Yeah it's from Salon, but I don't care. The subject material is good, and very much echos what I wrote a while back concerning men becoming less manly, and more like house whipped bitches. The shit was here here, here, and here.
I do think it's funny when the "brainy" types show up to confirm what us cavemen have been saying for a while. We're less strong today than our ancestors, and the popularization of the feminized man is a big reason for it. One of the reasons, that I have written about, that I believe men have become more feminine is because they get bitched up by their women, and believe things like a good ol fist fight is barbaric or makes you a troglodyte.
If you get bitched up by your woman, or believe that fist fighting is neandrethal behavior, well......you're a pussy. Getting bitched up by your woman is not fucking natural, and neither is thinking that physical conflict should be avoided at all costs. In other words, sometimes you just gotta put your woman in her place and then punch out the asshole at the bar.
Anyway here is the article. And yes, again, it's from Salon. I mention it twice because I'm POSITIVE some vag will say "I think it's funny that Mr. hard ass talks about being a big tough man and then links an article to Salon."
I just 8-Miled you. Now, go make your girl a sandwich.
I rate that article Salon/10.ReplyDelete
Kidding. Decent article. :-)
"In other words, sometimes you just gotta put your woman in her place and then punch out the asshole at the bar."ReplyDelete
Another thing I think that can take some of the blame is shows like Oprah, Dr. Phil, ect. Not that I think those shows are necessarily bad, but so much emphasis lately has been put on ideas like for instance getting in touch with one's feelings (a more feminine thing) and that has been shoved on men. Again, that's not horrible, but there has been very little emphasis in the media or the like to "toughen up" or other more masculine things.
Okay, I'm not being very clear, let me try again. I'm very interested in reading about the mental/emotional differences between men and women. That stuff is cool to me. It seems there has been a movement of sorts of in the media for men to become more sensitive (a more feminine quality) while the more male qualities (things generally thought of being aggressive or tough) are villified and seen as barbaric. This is completly wrong. Men and women are extremely different, and have different emotional needs. Right now we have a society that is showcasing one of our needs as correct and saying the other isn't.
No click, I'm more of a Vogue man myselfReplyDelete
When I have punched out my woman at the bar, do I leave her there or am I a pussy if I carry her limb body back home?ReplyDelete
Leave her. How else are the rest of the guys at the bar supposed to get laid?Delete
Whilst I agree with the theory that, on average, men are weaker, slower and generally less masculine now than we were in the past, I'm highly dubious of the idea that this is somehow universal. Unless we're talking about a different species of human (e.g. neanderthals) we've got basically the same genetics as our ancestors and so any differences are purely down to environmental factors i.e. training, diet, various pollutants, upbringing etc., and whilst I'll happily agree that the vast majority of us are lazy, eat a crap diet and are whipped, I'm not at all convinced that some Greek athlete is training harder than, say, Klokov and eating a better diet.ReplyDelete
Also, as a former rower, I find the statement "...speeds of 7.5 miles an hour, which today’s rowers can only attain for short bursts of time..." as hilarious as it is insulting. I was a pretty unremarkable rower but I could row at 10mph for an hour and the only thing stopping me carrying on was boredom. I knew other rowers who could row a lot faster than that, and none of them were world class.
I don't see why it's less likely.Delete
Think about the discussion that Jamie and I had about Olympic lifting. The reason why we as American's suck in comparison to other countries is because they start from a very young age. And the difference in their best, and our best, is enormous.
Sure, but that still leaves us with Klokov who has been training since he was a kid, eating a near perfect diet, is blessed with great genetics... the list goes on. What could our hypothetical Greek weightlifter have done that Klokov hasn't himself done?Delete
I fully accept that our ancestors were, on average, much stronger than us because their lives were tougher than ours, but someone like Klokov hasn't lead a physically easy life and it's hard to see what he could have done to make it harder.
Well one of constant sayings has been "prosperity breeds weakness". The easier life becomes, the softer we become. So very true.Delete
Agreed, I just feel that there'll always be a few exceptions. If life was harder we'd have more people of Klokov's calibre, but I'm not convinced that the best would be That much better.Delete
It's also worth remembering that as poor as US olympic lifters, Donny Shankle still outlifts Paul Anderson's best lifts. Not everything is going backwards.
