[germanico]

http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/advice/...list-0414/

Being accustomed to beta herb "things a man should do" on mainstream media, I was surprised I actually liked this list from 2014 on Esquire.

It, of course, has some beta things like "taking a little girl to see a play" sprinkled in it (though, it depends on the context. I would consider a man takings his daughter or niece out to a girly show "beta") but, the addition of "kill your meal" and "fuck a stranger" balances those out.

Take a look.

Quote:

6. Spend an uncomfortable amount of money on a really good suit.

The list is now G-approved.

Quote:

17. Shoot a Glock. Do you know what it's like to have a heart bursting at the end of your arm? Didn't think so.

The Buzzfeed crowd literally cant even at this.

Quote:

19. Fuck a stranger before 9:00 PM on a Tuesday.

Done. Rawdogged, came on her face, walked her to the subway afterwards.

Quote:

43. Make enemies! Stand for something.

Compare to this fucked up beta list.

[pheonix500000]

The bigger question is why are you reading MSM magazines?

[SamuelBRoberts]

'cause he's in the waiting room at the doctor's office and the cellphone battery is dead, if he's anything like me.

[The Lizard of Oz]

No. This supposedly more "masculine" list has the same negative magic as the NYT one that was posted recently.

This sentence is a good example of what I'm talking about:

Quote:

19. Fuck a stranger before 9:00 PM on a Tuesday.

I find this almost nauseatingly cringeworthy. It's a dead piece of text, and because it's dead its word carcass has a bad and nasty smell.

The word "fuck" is very unforgiving. If it's used with feeling, if it's used rightly, it's a great and glorious word. But the various types of SWPL manginas who write these texts should really avoid it. It comes out terribly flat and dead, and instead of being "edgy" or whatever it sounds exceptionally unpleasant and vulgar.

And they're all the same, shot through with the same deadness and perfunctoriness, and utter lack of feeling or memorable detail:

Quote:

14. Volunteer.

16. Love something other than yourself. Like a dog. Or even a person.

18. Write a poem. Make it about whatever you're feeling about whatever you're seeing in your mind's eye. A person. Someone you love. It's a fucking poem; why waste it on anger or fear? That stuff is what prose is for.

[Dr. Howard]

this 'list' thing seems so strange to me. I would expect womens' magazines to have these but are men so lost that they actually need lists from someone else? or are they actually even reading these magazines?

[The Lizard of Oz]

This is going a bit far afield, but rappers when they are inspired can use the word "fuck" with great purpose, naturalness and rightness.

Here are two very different examples from songs that I love:

Goldie Loc in the Eastsidaz' beautiful "I Don't Know". This is a rare hard rhyming use of the word in its proper sense. And it hits hard.

Quote:

Ever since I scooped you up in my big black truck
I been lookin for your ass cause a nigger wanna fuck

And here is a laughably inspired offhand use by Kurupt in the masterpiece "Who Got Some Gangsta Shit"

Quote:

And now I got ends
And I'm rollin a Lexus, fuck a Benz, and so many new friends

Typists who cannot use it with this kind of shrugging naturalness should avoid it like the plague.

[NO_LIMIT_CRACKA]

Sorry man but you're grasping at straws. While this may look like some alpha list in a sea of beta, it's mostly just nerd humor of the LE EPIC REAL MAN! variety. Shit they saw in movies. Nerd humor akin to "REAL MAN FUCK BITCHES BEFORE BREAKFAST", "REAL MAN WRESTLE WITH GRIZZLY BEARS", "REAL MEN ONLY EAT BACON AND RAZOR BLADE SANDWICHES". A caricature of manliness they probably picked up from TV

it's the same as this book written by this guy

[AnonymousBosch]

(10-10-2015 03:11 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

And they're all the same, shot through with the same deadness and perfunctoriness, and utter lack of feeling or memorable detail:

Yeah, I'm not crapping on Germanico here. For the MSM media, this is as tentatively-close to Red Pill as you're likely to get: Pink pill.

Still, it's an MSM article, targeted via Esquire to their particular consumerist demographic. Of course, it's dead: the Bucket List will be less about the joy of genuine communication, and more about affectation to sell the branding concept of what an Esquire Reader's Narcissistic Construct should aim to be. This aspirational construct then has to be dialled back to fit the branding desires of Esquire's Advertisers.

