Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Steve and some others have me thinking about a perennial puzzler: Why do so many American males consider arty and aesthetic matters to be faggy?

To get something quickly out of the way: Of course there are in fact a lot of gayguys in the artier fields. I suppose this is a bit of a disincentive for straightguys. But how much does this really explain about the vehemence with which many American males dodge aesthetic questions?

Despite the gifts many gay men have shown where aesthetics are concerned, a talent for questions of taste, style, and expression obviously doesn't depend on straightness or gayness. After all, in many other cultures straight guys don't make it a principle to avoid aesthetic matters. Many straight Italian men love (and have a flair for) opera, food, fabrics, and design. Straight Russian men don't consider ballet -- let alone emotionality and expressiveness more generally -- to be strictly for the pansies.

Straight Frenchmen are as particular as can be about questions of taste: as La Coquette once wrote, only in France would you overhear five year old boys explaining to their grandma how she should really be preparing the asparagus. Even in the States: Many straight black men are virtuosos of style, dancing, flirtation, and seduction.

And let's face it: There are strong reasons why straight men ought to engage with aesthetic matters. One: It's fun and rewarding. Two: Chicks dig guys who show some appreciation for beauty, pleasure, and taste. My theory about this: Chicks feel that the man who demonstrates some knowledge of, receptivity to, and enthusiasm for arty matters is someone who's likely to appreciate the full range of what a woman can be. Art=Woman, sorta.

I agree with this view myself, btw. If you can cook or play music -- even if you can merely discuss movies, books, and paintings articulately -- scoring with the ladies becomes much easier. Scoring in fact follows almost as a matter of course: Some shared arty pleasure ... Some flirtatious-appreciative flirtation / discussion ... Some connecting on aesthetic grounds ... And before you know it you're all tangled up with each other in the most delightful way. In cases like this one, what would be the point of distinguishing the aesthetic from the sexual rewards? It's about giving as well as taking, and it's all terrific.

As one of Steve's correspondents wrote, it's pretty rich the way American guys consider dance, museums, and design -- all of them activities where many great gals will be found, as well as activities that make men more attractive to gals -- to be for da fags, while we consider hanging out with other guys while watching muscular dudes in tight clothes bash into each other and slap each others' butts (ie., watching sports with our buds) to be the essence of brawny straightness.

Where does this aversion to aesthetics come from, historically speaking? My hunch is that it has less to do with Puritanism than it does with our history as a place where people who want to get away from traditional cultures come to. The real American man is felt to be the adventurer and the frontiersman -- the man who escapes the shelter, nay, the claustrophobia of female-dominated "civilization." By these lights, we're all little Huck Finns, forever investing our masculinity in our quest to light out for the territories ahead of the rest. Where a guy from another kind of culture might express his straight-guy masculinity within the parameters of his culture, we straight-guy Americans are masculine because we reject civilizin'.

I have the sense that the fear of fagginess is more extreme today than it was a few decades ago: that -- at a time when gayness is more public and more accepted than it once was -- it has become more important than ever for young dudes to proclaim their non-gayness. Am I right about this? If so, why should this be the case?

And a final question: The fact that straight American guys consider aesthetic matters to be self-evidently gay becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; it means that the aesthetic fields in America in fact become ever-more gay. As Shouting Thomas will confirm, it's quite amazing how gay many aesthetic fields have become; they're far more gay these days than they were when I showed up in the NYC culture-and-media life 30 years ago. Is this state of affairs a good thing? Wouldn't we all be a bit better off if the aesthetic fields had a few more straight guys in them?

Best,

Michael

What women say and what women really mean aren't always the same thing. Many women may say they prefer men who share their aesthetic-type interests, but in reality they flock to the sort of Alphas who consider aesthetic interests hopelessly gay. A man who's a very good dancer, for instance, is going to have a much harder time scoring than a man who has NFL season tickets. No matter what women may say.

Posted by: Peter on February 14, 2007 1:23 PM

You think? I'm actually judging or guessing (from limited personal experience, of course) not from what gals say but from how the gals I've known have behaved.

Hmm. Clearly the hyper-alpha super-success type guys will never have any trouble finding gals. But for the rest of us? I dunno ...

Well, picture two guys, equally attractive, equally dependable in a middle-class way. Only diff between them is that one's an NFL/the-arts-are-gay kind of guy, while the other guy likes cooking, knows how to dance, and enjoys comparing notes about movies and books. I'd guess -- I'd strongly suspect -- that dude #2 would have a *much* easier time finding g.f.'s than dude #1. You don't think that'd be the case?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on February 14, 2007 1:38 PM

Well, picture two guys, equally attractive, equally dependable in a middle-class way. Only diff between them is that one's an NFL/the-arts-are-gay kind of guy, while the other guy likes cooking, knows how to dance, and enjoys comparing notes about movies and books. I'd guess -- I'd strongly suspect -- that dude #2 would have a *much* easier time finding g.f.'s than dude #1. You don't think that'd be the case?

Dude #2 will attract plenty of women - as (non-girl) friends. Women will see him as a nice guy, and will enjoy his company, but by and large they won't see him as potential boyfriend/husband material. Dude #1 won't attract many women as friends, but will have a much easier time finding a girlfriend.

Posted by: Peter on February 14, 2007 1:54 PM

M., when I read your statement that (I'm paraphrasing) straight women prefer men with some aesthetic sensibilities and cultural interests, my first reaction was, "In Manhattan, maybe." My second reaction was, "And in Manhattan thirty years ago." For the past twenty-five years I've been a NYC exiled in Atlanta, where, in my experience, being well-read, for example, is considered an eccentricity rather than a valuable trait. The jock culture rules here; or rather, a kind of philistine salesman-jock culture, as the jocks leave college (the last time in their lives when they will ever read books, and then only because they has to) enter the workforce, and take up golf. Being, for want of a better word, "cultured," may have some cachet among the artsy-boho types, but they're almost exclusively socialists--relatively easy to bang, but that's about it. My "metrosexuality"--which mainstream Atlantans seem to suspect must actually be homosexuality-- has become something something of a joke to me and my female friends. (My lack of interest in sports pretty much isolates me from my fellow males here, so my friends are all female.) When I offer some aesthetic opinion we'll pause, and say something like, "That sounded so Gay," and laugh about it. However, in Atlanta, the one thing that commands respect overall is money, so if I were rich I suppose I could be Tony Randall (who was, surprisingly, straight) and date all the Barbies I wanted to. That is, if I liked Barbies.

Posted by: Bilwick on February 14, 2007 1:56 PM

I think it's not that straight men eschew aesthetics at all. It's that they have a very different aesthetic sense than gay men do. In clothes, food, music, dance, you name it.

When I watched a few episodes of "Queer Eye for da Straight Guy" back when it was a cultural big deal, my primary reaction when they were done was: Well, now rather than looking like he slept in a dumpster, he just looks gay. A bunch of straight guys could've and would've offered advice which would have been different from what the gay guys do, and have achieved probably better results, since the subject is straight himself. (For example, I've never seen - and granted I've only seen a few - the queer eye guys recommend what cigar would go great with what wine or bourbon, they match it to food instead. I've been involved in 2 hour discussions on what cigar goes with what drink at the guy's campout.)

Better yet, have a team of straight men and women do it, because the guys would get the guy stuff right, and the women would tweak the things that women care about. And it should be more of a Rachel Ray-esque "real people/average joe" kind of assessment, and not a New Yawk socialite, fashion industry assessment. Queer eye just makes straight guys look, decorate, and cook according to gay aesthetics.

(For heightened enjoyment of this comment, please listen to "You Need a Man Around Here" by Brad Paisley whilst reading. Links: Da song, Da lyrics)

Posted by: yahmdallah on February 14, 2007 2:09 PM

Bilwick sounds bitter and resentful, and that's a huge turn-off for women. Bashing "jocks" is also a turnoff. Believing that you are smarter than the golf-playing salesman-types (have you tried doing their job? it ain't as easy as just playing golf) without having a Nobel in physics, comes off as immature.

