof.
I’m reminded of that Jim Belushi skit on SNL where he runs to the bathroom and enhances his, um, package, gets carried away with the toilet paper, and ends up coming out of the bathroom with a johnson that was 20 ft long. Next to dick in a box, it is my favorite all time skit.
Fine, I’ve been outbid.
But remember: you get what you pay for!
Ya know, Mack’s comment just reminded me that while we’ve been focusing on one half of Mark Rose’s injunction (the ostracizing the masculine part — though I can’t help feeling that we’re doing it wrong) we’ve been ignoring the other half, about trying to appear more masculine ourselves. We need to get with the program. And it is Halloween. Who’s with me in trick or treating with 20 foot toilet paper appendages?
One of my best costumes in grad school was “white male privilege.” The joke was that so many people didn’t seem to recognize it for what it was even when they were looking dead at it.
Ginger –
You’re a wuss.
A wuss?!? ‘scuse me, I prefer to call it “extremely enthusiastic about peace, harmony, and men who remind me of George Clooney and Jeff Fisher
armmud wrestling for my pleasure and amusement”!:)