I'm not sure what exactly the people asking "where does *character-I-Like* fit into what I am assuming is a black and white dichotomized system?" are expecting to hear. Either they're so dependent on the opinions of an internet personality that they're waiting for his permission to continue enjoying something that they've liked up until now, or they know exactly what he's going to say and just want to hear it so they can wander off to feel smug or sulk about somebody on the internet having different tastes than themselves.
In my opinion (because really, all this can ever be is a matter of opinion), "manly" guys are the confident type who don't feel the need to prove themselves, "macho" guys are the ones who constantly go about rubbing their overtly masculine nature in people's faces because they're worried everyone might forget how tough they are otherwise. Being emotional and pandering to women, I probably would not call inherently manly traits. They seem like qualities befitting the hero of the sort of story with Fabio on the cover. A character should display a range of emotions, certainly, but it doesn't mean they're going to have a period about it every time fate deals them a rotten hand. In the words of Conan's comrade at arms, Subotai, "He is Conan, Cimmerian, he won't cry, so I cry for him". Sometimes the most profound displays of emotion are the most subdued.
I feel like what this article largely describes at face value as a "manly" character is the classic chivalrous gentleman type, and I think it's tragically limiting to adopt this as the be-all end-all idea of what makes a respectable "man". Old English gentlemen are not necessarily manly in the same way that successful businessmen, devoted father figures, rough-and-tumble outdoorsmen, soldiers, or any other number of other upstanding male figures are, but that does not undermine the masculinity of any of them.
tl;dr, the article makes a valid point, but I think people who read into it too much in black-and white-terms may be missing it.
Granted, these are just the opinions of a girl who runs a domain called "thepunchlineismachismo". I suppose that as someone who builds their internet presence around poking fun at ridiculously masculine displays of multimedia, people should take what I have to say on the subject with a grain of salt.
In my opinion (because really, all this can ever be is a matter of opinion), "manly" guys are the confident type who don't feel the need to prove themselves, "macho" guys are the ones who constantly go about rubbing their overtly masculine nature in people's faces because they're worried everyone might forget how tough they are otherwise. Being emotional and pandering to women, I probably would not call inherently manly traits. They seem like qualities befitting the hero of the sort of story with Fabio on the cover. A character should display a range of emotions, certainly, but it doesn't mean they're going to have a period about it every time fate deals them a rotten hand. In the words of Conan's comrade at arms, Subotai, "He is Conan, Cimmerian, he won't cry, so I cry for him". Sometimes the most profound displays of emotion are the most subdued.
I feel like what this article largely describes at face value as a "manly" character is the classic chivalrous gentleman type, and I think it's tragically limiting to adopt this as the be-all end-all idea of what makes a respectable "man". Old English gentlemen are not necessarily manly in the same way that successful businessmen, devoted father figures, rough-and-tumble outdoorsmen, soldiers, or any other number of other upstanding male figures are, but that does not undermine the masculinity of any of them.
tl;dr, the article makes a valid point, but I think people who read into it too much in black-and white-terms may be missing it.
Granted, these are just the opinions of a girl who runs a domain called "thepunchlineismachismo". I suppose that as someone who builds their internet presence around poking fun at ridiculously masculine displays of multimedia, people should take what I have to say on the subject with a grain of salt.
