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.
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.