... But how are his sisters' mustaches?
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2025
1049 points (99.2% liked)
Funny
11801 readers
1050 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Glorious.
the exact word i was going to use
Dwarf genes
Like Leonid Brezhnev's eyebrows
load more comments
(2 replies)
Growing a moustache is pure genetic luck, and you can learn how to swing a hammer in about thirty seconds.
Swinging your hammer is easy.
Avoiding your fingers is the tricky bit.
The trick is to look at the nail and not your fingers. If you look at your fingers so you don't hit them, you'll hit them.
I just turn my head away entirely and squeal as I gently tap around hoping to hit something.
Damn, that’s why I keep hitting my toes. Gotta look up!
There's a very similar concept in motorbiking, target fixation. It essentially says that you go where you look. If you're riding along and there's a pothole in front of you, it's easier to avoid it if you look either to the side of it or past it. If you look at it, you subconsciously turn towards it.
"The trick is not minding that it hurts."
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
My take away is that people are stupid and believe that someone playing a character that is said to be manly is the same as actually being manly.
By the typical and stupid societal definition of the word manly, he does fit. Not only the visual depiction of it, but also the fact that he goes out and builds his own furniture and a variety of other hobbies. Also, I want him inside of me.
The problem is that this societal definition of the word manly is stupid, because it's limiting to every single person involved and sexist garbage.
Also, I want him inside of me.
I was unaware of this requirement.
Just a personal caveat. Like this dude is the sexiest human being alive in my opinion... Bam. I grew ovaries and they exploded.
He would rail you while gently explaining boat design and sharpening a chisel. Mustache whimsicaly bristling in the breeze of his warm breath. "mmm, I think I've just had an orgasm. Now this is how you properly secure a mooring knot"
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not only THEIR definition of "manly", strong, skilled, capable, he is also MY definition of manly, Compassionate, Empathetic, introspective, and excited to learn.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The problem is the Western and now global conception of masculinity is broken (for many reasons) with social media acting as an accelerant.
At some point Stoicism got bastardized into being emotionless and that got imbued into Western masculinity also.
We're going to have to go back to actively teaching boys how to be men if we want to course correct (rather than having Rogan or Peterson teach them).
To be fair... Many of Ron's wooden furniture pieces were things Nick had been working on in his shop at the time of shooting...
Gender is a performance and Nick Offerman is a very good performer.
It's ok. He has a permit.
I will never understand glorification of celebrities or peoples obsession with them.
Humans are, perhaps above all things, storytellers. And one thing that makes an interesting story is shared context. All things being equal, a story about Thor or Horus or Coyote or Jupiter is more interesting than a story about this guy you don't know named Roger.
If you're a skilled storyteller you can make a story about Roger interesting, but a story about someone people know will always be more interesting, because it connects to something they've already got with them. In a sense, they're part of the story, because they have a kind of relationship with the subject, even if it is parasocial. And the more people I know know this subject, the more broadly applicable I know this story to be, and that gives it power in a sense.
So celebrities are just that. If I tell you I met this guy Dave that's boring. If I tell you I met this guy Dave from your work, that's more interesting because you know Dave. If I tell you I met the mayor of your town Dave that's prominent, and might be interesting to many people in your town, but not super interesting outside that. If I tell you I met this guy named Dave who used to host a late night TV show watched by tens of millions of people, that's more interesting because he's known by lots of people. The story isn't different, but more people have context on it, they know the guy, and that gives it a different kind of value.
Note I'm not saying it's more interesting to more people because more people know him. I'm saying it's more interesting to each person I tell it to, because they know this guy is known by more people. It's the prominence that gives it currency. And probably in no small part because now they can tell a guy at work they have a buddy who met Dave the late night guy, and that guy will know who that is too. It's now their semi-interesting story.
Of course this doesn't apply to all people and I'm sure you're immune. And sometimes people hate the subjects of the story enough to not care about them. And some people don't care about movie stars at all, but care about comic book authors because that's what has currency in their communities, etc.
load more comments
(2 replies)
He has a book called Paddle Your Own Canoe where he talks a lot about this.
I did the audiobook and its preachy but not a bad listen. Essentially, dont be a shitty human.
Honestly, I don't mind that kind of preachy. "Don't be a shitty person" seems to be in short supply these days.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Worthless social constructs
I wouldn’t say worthless.
Like many ancient cultural traditions that have survived to present day, they only lasted so long because they have some usefulness to them, despite their baggage. (The fact that they survived even with so much baggage should actually give a hint that there’s something useful there.)
It’s useful to be able to guess at some traits of a person based on appearance, or from knowledge of a few traits they have that tend to be correlated with others. (Yes, it’s reductive, and subjective, and the very definition of stereotype. But as long as there is a channel for potential communication, humans will make use of that channel — on both ends, even listening for meaning when there is none.)
Like how characters in team-based video games tend to generally fall into the categories of tank, dps, and healer, and their appearance and skills generally reinforce that categorization. It gives a shared landmark that the entire team can reference and allows you to navigate collective action problems more easily.
Constructs like “manliness” work in a similar way. A loose constellation of traits like strength, willingness to physically protect others, usually valuing rationality over emotionality, etc. along with some appearance tropes like facial hair that aren’t really intrinsically connected but help people identify each other more easily. (Note that I’m not making a value judgment here. I think it’s useful to have a bundle of traits with a name as a landmark. That does not mean I endorse all of the traits or the specific way they’re bundled.)
The problem, as you know, is… basically everything else.
That it’s tied to gender and hormones, implicitly asserts that this is the only valid (or at least the “best”) way to perform this gender, creates a rigid binary where there should be multiple mix-and-match options, promotes certain undesirable traits as “part of the package”…
…and the galaxy-sized elephant in the room: the fact that this construct doesn’t exist in isolation, but is deeply intertwined with patriarchy. It’s not simply a bundle of traits for easy shared reference points, it’s also a social currency with some very cult-ish or pyramid-scheme-like mechanics to it.
I don’t know if the concept of “manliness” can/will/should be saved. If/when it fades away, a large part of its current footprint will have faded away for the better. But I think some part of it is worthwhile.
Maybe we reclaim that territory by evolving the concept of “manliness”? Maybe we replace it completely, with 15 different, more nuanced and healthier concepts. But I think we do ourselves a disservice by acting as if there’s nothing worthwhile in there.
The ability to perform gender in a better way and reclaim that territory is kind of the essence of trans rights. If we want to build a verdant city on that land, we should acknowledge the land itself even as we criticize the ways it’s been misused.
Edit: Btw, if anyone’s wondering where all of this came from: this was right after I listened to a podcast about the concept of “common knowledge” and how it functions in linguistics, and it blew my mind, and this was the first concept I encountered afterwards and seeing it with new eyes was fascinating, so I had to write about it and now you get to enjoy the whale-carcass-sinking-in-the-ocean-depths that is me figuring out how to describe it in my own words.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, re social constructs having some basis in reality, but the problem I have is the sort of appearance based aspect of it, most of the toughest most manly looking men I know are actually socially anxious teddy bears and the most "strength, willingness to physically protect others, usually valuing rationality over emotionality" people I know are 5'4 women.
Like the archetypes make sense, but the social construct is pointlessly gendered...
load more comments
(1 replies)
Reminds me of an interview done with Gabriel Macht, who plays Harvey Specter on Suits. He talks about how Harvey is the polar opposite person to him, he went to drama school, Harvey is ruthless, slick, ultra competitive, and conniving.
Wow a moustach and a hammer? Is that all it takes?
Standing around, drinking beer, not saying much other than grunts. Peak manhood.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Security is manly
I choose to read this as him being from a family so gloriously manly that he's the dainty one of the bunch. Even though his sisters could beat the snot out of him, they're true gentlemen who adore their brother and employ violence only in appropriate contexts.
Who is this guy?
He's probably best known how his role on the tv-show "Parks and Recreation". Here's a quick introduction.
He also guest starred in the first season of The Last of Us, and man was that a heart wrenching episode. Excellent actor.
Oh right! Amazing episode.
Never half-ass two things. Whole ass one thing.
This has been my mantra ever since he said it, and I have repeated it in countless meetings. It's generally received well.
Huh....I've only known him as the guy that really cared about building a highway for wolves.
Good to see he's getting work.
load more comments
(4 replies)
[Nick Offerman in Deadwood, for the dipstick that downvoted such majesty]
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›