"Real Men"
Real men are primitive.Much time and many volumes have been devoted to Freud’s famous question — What do women want? — with little commensurate attention to the male counterpart.
What do men want?
The simple answer is well-known, but a more nuanced answer has presented itself the past several days during Washington’s “Snowmageddon.”
Shovels. Men want shovels, the bigger the better.
…Since the blizzard began, the shovel has become not just a tool of necessity but a symbol of purpose and meaning, about whose absence the usual existential lament is more acute in a city that lives so much in its head.
This is the axis of wonkery, after all, where men (and women) spend most of their waking hours in a seated position, staring at a computer screen or talking by phone. Interruptions to these mostly mental rigors involve other seated endeavors, such as the power breakfast and lunch, or the ever-popular drinks-and-dinner duet. Whatever ambulation is required in between is hardly enough to satisfy the muscular memories of our tranquilized DNA.
Oh, we “work out.” Gym memberships are as common as Metro cards, and personal trainers nearly outnumber cab drivers. Washington has a disproportionate number of triathletes, which is testament both to Washingtonians’ principal source of animation — stress — and to the city’s miles of friendly running and biking paths.
But purpose-driven exercise is of a different order than shoveling snow. One is a To-Do item on the calendar of obsessive-compulsives; the other is a taunt from Nature, a call to survival to bestir all those little lizard brains in repose. Man is never happier than when he is called to action, in other words. That is to say, when he is needed.—Kathleen Parker, “Men: The Original Shovel-Ready Project”, The Washington Post Wednesday, February 10, 2010 (available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/09/AR2010020902466.html?nav=hcmodule).

Real men are primitive.

Much time and many volumes have been devoted to Freud’s famous question — What do women want? — with little commensurate attention to the male counterpart.

What do men want?

The simple answer is well-known, but a more nuanced answer has presented itself the past several days during Washington’s “Snowmageddon.”

Shovels. Men want shovels, the bigger the better.



Since the blizzard began, the shovel has become not just a tool of necessity but a symbol of purpose and meaning, about whose absence the usual existential lament is more acute in a city that lives so much in its head.

This is the axis of wonkery, after all, where men (and women) spend most of their waking hours in a seated position, staring at a computer screen or talking by phone. Interruptions to these mostly mental rigors involve other seated endeavors, such as the power breakfast and lunch, or the ever-popular drinks-and-dinner duet. Whatever ambulation is required in between is hardly enough to satisfy the muscular memories of our tranquilized DNA.

Oh, we “work out.” Gym memberships are as common as Metro cards, and personal trainers nearly outnumber cab drivers. Washington has a disproportionate number of triathletes, which is testament both to Washingtonians’ principal source of animation — stress — and to the city’s miles of friendly running and biking paths.

But purpose-driven exercise is of a different order than shoveling snow. One is a To-Do item on the calendar of obsessive-compulsives; the other is a taunt from Nature, a call to survival to bestir all those little lizard brains in repose. Man is never happier than when he is called to action, in other words. That is to say, when he is needed.

—Kathleen Parker, “Men: The Original Shovel-Ready Project”, The Washington Post Wednesday, February 10, 2010 (available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/09/AR2010020902466.html?nav=hcmodule).

Real men are idiots.Real men are primitive.Real men are aggressive.Real men don’t change.
Why are there no female sex scandals?
The question, raised by The Daily Beast’s Rebecca Dana has preoccupied me ever since I noticed it. Everywhere I went over the long and much-partied recent weekend, I raised the question, and here is the answer I got:
Nobody knows.
…We can guess. The first guess is that women are simply smarter than men. Say what you will about Woods, it’s not his wholesome image that has suffered, it’s his standing as a sentient being. A person with the wit of a mosquito knows better than to leave a voicemail message on a mistress’ phone or to text women who, from the angelic looks of them, would sell their own dear mothers for a chance to appear on Inside Edition. Few women are that stupid. Few men aren’t.
The other possibility that strikes me is that women seem not to have the evolutionary urge to couple with cheaply dressed strangers. They have a stronger need to mother — to have a child and then raise that child.
The male equivalents of the sort of women who have courageously come foreword to claim their reward money for entertaining Tiger are evolutionary bad material. No woman would want them as husbands and fathers. They are what Darwin called dreck, which is Yiddish for cocktail waitress. Since recreational sex can lead to diapers, women have to be prudent. As they say down at the Fed, they have to consider the out years.
This is why women more than men link sex to love and commitment. I’m not saying that all of them do or all of them do all the time. I’m just saying that there seems to be few women who behave as Tiger Woods did. Even women who have no moral compunction against multiple affairs draw the line at a number somewhat below Tiger’s.
Men, like the poor polar bear, have seen their ecology change. Their youthful aggression, so useful for wars of choice (not to mention necessity) or merely hunting saber-toothed tigers, is now just a social menace. Their urge to have sex with just about any woman with a pulse makes them crude laughing stocks. Tiger Woods has become a punch line — and so have men in general. (Thanks, Tiger.) We are a sorry lot. Almost no one, save maybe lachrymose country western singers, will defend the cheatin’ man.
But it could be that the urge to get closer to cocktail waitresses and denizens of dimly lit hotel lounges is in some way linked to the drive to conquer, to prevail — to succeed. It could explain why all this time into the Age of Feminism, years after women were liberated, women make up less than 20 percent of Congress and only 3 percent of those top CEOs.
The reason the Glass Ceiling has not broken is that women have other priorities — maintaining relationships and being a mother. This is the way it is, and this is the way it has always been. As any of Tiger Woods’s cocktail waitresses could tell him, Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
N’est ce pas?—Richard Cohen, “Why Is There No Female Tiger Woods?”, Post-Partisan, The Washington Post, December 14, 2009 (available at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/12/why_is_there_no_female_tiger_w.html).

