5 Manly Things That Are Going Away Forever

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Bromsy**

Although obviously done in their normal comedic manner, I thought this post brought up a lot of interesting points about where our society is heading or has already arrived at. I know we're always discussing bullying to some degree here at least. I put most or all of the text in but there are a lot of pictures I skipped due to laziness. I just did the first one because without it half of the first point wouldn't have made sense.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-manly-things-that-are-going-away-forever/

Dudes who complain that "manliness" and "masculinity" are going away are usually douchebags. Typically it's guys complaining that they can't get away with as much sexual harassment and degrading jokes as they could back in the "good old days." So what they seem to be missing isn't a time when "men could be men," but rather a time when men could safely be donkey-caves.

But they're also not wrong. There are some staples of "manliness" that are absolutely going bye-bye, never to return. I don't know how soon (people who write about future trends are not in fact claiming to be time-traveling wizards), but they are going away. I'm talking about things like ...

Please read the rest on the original site... Copyright. Kilkrazy made this edit.

But what really flabbergasted me was a quote by a presumed brit

I'm the biggest p***y on this planet and from the other side of the pond, so let's see if I find other "sensible" reasons for what's happening...

CAR CULTURE: Muscle cars don't match well with a world of Volvo-driving soccer moms, you don't want to like compensating for something. And with all this LOHAS (= lifestyle of health and sustainability) stuff, not owning any is used as an alibi for snobbery nowadays.
RED MEAT: Again the LOHAS thing. It's also a reason why beer among construction workers is no longer as commonplace. You would just have dropped dead at age 50 at work, nowadays medicine can detect your drinking problem and the boss can say "go to therapy or you'll get fired".
FOOTBALL: People nowadays live longer to see side effects of their behavior and prefer some comfort in the short and long run. Why not try soccer?
WAR HEROES: That's especially American.
BULLYING: More and more people just make their voices heard that they don't want their children to suffer what they yet had to put up with. Also an effect of pure muscles not being an answer in a complex world.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-manly-things-that-are-going-away-forever_p2/#ixzz34t2zlfQZ

specifically the bolded part... war heroes are an especially american thing? Really?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And that said, I don't own a car, and don't know all that much about them (despite selling them for two or three months).

**Kilkrazy**

I think a lot of the article does refer to US culture, naturally so because it was written by an American guy.

As for the war heroes, a lot of British "war hero" characters are either fictional representative "Everyman" types or even if portraying real soldiers still tend to be reserved and toned down because that is how the British used to behave. We don't go in for the "rah rah" kind of thing.

**Bromsy**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I think a lot of the article does refer to US culture, naturally so because it was written by an American guy.

As for the war heroes, a lot of British "war hero" characters are either fictional representative "Everyman" types or even if portraying real soldiers still tend to be reserved and toned down because that is how the British used to behave. We don't go in for the "rah rah" kind of thing.

I've been to Trafalgar Square.

- to be more verbose - we tend to celebrate war and stuff more emphatically, but I can't think of a major national monument dedicated to a purely military figure, all our most important ones are based around statesmen.

**Paradigm**

I think the 'war hero' idea is certainly something we have less of over here; we respect our veterans, of course, but far less is made of it than what I've read/heard about how it's treated in America.

We do have some stronger elements of it creeping in to our culture, but a lot of this is PR stunts and does not reflect the general public opinion (for example, we've just had a nearby estate opened with the slogan 'hero's welcome' because at the same time, some troops have come back from overseas. I do wonder if they actually lived in that area, or whether it was just marketing). I also don't buy into the idea that simply going to war and coming back makes you a hero; certainly worthy of respect, but a hero is someone who has done something above and beyond his or her fellows, be it military or otherwise.

**Kilkrazy**

Bromsy wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I think a lot of the article does refer to US culture, naturally so because it was written by an American guy.

As for the war heroes, a lot of British "war hero" characters are either fictional representative "Everyman" types or even if portraying real soldiers still tend to be reserved and toned down because that is how the British used to behave. We don't go in for the "rah rah" kind of thing.

I've been to Trafalgar Square.

- to be more verbose - we tend to celebrate war and stuff more emphatically, but I can't think of a major national monument dedicated to a purely military figure, all our most important ones are based around statesmen.

That was 200 years ago. Georgian Britain was a lot more emotional than the Victorian age.

A monument is not a movie. We also have a lot of monuments to WW1 and WW2, which you will have noted depict the kind of "Everyman" character that I mentioned.

**Bromsy**

Paradigm wrote:
I think the 'war hero' idea is certainly something we have less of over here; we respect our veterans, of course, but far less is made of it than what I've read/heard about how it's treated in America.

We do have some stronger elements of it creeping in to our culture, but a lot of this is PR stunts and does not reflect the general public opinion (for example, we've just had a nearby estate opened with the slogan 'hero's welcome' because at the same time, some troops have come back from overseas. I do wonder if they actually lived in that area, or whether it was just marketing). I also don't buy into the idea that simply going to war and coming back makes you a hero; certainly worthy of respect, but a hero is someone who has done something above and beyond his or her fellows, be it military or otherwise.

I'd agree that our celebration of our veterans as a group outstrips you guys; but that isn't the point the article or I am going after. He is specifically talking about War Heroes - people who are made famous because of their actions in war - and I think it stands. We don't venerate individuals - try to name any Medal of Honor recipients from the recent wars.

Now we praise 'the veterans' as a group, but there is little respect or recognition given on an individual basis.

**Skinnereal**

We hold veterans in respect, but they don't usually flash it about. We have memorial days, a Cenotaph in most towns, and groups like the Chelsea Pensioners.
But, vets don't usually get singled out for discounts, or similar.

It's probably something to do with the World Wars, where every able-bodied adult was either shipped out to fight, or kept for their skills elsewhere. After that, everyone was a veteran of something, so no big deal was made of it.

**Bromsy**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I think a lot of the article does refer to US culture, naturally so because it was written by an American guy.

As for the war heroes, a lot of British "war hero" characters are either fictional representative "Everyman" types or even if portraying real soldiers still tend to be reserved and toned down because that is how the British used to behave. We don't go in for the "rah rah" kind of thing.

I've been to Trafalgar Square.

- to be more verbose - we tend to celebrate war and stuff more emphatically, but I can't think of a major national monument dedicated to a purely military figure, all our most important ones are based around statesmen.

That was 200 years ago. Georgian Britain was a lot more emotional than the Victorian age.

A monument is not a movie. We also have a lot of monuments to WW1 and WW2, which you will have noted depict the kind of "Everyman" character that I mentioned.

Have you listened to people on this very forum wax eloquent about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill ?

**Skinnereal**

One man, or others of his kind, would get that kind of response no matter what they got up to.
It's the personal character of them that makes them noteworthy, not the number if kills, or battles fought in.
War vet or not, he'd still get talked about.

[update] I can't comment on the other points, as I'm work-blocked.

**Bromsy**

Skinnereal wrote:
One man, or others of his kind, would get that kind of response no matter what they got up to.
It's the personal character of them that makes them noteworthy, not the number if kills, or battles fought in.
War vet or not, he'd still get talked about.

Right, but to get back on the topic of the actual article - would he be talked about or would the actor who played him in whatever movie came out about him? Even more-so for the current(ish) conflicts.

**Kilkrazy**

Bromsy wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I think a lot of the article does refer to US culture, naturally so because it was written by an American guy.

As for the war heroes, a lot of British "war hero" characters are either fictional representative "Everyman" types or even if portraying real soldiers still tend to be reserved and toned down because that is how the British used to behave. We don't go in for the "rah rah" kind of thing.

I've been to Trafalgar Square.

- to be more verbose - we tend to celebrate war and stuff more emphatically, but I can't think of a major national monument dedicated to a purely military figure, all our most important ones are based around statesmen.

That was 200 years ago. Georgian Britain was a lot more emotional than the Victorian age.

A monument is not a movie. We also have a lot of monuments to WW1 and WW2, which you will have noted depict the kind of "Everyman" character that I mentioned.

Have you listened to people on this very forum wax eloquent about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill ?

He is venerated for being an eccentric, not a war hero.

**marv335**

On many US based forums, when a member reveals that they have served in the military, the overwhelming response from the US members tends to be "Thanks for your service"
That sort of thing doesn't happen with the UK members.

**Palindrome**

marv335 wrote:

That sort of thing doesn't happen with the UK members.

That's probably a good thing, I don't like it when people do that to me and that seems to be a common response with UK servicemen. I used to get thanked fairly often by random members of the public when I was out in public in uniform but it hasn't happened for a good while, I'm not sure if that's due to changing attitudes of just because I live in close to one of the biggest naval bases in Europe.

I am also wary of any society that venerates its warriors more highly than its teachers.

**hotsauceman1**

I remember hating this article, still do.

**thenoobbomb**

I'm a vegetarian, am far from interested in cars, the "football" thing shows some silly thing that isn't football, and I fail to see how bullying is manly.

The hell.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Kilkrazy wrote:

He is venerated for being a badass, and a war hero.

fixed that for you

**Slarg232**

I doubt Red Meat is going away, especially since Japanese Scientists figured out how to make it from poo.

**Avatar 720**

I question the claim that bullying is going away; it seems to be just as prevalent, or perhaps more so, than it has been. It might be more readily condemned, but condemnation alone means nothing - contrary to what the UN seems to think about some things.

"We utterly condemn bullying."
"Awesome, what's going to be done about it?"
"Nothing."

**Soladrin**

Ok so... the only thing I am actually sad about on that list is red meat.

The rest I'm happy with or indifferent to.

**Avatar 720**

If there's anything I believe science to be capable of, it's making sure that we can all still enjoy a steak in the far future.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

thenoobbomb wrote:
I'm a vegetarian, am far from interested in cars, the "football" thing shows some silly thing that isn't football, and I fail to see how bullying is manly.

The hell.

Same here. Except for football: I would have no problem with both version of football disappearing

.

**Bran Dawri**

Slarg232 wrote:
I doubt Red Meat is going away, especially since Japanese Scientists figured out how to make it from poo.

Is that technology called "fertiliser", because I think that's been around for a fair while...

**mega_bassist**

I'll agree that the time of the muscle car is declining, but I believe the car culture will be around for a long time yet. Hell, the performance model of the Tesla S has over 400 horsepower. That, and there's always the turbo'd V6 and L4 engines that are getting ever more popular. Even the current 5.0L V8 in the Mustang GT gets about 24 mpg highway, and that pushes over 400 horsepower factory.

**Soladrin**

mega_bassist wrote:
I'll agree that the time of the muscle car is declining, but I believe the car culture will be around for a long time yet. Hell, the performance model of the Tesla S has over 400 horsepower. That, and there's always the turbo'd V6 and L4 engines that are getting ever more popular. Even the current 5.0L V8 in the Mustang GT gets about 24 mpg highway, and that pushes over 400 horsepower factory.

24 mpg... thats.... 10 km/litre. Holy gak that's terrible.

My gakky old car from 1990 did 18 km/litre. My current one does 16/litre and its twice as big.

**mega_bassist**

Soladrin wrote:
mega_bassist wrote:
I'll agree that the time of the muscle car is declining, but I believe the car culture will be around for a long time yet. Hell, the performance model of the Tesla S has over 400 horsepower. That, and there's always the turbo'd V6 and L4 engines that are getting ever more popular. Even the current 5.0L V8 in the Mustang GT gets about 24 mpg highway, and that pushes over 400 horsepower factory.

24 mpg... thats.... 10 km/litre. Holy gak that's terrible. My gakky old car from 1990 did 18 km/litre. My current one does 16/litre and its twice as big.

Hey, that's actually pretty good for an engine that makes over 400 horsepower while also passing the US's strict emission regulations

**Soladrin**

mega_bassist wrote:
Soladrin wrote:
mega_bassist wrote:
I'll agree that the time of the muscle car is declining, but I believe the car culture will be around for a long time yet. Hell, the performance model of the Tesla S has over 400 horsepower. That, and there's always the turbo'd V6 and L4 engines that are getting ever more popular. Even the current 5.0L V8 in the Mustang GT gets about 24 mpg highway, and that pushes over 400 horsepower factory.

24 mpg... thats.... 10 km/litre. Holy gak that's terrible. My gakky old car from 1990 did 18 km/litre. My current one does 16/litre and its twice as big.

Hey, that's actually pretty good for an engine that makes over 400 horsepower while also passing the US's strict emission regulations

Yeah, it's good within that. Looking in from the out side, it's still a terrible waste for a lot of stuff you aren't actually allowed to put to use on regular roads.

Also, muscle cars (and expensive cars in general) mostly just serve to promote ass holes driving worse.

**MrDwhitey**

But as I recall you like that as you get to see the results scattered across the road and off it on your daily commute.

**Palindrome**

MrDwhitey wrote:
But as I recall you like that as you get to see the results scattered across the road and off it on your daily commute.

Unless your drive suddenly becomes 4 times longer because some utter tool wrapped his flash car around a lamp post.

**Jihadin**

Muscle cars back then are like hobby and collector items now.

**mega_bassist**

Soladrin wrote:
mega_bassist wrote:
Soladrin wrote:
mega_bassist wrote:
I'll agree that the time of the muscle car is declining, but I believe the car culture will be around for a long time yet. Hell, the performance model of the Tesla S has over 400 horsepower. That, and there's always the turbo'd V6 and L4 engines that are getting ever more popular. Even the current 5.0L V8 in the Mustang GT gets about 24 mpg highway, and that pushes over 400 horsepower factory.

24 mpg... thats.... 10 km/litre. Holy gak that's terrible. My gakky old car from 1990 did 18 km/litre. My current one does 16/litre and its twice as big.

Hey, that's actually pretty good for an engine that makes over 400 horsepower while also passing the US's strict emission regulations

Yeah, it's good within that. Looking in from the out side, it's still a terrible waste for a lot of stuff you aren't actually allowed to put to use on regular roads.

Also, muscle cars (and expensive cars in general) mostly just serve to promote ass holes driving worse.

Oh, I don't disagree. There's a reason why I drive a Mazda 2. As much as I enjoy working on and modding cars, it's too big of a money/time sink for me.

And I'd say it's about a 50/50 chance on if the guy owning the pony/performance car will act like an ass-hat while driving it lol. Working in the industry, I see a lot of both sides.