I want to respond more fully to the comments about Metro Men.
In no way do I believe that Metro Men are any more in touch with their feelings than their neanderthal brethren. However, I think they are keenly aware of their bodies, how they feel as members of attractive society. This allows for an entirely new set of men to stand up and be noticed.
So he's not 6'1", but he's got great skin, a fantastic haircut, 4% body fat and a thin, athletic body to hang his size 30-inch waist designer jeans on. He walks around noticing his body which, in turn, helps him notice and respond to the external stimuli.
In my opinion, this makes him more responsive - he understands - he primped and preened and sweat and looked at his ass in the mirror 50 times before he came out - so now, when he's got your attention, he stays with you, not feeling the need to flit from woman to woman, determining which eggs he must fertilize.
He's aware physically and as a result, mentally, emotionally, connected. He's the 5'7" guy weighing in at 175, with the confidence of any James Bond (who, might be the first Metro IMO). His physical awareness makes him more masculine, he feels the partner next to him, moves when she does, touches her when she leans in, notices the small adjustments she makes to indicate "hold the door for me".
He responds because of his physical presence, presence made possible by his investment in being metro. Men who play physical sports feel this - no one ever thinks of them as Metro - but the keen intuitiveness to their own bodies makes them respond.
Recently I had dinner with a very tall man who plays both football and basketball. Armed with my new metro thoughts, I noted that every time I moved, he adjusted, even putting his arm around me when the man to my left got too close - protecting me. In no way is he metro, but I took my simple test and findings to the test.
A very metro man did the same. Manicured nails, ironed shirt, a moisturized face that was neatly shaven and after dinner he indiscreetly applied lip balm - not chapstick but an expensive brand I recognized from Aveda. At the bar, he behaved the same - keen to my feelings and listening. He even engaged in the same protective arm-bondage.
Then my third subject - missed every move. He was clean and had gel in his hair, but in no way aware of his own body, let alone mine. He stared at the tv in the bar, barely aware that a woman was sitting with him. In his own lack of awareness, he was missing the feminine mystic, the touch of soft skin, and the feel of a woman's breasts innocently touching him.
Metro men are not pussies who get pedicures, they are real men who get pedicures because they like how their soft feet touch a woman's when they are laying in bed naked. They are not the cantaloupe-totting body-builders who try to make up for how short they are by making themselves wide, they are the naturally developed men who get cut because their bodies move better when they've lifted this week. They get facials and massages because it gives them time to relax from the stresses of their week so they can focus on a good conversation, the taste of a good Cabernet and the pleasurable feel of their hand in the small of a woman's back.
It's not feelings they are in touch with, that is a by-product, it is their bodies and in turn, they become much more intuitive and manly.
Phantom-limb syndrome and the empirical scientific method
This post will be somewhat abstract, and somewhat concrete. For the first time in a long time, I've reappraised the foundations of my personal philosophy, which for the moment we'll call empiricism. The occasion was a coincidence. On the one hand, I got into one of those postmodernist discussions about how what appears to be real depends on the observer, with some people arguing that there is no absolute reality. (I'm afraid I didn't respond as respectfully as I should have.) And on the other hand, I heard what medical science has recently learned about sensory perception. Read on.
The scientific way of looking at life
Empiricism is the view that observation is truth; it's the careful editing of all statements to make sure that a distinction is made between what is directly sensed (fact) and what is inferred (theory). In my personal shorthand, I call this epistemology--the practice of asking 'how do you know what you know'. Wikipedia quotes Charles Pierce about the reconciliation of empiricism and rationalism (the latter convinced us to stop trying to make predictions based on superstition):
(1) the objects of knowledge are real things, (2) the characters (properties) of real things do not depend on our perceptions of them, and (3) everyone who has sufficient experience of real things will agree on the truth about them. According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth".
When Peirce says "science" in the above, you can read in "life": just as the general public as a whole reaches self-corrective conclusions about the likelihood of rain, so does science (that is, researchers who publish) reach self-corrective conclusions about global warming. How much corrective power your individual views have depends on how much expertise people think you have in that area.
The monkey wrench that medicine threw into the works
An article by Atul Gawande in The New Yorker about phantom-limb syndrome has given me serious doubts about the absolute nature of observation. I used to take it for granted that what we sense is real. The sky is blue, end of story. However, brain scans have revealed that when we have the experience of seeing something, the amount of communication between our eyes and the thinking parts of our brain isn't nearly enough to carry all the necessary information. Instead, there's a lot of extra information coming to our thinking parts from our *memory*. When you see a dog running behind a slatted fence, you don't imagine that the dog is cut into pieces; you perceive a dog, even though you can never see the whole thing at once. Your brain fills in the gaps from its memory. The medical community now agrees that experience is something like 10% direct sensory perception and 90% memory.
Most of the taste of that cheeseburger you had for lunch was just your brain's best guess. Makes you wonder if it's worth the calories, doesn't it?
What does this have to do with anything?
