Opinion 
 Blogs 
 Jeff Corbett 
 Men and roosters 

Men and roosters

The subject of men and roosters, indeed a comparison of men and roosters, featured in The Herald yesterday in a report about a painting given by Margaret Olley to Newcastle Region Art Gallery. The painting titled Olley (The General) by Craig Waddell is of a rooster, and Craig tells us it was the painting and not the title that induced Margaret Olley to buy it. In the report, painter Craig said he was inspired by the similarities between men and their roosters.

In my column in The Herald today I talk to Craig about those similarities, but here I want to put to you that the rooster stands for everything that should be admired in a man. For starters, the rooster is unashamed of his maleness. And a rooster does not shirk the authority bestowed by maleness.

Let's face it, those of us who've been culturally modified aren't up to it. Take monogamy. It is a form of emasculation of men, while a rooster is free to share the benefit of his maleness among any number of hens.

The rooster, too, does not separate authority and responsibility, as do many men who are not to be admired. A rooster ensures that his hens are fed before he eats, calling them to patches of grass seed and other goodies. Naturally when the hens come running for the grass seed he might take the opportunity to make one's day, and such spontaneity is also to be admired. He steps between squabbling hens, he shepherds them to shelter when danger threatens, and when danger comes close he goes out alone to meet it. Roosters don't hide behind their hens.

Are you prepared to join me in praise of the rooster? Or do you prefer what you're used to, the capon?

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Jeff - could you (or realistically 99.9% of the population) in the 21st century SERIOUSLY afford the ongoing cost of a coop full of women?! And all their cluck-cluck-clucking ang nagging. It's tough enough to have it in mono - let alone in quadraphonic stereo. Sure, what male wouldn't like to tup multiple chickadees, but as long as the birdfeed is provided by someone else. And then when the baby chicks come along and the tupping (or what is once was) is over. Ohh, there is enough Panadol on earth for the headaches multiple permanent women would bring.
Posted by Hen Pecked, 22/10/2009 8:20:41 AM, on The Herald
Now you are talking Jeff, I love Roosters, they are as you say the born protectors and show no fear. Maybe thats why women love men in uniform? In the human form I'ts hard to get a rooster, they are usually fixated in impressing other roosters at the water hole. A good rooster is hard to find and keep!
Posted by Buell, 22/10/2009 8:28:55 AM, on The Herald
Jeff my rooster is dicing with death .I caught him raping a sick chook yesterday (she was egg-bound and has since died--not much to admire there--but does anyone know if there is a treatment for egg-bound chooks that works?
Posted by Snooze, 22/10/2009 8:39:24 AM, on The Herald
I've never done it, but I believe the treatment is to use your fingers to break the eggs. What makes you think the hen was eggbound?
Posted by Jeff Corbett on 22/10/2009 8:51:28 AM
I can just imagine those men who are unfaithful to their wives adding this to the plethora of excuses to justify their infidelity 1) My wife does not understand me 2) I was drunk 3) It did not mean anything 4) Look at the Rooster. The idea of monogomy being emasculating is a lie - based on an ethical framework where right and wrong is relative to the individual; where biology is used to justify any sort of moral deviance. JC, just say (for the sake of argument) that biologically men are not geared to be monogomous, but geared to be adulterers ("share the benefit of his maleness" as you put it) then it shows that there is something wrong with our nature. Hmmm...it reminds of a man I know very well (who shares your initials) who says the same thing. ;)
Posted by Joshua, 22/10/2009 8:44:09 AM, on The Herald
Not another wishful thinker! We've just had a round with one called Rachel.
Posted by Jeff Corbett on 22/10/2009 8:54:34 AM
Now you've gone too far, Jeff. Encouraging men to be......men? Championing masculinity? Next you'll be suggesting that women actually like men to be men, not sanitised, neutered, reconstructed parodies of men. Could it be that all those books on the 'self help' shelves ('Manhood'; 'Raising Boys'; 'Fat, Forty and Fired', etc) that examine the lives and experiences of men are actually on to something? Maybe you're right. Down with the metrosexual or any other typology!
Posted by Abundance, 22/10/2009 8:57:37 AM, on The Herald
Joshua - men are not geared for adultry but geared to have sex (blame evolution, not sin hogwash etc - all living things are designed to want to reproduce - whether they want that consequence or not). If it be with same woman fine - but if she ceases to "put out" - don't condemn the man to a life of celibacy - what is is being "faithful" to then - someone who demands loyalty but no return? You may be very lucky to have a cooperative wife/woman/(whatever your situation) - but after some years it is very common for the taps to be shut off and a bloke might get a ho-hum "charity" offering once a month. So good on the Rooster. Cock a Doodle DO!
Posted by Le Coq Sportif, 22/10/2009 9:00:02 AM, on The Herald
A prime example of the topic is the Sydney Roosters. Promise a lot, never deliver and down near the bottom of the pile, cooped up in their inability to rise to the top, regardless how much is spent bringing in new chook types only to end up, cut from the rooster roster. All in all, about on par with French Rugby League who has by coincidence, the same logo.
Posted by MizJasper, 22/10/2009 9:07:49 AM, on The Herald
Monogamy is not natural. Humans (and most life forms) are designed (genetically, instinctively) to spread our genes far and wide. We all know that narrow gene pools can result in physical deformity (ever seen the banjo scene in 'Deliverance'?). Monogamy is a contrived, unnatural lifestyle. I'm not suggesting that lifelong commitment is unnatural; monogamy is. Having said all that, I happily remain in a very conventional, very effective, long term relationship. [Is it just me, or is there a strong correlation in these blogs between religious fervour and intellectual laziness? Probably just me.....].
Posted by Abundance, 22/10/2009 9:07:58 AM, on The Herald
If we all follow our natural instincts like our friend the rooster everything falls into place. Have you ever haerd of a depressed rooster, or one who claims to have a food intolerance for that matter. Cockadoodledoooooooo
Posted by tg, 22/10/2009 9:11:26 AM, on The Herald
I am all for praising the "Rooster" Jeff. But unfortunately the comparison you suggest between men and the rooster whilst may have been evident a few generations ago has in my opinion long gone! The ego obviously remains but the reality is we live with men that emulate the capon not the rooster.
Posted by The Shrew, 22/10/2009 9:20:07 AM, on The Herald
I'm hoping to lead a resurgence, shrew. And already I have a few takers here on the blog. You can be our mascot.
Posted by Jeff Corbett on 22/10/2009 9:26:12 AM
1 | 2 | 3 | 4  |  next >
Jeff Corbett
Bend the online ear of the Hunter's most provocative columnist.

Most popular articles

1) Apple iPhone 4 32GB44 plans 12%
2) Apple iPhone 4 16GB44 plans 6%
3) HTC Desire4 plans 2%
4) Apple iPhone 3GS 8GB33 plans 2%
5) Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 Mini Pro37 plans 1%

Mobile Phones | Broadband Plans

Get the best deal at Fairfax Digital - Rural Press

School Newspaper Competition
 
Travelworld_See the World


Newcastle Herald







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Navigate

Classifieds

More Ways to Read

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2010. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...