EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Soft Underbelly of the American Right's Hard Abs
American conservatives – immune to camp – worship a cartoonish hyper-masculinity. It all seems a bit hysterical
At first, the June cover of Men's Health seems par for the course for a magazine that aims to stoke male anxieties about physical perfection to sell products to men the same way that the beauty industry has done to women for decades: a half-naked man in ridiculously good shape, staring at the camera with eyes that dare you to look with awe, envy, and not just a little sexual interest. But if you look at the headline, the image becomes shocking. The man with the sort of abs that The Situation would kill for isn't just some male model or athlete, but a Republican congressman from Illinois, Aaron Schock.
Schock jock: Republican Representative Aaron Schock, from Illinois, as seen on the cover of the June issue of Men's Health magazine. (Photograph: guardian.co.uk )
It's a choice that suggests that the congressman intends to live up to his name. It seems incongruous for him to pose half-naked – not just because of his office, but because of his track record as an outspoken opponent of gay rights and an enemy of sexual liberation who voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Schock is constantly beating back Beltway rumours that he's gay that spring up every time he shows up half-naked in public or wears turquoise belts with white jeans, a situation that would cause most people to rethink behaving in ways commonly associated with homoeroticism in public spaces.
But that's because we don't hail from rightwing America. For most Americans, there's a tipping point where preening displays of masculinity get so overt and stereotypical that they stop being intimidating and/or boorish and move into the territory of erotically charged camp. In 2011, most Americans get that the members of the Village People were not actually policemen and construction workers. Unfortunately, though, since that announcement wasn't made on "The 700 Club" with Pat Robertson, this kind of basic knowledge hasn't filtered into many corners of conservative America. The results have been embarrassing, such as when early Tea Party activists started calling themselves "teabaggers" – completely unaware that the word was slang for men who enjoy sucking on other men's testicles.
In many irony-devoid rightwing circles, there is no such thing as too outlandish a display of masculinity, and the very idea that such a thing might invite a gaze that sexualises – and therefore feminises – the peacocking man seems to have passed notice. There's an almost touching earnestness to rightwing enthusiasms for big trucks, uniforms and hot, muscular naked men showing off their manly powers.
Or it would be touching if this unquestioned enthusiasm for virility didn't have a darkness to it.
Unfortunately, the right's obsession with masculinity, and the fear that if they aren't constantly shoring it up and attacking the feminine, they might grow soft, has very real effects. Many, maybe most of America's problems go back to this manlier-than-thou attitude on the right. Wars are started. Women's basic human rights are denied. Gays are bashed. The main slurs against Democrats are about how they're feminine, childish or weak for doing things like thinking through important decisions before making them or caring about the environment. Even fights over the budget become masculinity displays, with Paul Ryan casting people who use the social safety net living "lives of complacency and dependency" – all the while, portraying himself as a tough guy with his own hefty workout routine.
Take one of the more amusing-but-horrifying examples of unironic, unself-aware masculinity worship on the right, captured by Right Wing Watch. Christian right ministers and activists Tony Perkins, Rick Joyner, Jerry Boykin, and Frank Turek put out a video where they likened themselves to the ancient Spartans beating off the Persians (in the military sense, not in the probably-going-to-be-double-entrendre-in-Lady-Gaga-lyrics-soon sense). They then announced a coalition of Christian activists called "300", after the recent comic book film that took heavy liberties with actual history, but had enough muscular man-flesh to fill the fantasy life for years of a thoroughly Christian, totally heterosexual rightwing activist. In our eyes, they may be sweater-wearing, soft-handed men who spend most of the day in leather chairs, but under that exterior beats the heart of ancient Greek men who favour hard grounds and camaraderie with other half-dressed naked warriors.
Unsurprisingly, one of the biggest enemies these Christian warriors are mentally undressing and oiling up to fight is the gay rights movement. Perkins even testified in Congress against Elena Kagan's appointment to the US supreme court, invoking her supposed desire to foist "the sexual counter culture" on the military by repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.
For all the posturing about toughness, the most salient aspect of this rightwing, over-the-top masculinity is how fragile it really is. The list of subversive threats that will topple redblooded American masculinity is mind-bogglingly long – and grows longer every day. A small sample: gay rights, women's rights, reedy college professors teaching your kids non-propagandistic history, religious diversity, Democrats (especially of the non-white male variety) holding high office, responding to international tension with any tool other than invading a Muslim country, a social safety net that's perceived as making it easier for women to avoid dependence on men … the list goes on.
