Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 05:52 PM Nov 2013

Man Up: Declaring a war on warrior culture

By Brian Phillips on November 7, 2013
I am here to start a fight, because I'm a man and that's how I solve problems. I'm not here to help you. I am here to fucking hurt you. That's what I've learned in my years as an NFL fan. You have an issue with somebody? You see somebody being stupid? You don't look the other way. You don't back down. You strap on your man boots and you shove it through their teeth.

Let me tell you how I know this. I know it because the NFL told me. Take the Dolphins. They suck, but they're still in the NFL. I'm telling it like it is; that's what men do.

The Dolphins have, or maybe had, a 24-year-old left tackle named Jonathan Martin. And they have, or maybe had, a 30-year-old left guard named Richie Incognito. Last week, Martin left the team to seek help for emotional issues. Then allegations emerged that Incognito had been bullying him. Hazing him, if that word makes you feel better. Threatening him. Threatening his family. Leaving him racist voice mails. Sending him homophobic texts. Here's a quick example, and I'm not bleeping out the bad words, because being a man means looking reality in the face.


...


Because this — this idea that Jonathan Martin is a weakling for seeking emotional help — this is some room-temperature faux-macho alpha-pansy nonsense, and I am here to beat it bloody and leave it on the ground. Every writer who's spreading this around, directly or by implication; every player who's reaction-bragging about his own phenomenal hardness; every pundit in a square suit who's braying about the unwritten code of the locker room — every one of these guys should be ashamed of himself, and that's it, and it's not a complicated story.

more

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9939308/richie-incognito-jonathan-martin-miami-dolphins-bullying-scandal

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Man Up: Declaring a war on warrior culture (Original Post) n2doc Nov 2013 OP
Isn't it interesting that the culture of machismo has always denigrated moral courage? radicalliberal Nov 2013 #1
They've had their moments pscot Nov 2013 #2
You're right about Muhammad Ali (regarding his opposition to the Vietnam War . . . radicalliberal Nov 2013 #3
k&r n/t RainDog Nov 2013 #4

radicalliberal

(907 posts)
1. Isn't it interesting that the culture of machismo has always denigrated moral courage?
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 07:22 PM
Nov 2013

Let me cite a particular magazine as an example of what I've just said. Before I continue, I must admit that I've not followed Esquire over the years (since I don't appreciate their defining what my masculine identity should be according to their own superficial, shallow standards); but I think I've seen enough from the few issues I've examined over the years. So, I have this to say about a magazine I consider to be a leading proponent of machismo: Would Esquire ever feature an article about an extremely courageous non-macho man such as Dr. Andrei Sakharov; Raoul Wallenberg; or even Martin Luther King, Jr.? Are you kidding? These three men undeniably possessed great courage; but since they did not fit the macho model, they are not appreciated by the macho crowd.

radicalliberal

(907 posts)
3. You're right about Muhammad Ali (regarding his opposition to the Vietnam War . . .
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 11:20 PM
Nov 2013

. . . in the late 1960's). Aside from the question of whether the war was right or wrong, Ali did act on the basis of principle and paid the price. But he was an athlete. If he had been a sedentary bookworm instead, Esquire probably would have yawned. I still say the magazine has a superficial, shallow definition of masculinity. Sakharov, Wallenberg, and King weren't athletes; so, they don't count (in the eyes of Esquire, that is). Not unless they're bed hoppers who view young women as being only good for sex, as Joe Namath (another Esquire hero) publicly announced live on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson in the summer of 1970. As the proud father of two wonderful young women who are better human beings than I was at their ages, I don't exactly appreciate that sentiment.

A disclaimer here: I have never denigrated any guy for participating in a sport. (In fact, I respect such endeavors and admire individual athletes who are decent human beings.) But as I was growing up, I sure saw a lot of abuse heaped upon boys who had no interest in sports. If a guy applies macho standards to himself and does not impose them upon other guys, I have no problem with that. I pump iron at a local health club, and have hired a succession of personal trainers. I've taken up bodybuilding to feel better about myself, but I would never judge another guy because he was physically weaker than I or was overweight. That's because I know physique doesn't define their own masculinities and actually has no bearing upon a guy's character. Besides, it's none of my business.

Boys and men comprise about half of the human race, yet there are those who demand that all boys and men meet a particular standard (often a shallow one) and that if they don't, they are to be ridiculed or marginalized. Considering we're about half of the human race, that's absolutely ridiculous. We can't possibly all be the same. There is more than one "approved" masculinity. There's a plurality. Each boy (and man) has to find the path to masculinity (or maturity) that is most suited for him.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Man Up: Declaring a war o...