Hairs and Years: The Different Eras of Man

I'm starting to miss having long hair. I always said that when I turned forty I'd start having short, tidy hair. Be a bit more sensible and less noticeable. Be a bit more manly.

I'm now forty-two, and so far I've stayed true to this. Nor do I have any plans to change this course of action. I can't help but feel it lacks poetry though. There's part of me that still wants to be a guitar-playing, gypsy-haired Bob Dylan or Lindsey Buckingham type figure. (I've been listening to a lot of Fleetwood Mac recently.) The distraction isn't helping things either. Leaning me into moody sighs, retroflection and love-stricken Romeo-isms. Or Troilus and Cressida, which I'm reading now, incidentally.

It was always my plan to give up the locks circa forty. I used to tell people that back when I was around thirty. If anyone told me to get my hair cut, I'd say, "There's a time for short hair, and it's not yet."

There's a thinking behind it too. I call my forties and fifties my "JFK years" in light conversation with people. I think the ideal mode of man is different depending upon the age (this applies to women too, but my focus is ME!). Youth lends itself to energetic things, whilst age lends itself to experience.

This is something that women naturally recognise when judging men.

So, for example, if you wanted an example of an attractive man in his twenties, 60s era Mick Jagger would be a good example. Energetic; risk-taking; wild; dancing; flamboyant; expressive; peacocking; ideas; imagination; a challenge to the social order.

Whereas, an attractive man in his fifties would be someone like James Bond. Suave; experienced; in control; strong; powerful; calm; clean-shaven; statesman-like; upholding/defending the social order.

What women find attractive in an older man is not what they find attractive in a younger man - and I'm not making the argument that these qualities should be embraced because they appeal to the opposite sex. I'm more stating that women are a good natural judge of what a good man should be. When we flip the above examples we can see this even more clearly.

A fifty or sixty year old man dancing around and peacocking like Mick Jagger isn't appealing. It looks embarrassing. A man in his fifties doesn't have the raw energy to embody this behaviour to its full potential, like a younger man can. It would also be expected that a man of such an age would've acquired a self-confidence that makes such appeals for attention unnecessary. Showing-off and playing the big I AM can be excused in the rash and young, but it's a bigger sin for people old enough to know better.

Likewise, a clean-shaven, calm, serious young man looks boring. A twenty year old can't pull off being James Bond. He simply can't have the experience and gravitas an older man would have. And his calmness would only highlight that he lacked the vital energy of youth that makes younger men such a force in the world.

So the ideal man in his twenties is not the same as the ideal man in his fifties. And women instinctively understand this, as the older men and younger men they find attractive reflect these differences. Therefore, the ideal twenty year old man is 60s Mick Jagger (or insert your favourite rockstar/footballer/etc at their peak), and the ideal man in his fifties is James Bond (or someone fulfilling a similar archetype).

My younger self picked JFK to fill the older archetype. This might not be the perfect example, as JFK was only forty-six when he died, but to my younger eyes, with his 1950s American looks, he seemed the embodiment of the presidential statesman or leader. In fact, the actors playing James Bond were no doubt younger than they looked too, come to think of it, but you get the picture.

(It's similar for women. A sixty year old Madonna behaving like a twenty year old popstar isn't appealing. If you're a man why would you look at a sixty year old pretending to be a twenty year old, when you can look at an actual twenty year old that naturally embodies those qualities to perfect fullness? A sixty year old just can't have that same vital energy. Attractive older women are comfortable with their age, and embrace the positive aspects that come with it. I'd rather not write a paragraph about what I find attractive in older women lol, but you can fill in the blanks. Or Google a picture of Helen Mirren.

Also, it's probably worth saying, I'm not chastising anyone for how they choose to live here. None of this is necessarily right or wrong in a moral sense. I'm not 100% sure what I should do myself. I'm just making the wider observation.)

Anyway, you could say the younger me viewed JFK as a good older role model, and that at some point I thought, "Yes, I'm going to be like JFK when I enter my forties and fifties." lol. As funny as that sounds.

The Breakdown

I tend to break it down like this.

You have the prince.

Then the king.

Then the wise old elder.

The prince is adventurous.

The king wields power.

The elder relinquishes power.