What appeals to women, is, yes, status, but that means all of the corresponding personality traits: self-confidence, ability to make women laugh, a balanced emotional life, and being a bit of a challenge to women.

Re. Barbies: if I had a nickel for every time I've heard some guy talk about how he is unimpressed by such-and-such woman, only to fall suicidally in love with the first plain Jane who actually speaks to him....

I'm not saying this to be nasty -- I actually like Bilwick's wit, esp. the thing about socialist chicks.

Posted by: PA on February 14, 2007 2:19 PM

Did I really type "because they has to"? YAY--I"M A REAL MAN!

Posted by: Bilwick on February 14, 2007 2:29 PM

Just speculatin' here ... as our blog host has noted, many aesthetic pursuits have become associated with homosexuality, at least in the United States. And that may be part of the reason why women will accept "artsy" men as platonic friends but not as boyfriends/husbands - they're worried that the men might have some gay or bi tendencies.

Posted by: Peter on February 14, 2007 2:52 PM

Peter -- Has it become so bad that even the gals think that guys with taste and knowledge are gay? Or are at least suspect? I wonder if that's a fairly recent development. Back when I was a singledude I did pretty well for myself (the not-very-promising raw ingredients duly noted), and not just in NYC. Gals seemed to like running into a guy they could connect with on some more-interesting-than-usual levels. These days ... But aren't there ways of having some taste-and-style convictions that don't seem gay? Grilling meat, for instance. Gals love eating grilled meat, guys love to grill it. Arty and taste things don't have to be wimpy, after all. Do they?

Bilwick -- That's a really funny snapshot, tks. Beers, bucks, and bravado -- there are a lot of places where that's all that seems to count, dude-wise. I find that situation pretty funny when I encounter it, and then I have to get away from it. My ability to jingle coins in my pocket, re-live old high-school games, and make deals is very limited. Is there no way to peddle your own intellectual-arty sides unapologetically in the midst of it? Probably not ...

PA -- Being able to make 'em laugh is a big plus, god knows. Women often seem prone to falling into introspective, whirlpooly moods. One purpose a guy seems to serve is to give 'em the occasional jolt (jokes! laughter! absurdity!) and get 'em out of those circling, circling moods. One gal I know says semi-seriously that the real reasons she keeps her man on staff is so he'll take out the garbage, initiate sex, and make her laugh. (BTW, I'd be appreciative if we'd all try to avoid personal observations about each other, at least 90% of the time. When passions get really high I'll step out of the way and enjoy the brawl. But generally let's keep the focus on what we say, not on what we read into each other. Thanks.)

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on February 14, 2007 3:13 PM

Didn't pink ties take off once Donald Trump was seen wearing them? A diversity of epithets has been thrown at the Donald over the years, but "effeminate" surely isn't one of them.

As for "rodochrophobia", or the fear of seeming pink, it may have gotten worse since the onset of gaylib. I went to high school in the early '70s, my wife in the mid '90s. I was surprised when she told me that in her (admittedly rural) school, no one, of either sex, was willing to strip and shower in the locker rooms, lest they be mistakenly taken as queer. I don't remember anything like that in my day.

Posted by: Reg on February 14, 2007 3:34 PM

PA: but not too much of a challenge.
You know, when you have to explain endlessly and in excruciating detail every literary association. Or when even the most basic flirtatious hints go unnoticed. Or when a guy starts laughing at his own jokes before even delivering the punch line.

There are some unsulvageable things, don't you think?

