…and this is a 
Swish and swagger?
Category: Weirdness
Posted on: June 1, 2007 4:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Laura Sessions Stepp is wondering what it means to be manly, and of course she has to resort to the cultural phenomenon of the last 30 minutes, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, and has invented an overwrought story that modern men are all confused by this swishy style personified by Captain Jack Sparrow — the fey sway, the frilly shirt, the lace on the wrist — and that all this business of empowering women is so stressful to young men.
I'm sorry, it's too ridiculous for words. The only people who could possibly pull off that pirate style are Johnny Depp and Prince.* And I think it's quite reasonable that women should be assertive and laugh away any fellow thinks the right pastels and properly gilded accessories will cause them to swoon into his arms.
Real Men: Ragetti, Gibbs, and Pintel
Besides, I saw the movie, and know who the real masculine role models are. Grubby fellows who only occasionally shave and who have extraordinarily poor dental hygiene and a tendency to belch and wipe the excess rum off their faces with their sleeves. I swear, the fashionistas ought to be looking at these guys for fashion trends. This is where it's at, bros.
It's what I settle for, anyway.
At least until a few more years pass and biotechnology progresses so I can aspire to the full tentacle look, that is.
(via Grammar.police and Zeno)
*OK, not entirely true. Connlann can pull it off—but then, he inherited his looks from his mom and his attitude from his dad.
Comments
Posted by: Randy Owens | June 1, 2007 4:25 AM
Anyone want to take bets on how many generations it'll be before the assumption that it's somehow necessary or important to be "men" or "women" as opposed to being "people" (in a nonreproductive context, at least) ceases to be treated as axiomatic, and how many more until it's finally staked?
(On a related note, one of the most annoying things about other guys is trying to explain to them that "what does a woman want in a man" is as meaningful a question as "what job does a black guy have?")
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2007 5:03 AM
(Yes, the overgeneralization was intentionally ironic x.x)
FFS, why doesn't that message have a frickin' number instead of "a short time?" :/ Is it randomly generated or something?
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2007 5:04 AM
Azkyroth: You mean the "short time" until your comment shows up, right? It's because there's a database backend to this website, and its updates aren't instantaneous. Now, at this time of night, it might as well be, for all intents and purposes, but other times, like the recent traffic spikes from all the creationist visitors after somebody linked to him, it could be quite significant. But including extra code to check the load on the server(s), and hence predict an approximate time, just slows them down even more, and makes matters worse. Which can be a bad thing when the creationists come a-knockin'.
Posted by: Randy Owens | June 1, 2007 5:29 AM
The real truth of those manly men is that they masy have been infected with toxoplasma - http://toxoplasmaparasite.blogspot.com/search?q=masculine
I wonder if those pirates had ship's cats?
Posted by: sailor | June 1, 2007 5:48 AM
Aye, the Lady Stepp would do well next time not to lose such a great opportunity to keep her mouth shut.
That said, despite all his swishiness and affectations - or perhaps because of them - Captain Jack Sparrow manages to be the single most attractive and fascinating man in the movie to me. The charisma! The pure animalistic magnetism! Arr indeed.
But then of course I'm a gay woman, so I might be confused ;-D
Posted by: iGollum | June 1, 2007 7:12 AM
Laura Stepp would do well to remember that Pirates of the Caribbean was just, as they say, a movie. What do you get if you try to incorporate the clothing and mannerisms of Jack Sparrow into a modern cultural milieu?
A second wave of New Romantics, that's what. And I never heard of anyone using Duran Duran as the yardstick of manliness the first time around.
Posted by: Teucer | June 1, 2007 8:12 AM
You mean the grubby, unshaved look is cool? I've been cool for years! Yes!
Posted by: aiabx | June 1, 2007 8:25 AM
Well, the grubby and unshaved look is popular in biology. I remember how in grad school my bio building was right next to the business building and we often cut through there. The contrast between the dandified business types and the science types (whether field biologist, laboratory biologist, or theoretician) was profound.
Posted by: Diego | June 1, 2007 8:39 AM
Diego, well, science-types tend to have less time to shave and/or wash. That must be it...
Posted by: Pete K | June 1, 2007 8:52 AM
Actually, many women find that gender-bending look extremely hot.
Posted by: alice | June 1, 2007 9:32 AM
It kinda depends on your basic looks. If you're more Brian Blessed than Montgomery Clift, you should perhaps stay away from the metro outfit.
