Not a lot of stoics in politics, but I did enjoy Mr. Aurelius' book "Stuff I Fret About That I'll Never Do Good Enough Even Though I'm The Most Powerful Man In The Known World".

A little neurotic and self-absorbed for my reading taste, but still. Charming.

> Charming.

The cover illustration on the paperback was piquant.

(Amy is right.)

Not a lot of stoics in politics.... ~ Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 15, 2020 1:32 AM

Not a lot of stoics in society today. Social media doesn't exactly encourage stoicism. It encourages and rewards dramatics.

However, there is a social media page called "The Daily Stoic" that will email you pithy quotes. Because that's what philosophy is, bumper sticker affirmations? Right?

The cover illustration on the paperback was piquant. ~ Crid at October 15, 2020 1:49 AM

Really, the cover on mine was just a bust of a dead guy, presumably Marcus himself.

My husband was really confused by American notions of masculinity when he lived here. He was told his playing the flute was feminine. He was like "WTF?! It's a military instrument!!!"

> that's what philosophy is,
> bumper sticker affirmations?
> Right?

In the age of Twitter, bumper sticker are antiquarian.

In demonstrating your indefatigable and independent adherence to principle before a peer group, it's much easier to delete and restate a Tweet than to peel off a firmly-applied & weather-seasoned bumper sticker.

Y'know… when the wind blows.

> "WTF?! It's a military
> instrument!!!"

The contemporary eye presumes the Vatican's Swiss Guard is dressed in bright, playful fabrics to delight tourists and calibrate the exposure settings of their cameras. But to an underfed, superstitious villager in the late Medieval, the bright uniform of a marauding soldier from Basel, eyeing your teenage daughter on his romp past your hovel, was anything but clownish.

...one that delights in cartoonish visions of the president donning a Superman t-shirt, body slamming COVID-19 like a pro-wrestler....

This is the same president who, as a reality star, appeared on and promoted professional wrestling - as cartoon-macho a pursuit as any in history. Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson may have been cartoonishly macho, but they had at least been the things they pretended to be - soldiers, hunters, duelists, etc.

Medieval knights were expected to excel on the battlefield as well as to write poems (lays) to the women they wooed. Japanese samurai were expected to embody both military ideals and artistic ones.

...the concept was expanded far beyond the display of courage on the battlefield to serve as a a comprehensive vision of the moral life.

Someone on this forum once speculated that masculinity as a comprehensive vision of a complete man took a dive when homosexuality started to gain acceptance. Cultural pursuits like art, literature, wine, classical music, and fashion - popular with gay men - were judged suspect and abandoned by those afraid of being seen as gay.

Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire made their careers dancing with beautiful women and being fashion icons. John Travolta and Patrick Swayze both trained as dancers before becoming macho movie stars. How many straight men today would, or could, follow that path?

Today, male fashion has been ceded to gay men, as straight men stick with t-shirts and jeans to avoid being "too well" dressed. While the suit is still a symbol of manliness, no adornments or flourishes are allowed if one wishes to remain macho. The tie must be a solid, striped, or foulard pattern. To remain macho, one must wear a suit as if one is doing so under protest.

By the seventies, the dumb jock was the exemplar of desirable male traits. To be too well-read or well-spoken reduced one to being the sidekick who never got the girl and was never perceived as "cool." The proudly ignorant "sweat hogs" of Welcome Back Jotter were examplars of cool while the smart kids became Urkel.

By the eighties, society began swinging back toward well-dressed and well-educated as a male ideal - Dress for Success by John Molloy was a best-seller. People who went to Podunk State displayed Harvard stickers on their Toyota Corollas in an effort to be perceived as smarter and better-educated than they probably were.

In fashion, Reagan introduced the brown suit and flat pocket square - godawful, but at least a sign that fashion was trending toward dressing up rather than dressing down as the torn jeans that later replaced the suit trended.