Posted by: Tat on February 14, 2007 3:49 PM

PA, yes, I allowed myself here to vent some spleen, although I think in social settings I come across less as bitter than typically sarcastic NYC wiseass. "Resentful," no. That implies, to me, something of envy, and the Ken doll jocks and their Barbies don't have anything I envy. (They do have more money, and I'd like that, but I don't envy it. I don't want to take it away from them; I just want more of it myself.) If my style and manner turns women off, so be it but among the artsy types I tend to socialize with being a sarcastic NY wiseass is often valued. (Now those artsy types--talk about bitter and resentful! But then they're socialists.) And I didn't say I was necessarily smarter than the salesman jock types; the question under discussion was not being smarter, but being more cultured.

Posted by: Bilwick on February 14, 2007 3:54 PM

Has it become so bad that even the gals think that guys with taste and knowledge are gay? Or are at least suspect? I wonder if that's a fairly recent development. Back when I was a singledude I did pretty well for myself (the not-very-promising raw ingredients duly noted), and not just in NYC.

As aesthetic fields have become more heavily gay, it's not at all surprising that women are more suspicious of supposedly straight men with those interests. It's hardly fair to the men, but quite predictable.

Posted by: Peter on February 14, 2007 4:10 PM

Leaving aside the gay/straight equation, I think a lot of men who are perfectly comfortable in their sexuality avoid talk aesthetic because it is "breathy."

Males tend to be result oriented. They are uncomfortable with soft edged conversation going nowhere. And this is a pity. Because there's just as much nuts and bolts hard edged shop talk in the art/design/fashion world as there is in other fields of employment. Painters talking to painters talk obsessively about technical problems. I know this from experience. And I'm sure it's equally true of architects, designers, dancers...whatever.

Problem is, outsiders aren't exposed to this talk. They're at the mercy of the populizers, who are, with rare exceptions, hot air machines.

Posted by: ricpic on February 14, 2007 4:25 PM

Peter seems to be falling into an old self-defeating trap. He is not an alpha male type himself, yet he wants women who are attracted to alpha male types and is probably not attracted to women who prefer their guys to be a bit more well-rounded. Therefore, he becomes bitter.

BELIEVE ME, there are PLENTY of very attractive, smart and successful women who like arty guys, are even just guys who dabble in the arts. These women generally (though not always) are NOT attracted to alpha male type guys. I never once experienced a lack of great women who I had a chance with, and the biggest city I ever lived in was Portland, OR., and even then only for a year.

As for American men and their aversion towards aesthetic pursuits, I think the self-reliant, pioneer history of the US has a lot to do with that. Anything not essential to survival was seen as not only trivial but possibly detrimental to "progress."

Also, and I think I've mentioned this before, I find it's not so much that men are averse to an aesthetic, but they are adverse to appear to be striving towards an aesthetic. Whatever look or vibe they want to give out must appear to have been stumbled on effortlessly less they be confused with someone who spends time thinking about aesthetic issues. A guy who cultivates a beer/football/jeans lifestyle is still cultivating an aesthetic.

Posted by: the patriarch on February 14, 2007 4:39 PM

As a proudly hetero artsy guy, married for three and half decades to an artsy gal, I find most of these comments bewildering.

First point: although I suspect I'll be pilloried for being excessively PC for saying so, the constant and flippant use of homophobic epithets ("fag" etc.) seems a bit over the top. Most of the other "other" groups discussed on 2blowhards generally don't find themselves referred to as "niggers" or "towelheads" etc. Why the difference?

Second point: it may be, in these post-Stonewall times, that gays are more open about their sexual orientation and thus appear somewhat more numerous, but I see little evidence that the aesthetic fields are any more (or less) gay than they were forty years ago. There are now (and have been all along) macho men aplenty among the artists I know. Among actors and dancers there is now, and has been for as long as I can remember, a slightly higher proportion of gays than you might find in a real estate office or behind the counter at a hardware store, but again, I see no increase in recent years.

Third point: who attracts whom, why and how, is a self-selecting system. Cosmo gals who must, must, must!!! put on their makeup before they step out of the house are probably looking for Stuff and Maxim guys who sneer at girly men and would have to be dragged to the local museum. Aesthetically interested guys who subscribe to Art in America or Downbeat connect with funny, self directed, hip chicks who prefer aesthetic dudes and are turned off by guys who belch and shout at the ref on the plasma screen down at the sports bar.

