4 ms·

I'm sure this is a misunderstanding. I believe the author means to remind us that fashion and gender norms are arbitrary and performed, not to say that the hips

I'm sure this is a misunderstanding. I believe the author means to remind us that fashion and gender norms are arbitrary and performed, not to say that the hipsters chose theirs' _wrong_. Societal standards of masculinity are of particular interest here because they capricious, mutable, and especially likely to result in ass-kickings. In conclusion the author encourages us to reflect on the difference between the person and the performance, and hold our assumptions lightly. You are not your beard.

klipt 7y ago
It seems a little clinical and dehumanizing. I wonder how people would react to similar writing about women: "The dramatic uses of the sign of Renaissance femininity par excellence – the hairdo – reveal how precarious, provisional and potentially groundless the ideology of early modern femininity was, the very ideology upon which the sign-system of the stage relied. As we look at today’s hipsters – hairdos, cardigans and makeup aplenty – we may also wonder what lies beneath the surface of the identities that they construct."
- elipsey 7y ago
  That sounds like an equally valid criticism to me, but if you're sense of prudence suggests that some people might not want to hear it from a dude, so does mine. It's understandable that people sometimes feel like their being attacked en masse by outsiders when we talk about this, but I think we're better off if we're able to talk about it civilly. Looking and dressing "right" is hard for some people. Approaching our expectations with a more removed perspective helps, but does tend to sound clinical. For what it's worth my gf complains about this kind of stuff in a way that sounds similar to me, but using somewhat less high-brow language. :) EDIT: I asked gf what she thought of that paragraph: "meh i don't give shit it's fine." Then I asked if she thought a man could get away with saying it: "probably not on the internet LOL". n=1.
- slothtrop 7y ago
  They'd say it's "tone-deaf", to borrow the lexicon.
deogeo 7y ago
I think tactical nihilism fits this well: https://pics.me.me/the-legendary-blade-of-tactical-nihilism-use-it-to-deconstruct-1755341.png https://pics.me.me/the-legendary-blade-of-tactical-nihilism-...
motohagiography 7y ago
In case my comment was ambiguous, this article was a pretext for a critic to repeat a trope wrapped in trivia, and an attempt to conflate their opinion with insight. It begged mockery. To address it directly, the article was a vehicle for a criticism of the legitimacy of masculine traits without demonstrating any competence in embodying them, making it a petty complaint wrapped in academ-ese. If gender norms were arbitrary, anyone could be a good man, even a great one, and yet even though this is allegedly arbitrary, there are still so few of them. What the author views critically as "performance" is the effect of their embodiment, just as music is not arbitrary and merely performed, but the effect of the skill of the performer. This trope that masculinity is merely performitive is like saying Rachmaninoff or Arthur Rubinstein were just actors. It's the artifact of a dissociated hall of mirrors worldview that has seized intellectuals who have no grounding in physicality and competence. All I can add is, sure, totally performitive. Having a critical theory of music does not make one a musician, and playing some show tunes doesn't make you a great one. While the listener is free to like or dislike it, the author's opinion carries about as much weight as any other complaint. I do agree that a man is certainly not his beard, in fact to have one is a statement that he is more magnificent than his beard, which, given modern grooming concoctions, is a very bold statement to make indeed. What makes hipsterdom so laughable is that their beards are more remarkable than their achievements. What makes this article laughable is the author can't tell the difference. I would regret if my views were not presented clearly.

klipt 7y ago

It seems a little clinical and dehumanizing. I wonder how people would react to similar writing about women: "The dramatic uses of the sign of Renaissance femininity par excellence – the hairdo – reveal how precarious, provisional and potentially groundless the ideology of early modern femininity was, the very ideology upon which the sign-system of the stage relied. As we look at today’s hipsters – hairdos, cardigans and makeup aplenty – we may also wonder what lies beneath the surface of the identities that they construct."

elipsey 7y ago
That sounds like an equally valid criticism to me, but if you're sense of prudence suggests that some people might not want to hear it from a dude, so does mine. It's understandable that people sometimes feel like their being attacked en masse by outsiders when we talk about this, but I think we're better off if we're able to talk about it civilly. Looking and dressing "right" is hard for some people. Approaching our expectations with a more removed perspective helps, but does tend to sound clinical. For what it's worth my gf complains about this kind of stuff in a way that sounds similar to me, but using somewhat less high-brow language. :) EDIT: I asked gf what she thought of that paragraph: "meh i don't give shit it's fine." Then I asked if she thought a man could get away with saying it: "probably not on the internet LOL". n=1.
slothtrop 7y ago
They'd say it's "tone-deaf", to borrow the lexicon.

deogeo 7y ago

I think tactical nihilism fits this well: https://pics.me.me/the-legendary-blade-of-tactical-nihilism-use-it-to-deconstruct-1755341.png https://pics.me.me/the-legendary-blade-of-tactical-nihilism-...

motohagiography 7y ago

In case my comment was ambiguous, this article was a pretext for a critic to repeat a trope wrapped in trivia, and an attempt to conflate their opinion with insight. It begged mockery. To address it directly, the article was a vehicle for a criticism of the legitimacy of masculine traits without demonstrating any competence in embodying them, making it a petty complaint wrapped in academ-ese. If gender norms were arbitrary, anyone could be a good man, even a great one, and yet even though this is allegedly arbitrary, there are still so few of them. What the author views critically as "performance" is the effect of their embodiment, just as music is not arbitrary and merely performed, but the effect of the skill of the performer. This trope that masculinity is merely performitive is like saying Rachmaninoff or Arthur Rubinstein were just actors. It's the artifact of a dissociated hall of mirrors worldview that has seized intellectuals who have no grounding in physicality and competence. All I can add is, sure, totally performitive. Having a critical theory of music does not make one a musician, and playing some show tunes doesn't make you a great one. While the listener is free to like or dislike it, the author's opinion carries about as much weight as any other complaint. I do agree that a man is certainly not his beard, in fact to have one is a statement that he is more magnificent than his beard, which, given modern grooming concoctions, is a very bold statement to make indeed. What makes hipsterdom so laughable is that their beards are more remarkable than their achievements. What makes this article laughable is the author can't tell the difference. I would regret if my views were not presented clearly.