Bill G

Re: She Didn't Understand

8-26-2007

Great post Robert, as always.

Bill G

Bill Weintraub

Re: She Didn't Understand

9-6-2007

Thank you Robert and Bill G.

Once again a terrific post from Robert Loring, who's the author of many essays on this site, including The Warrior God.

And as always, Robert's words bear reading and re-reading.

I want to pick up on these paragraphs:

The world no longer understands the natural masculine male. The world no longer understands us because the world has strayed far from the natural and embraced the unnatural. It is the unnatural that has, sadly, become the social norm of today. In the minds of many the soldiers and sailors from WWII are "gay" because they were "caught" in a picture hugging or holding each other. People no longer understand that these men were not gay. They were simply expressing their own natural masculinity. They didn't get "caught" doing anything. They were simply masculine men being masculine men. Trying to explain this to people today is like pulling teeth because people no longer understand the natural and male normal because they have been blinded to what is traditionally and historically male and right.

The natural and normal expression of masculine male love is so foreign to some people that they simply cannot comprehend it as being natural and normal. Yet, we should not be surprised as this is to be expected when people turn away from the natural and normal. When they turn towards the unnatural their minds become clouded and confused. They can no longer see truth because they live under a veil of illusion and self illusion. Such people end up cutting most ties with history. They no longer see themselves connected to their ancestors or those people who came before them as they live under the self delusion that they are in some way "special" and "different" from all other people who came before them. Loneliness and confusion soon set in. People are reduced to nothing, to numbers, because these people can't and won't see past their own selves. Ego, our false selves that we learn and acquire from the world, begins to dominate and we begin to dwell under the cloud of fear even if we won't admit it. The natural is replaced by the unnatural and we come to mistakenly believe that the unnatural is the norm, never knowing or understanding that it is not the norm at all. We become frozen in our emotions and begin to deny our own feelings and we growing increasingly afraid to express our emotions especially if the emotion entails the expression of love towards a person of our same gender. And so, living the lie, living the unnatural begins and we slowly sink into a dark abyss of a whole host of psychospiritual problems and turmoil.

In the modern world today there are still a few remaining natural and tribal cultures. Yet, in our own arrogance we are surprised when these tribal cultures express their desire to have little to nothing to do with us or the modern world we have created. We are shocked when the tribal leaders of these people designate us as "demons" and "devils." We walk away confused because in our unnatural minds we just cannot fathom why anyone would not want to be just like us. Tribal people today see the unnatural in us whether we think so or not. They see how twisted moderns have become. They see how insane our society is and they want nothing to do with it. And, they see the destruction that modern society has done to the natural and masculine male. Don't think that tribal cultures today don't see that in modern society the naturally masculine male is the enemy of society instead of the icon of what is natural and normal. Tribal people today see right through the modern world and people like looking through a piece of clear plastic. Modern people today are deceiving no one save for their own selves.

Right.

Let's start here: "The world no longer understands the natural masculine male. The world no longer understands us because the world has strayed far from the natural and embraced the unnatural. It is the unnatural that has, sadly, become the social norm of today."

I was thinking about these words of Robert's as I was reading more of John Ibson's Picturing Men: A Century of Male Relationships in Everyday American Photography, the book I discussed at some length in the Antinous message thread.

And if you haven't read that discussion, you owe it to yourself to do so.

That thread is long, but you can get to the relevant discussion by going to the thread, and then hitting "Control F" on Internet Browser and inserting 8-24-2007 in the data field.

Or you can go to this post, Warriorhood and Male Intimacy, which simply reproduces the last two entries from the Antinous thread.

Either way, and regardless of which thread you choose, you'll come to a reply from Redd, which is excellent, and then my reply to Redd's reply, where I talk about the Ibson book, which is in part a scholarly examination of what we call heterosexualization:

the process by which societies in the industrialized West replaced single-gender, all-male, and homosocial spaces and environments, with mixed gender environments, which are now common and customary and which are enforced by cultural norms -- and societal laws such as Title IX.

Ibson explains, as has my foreign friend in, for example, The Power of the Masculine, that the medicalization of same-sex affection, which we can date from the coining of the word "homosexual" in 1869, accompanies that shift from single-gender environments, which had been the historical norm, to mixed-gender environments.

So that as society becomes heterosexualized, male friendship and male intimacy become suspect, and are finally and as a practical matter -- DESTROYED.

