What Men Like In Men

S

SifuPhil

R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
manly-man.png

No, this isn't a brainwash piece about same-sex marriage.

It's about a turn-of-the-century (LAST century) article in Cosmopolitan, written in 1902, that expresses the author's position on what men admire and respect in other men.

Be warned: since this WAS written in 1902 there are quite a few references to women that might seem less than flattering to modern readers. Take it as a chunk of history or just skip the article if you're easily offended, but I found that I thoroughly enjoyed the article as it reflects many of the same traits that I find indispensable for today's "Man". It's also a rather longish article, but I suppose that's due to its having been written in a time when there WAS only writing and no 30-second videos to watch ...

What Men Like In Men
 

628x471.jpg
 
Never mind Phil, I'm reading it.

Immediately I'm taken with two things. The editor's note has a pejorative tone straight off. I don't read Cosmopolitan but the term "women's rag" sounds a tad chauvinist to my ear.

The following article appeared in a 1902 issue of Cosmopolitan Magazine (which started out as a quality family magazine before becoming a women’s rag).
Click to expand...

I'm reading about the concept of "sissy" and this strikes a chord with my childhood. Boys of my age were urged not to be sissies and never to cry. The same was often said to girls too and I did my best never to present as a sissy. In many ways I became as emotionally frozen and many males of my era. Publically I present with a stiff upper lip and do my best never to show any sign of disappointment or hurt feelings. I straighten my shoulders, stretch up to my full height (all five foot one inches) and look people in the eye in tense situations as if I had internalised the text of Kipling's poem "If". I try to emulate Gunga Din.

Back to the article
 
OK, finished reading now, keeping in mind the date of writing - 1902.

This paragraph grabbed my attention

First of all, a man must be what other men call “square” – which implies that he must have a sense of honor. This means so much in the relations of men with men. From women they do not expect it, at least in the fullest sense – a man’s sense; but it is the very corner-stone of friendship among men. For it does not mean that one must be merely true to his friends, but, in a sense, to those who are not his friends, who are even, possibly, his enemies. Fair play and the rigor of the game is a masculine ideal; and men will trust and like and honor those who live up to its strict requirements. The foundation of it all is justice – the most masculine of virtues, and the only one in which no woman ever had a share. Some women have been generous, and many have been brave and wise and self-denying, but there has never lived a woman who was absolutely just. Justice, even-handed, clear-eyed, supreme over prejudice and passion – this is God’s gift to man alone, and man alone can feel how splendid and sublime a thing it is.
Click to expand...

I also regard this are an essential attribute in a man. It means a lot in the relations of men with women too. I do take exception to the idea that justice is a purely masculine virtue but in 1902 there would have been few real life Portias to exemplify justice as a female virtue.
 
Warrigal said:
Immediately I'm taken with two things. The editor's note has a pejorative tone straight off. I don't read Cosmopolitan but the term "women's rag" sounds a tad chauvinist to my ear.
Click to expand...

True. Remember it's on a site called "Art of Manliness" - I think we have to expect some level of chauvinism, however distasteful.

... personally I found it amusing. :cool:


I'm reading about the concept of "sissy" and this strikes a chord with my childhood. Boys of my age were urged not to be sissies and never to cry. The same was often said to girls too and I did my best never to present as a sissy. In many ways I became as emotionally frozen and many males of my era. Publically I present with a stiff upper lip and do my best never to show any sign of disappointment or hurt feelings. I straighten my shoulders, stretch up to my full height (all five foot one inches) and look people in the eye in tense situations as if I had internalised the text of Kipling's poem "If". I try to emulate Gunga Din.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting story, because I never knew girls in my youth to be labeled as sissies. Again, perhaps a chauvinistic view (it's how I encountered life in the '60's) but a girl's "typical" behavior at the time was expected to be sissy-ish. They were the models upon whom we relied to point out the male sissy behavior, just as the boy's "typical" behavior was used to label girls as ... well, something other than girly-girls.

I know that the world has changed drastically since those times, but whether because of my upbringing and various role-models or simply because I'm a stubborn ol' cuss I still identify with many of the points made in the article. I know it isn't PC for me to call a male who looks like That Guy's picture above a "sissy", but there are far worse names that could be employed. "Sissy" is just the old-school equivalent. And even then, I realize I'm going solely on physical appearance, but I mean, c'mon! How you dress - or undress - is still a major purveyor of clues in this society as to your true personality.

Personally, I strive to emulate Genghis Khan. :mad-new:
 
Warrigal said:
... I also regard this are an essential attribute in a man. It means a lot in the relations of men with women too. I do take exception to the idea that justice is a purely masculine virtue but in 1902 there would have been few real life Portias to exemplify justice as a female virtue.
Click to expand...

Agree wholeheartedly. That's what I meant when I said I agreed with many of the points made.

I've spent too many years in the midst of ultra-feminine women who had pig-loads of steel beneath their alabaster skin to ever embrace the chauvinistic remarks made in the article. I just see them as "signs of the times".
 
That's an interesting story, because I never knew girls in my youth to be labeled as sissies.
Again, perhaps a chauvinistic view it's how I encountered life in the '60's but a girl's "typical" behavior at the time was expected to be sissy-ish.
They were the models upon whom we relied to point out the male sissy behavior, just as the boy's "typical" behavior was used to label girls as well, something other than girly-girls.

:triumphant::lofl::lofl::lofl::victorious:
 
Although I am far from a male chauvinistic pig and detest the reptilian mind set, I do at times enjoy being just one of da boyz. Used to surf with a rough and tumble bunch and it was . . . interesting...
 
That Guy said:
Although I am far from a male chauvinistic pig and detest the reptilian mind set, I do at times enjoy being just one of da boyz. Used to surf with a rough and tumble bunch and it was . . . interesting...
Click to expand...

There ya' go - I don't consider myself a pig either, but I still like to roll around in the mud once in a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top