new blog about masculinity
March 26, 2009 - 3:27pm
some news some of us could use.....
i've been coordinating the start of a new blog about masculinity. we've got about 7 contributors and one day we'd like to publish a regular magazine.
the best way to describe the focus of the blog is our mission:
masc magazine is a space for young men to explore how masculinity affects their lives.
masc is curious about how ideas of manhood are shaped by one's experiences and environment.
masc encourages expression and connection on a range of men's issues such as gender, stereotypes, sexuality and health.
masc helps men imagine their own ideals and ways to make them real.
click:
come take a look, leave a comment, or think about contributing.
thanks,
paul baines
Good luck Paul.
I've bookmarked it as a favourite, not much time now but looked promising.
What you've certainly got going for your venture is that it's an untapped market. I used to read men's magazines a few years back and it seems all the ones I know of have become completely ridiculous.
Thought there is an advertising issue about people wanting to drive traffic to their blog? or is this case going to be somehow different?
Men, an "untapped market"??? Look again, 500_Apples...
That's not what I meant.
Dude - please give me more benefit of the doubt than assuming I said the most stupid possible thing.
I did mention men's magazines for example, and then I said they seem ridiculous. Can you connect the dots?
This YouTube video, found at your website, The Magic Hockey Helmet, is brilliant! Thanks for posting this. I have sent the link to my brother who is a prof in education who focusses on issues related to sexuality and gender.
thanks loretta for visiting and sharing the links, this is the kind of connections we're trying to make.
while we are trying to speak to men (especially men under 30) we're not interested in 'tapped' or 'untapped' markets. we're interested in a dialogue between people who are curious about gender, identity, and power.
yes, there is already lots of media targeting men, but there is a difference between targeting men through images and stories of men, (Men's Health, GQ, Maxim) and engaging men ABOUT images and stories of men, masculinity, and manhood.
please keep visiting the www.mascmag.com site, leave a comment, or pass it on.
500_Apples:martin dufresne wrote:Men, an "untapped market"??? Look again, 500_Apples...
That's not what I meant.
Dude - please give me more benefit of the doubt than assuming I said the most stupid possible thing.
I did mention men's magazines for example, and then I said they seem ridiculous. Can you connect the dots?
I didn't assume anything. It just didn't make sense to me. Thanks for (almost) clarifying your drift.
Geez Martin, can't you just stick to explaining women's points of view?
I saw that "Magic Hockey Helmet" video last week through another source. It has a simple, accessible message, but I don't see what it has to do with masculinity.
Y'know, I haven't started a "Guy Stuff" thread in ages...
I saw that "Magic Hockey Helmet" video last week through another source. It has a simple, accessible message, but I don't see what it has to do with masculinity.
They say you can lead to a horse to water, but...
Y'know, I haven't started a "Guy Stuff" thread in ages...
Thank God for small favours!
That video was very good, Paul!
duplicate deleted
okay you're not talkin' "hunk" here - you're talkin' that "force" - not "male energy" - but that highly-cognizant, highly-aggressive, and highly-integrated force in men of a certain capacity, that you just know is out there, somewhere...
there are - I would bet - many thousands of "really feminine" women out there who wouldn't argue that none-other-than George Galloway is one pretty fine specimen of "Masculinity"
and by the way, I'm not George Galloway! so why do I land on that guy as an example of what "masculinity" looks like?
there really IS a dearth of genuine "masculinity' out there, and almost anyone with any verve and what-seems-to-be "strength" can and do "make the grade", because of it
but I'll just say that it's GG's eyes, that piercing aqua, and probably the bristling moustache - although he doesn't wear it affectatiously - you don't really see it, per se... and there's that certain healthy glow to his visage
sure, the eye-bags, the baldness and the head like a ten-pin bowling ball maybe - but the certainty, the confidence , the intelligence and the integrity of the man exudes - and that sorta clinches it - sorta excludes the hair-line - excludes the whole head! toss the whole body on the NO side, too
but leave that intelligent & agressive, integrated & steadfast & eminently-masculine mind there, as an example to future generations - if there ARE future generations, I mean...
it isn't that Mr. Galloways exposure of late - YouTube, etc - his "chat" to the U.S. Congress comes to mind - has inspired the topic, is it?
Yeah well, then there was the cat suit episode,
OMG.