One of the statistics which Ibson provides, and it's startling, is that as late as 1890, fully 40% of all men aged 15 and older were -- bachelors!

By 1940 that number had dropped to 33%, and by 1950 it was down to 25%.

While according to the US Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey, nowadays by age 65 only 3.8% of American males have "never married."

That's heterosexualization in action.

Now, in the Antinous and Male Intimacy threads, I quote Ibson's descriptions of the many homosocial spaces and groups which existed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, from the YMCA and boardingschools, to streetcorner gangs, poolhalls, saloons and sporting events, to the aggregations of miners and cowboys in the American West.

In this next passage, Ibson speaks specifically about Fraternal Organizations:

The number of such groups and their total membership were remarkable, especially during the last third of the nineteenth century, "American fraternalism's golden age." When the entire population was only around 75 million, lodges enrolled more than 5 million (between a quarter to a third of all adult males) in nearly six hundred different orders, the most notable of which included the Masons, Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias, Grand Army of the Republic, Modern Woodmen of America, and Improved Order of Red Men. As some of those names suggest, fraternalism represented a backward glance in a rapidly modernizing society. Whether the lodges, with their elaborate rituals and costumes, ultimately helped their predominantly white-collar (and white-color) members adapt to the new cultural order of industrial capitalism is debatable, but the strongly antimodern tenor of their rhetoric and ritual is quite clear.

These many lodges were first and foremost groups of men. As a leading historian of the Masons has observed, for example, women could enter the lodge room only for "occasional banquets." According to Lynn Dumenil, "one of the most striking aspects of the lodge meeting was its maleness." Suggestive of a lodge's significance to its members were the many photographs taken of the men in their uniforms: cabinet photos of two or three lodge brothers or large, mounted photographs of an entire chapter membership, such as figure 21, showing some Modern Woodmen of America.

In spite of their group's full name, the Woodmen's initiation ritual seemed powerfully at odds with major characteristics of modern life. Wearing ragged clothes and a placard saying "I Am Blind," the blindfolded initiate was told that he was on an urban street "in the busy world" where "bankers" and "industrialists" would be utterly unsympathetic to his plight. Taken back to the Woodmen's temple, decorated as a forest, the initiate was told he was safe "in the primeval forest...God's first temple...where humanity has scope and breathing space...[and] we will find brotherly love." The many photographs of lodge members surely served as tokens of that powerful masculine affection, documenting what might meaningfully be described as all-male families that existed parallel to the conventional family.

[emphases mine]

So: What we see men doing here is attempting to find their way back to a NATURAL way of life, one which is lived literally in nature and which is characterized by "brotherly love" -- "that powerful masculine affection."

Brotherly love.

Brotherhood.

Warriorhood.

And Warriorhood is clearly what lodges like the Modern Woodmen of America were about.

In an age which was rapidly urbanizing, and in which many of the sacred bonds between Men were already under attack, Woodmen and other fraternal associations like them proposed a return to "the primeval forest...God's first temple...where humanity has scope and breathing space" --

and where Men could find a refuge and an "all-male family" which was characterized by good fellowship, "brotherly love," and "powerful masculine affection."

That powerful masculine affection is the affection that Warriors feel for each other.

It is biologically based.

And comes directly from our Warrior heritage.

So when Robert says,

The world no longer understands the natural masculine male. The world no longer understands us because the world has strayed far from the natural and embraced the unnatural. It is the unnatural that has, sadly, become the social norm of today --

He's speaking for the Men of our era, while echoing the feelings of those Men of the nineteenth century.

The difference is that in the nineteenth century, as we can see from the photos in Ibson's book, the process of heterosexualization was far less advanced, and Men were still by and large free to be their intimate and affectionate selves.

Clearly, there was far less pressure to marry, and men could easily find the homosocial spaces which they need.

At the same time, Men were beginning to be cut off from Nature.

Which is why the Woodmen contrasted the exploitation of urban life with an idealized life in the forest, God's first temple, where humanity can breathe.

And where, in the not-so-distant past, most Men would have spent most of their time -- being Warriors.

Because that's what Men did.

Needless to say, in our own world, in which Nature is relentlessly under attack and Natural Masculinity unceasingly derided, Men have to struggle to re-find their Natural selves.

And most don't even try.

I was thinking about that when I wrote to suffer and be strong.

