Wall Street Journal on ancient reenactment

[richsc]

Of all places!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...3Dcomments

[M. Demetrius]

Any national advertisement is worth it: exposure can only help our hobby.

[Narukami]

Interesting article, but I'm not buying this line:

"One of the arguments for becoming a re-enactor is that Western cultures have become quite feminized and over politically correct," says Stephen J. Hunt, a professor of sociology at the University of the West of England.

Perhaps that is true for some, but I wonder if that really applies to a significant number of those involved.

:?

Narukami

[Valerian Pertinax]

Sounds like a guy who's afraid of thowing a bit of thigh in a tunic.

[Valerian Pertinax]

"Feminized and over politically correct"

Methinks the professor has a case of tunic anxiety.

[Macedon]

Actually, I think he is quite correct. I doubt there are many re-enactors who somehow do not reminisce a time when the male sex was expected to fight hand to hand for survival, honor, dominion, a time when simple muscle strength, a traditional manly trait, secured recognition and admiration. To many of us, such thoughts may only appear at a subconscious level, but I think they are there.

[Valerian Pertinax]

I agree that hand to-hand melee combat possesses a certain amount of nostalgia and romance, but to call modern culture feminized and overly politically correct is erroneous. A very solid case can be made that "masculine" values still define the core of Western culture, e.g., the emphasis on all things martial, athletic, competitive, and sexual.

[Macedon]

But not in the historically traditional sense of masculinity. Going to the gym or playing soccer in the weekends, once in a while going fishing or hunting and drinking massive amounts of alcohol come Saturday night while sharing obscene jokes with the pals are actually parts that define an "effeminate" society. We live in a society where killing other men, raping their women, raiding our neighboring cities, executing prisoners, whipping offenders and decapitating the cowardly or stoning them to death with our own hands are considered barbaric. Most of us never killed a chicken, never actually found ourselves in a real life-threatening situation. Never had to battle against a storm or escape a victorious enemy. Even our wars are nowadays fought from afar, mostly impersonally, with bombs and missiles, tanks and helicopters. Although I surely sympathize with the anxiety felt by troops in action, it still is not the same thing as forming up for battle in lines and charging the enemy as was done some centuries ago, actually having to thrust your blade in your opponent's body and open him up like a swine... I have no doubt that our life would look overly decadent and effeminate to any ancient.

As for our set of values and political correctness. The "overly" part is, to me, not expressed as a criticism but to enhance the argument that wants us re-enactors view our society as less masculine than before. Our ethics nowadays prohibit hardship and violence and promote peace, equality, love, acceptance of differences and understanding. To some this sounds good and a certain spiritual advancement. To others, such mentality only leads to submissiveness and empowerment of our enemies. I think that both at a conscious and at a subconscious level, there are many who do believe that we live in an overly politically correct world which tries to oppress certain instincts characterized as "masculine". To many this is just a positive advancement...

As I view this short statement in this thread, Mr. Hunt does not offer his own opinion as to the "masculinity" of our societies but what he thinks drives many re-enactors to this hobby. To a certain degree I agree with him. To a certain degree I would propose the same for those who generally occupy themselves with matters regarding ancient and medieval warfare even if they are not re-enactors. And of course, "many" does not mean "all".

[Valerian Pertinax]

I think that we are in broad agreement on what a typical man from antiquity might have thought about our society. I further agree that it is entirely reasonable to see reenactment as a subconscious or even conscious attempt at recapturing a sense of "lost" masculinity.

This begs us to define the essence of masculinity. Speaking very broadly, terms like "masculine" are very relative, and it becomes very difficult to speak in objective terms. That being said, masculinity has less to do with more specific actions and more to do with motivation and thought processes. One should also not underestimate the power of nostalgia and popular stereotype when deciding that men of antiquity were more masculine. It is true that warfare is no longer as face to-face brutal as it once was, but to my way of thinking, this isn't due to men being less masculine; our (masculine) competitive natures have simply led us to be more efficient at killing.

The other half of what I'm getting at is necessity: a man from one or two thousand years ago would have hunted for his own meat and fought bloody battles with swords because he had no choice. Men who refuse to use technology and knowledge which is advantageous in war and day-to-day survival into the name of masculinity might be honored in later works of storytelling, but it it extremely unlikely that they would win or survive with the same degree of succes as men who are willing to embrace innovation.

In short, please don't think I'm trying to argue or contradict you. My main point is that I believe the professor to have a flawed understanding of the nature of maculinity.

[Macedon]

No, no, of course there is no disagreement here between us... Of course these are all very subjective terms. I just think that the professor tries to say exactly that. As I see it, he does not define "masculinity" himself or set some behavioral standard, he just says that people who feel this way - a traditional, practically obsolete in our modern societies sense of masculinity - (he may not even think so himself...) have an additional incentive to occupy themselves with this hobby. I do not see him defending or accusing it.