The professional wrestling exemplar of masculinity will not last. However, by the time it has outlived its utility, one wonders if there be enough admired men who are well-read, well-spoken, and sufficiently in control of their emotions to influence society in that direction?

Education is trending away from a classical education and toward a polyglot of pseudo-intellectual theories and pseudo-science. Our national rhetoric - including political speech - has fallen from highbrow references to soundbites.

Was there a single memorable line in any of the convention speeches of the past two elections? The past four? Since Reagan's "shining city on a hill," has there been a truly memorable political speech?

Would our oh-so-jaded society have accepted a high-brow speech with soaring rhetoric? Or would it have mocked a politician who attempted that, as Politico reports that John Kerry's campaign workers mocked his use of Kennedy-esque exhortations to make pedestrian points, even when ordering lunch, "And so I ask, who among us would not enjoy a delicious Subway sandwich."

A country gets the politicians it deserves. What the hell have we done to deserve these idiots?

But to an underfed, superstitious villager in the late Medieval, the bright uniform of a marauding soldier from Basel, eyeing your teenage daughter on his romp past your hovel, was anything but clownish. ~ Crid at October 15, 2020 7:19 AM

The bright, repeating pattern on the Swiss Guard uniforms also served to confuse the enemy about how many soldiers he was facing. A mass of Swiss Guards was difficult to count with so many stripes.

Massed men in bright uniforms looked like a larger mass than they actually constituted, thus giving an edge to the undersized army. Weapons were not long-ranged or particularly accurate then, so camouflage and hiding were not to the soldier's advantage when facing a massed enemy. Looking like a larger mass was.

The British infantry were especially skilled with bayonets and left them attached to their muskets when charging the enemy. Gleaming in the sun, the bayonets reminded the enemy soldiers that a stabbing awaited when the redcoats reached them.

As weapons got more accurate and longer-ranged, warfare changed. So did the value of and objective in disguising the number of troops in one's forces. Camouflage became an ally.

I realize most liberartarians have unquestioningly adopted the anti-clerical bias of the Left - and are blinded by it - but you really need to learn more about Christianity (muscular or otherwise) before you go parroting this nonsense.

It only reveals your own ignorance.

Christian notions of masculinity - stewardship, brotherhood, service, and faithfulness - flow from Jewish monotheism and other sources.... Like (ahem) Marcus Aurelius...

These notions are largely responsible for the free, decent West all you libertarian turks are living in.

...Astounding to seee these prejudices on a blog whose Goddess is smart enough to parse the problems in the post-christian West. Honey, there's a reason the Marxists spent the last 70 years running down Judeo-Christian men and subverting their marriages. A lot of the good stuff was/is borne on their shoulders. It disappears when "empowered" women cause MGTOW.

...you've posted quite accurately about the decay and its root in lost values. Your blind spot about religion keeps you from connecting the last dots, to the source of those values.

It's lovely to think we can pick the story up in the middle but we can't - on threads about everything from euthanasia to abortion to gay marriage to... I have repeatedly asked the freethinkers here what moral/social force will restrain base self-interest when Judeo-Christian notions of personhood are ennervated. There is never any answer beyond condescending hand-waving.

So:
1. If you're going to rag on something at least find out what it says. For your own sakes dahlings.

2. People perceptive enough to see the failures and dishonesty of the Left should be smart enough not to believe any cardboard cutout caricatures presented by the Left.

3. Until you can recreate a society as good as the one you are sneering at - maybe you shouldn't be sneering ao much, eh?

“Massed men in bright uniforms looked like a larger mass than they actually constituted, thus giving an edge to the undersized army. Weapons were not long-ranged or particularly accurate then, so camouflage and hiding were not to the soldier's advantage when facing a massed enemy. Looking like a larger mass was.”

Well dyed cloth was also expensive, Bright colors on uniforms signaled to the peasants and to the opposing army that they were up against a team with *resources*

There was quite the competition amount various volunteer groups in the civil war as to who could have the showiest uniforms.