Some days, you get the feeling that the American masculinity worshipped by those on the right could disappear if you blow on it too hard. And frankly, that would probably be for the best. Maybe then, we could move into a future where we look at each other as human beings, instead of gender caricatures.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
42 Comments so far
Show AllThis article leaves me wondering where's the feminism needed to fight back the rightwing jocks giving men a bad rap and where are the feminists who used to be there to defend nice guys against mean guys and make nice guys feel better about themselves? I'm reminded of my wife being one of those rare feminists who used to have to fight against women embracing authoritarian/patriarchal values at work and at other times defend men including myself who were mistaken as anti-female. It took her and us hell to prove that we support feminism. What did she get for all her hard work? Punishment from all sides. In the meantime, showoff jocks go unpunished. I was not sure of what to make when Jennifer and Jacqueline kept trying to tell me that feminism in America is dead but after reading this article and getting pissed off, I can see why they might be almost right. It's also harder to ignore the saying "Mars Rules !" that Sioux would remind us of. If Mars rules and feminism is not alive and kicking, all I can ask is this. Feminists unite !
Thanks, maxpayne, for your very thoughtful post!
For an inside look into today's feminists, I suggest reading the October 2010 issue of Harper's Magazine, an article by Susan Faludi. No female writer has done a better job of documenting the BACKLASH (Susan Faludi, 1992) against women through the past couple of decades. Where were the so-called feminist leaders as the backlash picked up speed and the retaliation took its toll on working women and poor women? Like Jennifer, I find the current so-called feminist movement completely lacking in organization and I question why they fail to cross the lines of generations of women -- rich, poor, and all women in between.
Part of the article -- American Electra: Feminism's Matricide -- is available at the following link:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/10/0083140
Believe me -- it's not a pretty story!
The article is well worth reading, and clearly illustrates the disarray and impossibility of having any kind of cohesive movement -- IMO. If people are interested, you might be able to find the rest of the article at your public library. I bought the issue when it hit the magazine stands here in NYC.
I also recommend Susan Faludi's book, The Terror Dream: Myth and Misogyny in an Insecure America (2008). It's a look into hypermasculinity, etc., that seems to satiate our society.
Every single person who is interested should know who Phyllis Schlafly is -- and what the Eagle Forum represents. In the early 1970s, almost single-handedly, Ms. Schlafly beat back the ERA movement -- Equal Rights Amendment. No man could have been as efficient at undermining women as she was. (Sort of like Obama undermining Social Security, universal health care, public education, etc. -- acts that NO Republican president/legislator could have accomplished quite as easily. Remember when the Democrats won the House and the Senate in 2006? -- and in 2008 Obama was elected along with a super-majority? Well, that turned out to be a myth, too!)
Kay, that article from Harpers was excellent and it reminded me of the numerous discussions Jennifer and Jacqueline used to put forth on lack of feminism in the states and how it affects class as a whole. They were both unfairly attacked so many times on Alternet for bringing it up but most on that site appreciated their tireless discussions when each of them were there. When I read that article and look back, I can't blame either of them for being very angry and jealous. Jennifer is 30 while Jacqueline is 43. The former from her posts appears to have been the more jealous one but the latter is very strong in her talks against classism that she believes exists even in the feminist movement if a meeting of older women and lambasting any who ask for younger women to be invited is any indication.
I'm already trying to figure out where to go on this masculinity and feminism mess on all sides. I could imagine dreamjoehill reading that article and giving a rightwing laugh. Not being the schadenfreude type, I find it very painful and kind of numb remembering how Jennifer would discuss feminism in Sweden and her anger that the US will never come close to such feminism unlike most of Europe. I have told her in the past that I didn't agree that feminism was the basis of success in Europe but that it helped just like it helped the US in some interesting ways. She has said in past discussions that feminism was badly redefined over the years and the Harpers article only confirms that.
This also reminds me of some men in the past arguing that masculinity also went through similar fate a long time ago. Perhaps that may have been true and maybe the dictionary definition of masculinity was not supposed to be about aggression or violence but it's male's actions over the course of history that would eventually come to determine the fate of the definition of the word masculinity.