Posted by: forsen | June 1, 2007 9:40 AM
Prince. What a great observation!
They put in Keith Richards as Jack's father. If they manage to go on to make a fourth movie, I could just see Prince as his brother.
Posted by: Ahcuah | June 1, 2007 9:55 AM
Stand and Deliver!
Now you've done it -- you've offended Adam Ant.
Posted by: Sonja | June 1, 2007 10:17 AM
I thought Adam Ant was more of a roadside bandit rather than a Pirate.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 1, 2007 10:32 AM
Highwayman or high seas -- he has swish and swagger aplenty.
Posted by: Sonja | June 1, 2007 10:36 AM
Arrr!
This article sent my blood boiling :
"In trying to empower the girls," Sandborn says, "we implicitly sent a message that the guys were not as good. Women succeeded in creating positive new roles for themselves. What we haven't come up with is what a positive image of a man would be."
Going from Pirates 3 to anti-feminism in one article! grrr...
Posted by: Abie | June 1, 2007 10:46 AM
Oh, and...
I think I'm in love with Master Gibbs.
Posted by: Abie | June 1, 2007 10:52 AM
Is it just me or does not Gibbs in the photo above look a bit like Thomas Huxley,aka "Darwin's Bulldog"?
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | June 1, 2007 11:01 AM
You're spot-on, "Your Name's Not Bruce"! He DOES look like Huxley, and it's not just the mutton-chops either. Good call.
Posted by: Diego | June 1, 2007 11:10 AM
Yarr, she be full of bilgewater. Not to mention demonstrably out of touch. Mandlubbers have been making this same bullshit argument about masculinity and pining for a return of John Wayne and Frank Sinatra types for decades. It's vaguely sexist and overtly homophobic and has very little to do with "what women want". It's part of the backlash against the progressive breaking down of gender roles that has been happening since the late sixties (maybe? I wasn't around then).
She can bellyache all she wants. The kids be all right.
Posted by: J Daley | June 1, 2007 11:20 AM
Give Pintel a large beard, and he'd do as Darwin. He's got the forehead for it. Also the eyebrows. And let's face it, that's all you really need for Darwin once you've got the beard on - it's all that's visible through the undergrowth.
Now casting for "The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists"?
Posted by: ajay | June 1, 2007 11:24 AM
Only Depp and Prince? Keith Richards pulled it off well enough that 40 years later Depp explicitly imitated him.
Posted by: nm | June 1, 2007 11:35 AM
Methinks Tim Curry could easily pull it off too.
I watched Rocky Horror the other night and it still stuns me how virile that guy could be in a corset, high-heels, garters and stockings.
Posted by: Sarcastro | June 1, 2007 11:49 AM
I'll have to agree that Adam Ant also pulls it off quite well.
On an only slightly related tangent....
I was at the Muskogee renfair last weekend, and there was a character there (a patron, not one of the rennies) who had the look. He was dressed quite clearly as Jack Sparrow, but the way he slinked around was more creepy than anything else. If he posed for pictures, he woulda done ok, but he couldn't swish or swagger like Depp.
Cheers.
Posted by: Fastlane | June 1, 2007 11:58 AM
Arrr, I wouldn't kick Sparrow out of me berth, but I also pine to sail the wicked seas of Barbossa. DAMN that man could work a hat. And a monkey.
I think she does a disservice to thinking males by assuming that males in general are questioning their roles. She assumes that the majority of Americans of this younger generation were familiar with the whole 'Dad works, Mom stays home' scenario and are suddenly thrown into turmoil by something that they just suddenly noticed. That domestic setup hasn't been the case for about 60 years, and before the WW2 era had NEVER existed in history! My DAD taught me how to shoot and fight and fix things, and that nobody could tell me I wasn't their equal. He taught me I had to work hard to get a job because relying on someone to pay my way in life (ie marrying for stability and money) was a total pantload.
She's extremely out of touch. Or hanging out with a very traditionalist crowd.
Posted by: Jenbug | June 1, 2007 12:07 PM
Avast, I be stylin'!
Posted by: Dread Pirate Flynt | June 1, 2007 12:52 PM
Posted by: AgnosticOracle | June 1, 2007 1:13 PM
Saw the movie last night, much better than the second one.
Johhny Depp can do no wrong, plus the so called Masculine types were all trying hard to rape our heroine at one stage or the other. I like masculine men just not the 'raping, pillaging pirate' types.
So true about Tim Curry, he was totally hot in Rocky Horror.