Main point: I think Michael hit the bulls-eye when he observed "straight-guy Americans are masculine because we reject civilizin'." Our national mythology is one of being too busy carving a productive future out of an untamed wilderness to stop for art. We seem not to realize that we finished taming the wilderness a century ago. And isn't "taming the wilderness" all about bringing civilization to the wilderness?

Posted by: Chris White on February 14, 2007 5:12 PM

I don't buy the frontier thing -- the ancient Greeks carried out plenty of rugged frontier expansion, and look at all they produced, as well as all they gabbed about aesthetically. Ditto for pretty much every other civilization that produced a lot of culture.

I think it has more to do with the trend over the 20th C. to de-emphasize class boundaries. That's why people wear jeans to work, never wear ties to work, never wear hats, have dispensed with most forms of "good manners," and so on. Compare the way people dress at Harvard now vs. in the 1910s.

This pushes the question back a level: why this trend? But I'm happy to pass the buck here. The point is, aesthetic tastes are pointless in the grand scheme of things, so only aristocratic types tended to entertain such thoughts -- thus, to de-emphasize class boundaries, you shun thinking about arty things and paint the aficionados as gay (a great way to make others join your anti-aristocratic cause).

So, if you try to talk to other Americans about culture, they'll look at you as if you were sporting a top hat and a monocle. Whatever -- if you are an arty type, you're almost guaranteed to live in a metro area with lots of foreigners who appreciate culture, manners, and so on. If you don't know where to look, just place a personals ad that says you're interested in learning Hungarian from a native-speaker, let's say. If a guy responds, then lie and say you've already found someone. Then just wait for the Magyar honies to write, and you've got a first date!

They won't expect an American to even know that Hungary is a country, or that it has its own bizarre language, let alone expect an American to take an interest in their culture. That's how you impress people (female or otherwise): exceed their initial expectations of you. Think of the reaction to a peacockishly dressed Af-Am guy dancing well at a club, vs. a nerdily dressed white guy who dances just as well. It sounds weird, but it's a good strategy: target people who you are attracted to, who will have low expectations of you, and then surprise them. Ha!

Posted by: Agnostic on February 14, 2007 8:20 PM

Guys, knowing how to dance works. My husband signed us up for ballroom dance classes once as a gift to me. It was worth his while. I was VERY appreciative.

Posted by: Bradamante on February 14, 2007 9:04 PM

Still, there is a cobwebby grey velvet, with a tender bloom like cold gravy, which, made Florentine fourteenth century, trimmed with Venetian leather and Spanish altar lace, and surmounted with something Japanese - it matters not what - would at least be Early English!

I think this issue has been covered before, Mr. Blowhard.

Posted by: Omri on February 14, 2007 9:53 PM

Great topic, great comments.

To Chris White: I don't have a problem with the word "faggy" in this context. It refers to a certain aesthetic and it's the word I would use among friends (which hopefully I'm among here). Taking the stinger out of that word is progress.

By the way, real estate agent is a totally GAY job.

Posted by: Alec Scudder on February 14, 2007 11:15 PM

I think being able to cook and other things "artsy" are just fine, as long as (a) the words "fabulous" and "divine" aren't used very often and (b) there is some reassuring "maleness" in the mix. A guy who can cook and knows wines and would like to see the latest exhibit at the art museum is genuinely interesting, and sexy, (and more sexy the the beer and basketball game type) but it helps if he can also throw things in like "the Bears have won six in a row." Sort of like a woman can talk about baseball or trucks if she also knows something about the domestic arts and wears some makeup and, y'know, doesn't belch.

But I do agree in some self-selection. A woman who wouldn't be interested in a man who can talk about art is probably also not very interested in art, either. There are culturally limited women in the world, too, even if they look like Barbie.

Posted by: annette on February 15, 2007 11:39 AM

If you want to sample Real Men talking aesthetics, check out the discussion group on www.GolfClubAtlas.com -- You'll get 70 passionate responses on how the look of the fairway sand trap Tom Fazio recently added to the 7th holf of George Thomas's Riviera golf course is a mockery of all that is beautiful and true.

I spent 3 days in Palm Springs with these guys last year, and they are exactly like that in person too. It's quite an experience to drink beers with a 350 pound man electrician who has made himself in his spare time perhaps the second most influential golf course critic in America because of his passion for the aesthetic side of golf.

Posted by: Steve Sailer on February 15, 2007 1:24 PM

Peter seems to be falling into an old self-defeating trap. He is not an alpha male type himself, yet he wants women who are attracted to alpha male types and is probably not attracted to women who prefer their guys to be a bit more well-rounded. Therefore, he becomes bitter.

I'm married, so technically speaking the issue does not affect me in a direct manner. Like most men, I'm neither an Alpha nor a nerd - I hate the NFL* but also have zero interest in sci-fi/fantasy** - and exist somewhere along the middle of the spectrum.
Nonetheless, I nearly always take the nerd side in dicussions, in part because I detest many Alphas but have no strong feelings with respect to nerds, and in part because I'm a stick-up-for-the-underdog type. Another factor is that I'm repulsed by the cocky attitudes expressed by the women who scorn nerds and flock toward Alphas like flies to a turd.

I don't buy the frontier thing -- the ancient Greeks carried out plenty of rugged frontier expansion, and look at all they produced, as well as all they gabbed about aesthetically.

Speaking of gayness ...

if you are an arty type, you're almost guaranteed to live in a metro area with lots of foreigners who appreciate culture, manners, and so on. If you don't know where to look, just place a personals ad that says you're interested in learning Hungarian from a native-speaker, let's say. If a guy responds, then lie and say you've already found someone. Then just wait for the Magyar honies to write, and you've got a first date!

A woman could do the same thing, in her case by advertising for a math/science tutor. In either situation the plan is a bit dubious from a moral sense, as one is taking advantage of people who in all likelihood are looking solely to make some money from teaching and have no inkling of the real story.

* = a 3-hour NFL game averages only 12 minutes of actual, ball-in-play action. Most of the rest of the time is occupied by bloviating announcers who get a thrill out of hearing their own voices, and an endless array of TV commercials for cars, beer, life insurance and limp-dick drugs.

** = a couple years back the family and I attended the NY Renaissance Faire, supposedly Nerd Central, and enjoyed it. I'm actually somewhat skeptical of the event's supposed nerdiness, if for no other reason than that many of the women dressed in a manner this close to Indecent Exposure.

Posted by: Peter on February 15, 2007 1:46 PM

I'm completely unfit to discuss the preferences of Womankind.

For myself, I prefer a man who is (a) in touch with both his masculine and feminine sides and (b) cool with the fact that I am in touch with mine.

The types that interest me most are those who go against type. My friend, Tim, is as sports-lovin', fishin'-diggin' and beer-drinkin' as they come, but he is also an artist of the highest order who would give me a run for my money in the cooking department.

I agree with whoever it was who brought up the humor thing. If there's one common denominator, that's it. Good sense of humor = comfortable with oneself = sexy sexy sexy.

Posted by: communicatrix on February 15, 2007 6:08 PM

Almost all the males I hang out with are artsy-fartsy. Some are gayish, some straightish.
All I know is, a dedicated trombonist with a dazzling technique, engaging smile, and appreciation of the ridiculousness of daily life makes me swoon. He's happy at the opera, the ballet, and the produce department; he cusses and farts at TV sporting events, likes to get greasy under cars and knows how to fix plumbing things and cleans gutters while listening to Janacek. But I think it was the technique thing that did it. Watching a man do something he's very, very good at, that's pretty hot.

Posted by: Flutist on February 16, 2007 12:46 AM

Speaking from my own experience, in seventeen years or so of adult dating I haven't found aesthetic appreciation or (I flatter myself) sophistication to be particularly useful. I can't speak to art (while I enjoy some of those things I'm no sophisticate and don't really attend art events, unless you count live pop music performances). However, I live in a very casual city in the southwest, yet work in a suit and will show up on a date in something other than Levis or khakis. I've accumulated nice furniture and put some thought into what goes into my house. I own china and will serve you on it. I like wine and know a very little bit about them. I cook, to my mind and reportedly, very well and also frequently.
While women express some appreciation for the above, particularly cooking, I get a strong impression that they'd rather raise up or civilize a fellow who dresses terribly and lives in squalor on canned sphagetti. Further, and more apropos to the post, I've actually been told on a couple of occasions that I would have been assumed to be gay, but for the fact that I fish & hunt. Since I'm not a sports fan, the blood sports may be the only thing saving my heterosexuality ;)

Posted by: mdm on February 16, 2007 1:34 PM

So who do the nerds wind up dating? From what I recall, only a very small percentage of people never marry.

Posted by: SFG on February 16, 2007 4:43 PM

Agnostic--

That piece was just dead on right in everything it said. And it said quite a bit!

And had practical application to boot!

Well done.

Posted by: dougjnn on February 17, 2007 8:25 PM

As for the Michael's main thesis.

Here's my principal take.

What REALLY wows girls (I HATE gals, sounds like 'honey' to me) is male charisma. If you've got that and MAYBE also meet a few other threshold tests such as adequate status (or maybe not, depending on the she, her options, etc.), you're hot. You've got hook up sex and easy. Culture or no culture. Aesthetics or not. It's pretty animal. But we're also only talking about a small percentage of guys here.

Now for marriage many/most women especially when they're well past their teens in emotional maturity will look more to status, money, stability, consideration/kindness, and only then to charisma. Or maybe it's still higher up but not overwhelmingly so for most. They know and viscerally they're in great danger of him walking away or cheating away and facing them with the choice. Put up in that diminished quasi polygamous role (or in some ways worse given prevailing female attitudes in this country currently) or leave.

Now once we get past charisma and status (control for them if you will, which is to say hold them more or less constant and then see what matters), things like the local culture or the micro culture within it associating cultural appreciation with upper middle class and upper class sensibility (New York, San Fran, Boston, Chicago to a point, elite university towns) on the one hand, versus gay or affite further evidence for a dearth of a LACK of male charisma on the other, hold sway.

Posted by: dougjnn on February 17, 2007 8:38 PM

"Now once we get past charisma and status (control for them if you will, which is to say hold them more or less constant and then see what matters), things like the local culture or the micro culture within it associating cultural appreciation with upper middle class and upper class sensibility (New York, San Fran, Boston, Chicago to a point, elite university towns) on the one hand, versus gay or affite further evidence for a dearth of a LACK of male charisma on the other, hold sway."

Sorry, dougjnn, that has got to be the most amusingly opaque sentence I've read for months. In fact, I'm going to clip it and save it.

Meanwhile, could you try re-phrasing?

Posted by: Intellectual Pariah on February 17, 2007 9:11 PM

I think MB's point about the frontier is well taken. Consider the 1840 President election, where "Log Cabin and Hard Cider" carried the "frontiersman" Harrison to victory over the effete Easterner Van Buren.

There's also a class aspect: the self-consciously crude working stiff versus the self-consciously elegant aristo. Which van lead to really odd twists, if nostalgie de la boue is strong. O. Henry has a tale ("Sociology in Serge and Straw") of a Dead End Kid and a Lord Fauntleroy clashing, then making friends, and finally turning into each other.

And the tension goes back deep into history: in _Henry IV_, the fierce warrior Hotspur tries to excuse his defiance of a royal envoy by describing how this foppish twit came mincing onto the battlefield he'd just won, so of course he told the fellow off.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on February 17, 2007 9:51 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?