Well, it looks like I'm the first one to get a tee out of the bag, so I guess I'll step up to hit the first drive.
I think that I've read Chapter One in the past, which made re-reading it all the more interesting. I may end up expanding some of these topics out into a few separate posts tomorrow, but here are my first impressions in a more inclusive, less organized format:
A Preliminary Note.
I'm going to do the unthinkable to some of those reading this blog, and fully accept the premise and arguments for the sake of discussion. Yes, it might cause me some consternation to not touch on the faults in a syllogism (e.g. "I rest my case" on p. 18) or respond with a quasi-feminist response to some of his gender classifications, but lets just say the Teddy quote about critics (p. xiii) was enough to keep me on point, and leave the criticisms to someone else.
Age.
The first overarching thought I had throughout the first chapter was the continued references to the boy-man dialectic he establishes. Throughout, he says that the things we wanted as boys are things we need as men (i.e. we play with toy guns as boys so we can go hunt as men). I think the most striking thing about this re-reading is how different it feels 10 years later. When I first heard about this and read it way-back-when, I felt like it was completely on point. "Yes," I thought, "this book is about my deep and unabiding desire to battle and vanquish Nazi's, zombies, terminator ninjas, and Nazi zombie terminator ninjas." Reading it as a 27 year old, it doesn't hit me so viscerally.
Dad, is there a medical reason for this? I felt my most testosterone-filled from 16 to 23 (give or take). During those years, I remember really missing out on the opportunities that football presented -- the ability to just demolish somebody and possibly get hurt in the process. That desire feels less urgent now, though I wonder if that's just because I've been so preoccupied with coursework since 2010.
Challenge vs. Wilderness.
I was a little confused about his portrayal of our need for wilderness. I feel like we as a group have answered fundamental questions like "Who am I?" and "What am I destined for?" around a kitchen table (p. 5). The fact that we didn't do it while we hiked the continental divide or hunted deer doesn't make those answers any less real, nor did our desire to rationally talk them out make us any less manly.
I felt like he hid some hints that what he was talking about was more "challenge" than "wilderness." He includes in the "Adventure to Live" conclusion that he "went of to Washington D.C. as a young man" to see if he could make it there (p. 14). Obviously this isn't about hunting elk in thin air; it's about going into treacherous territory, even if only metaphorically. "Adventure requires something of us, puts us to the test" (p. 13).
I think the real crux of this, especially when combined with "A Battle to Fight," is that we as men have a desire to make a name for ourselves, to crush the competition, to conquer the world before us and lead it. We have a desire to do things "because... no one has done it before." This can be expressed through our vocations just as easily as it can through hunting and trapping. I think that desire is satisfied just as much by being the first man to successfully transplant a heart or successfully arguing an historic case before the Supreme Court.
This is why I found his section on Corporate America to be somewhat hollow. I don't think the cut throat world of high-stakes litigation could at all be characterized as something driving this adventurous, competitive, "battle drive" out of the heart of man. In fact, I don't know that any of our industries could fairly be characterized that way. At the same time, I can see how Josh's endless deck editing and my future immeasurable piles of paperwork to review is somewhat castrating.
Manliness.
This leads me to my last main though, which is the general discussion of manliness. One word jumped out to me most in one of his discussions of manliness: "hairless" (p. 8). I find it interesting that this was written in 2001, just before the wave of "metrosexualty" crested and about six years before Mad Men came out. I think American culture as a whole heard rebukes like Eldredge's and has returned to a more authentic masculine model in its popular portrayals (Andrea was confused when she overlooked my notes from Chapter One and saw "DON. DRAPER.", but now you know why). Obviously hairiness doesn't define man, but some have argued it matters.
I really got on board with his portrayal of masculinity when he talked about the "nice guy" model. As a historically "nice guy," I find this section a little challenging. I think a lot of my focused personality changes in law school were based on leaving that occasionally feckless, weak guy behind and grabbing a mantle that was more Rooster Cogburn than Sam Seaborn.
Finally, before my miscellany list, this was the most challenging sentence of the first chapter: "It is fear that keeps a man at home where things are neat and orderly and under his control" (p. 5). I couldn't help but wonder if I am a fearful man. It's a very worrisome thought.
