oooh men
Been reading the infamous Wild at Heart book and whilst i don't think that it's very good (it seems to be pseudo intellectual as i find many Christian books are), it has made me think a bit about my masculinity and measures of it (I've found that train journeys provide an especially good time to do this). The book seems to have a rather American manifest destiny type perception of maledom which is shown by exploring in a Huck Finn type way. I shouldn't feel guilty that i take interest in clothes or am not a blokey bloke. I think that perception of a man is a bit old fashioned
I also don't like the idea that women need to in some way be won. I always like to see relationships as more of a consensual thing but then that would explain my appalling track record. I find myself looking at some of the couples i know and the male will say something that i know the women would (and does) find rude and i find myself thinking, "why do you go out with him? he's an arsehole" (a touch of jealousy maybe). At the same time i look at some of the hen pecked men i know and think, "why do let soemone treat/talk to you like that?" An example of this is my parents though and this may say something. Linked is my mum's apparent inability to accept that i'm not 7 anymore (but maybe you always are to them).
I also don't like the idea that women need to in some way be won. I always like to see relationships as more of a consensual thing but then that would explain my appalling track record. I find myself looking at some of the couples i know and the male will say something that i know the women would (and does) find rude and i find myself thinking, "why do you go out with him? he's an arsehole" (a touch of jealousy maybe). At the same time i look at some of the hen pecked men i know and think, "why do let soemone treat/talk to you like that?" An example of this is my parents though and this may say something. Linked is my mum's apparent inability to accept that i'm not 7 anymore (but maybe you always are to them).
posted by hugh at
10:11 AM
7 Comments:
you're not 7?
By
dan, at 2:41 PM
7 and 3/8ths actually
By
hugh, at 4:43 PM
Yeah, I read the first thirty pages or so and got the general idea. It is very prescriptive in its perspective of masculinity. I'm sure it's helpful for some people, but the church does tend to endorse this kind of thing as 'the model' for which everyone must aim. But at the same time, I felt the book's aim was to be liberating and not constraining, and in the few pages I read, the tone (although vomitingly American) was fairly non judgemental.
Also, I think more wives have read it than husbands (Mary read most of it I think). These Christian books that are supposed to be read by a particular sex (y'know, the masculinity crisis stuff etc.) are equally designed and aimed at women.
By
Pete, at 10:33 AM
i can't remember it much, but i felt quite affirmed & released by it - that it was ok to be a bloke (whatever being a 'bloke' means, be it a music buff or cimbing over rocks or whatever), seeing as masculinity has had a bit of an identity crisis in recent times (in my opinion anyway).
hey, why don't we get together & talk about it? maybe go into the peaks, take our clothes off, cover ourselves with mud & climb up rocks & shout?
By
dan, at 12:28 PM
i apologise for the rubbishness of that joke
By
dan, at 2:44 PM
by the way, bullet points have now spread to val & andy dowsett.
By
dan, at 5:24 PM
& ben askew. what should we do next, o mighty leader?
By
dan, at 10:41 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home