"To suffer and be strong" is a phrase from Quintus Smyrnaeus' The Fall of Troy, a phrase which evokes one element of the Warrior ethos:

For all the tangled paths of human life,
By land and sea, are by the will of Fate
Hid from our eyes, in many and devious tracks
Are cleft apart, in wandering mazes lost.
Along them men by Fortune's dooming drift
Like unto leaves that drive before the wind.

Oft on an evil path the good man's feet
Stumble, the brave finds not a prosperous path;
And none of earth-born men can shun the Fates,
And of his own will none can choose his way.

So then doth it behoove the wise of heart --
Though on a troublous track the winds of fate
Sweep him away -- to suffer and be strong.

To suffer and be strong.

I told Frances that that sort of belief system, which worked so well for Warrior societies in the past, was a hard-sell in the present, which prefers feel-good philosophies which offer quick and ready returns.

She responded:

I think the Spartan ethos was a feel-good philosophy, just not one we easily understand. But, it was about attaining something of worth, something that would last. And as you point out, it lasted a very long time, and still inspires as was seen with the 300 movie. It wasn't about a quick fix and then that empty feeling again until the next quick fix. Thornton Wilders' "living is a struggle, every good and excellent thing in the world stands moment by moment on the razor edge of danger and must be fought for."

Right.

Here's another pic from Ibson's book.

Like the caption says, these are railroad workers.

It was common for guys who worked together to have their pic taken together.

And they sure look comfortable with each other.

You'll notice that their hands are prominently displayed.

If you look closely, you'll see that most of those hands are missing fingers.

In railroading at that time, as Ibson explains, it was common for men to lose fingers to the couplers which held the cars together.

So the men in this photo are demonstrating a certain esprit de corps -- quite literally.

What Statius called The Comradeship of Wounds.

They worked together, they were wounded together, that created a bond -- it's a *Warrior* bond -- and you can see it:

"living is a struggle, every good and excellent thing in the world stands moment by moment on the razor edge of danger and must be fought for."

It's not complicated:

Part of the male comfort, the male intimacy which these men display is a result of the physical danger they shared.

Here's that quote again -- maybe if you won't believe me you'll believe Thornton Wilder:

"living is a struggle, every good and excellent thing in the world stands moment by moment on the razor edge of danger and must be fought for."

Now, I said that what the railroad workers had was a *Warrior* bond.

Even though it was the result of shared dangers and the struggle to survive in a workplace, its biological root lies in the human male's experience of Warriorhood.

Which is as old as the human race.

And which is why a phrase like this is meaningful to us:

"living is a struggle, every good and excellent thing in the world stands moment by moment on the razor edge of danger and must be fought for."

And why Men still endeavor to live it.

Speaking of which, the NY Times once again visited the question of the UFC.

Once again, the Times got in a gibe about human cockfighting.

But the article this time was relatively positive, with prominent discussion of the many rules designed to prevent injury.

At the same time, about half the pix accompanying the article were bloody -- very bloody.

Well, there is blood in UFC.

But not always to that extent.

The Times also had pix of fans going to the weigh-in hoping to get a glimpse of a favorite fighter.

Well, fans are fine.

But what the Times didn't bother to show at the weigh-in was this:

The camaraderie which is such a prominent part of mixed martial arts today.

Now, guys, I want to be clear:

UFC, which stands for Ultimate Fighting Championship, is a privately-held money-making company.

And no one can predict where it will go or end up.

But -- "mixed martial arts" is a popular and I would argue grass-roots movement among guys into fight sports.

And among those guys I believe the camaraderie will remain.

Because it's part of fighting.

Here's another pic from John Ibson's Picturing Men:

Ibson calls these sorts of pics "Pageants of Masculinity," and says they were posed.

Sure.

But the facial expressions aren't posed.

Proof?

Compare that pic, taken ca 1915, to this one ca 2006.

Or this one:

There's no difference.

That's male camaraderie, which is a result of the interaction between male aggression and male attraction:

Once again, Frances:

I think UFC and the fight sports are of the highest importance. They're the portal through which men can still connect to their masculinity. And, men are drawn to that and as you say that really can transform men. Just like you said when Achilles was shown all the beautiful weaponry at Scyros -- that's what happens to men with the fight sports.

You could see what happened to Patrick when he was fighting Paco how the blood and sweat and struggle was getting to them both.

Right.

Achilles on Scyros, living among girls and disguised as a girl, is recalled to his Masculinity when Odysseus displays the weapons of war.