Theoretically, the same could happen to feminism but it would have to take centuries and the majority of the countries would have to follow the US on giving feminism a bad rap so I think that feminism will make a comeback and then some in the US but it won't be easy. Any amount of success will require most women and some men to cooperate. It can't just be one or the other. If one goes nice but the other refuses, then all we'll get is revenge style changes and masculinity at its worst will still win. Here's a couple of my favorite articles.
http://www.siouxrose.com/article.venus.htm
http://treesong.org/feminism/
I remember Jennifer giving me the first one when Sioux got me on my earlier fears on matriarchy a couple of years ago. No doubt there's been so much to read on this issue since then through the comments and all.
I'm still stumped by the way on what armybrat once said about matriarchy and patriarchy but find it to be sort of reasonable. She would say that we must first give matriarchy a full blown chance and then try to strike a balance between matriarchy and patriarchy. Now I understand that she comes from a conservative background and carries an independent streak. Still, I'm not sure how the two could co-exist in harmony.
Thanks for the links. Of course, Sioux Rose and I have had countless online discussions about issues involving feminism and her metaphor "Mars Rules" certainly holds true in our society. Sioux Rose is correct!
Last summer, I went to see the Tilda Swinton film, I Am Love, an Italian film. Not long ago, the DVD was released and I checked it out from NYPL -- I noticed that the "extras" included several interviews and one with Ms. Swinton. The film is about capitalism and patriarchy, and in the interview she talks very openly about how the two are "joined at the hip," so to speak, and how they undermine the feminine in our societies -- they are not feminine friendly. Of course, patriarchy and capitalism are backed up by religion -- in the U.S. by a fundamentalist Christianity. Submission is still taught by the church I attended when I was a kid -- Lutheran, and therefore, my guess is that submission of women is also taught by countless other churches in this country. The Christian Right and other true believers are inexorable with their unrelenting attacks to "keep women in their place." Controlling our bodies is at the center of their strategy. From there, the rest is easy. As Sioux Rose pointed out in one of her recent posts -- if you don't have control over your own body, you don't have autonomy.
Europe and Scandinavia are not nearly as brutal in their approach to life as the U.S. is. I know that Jennifer spent several months in Europe, and I agree with her completely on this subject. Of course, the U.S. is the only industrialized country to NOT have some form of universal health care. Recently, I read a study -- the study may have also appeared on Common Dreams (I don't know) -- Mother's Index Rankings. Norway ranked first, followed by Australia, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Belgium, Netherlands, France, etc. As I recall, the U.S. ranked 30th. When mothers are treated better, all women are treated better!
I am always heartened to run across men who are understanding and compassionate. You are correct -- it will take a strong movement of women, joined, at the very least, by some men. We have never even gained "equal pay" in the marketplace of jobs. That fact alone has never-ending consequences for women and is disempowering because it's in the difference between the salaries that creates the ability to save money, etc. In addition, if we don't earn as much, our Social Security accounts don't accumulate as fast...and the beat goes on!
"We have never even gained "equal pay" in the marketplace of jobs. That fact alone has never-ending consequences for women and is disempowering because it's in the difference between the salaries that creates the ability to save money, etc. In addition, if we don't earn as much, our Social Security accounts don't accumulate as fast...and the beat goes on!
"
That is the root of the problem.
Fix the root of the problem, and society will be changed radically.
This is the same upper-class feminism that isn't really pro-woman. It's pro-capitalism as the (false) logic for equality.
The idea that women's equality hinges around capital is laughable and infantile.
Oppression results from much more than lack of financial parity as many minorities can explain quite clearly.
Where women are concerned, the facts align more with fear of female sexual choice and sexuality as a force of nature itself.
Despite inhumane attempts, female sexuality as a force of nature is about as controllable as the military budget, the war on drugs, police bullies and brutality and the wealthy getting away with mass murder -- oh, and good things, like children giggling, the sun rising, the tides, the wind, and people growing things themselves.
Here's the root of it: We'll start seeing what equality looks like when women aren't slandered or criminalized for profiting from having sex.
Bollocks.
It is the upper class feminists who don't give a rat's ass about income equality, as they all have good incomes, good jobs. So, they spend all their time nattering on about strip clubs, porn, prostitution, high heels, etc.
"The idea that women's equality hinges around capital is laughable and infantile.
"
Hardly. In a capitalist society, capital is power. The idea that women's equality does not hinge on capital is infantile.
As for sex work, that goes to capital and power too.
Thanks Kay for your thoughts on Europe and feminism and all the best to you and Sioux too. I think it's good that we all continue to share each others ongoing experiences and understandings as much as possible. It may not substitute for scholarship and committed research but most people don't get access to that kind of luxury so the best we can do is enlighten and unite. Good luck to all of us.
I can't speak for the sincerity of your post, but everything you relate reveals a superficial understanding of these issues at best. Even the way you try to equate "feminism" with "masculinity." Centuries of privileges to MALES only hardly constitutes the basis for a level playing field now. MILLIONS OF WOMEN have been conditioned by men to accept the belief that they are second class citizens, servants to men, the HEAD of the household. When this type of indoctrination subsumes children from a tender age, and when there are fears associated with--as if questioning the "law" of the church is tantamount to a sin against God, you can be sure passive behaviors will become established as norms. People thus-conditioned seldom recognize the truth of their status... until they face a major wake-up call.
Just because Jennifer B spent a few months in Europe hardly makes her an expert either on socialism throughout that continent or feminism. People spend decades in SINCERE scholarship and often do committed research. That qualifies with a lot more cred than someone spending a few months in a nation as a casual observer.
KAY: I wish you would not so readily buy into the idea that the feminist movement is to blame for the lack of seeming cohesion. The same relentless forces that attack workers, derail politicians who might make a difference, set up massive dis-information campaigns to cause public doubt around issues like global warming... have taken FULL aim at women and feminism. They WANT us to think it's dead! Why reinforce this idea?
I think it's problematic when people with Progressive ideals (and/or on the Left) buy into the largely right wing meme (and Chris Hedges has fallen into this at times, too) that the LEFT is responsible for its lack of order, that it is "unsucessful" in promulgating a purported easy-to-identify-with message, and/or not running candidates. As if who controls media and message is not the crux of this issue... if imbeciles with nothing vital to say are given public platforms from which to create a fan base or regular audience, it's IMPOSSIBLE to miss what the absence of this power means to principled persons and organizations.
We all know the press is captured, that universities are becoming far more intolerant of genuine progressive voices (since they depend on grants from big $ pockets which frequently tend to support right wing inclinations), that the tone of fear, stated or otherwise, simulates another McCarthy period. Furthermore, the entire right wing swing to the nation, currently signifying a dark phase on the historical pendulum, allows for right wing groups--those Chris Hedges accurately terms "American Fascists"--to make greater and greater inroads into the control of policy from local to national levels. Just look at this IMBECILE in Wisconsin?
Big funding means a lot when everything these days distills to the fiscal bottom line. Since women generally make less than men, where is the big money to support a national feminist agenda? With women fighting for battles they already won, specifically around pay scales AND reproductive rights to THEIR OWN BODIES, with job losses and home evictions, battles confront us on too many fronts. To then suggest there is no organization shows a lack of empathy for the conditions that make unity difficult, if not impossible. Should environmental groups be blamed because the corporations spend millions on think tanks that send their own "experts" into an already controlled media to thoroughly control the conversation? What this does is make anyone who departs from the official story line appear as the crazy, conspiracy theorist, or uninformed entity! These types of well-financed, sophisticated psy-ops campaigns provoke the appearance of division within the groups they target. And then, given the NUMBER of fronts on which corruption must be fought (because there is so much of it!) a further appearance of division seems evident.
To say something like "to strike a balance between matriarchy and patriarchy" is a childish attempt to use comments I have made repeatedly, about balance, and dilute them into meaningless pabulum. A statement naive enough to pretend we can just "create that balance" when religion only speaks of God the father, and most influential groups continue to be run by men with predominantly male boards of directors, when the Christian Reich is already decimating the rights of people left and right... from "illegal" aliens, to Muslims, to gays, to women, to public workers, etc. The list is long... and the few women who do make it up the steps of the hierarchy end up acting as loyal advocates of the pre-existing status quo. They are NOT true depictions of their gender, just as Obama is hardly an advocate for the rights of Blacks or minorities. It would seem that the token individuals who are not white males of financial privilege who do become insiders work all the harder to show fealty to their sponsors... so these are NOT good examples from which to make points about human nature or any other apology for the status quo. It is a status quo that is quite truly killing us all... from its wars to its ecocide to its reprobate energy policies to its lies and deception. And that explains why I cannot show patience to those in the forum that regurgitate its memes, even if they do so pretending to care about the issues important to Progressives.
I tire of spending time correcting posts that pretend to know what's going on, when they mostly reinforce damaging memes and false messages.
Sioux, for the sake of keeping the conversation intelligent, please drop the "sincerity" worries and let's focus on our agreements and disagreements. First, stop conflating disagreements with "superficial". Nobody will see everything exactly the same.