That's primarily because Paul Anderson sucked big time as an Oly lifter. Many, if not most lifters half Paul's bodyweight have outperformed him in the snatch and C&J. And I think there was a little Turkish dude who did it at one-third of Paul's BW, but I could be wrong.Delete
He may have sucked, but he won gold at the 56 Olympics and the 55 World Championships, so everyone else sucked more and, when he visited Russia in 55 the Russians were amazed by his strength. Fifty-five years later, the lifting technique has been heavily refined and the 69kg record is the same as Anderson's - we've improved.Delete
As for the little Turkish dude, I'm guessing you mean Halil Mutlu. His best C&J was 168kg and he's one of four men to C&J triple bodyweight but he never quite reached Anderson's record. Amazing lifter though.
True Dat on the post, and previous ones regarding this topic. My friend and I were talking a while back about the men our society worships/glorifies and it always seems to be actors (besides athletes), the Hollywood "leading men." Just about all those dudes are feminine as shit: Bloom, Depp, DiCaprio, Clooney, F'n Zack Efron lol, etc. It seems there are rarely masculine men in the movies, maybe The Rock I guess-at least he used to play football and wrestle. It just seems strange and it is annoying. Also mostly all the chicks in Hollywood are damn beanpoles. To quote Lil Wayne, "You're like a bitch with no ass, you ain't got shit." Just bring up this point because of how our society epitomizes these people and everyone thinks they are what we should look and act like or is "hot" as everyone says. Our society and its norms suck more often than not.ReplyDelete
I find the article interesting not necessarily because of its conclusions but as a product of the current culture. I mean it starts from the viewpoint of conservative commentators who basically say 'men ain't what they used to be'. Well whether you agree with that statement or not, conservatives are generally making that comment about everything.ReplyDelete
The boy scouts were set up as a means of encouraging masculinity and vitality in a population that was considered to be degenerating. The English found it hard to recruit soldiers during the boer war because so much of the population was malnourished and weak.
And this was an army and a time when teenagers with rickets were able to lie about their age and enlist.
What I'm getting at (and I think you have had much the same conclusion Paul) is that this is as much or more a cultural or social question as it is a genetic or scientific issue which the author seems to be making out.
Maybe I'm biased because Anthropology is pretty much an obsolete discipline to me.
@ TOM If forced to row on punishment of physical pain or death I think you'd dig a little deeper and row harder, faster and longer. When tasks are dependent on your mortality which was the case for the majority of our ancestors, the effort you put in is no longer truly optional(if you want to live that is). Environmental factors are everything, training and diet only somewhat help compensate for what we lack in other stimulus.ReplyDelete
Animals understand that each sex has a role and a skillset, we've clusterfucked this as a species, now we're confused and are moving towards some form of androgyny.
Oh I agree. I pretty much agree with the general conclusion: men were stronger (faster, better fighters etc.) in the past than they are now, no question. I just question the extent of the difference at the top end.Delete
Statements like "our ancestors ran long distance at the same speed olympic sprinters run" are impressive, and no doubt sell books, but set off my bullshit alarm. Olympic runners and long distance runners aren't lazy, they train hard at their sport, and they're blessed with genetics that suit their sport, and they're never having the worry about starvation, and yet apparently our ancestors would knock half an hour off the marathon world records.
If the author had claimed something like "most our ancestors would have been able to run a marathon in under two hours thirty" I might have believed it, and it'd still be damn impressive, but it doesn't sell books because it doesn't conjure images of Usain Bolt running 26 miles at the same pace he runs 100m.
I totally agree about the blurring of gender roles though.
Preach on, young man, preach on!ReplyDelete
Not going to comment about strength, but, Paul, have you been inside? I have, precisely for what you recommend: i.e. beating the fuck out of an asshole (who was in the wrong) also known as Grievious Bodily Harm here in the old Blighty. Trust me, there hasn't been a day I didn't regret avoiding that particular confrontation in the last five years...ReplyDelete
Nope. Never been inside. Certainly I've done things that could have easily landed me there.Delete
This is all well and good, and I don't think you'd disagree that in the quest to be better men we need not neglect our minds either. Shortly after I got into lifting last year and started using my gym membership again, I also got into this website: http://thegreatestbooks.org (fiction and nonfiction lists) and started using my library card again. Don't you think there's something to be said for spending as much time reading during the week as you do training?ReplyDelete
(and by reading, I mean books, not magazines or the internet)
I think that's awesome. I think as a man, you eliminate as many weaknesses as possible, and that means educating yourself. There's no winning in being "strong like bull, smart like tractor".Delete
That's funny. Yeah, you don't want to be this guy:Delete
I understand the idea of not being feminized as men and as a culture, and I do believe that feminism has caused serious harm to the world, but don't you think you're overlooking the risks in fighting? A punch in the wrong spot can end someone's life, so I'd rather fight to protect myself than be inviting of physical altercation or a be a drunken idiot. You said in one of the linked articles that "Young men are SUPPOSED to fist fight. It actually builds character, respect, and believe it or not, often friendships." This I can agree with, if it is given the exception that not every young male needs to a fist in their face to respect other people, because that damn well isn't true. But older men shouldn't need to resort to violence to resolve conflicts or create their character.ReplyDelete
Got new for you PC, it has way more to do than women "bitching men up". Its happening gentically because of all the xenoestrogens males are exposed to now non stop. I encourage everyone to watch that video and realize what is going on DAILY to both our children and us.