Masculinity's a fleeting thing isn't it? Quite a fragile concept. One cat suit (I'd call that a skin suit myself) and -poof- it's gone. Or is it?
Thanks for the reality check, Cueball.
Well, he has "guts" that is for sure.
What I always say is it takes someone very secure in his masculinity (however that's defined) to "perform" non-masculinity publicly. Including shrieking, which I adore when men do. Cis and trans men both. Always messing with the binaries ya know.
And "meow" to you, Cue.
I don't do shrieking. So you are a Howard Dean fan?
Did you ever see any of the Big Brother show with Galloway on it?
Here is Galloway doing his cat routine to some hyped up version of "Now I want to be your dog" originally by Iggy Pop: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1532509206579317476
cueball thanks for that although I wonder why you would immediately leap to that as, somehow, an example of GG's other-than-masculinity.
I think, if you'll ask any of those "feminine" women I mentioned (above), you'd find that his antics there detract absolutely NOTHING from his masculinity.
to prove it, actually ASK one, and see
the guy's a great sport!
anybody - okay, let's temper that - any so-called "man" - who immediately points to Galloway in a pink cat suit, as a means of disqualifying him from being "masculine", are themselves either lacking the GUTS it takes to do that (as cueball rightly indicates that it would), OR they've got an agenda - to make George Galloway look ridiculous - much like Michael Ignatieff did, in his one-word assessment of the man; "a clown")
but, IMHO (unless you're not a JDL-operative out to further the Imperialist take-over of the Middle East for Israel and Big Oil), any criticism of GG for his participation in that show is really an adolescent response, and completely non-useful in the debate - either about masculinity or George Galloway
first, they're probably jealous! - both of the man's strength - his dignity - his integrity - his intelligence! AND that the guy has guts - that he can do that, with such playful aplomb - something that they, his detractors, do not possess and/or cannot do!
too bad, boo hoo!
run and hide behind your anonymity
What I always say is it takes someone very secure in his masculinity (however that's defined) to "perform" non-masculinity publicly. (...)
my point exactly
and "however (masculinity)'s defined" IMHO is only really valid - let's face it - when it's framed in terms of the "feminine" woman's response to it
in other words you can't let an adolescent (who doesn't have all his/her ducks in a row, really) or a propagandist (with an agenda beyond the topic-at-hand) - define that quality, and expect that to actually be a valid definition
it just ain't - never has been and never will be - at least, not as long as birds and bees exist on this planet
by the way, I haven't dropped GG's name in here to discuss him - I just find him to display some very strong masculine traits, and used him as an example because he's topical
but HEY! if you want to drop scurrilous comments about George Galloway here, or argue that he's really a pussy, then prepare to defend that position - even while your Cheshire Cat invisibility - just a sardonic grin, hanging in the ether - let's you say anything at all! valid or not
bring it on!
I don't do shrieking. So you are a Howard Dean fan?
Did you ever see any of the Big Brother show with Galloway on it?
wow you're losing touch with reality there, pal
Maysie mentions "shrieking" and you click to the assessment that Maysie's a "Howard Dean Fan"????? WHAT?
what the hell has "the 2-second sound-bite that framed howard dean" got to do with anything at all?
best explain why that kind of mile-wide - but inch-deep - crap finds it's way to this "masculinity" thread...
I mean, really... explain that
or forever hold your piece! (not where we can see you though, please)
and your POINT?
fogbrella, hi, welcome to babble.
I don't have much of an opinion of George G. I'm talking in generalities, one of my favourite things to do as you'll find out.
And I wanted to comment on this:
I disagree. Masculinity is performed when there are only men in the room. In all-male environments, heteronormativity (with homosocial overtones) prevails as does performance of acceptable masculinity, which varies from group to group, *and* varies over time. Ya think just cuz I'm a woman I don't know about that stuff?
Getting back to the website that started this discussion, I had a look around and was impressed. I'm especially happy that the site is aimed at men under 30. So thanks, paulb for bringing the site to the attention of babble.
P.S. fogbrella, I think maybe you need to calm down a bit. Breathe.
your thought is duly noted, but I was challenging cueball's intent there, with his inclusion - at the drop of a shrieking hat - of HOward Dean
it's a very masculine thing! to challenge bullshit whenever it shows it's ugly head!
what, cueball can't rise to his own defense? by explaining, for starters, what the HELL the "you must be a Howard Dean fan" comment was based on?
that's really sad!
but you say, what? "masculinity is performed"? by whom?
and for who's appreciation? certainly not for truly "masculine" men, who, while they recognize such "performances" as such, could give two craps about "displaying" anything
IF anything, they would question - in passing - the maturuity of any male "displaying masculine traits"
hopefully they'd be cognizant that these displays are sometimes made to fool people, and they wanna instantly know who the person is doing the fooling, and who the intended audience FOR that "fooling" is, and WHY
otherwise they're beyond all that
a "performance" normally requires actors and an audience -
all I'm saying is that the natural "audience" to appreciate true masculinity is women - but not necessarily in response to some "display" or "performance"
in reality, any "truly masculine" male - let's toss a certain maturity into the definition, too - is not consciously "performing" anything - he just is being masculine - and that puts him way beyond "display"
which is, funnily enough, also appreciated by "feminine" women, AS being just another trait, in a man, to be appreciated...
if there is any "performing" going on at all, in the room full of males, it's by juvenile members of the (hopeful) sex, attempting to prove something, and their opinions - especially about what is, or isn't "masculine", aren't really valid, therefore
true "masculinity" doesn't require proof, or display, OR appreciation, to validate it's existence - it just IS
hope you know what I mean
why the proclivity to "generalities"?
please explain
Take it easy dude, its just mysogyny... I mean misanthropy... sorry I mean masculinity.
Obviously Galloway isn't quite sure either. Personally I am not a big Galloway fanboy, but he is ok. Certainly one of our better representatives, but occassionally he goes over-the-top, and that is damaging, I think, to the cause.
But if he wasn't willing to take the risk of damaging his image, then he really should never have appeared on Celebrity Big Brother, but then on the other hand he did have the guts to do that, so that is really a +/- in my books, and funny nonetheless. He forgot that its not just about him, its about us too, and that was a big risk to take with the reputation of the movement, I think, since he is such a figure in it, and that says something about his ego. Thing about that show is that it really moved him out of the realm of the soundbite, and I didn't like him so much with sustained exposure, but yeah, he can deliver a good soundbite.
On the other hand if he wasn't willing to take risks, then he probably wouldn't take the good stands that he does, and just be another Labour backbencher.
I like Howard Dean, probably more.
'preciate that response
GG likely never even considered that his appearance, on BB, might "damage his image"...
but that doesn't mean he's being a fool
that (IMHO demented) attitude misses who George Galloway is, altogether
why?
because when you're in possession of real integrity, it is the freedom - true freedom - derived from that integrity - which dictates your thoughts and actions!
and having that integrity affords the possessor of having the confidence that he can then FACE - not FEAR - future criticisms, and with ease
his life's actions - or antics - derive from a pure source - again, his nearly-absolute (as near as any human could possess) integrity
KNOWing with certainty, that you've got nothing whatsoever to hide, or be ashamed of, allows true FREEDOM - THE freedom that knows no bounds - some people will call it "guts", but it's just Freedom - he's just riding the wave which real integrity brings
that's why I'm an admirer - and why I defend him, from the rabble
what, the guy needs to carefully choreograph his existence?
Anyone who suggests that (again, IMHO) is blowing demented, toxic smoke
Hey fog. Whew, your posts make me tired, you got a lot of energy you know that?
I wasn't speaking for or defending anyone. I have a passing knowledge of Dean (didn't he run for the Democratic nomination in 2004 and lose?) therefore have nothing to say about him.
In terms of generalities, I'm a macro-socio-analysis kind of person. It's one of my orientations, if you will.
And, speaking from that macro-level, masculinity (like femininity of course, as well as race, culture, class and a gajillion other things) is performed, every day, in whatever context we're in (mixed company, flirting, platonic, whatever). It take many many forms, and as I said, is mutable and changes over time, even seasonally one could argue. But it *is* a performance. I guess I don't know how else to say it.
And I guess I don't believe in true masculinity. It sounds kinda freaky scary to tell you the truth. As does "true femininity". Did I mention I'm also anti-binary?
Nor do I believe in "true freedom".
But that's way more thread drift. Sorry paulb!
Also, please don't knock adolescents... and ducks not all-in-a-row.