|
but wait----it seems to me that the discussion is happening upside down: i didn't have the impression that the op was about the justification of one's inner fuckwit frat boy and whatever investments various boys operating with various conception of what being-a-boy means (many of which read to me like some strange parody), but rather about the expression "i'd hit that"--which is strange, if you just look at the words--you know--what they say---and then think from there about effects of this motor of banality and bonding that appears to be the or a shared inner fuckwit frat boy in erasing the strangeness from that strange little expression.
and so it seems to follow: the inner fuckwit frat boy only sees what it wants to see, being a fuckwit and having no choice, and the puppeteer of that inner fuckwit frat boy, having some affection for this presumably because it, like watching sports or reading field and stream or being interested in machinery, is a device that enables "men" to communicate with each other---all of which presupposes that you buy an entire mythology of what being-male as a gender role entails--some caveman thing, i don't get it.
the maybe interesting thing about the thread then is the extent to which it is an extended performance of the nature and effects of a particular conception of male-ness or masculinity (i suppose) as a gender construct.
or
what the "hale fellow well met" gender role requires or exacts as a price at the level of reflexivity.
either way, it is curious to read the thread as an extended theater of problems that arise from a particular conception of masculinity or "being a boy."
being-a-boy as central to the manly man:
it's kinda funny if you think about it.
but that may make it difficult to be a manly man: careful you don't emasculate yourself by actually thinking about what you write.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|