For the elder (I'm bringing in a third category here), you can imagine a Merlin the Wizard type figure. An old person, who is past middle age, who recognises that his days of strength and power are behind him, but who offers wisdom and counsel. He never tells King Arthur what to do - Arthur is the one at the height of his powers who must execute decisions - he simply helps the king work through his own thoughts, and acts as a repository of past history, "..A long, long time ago this similar event occurred ..and King So-and-so took this course of action..."

So I've always had this idea that as I enter middle age (beginning around forty), I need to become more statesman-like. (You're entitled to laugh out loud whilst reading this.) Then, when I reach true old age - God-willing - I want to be wise, but passive. Not so arrogant and cantankerous that I refuse to relinquish the limelight.

20/30s: Long Hair

40/50/60s: Short Hair

70+: Merlin Beard

😄

ART

I actually think this lends itself to art as well. So, for example, jumping around on stage with a guitar is more suited to a younger man's energy. Whereas sitting down and writing a novel is more suited to an older temperament.

In fact, often you'll see that people who become successful later in life, start out in different artistic fields. For instance, Ricky Gervais was originally in 80s synth-wave bands, long before he made his name in comedy. Perhaps if he'd have been successful back then he'd be prancing around with a synthesiser now at the age of sixty. Feigning the energy of youth, instead of wise-cracking about his middle age spread.

Yet again, I'm not saying you can't make music in middle age (or beyond even), I just think it lends itself more to youth, and that it's worth acknowledging this. That, with age, you should perhaps try to make music that truly reflects your mood and place in life. Not make a false attempt at trying to prove you've 'still got it'. Overstaying youth's welcome. I remember John Lennon, not long before he died, saying he wanted to make music that was the sound of a forty year old with a kid. Not try to be a Beatle, or outcompete the latest generation of artists. That sounded wise to me, and I'd be interested in hearing Madonna's latest album if she too was trying to embody the "wise women" witch archetype - not trying to be twenty.

Saying all this though, perhaps it's me that's wrong. After all, I do feel the pull of long hair. Perhaps we're all just born to be a certain type of person from birth to death. Pre-destined by our stars. Maybe I'm going against my own nature by trying to live according to these archetypes of age.

Maybe I'm the one embarrassing myself by trying to be JFK?

Will there ever be a vegan Nestlé?

I'm still stocking around on the stock market. One of the things I sometimes ask myself is: Will there ever be a vegan Nestlé?

i.e. a really big animal-friendly umbrella food giant that owns lots of smaller brands.

Or will it be more the case that any decent vegan/vegetarian brands simply get bought up by the already existing mega-corps? A good example being Innocent smoothies. A successful British brand that is now owned by Coca-Cola.

Over the last few years some of the vegan stocks have tanked. From the super hype and highs of the Covid new normal era to drastically terrible.

This all interests me for a few reasons. Firstly - like I said - I'm still stocking around on the stock market. Secondly, though not vegan, I am vegetarian, so I do like the idea of a world free of animal cruelty. Thirdly, I work in food distribution - just a normie job in a warehouse - so I see some of these foodstuffs coming through the system every day. Not in enormous amounts, but enough to make me think, "Well, some people must be eating this stuff."

Personally, I tend not to eat meat substitute products. Though occasionally I might buy Linda McCartney sausage rolls for the novelty of having something different. This means I'm not in a great position to judge the products themselves. Maybe it would be a nice experiment to try? Though I've never been a big meat-eater, even back when I actually ate it, way back as a child. I've just never had the craving for it, and I haven't missed it since officially forgoing it.

My thinking goes beyond the individual products though, as I feel that the best ones will just get bought up by larger brands eventually anyway. So, for instance, even if the Beyond Meat product isn't the one that becomes popular in of itself, perhaps they'll just buy up the ones that do become popular. Meaning if you own stock in Beyond Meat you'll get there in the end either way. This brings me back to my initial question though. Will it be Beyond Meat (or some other vegan company) that becomes the vegan heavyweight - the vegan Nestlé? Or will Beyond Meat just disappear and crash out of business if its product isn't successful, as the pre-existing Coca-Colas and Nestlés of this world buy up anything that's worth having?

My Portfolio

I've actually bought some shares in Beyond Meat as a little punt. I also bought some stock in the Swedish milk substitute company Oatly.

About $160 of Beyond Meat and $100 of Oatly.

I bought them cheap, but they've since become cheaper. So I'm now down about $90 between the two. The direction of travel seems to be only one way.

(It's not too bad though, I'm actually doing fairly well overall. I'm beating the SPX500 over the last twelve months, so I'm not doing too shabbily.

Meaning I can afford myself a little fun.)

Non-vegetarians eating vegetarian products

I've also noticed over the last few years non-vegetarian people eating these meat substitute products. I guess they're doing it partly for the novelty, partly for the cost (if meat is expensive it becomes a comfortable alternative, assuming the taste is up to scratch), partly for the health benefits (or sense of such), and maybe even partly to lessen their impact on animals and the environment - a kind of partial vegetarianism.

So I wonder if the biggest market for vegan products will eventually be just normal people who like meat, but who can't afford it on a regular basis, so need a substitute. The vape to the cigarette, so to speak. Not so much actual vegetarians like me that already avoid meat.

People view becoming vegetarian or vegan as a purely ethical decision, but in reality these decisions are as much about ease as about ethics. For example, it would be hard to be vegetarian if you were stranded on a desert island, clinging on to survival, but it's much easier when you can just head to Sainsbury's and choose from the thousands of options on the shelves. So a bet on veganism is kind of like a bet on things becoming more civilised.

If things get better - and people have more comfort and options - they'll have more leeway to avoid things that cause animal cruelty. Though I'm contradicting myself a bit here - as I'm also suggesting poverty and lack of options might push people to the alternatives too. It's tricky.

On top of all this, we also have this idea that the powers-that-be want us all to go vegan. Or to 'eat the bugs' - the weird zombie sister of veganism. Where we don't eat meat, but we do start eating creepy-crawlies. It's a weird world isn't it. I sometimes wonder if the threat of the bugs is just the scary monster used to corral us towards the vegan products. Though with the EU approving the use of mealworm powder in food one has to wonder. There's certainly a lot to think about when it comes to this topic.

Helen of Troy

They say Helen of Troy's skin was so white and translucent that it was like the shell of a swan's egg. The Trojan War. All that blood spilt over just one woman. Was it worth it? It should be an easy answer, but it isn't. When God calibrated the mind of man the world and woman were given equal weight.

It's hard not to think in supernatural terms. When you look at the real life flesh and blood Helen of Troy there's something demigoddess-like. The modern worldview seems philistine. The universe happened by accident, then ..dot, dot, dot, ..beautiful women. An atheist is a man who's never seen a woman. It's like finding a marble sculpture and not seeing the hand of man. There are moody miracles every day, the gravity of their beauty pulling the whole world around them. How can anyone remain faithless when troubled by literal angels?

..a bit of a wallowing, poetic one today, but I'm distracted. I'd get AI to knock up an image of the swan-like Helen, but it just cannot do it justice.

Conversations Rehearsed in the Mind

A few posts back I talked about my efforts to be less socially awkward. Since then I've found that physically slowing down helps. I'm normally a high energy busy-bee, with the garbled anxiousness to go with it. Anyway, just slowing down works. Like, actually just walking slower. I force myself to walk more slowly before I walk into a room, and, voilà, I'm much more chilled out. The physical translating into the emotional and inter-personal. Of course, it hasn't quite transformed me into Arthur Fonzarelli overnight, but it has helped.

Another aspect of social anxiety I've been thinking about is, "Conversations Rehearsed in the Mind." Everyone probably understands what I'm talking about here.

You want to speak to a particular person. You imagine the conversation you want to have with them. Perhaps when you're lying awake at night, or waiting for the bus. Going over it in your mind. Perfecting the words you want to say. Replete with charming little jokes and witty points. However, when the opportunity arises it isn't quite like that. Almost disappointingly so. And it's not just that you lacked the confidence to say what you wanted to say, though that may be part of it. It's the sheer difference between the fantasy and the reality. The situation presents itself differently. The person responds with different words to the ones you'd imagined they'd say, or they're in a slightly different mood. Or there are other people around, butting it and stealing your limelight, cutting you off. Or just changing the social dynamics of the situation. Or, the conversation just goes in a completely different direction. Leaving you trying to force your pre-scripted points into a scene where everyone else is just going naturally with flow.

In short, reality is so much more complicated and unpredictable than the dreamed-up conversation in your head. You're left feeling like an anti-social oddball. Or again, just downcast and disappointed that your life isn't what you imagined it was.

So, the question then comes:

Should you rehearse conversations in the mind like this?

Would it not be better to stop overthinking things, and to start trying to live in the moment? Isn't this the way successful, confident people go through life?