Second, Jennifer and Kay aren't repeating or reinforcing rightwing memes or false messages when they say that feminism is dead. They say it for totally different reasons and none of it is rightwing. True, there are rightwingers both in the corporate media and the ordinary social conservative realm who will say that but their reasons for saying that are totally different. I may not be that "perfect feminist" but even I can see that there is no feminism to kick back at the masculinity gone haywire. It may have existed when you were young but times have changed and we need to fix that. What are you trying to say? That feminism is still doing great as if the year were 1973? This isn't rocket science. Go back and read our posts carefully and think this one through. I'm not equating feminism with masculinity when I mentioned about the history and possible fates of each of them. I know you're a great feminist thinker and that you have strong hopes for feminism in the US. Kay and Jennifer do too, if I understand them both well, but they're talking about feminism relative to the real world and specifically to the US. They aren't talking about each of their own support of feminism. You're conflating personal with general, two totally separate matters. Just stop and think for one minute about this. If feminism were both alive and kicking, then how could things like public officials restricting women on anything and everything and the corporate media glamorizing obscene showoffs of both men and women in magazines be dominant or even possible?
Third, about Jennifer and Europe, I can't speak for her but she never claimed to be some kind of a scholar based on her posts both here and on Alternet for the last 1 year. Now, I think it's remarkable that for a young woman in this generation that she was very fortunate to see the differences. If more young people around her age had seen Europe, they might have ended up as overwhelmed and/or burning with anger as it appears to have happened to her. In her case, going from Missouri to Europe probably overwhelmed her and I recall reading conversations she had with people from the heartland who had the same feeling on what a hoot this country is. She has also listened to other points of view about each and every issue in Europe even when not every point matched her experience both here and on Alternet. I don't know what issues you're having with her personally but having seen her post here and on Alternet, I think she's suffered enough too and I don't blame her on her disgust with this country given that there's a world of a difference between her home state of Missouri and the other side of the globe. I don't think she's trying to make anyone look small based on her posts ever since she came back last year. At one time, she mentioned wanting to go back and visit more so maybe she thinks there's more to find out? I dunno but I think it's great she has plenty to share and it would be great if more people her age would do the same. I dunno her scholarship or committed research but even people with lots of either or both still continue to learn new things unless they're closed minded. I respect people for giving it their best and that's good enough to be sincere. If you want perfection, then you're on your own. I don't do fault finding and excluding others from learning. I like to spread the knowledge wealth around. If that's criminal to you then be my guest and let's all keep it regressive and be a DEAD LEFT. I dunno about Jennifer's sincerity but her intelligence is good enough for me and most of us. I don't do all that personal stuff on trying to dictate who's "sincere" and who isn't. It's a waste of time and a drain on mental health.
You're very lucky to be able to travel the world frequently and your scholarship is very admirable but please stop conflating scholarship with progressive. We all want more intelligent people just like you but disparaging and insulting others who don't agree 100% will get us nowhere. Let's say that all progressive Americans are ready to travel around the world just like you for the sake of argument. Most of them can't afford it thanks to the economic system. As you said, women make less money than men and if they're struggling, how do you expect most of them to listen to either one of us? Think about that and you'll understand why Jacqueline, Jennifer, and Kay were angry and upset over classism even within the feminist movement. None of us are here to discredit you or throw you out so please calm down and listen. I understand that you're a spiritual thinker and I respect that. You may not personally agree that some of us are spiritual thinkers but there's no universal agreement on what all constitutes spiritual thinking and what all doesn't. Some people think I'm one hell of a spiritual thinker and others don't. Hey, I just do my best to learn and catch up. Maybe your thinking is different but I don't understand and I don't personally give a fig about it because all I care about is intelligence and discussing the issues with interest. I may be fortunate but I developed a class conscious believe it or not and I'm not about to drop it no matter who's interested in insulting or disparaging me on it.
Finally, stop conflating correcting posts with disagreements or misunderstanding what others said. No offense and I appreciate corrections but did you read what I had written or are you just reacting? I didn't say that I support the idea of "striking a balance between matriarchy and patriarchy". It was armybrat and I said that I disagreed. Sioux, for your own goodness, please slow down and read what I wrote carefully before jumping to the wrong conclusions. You're generally a great writer and reader and I think you can do better than that. I'm not kidding. I used to be reactive in the past but over the years, I've learned to be more reasonable. Like most people, I don't believe in engaging in mental whitelisting vs blacklisting of others. I listen to and read carefully before giving my response. I'm sorry you're having issues with what I'm writing but could you please slow down a bit and read what I wrote carefully before making faulty and hasty generalizations? I'm just asking for your own good and mine. Again, don't take any of this personally. Peace and goodwill to you.