OK, but I still get hungry. There's no sense in making Jean-Paul Sartre's tuna casserole for dinner. We have to get through the day. Well, at some level we have to have some reason (or perhaps 'motivation' is a less loaded word) for believing what we believe. Or at least I have to have that, or I get to feeling a bit unmoored.
I believe that if we observe things, and make up a theory to explain them, and then test the predictions of that theory, then we can understand the natural world and gain mastery over our surroundings. This is the scientific method, and one kind of mastery it gives us is technology. I like technology. I'm a geek.
I'm also a working scientist. How do I know what I know? When I say I observed something, like for example a number on the screen of a voltmeter, am I still 100% sure? Or, given the above discussion, am I only 10% sure?
Scientists do blind and double-blind tests for a reason: if the test administrator, or, worse, the test subject, knows anything about the stimulus they're being asked to respond to, there is a very strong chance that the results will be steered by their expectations. It's tough enough when the question is which philodendron is most attractive. In medical research, the control group's placebos are a matter of life and death. Even physicists get irrationally optimistic once in a while and fall for some cold fusion thing or another, though eventually science corrects itself when researchers come along who don't have a vested interest in a particular result.
I'm pretty sure about the voltmeter. If I blink, the reading doesn't change. If I do the experiment again tomorrow, I'll get the same result, unless the janitor unplugs something important. I'll bank on the consistency of my observations. And I'll try not to stress about it too much. The philosophers, though, will probably feel a good bit more threatened by it.
The Pros and Cons of Metrosexuality
A recent post on Return to Manliness came out strongly against metrosexuality. For me, I've always read metro as "how to be mistaken for a gay man." The classic example is one of the five hosts of "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy", who turned out to be, oddly, not gay.
I'll do my best to sum up Kevin's argument as follows. The trend of metrosexuality is one of men being asked to be like women and forsake what makes men different. Men accomodated it because they wanted a better understanding of what women are thinking and what they want. And also because they found they got more sex from women who were flattered by the imitation. Problems arose when men, in their efforts to identify with women, rejected the good aspects of manliness. The result was men who were easily intimidated, wouldn't take the initiative or speak plainly, shirked physical exertion and risk, etc. I hope I've done Kevin's line of reasoning justice.
Understanding the opposite sex is good, and being passive and conflict-avoidant and all those other things is bad. It's possible to have one without the other. I'm not sure how many of the men I deal with on a daily basis qualify as metrosexuals (a lot of them are slobs) but I do see a lot of these negative traits. Maybe there is some kind of societal trend where men are given an excuse not to man up, in the name of empathizing with women. If so, I doubt women got anything out of the deal.
I brought up the subject with my wife. She was a little surprised; for her, the archetypal metro is David Beckham. He's a guy who isn't afraid to use women's tools to make himself look better than other men, and nobody mistakes his sexual orientation. The way Alice sees it, a metrosexual man is one who tries to look better, but not necessarily less masculine. He tries to be more aware of his body, his physiology, so he's literally more "in touch" with his feelings. His gut reactions tell him his emotional state, making it possible for him to deal with people in a more up-front and honest way. (Note the importance of the word "possible". This takes effort.)
Preferably, men could be men--they could use their physical strength and be protective and competitive--and still understand women well enough. There are two sides to this: making yourself understood, and being receptive to what you're being told. This goes for both men and women. Men need to understand and communicate their feelings, and be willing to accept constructive criticism and hear a woman's complaints without belittling them or rationalizing them away. Women need to ditch the old mysteries of feminine mystique and intuition if they want both themselves and their men to be happy. That means explaining what they want in a way that a man can understand it, and not discouraging mens' disclosures by saying it hurts to hear them (which keys into his instinct to protect her - from himself).
It can be a better world. I'm not sure if the superficial aspects of metrosexuality are a problem, but if it's used as a cop-out, it's bad. Man up.
I'll do my best to sum up Kevin's argument as follows. The trend of metrosexuality is one of men being asked to be like women and forsake what makes men different. Men accomodated it because they wanted a better understanding of what women are thinking and what they want. And also because they found they got more sex from women who were flattered by the imitation. Problems arose when men, in their efforts to identify with women, rejected the good aspects of manliness. The result was men who were easily intimidated, wouldn't take the initiative or speak plainly, shirked physical exertion and risk, etc. I hope I've done Kevin's line of reasoning justice.
Understanding the opposite sex is good, and being passive and conflict-avoidant and all those other things is bad. It's possible to have one without the other. I'm not sure how many of the men I deal with on a daily basis qualify as metrosexuals (a lot of them are slobs) but I do see a lot of these negative traits. Maybe there is some kind of societal trend where men are given an excuse not to man up, in the name of empathizing with women. If so, I doubt women got anything out of the deal.
I brought up the subject with my wife. She was a little surprised; for her, the archetypal metro is David Beckham. He's a guy who isn't afraid to use women's tools to make himself look better than other men, and nobody mistakes his sexual orientation. The way Alice sees it, a metrosexual man is one who tries to look better, but not necessarily less masculine. He tries to be more aware of his body, his physiology, so he's literally more "in touch" with his feelings. His gut reactions tell him his emotional state, making it possible for him to deal with people in a more up-front and honest way. (Note the importance of the word "possible". This takes effort.)
