Lead

Mar 30 17 3:42 PM

Tags : :

This is a translation of an article "Be a man", written by Russian blogger Irina Zhabitskaya, about hypermasculinity in Russian culture. Original post (with images) can be found at http://jabbko.livejournal.com/147590.html

In original, instead of "man" was used word "мужик". Russian word "мужик", which has original meaning "peasant", now have no exact translation. Sometimes it transliterated as "muzhik", but closest words in English will be "redneck" or "kern". "Man" is not always appropriate translation, muzhik is a special kind of man.

I have seen enough of this, and while Irina sometimes exaggerates, in my opinion she is close to the truth. Of course, not all men in Russia (and this applies also to my country) are in that way. Only some of men are buying all this to the full extent and promoting it further. But this is enough to create a toxic atmosphere.

===

It's a slightly girly post about the essence of so-called "Russian rednecks". Why are the Russian men are epic failures?

Be a man, endure pain, play football, make a slingshot, fight, defent your point of view, watch movies about war and about cops, get as gift a pneumatic gun, drive a boke, carry a penknife, break your knees, clumb up a tree, throw a punch in the someone's teeth, go to the judo section, go to college, make a career, cut a grease with a father's knife, drink vodka, get drunk, eat red-beat soup, serve in the military, go to the gym, get a post, get bonuses, get the best woman, make her know her place, become a father, a top manager, raise a son, grow a hairy belly, buy a big brutal jeep, buy an apartment, put up an iron door, put everyone in their place, establish discipline between subordinates, buld a country house, buy a traumatic gun, bear the responsibility, deresve the approval of father, hate the weak, hate renegades, you are the man... Why all this is needed, no one understands, but to live with this inferiority complex all his life, and then impose it on his son is a norm for Russia.

Playing the violin is girly, do not know how to fight -- faggot, you love to dress up -- not a man, studying linguisitcs -- woman, long hair -- gay, calm and not corporative job -- lazy ass, reading poetry -- not a man, old or unexpensive car -- weakling, do not drink -- not a buddy, have no cigarettes -- not respecting buddies, smoking cigarettes with menthol -- fag, drinking liquors -- woman, didn't serve in military -- not a man, not top manager -- a wimp, not married -- poof, have no kids -- pauper, you smell good -- fag, no apartment -- a loser, kind to women -- a wimp, no beer belly -- not a man, clean hands -- poof, be a man!! Do not be a woman!! And if not, God forbid, you are not a son, no more, and not a friend or brother!

And this is present only in Russia, only here a man should be a redneck. In any human country, a man can be what he wants, dress as he wants, love anyone he wants, work for what he wants, live where he wants, ride on what he wants and think about what he wants.
Only in Russia the man must join the sect of thick, sweaty brutal, primitive, embittered, smelly, militarized and greedy monkeys, or else he will be considered a woman.

If you do not need to serve in the army, if it's not interesting to fight and watch serials about cops and football, if you do not drink vodka and listen to chanson, do not want to make a career and buy a jeep, you do not have children or you like to dress beautifully -- you have nothing to do in Russia, there you are not a man, you are a second-rate organism, you will always be a second-class person. Leave for a civilized world where people are judged not only by the size of a beer gut or jeep, where there are no rednecks, but there are men, and where no one will be interested in those with whom you sleep, what you wear and what you drink...

It is mysterious, why men of a whole nation are hooked on their gender role, making it their main cause of pride and hyperbolizing their properties, highlighting not the most pleasant ones (there is nothing more to be proud of?). Why do not they want to be beautiful, soft and free of stereotypes? Why sharpen, to the point of pain, the most animalistic of their features, what can be good in this? Approval by the herd of the same monkeys?

Most of all, I do nt understand women, who, probably from the hopelessness, choose such orangutans for husbands, while in the EU and both Americans there are a lot of normal beautiful men... And it is completely unclear, from where is this masculine ideal of a jerky gangster, an unshaven rough soldier or a dorky cop (now also a satiated ruddy balding clerk).

Who are casting those bright images and why?

In general, find someone more interesting than a Russian man.
Quote    Reply   

#1 [url]

Mar 30 17 4:00 PM

From what I saw in business meetings in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Novosibirsk, there was a typical spectrum of men. Some very much socialized like us, some jerks (the CTO of the Moscow telephone company fit that description), and some aggressive and macho. In the high tech world, they were much like what I met all over the world. And, notably, we didn't drink much vodka even at dinner.