That reawakening of his natural male aggression frees him to go to Troy, where his love for Patroclus achieves its most intimate and powerful expression: The Mingling of Their Bones.

In Patrick's case, he needed no re-awakening of his natural male aggression, which had been with him throughout his life.

But in his fight with Paco, he was re-awakened to his natural male attraction to other Men -- to other Men of Fighting Spirit.

So in this instance Achilles and Patrick can be said to represent the two poles between which the life of the Naturally Masculine Male flows:

Aggression and Attraction.

And which we here represent as a feedback loop -- which is what it is:

Achilles needed to be recalled to his Masculinity in the form of his natural male aggression.

Patrick needed to be recalled to his Masculinity in the form of his natural male attraction.

The vast majority of men today, unfortunately, have to be recalled to both: their natural male aggression and their natural male attraction.

MEN CANNOT BE FULLY MALE -- FULLY MASCULINE -- FULLY MEN -- WITHOUT HAVING EXPERIENCED BOTH.

And Frances is saying, as has NW, that in our era, fight sports are key.

So just as Achilles was recalled to his Masculinity on Scyros by the sight of weapons;

so can Men today be recalled to their Natural Masculinity -- or at least a portion of it -- by participation in a fight sport.

Which is why we see these Men -- pre and post fight -- being so relaxed around each other.

Let's come back to this issue of men without marriage.

In our society today it's assumed that men will get married.

If men don't get married, there's a problem -- either they're "gay," or deficient in some other way.

Robert's co-worker had trouble understanding him because he didn't present himself as deficient.

He simply presented himself as what he is -- a Man.

Ibson's figures startled me -- because they're proof that such wasn't always the case.

And I began thinking about it.

Like most people, I've always assumed that throughout history, marriage has been the norm.

Actually, though, with a little reflection, I realized that wasn't true.

We know that the Romans for example had trouble persuading men to marry.

Various emperors passed laws penalizing patricians who didn't marry.

That was because the state wanted those men to have children, who would then constitute a Roman ruling class.

The state didn't want Rome to be swamped, as it eventually nevertheless was, with men of non-Roman stock -- as rulers.

In the Middle Ages, lots of men didn't marry.

In theory, at least, society was divided into three estates: the nobles, the commons, and the clergy.

And the clergy, also in theory, didn't marry.

At least some of the clergy were Warriors as well.

People like Friar Tuck in the Robin Hood legend.

So, for all we know, 40% of Men living in bachelorhood may have been the norm in many cultures.

What we do know is that cross-culturally and historically, most living was homosocial -- same-gender.

And that among those Men living together, what Robert describes in The Warrior God was Natural:

Imagine a world in which men bonded closely with other men. A world in which natural male masculinity ruled the day instead of some pseudo-manhood known as male femininity. A world in which men were unafraid to show their feelings to other males. A world in which masculine men honored their own manhood and the masculinity of other men.

Imagine a world in which masculine male nudity was commonplace and socially acceptable. A world in which it was not a "sin" for men to sexually frot with other masculine males. A world, in which, male bonding was encouraged and supported. A world in which masculine men taught other males how to become truly masculine men of pride, honor, and fidelity.

Imagine a world in which the Warrior Ethos was something that was honored and esteemed instead of shunned and discouraged. A world in which natural male aggression was respected and valued. Natural male aggression would be self disciplined by such males as they walked through their lives living as honorable and noble Warriors.

The naturally masculine male would have a major place in such a world just as he did in ancient days when the Hoplites and others ruled the times. No longer would there be a war against the natural male, natural masculinity, or natural male aggression. Man would truly be once again MASCULINE MAN. Males would be unafraid to love their brothers in the natural bonds of the brotherhood of man. Males could simply be themselves.

Right.

But today males can no longer be themselves.

They have to fill someone else's expectations of what it means to be male.

When they don't -- the rest of society is confused.

"She didn't understand" said Robert.

At this point almost no one understands.

But when you look at the pictures in Ibson's book;

or the pictures from WW II;

or from ancient Greece;

and when you read about groups like the Woodmen, who struggled not so long ago -- only about a hundred years -- to return to the purity of male life as it was lived in Nature --

You realize that that mis-understanding is a very recent thing.

It's our job -- and that means YOUR job -- to make sure that that mis-understanding is also a very temporary thing.

So that in the near future, as Robert says, Men and Women once again

will make a choice to honor the natural and walk away from the unnatural.

Thank you again Robert and Bill G.

True Warriors.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2007 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.