Well, that's my shotgun-approach to the first chapter. I might edit this down tomorrow, or split it into separate posts now that I have my rough draft down. I'll also try to put my thoughts on Chapter two down tomorrow.
I feel like I left the fairway wide open, so whoever's up next, grip it and rip it.
-B
I think that I've read Chapter One in the past, which made re-reading it all the more interesting. I may end up expanding some of these topics out into a few separate posts tomorrow, but here are my first impressions in a more inclusive, less organized format:
A Preliminary Note.
I'm going to do the unthinkable to some of those reading this blog, and fully accept the premise and arguments for the sake of discussion. Yes, it might cause me some consternation to not touch on the faults in a syllogism (e.g. "I rest my case" on p. 18) or respond with a quasi-feminist response to some of his gender classifications, but lets just say the Teddy quote about critics (p. xiii) was enough to keep me on point, and leave the criticisms to someone else.
Age.
The first overarching thought I had throughout the first chapter was the continued references to the boy-man dialectic he establishes. Throughout, he says that the things we wanted as boys are things we need as men (i.e. we play with toy guns as boys so we can go hunt as men). I think the most striking thing about this re-reading is how different it feels 10 years later. When I first heard about this and read it way-back-when, I felt like it was completely on point. "Yes," I thought, "this book is about my deep and unabiding desire to battle and vanquish Nazi's, zombies, terminator ninjas, and Nazi zombie terminator ninjas." Reading it as a 27 year old, it doesn't hit me so viscerally.
Dad, is there a medical reason for this? I felt my most testosterone-filled from 16 to 23 (give or take). During those years, I remember really missing out on the opportunities that football presented -- the ability to just demolish somebody and possibly get hurt in the process. That desire feels less urgent now, though I wonder if that's just because I've been so preoccupied with coursework since 2010.
- Skiing was the perfect example of this age issue. When we went skiing with the Campbells I would ski through the trees as fast as I could without a helmet or regard for safety. I now ski with the adventurous streak of a retired insurance salesman and get anxious about my body being crippled by injury somewhere between the car and the ticket booth.
- He says the stakes get higher with age -- does this ring true with anyone? Am I supposed to become a daredevil octogenarian?
- I was also struck by the note on boys in the classroom. Given my own bio-chemical proclivities I've already been worrying for years about how my future sons may deal with a classroom setting. There are a lot of well-written and disturbing articles about how boyhood is being forced from the classroom.
Challenge vs. Wilderness.
I was a little confused about his portrayal of our need for wilderness. I feel like we as a group have answered fundamental questions like "Who am I?" and "What am I destined for?" around a kitchen table (p. 5). The fact that we didn't do it while we hiked the continental divide or hunted deer doesn't make those answers any less real, nor did our desire to rationally talk them out make us any less manly.
I felt like he hid some hints that what he was talking about was more "challenge" than "wilderness." He includes in the "Adventure to Live" conclusion that he "went of to Washington D.C. as a young man" to see if he could make it there (p. 14). Obviously this isn't about hunting elk in thin air; it's about going into treacherous territory, even if only metaphorically. "Adventure requires something of us, puts us to the test" (p. 13).
I think the real crux of this, especially when combined with "A Battle to Fight," is that we as men have a desire to make a name for ourselves, to crush the competition, to conquer the world before us and lead it. We have a desire to do things "because... no one has done it before." This can be expressed through our vocations just as easily as it can through hunting and trapping. I think that desire is satisfied just as much by being the first man to successfully transplant a heart or successfully arguing an historic case before the Supreme Court.
This is why I found his section on Corporate America to be somewhat hollow. I don't think the cut throat world of high-stakes litigation could at all be characterized as something driving this adventurous, competitive, "battle drive" out of the heart of man. In fact, I don't know that any of our industries could fairly be characterized that way. At the same time, I can see how Josh's endless deck editing and my future immeasurable piles of paperwork to review is somewhat castrating.
Manliness.