Real men are idiots.
Real men are primitive.
Real men are aggressive.
Real men don’t change.

Why are there no female sex scandals?

The question, raised by The Daily Beast’s Rebecca Dana has preoccupied me ever since I noticed it. Everywhere I went over the long and much-partied recent weekend, I raised the question, and here is the answer I got:

Nobody knows.



We can guess. The first guess is that women are simply smarter than men. Say what you will about Woods, it’s not his wholesome image that has suffered, it’s his standing as a sentient being. A person with the wit of a mosquito knows better than to leave a voicemail message on a mistress’ phone or to text women who, from the angelic looks of them, would sell their own dear mothers for a chance to appear on Inside Edition. Few women are that stupid. Few men aren’t.

The other possibility that strikes me is that women seem not to have the evolutionary urge to couple with cheaply dressed strangers. They have a stronger need to mother — to have a child and then raise that child.

The male equivalents of the sort of women who have courageously come foreword to claim their reward money for entertaining Tiger are evolutionary bad material. No woman would want them as husbands and fathers. They are what Darwin called dreck, which is Yiddish for cocktail waitress. Since recreational sex can lead to diapers, women have to be prudent. As they say down at the Fed, they have to consider the out years.

This is why women more than men link sex to love and commitment. I’m not saying that all of them do or all of them do all the time. I’m just saying that there seems to be few women who behave as Tiger Woods did. Even women who have no moral compunction against multiple affairs draw the line at a number somewhat below Tiger’s.

Men, like the poor polar bear, have seen their ecology change. Their youthful aggression, so useful for wars of choice (not to mention necessity) or merely hunting saber-toothed tigers, is now just a social menace. Their urge to have sex with just about any woman with a pulse makes them crude laughing stocks. Tiger Woods has become a punch line — and so have men in general. (Thanks, Tiger.) We are a sorry lot. Almost no one, save maybe lachrymose country western singers, will defend the cheatin’ man.

But it could be that the urge to get closer to cocktail waitresses and denizens of dimly lit hotel lounges is in some way linked to the drive to conquer, to prevail — to succeed. It could explain why all this time into the Age of Feminism, years after women were liberated, women make up less than 20 percent of Congress and only 3 percent of those top CEOs.

The reason the Glass Ceiling has not broken is that women have other priorities — maintaining relationships and being a mother. This is the way it is, and this is the way it has always been. As any of Tiger Woods’s cocktail waitresses could tell him, Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

N’est ce pas?

—Richard Cohen, “Why Is There No Female Tiger Woods?”, Post-Partisan, The Washington Post, December 14, 2009 (available at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/12/why_is_there_no_female_tiger_w.html).

Real men are not thoughtful.
Real men are aggressive.
Real men are good at sports.
Real men are primitive.


NARRATOR

If you think too much, this would be too high: [man base jumps from icy cliff].

This would be too violent: [boxer punches boxer in the face].

This would be too far: [man hikes in snow].

This would be too frightening: [firefighter climbs ladder propped against burning building].

This would be too steep: [man rock-climbs on vertical wall].

This would be too extreme: [biker jumps sand dunes].

This would be too brutal: [football players collide].

This would be too dangerous: [bull rider rides a bull].

WORDS ON SCREEN:

STOP THINKING.