I don't know Sioux personally but if you do, then I'm all open ears and whatever I misunderstood from her, both of you have my apologies in advance. Sorry that my pointing out facts and corrections was too much for you or her but nothing personal. I was just trying to help. I'll leave it at that. I'm sorry that my opposition to the "all people are created equal but some people are more equal than others" has "offended" a few but I can't strive for equality for all if I don't oppose that horrible mantra.
Now you ask "where's the beef" to which I reply that it's in the real world. I don't know my exact difference with you or Sioux on feminism and neither would you but I'm just asking her not to get so overworked about the disagreements. As you know, CD is just a microcosm and most of us including myself, Kay, Jennifer, and others take what's going on in the real world seriously. We're not as optimistic as Sioux about feminism being there to fight back masculinity. Maybe that's what's upsetting Sioux and causing her to get angry with her disagreeing with any of us on feminism in America but that doesn't mean that I don't know feminism or matriarchy. I know Sioux is tolerant but if you got the wrong assumption that I thought she wasn't, then now you know. I've had plenty of great conversations with her before too. This one just happens to be one of those exceptions to the norm. By the way, not all spiritual thinkers are the same but I'll leave that for another discussion later.
A right wing laugh? Qu'est-ce que c'est?
The "right wing" label says more about your inability to transcend your bourgeoisie brainwashing than it does about my politics.
Which opinions were you labelling rightist? Or do you just kind of get that vibe off me? Sort of like prejudice, right? Your judgements and negative labels don't require any specific justification.
You wrote "the majority of the countries would have to follow the US on giving feminism a bad rap."
Guess what Max? The US version of feminism has a bad rap in Europe as well.
Facile rhetoric about matriarchy helps to fuel the stereotype of aging American battle axes and their self hating PC male allies. The hate speech spouted by some of the more misguided feminists, such as your mentor sickrose, also squarely re-inforces the image of judgemental schoolmarms with delusions of spiritual grandeur.
Joe, I apologize for assuming that you would give a rightwing laugh but please stop and take a deep breath. I'm not calling or framing you as a rightwinger. I was reminded of your fierce opposition to feminism when I had read the Harpers article. There's no need to let the verbal bomb trigger go off. I don't know much about feminism in Europe other than what many on this forum and Alternet say about it but I don't see feminism being the "threat" you claim it to be in the US. As I just told Sioux, there's no feminism fighting back the rightwing jocks.
By the way, I thought you were banned when some other name "joehillsghost" came up a while back. But forget all that. I'm sorry that both you and Sioux were offended and I don't mind corrections and disagreements but for each of your goodness sakes please stop overreacting and read what I wrote carefully first. I'm still open to discussion.
" I question why they fail to cross the lines of generations of women -- rich, poor, and all women in between. "
because it's not about gender, it's about class and money
Women, just like men, side with their class, not with gender.
I dunno Morticia. That may be true for some women but even for those who do, it's not that easy to sway them. The majority of women tend to think things through before going with the flow. See, when it comes to picking between goodwill and survival, they will do everything they can to keep it to the former while trying to stay alive. By the way, I always wonder to myself what would have happened had I not the weakness of being too hasty and scared of losing my economic survival and sanity.
Conservatives obsess about masculinity to hide their fears, cowardice and often their homosexuality:
"Impulsively aggressive
R.A. Altemeyer, a psychologist who has extensively studied people with right-wing beliefs, has observed:
[Right-wing authoritarians] see the world as a dangerous place, as society teeters on the brink of self-destruction from evil and violence. This fear appears to instigate aggression in them. Second, right-wing authoritarians tend to be highly self righteous. They think themselves much more moral and upstanding than others - a self perception considerably aided by self-deception.... This self-righteousness disinhibits their aggressive impulses and releases them to act out their fear-induced hostilities.
George Will seems steeped in that fear. To illustrate that point the authors quote this passage from an essay by Will: "Conservatives know the world is a dark and forbidding place where most new knowledge is false, most improvements are for the worse." Psychological studies back Will up. People with right-wing personalities hold more pessimistic views and left-wing personalities hold more optimistic ones. And that pessimism and optimism appears to inform how conservatives and liberals view their fellow humans. A 1984 survey of "emotional reactions to welfare recipients" found that conservatives "expressed greater disgust and less sympathy" than liberals.
