Jump to content

Hyper-masculinity & Hyper-femininity


Ran

Recommended Posts

If I was a caveman I would find the cave-stoners and get lit all day. Probably isn't shit else to do for entertainment without TV and internet. And, if I played my cards right, I could turn my drug induced ideas into the cave religion. Then I would dominate.

Some of the research done on primitive hunter/gatherer societies suggests that very little time was devoted to work. Sometimes as little as 2-4 hours a day, IIRC, was spent working. The rest of the day was spent on fun and relaxing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of many leaders, either in history or in modern hunter gatherer/bush, societies who were anything like a bodybuilder in build.

I've seen this claimed before but never seen any evidence for it.

Maybe some of the Pacific Islanders, i.e. Tongans and Samoans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the research done on primitive hunter/gatherer societies suggests that very little time was devoted to work. Sometimes as little as 2-4 hours a day, IIRC, was spent working. The rest of the day was spent on fun and relaxing.

All that research has been done on tropical hunter-gatherers where food-abounds everywhere, since the tropics and other similarly warm places are where hunter-gatherers remain. Perhaps they remain in those areas because hunting and gathering is such an easy life-style? The closest thing we have to Eurasian Hunter-gatherers, that is to say, analogues to H/Gers who lived in the Ice Ages, are Central Asian pastoralists and Inuit-type people living up in the Arctic, who most certainly don't just chill (hah!) all day long. Even when they're relaxing they're making spears and fish hooks, and guff like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Tom of Finland is excess in ... uhm, other areas. Although, that said, Tom of Finland's men tend to have broad chests and shoulders and be very... hrm. Studdly. But certainly not really musclebound. More like Brad Pitt circa Troy, which I gather is not enough muscle mass to impress Stego. ;)

So, how many different ways are there to consider someone hypermasculine or hyperfemine? Anyone have other examples of men or women they feel are in some fashion at the physical extremes of masculinity/femininity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how many different ways are there to consider someone hypermasculine or hyperfemine? Anyone have other examples of men or women they feel are in some fashion at the physical extremes of masculinity/femininity

I'd consider demeanor to be as important when it comes to defining masculinity and femininity, particularly with women. A 5' tall, 100 lb women with a perfect hip/waist ratio isn't feminine in my book if she talks like a sailor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how many different ways are there to consider someone hypermasculine or hyperfemine? Anyone have other examples of men or women they feel are in some fashion at the physical extremes of masculinity/femininity?

Besides appearance, I s'pose actions, like people who cling to and overdo it in the 'traditional gender roles' department.

I'm thinking of men who do all the heavy lifting, metaphorically as well as literally vs women who sit around quietly, meekly, looking pretty and spitting out babies.

Or, strong man competitions and beauty pageants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Tom of Finland is excess in ... uhm, other areas. Although, that said, Tom of Finland's men tend to have broad chests and shoulders and be very... hrm. Studdly. But certainly not really musclebound. More like Brad Pitt circa Troy, which I gather is not enough muscle mass to impress Stego. ;)

The exaggeration of the shoulder-to-waist ratio in Tom of Finland's drawing is what makes me think of as hypermasculine, because the out-of-ordinary ratio emphasizes the feature, much like your example of the Jessica Rabbit drawing exaggerates the feminine lines. I've seen a few real-life people that have almost the same ratio as those Tom of Finland's drawings, and they look fake to me. Like they're made of plastic or something.

But yes, Tom of Finland also has a propensity to exaggerate the phallus. He also has a fetish for uniforms - either leather bikers or soldiers or sailors or police officers. I'd be entirely surprised if there aren't at least a dozen or so books on the masculine ideal amongst gay men as reflected by the work of Tom of Finland, particularly on the analysis of power, the sexualization of power, and how it is narrated in the context of of his drawings.

(For those curious, you'd have to google yourself for images from Tom of Finland, since I'm at work. Most of them will not be safe for work).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of many leaders, either in history or in modern hunter gatherer/bush, societies who were anything like a bodybuilder in build.

I've seen this claimed before but never seen any evidence for it.

I've conceded as much in a prior post. Humans today are larger than they were in the past. Body builders today (at the elite level) are freaks with the benefit of today's nutrition/drugs / exercise equipment.

