Honor, courage, temperance (which refers to more than not drinking), level-headedness, etc are still attributes the modern world considers 'manly.' Unfortunately, the context your most likely to hear 'masculinity' talked about today is when its prefixed by 'toxic'. Not too long ago, manliness meant good things like taking responsibility, stability, strength, etc. Suddenly, the modern day has conflated masculinity and virility (good attributes) with macho culture (not necessarily great... this is masculinity without temperance).
Interestingly enough the word 'virtuous' also quite literally means virile
> Today, following in that tradition, men often equate technological fluency with manly vigor, even as they yearn to assert their authentic and natural virilitas. Setting up a kick-ass home-theatre system can make a man feel virile;
Oh wow. Strong disagreement with that. I had to re-read this section a couple times to be sure the author was actually asserting what I thought they were. These may be things men do (getting into tech-nerdery, putting together home theatre systems) but I don't think they gain you much in the way of "manliness points" or virility or whatever, at least in the eyes of others. Neutral at best.
> Setting up a kick-ass home-theatre system can make a man feel virile
> "manliness points" or virility or whatever
That section is establishing that manliness and virility haven't always meant the same thing. They have been fluid and often heavily overlapping but they are distinct. I interpreted the association to "manly vigor" as some men grasping for a feeling in lieu of a modern day "virility".
> others sought to exclude “natives” from the élite club of virilitas, arguing that sex in non-European societies was mere lust and, therefore, manly rather than virile.
In the same sense, it may not be "manly" to be able to set up a home theatre system, but it does generally come with a sense of accomplishment and feeling of mastery over machine which may well be descended from culturally from "virility".
I disagree, or at least I'm pretty sure I observe the counter-example. Seems like there is a manliness of the kind in question that people associate with being handy and engineering-adjacent, like fixing engine- and motor-driven machines, and setting up electronics systems is another step away, but still seems to have the association.
For sure — setting up a kick-ass home-theater system just means you're an AV geek. (Source: Am an AV geek.) Being a geek is not necessarily a contraindication of virility (see Henry Cavill), but there's definitely no correlation. But honestly, I also think "virility" is something only weak men and/or incels care about.
There is a natural drive for conquest and dominance in men, you can basically boil it down to testosterone. As a father of 3 young boys, I am often thinking about how to channel this energy into positive avenues.
But it's also really clear when taking a more observational role that there is this hardwired drive for them to ride that energy and let it out in pure physical form. It's beautiful to see the absolute joy one gets from riding his bike faster than everybody else, but sometimes scary to see the more negative manifestations: the tendency for excitement to boil over into "BREAK THINGS!".
I can't count how many times we've been roleplaying with stuffed animals and a strong emotion, even (and especially) a joyous one, results in them wanting to bash their animals into mine, or knock down some part of the set we've been playing with. The physicality is so hard wired.
I think the issue today is not that men don't want to be "virile", I think it's that we've seen the damage that treating masculinity as the highest possible virtue can do, both to individuals and to societies. Just look at one of the foremost symbols of masculinity: the bull. In today's world, he is the apex of the masculine, and yet trapped in a system that subjugates him to one of two roles: an inseminator, or a victim himself of a larger masculine power structure: to be ridden or killed in an arena.
I think many men today can see pretty clearly that having a stable society relies on men relinquishing the role of conquistador, but many also realize that it is impossible to give up our virility without losing an essential part of ourselves. It's why men say they are more confident when they lift weights, and when they fight in structured ways like martial arts or well-regulated capitalism.
So it's not like we don't want to be virile. We just don't want to be the cartoon image of virility that men like Donald Trump embody.
>So it's not like we don't want to be virile. We just don't want to be the cartoon image of virility that men like Donald Trump embody.
Considering how much of the American population voted for and still worships Trump, I think your perspective, while very well written and interesting, is far too charitable to "many men today".
From the article: "Now, theoretically, I could tell myself that, while Trump is undeniably masculine, he lacks virilitas. He is the Emperor Commodus of the 2016 election."
I don't think the piece is suggesting that the west isn't making this media or that men aren't consuming it. The piece is about cultural values and it clearly feels that many of the values of "Virility" are alive and well but not joined under a single term:
> What’s striking, reading this plangent eulogy for virilitas, is how much virility nevertheless remains at the center of male culture. Spend some time with a stack of men’s magazines and you’ll find that male identity is still a negotiation between discipline and vigor. Men still have special respect for a man who dominates others by dominating himself. Earlier this year, Under Armour released a new television ad featuring the Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps. The ad alternates between moments of admirable discipline (Phelps lifts weights at the gym, shivers in an ice bath, and falls asleep after a hard day’s workout) and moments of unbridled athleticism (he powers inexorably down the lane). The commercial ends with the company’s slogan, “Rule yourself.” Phelps, with his sculpted muscles and mountain-man beard, embodies virility as Corbin describes it. He has “an amazing control over those organs that, while certainly vigorous, are truly subject to the virile man’s will.”
Anecdotally this matches my own observations. Men realize that most American media is pandering to minority interests these days and will keep doing so because they'll boycott if they're not catered to. Men don't have a generic "men" movement besides the lgbt though which is great if you're a white trans man (sorry, woman) but otherwise it's kind of useless. So it's easier to just go where the culture isn't stale.
Much ink has been spilled on how the feature films that see broad release are more dominated by blockbusters than ever before - where "blockbuster" tends to mean "violent conflict resolved by blowing shit up or punching or shooting things into submission." Is that "virile" or "masculine?" It's not not those things.
Where is this universe where, to use the first example from the article's top image, Maximus from Gladiator would no longer be presented as a hero by Hollywood?
(Not that the article is even about that, OP here clearly didn't read much)
Interestingly enough the word 'virtuous' also quite literally means virile