That's the point of these lists, Dr. Howard.

As such, reading other articles on their site, I'd label the Esquire Brand as being this:

"X, but not too X."

The Esquire Man is rebellious, but too not rebellious.
He's edgy, but not too edgy.
He's sexist, but not too sexist.
He's traditional, but not too traditional.
He's emotionally-strong, but not too emotionally-strong.

The resulting list ends up with this weird combination of rebellion, consumerism, both traditionalist and new age male constructs, and leftist mental environmentalism.

See how it's trying to be all things to all people, but, ultimately, says nothing?

"He's conventionally unconventional".

My Producer and I have endured enough meetings, parties and meet and greets with Corporate Suits to have our own silent code. A very quick touching of the ear lobe signal to the other across a room means the speaker has just said a version of this to us, and has nothing of value to offer us:

"It's needs to be pop, but a little punky".

Again:

"X, but not too X."

[2Wycked]

^It's the itching, consuming desire to become somebody coupled with the dread and terror over being anybody.

As AB points out, these sorts of men invariably settle upon a vicarious masculinity in which fungible goods and superficial beliefs replace any substantive character. This type of man is more concerned with avoiding conflict, avoiding pain in the short-term and signalling his "chosen" identity to others. In sum, this sort of man never worries about tomorrow because he is too worried with surviving today.

However, this sort of man is not new. Dostoevsky brilliantly illustrated this personality in his delightful novella Notes From The Underground. Here is a relevant passage:

Quote:

...I never even managed to become anything: neither wicked nor good, neither a scoundrel nor an honest man, neither a hero nor an insect. And now I am living out my life in my corner, taunting myself with the spiteful and utterly futile consolation that it is even impossible for an intelligent man to seriously become anything, and only fools become something. Yes, sir, an intelligent man of the nineteenth century must be and is morally obliged to primarily a characterless being; and a man of character, an active figure--primarily a limited being (emphasis added)

This whole "gunning the car's engine at max RPM's while up on blocks" isn't new, has been dramatically on the increase since Dostoevsky's time and is indicative of a certain kind of man, not of men in general. The problem isn't Esquire, but that certain kinds of men feel the need to brand themselves with their publication.

This isn't a critique of OP, as this list is about as far as the mainstream can go -- like pushing right up to the edge of the box without having to actually go outside. I appreciate that it is better than the NYT's version, but considering the bar that the NYT sets, it is like Esquire winning "Tallest In Class" at the midget state fair.

[MrXY]

Quote:

6. Spend an uncomfortable amount of money on a really good suit.

I read this initially as "Spend an uncomfortable amount of money on a really good slut"

[Dr. Howard]

(10-10-2015 03:55 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(10-10-2015 03:11 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

And they're all the same, shot through with the same deadness and perfunctoriness, and utter lack of feeling or memorable detail:

Yeah, I'm not crapping on Germanico here. For the MSM media, this is as tentatively-close to Red Pill as you're likely to get: Pink pill.

Still, it's an MSM article, targeted via Esquire to their particular consumerist demographic. Of course, it's dead: the Bucket List will be less about the joy of genuine communication, and more about affectation to sell the branding concept of what an Esquire Reader's Narcissistic Construct should aim to be. This aspirational construct then has to be dialled back to fit the branding desires of Esquire's Advertisers.

That's the point of these lists, Dr. Howard.

As such, reading other articles on their site, I'd label the Esquire Brand as being this:

"X, but not too X."

The Esquire Man is rebellious, but too not rebellious.
He's edgy, but not too edgy.
He's sexist, but not too sexist.
He's traditional, but not too traditional.
He's emotionally-strong, but not too emotionally-strong.

The resulting list ends up with this weird combination of rebellion, consumerism, both traditionalist and new age male constructs, and leftist mental environmentalism.

See how it's trying to be all things to all people, but, ultimately, says nothing?

"He's conventionally unconventional".

My Producer and I have endured enough meetings, parties and meet and greets with Corporate Suits to have our own silent code. A very quick touching of the ear lobe signal to the other across a room means the speaker has just said a version of this to us, and has nothing of value to offer us:

"It's needs to be pop, but a little punky".