That's a strange article, but either way, it just reinforces what I have been saying for a while. Males are less manly now than ever.Delete
Do you ever read James Steel's site? He had a nice little article on fighting...
Yup. Like his site.Delete
as a matter of fact, I've always wondered what the fuck do you do with ripped callusesReplyDelete
Don't pick at them. Seriously, don't. I just did last night. Bastard was bleeding for a long time, and it hurt pretty fierce. Just ignore them, and leave them be. The most you should do, apparently, is file them down with a nail file.Delete
I hope you don't mind me asking an unrelated question here. If you do, please just ignore this.
Several weeks back you prescribed a rehab protocol for a hamstring injury for me that consisted of 5x15 SLDLs every other day. Well, I was in my 3rd or 4th week and things were going great. Things were starting to get hard, but the hamstring was feeling better than ever.
And then I decided to go heavier in some power shrugs, which had been starting to feel light. Bad idea. The pain showed back up during my last set, and its the first time there's been actual pain there in a while, so I know it isn't good. I still tried to go in and continue with the stiff legs today, but there's some very obvious pain.
Needless to say, this is very disheartening and depressing. I'm not sure how bad it is, but it seems right now that all that time and work were for nil. Maybe it will feel better tomorrow, but who knows.
Anyway, my question is, what now? I'm thinking of taking a week off to let the pain go away, and just starting over with the rehab you prescribed. Maybe even start a bit lighter. Do you think this is a good idea, or do you have a better idea? All I want in life is to get back to some heavy squats and DLs. That's it.
A couple follow up questions, if you don't mind:
1. you suggested working up to 5x15@205 before getting back to squats and DLs. Considering my best DL was only around 400, this would be an enormous PR for me. You said this is what you would do, and you're a hell of a lot stronger than I am. Is this still what I should be shooting for, or should I scale the weights down accordingly?
2. I realized in the second week or so I was doing RDLs instead of SLDLs, and apparently I have no idea what a stiff leg dead is. Could you clarify, or are RDLs acceptable?
Sorry for the fucking novel here. Any help you can give is greatly appreciated. As always, thanks for all the great info you provide.
Ahhhh you made the classic mistake of thinking it was fully rehabbed because the pain was gone.Delete
Fear not, and lose your depression, I have done this many times myself.
First off, the time and work taught you a very valuable lesson. That even though I have written many times, even if the pain is gone, it's not healed, you learned this first hand. Sometimes, things must be learned that way.
Second, you're back at square one. No biggie. I've had to do this many times. It's just part of the process.
Take the week off, start back even lighter, and take two weeks of stiff legs and lunges everyday until you proceed back to the program I gave you. Keep the stiff legs light, like 65 pounds for 20 reps the first week, then 95 x 20 the second week. Get in 20 lunges the first week, and 50 the second week. Then restart the program.
1. Yes. Get as close as possible to that as you can. Remember, some guys have to rehab a hamstring for 6-8 months. You saw how fast you injured it again. Don't be dumb (again) this time around.
2. Romanians, stiff legs, same difference really. Just get it in.
Do the chair stretch as often as possible, and if you having a rolling chair, sit in it, and do 1 legged leg curls across the room as often as possible. Hamstrings can take a shit ton of work, so keep it light, but work them as often as you can.
Great post, Paul, but when is the next Chaos and Bang podcast?!?ReplyDelete
We do em every Sunday, post em on monday usually.Delete
paul on skyrim do you mostly play 1st or 3rd person? and why? whats ur class by the way?ReplyDelete