James H. writes about the previous post on blue collar men:

It’s not the smoking, the Brylcreem, the vodka or whisky – it’s the attitude. It’s being comfortable in your skin. It’s understanding where center is. It’s being your own man and not giving a damn about political correctness, progress, sending the kids to the right schools, keeping up with the Joneses, going to the “best” restaurants, having the most expensive toys or making the most money. It’s all about getting the job done and living within one’s means. Marrying a good woman and staying married. It’s about finding enjoyment in the simplest things. It’s about being easily pleased. It’s about being grateful. It’s about raising good kids – not the smartest or best athletes, but good. It’s about finding as much to appreciate within 50 miles as most can find within 5,000 miles. It’s about accepting responsibility and towing the line. It’s about duty. It’s about treasuring tradition, ritual, custom and convention. It’s about family and friends. It’s about not pursuing happiness or perfection in oneself, others or society. It’s about doing the best you can.

                                              — Comments —

Markus writes:

Jill mentions contentment, and James mentions doing one’s best. I think the two are inextricably entwined in what the Bible calls stewardship. I know the men in the article weren’t Christians per se, (maybe Ernie was though ;-) ) but many gigachurch Christians could learn so much from working with, living next door to, or curling with these guys. As I’m sitting here eating breakfast in a greasy spoon, there’s a table of retired railwaymen behind me reminiscing about work, and lamenting the drop in present day quality of work. No Brylcreem but the rest of the vibe matches the article exactly!

In a few short hours here and there working on my car with Louie the Hungarian mechanic, I learned more wisdom than a lifetime of lifestyle messages from Joel Osteen, et al. It’s funny, my Dad grew up on the wrong side in WWII, and lived through some unspeakable things. He never talks about it to me, but occasionally things will trickle out to friends of mine. Although younger, Louie is the same, tells me things I don’t think his sons ever heard. I wonder why that is.

Jake Jacobsen writes:

I think what’s implicit in all of this is that these are, for the most part, blue collar guys. They haven’t been subjected to the modern guilt factories called colleges, and a lot of what you’re seeing that is so attractive is a mastery of their craft or skill. I saw this, and I think had this, in my work in the kitchen.

The modern feminized office will never provide the same kind of satisfaction to a man (or their women) as mastering a useful skill.

Samson writes:

I thought I was the only arch-conservative who reads The Tyee! It’s my favourite leftie mag; it’s got all the best characteristics. Not only is it obscure and painfully stereotypically Canadian, but to boot it’s one of the very few left-leaning publications that I think manages to be fairly honest, or even just plain fair.

Sadly, I think the most relevant comment on the original article was this:

I think the reason you don’t see those guys as much anymore, or at least why there isn’t a new generation of Hank and Vern and Earl is that you can’t be one of them, making $40 or $50K, and support a family and buy a house anymore.

It’s true. My wife’s best relatives are Hanks, Verns and Earls (HVEs) with rural backgrounds, and you know what, Laura? I’d love to be an HVE, and all that that would entail. I’d love to go off to my blue-collar job, put in a decent workday, and come home to my wife and children who’ve been minding the house. But I can’t, because I can’t support my family that way.

Laura writes:

But you can at the same time say that this way today is not better. We can actively remember what has been lost and try to make this possible for our children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren. What has been lost is not great riches or unusual prosperity, but normalcy.

It’s interesting to note that Vern and Earl probably were not supporting two-car families. Today, two cars are considered a necessity. They also weren’t paying for cable TV and probably weren’t planning to send all their children to expensive colleges. Their cigarette costs were not as high either.

Also, we have to recognize what the general breakdown in family means for the future. Unless reversed, it will lead to an even worse economic situation for our children as they struggle to support massive numbers of non-functioning families and individuals through government aid. The low fertility of whites means significant cultural and economic change in the future.

So this isn’t about Brylcreem and smooth living. It’s about the radical transformation of society that has yet to reach its most destructive consequences. More than 40 percent of children today are born out of wedlock. They will come of age in 20 years.

Hannon writes:

I enjoyed the 2006 Brylcreem article very much, including many of the comments. Someone mentioned “type-casting” and I suppose it applies here, but it is a positive and useful sort of casting I think. Many of us know exactly what “phenomenon” and character of people are being described in that piece, even if only from fragments of childhood memories. That is remarkable. Before long no one living will be able to relate to that “type” at all.

For as long as I can remember I’ve had this hazy feeling that those guys were holding everything together, that if only their demographic failed we’d be in big trouble. This seems to be coming to pass and I think the comment about economic status of men who could be like Joe and Ed and Ralph today is spot on. They simply can’t be, though, not on any appreciable scale, and that is the new normalcy. As more people see this it will be more than a conservative faction that ushers in a revolution.

Please follow and like us: