Novelties that aren't novel: "Mantuaries" and "man caves"
Posted 11 weeks 1 day ago byGentlemen, please. Last month, it was "bromances." Here, under protest, we have "mantuaries" and man caves. What kind of lameness is this?
"Mantuary" is a clumsy word, tough on the ear. Unpleasant to read. Unrewarding. When I first read it, I thought it might have been a typographical error. (Of course, there's a website.) "Man cave" is almost worse; it sounds seedy and disreputable. So what's the story? According to the CNN piece:
Having a room of one's own can provide refuge in a stressful world, but can a mantuary actually help a marriage?
Steve Brody, a clinical psychologist from Cambria, California, who specializes in marriage counseling, thinks so.
"Separate time is important," he says. "A good relationship has both intimacy and independence. Man caves may just be the 21st-century wrinkle to it."
Gee... no kidding. Honestly, this is news? In my day -- I'm a young fogey -- we would have called this a "den." (And we still do.) Personally, I have a "study." But dens and studies have been around forever. And men have been hanging out in their basements as long as ... well, as long as there have been basements. Sixty years ago, my grandfather even had Veronica Lake painted on his basement floor. The "21st-century wrinkle" is nothing more than a shoddy neologism.
Ah, but maybe there is something to the story, after all. Why would a presumably educated fellow such as the aforementioned clinical psychologist make what appear to be stunningly obvious statements? Apart from patronizing the reporter, could it be that such statements are no longer so obvious? Evidently, Americans' commitment to sexual equality causes blindness, deafness and amnesia.
JKP's observation about "bromances" fits perfectly here: "It is so typical of today's navel-gazing popular culture to imagine that every observable phenomenon is of our own creation. We don't look to the past. Heaven forbid, we look to the nature of things. And when we take 'credit' for having invented a thing, we have to give it some nasty little spin full of psychological and sexual drama."
Sure enough, here's CNN's sidebar to the "man cave" story: First the 'man cave,' then cross-dressing.
"My aren't we clever?" Too clever by half.
Thoughts
shucks
Submitted on May 3rd, 2008 by John 2000I thought that might be the case. But, you always seem so serious ...
Wait, what!?!?!
Submitted on May 3rd, 2008 by KansasGirlJohn, I was actually sincerely applauding Ben here - I'm a word snob, and this kind of nonsense makes me crazy too! "Mantuary" is just somebody trying to be way too cute, and I'm against it, forever and ever, amen.
Hey KGirl
Submitted on May 3rd, 2008 by John 2000I thought you would have been happy to see Ben get past The Wright Stuff.
Maybe you wore him down. You Won!
and yet the bitterness ...
Office
Submitted on May 3rd, 2008 by dotsAs coincidence would have it, I was in my "office" last night considering the latest Miley Cyrus "scandal."
It's the end of the world as we know it.
'Atta boy!
Submitted on May 3rd, 2008 by KansasGirlYou go Ben, defend the English language! Somebody's got to - sheesh . . .
yes ....
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by John 2000I did get your point, and it was well made. There is very little really new under the sun.
But from here, barricaded in my mantuary with only my Hughes Net and hand-crank generator and assorted electronics to connect to the real world, well, it is, quite frankly, difficult to not wander afield in my thoughts. My only neighbor some miles off seems to be interested in a bromance, but so far it is only textual. I suspect he is only really interested in the electronics, where I am certainly superior.
Please advise.
Worked up
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by BenWell, John, you make a very good point about language here. My point is slightly different but dovetails nicely: We're coining dumb new words for very old things because we've forgotten what those old things meant and why they were important. CNN has this long story about why it's a good thing for men to have their own space, as if the idea is novel much less controversial.
A couple of years ago, James Twitchell wrote a fascinating book on this subject -- with lots of grear photos by Ken Ross -- called "Where Men Hide." It's thesis is somewhat obvious, too -- again, men need their own space for their own mental and spiritual well-being, not simply because they want to exclude women from the fun -- but Twitchell has a knack for making stuff interesting. I recommend it.
well Ben -
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by John 2000It is difficult for me to get worked up about this one, so I won't. Yes, I agree it is a good time for some lighter relaxing fare in this interesting period between now and Tuesday (aka Super Tuesday III). So thanks for that, my friend. What may come out of all of that Super, Super, Super razzle-dazzle is that the NFL might be feeling some pressure to rename its iconic 'The Superbowl' to someting like 'The WayMegaBowl'.
Anyway, I don't know if you like Colbert or not, but he likes to explore words some in his show. I like the show but only watch it occasionally.
On one good show, he was exploring Wikipedia and some various aspects of that relatively new phenomenon. At the same time he was toying with a new concept-word which he was defining as 'truthiness'. But, being the rather quirky personality that he is, he required that this great new word, deserving as it obviously was, needed to be placed into his hard text desk dictionary. So, he flipped to the location where the word 'truthiness' would fit, and found that the word 'try' would have to go. So, with scissors and some paste, he now had an updated version of of his dictionary. Of course he warned children not to do this, especially in school.
I think his point was wonderfully made and obliquely goes right along with the essense of your potential concerns. It has indeed become increasing easy to add, modify, undermine, and delete words, facts, ideas, and meanings in a very technically facilitated 'loosely governed' modern era. This is arguably dangerous. Perhaps, your intent was not to push the question that far, but, in any case, it is where it led me.
So, I guess it turns out that my opening stance and attitude turned out to be non-binding.
thx
Sooo....
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by Joel...no interest in hanging out in my "guyfuge?"
Navel gazing?
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by AnonymousI hear this term thrown around a lot. However, with the obesity rates rising, I really prefer not to navel gaze.
I'm just saying.