Again:

"X, but not too X."

haha, like christian 'rock' bands...get a faux hawk, but not a mohawk...that would be too "X"

[AnonymousBosch]

(10-10-2015 04:25 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  

However, this sort of man is not new. Dostoevsky brilliantly illustrated this personality in his delightful novella Notes From The Underground. Here is a relevant passage:

Quote:

...I never even managed to become anything: neither wicked nor good, neither a scoundrel nor an honest man, neither a hero nor an insect. And now I am living out my life in my corner, taunting myself with the spiteful and utterly futile consolation that it is even impossible for an intelligent man to seriously become anything, and only fools become something. Yes, sir, an intelligent man of the nineteenth century must be and is morally obliged to primarily a characterless being; and a man of character, an active figure--primarily a limited being (emphasis added)

Great catch. If you remember my consideration of the odd lack of passion in many Millennials as possibly-being a new form of Mal du Siecle due to the optimism of the new millennium being instantly-poisoned by 9/11, Alfred de Musset's popular description of the sickened spirit of the [19th] Century seems telling:

Quote:

Spirit of the century, angel of dusk, that which is neither night nor day.

Note my emphasis.

Consider this passage describing a classic Mal du Siecle hero, and think about the atomisation and 'everyone gets a trophy' mindset of the Millennials:

Quote:

"I soon found myself more isolated in my own land, than I had been in a foreign country. For a while I wanted to fling myself into a world which said nothing to me and which did not understand me. My soul, not yet worn out by any passion, sought an object to which it might be attached; but I realised I was giving more than I received. It was not elevated language or deep feelings that were asked of me. My only task was to shrink my soul and bring it down to society's level."

If being a complex person in a modern society holds little appeal for it offers no obvious value, and being exceptional might offend society, simply disengaging and choosing a personality construct via branding and media - hell, even choosing a gender or sexuality - makes a scary kind of sense.

As such, I think the majority of Esquire readers would check out the list, and nod their heads thinking "Yeah, I'm the kind of guy who would do that," and then never actually do the majority of things on the list. The ego-flattering self-conception is the point.

Germanico, once again, no crack at you. I'm a very intelligent guy who understands this process, yet I can still fall victim to it myself. It takes mental vigilance to pull yourself up occasionally and say "Am I really whom I believe myself to be?" The use of doing this is you can then work towards narrow the gap between self-conception and reality, reducing cognitive dissonance and increasing happiness, otherwise, you end up as this:

[Tactician]

(10-10-2015 03:55 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

As such, reading other articles on their site, I'd label the Esquire Brand as being this:

"X, but not too X."

The Esquire Man is rebellious, but too not rebellious.
He's edgy, but not too edgy.
He's sexist, but not too sexist.
He's traditional, but not too traditional.
He's emotionally-strong, but not too emotionally-strong.

The resulting list ends up with this weird combination of rebellion, consumerism, both traditionalist and new age male constructs, and leftist mental environmentalism.

See how it's trying to be all things to all people, but, ultimately, says nothing?

"He's conventionally unconventional".

(10-10-2015 04:25 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  

This type of man is more concerned with avoiding conflict, avoiding pain in the short-term and signalling his "chosen" identity to others. In sum, this sort of man never worries about tomorrow because he is too worried with surviving today.

Reminds me of this Nietzsche quote:

For they are moderate also in virtue, because they want comfort. With comfort, however, moderate virtue only is compatible.

(...)

In their hearts they want simply one thing most of all: that no one hurt them. Thus do they anticipate every one's wishes and do well to every one. That, however, is cowardice, though it be called "virtue."

[FireStarter]

Quote:

17. Shoot a Glock. Do you know what it's like to have a heart bursting at the end of your arm? Didn't think so.

Why specifically a Glock? Why not a Browning, Springfield, Fabrique Nationale or one of the multitude of other brands out there?

These lists always seem to be oddly specific with brand-names. I'm not hating on Glocks, but whenever someone talks about shooting a Glock I get the impression that they know nothing about firearms rather than someone who shoots with a favorite brand.