He says :

"One of the arguments for becoming a re-enactor is that Western cultures have become quite feminized and over politically correct"

There is no personal opinion here nor any judgement. It is just an argument (however flawed, true or correct) that re-enactors themselves use to explain their preference. What each individual accepts as the definition of masculinity is irrelevant to this point. And it is an argument I myself have often used and heard in such circles, this is what I understand from this statement. A discussion about the definition of masculinity and how it has evolved through the ages would indeed be very long and interesting but still irrelevant as to the specific statement.

[Valerian Pertinax]

Now that I'm not dashing off quick responses at work on my phone , I see now that the professor wasn't presenting a personal view.

And yes, RAT would have to buy another server if we all tried to hash out the essence and meaning of masculinity . :-)

[Alanus]

"One of the arguments for becoming a re-enactor is that Western cultures have become quite feminized and over politically correct"

I tend to agree with you all, particularly with Macedon. The professor's statement carries a basic truth yet it can be interpreted several ways. There are alternatives in reading "quite femenized", not all of them in the maleness-masculine sense. As a fisherman, I recall the 1970's when writers (particularly cosmopolitan anglers who bought their pre-prepared fish at the local market) advocated "release fishing," and men who killed trout were considered barbaric. But the fact is, oft-enough, killing fish cuts down on the excess population, particularly in small ponds. :roll:

This "enlightened" no-kill view can be applied to modern humanity in general (not just men), people who might be otherwise extinct according to the Darwin Theory. This sort of feminization (or politically correct sterilization)is seen in males too sqeemish to kill a trout, take it home, gut it, and honestly eat it for what it is-- a dead fish. Chances are, these men are not going to watch Ironclad or Troy.

In a sense, reenactment reminds the public of the barbaric, yet perhaps needed, side of humanity. We once killed people like some rightful anglers still kill fish. Well anyway, that's just another way of viewing professor Hunt's statement. :-?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Man, no offense, but anyone who doesn't realise modern society has become over politically correct
And feminized has. Or paid much attention to the youth culture, orthe mainstream.
Say the wrong thing In jest and you will be accused of being a bigot, chauvinistic,
Mentally abusive etc by theso called morally up right femminists and youth of today!
Who in reality can be as morally corrupt as the worst roman emperors!

Modern society is ruled by women, you just haven't cottoned on! :wink:

[Alexand96]

Well Byron, I think you are a bigoted chauvinist, who is mentally abusing me with your imperialistic worldviews!!! (I’m joking :wink: )

I’m glad I found this discussion, as it is seems to strike a nerve with me, so-to-speak. Specifically, it makes me question why I love and admire the Ancients, with all of their supposed cruelty and relative barbarism, so much. As well, I have recently been arguing with my wife about chauvinism and feminism, which has all been spurred (funnily enough) by watching AMC’s Mad Men. Yes, definitely much closer to our own contemporary period than, say…Caesar’s, but still an era that I’ve been lead to believe (I was born in the 80s) was a “man’s world.”

As I see it, the discussion is addressing two ideas found within the article: that those who love (and re-enact) the ancient world do so out of a longing for a more “masculine” age, and that this is in direct contrast to our society today which is “feminized” and “overly politically correct.”

Without shutting down RAT’s servers trying to hash out a universally agreed upon definition for masculinity, I’d have to say that on some level I definitely agree that part of my own attraction to the ancient world, and particularly the militaristic culture of the Greeks and Romans, stems from a subconscious (sometimes conscious and explicit) longing for a more masculine era, or at least a culture and society that was more understanding of, and supportive of traditional masculine ethos and its proper place in society. I think that Alan’s example regarding the necessary brutality required to kill fish to survive (and simultaneously regulate fish populations in smaller bodies of water) is illustrative of what I mean. I’m tired of the whole metro-sexual movement being so fervently peddled by the media today.

Regarding the question of whether or not our (vaguely regarding to western) society is too feminized and too politically correct; I’d have a tougher time finding an exact answer. While I believe feminism, along with any and all other social movements ever to have occurred within mankind, has its inevitable drawbacks, I believe you’d have a harder time justifying an outright opposing stance (at least based upon commonly accepted moral grounds). I do believe feminism has brought many positive and just changes to our society. However, it is much easier for me to say that I do believe our society has become too politically correct, and that’s because political correctness forces people to be dishonest – to hide one’s true beliefs for sake of not offending the majority’s ears. While not always practiced, I do believe that honesty was a highly prized virtue in the masculine-dominated ancient world, and was always touted as an inherently male trait – brutal honesty. So, in some respect, I do think that political correctness is an inherently anti-male phenomenon. Not necessarily feminine in nature, but definitely not what I would consider to be a traditional male virtue. I believe the bulk of the ancient Greco-Roman philosophers would be with me on this (but then again, our society just sees them as simple, chauvinistic bigots anyway).

Well, just some thoughts, I definitely hope others have more to contribute. Maybe I’ll even be able to pull out some ideas that will help support my case that Don Draper, is in fact, NOT the devil.

[Robert Vermaat]

"Restaging scenes from the Troy War"
Wrong on all accounts as well as spelling. :twisted: