It seemed very ‘fresh’ even in 2011. That’s to your credit- I mean History of Sexuality still seems ‘fresh’. But part of the reason both books do is that really, the ideas in them have not been taken on board or developed by anyone, despite the endless Foucault fetishing or the endless ‘queer readings’ of films etc. I felt angry that there is this void where people are not actually considering masculinity and taking it seriously. Instead we have the Daily Mail filling that void with anxious articles about men’s ‘addiction’ to hair straighteners and being ‘primped’. Or The Graun laying into a man who just wanted to lose weight and look good. Or Catherine Hakim writing bullshit about men’s ‘sex defecit’ in relation to women, as if all men are heterosexual. Or Gayist academics going on about ‘softening masculinties’ and ignoring the hard truth.
This is the comment I didn’t post on your blog:
‘…AND Matthew’s points illuminate what I have been thinking, that men being ‘denied a voice’ about their bodies/feelings/sexuality, is partly entwined with the fact that to express that ‘voice’ would mean expressing something ‘queer’. And men on the whole, refuse to speak about themselves and each other in a queer manner.
Obviously, in that refusal they just end up sounding like a bunch of homos anyway (er- Face Lube?), but they seem to prefer that to actually speaking honestly.
GET IT IN THERE MY SON!
It is a unique space. And my interaction with it is also unique. But I am not going to hog the floor. As Mr Str8 bro said – ‘why do you insist on demanding representation on a blog that is about MEN?’
Because I love men? Is it ok in this world to *really* love men? For anyone? I don’t know’.