Contrast this to the shoeless and half naked Confederates, beaten and sick by the time of the surrender at Appomattox.

Conan said:
"Someone on this forum once speculated that masculinity as a comprehensive vision of a complete man took a dive when homosexuality started to gain acceptance."

More specifically, when heterosexuals started to realize that gay men even EXISTED.

Maybe you meant this thread, in which E. Anthony Rotundo's 1994 book, American Manhood, gets mentioned at February 3, 2019 12:06 PM?

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2019/02/the-crazy-pretz.html

Maybe you meant this thread, in which E. Anthony Rotundo's 1994 book, American Manhood, gets mentioned at February 3, 2019 12:06 PM? ~ Lenona at October 15, 2020 8:53 AM

I probably did mean that thread. I couldn't remember the specifics of who proposed the theory or on which thread and I didn't want to give credit to the wrong person.

Thanks for the link and the update.

Bill Burr has a good self-satire on hyper-masculinity. It has him being resistant to buying a Halloween pumpkin. YouTube title is, "What are you - a fag?"

Ben david is spot on.

And though I disagree with Conan, "Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson may have been cartoonishly macho;" no, they were excellent, high-energy, Americans. I agree with his views on knights, samurai, and the comprehensive vision of a complete man.

Trump is the millenial Ronald Reagan. He is Democrat style without the adoring media to sanitize it. Jesse Jackson or Ted Kennedy without nice editing.

Also, who is looking to Trump (or any president for that matter) on how to be manly? The guy is old (74). Did any of you look to your grandparents for masculinity tips? Or feminine ones? Do young women want to be sexy like Pelosi?

And, about people in the 1920s (guess who wrote this?):

“Perhaps 'camp' is set in the 'twenties because after that differences between the sexes - especially visible differences - began to fade. This, of course, has never mattered to women in the least. They know they are women. To homosexuals, who must, with every breath they draw, with every step they take, demonstrate that they are feminine, it is frustrating. They look back in sorrow to that more formal era and try to relive it.

"The whole structure of society was at that time much more rigid than it has ever been since , and in two main ways . The first of these was sexual.

"The short skirts, bobbed hair, and flat chests that were in fashion were in fact symbols of immaturity. No one ever drew attention to this, presumably out of politeness. The word 'boyish' was used to describe the girls of that era. This epithet they accepted graciously. They knew that they looked nothing like boys. They also realized that it was meant to be a compliment. Manliness was all the rage.

"The men of the ‘twenties searched themselves for vestiges of effeminacy as though for lice. They did not worry about their characters but about their hair and their clothes. Their predicament was that they must never be caught worrying about either. I once heard a slightly dandified friend of my brother say, 'People are always accusing me of taking pride in my appearance.’

"The sexual meaning of behaviour was only sketchily understood, but the symbolism of clothes was recognized by everyone. To wear suede shoes was to be under suspicion. Anyone who had hair rather than bristle at the back of his neck was thought to be an artist, a foreigner or worse. A friend of mine who was young in the same decade as I says that, when he was introduced to an elderly gentleman as an artist, the gentleman said, ‘Oh I know this young man is an artist. The other day I saw him in the street in a brown jacket.’ "

“More specifically, when heterosexuals started to realize that gay men even EXISTED.”

Your knowledge of history is sorely lacking. Homosexuals, and homosexual behavior has existed with greater and lesser degree of tolerance throughout human history.

I would think anyone well versed (in even 19th century British literature) would be aware of that.

Some of the most cartoonishly masculine men, are, in fact gay, because their culture values *ripped* physique.

> John Travolta and Patrick Swayze
> both trained as dancers before
> becoming macho movie stars. How
> many straight men today would,
> or could, follow that path?

Well, none with the proficiency of Kelly or Astaire. But there are a couple of action guys....

I'd presumed the intimidation of the uniforms was more about the wealth and economic intimidation they portended- I hadn't imagined (or read of any) dazzle implications.