Wrangler

WE ARE ANIMALS

WEAREANIMALS.COM

—Wrangler commercial, via Amelie Gillette, “Thinking Is for Jerks,” A.V. Club, Sept. 16, 2009 (available at http://www.avclub.com/articles/thinking-is-for-jerks,32960/?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=feeds&utm_source=avclub_rss_daily).

Real men are protectors.Real men are primitive.
“They sat without saying anything for a little while.  Beverly felt safe.  Protected. The images of her father’s face and Henry’s knife seemed less vivid and threatening when they sat close like this.  That sense of protection was hard to define and she didn’t try, although much later she would recognize the source of its strength: she was in the arms of a male who would die for her with no hesitation at all.  It was a fact that she simply knew: it was in the scent that came from his pores, something utterly primitive that her own glands could respond to.”
—Stephen King, It 899 (Signet 1987).

Real men are protectors.
Real men are primitive.

“They sat without saying anything for a little while.  Beverly felt safe.  Protected. The images of her father’s face and Henry’s knife seemed less vivid and threatening when they sat close like this.  That sense of protection was hard to define and she didn’t try, although much later she would recognize the source of its strength: she was in the arms of a male who would die for her with no hesitation at all.  It was a fact that she simply knew: it was in the scent that came from his pores, something utterly primitive that her own glands could respond to.”

—Stephen King, It 899 (Signet 1987).

Real men are primitive.
FAY:  [To KONG.]  It’s okay!  [Sighs.]  If only he were more evolved.  He’d switch to DIRECTV and get five months of their Best TV package for free!KONG: Huh?FAY: Yes!  For free!
—DIRECTV commercial

Real men are primitive.

FAY:  [To KONG.]  It’s okay!  [Sighs.]  If only he were more evolved.  He’d switch to DIRECTV and get five months of their Best TV package for free!

KONG: Huh?

FAY: Yes!  For free!

—DIRECTV commercial

Real men are primitive.
MIKA: Sometimes I just want to punch him.  He reminds me of my father.  You know?  He’s arrogant.LEENA: I think he’s kind of sexy.MIKA: So not my type.LEENA: Really.  What’s your type?MIKA: I don’t know, Leena.  Opposable thumbs, maybe?—Warehouse 13 season 1, ep. 3, July 21, 2009.

Real men are primitive.

MIKA: Sometimes I just want to punch him.  He reminds me of my father.  You know?  He’s arrogant.

LEENA: I think he’s kind of sexy.

MIKA: So not my type.

LEENA: Really.  What’s your type?

MIKA: I don’t know, Leena.  Opposable thumbs, maybe?

Warehouse 13 season 1, ep. 3, July 21, 2009.

Real men don’t change.Real men are primitive.
ZACK: I have something for you.ANGELA: Is it chocolate?ZACK: No.ANGELA: I find my interest has flagged… . Nice.  Who is it?ZACK: It’s the Hollywood murder victim.ANGELA: Oh, my God.  I see what Brennan means.  This woman has had a lot of surgery.ZACK: What’s with Goodman and Hodgens?ANGELA: They’re guys.  They should just lay ‘em out on the table and measure.ZACK: Lay what out on the table and measure?ANGELA: Okay.  Awkward moment.  Let’s just say they have different approaches, and they’re guys, okay?ZACK: I’m a guy.ANGELA: You’re … more highly evolved.
“The Woman at the Airport,” Bones, season 1, ep. 10 (Jan. 25, 2006).

Real men don’t change.
Real men are primitive.

ZACK: I have something for you.

ANGELA: Is it chocolate?

ZACK: No.

ANGELA: I find my interest has flagged… . Nice.  Who is it?

ZACK: It’s the Hollywood murder victim.

ANGELA: Oh, my God.  I see what Brennan means.  This woman has had a lot of surgery.

ZACK: What’s with Goodman and Hodgens?

ANGELA: They’re guys.  They should just lay ‘em out on the table and measure.

ZACK: Lay what out on the table and measure?

ANGELA: Okay.  Awkward moment.  Let’s just say they have different approaches, and they’re guys, okay?

ZACK: I’m a guy.

ANGELA: You’re … more highly evolved.

“The Woman at the Airport,” Bones, season 1, ep. 10 (Jan. 25, 2006).

Real men are dominant.
Real men are primitive.
Real men don’t care what others think.
Real men don’t change.

“Now Ms. Wolf has to make the unfun Gore fun. She has come up with her most un-feminist notion yet: Urge a gentle, new-age beta male to act like a Fight Club macho alpha male, the sort who bares his teeth and drags women off to his cave.

“She has a point. Women are impressed by swagger and paternalism in presidential candidates, just as men are.”

—Maureen Dowd, “Liberties; The Alpha-Beta Macarena,” New York Times, Nov. 3, 1999.