Although I am not feeling that I represent the adult male of the species very well of late, two items on that issue:
Bookworm notes a J. Crew ad where a mother joyfully paints her young son's toenails pink. More mainstream genderfuck masquerading as enlightenment.
And when I tried to shift my big hats and lacey dresses comment to a more substantial discussion about masculinity and the priesthood, liturgy, Church, etc. I was roundly rebuffed. I was told that it was not about masculinity or femininity but about beauty in the service of God's glory and so gender was irrelevant. That since cultural norms varied, there could be no discussion. And I was also told that I had a problem with my own masculinity. And that they knew a bruiser cleric who wore lace and could knock me out.
The site in question supports the return of the old Latin liturgy and the re-sacralization of the reformed liturgy of Paul VI. It is virtually all male in its demographic. And there is a lot of discussion about the fine points of ceremonial, eg. the history of the folded chasuble. All of these guys would support an all-male priesthood. And one quality of the old liturgy is that there is really no role in it for women outside of singing in the choir.
But did they jump at the chance to reflect on that? Nope. In fact, the responses were just a religious version, in perfect parallel, of the standard gay responses to the question: what difference does it make anyway, we're all people; multiculturalism makes a single definition of manhood oppressive and impossible; ad hominem attacks on the gender security of the one who asks the question; and "I know a drag queen is more man that you are."
Different content, exactly the same structure.
Despite the strong orthodoxy of the site, I assume that a number of the participants are homosexual. And I suspect that many of them are aware that their interests are seen by their enemies as rather unbutch at best. Regardless of their orientations, etc. I found it telling and a bit sad that even these upholders of tradition were unwilling or unable to reflect on the question, sartorial and haberdashery questions aside.
1 comment:
Look on the bright side. They evidently still consider muscle power and fighting skills to define manhood. if every male who is into the history of the folded chasuble etc were unmuscular and unable to fight, they would have to concede that you are right. Ergo, being into the history of the folded chasuble is unmanly. Q.E.D. You win the argument.
Post a Comment