With that said, that does not lead us to the opposite conclusion: men were small. History tells of us many physically powerful individuals: Mithridates and Charlemagne, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before agriculture, men were pretty large. Even in the Middle Ages, most knights were able to reach fairly tall heights. It's just that in the Early Modern Era, population booms meant everyone shrunk, to the point where the average Spaniard was 5'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of ratios and how they affect appearance, the body builder Ran posted doesn't seem all that massive compared to some of the freaks in the sport. He's got gigantic forearms though, and they taper down to what look like small wrists. I think it makes him look bigger than he actually is. This pic in particular shows it:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3106/3143799248_95b4a7ba5e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides appearance, I s'pose actions, like people who cling to and overdo it in the 'traditional gender roles' department.

I'm thinking of men who do all the heavy lifting, metaphorically as well as literally vs women who sit around quietly, meekly, looking pretty and spitting out babies.

Or, strong man competitions and beauty pageants.

But those are completely social and very current. In some cultures a frequent emotional outburst and capacity for a good cry, or dressing up to the teeth, was very masculine, while women were stolid and sensible. Our "traditional gender roles" don't seem to go much further back than someplace around the victorians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd consider demeanor to be as important when it comes to defining masculinity and femininity, particularly with women.

I would agree. Body types aren't very interesting because of what looks like strong environmental effects (fashion and nutrition).

Here's my attempt to boil it down to maximally sexualised behavioural traits that, as far as I understand these things, are stable across cultures:

Masculinity: hierarchy (dominance, obsession with status)

Femininity: gossip

I find both of these traits unpleasant and think they are the ugliest marker of each sex. Maybe somebody with a more cheerful worldview can supply more pleasant adjectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But those are completely social and very current. In some cultures a frequent emotional outburst and capacity for a good cry, or dressing up to the teeth, was very masculine, while women were stolid and sensible. Our "traditional gender roles" don't seem to go much further back than someplace around the victorians.

Quite true, but all I can go by are my opinions shaped by my lifetime, hence the references.

Augmentation and pageantry are the two current ultimate showcases for masculinity and femininity.

Four or five hundred years ago it was corsets. Today it's boob and ass implants and tiaras.

Corsetry, not so common in my neck of the woods. Human barbies? Plenty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Masculinity: hierarchy (dominance, obsession with status)

Femininity: gossip

My lack of facial hair and my love of gossip point towards me being a chick. Thank heavens Don Draper doesnt give me a chubby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My lack of facial hair and my love of gossip point towards me being a chick.

Well, this is an internet board devoted to a set of fantasy books.

You probably can’t swing a Longclaw replica in this joint without hitting a beta male.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is an internet board devoted to a set of fantasy books.

You probably can’t swing a Longclaw replica in this joint without hitting a beta male.

Real men use the Bride's replica from Kill Bill. :fencing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the research done on primitive hunter/gatherer societies suggests that very little time was devoted to work. Sometimes as little as 2-4 hours a day, IIRC, was spent working. The rest of the day was spent on fun and relaxing.

When you go way back, yes. But that also wasn't a good strategy for survival as such a lack of planning ahead often led to disaster. As newer technologies came to be(especially with the use of agriculture), our responsibilities became greater.

Even so, when times were more casual, the stronger men typically held the power, and power(along with the desire for power) gets passed through genetically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even so, when times were more casual, the stronger men typically held the power, and power(along with the desire for power) gets passed through genetically.

So on casual fridays the bodybuilders hold sway?

Seriously, what the fuck is this argument? When times were more casual? Powerful?

Artistically, there is zero sign that huge men ruled the day. Zero. Whether it be statues, depictions, murals, whatever - strong men do not appear to be particularly worshipped or otherwise astoundingly successful in the world. The closest you get would be something like Gilgamesh, but even there strength is often used against him and cleverness is rewarded. Even Achilles, the preeminent warrior of olden times isn't referred to as musclebound or ox-like; his moniker is fleet-footed. He wasn't known for his massive strength; he was known for his speed.

Now, you can say that while agrarian societies didn't favor really strong people as leaders specifically, they were clearly favored in hunter-gatherer places...except they weren't, as witnessed by specifically seeing all the HG groups that do exist today. There's nothing to think that particularly strong people are better selected for there, either, and plenty of actual evidence to the contrary.

And that's not going on the notion that people that weighed 250lbs and were pure muscle simply couldn't exist in a practical sense without agrarian economies to support that food habit. Not only did they not have the kind of training that it would take to build that muscle (most exercise would tend to be aerobic, not anaerobic), they don't have the protein or fat consumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...