(That still goes on.)

Isab, I think you misread that on purpose.

Of course gays have always existed. I never implied otherwise, and you know it.

But, taboos are created and destroyed All The Time, and even fundamental skills can be forgotten. Example: the ancient Greeks knew how to write for a few centuries in the second millennium BCE, and then forgot how for a few centuries after 1100 BCE.

So, in the same vein, while the ancients were well aware of homosexuality, that was because it wasn't taboo, and heterosexuals could hardly help but know about it, even the young ones. However, in strict, heavily Christian societies, is it any surprise that many, MANY heterosexuals grew up unaware that gays existed, since not only was being gay illegal, but people weren't even supposed to TALK about such "indecent" subjects? Also, many gay people didn't know, until they were well into their adult years, that others like them existed, for the same reason.

Besides, we were talking about U.S. society, and the U.S., per se, didn't even exist until well after a century of Puritan influence.

“So, in the same vein, while the ancients were well aware of homosexuality, that was because it wasn't taboo, and heterosexuals could hardly help but know about it, even the young ones. However, in strict, heavily Christian societies, is it any surprise that many, MANY heterosexuals grew up unaware that gays existed, since not only was being gay illegal, but people weren't even supposed to TALK about such "indecent" subjects? Also, many gay people didn't know, until they were well into their adult years, that others like them existed, for the same reason.”

Your ignorance of what goes on among young males in every town in America, as well as the world, is appalling

You have fixated on a gay trope, a stereotype about sexuality that is cartoonish in it’s assertions about both Christianity, and adolescent males.

I really have no idea where you are getting this nonsense. Reddit?

Hmmmm.

Soy-Boy neck-bearded basement dweller, or "cartoonish" masculinity.

Decisions, decisions...

Could any of this have to do with the uncomfortable fact that when it comes to sperm counts and testosterone levels, young men of today are literally half the men their grandfathers were?

Honestly, Isab, can't you read, or what?

Given that I referred to the times when being gay was illegal, I clearly was referring to the past, not the present. So was Conan, if you'd bothered to notice. So was the British gay writer I quoted who described the 1920s. (Were the American 1920s really all that different, socially?)

Regarding that last paragraph of his I quoted at 9:19 AM, the author expanded on that elsewhere and he made it clear that yes, there WERE plenty of adults in the 1920s and 1930s who didn't know that gays, per se, existed - but they were still keenly aware of - and dangerously hostile to - anyone who dressed differently, since they couldn't help but see them. Also, in 1930, according to him, other than actors, even women weren't supposed to wear makeup; such women were assumed to be prostitutes.

Obviously, with the MODERN media, there's almost no way for today's kids NOT to hear of almost every type of sexuality before they even reach middle school. Along with plenty of misinformation, of course - but there's hardly a lurid word they haven't at least heard of. This is partly because modern Americans tend to act as though it's somehow automatically rude when other people refuse to talk about a particular subject with them. The idea that "there's a time and place for everything, and this isn't it" has become an alien idea.

If you like, here's what I said in the 2019 thread:

In an era (pre-1960) when academics were considered far more of a manly pursuit than they are now - mainly because back then, girls were often discouraged from going to college - it was much easier for those upper-class men who didn't like sports not only to be open about it but to pursue Ph.D.s instead without losing face. Nowadays, even WOMEN are under some pressure to be sports fans, if not athletes. No thanks.

In the same vein, this reminds me of the 1994 book "American Manhood: Transformations In Masculinity From The Revolution To The Modern Era" by E. Anthony Rotundo. In it, IIRC, he said that in the 19th century, upper-class men and some middle-class men, who didn't have to make a living with their physical strength, did all sorts of things (ballroom dancing, poetry, painting, writing emotional letters to male friends) and were not accused of being gay, mainly because back then, gay men weren't supposed to exist! (Or, at least, many adults had never even heard of homosexuality.) That would explain, in a way, the appeal of men like Fred Astaire and Leslie Howard as late as the 1930s. (My baby-boomer mother could never understand the appeal of either man - they were just feminine to her. She did, however, like Gene Kelly.)

So, ironically, as gay men of all stripes become more free to be visible, straight men tend to balk more and more at anything "feminine."

I think this is semi-relevant too. From Humphrey Bogart, on 1930 Hollywood vs. 1950:

"I came out here with one suit and everybody said I looked like a bum. Twenty years later Marlon Brando came out with only a sweatshirt and the town drooled over him. That shows how much Hollywood has progressed."

Lenona. Being gay is not illegal. Nor has it ever been in the United States.

Certain sexual acts have been illegal even when they were indulged in by married couples. Adultery has also been illegal, as has booze and many drugs which still are.

Why you think illegality was ever a barrier to teenagers knowing about these things, and indulging in them, is a mystery to me.

Surely no one can be this naive?

Christianity successfully represses *nothing* about human biology or human urges.

"Certain sexual acts have been illegal even when they were indulged in by married couples."

I may have exaggerated a bit, but it comes down to the same thing, unofficially.

How many adult heterosexuals, married or not, ever went to jail in the 20th century for any consensual sex act that didn't involve prostitution or underage partners? Compared to gays, that is? Such as, you know, fornication? (Leaving aside miscegenation.)

I can't even recall any ARRESTS for heterosexual adultery...

Not to mention that blatant job and housing discrimination against gay people didn't used to be illegal.

But things that are socially taboo are prone to all sorts of hush-ups, so in the decades before mass media (and as late as the 1960s), there were even adults who didn't really understand that pot was far less risky than, say, heroin. (Maybe even less risky than alcohol or tobacco.) Hence, drug hysteria.

So if your status is considered shameful, chances are you're going to feel somewhat afraid and ashamed to go looking for others like yourself, right? Hint: it was commonly assumed, half a century ago, that most gay men were pedophiles. What young man would have wanted to risk THAT type of rumor?

“I can't even recall any ARRESTS for heterosexual adultery...”

Again, we have reached the point, where Lenona hasn’t heard about it, so therefore it must not have happened.

Adultery was frequently punished under the UCMJ. Up to a year in jail. In a state with common law marriage, cohabitation outside of marriage could be prosecuted as bigamy and sometimes was.

Although evidence in these cases was often problematic. I can recall some really interesting cases where the evidence was thrown out, because of probable cause.

Prior to the Internet it was much easier to just move out of the jurisdiction if you were in trouble with the law. Most smart people, did just that. Reinvent yourself somewhere else, and keep your nose clean.

Just like all of the other laws, these sorts of laws often result in selective prosecution targeting disfavored individuals.
This is why most libertarians, myself included) favor fewer laws in general on the books.

If only this fellow had played the saxophone on Arsenio. Then he would be the sort of he-man you crave!

Adultery was frequently punished under the UCMJ. ~ Isab at October 15, 2020 3:34 PM

Lt. Col. James Calvin "Cal" Cunningham, candidate for the US Senate from North Carolina is under investigation by the Army Reserve for committing adultery with the wife of a wounded veteran when she was a campaign consultant. They exchanged racy texts and she confirmed that the relationship was a physical one.

I notice you didn't say just how recent the last prison sentence for adultery was.

"therefore it must not have happened."

No, just that people to expect the general media to cover juicy stories like that, or to dig up anything from the not-so-distant past that sounds crazy today. At least to the point where MOST people have heard of at least a few famous cases, if there were that many cases to begin with. (You didn't name any famous cases.)

Anyway, regarding why gays were more likely to be persecuted and prosecuted for the same crimes as heterosexuals, I'd say this is pretty relevant.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/when-homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder

Excerpt:

...First published in 1968, DSM-II (the second edition of the American classiifcation of mental disorders) listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In this, the DSM followed in a long tradition in medicine and psychiatry, which in the 19th century appropriated homosexuality from the Church and, in an élan of enlightenment, promoted it from sin to mental disorder.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members attending its convention to vote on whether they believed homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain it.

