Monday, March 18, 2013

"Bro"

I hope Sunday was the last time I go to Five Guys. Not that I'll back it up with some sort of solemn promise. (Still need to finish the post about people who wear thug fashion in public.)

Sunday dinner hours were quite busy - a lot of families feeding there. I overheard some middle school boys (pre-teens/or maybe 13?) talking since they were sitting next to me. One of them called another, "Bro." This sort of causal intimacy, which habitually comes out of the mouths of young (and not-so-young) men strikes me as being a form of fake, casual intimacy. Maybe pre-teens and teens understand something about brotherhood from real brothers; but have they lived long enough to know what it means to stick out hard times with their buddies?

I can't imagine vets of WW2 calling each other bro, even though they had earned each other's respect and affection. But I have heard Iraq vets use that word. The males of our generation and younger may have picked up this habit, but what does the habit really signify? Anything genuine with respect to the relationship? Or is it more of an indicator that men are noticing the loss of close friendship and fraternity among men in our "society" and are trying to make up for it with this sort of a term of casual intimacy or endearment?

Did adelphopoiesis (made infamous by John Boswell) arise in the Byzantine Empire, not only as an alternative to the blood-brotherhood ceremonies found in other societies (too pagan?), but because of the scale of the cities precipitated a loss of friendship between men? Does it originate in causes similar to teh development of oaths of brotherhood  in gangs and secret societies?



I am reminded of Jack Donovan's post on Geoffroi de Charny and true chivalry, and how Donovan encouraged men to read it as a source of the Western martial way. Are knights too "aristocratic" or tied up to feudal notions of nobility? I have to say that I prefer Greek or Roman republican model, but it may be that republicanism is not wholly foreign to the Germanic nations. It seems to me that the pre-Christian Germanic tribes may have been more "republican," electing their own leaders (the kings). I do not think Christianity was the cause of greater social stratification, but their success in conquest and trying to maintain their political system while growing too big. (Sound familiar?) Nonetheless, knights and such are not a republican institution? While there has been a resurgent interest in the Spartans, they may not be an ideal commendable to Americans, either.

At the restaurant I also saw a Caucasian man (with a Hispanic wife?) wearing a front baby carrier. Such men are mocked by others (especially Roissy) for being less than manly. Besides the visual association of baby carriers with women, is there something inherently less manly about a man wearing a baby carrier? A man should keep his arms free for defense; not only that, but concealed carry seems to be impossible when one is wearing a front baby carrier. A rear baby carrier also gets in the way of combat - who would want to put an infant at risk if he could help it? The mother should be taking the child to safety, fleeing or seeking cover. If a man holds a child, he should do it with his hands so he can pass the child off to the mother when necessary. Men should remember the Boy Scout motto of their youths, "Be prepared."

Now, this sort of defensive warrior mindset may be unfamiliar with the sheeple of California, who entrust defense (as well as leadership and liberty) to the political elites. They might even reject it as being unnecessary to a "civilized" age. So be it. But they deserve the scorn they receive from other men as a result.

What of the herb's entitled queen? Does she carry anything? Usually, no, though she may have a child or two in two, maybe not.

"Macho" culture... may not be so macho after all?
1. Are a lot of "patriarchs" just betas demanding unearned alpha status with their women? They do not generate attraction or respect (even if that is owed, along with obedience). It may be that modern career women have disdain for the "ordinary" male - was this true also in the past, in the traditional "patriarchal" culture of China? Or were the women too busy to judge whether their men deserved their respect?

2. They may think of women as being "inferior" men and show a lack of respect towards women, but they are unable to lead them (or love them). Is a lot of Latino "machismo" just talk/bluster/maybe even physical abuse, but no real masculinity other than raw strength or aggression? A man resorting to brute force to deal with his woman, without anything else to make up for it? Would a resentful woman mind it so much if that sort of talk was coming from a man to whom she is attracted?

No comments: