So there’s this weird narrative trope that I call the Masculine Ideal of the Brave Dumb Jock.  You find it sometimes in fantasy novels, especially bad ones, and in media that’s trying to portray (American) high school culture.  I’m sure it has other native habitats as well.

When this shows up, it’s almost always set up as a generally-accepted social standard that applies exclusively to men (hence the name).  Under the rules of the Ideal, proper men are supposed to be:

* physically capable;

* physically courageous;

* socially dominant, or at least very confident; and

* kind of stupid, or at least un-intellectual. 

With regards to physicality, the Ideal favors brute strength and bulk over agility.  With regards to comportment, it favors  bluff extraversion over reflectiveness of any kind.  With regard to decision-making, it favors straightforward valor over strategy.  (“We charge straight at the enemy.  Anything else is for cowards!”)  Men who are too thinky – or who are physically small – or who aren’t interested in being part of the alpha male’s posse – are basically faggots of one kind or another. 

(In fiction, the Ideal usually gets trotted out right near the beginning of the story, where it’s used to establish that our handsome brainy lithely-athletic wish-fulfillment protagonist is nonetheless a Relatable Social Outcast.  The characters who espouse (and embody) the Ideal are petty bullies, or occasionally tertiary-hero Big Macho Idiots to whom our main heroes get to feel superior once they’ve come into themselves.)

The important thing about the Ideal is that it exists only as a strawman.  No actual real-life culture has ever endorsed it.  It has discernible features in common with extant Codes of Masculinity, to be sure, but…the resemblance is not strong.  In particular, it’s really hard to find anyone who valorizes stupidity as a masculine virtue. 

That is what I thought, anyway.  Recent Tumblr trawls have caused me to wonder whether this is actually becoming a real thing amongst the woke set. In particular, there have been an awful lot of posts on the theme of omg how great is it when bro-tastic bros are also nice?!?!…and not a few on the theme of gosh i really want a big burly masculine dude who just listens to me and makes me feel protected and doesn’t have opinions…

…and, well, it all somehow ends up feeling weirdly similar to the way that certain men used to valorize stupidity in women.  (And still do, I’m sure, although it’s not nearly as much of a thing as it once was.)  The Nice Bro, as far as I can tell, is a parallel figure to the Dumb Doting Girlfriend.  He provides all the benefits of masculinity to a very substantial degree, and he is endlessly good-natured and supportive, and he doesn’t have any independent mental anything going on that might interfere with your stuff.  

I suppose this is part of the thing at which @raggedjackscarlet is gesturing when he talks about the “Sensitive Beefcake / Threatening Dweeb dichotomy.” 

And, like, OK?  Nothing wrong with wanting that, if you want it, I guess.  But it feels weird, in very much the same way that it feels weird to me that anyone would actively prefer a dumb girlfriend.  Except even more so.  The Dumb Doting Girlfriend at least has the ancient sexual-allure-of-the-feminine angel-of-the-home memeplex on which to rest her appeal, but the Nice Bro doesn’t seem to be hitting any cultural-programming buttons that I can identify, he’s pretty much just a Labrador that you can fuck.  

A clarifying note, because I’m pretty sure it will be needed: I am not saying that actual real-life “bros” are stupid.  I am saying that the idealized figure of the Nice Bro, who seems to be fashionable right now, apparently draws some of his appeal from being stupid.