Posted by: coz | June 1, 2007 1:15 PM
No no no! The real man in POTC is Davy Jones! Twice over. (Because he wins first place (as his usual tentacled self) and second place (as his human self) for hottest/most beautiful person in the movie.
The only people who could possibly pull off that pirate style are Johnny Depp and Prince.
And ME! (Although, granted, I'm a woman, and therefore don't have the tendency to look ridiculous that most men would have if they imitated Jack Sparrow.)
Any case, more pirates in general would be a good thing. Not because that idiot says so (or whatever she said), but because 15 million Barbossas and Gentleman Jocards (he's one of the Pirate Lords) and Anamarias (from the first movie) swashbuckling around would be a vast improvement on crew-cut Republican bible-thumpers in ridiculous boring suits and ties. Besides, it'll make the Flying Spaghetti Monster happy, and that will make Pat Robertson unhappy.
Posted by: Kyra | June 1, 2007 1:21 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | June 1, 2007 1:28 PM
Do people mean Swish like a drunk?
Depp pretty muched ripped of Keith Richards to create Jack. Not that it's news to anyone.
I don't think stumbling and prancing are the same thing.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 1, 2007 1:34 PM
Sorry all you manly men out there... swishy men are attractive to some women. First, there's no perceived threat of aggression, second, brilliant plumage is attractive, and third, they often have fashion sense many of us are envious of.
(At the end of the first Pirate movie, Johnny Depp says "Yo Ho" with a smolder that made not a few lady pirates sweat.)
Conversely (or maybe perversely) so are ultra macho men. Vin Deisel comes to mind (often). Sorry, it's just chemistry.
Posted by: Red Charity Rackham-Flynt, in Seattle | June 1, 2007 1:35 PM
Do right wing men have to check a list to see what they're allowed to wear/eat/enjoy...?
Posted by: khan | June 1, 2007 1:39 PM
swishy sexy guys: Mick Jagger, David Bowie, TRex, Roger Daltry -- etc -- all pranced around drunk in ruffles, dresses, etc on stage to the sounds of screaming girls.
Posted by: Red Charity Rackham-Flynt, in Seattle | June 1, 2007 1:40 PM
>>Do right wing men have to check a list to see what they're allowed to wear/eat/enjoy...?
>>Posted by: khan | June 1, 2007 01:39 PM
#34 - Yes, they check in daily.
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle | June 1, 2007 1:43 PM
I kind of liked Keira Kaaaniggitly(!) dressed as a boy in PoTC II. But not in a manly way, or an un-manly, boyishly, girlish way. Or something. Oh, dear. Mr. Depp is Dreamy. All the time. Ahem.
Anyway, not sure what all the fuss is about. Some guys look good in the puffy shirt. Some don't. And why does EVERYTHING have to have some sort of deep, cultural significance? Can we please please please just watch a goofy pirate movie for a couple of hours and enjoy it's goofiness? Sheesh.
The real danger to culture is that there are buzzkillers of every stripe, out in force, hell-bent on pissing in everyone's happyflakes.
Sorry, I got all worked up.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | June 1, 2007 3:06 PM
ooo can we please include Legolas, the beautiful, yet theoretically hetero, arrow-shooting elf from Lord of The Rings in our list of effeminate hunks?
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle, wishing to be in middle-earth | June 1, 2007 3:30 PM
"In trying to empower the girls," Sandborn says, "we implicitly sent a message that the guys were not as good. Women succeeded in creating positive new roles for themselves. What we haven't come up with is what a positive image of a man would be."
I'm sorry.... WHAT??
so.... we need to not empower girls so that guys can feel good about themselves? Someone needs to send Sandborn back to his home in the 1700's. Anyone got a spare Way-Back Machine?
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle | June 1, 2007 3:53 PM
Is it just me, or do most women prefer a man who looks vaguely like a woman himself?
Posted by: Baratos | June 1, 2007 4:04 PM
I sure do!
Posted by: octopod | June 1, 2007 4:23 PM
"What we haven't come up with is what a positive image of a man would be."
Wear a kilt. It not only makes you feel more manly, but makes the ladies swoon. And, as an extra added bonus, ticks off the wingers. Particularly when their ladies are giving you the eye.
I'm partial to my utilikilt, but any kilt will do.
aestheticpisces
Posted by: aestheticpisces | June 1, 2007 4:43 PM
OT:
Will somebody pleeeeeze tell me what 'FCD' means (@37)? I lead a very sheltered life.