But, I also visited a flea market in Moscow and I'll tell you, I was on edge, worried that I might be beaten up, robbed, or both. They were a tough bunch, both the men and women.

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Mar 31 17 12:28 AM

Thank you so much for sharing this.

I recognize this toxic masculinity in right wing Europeans, fundamentalist Americans and the macho cultures in Asia. Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist and mass murdered filled his whole manifes with fear of the feminization of modern man in a successful attempt at supressing his own humanity.

There is positive masculinity and there is this parody of masculinity that fears everything feminine more than anything else. It is grounded in a deep sense of insecurity and inferiority. They are trying to live up to an ideal that has no root in reality, and we are all suffering from it.

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Apr 15 17 1:15 AM

This is what is called 'Homosociality' a model based on strict gender apartheid and gender roles.

In the west long a part of the Abrahamic religions ..but turbocharged from the early 1800s onwards due to the need for mass conscript armies, then for mass industralisation.

Totally artificial by the way and a product of a lot of very deliberate social engineering ..to produce the 'right men'.. Basically borderline sociopaths, automatically slot into hierarchial organisations and follow orders (or give orders if you are from the upper classes) . You take male kids and break them by abuse, of which bullying is a major and quite deliberate component.
Military training has long been like that.

'Young, dumb and full of cum' is the catch cry...installing sexual neuroticism is also a key component
On the other side of the gender division is programming women into being non sexual breeders... Women that hate sex but want kids is the ideal.
You don't want men and women getting too close outside their assigned roles.

'Faux' masculinity' is defined only in terms of being good at violence, such as through sports as an example, why are violent sports pushed more than non violent ones?
Why is the endless going on about porn such a thing ..when the endless violence on media ignored (even by the TERFs)?

In the 1970s studies into Green Berets who volunteered for the Vietnam war and wear resisters showed some key differences Physical abuse as children was one, obviously authoritarianism and dogmatism...but a key was hatred of women. The volunteers are were sexists of the worst kind, wanted sex and hated any woman they had it with...sexual neuroticism basically.. (they are also the type of men that murder many women).

You can chase this 'ideal' right back to Sparta...of the 'perfect' military male built on a base of child physical and sexual abuse (by older men) and apartheid between men and women.

It is so unnatural it is not funny and takes massive amounts of social programming (and punishment) to maintain. We are Homo Sapiens...we bonked ..and were bonked ...by Neanderthals....many of us carry their genes... And left up to themselves males and female rub along pretty well...and LGBTI people have been a part of our species since we evolved.

But why those who push it so hard (the religious organisations, conservatives, TERFs, etc) and attack those who transgress it (women who like and have sex and LGBTI people) know deep in their hearts just how artificial and unnatural it really is.


And guess who is the single biggest transgressor of the homosocial model? Yep...trans women...

Note there is a fine dividing line between homosociality and homosxuaity . Homosexual sex as part of violence by male on male is acceptable to them (and happens endlessly between so called heterosexual males) ...but love and affection between 2 men is not.... Hence their hatred of marriage equality but their endless tolerance of child sex abuse (and of course rape)..

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Apr 18 17 3:25 AM

Totally artificial by the way and a product of a lot of very deliberate social engineering ..to produce the 'right men'.. Basically borderline sociopaths, automatically slot into hierarchial organisations and follow orders (or give orders if you are from the upper classes) . You take male kids and break them by abuse, of which bullying is a major and quite deliberate component.Military training has long been like that.


This is important, and often forgotten in the gender and transgender debates. As Michel Foucault has pointed out, this way of conditioning men became especially important from the Napeoleonic wars and onwards: Men as an aggressive machines mindlessly following orders.

It is interesting to see that the more rigid gender rules came just after the military had started marching in strict formations. There had definitely been a lot of male driven violence before that age, but rarely these kind of attempts at taking away the individuality of soldiers and men. I believe the first war of the truly modern kind was the American Civil War, followed by the two World Wars. When we reach the Second World War, war has become a dehumanizing machinery where generals sacrifice hundreds of thousands men in a single battle. I think this would be impossible if our cultures hadn't developed this new extremist view of gender.

Maybe the reason so many MTF crossdreamers join the military is that they hope the machinery may cleanse them of their female side. Well, the machinery is strong, but not that strong.

 

Last Edited By: jackmolay Apr 18 17 4:54 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Apr 18 17 5:50 AM

I think that it's more about mindset "stronger eats weaker, this is how things was, and this is how things should be". Third Reich and USSR was a machines, fully oriened on war and conquest. They need as much soldiers as possible, so strict gender rules was logical for them. Sparta was very similar to them, totally oriented on war and mass production of soldiers. So it's not so dependent on military formations or tactics.

We can see this in contemporary Russia. A times of USSR there was strict gender laws, supported massively by state. In 90's, when Cold War was over and big war seems to be impossible there was a relaxation of gender rules. In new millenia, when Russia leaders start to see their country surrounded by enemies, and start preparations for war, it comes with state-supported raise of homophobia. "Be a man" becomes an important statement to them again.

It may be not exclusively about wars, but more widely, about seeing world as fundamentally hostile place, where this hostility is something that can't be changed. Men need to be prepared to living in such world, it will be good for them, if they will be used to violence... When people see more potential for better lives, when hostility of the world is more our own creation, which could and should be undone, there is no need to be be a sociopath. There is a need not to be a sociopath.

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Apr 18 17 9:16 AM

That's what I said in another thread: there are fewer and fewer wars that require hand-to-hand combat where a brutal looking suicidal strongman is needed.  Since even masculine females can't beat out a sociopathic suicidal man, then it is little wonder why the sociopathic strongman becomes the archetype of the Perfect Soldier.  But people, we have not come long enough as a species in the macro view of things.  We strive toward diplomacy in the modern world, but keyword here is: STRIVE.  The collective subconsciousness of all human beings (the reptilian part of our brain) has yet to S...L...O..W...L...Y catch with newer more peaceful ways to live.  I take the position that we are DESTINED to always fail.  From a transgender perspective, it is why females despise feminine men.  Just ask TERFs.  They are the ones holding on to he sociopathic suicidal man idea, even when men don't! This is because civilization is weak; there will be wars again and again.  Our psyche are in constant anxiety if the sociopathic suicidal strongman is dead.  

Now, here's what I see:  

(I see kids, boys and girls, all the time! The boys follow me to see what I do, but the girls hug me and kiss me. Some of the boys hug my legs and arms too, especially the little feminine ones! Women and girls, masculine or feminine wouldn't think twice about showing affection towards me.  I don't understand!  Don't they see how stoic I am??? I've got BIG BROWN EYES to better see them with ..... like the wolf in "Little Red".)  

Anyway, in pre-pubescent boys, there is a natural tendency to make order, such as fitting in puzzles and aligning objects.  I lot of this is exhibited by the quiet, introverted boys.  You know, the ones who don't get into fights and arguments easily, perhaps even somewhat feminine you might say.  Now fast forward.   As feminine men, you know, the disdain of TERFs and the "indepedent, career woman," were historically responsible for shoe making, watch making, jewelry making, and yeah.......LEGO building.....yeah, the same skills in LEGO building cooperation are the same in creating aircrafts, tanks, drones, and steath planes. This side is not entirely female, you know.  There's a lot of pre-adolescent boyish behavior disguised, but not necessary immature.  

The brawny, crazy, suicidal soldier got much of the credit over the centuries, but the watch makers, chefs, and wig makers were overlooked.  Sure, they don't make the covers of Muscles & Fitness magazine (that ususally has a man on the cover, btw), but these domesticated guys helped civilization move along.  To me, these beta males are the real "partners" of the alpha males, not necessarily women.  

If society continues to strive for progress (and fail once in a while, I hope), more attention must be given to feminine men, like, Men's History Month, MGTOW (forget the last one, forget that one, but just saying...) image
 

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Jun 27 17 2:00 AM

I've read the article before. It's a good article. It doesn't apply only to Russia though. It's more or less what men tacitly are expected to be all over, not least in my country, Sweden. Let me first make a personal admission so not to cause any confusion: Whatever the effects on society and social cohesion, good or bad, I personally loathe and have always hated that masculine ideal. Partially, I have also been a victim of it. "Toxic", as Barbara says, is a good description. Notice too how it's the diametrical opposite of another, basically extinct masculine ideal, namely that of the gentleman. Which adds to the possibilities of where it came from and how it arose. Putting aside the apparent idea it's simply a matter of eternal biological masculinity and the effects of hormones, and instead try for social explanations, I believe it has something to do with the rise of democracy.

But just as important as explaining the basis of it would be to explain why it persists. And then we come down to the preference and choice by women. I have never seen the borderline sociopath football and combat knife tattooed "be a man" guy who looks up to "father" lack a girlfriend, especially if they also are able to fix the car and build an entire house on their own, which is actually often the case. I see it daily at work and I've seen it my entire life. Actual women don't shun these guys, like they do Gammas and below, nor do they settle for them in the same way they might a provider Beta. On the contrary, the humdrum everyday of family life will in this case have been preceeded by an episode of infatuated love. Even a feminist would always choose red-beat soup man over a Gamma, whatever she might otherwise consciously profess (in fact, she doesn't say otherwise). And then of course, she will go on about how all men are inherently violence prone brutal troglodytes. Not to mention how feminism, our society's leading ideology (well, part of institutionalised and hegemonic PC'ism anyway), has persistently and always glorified masculine traits and dominance, urging its daughters to try to take over from men and become as un-feminine as possible. Could be it's a tough deal, but it might just be a fact of life. These men persist because they are the product of female choice. No one is happy, but genes get reproduced. Like Xora use to say, it's all very Darwinian.

And of course, that signal is not lost on young men growing up. Well, perhaps it was, at least for a while. Which brings us over to the "far right", the masculinism of red pillers etc. What often gets overlooked in the origin of this movement is its partial roots in pick up theory and the realization how assholes, relatively speaking, always get their way with women and nice guys finish last. In other words, it's not least a deeply seated resentment that motivates these men to take on radical rigthtist as well as misogynist positions, some of which of course are not palatable at all - many times as far away from the buried ideal of the gentleman as you can get. The typical red piller is often not the red-beat soup troglodyte when it comes down to it. He's just a genuinely nice guy who got mugged.

"We live only to discover beauty. All else is a form of waiting."

- Khalil Gibran


If I cannot be a feminine traditional woman, what's the point of being a woman?

- Me

Last Edited By: Monique Jun 27 17 4:18 AM. Edited 12 times.

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Jul 6 17 7:55 PM

Monique wrote:
I've read the article before. It's a good article. It doesn't apply only to Russia though. It's more or less what men tacitly are expected to be all over, not least in my country, Sweden. Let me first make a personal admission so not to cause any confusion: Whatever the effects on society and social cohesion, good or bad, I personally loathe and have always hated that masculine ideal. Partially, I have also been a victim of it. "Toxic", as Barbara says, is a good description. Notice too how it's the diametrical opposite of another, basically extinct masculine ideal, namely that of the gentleman. Which adds to the possibilities of where it came from and how it arose. Putting aside the apparent idea it's simply a matter of eternal biological masculinity and the effects of hormones, and instead try for social explanations, I believe it has something to do with the rise of democracy.

But just as important as explaining the basis of it would be to explain why it persists. And then we come down to the preference and choice by women. I have never seen the borderline sociopath football and combat knife tattooed "be a man" guy who looks up to "father" lack a girlfriend, especially if they also are able to fix the car and build an entire house on their own, which is actually often the case. I see it daily at work and I've seen it my entire life. Actual women don't shun these guys, like they do Gammas and below, nor do they settle for them in the same way they might a provider Beta. On the contrary, the humdrum everyday of family life will in this case have been preceeded by an episode of infatuated love. Even a feminist would always choose red-beat soup man over a Gamma, whatever she might otherwise consciously profess (in fact, she doesn't say otherwise). And then of course, she will go on about how all men are inherently violence prone brutal troglodytes. Not to mention how feminism, our society's leading ideology (well, part of institutionalised and hegemonic PC'ism anyway), has persistently and always glorified masculine traits and dominance, urging its daughters to try to take over from men and become as un-feminine as possible. Could be it's a tough deal, but it might just be a fact of life. These men persist because they are the product of female choice. No one is happy, but genes get reproduced. Like Xora use to say, it's all very Darwinian.

And of course, that signal is not lost on young men growing up. Well, perhaps it was, at least for a while. Which brings us over to the "far right", the masculinism of red pillers etc. What often gets overlooked in the origin of this movement is its partial roots in pick up theory and the realization how assholes, relatively speaking, always get their way with women and nice guys finish last. In other words, it's not least a deeply seated resentment that motivates these men to take on radical rigthtist as well as misogynist positions, some of which of course are not palatable at all - many times as far away from the buried ideal of the gentleman as you can get. The typical red piller is often not the red-beat soup troglodyte when it comes down to it. He's just a genuinely nice guy who got mugged.

(12 times you edited that?)

 
Just try eating more fruits and veggies and jogging in place for hours like I told you to if you want to look good!!  

I once saw an anti-feminist meme that said that if you give a feminist a boyfriend, she stops being a feminist.  

The rise of democracy and the decline of hand-to-hand combat in wars are very much connected to the rise of feminine concerns. BUT, evolutionary psychology is still the problem, Monique-y!  Women continue to choose bad men (seriously, you had to use "troglodytes," as in prehistoric cavemen? image) is because bad men are FUN, damn it!! Why do you think that silly 50 Shades of Grey sold so well?  Bad men are risky, adventurous, ambitious, treacherous, etc.! Assholes have all the traits necessay to survive a dangerous world, and yeah, maybe to save the woman in it and hopefully pass these bad boy genes onto their sons.  Damn evolution has not caught up with democracy, liberalism......you know, the nice ideas in life image because Nature doesn't care for nice things!  Nature is "survival of the fittest."  Evil nature produces and sees who wins out the longest.  

Before democracy paved the road for women and minority concerns to come to the surface, gamma and beta boys had a chance for a girl because any boy to help pass on the genes was better than no boy at all.  The problem, as I see it, is that as females become more and more masculine (that's why FTMs don't seem to exist to Blanchard & Co. because all females are urged to smash the damn glass ceiling - never mind that the broken glass will give them brain damage........where was I?) evil evolutionary psychology still hasn't changed in boy selection because maternity is expensive! Notwithstanding health care bills, maternity is costly both physically and financially.  Sure, manipulating a beta boy to provide money for life should be enough for a girl, but, life is still perilous, despite democracy.  A girl, no matter how well provided for in terms of education and physical protection, is simply not safe from society or pregnancy. She needs a muscle man, and thus, morons like Chad and Leroy!!

Try citrus fruits.  Wear expensive sneakers, like Chad and Leroy.    

Last Edited By: lal2828 Jul 6 17 8:05 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Jul 7 17 12:58 PM

I spend a fair amount of my time deconstructing and subverting gender stereotypes. I use the term "trans" a fair amount, but I am more technically "queer" than "trans." The sex designation on my Oregon driver license says "X" -- first in the nation to offer this option, not M and not F. The new mug shot on my newly issued X gender driver license looks pretty non-binary.

Now and again I will state, "I'm in transition. I still have my ovaries and breasts, but the testosterone is kicking my ass!" LMAO

People sometimes remark, "You mean you wear women's underwear?"

To which I reply, "No . . . It all belongs to me!"

This is not Russia, but locally we have "macho" -- a Latino term. I sum it up as being: Cammo, dipping, spitting, scratching, Carhartt overalls, Romeo style shoes, pickup truck, goatee, trucker hat, chainsaws, firearms, macho tattoos . . .

I am hetero-sexual cis-M. But I am NOT stereotypically "male." Locally this has an interesting effect. I have hair past the shoulders, earrings, carry a purse (a "man bag" -- It's a PURSE.) Women pick up on the fact that I am non-stereotypical, that I am articulate, sarcastic, and that I reject/subvert the macho stereotype. Locally this identity provides a welcome relief from the local redneck knuckle draggers.

Ironically, I realize recently that most females in this area wear pretty much the same sorts of clothing as I do. We call this "beach casual" -- pants, T-shirts, heavier shirts more like a jacket, sandals. Also shoulder length hair put up and let down, earrings, purse. It's obvious I am cis-M, but those who pay attention (rare in this region) realize that I am "non-binary" or "queer."

I am able to "pass" as female with a great deal of work. But it's a masquerade, not a gender ID. I like the new Oregon law, not M, not F. I am X.
 

Allison Wunderland's Transcend Dance
http://allisontranscend.blogspot.com/

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help