While this propensity of conservatives to be threatened and fearful does not appear to induce neurotic behavior, one study of dream lives discovered that Republicans had three times as many nightmares as Democrats, indicating that fear, anger and aggression might be a factor in the subconscious motivations of conservatives.
The authors speculate that this susceptibility to fear "may help explain why military defense spending and support for national security receive much stronger backing from conservative than liberal political leaders."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Society/Conservatives_Deconstruct.html
The repubs have always had a cohort of raging, self-hating closet queens. J Edgar Hoover and his hitman Melvin Purvis, Whitaker Chambers, Roy Cohn, Terry Dolan, Ken Mehlman, Sen Craig, Michael Huffington and I am willing to bet big on Karl Rove, Jerry Falwell, Ken Starr and maybe Orrin Hatch. And this Schock clown? Jeesh! Turn it down, sister! Ken Starr was, of course, also a voyuer and a panty-sniffer but why wallow in only one forbidden passion? The cult of hypermasculinity, blends easily with the cults of the warrior, of the rugged individual and the "free" market. Those desperate secret urges are actually OK if kept secret or if upon discovery, renounced in a tearful public humiliation ceremony that ends in a faux "redemption". The Right doesn't care if you are queer, as long as you hate yourself for it.
"The Right doesn't care if you are queer, as long as you hate yourself for it."
That makes perfect sense given what they do to proponents of same sex and women's equality. But I can't say that they'll go against all queer. If a rightwinger came across a repentant gun owner who regrets being a gun toter in the past, he'd call him or her self-hating and try to mentally force him to be proud to be a gun toter. That and they'd carry out some kind of a witch hunting game against anyone who tried to reform him.
You forgot Andrew Sullivan, David Brock, "Jeff Gannon," and that Wide Stance guy.
Anyone remember the Big John Cornyn cowboy add for senate in 2008 -- it was a dandy!
And George Bush's victorious jumpsuit crotch.
JAREILLY: Your post is right-on, however, to the extent there is a focus on hyper-masculinity, anything equated with the Feminine is diminished in value. These same uber: macho pretenders are first to say things like "Drill! Drill! Drill!" or "Kill! Kill! Kill!" They have no sense of unity, no concept of love, feeling, empathy, or compassion. They therefore make excellent corporate figures because the only thing they identify with is profit/mammon/capital, and the power it allots in a society run chiefly on its damaging fuel.
This mindset places war first, steals $ from teachers and school budgets to pay for yet more weapons, saturates the Internet in disgusting porn (to further damage and degrade women, just as tagets of war are dehumanized with less-than-human names), tolerates rape as an act of war, does nothing to help the women in Haiti who still remain living in tents and therefore are targets to local predators, likewise looks the other way when all those savage rapes take place in Darfur or Congo, gives Viagra to chieftans in Pakistan to curry favor with the local misogynist honcho. ETC ad nauseum.
To examine one side of the Male-Female equation, what was intended as a Divine Parntership turned into an asymmetric slave-master relationship, is to not look deep enough into the chasm created by Western culture and its focus on the Patriarchal theories espoused in the Bible.
Fortunately the Indigenous never embraced these insane teachings, and we see a rise in the sort of wisdom that honors the Earth as Mother emerging from Bolivia and Evo Morales in particular. It is THIS consciousness that will save the earth, otherwise the life forces perish due to a stubborn insistence on only nourishing HALF of the inherent Yin-Yang force.
Oh, those half-naked repugnantcans look simply Faaaabulous! Not saying they are closeted gays .... Just saying they sure look like closeted gays. That being said, their anti-gay agenda is "proof" that they are not gay, sailor!
Well, Schock looks and acts like a closeted gay except for that hair. Unless he has his hair done in the closet.
Cultural cluelessness combined with self-loathing (a constant of closeted conservatives) can be a potent political weapon (especially used for satire) if progressives are willing to utilize this tool (no pun intended) that wacko right wingers can not stop providing. Unfortunately, there are far too many fuddy-duddy, humorless types in the progressive camp who do not get the joke(s) or the powerful effect that satirizing one's opponents has (Rush Limbaugh does it to devastating effect).
Depends on what you're satirising.
All the liberal, and left, satirising of Bush junior's personality traits, seemed to only make him more popular
I like quiche. I'm so ashamed.
I thought this article was titled: The Soft Underbelly of the American Right's Hard Ass
But I was wrong.
I feel cheated......for many reasons, not just the article title. ;-)
Given that most of the reported sex scandals involved prominant right wing Protestant fundamentalists or the Catholic Church, one can only conclude that there's something inherently unhealthy and perverse in Christian dogma.
Well, you know, we are talking about a religion its own followers claim was founded by an unmarried thirtysomething with twelve male cult followers, his mom, and a prostitute, and the message to forsake family and friends to follow him.
Yeah, real role model that guy.
"Christian right ministers and activists Tony Perkins, Rick Joyner, Jerry Boykin, and Frank Turek put out a video where they likened themselves to the ancient Spartans beating off the Persians "
Do these people have no sense of history? Homosexual relations were an integral part of Spartan military training.
You expect right wingers to know history?
They also probably do not know that the Spartans did NOT beat off the Persians, militarily that is, they got their heads handed to them by the Persians.
One day, during his experiments, a cockroach crawled into the machine at the same time he was testing it on himself...
WTF is your point ???
Unequal muscles. That's the right's root of oppression?
muscle strength -- replaced by machinery so . . .
Ever read "Games Mother Never Taught You to Play" by B. Lehan Harragan?
Another random thought. This picture reminds me of that repug congressman philanderer who posed like this guy, got caught and then resigned. I think this is propaganda to blur the lines of behavior.
Sexual themes seem common to the conservative/ evangelical right. Sex sells. The politician fxxking us thinks this will make it seem more pleasant but it is not.
Also, I have really enjoyed the comments,
Amanda, I liked your article.
Remember, too much yang will turn into yin (and vice versa). Its the Law of the Universe.
That's why predominently male institutions (army, church, corporate chiefs, boyscouts, etc.) always turn to homosexuality, usually in secret. Nature is seeking to balance Her energies.
I don't think so. Yours is a very feminine perspective on male sexuality.
1. Predominently male institutions draw many men with secret, or not so secret, longings for other men
2. When there are no woman around, men let their hair down and let their wild masculine sexuality run a bit freer. So they engage in sex with each other, if that possibility is available and not fraught with negative social consequences.
There really is no need for an unprovable spiritual explanation here, but believe what you want.
Also on this subject, I hope that all the those correctly criticizing the limitations put on female sexuality also are equally critical of the many and varied restraints on male sexuality. This is often not the case and many "feminsits' have a very conservative schoolmarm attitude towards male sexuality, particularly the male tendency to be promiscuous, but also the male tendency to view sex in a less sentimental, romantic fashion.
To so many on the thoroughly feminized left, women's sexuality is good, but male sexuality is bad, particularly when it doesn't fit the feminist definition of politically correct.
"The male tendency to be promiscous" is a *learned* trait, sanctioned because we live in a culture based on sexist and class oppression.
Still, I imagine that convincing yourself that behaving like an arsehole is *natural* helps you sleep at night.
And you are a judgemental shrew.
How do you know what is a learned trait and what is inherent?
If writing like an arsehole makes you feel better, then go for it.
It's interesting how feminists are always talking about freeing womens' sexuality but turn into puritan schollmarms when it comes to male sexuality.
and just because I defend male sexuality does not mean that I have multiple partners. Your rash judgementalism is showing.
Just proves my point that a good part of feminism is just plain anti-male. It doesn't seek equality but seeks a preferred place for women.
I think the author is really on to something. Underlying the worship of the cave man ideal belies the fear or the certain knowledged that they do not measure up.
That is why its practitioners are so grotesque. The chicken hawks who choose to attack without provocation.
The torturers who could have obtained actionable intelligence in hundred other ways. Bullying women and children as a way of practicing undeserved dominance.
'Men run the runnning with a stunning incompetence and women following along behind with a bucket'.
Feller's as twisted as a packet of curly fries - they all are.
And no wonder, when you consider their inspirations - I mean what *were* the Duke and Ronny Reagan doing out there under the stars with the newest recruit on the cattle drive? And why do they call them 'cowpokes' anyway?
And can you imagine the conversation between Joseph Smith and his wife?
Mrs Smith: "And what are those white stains that look like snail-trails on the barn wall, dear?"
Joseph: "They're messages from god left by the angel Moron [sic], of course."
Mrs Smith rolls eyes.
Odd, I don't remember replying to myself but I see a reply to myself on this thread. Something's off. A glitch??? Shrug...