Preferably, men could be men--they could use their physical strength and be protective and competitive--and still understand women well enough. There are two sides to this: making yourself understood, and being receptive to what you're being told. This goes for both men and women. Men need to understand and communicate their feelings, and be willing to accept constructive criticism and hear a woman's complaints without belittling them or rationalizing them away. Women need to ditch the old mysteries of feminine mystique and intuition if they want both themselves and their men to be happy. That means explaining what they want in a way that a man can understand it, and not discouraging mens' disclosures by saying it hurts to hear them (which keys into his instinct to protect her - from himself).
It can be a better world. I'm not sure if the superficial aspects of metrosexuality are a problem, but if it's used as a cop-out, it's bad. Man up.
Bikepsycho, strike 2
As you know, I bought a bike and got a flat tire. Fast forward two weeks. I replaced the tube and brought a pump along for a second try. Alice and I got to the trailhead and put the bikes on the ground ... clunk. I didn't just have a flat--my tire was blown completely off the rim, and the inner tube had a six-inch split. I had inflated them and left the bike in my car outside for 24 hours. The heat must have overpressurized it. I should have known better, but frankly, I was eager to get on with it.
I don't remember bike ownership being this much of a pain in the ass. When I was in high school and college, I routinely did 20-mile rides and hardly ever did any maintenance besides cleaning and oiling the chain. I rode a bike to my classes several times a day every day all through undergrad and grad school. What gives?
Of course, where I live now, I can't just put on a helmet and hit the road on two wheels. The curbs, potholes, intersections, and general pedestrian-unfriendliness all make it necessary for me to drive my bike somewhere from my home or office before I can ride. This is less convenient and makes it less likely I'll do it regularly. For the same reasons, I prefer to lift weights at home rather than go to a gym.
I think I have to fight this demon on my own. I'm not going to take Alice on another wild goose chase until I've got it working.
I don't remember bike ownership being this much of a pain in the ass. When I was in high school and college, I routinely did 20-mile rides and hardly ever did any maintenance besides cleaning and oiling the chain. I rode a bike to my classes several times a day every day all through undergrad and grad school. What gives?
Of course, where I live now, I can't just put on a helmet and hit the road on two wheels. The curbs, potholes, intersections, and general pedestrian-unfriendliness all make it necessary for me to drive my bike somewhere from my home or office before I can ride. This is less convenient and makes it less likely I'll do it regularly. For the same reasons, I prefer to lift weights at home rather than go to a gym.
I think I have to fight this demon on my own. I'm not going to take Alice on another wild goose chase until I've got it working.
Guest blogger
I've invited my wife, Alice, to post here. She's primarily interested in restaurant reviewing, night life, cooking, and wine. Alice has a very sharp eye for quality service, so look for her posts.
Hello, Officer
Our doorbell rang. After the second ring, we looked out the window and saw a cop car in our driveway. I put on a bathrobe and opened the front door. The officer said our mother-in-law, in Indianapolis, hadn't been able to get in touch with us for several days.
Really?
Yes.
I said, sorry for your trouble, officer. OK, Judy, we were fucking. I have not abducted your daughter. We pulled weeds today, watched a movie out on the patio, drank wine, and gratified our urges. That's all: fucking. OK?
Really?
Yes.
I said, sorry for your trouble, officer. OK, Judy, we were fucking. I have not abducted your daughter. We pulled weeds today, watched a movie out on the patio, drank wine, and gratified our urges. That's all: fucking. OK?
Luxury materials
Since I was young, I've had a sense, not really qualifying as a theory, of what makes something luxury. In a nutshell, it was that luxury goods are things you have to maintain: leather has to be moisturized, silver has to be polished, stained wood has to be waxed. If you spend time on it, it must be good.
I tried to describe this to a friend recently and found the old explanation inadequate. A diamond is certainly luxury, but all you have to do is clean it once in a while. What's closer to the truth is that if you own something that requires maintenance, you'll only do it if it's necessary (like scooping a litterbox) or beautiful (like silver).
Moisturizing leather calms me and improves my surroundings. Polishing silver makes me feel wealthy, and connects me to my grandmother through her tea service. There is a certain welcome ritual to these chores. Music used to mean more to me, too, when I had to use a microfiber brush and an antistatic gun to clean vinyl LPs. I miss that.
Right now the family silver is in an abominable state. I'll polish it and post a pic.
I tried to describe this to a friend recently and found the old explanation inadequate. A diamond is certainly luxury, but all you have to do is clean it once in a while. What's closer to the truth is that if you own something that requires maintenance, you'll only do it if it's necessary (like scooping a litterbox) or beautiful (like silver).
Moisturizing leather calms me and improves my surroundings. Polishing silver makes me feel wealthy, and connects me to my grandmother through her tea service. There is a certain welcome ritual to these chores. Music used to mean more to me, too, when I had to use a microfiber brush and an antistatic gun to clean vinyl LPs. I miss that.
Right now the family silver is in an abominable state. I'll polish it and post a pic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)