Paleomasculine writer Jack Donovan put up some videos of himself working out at his gym, lifting heavy objects. Not heavy barbells, but heavy objects. In this case, a beer keg. When I commented that he'd be a great resource if trapped under earthquake debris, he replied, "That's why it's called 'functional strength'."
Following up on my previous post, I think this is a clue to why certain kinds of men and certain kinds of male strength or physique get the responses they do.
At my gym, they often show tapes of bodybuilding contests. Now bodybuilders have a kind of marginal status as men: despite their massive musculature, they can be dismissed as narcissists or clocked as gay. But this kind of negative is never directed at weightlifters, the kind of guys who win World's Strongest Man contests. Why? Bodybuilder strength is ornamental, weightlifter strength is functional. For men, a beautiful physique, if it is to be solidly valued, must signify functional strength, must mean that all that muscle can do something useful (including something dangerous). Otherwise, it is ornamental, like the beautiful bodies of women.
Women are not considered beautiful by men primarily because they look strong, but because the classic female physique signifies fertility. It is about children. For men, a strong and beautiful body must be the sign of functional strength and skill. If it is just for watching, then it feels somehow feminine.
Men who display their bodies, unless it is assumed that these bodies' function flows from that displayed strength, are read somewhat like women, who display their bodies to attract men. Obviously bodybuilders have functional strength: even with steroid, you have to work hard and lift and pull a lot of weight to look like that. But the point is to look like that. You get judged not by how much weight you life but how you look because of it. This makes for the ambiguity.
Weightlifters are rarely built like Greek gods and do not need to be. The point is to be functionally strong, not visually attractive. And no one considers weightlifters anything less than masculine.
When men take on clothing or ornament, if it is connected to functional strength, it enhances their masculinity. Soldiers are the great example. Fastidious and even fussy clothing is a sign of having earned belonging in a male band of killers. If a man dresses well and it only shows that he has taste, not power, he is open to critique or contempt. Mere ornament.
Two cases in point: a lot of gay men have excellent physiques, but this does not cash out into masculine status in the larger world. Like bodybuilders, they are seen as creating an attractive image. Does anyone assume that a muscular gay man can fight? Or even fix a car? The body is there to be sexually attractive, for display...and so you have the taint of femininity.
Black performers, actors or singers, can act like strippers and not lose masculine status. Why? It is assumed that their physiques signify both heterosexual sexual prowess and capacity for violence. Their beautiful muscularity is assumed to be fully functional in the classic masculine tracks. And since Black men --unless they present as queens-- are always assumed to have primitive sex and violence, any Black man who dresses fastidiously will lose no masculine points for that.
Two kinds of male beauty: functional strength vs ornamental muscle.
5 comments:
"It is assumed that their physiques signify both heterosexual sexual prowess and capacity for violence. Their beautiful muscularity is assumed to be fully functional in the classic masculine tracks. "
Stupidly assumed, and, sometimes not-stupidly assumed that one will assume. I've more than one experience where a black would-be mugger tried to get my money with a) no weapon, and b) nothing over me physically and c) didn't try anything further when I just yelled at them unbowed. I didn't understand why this thing was happening until a Smart Japanese Guy[tm] explained it to me.
--Nathan
I didn't understand why this thing was happening until a Smart Japanese Guy[tm] explained it to me.
OK, you have my attention. What did the SJG tell you?
Just that many (the SJG thought most) whites will be unduly intimidated by black guys, by assuming them to be violent and effectivly so, and so blacks who are aware of that might try to exploit that -- as in, maybe I can push that white guy around just by acting bossy. Some overlap there with what you are saying.
--Nathan
Thanks for the mention, as always.
In the 1950s (or so) there was a break between old school strongman/weightlifting culture (represented by the older Bob Hoffman of York Barbell -- incidentally my hometown) and the newer bodybuilding culture (represented by Joe Wieder, whose publications are still in print). Bodybuilding won out for a long time, though thanks to CrossFit and the 1990s book "Dinosaur Training," strongman and weightlifting are making a comeback.
I was re-reading what I think is pretty much the best and most straightforward book on human nature, hands down -- The Naked Ape -- and thinking about bodybuilding tonight while at the gym. Bodybuilding probably won out because in monkey terms it seems to produce a more successful dominance display. There are very normal looking guys at my MMA gym who could just tear apart almost anyone, but the guy who can't wipe his own ass LOOKS like he could kill you. The problem is that, as you wrote, men understand that it is all about looks. The best way to get that body is not necessarily by lifting the heaviest weight, or by being the most athletic. So it is kind of a failed dominance display that works....sometimes...at first glance.
BTW one of the takeaway quotes from the new (excellent) movie "13 Assassins" comes from the winning samurai, who calls his spoiled, decadent foe a "decorative man."
Same concept.
Post a Comment