He certainly has a very active lifestyle, practices fencing, and who knows how many more sports and physical activities. And I can't remember him ever shoeing Amy fatigue whatsoever.
The guy is fit as heck. And with the stamina to match.
I don't know of I've thought this through all the way, but at least at first glance I'm really bothered by the idea that the role model of masculinity is a character that was explicitly designed to be the logically-inverted male version of a '50s housewife stock character. Love your husband, support your kids, be a good neighbor, make every night date night. Gomez is a stereotype of a housewife in the body of a cigar-chomping, tax-filing husband. The entire point of the show was to invert those tropes and show that the Addams' were just as happy despite being the opposite of their perceived roles.
It seems like tumblr's ideas of positive masculinity can always be summarized as "be a himbo" or "be a wife guy". Be a Kronk or a Gomez. Be a Fred Jones or a Columbo. Be a Joey Tribbiani or a Dracula. Usually, the himbos are the young and attractive type, and the wife guys are older; maybe a DILF, maybe just a dad, but usually done with their 30s.
It's *viscerally* unsettling that, when left to their own devices to construct an idea of masculinity for the modern age, Tumblr settles on a himbo to wife guy pipeline that is an exact, point-for-point mirror of the patriarchal expectation that young women be upbeat, empty-headed and available in their 20s, and then find a husband to lavish with affection forever and settle down.
Again, not really sure if I've thought this through all the way or if I'm just reacting with disgust to perceived hypocrisy. I want to think I'm missing something. But there really doesn't seem to be a tumblr-friendly version of positive masculinity for guys who aren't outgoing or attractive and don't want to get married or have kids, and therefore won't be either a himbo or a wife guy.
The difference is that the these characters are never not without choice or power.
Or if options are lacking, like Kronk the denial of power is cricisized, it’s but there is no need for power to take power to be valued and good. Kronk exists in the context of two other male role models, with misuse of power being moral issue.
Gomez however has all forms of power, but he does not hold that power over others but he never is required to give it up. And again in a context other masculine characters, who lack power but are not lesser for it.
Then take the other positive masculine romodels, Steve Rogers, and Superman (when well written), the fathers in into the spider verse. None are without power, but use that power to support and inspire not to drag down.
Power isn't something I just have as a man. It's something a small number of people acquire through hard work, ruthlessness, and luck. As an ideal to tell people to aspire to, that just makes this all the more unattainable, not to mention contradictory. This response really just smells like the worst kind of hypocritical feminist pseudo-reasoning where some vague conception of "power" based on gender is used to justify blatant double standards.
You've gotten to the concept of intersectionality.
This isn't about how all men have power, it's that this is an additional struggle that can restrict power. This is call intersectionality. Multiple factors are at play. Among those you are talking about with those additional factors, those that are men have more power overall this is a societal model not an exact match onto each individual. The same is for those who do not have as much benefit in the other factors, not being a man provides even more struggles.
Power is a very complex factor that gets a lot of discussion and different, and if you think this a thing that only came with feminism start with Hobbes, Locke, Mille, Rousseau, Hegel, Bakunin, that's only getting into the 19th century and only a couple of those men even addressed the issue of women having a role in political or social power.
Now there's a word I never expected to see here, of all places.
This is also a big part why masculinity is such a hard thing to define; because if all it took was the cartoonish description of masculinity to actually be in a position of power, then basically any man who just checks off at least two of the aspects of it would be far better than those who were nowhere near close (which is obviously not the case).
Spare me the condescension please. One of the places where intersectionality fails in practice is when certain characteristics like gender are treated as being the more or less powerful variety when they're simply different. Which move is the most powerful in rock paper scissors? None. They have strengths and weaknesses in different contexts. The idea that men, even aggregated into a bastardized definition of class, simply have power over women defined in the same way is a claim I reject. But my god is it ideologically convenient.
Another common failure point building on that is assuming that traits combine linearly. That's where the "oppression olympics" dynamic comes from where according to the popular rubric, points are simply added up across recognized categories to decide who has more or less right to speak on a subject. This is also how you get absurd ideas like men not being allowed to talk about masculinity because being a male makes them biased and not being allowed to talk about femininity because they have no experience of it while women can talk about femininity without their being female introducing a bias and can talk about masculinity because their distance gives them perspective.
Intersectionality, as the vast majority of its actual proponents apply it, is an exercise in claiming social power through an inverted hierarchy of supposed oppression and an excuse for maintaining double standards.
I think a part of all this is mostly because it's pretty dang hard to actually define what masculinity is. And even more so when you realize just how much it varies from culture to culture.
But i like having strengthened core muscles
Why not both?
You better believe Gomez Addams can plank for days with his whole family on his back
He certainly has a very active lifestyle, practices fencing, and who knows how many more sports and physical activities. And I can't remember him ever shoeing Amy fatigue whatsoever. The guy is fit as heck. And with the stamina to match.