This leads me to my last main though, which is the general discussion of manliness. One word jumped out to me most in one of his discussions of manliness: "hairless" (p. 8). I find it interesting that this was written in 2001, just before the wave of "metrosexualty" crested and about six years before Mad Men came out. I think American culture as a whole heard rebukes like Eldredge's and has returned to a more authentic masculine model in its popular portrayals (Andrea was confused when she overlooked my notes from Chapter One and saw "DON. DRAPER.", but now you know why). Obviously hairiness doesn't define man, but some have argued it matters.
I really got on board with his portrayal of masculinity when he talked about the "nice guy" model. As a historically "nice guy," I find this section a little challenging. I think a lot of my focused personality changes in law school were based on leaving that occasionally feckless, weak guy behind and grabbing a mantle that was more Rooster Cogburn than Sam Seaborn.
Finally, before my miscellany list, this was the most challenging sentence of the first chapter: "It is fear that keeps a man at home where things are neat and orderly and under his control" (p. 5). I couldn't help but wonder if I am a fearful man. It's a very worrisome thought.
- I couldn't help but think about Richard playing poker when he talked about how men used to live and how "nice" and quiet some guys were in the church now. Richard didn't encourage a completely neutered male church experience, right?
- I wondered if the "no one wins... what's the point?" issue was what made it so hard for me to be an outcome-oriented student-attorney in a group advocacy-oriented female students and professors this last semester. Often they wanted to talk about how we can help with the problem globally whereas I wanted to, ya know, win my case.
- I loved the phrase "someone to be reckoned with" on page 10. It reminded me of the conversation we had with mom about the tacit, inchoate violence that lies beneath most male interactions.
Well, that's my shotgun-approach to the first chapter. I might edit this down tomorrow, or split it into separate posts now that I have my rough draft down. I'll also try to put my thoughts on Chapter two down tomorrow.
I feel like I left the fairway wide open, so whoever's up next, grip it and rip it.
-B
Sorry to be late to the party. I love this launch. It is thoughtful, funny, entertaining, and shows real engagement with the material. I would like to respond/comment at several points.
ReplyDelete"Age": As to why you feel it less viscerally now than when you were 17, you are correct that your testosterone level is lower now than at 17. But I believe there are a number of other reasons. I think he would argue that some of it has been worked/trained/tamed out of you. I also believe that, at the risk of overstatement, men move on the scale from bull to drone(just hanging around the hive) when they become sexually satisfied(ie, have a steady). There is evidence that our metabolism actually slows down.
Your skiing stuff is hilarious and right, but I still would say that we can be adventurous and prudent at the same time(he doesn't go to the mountains w/o equipment, food ,etc).
The issue of "answering the questions" concerned me as well. We are obviously not an outdoorsy family. I think he is really saying you have to be TR's man in the ring, and I agree that can be figurative not literal and still be meaningful.
I think the issue of making a name for yourself fades over time and is replaced by a subtly different need: to have an impact, to have a purpose and fulfill it. Having said that, you arae absolutely right about taking up the battle and being wild(which to me means assertive, risk taking, bold) in the workplace.
I think the confusion about Corporate America is that most/all of us are at a level where we aren't faceless worker bees putting X into Y on an assembly line(the ultimate opposite of wild and battling; if you can be replaced by a robot you are one). As an aside, it fascinates me that generally Japanese business culture is inverted from ours in the encouragement of innovation and risk taking: we allow this more at upper levels, where they encourage it more at the most basic levels--in the factory, on the assembly line. Intriguing because they are a warrior culture(samurai) and yet they are highly regimented, orthodox, and not wild generally. Sorry, got lost.
Richard is a great example of a man who was gentle, sensitive, in many ways metrosexual, and yet he was dangerous, unapologetic in his speaking the truth, bold in his pursuit of God. He was the anti-machismo(as Jesus is): machismo is power to dominaate w/o responsibility, Jesus is the choice to serve out of responsibility, despite having the power to dominate. Reminds me of the definition of meekness: strength under control. You remember the Greek word picture for meekness is a powerful stallion w/ a bit in its mouth.
I am excited to be jumping in. Will try to find my own voice as we go on, but was too impressed with yours to bother this time.