Are you man enough?

[Steveall]

As the "original poster", when I read the article I had many thoughts but none of them were about cross-dressing. The article did involve Kilts and it was obviously in the media. I thought the article might be controversial but the comments have not been what I expected and I certainly never thought that I would be part of the controversy. I wanted to contribute to the community but that obviously didn’t work.

[Mike_Oettle]

Well, Steve, I think you did a good job in posting the article, for all that it was a load of fashionista claptrap. It just puts our sartorial choices in context – to my mind an entirely sound context of wearing something that has a tradition behind it, rather than those weird skirt efforts the models are shown in.
For that matter, the model in a kilt doesn’t look right, either. Men who model kilts generally seem to do it wrong – is this the photographer, the model, or someone else who gets it all messed up?

On the subject of John the Baptist, two points:
Firstly, his camel-hair garment does have an echo of a belted plaid about it.
Secondly, there is nothing strange about either wild honey or locusts.
The Hebrews did keep bees, and probably sold their honey, too. But out in the desert there would have been no hives, and John would have had to make do with what the wild bees produced.
The desert on the Jordan’s banks was not as lifeless as it is now (not nearly as many goats to kill off the vegetation), and probably yielded very good honey from the spring flowers.
It is highly unlikely that John ate carob beans, because grasshopper-type locusts were kosher food.
Leviticus 11:21-23 has this to say on the subject (the source I located quotes the Revised Standard Version – most translations will tell you much the same):
Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those which have legs above their feet, with which to leap on the earth. Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind, the bald locust according to its kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. But all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you.
There was a type of locust that was not fit for eating, but unfortunately present-day knowledge of Ancient Hebrew is inadequate to determine what that type was. As a result there is a consensus among rabbis that since it is not known which locusts are not kosher, locusts should not be eaten at all.
Many societies still make regular use of locusts as food, and solitary prophets typically ate them in the absence of other food sources.
In fact, vast amounts of money are spent regularly on poisoning locust swarms (rendering them a biological hazard) when they could instead be caught and used to feed the starving.
Regards,
Mike

[wildrover]

Question Mike!

Was there a specific reason that type of locust was poor eating? Spines, taste, color, lack of substance? Or was it more a dogmatic declaration?

I've eaten chocolate covered crickets (or maybe it was grasshoppers)...and my sugar gliders loved pretty much any of the "four legged bugs with legs above their feet"...but never eaten a locust...

...Why camel hair? Lack of any other available fiber?

-Sean

[Bugbear]

Question Mike!

Was there a specific reason that type of locust was poor eating? Spines, taste, color, lack of substance? Or was it more a dogmatic declaration?

I've eaten chocolate covered crickets (or maybe it was grasshoppers)...and my sugar gliders loved pretty much any of the "four legged bugs with legs above their feet"...but never eaten a locust...

...Why camel hair? Lack of any other available fiber?

-Sean

It's because the world you experience and know is the one in your brain.

These "are you man enough," "real men" do this that and the other, and "gentlemen" do this that and the other mantras bother me a little in the back of my mind. Can't quite figure out why, but it has the feel of bully-speak after a point.

[wildrover]

It's because the world you experience and know is the one in your brain.

Huh? I was OT...what does that have to do with bugs as a source of protein, or other biblical history?

These "are you man enough," "real men" do this that and the other, and "gentlemen" do this that and the other mantras bother me a little in the back of my mind. Can't quite figure out why, but it has the feel of bully-speak after a point.

I can see that. Mostly, I read it as marketing gimmick..."you're not a real man if you don't drink our beer, drive this brand of automobile, partake of these hobbies..."

...most of which have absolutely no bearing on one's manhood whatsoever, and in the worst cases, are bizarre attempts to appeal to masculinity in efforts to encourage emasculation.

A real man doesn't need a load of ad copy to tell him how to be a real man.

[Bugbear]

Huh? I was OT...what does that have to do with bugs as a source of protein, or other biblical history?

Oh, it has every thing to do with it. I was not raised eating grasshoppers, and I was told, growing up, that the biblical locus being eaten by John the Baptist were "cacti?", and at the same time we ate lobster and shrimp. To my brain, the lobster is food, and the grasshopper is not.

I can see that. Mostly, I read it as marketing gimmick..."you're not a real man if you don't drink our beer, drive this brand of automobile, partake of these hobbies..."

...most of which have absolutely no bearing on one's manhood whatsoever, and in the worst cases, are bizarre attempts to appeal to masculinity in efforts to encourage emasculation.

And what I have been trained to consider "manhood," may very well not be the same as what, for example, a person from the Isle of Skye considers "manhood" to be; much less what a kilt is or is not.

It's all in your brain and the world your culture creates.

[Mike_Oettle]

In answer to Wildrover’s question, I have noticed that some varieties of locust that occur in South Africa (in particular one that has black, red, yellow and blue colouring) have a disgusting smell about them. I suspect that they may be poisonous.
Since the locusts of South Africa are generally the locusts of the rest of Africa and of Arabia, it would not surprise me if it was this type of locust that was meant in the biblical injunction.
Ordinary brown locusts or green grasshoppers would seem to be entirely edible, although I have not tried them.
An interesting fact about locusts is that many types that in the past were supposed to be distinct species have been revealed by scientists to be generational phases of a single species. You would have to ask an entomologist for more details, though.
As for why the Hebrews might want to eat locusts – the Holy Land did suffer from periodic droughts, when ordinary food resources were not available. The availability of this protein source would have helped them through those times.
But there are also theological reasons behind the restrictions, which are beyond the scope of this discussion.

Bugbear wrote: “To my brain, the lobster is food, and the grasshopper is not.”
Well, the biblical definition of edible (kosher) life from the sea or fresh water is a fish with scales and fins.
I understand many Jews nowadays do eat lobster, oysters, shrimps and even catfish. But in terms of strict kashrut they are all forbidden.

Lastly, Wildrover asked: “Why camel hair?”
Garments were made of a variety of fibres. Aside from vegetable sources, there was the hair or wool of several types of domestic animal. The cheapest and nastiest clothing was made of camel hair. The prophets did not aspire to wearing anything more costly.
Also, the camel was not kosher to eat, but I doubt that that had anything to do with this choice.
Regards,
Mike