However, I'm not so sure. I think it's more a case of needing to manage your expectations, and learning how to deal with disappointment or defeat.

It's a little bit like football. Visualising success is important. Obviously, when you're out on the pitch the freekick isn't going to fly into the top corner every time. Yet still, rehearsing the dream in your mind acts as a form of practice. It isn't a substitute for real world practice, but it does help. It also allows you to imagine new ideas and be creative. I'm sure truly successful footballers do this. They'll dream (and obsess) over such things.

It may look effortless on the pitch, but that effortless freekick was the product of lots of mental and physical practice.

A similar, though more boring example, is the job interview. Interviews rarely go how we imagine they will, but thinking about what you might say or how you'll respond to questions certainly helps. And if you really care about the job you'll think about it a lot.

So, how much more can you care about a person. If you can lose sleep over a job or a football match, then surely a person is worth the sleepless nights. It's tiring and stressful, but would you want it any other way. The mountain is high, but the view is spectacular.

Therefore, I think it's more a case of trying to bring your tricks and flicks into the real world. To see the dream as practice for a real world that's much more complex. Instead of hoping or expecting that reality will simply mirror the sitcom in your mind. To prepare yourself for the big game, so that you have the confidence and instincts to be able to express yourself in real time. Rehearsing conversations helps, just be flexible. Perhaps the opportunity for a backheel or a rabona will present itself. But don't try to force it.

For instance, Ronaldinho no doubt did a lot of practising and dreaming - he was certainly imaginative. But he enjoyed himself on the pitch too and operated on instinct when out there. So I think this is probably the way to go. Not to start not caring, or not dreaming. Or to start pretending the things you feel are important are not important ..but to start enjoying the game more.

I think it's also important to remember that everyone has some kind of internal monologue. It's easy to look at other people and to think, "That person breezes through life." However, the reality is, everyone has an inner life. Everyone has their insecurities, anxieties and ambitions. So, if you assume others go through life effortlessly you underestimate their intent and worry, and their own inclination to dream and to pursue the things they want.

There's been a lot of talk over the last few years in online circles about winners and losers. Chads and betas. Especially in regard male/female relationships. With commentators often viewing women as foes to be subdued and defeated. But I think the real winners are the people that just enjoy the game. Cringe though that may sound.

a snapshot

Yesterday, I arrived at work. GB News was on in the canteen before I started my shift. The headlines about the air collision in Washington tapering across the screen. The canteen had a smattering of people. Africans, Poles, English, Indian. Some eating, some watching the screen, some glued to their phone. I remember the first time I noticed GB News playing on the canteen TV. It felt noteworthy. That was over a year ago. Maybe longer. It's standard now. It just plays in the background, like the BBC, or a local radio station. I can't help but periodically think about the noteworthiness though. Someone clicks the remote to turn it on. No one complains. No one turns it off. It feels like a little victory. Like somehow it's a little guide rail, keeping everything on the same cultural track. A kind of crash course in Britishness by daily osmosis.

Rolling coverage of American officials talking to the press about the tragedy runs uninterrupted on the screen. Then, finally, it cuts back to Tom Harwood and a female presenter in the studio. It then cuts to live feed from John Prescott's funeral, where Tony Blair is giving a eulogy. It starts mid-anecdote. A tale about John's no-nonsense working class manner - a refusal to refer to Menzies Campbell as "Ming". Blair then starts talking about "power". John's influence on debates about "what Labour must do to sustain power," and how the Tories "wield power" and find "nothing inherently unprincipled" in doing that. Even with the sorrowful news I couldn't help but inwardly laugh that even at a funeral Blair can't help but talk of power. I then looked at the clock in the screen's corner: 12:49. "I better wrap up, get my hi-vis on and head down to clock in for my shift."

Dreams and Cultural Conflict

Another day, another piece on the BBC News website about Roman Abramovich.

Are we on the path to synthesis and reintegration? A billion pounds might be a hefty slap on the wrist.

The big story today though in the UK is Magica De Spell's economic announcements. I must say, it all feels quite optimistic. We definitely need the reservoirs. So the feelings of optimism I had at the start of the year are continuing. It does feel like everything is on a better path. Obviously, the big thing globally is always war and political persecution. We want a world where these are lessened. Ideally absent. There's always cultural conflict. It does feel like the culture wars have died down a little though, and you'd think the more chilled out vibe would lessen the prospect of real, physical turmoil in the world. A bit of a healing and resynthesis period. So yeah, I'm actually hopeful.

Returning to Magica's announcements, the one that excites people is the idea of creating "Europe's Silicon Valley" between Oxford and Cambridge. Whenever stuff like this pops up I always think about how important the cultural environment is to such potential blooming. For example, I remember as a child briefly stating, "I want to make computer games when I grow up."

Naturally, as a child, I loved my video games, and that love obviously inspired the thought. However, when I stated this aloud the response I got from adults was one of complete dismissal. As if I'd said I wanted to be an astronaut or a Hollywood film star. It was just not on the radar of possibilities. Consequently, the ambition quickly disappeared and was replaced by other dreams and plans.

Had I been encouraged down that path I would've no doubt not ended up being a video game designer. However, it's likely that I could've ended up doing something relating to tech or computing. Some natural, more adult off-shoot of that initial childhood dream.

So, in the UK, back then, it just wasn't a realistic option for people. There was no route. And now, in turn, we have no Google or Amazon.

Also, there were no role models.

ROLE MODELS

Role models are important as they offer a path to follow. They illustrate to the young what is possible in adult life. What's realistic.

We can see this in contrast when looking at a dream I did try to pursue: MUSIC

As a teenager I loved music as much as I loved Super Nintendo games. However, in the UK, in comparison, we did have a music industry. So, even if parents and teachers weren't fully supportive of the idea of becoming a rock star, there were plenty of other adults in the wider culture that provided the blueprint.

Meaning, as a teenager from a council estate in the north of England, you could see, say Noel Gallagher of Oasis, and think, "He's from a council estate in the north of England and he did this - therefore it can be done." It is a real world possibility of a dream being achievable. Albeit an unlikely one. You can then follow that path. "What did he do?" You perhaps read a biography and seek to absorb the lesson. Of course, all these things tend to happen by osmosis. The thoughts aren't quite as clear minded as I present them here. Nevertheless, it is a case of people needing to feel that something is achievable. Otherwise why make the effort to go down that path.

This is likewise why so many young girls get hooked into OnlyFans and stuff like that. It's not that these girls are lazy or fundamentally corrupt in some way. It's that they're ambitious - i.e. they want a successful life, and they don't want to spend a lifetime working in a factory or on benefits. So, they gravitate to (what to them) feels like a realistic path to success. They see other women making vast sums of money doing it, and just like the teenage me, watching indie bands, that real world example serves as a template. An advert that: it can be done.

A realistic dream is offered. A route out of the drudgery and the humdrum.

So, if you want a British Google or Microsoft you really need to understand that the dream is so important. The next generation need to believe that, "Yes, I can make computer games for a living," or "Yes, I can build a robot or go to Mars." And, "Yes, I can be rich, successful and attractive to the opposite sex doing these things."

Now you, the reader, may say, "But this is just silly, these things just aren't realistic." However, this is how inspiration works. You don't create a Google if you start life as a teenager thinking, "I'll just get a normal job that will pay the mortgage like everyone else."

Stocks Deep Sunk ..and other news

We had the big AI stock market correction yesterday. Thanks to the emergence of the Chinese company DeepSeek. Though, given how overpriced things were becoming, I think the Chinese AI provided more of an excuse for the correction than the impetus. I'm no expert though, and we'll see what happens today.

I'm mainly posting as this story comes as part of a raft of stories running today that come with the sense of mood shift. Or, at least a coalescence of where things have been heading.

Above is today's BBC News homepage. The main story is the China AI story - a story that marries the very now themes of China, AI and Trump. This is supplemented with a link to the live running debate about assisted dying, and a prominent article about the Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich.

At the start of the Ukraine war Abramovich featured quite heavily. However, in the period since, talk of him (and his steel company Evraz) has dimmed down in the news pages. Now he's back, front and centre.

If we scroll down a bit, we then get another Russia/Ukraine story. Plus another very of the times story about a man benefitting from a brain implant. Welcome to the future. (Oddly we also have a story about '66 million year old vomit' being found in Denmark.)

I'm not sure where this is going, but it all has the feel of: "Okay, here we are. This is where we are now."

Back at the start of the Ukraine war I was a bit slow off the mark in getting my head around it. Now, in retrospect, I think I have a better handle on things. It's always easier in hindsight though. The challenge is getting a sense of things before they happen. Or at least as they happen.

More War? Less War? Where War? Wherefore?