The APA then compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it, in effect, with "sexual orientation disturbance" for people "in conflict with" their sexual orientation. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) only removed homosexuality from its ICD classification with the publication of ICD-10 in 1992, although ICD-10 still carries the construct of "ego-dystonic sexual orientation". In this condition, the person is not in doubt about his or her sexual preference, but "wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders"...

“I notice you didn't say just how recent the last prison sentence for adultery was.”

When do you think the last prison sentence for homosexual acts was?

Homosexual acts: what a gay lumberjack uses to chop down a tree.

@ Isab:
Homosexual acts between consenting adults has not been a crime under the UCMJ for a number of years. Adultery is, however, still a crime, especially if it effects good order and discipline. A commissioned officer having an affair with the spouse of an enlisted person is usually regarded as a serious breach of standards. And, even if proving adultery is problematic, he can still be charged with Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.

However, because of his political status, my guess is that it will be handled the same way Hunter Biden’s case was handled. He’ll be allowed to resign his commission in lieu of Court Martial. Then it becomes a matter between spouses, just like it does with other civilians.

The other day Lenona was telling us about how white people walk up to random black people at airports and expect them to hold their luggage for them. At this point I've asked black guys, hispanic guys, asian guys, random people at the supermarket, all of them said the same thing. Bullshit. Bags go to the TSA and nowhere else. Only some white people thought there could be some truth to the claim.

In the same vein, no the gays didn't scare all the straights out of fashion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_suits

Look at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles from 1919. They are wearing the exact same suit as today. Men's fashion is almost always boring. Yes there are brief periods of insanity and creativity but things swiftly revert to the mean. Blaming a style that is well over 100 years old on gays in the 70s doesn't make sense. If you really must blame someone then blame King Louis XIV and Charles II from the 1600s. Though the style actually predates even that.

Actually, I blame the French Revolution. Up until then, men's fashion was quite interesting. Think about Rococo, Baroque, Elizabethan, Renaissance, Tudor, Late Gothic, Early Gothic... for most of history men's fashion has been lavish and awesome.

At the time of the Revolution the French were trend setters, as they are now, and after the Revolution no one wanted to look like aristocracy, so that's when styles sobered up. Women's fashion bounced back for a bit, but frankly for the past century it's been as boring as men's, when you compare it to the pre-Revolution stuff.

“@ Isab:
Homosexual acts between consenting adults has not been a crime under the UCMJ for a number of years. Adultery is, however, still a crime, especially if it effects good order and discipline. A commissioned officer having an affair with the spouse of an enlisted person is usually regarded as a serious breach of standards. And, even if proving adultery is problematic, he can still be charged with Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.“

As a JD and a former Army Officer, I’m well aware of that. However the problem is, any law on the books can be used as leverage in a selective prosecution, or to force a resignation.

Annoyance is propulsion! I have an archive of threads on this blog what have genuinely surprised. Much has been learned about human nature!

> under investigation by the Army
> Reserve for committing adultery

Here's one of them.

I wish the the Feebzy link about Jill Kelley was still hot, but it's been a few years.

From the NY Post piece:

For his fellow officers, Petraeus’ love of the spotlight was an annoyance, but not a transgression. Even his tawdry “under the desk” sex with a squirrely hustler on the make (a “writer” who had to have “her” book ghost-written) also might have been written off as an all-too-human mistake (let he who is without sin. . .). What killed Petraeus was his dazzling hypocrisy.

The general held himself up as a paragon of self-discipline and model family man. In Iraq and then Afghanistan, he rigorously enforced “General Order No. 1,” which prohibits our troops from fraternization, all sex, alcohol consumption, the possession of pornography and, generally, from any activity that might make the boredom and terror of this kind of war more bearable. When our troops screwed up, they got hammered.