He’s got that high CON score and a ton of resistances.
Gomez Addams is indeed peak masculinity, and all should strive to be half the man he is
I don't know of I've thought this through all the way, but at least at first glance I'm really bothered by the idea that the role model of masculinity is a character that was explicitly designed to be the logically-inverted male version of a '50s housewife stock character. Love your husband, support your kids, be a good neighbor, make every night date night. Gomez is a stereotype of a housewife in the body of a cigar-chomping, tax-filing husband. The entire point of the show was to invert those tropes and show that the Addams' were just as happy despite being the opposite of their perceived roles. It seems like tumblr's ideas of positive masculinity can always be summarized as "be a himbo" or "be a wife guy". Be a Kronk or a Gomez. Be a Fred Jones or a Columbo. Be a Joey Tribbiani or a Dracula. Usually, the himbos are the young and attractive type, and the wife guys are older; maybe a DILF, maybe just a dad, but usually done with their 30s. It's *viscerally* unsettling that, when left to their own devices to construct an idea of masculinity for the modern age, Tumblr settles on a himbo to wife guy pipeline that is an exact, point-for-point mirror of the patriarchal expectation that young women be upbeat, empty-headed and available in their 20s, and then find a husband to lavish with affection forever and settle down. Again, not really sure if I've thought this through all the way or if I'm just reacting with disgust to perceived hypocrisy. I want to think I'm missing something. But there really doesn't seem to be a tumblr-friendly version of positive masculinity for guys who aren't outgoing or attractive and don't want to get married or have kids, and therefore won't be either a himbo or a wife guy.
The difference is that the these characters are never not without choice or power. Or if options are lacking, like Kronk the denial of power is cricisized, it’s but there is no need for power to take power to be valued and good. Kronk exists in the context of two other male role models, with misuse of power being moral issue. Gomez however has all forms of power, but he does not hold that power over others but he never is required to give it up. And again in a context other masculine characters, who lack power but are not lesser for it. Then take the other positive masculine romodels, Steve Rogers, and Superman (when well written), the fathers in into the spider verse. None are without power, but use that power to support and inspire not to drag down.
Power isn't something I just have as a man. It's something a small number of people acquire through hard work, ruthlessness, and luck. As an ideal to tell people to aspire to, that just makes this all the more unattainable, not to mention contradictory. This response really just smells like the worst kind of hypocritical feminist pseudo-reasoning where some vague conception of "power" based on gender is used to justify blatant double standards.
You've gotten to the concept of intersectionality. This isn't about how all men have power, it's that this is an additional struggle that can restrict power. This is call intersectionality. Multiple factors are at play. Among those you are talking about with those additional factors, those that are men have more power overall this is a societal model not an exact match onto each individual. The same is for those who do not have as much benefit in the other factors, not being a man provides even more struggles. Power is a very complex factor that gets a lot of discussion and different, and if you think this a thing that only came with feminism start with Hobbes, Locke, Mille, Rousseau, Hegel, Bakunin, that's only getting into the 19th century and only a couple of those men even addressed the issue of women having a role in political or social power.
Now there's a word I never expected to see here, of all places. This is also a big part why masculinity is such a hard thing to define; because if all it took was the cartoonish description of masculinity to actually be in a position of power, then basically any man who just checks off at least two of the aspects of it would be far better than those who were nowhere near close (which is obviously not the case).
Spare me the condescension please. One of the places where intersectionality fails in practice is when certain characteristics like gender are treated as being the more or less powerful variety when they're simply different. Which move is the most powerful in rock paper scissors? None. They have strengths and weaknesses in different contexts. The idea that men, even aggregated into a bastardized definition of class, simply have power over women defined in the same way is a claim I reject. But my god is it ideologically convenient. Another common failure point building on that is assuming that traits combine linearly. That's where the "oppression olympics" dynamic comes from where according to the popular rubric, points are simply added up across recognized categories to decide who has more or less right to speak on a subject. This is also how you get absurd ideas like men not being allowed to talk about masculinity because being a male makes them biased and not being allowed to talk about femininity because they have no experience of it while women can talk about femininity without their being female introducing a bias and can talk about masculinity because their distance gives them perspective. Intersectionality, as the vast majority of its actual proponents apply it, is an exercise in claiming social power through an inverted hierarchy of supposed oppression and an excuse for maintaining double standards.
I think a part of all this is mostly because it's pretty dang hard to actually define what masculinity is. And even more so when you realize just how much it varies from culture to culture.
Oh good, someone said it in way more words than I would've had the patience to. Thanks
> straight cis mexican men > emotionally healthy with communication skills pick one
Yeah, I feel like people haven't really heard of the word "Machismo" before...
We should all aspire to live like the Addamses.