Posted by: emkay | June 1, 2007 4:47 PM
here
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2007 6:38 PM
I dunno, I think Eddie Izzard could pull off the look AND do it in higher heels. I much prefer the Izz-man in full regalia to his butch persona in "The Riches."
Posted by: twincats | June 1, 2007 7:21 PM
I get so tired of these moans about how the males are being ignored so females can advance. They cite graduation rates from colleges, number of advanced degrees, etc., for females to make the point that the males are somehow being disadvantaged. Me, I look at the same data and think that women are rising because the playing field is being leveled. Maybe women would have always had the higher education if they had had the same opportunities in the past.
Posted by: bc | June 1, 2007 9:55 PM
Aside from their relative novelty, I really don't see how unevidenced assertions about the intellectual superiority of women are any better than unevidenced assertions about the intellectual superiority of men, even when they're just suggestions (as, say, Larry Summers--is that the right name?--'s comments, for which he was taken to task, were). I think it's more likely that what we're seeing is a combination of the playing field being more level than it was and many women continuing to push themselves as if they were going uphill (or many men continuing to slack off as if they were going downhill). Alternatively it might be that jobs for which physical strength is a requirement, which it seems like men generally tend to find more appealing and their abilities well-suited for, tend less uniformly to require advanced education than the occupations that are more popular among women. This is worth exploring, but I don't think this sort of naive ascription of innate superiority is helpful.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2007 10:52 PM
I've been meaning to post some essays on this subject WRT evolution. As nothing remains in stasis, even gender roles and definitions can change over time. Current roles and attitudes are dictated mainly by culture and society; there are actually some cultures that value men for flash, swagger and beauty (such as the Wodaabes of Nigeria).
Among peaceful animal species such as birds, females are also most attracted to male beauty and/or song. Among non-monogamous species such as birds of paradise, female mate choice has resulted in males of amazing colors and plumage. Among more terrestrial animals, males use brute strength to compete. Big, tough males (such as alpha baboons, apes, etc.) help protect their families in harsher environments, especially where females and young are more vulnerable.
IOW, one could view male reproductive strategy in terms of variable competitive strategies -- beauty and/or brawn -- depending on the species' lifestyle and environment.
So, it might make sense that women who are more economically self-sufficient, living in a peaceful society, might turn their attentions to men of "bird strategy" (beauty, song, creativity, etc.) over "ape strategy" (aggressive, protective, ready for battle). Think of all the girls who go crazy for rock stars. IIRC studies showed that women prefer "macho" looking men during threats of war and men with softer features during more peaceful times.
Also, the more monogamous and egalitarian a species becomes, the more alike the sexes become (think gibbons, parrots, geese, etc.)
Posted by: Ann Homily | June 2, 2007 12:55 AM
As far as I'm concerned, hot men are smart, have good hygiene, can hold a conversation, and are not religious.
This is undoubtedly one of the reasons I like pharygula.
Then again, I totally prefer 'rock stars' over 'ape stars' - thick necks and steroid abuse are a total turn off.
Posted by: Amy | June 2, 2007 2:24 AM
I love Ragetti. I'm just gonna throw that out there for everyone.
Actually, the main character I don't find at all attractive is Will. All my female friends and relations assure me that this means I am a horrible freak of nature and possibly a lesbian.
(And I totally pull off the pirate look, but I'm a girl and so I don't count for this discussion.)
Posted by: Chinchillazilla | June 2, 2007 3:44 AM
How did we miss Little Richard? Has he finally teetered from Lil-faggy over to old-fogy?
Posted by: Memorabilia | June 2, 2007 1:49 PM
How did we miss Little Richard? Has he finally teetered from Lil-faggy over to old-fogy?
Posted by: Memorabilia | June 2, 2007 1:49 PM
The girly look is quite the traditional one in USA history, if the wingers would stop and think about it. Look at Washington and his gang - curly wigs, pointy shoes, white tights, ruffles and sparkles. Metrosexual's been around a long, long time.
Posted by: Carlie | June 2, 2007 1:56 PM
My sister's not too bad at it either. O.o
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 3, 2007 12:17 AM
Come on, skinny movie stars have been wearing lace and swashing their bucklers since long before John Wayne.
Posted by: RyanG | June 3, 2007 10:18 PM
Perhaps the reason the shaggy and unkempt look is popular amongst biologists is that a long dirty beard provides a convenient culture medium in which to carry around one's favourite experiments.
Posted by: colin | June 4, 2007 9:47 AM