|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Order David Horowitz’s new book, America Betrayed, HERE.]
In case you were thinking naively that Democrats would allow the upcoming presidential election to be a referendum on border policy, inflation, abortion, gender ideology, or war with Russia – issues, in other words – it’s actually going to be about which party’s vision of masculinity will prevail.
The state media are coordinating a push to hype vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz and “Second Gentleman” Doug Emhoff as role models for a new and improved, non-threatening, Democrat masculinity that happily defers to feminist leadership.
Here is a sampling of print media headlines in the last couple of weeks, all promoting Walz and Emhoff as pioneers on the political stage of a more evolved masculinity than that represented by GOP candidates Donald Trump and JD Vance:
Axios: “Two versions of masculinity are on the 2024 ballot”
MSN: “Are the men of the Dem ticket helping redefine masculinity?”
New York Magazine: “Tim Walz, Doug Emhoff, and the Nice Men of the Left”
Fast Company: “How Tim Walz redefines masculinity for modern America”
Time Magazine: “The Doug Emhoff Model of Masculinity”
Mona Charen writes at The Bulwark, “Unlike JD Vance, Tim Walz offers a healthy masculinity” and “may be the father figure the Democratic party—and the country—needs.” The Washington Post went so far as to lead off with this headline: “Doug Emhoff is the modern woman’s dream man,” which is either hilarious or terrifying depending on what you think it says about modern women.
Right in lockstep, CNN’s Dana Bash, reporting a few days ago from the Democratic National Convention, stated that she found it interesting how Walz and Emhoff presented a counter-model to “the testosterone-laden, you know, gun-totin’ kind of guy” at last month’s Republican National Convention. The two Democrat men, Bash argued, gave off the vibe “that it’s okay in 2024 to be a man comfortable in his own skin” – i.e., playing second fiddle to a woman in a position of power.
Similarly, after Walz’s speech at the DNC, MSNBC’s resident race-monger Joy Reid gushed, “[W]hat’s really been fascinating is to watch the men of the Democratic Party model a kind of masculinity that is simply 21st century masculinity.”
What is 21st century masculinity, you might wonder? It’s being sold as a refreshing, more civilized upgrade from that outdated, sexist, patriarchal, pre-21st century masculinity, which was about men serving as protectors, providers, and civilization-builders and -defenders. This new and improved, Democrat masculinity is all about successful men deferring to successful women. Left-wing pastor John Pavlovitch praised it as “the rise of non-toxic masculinity.”
On last Thursday’s The Megyn Kelly Show, the eponymous hostess and Tucker Carlson discussed this phenomenon. “They’ve spent 50 years trying to convince us that masculinity is dangerous and so we live in a world with very little of it,” Tucker stated. “And society has become much more violent, and much more unhappy, and much more chaotic.”
Kelly chimed in about Doug “Second Gentleman” Emhoff: “This guy cheated on his first wife by banging the nanny, impregnating her, and there was either an abortion or an abandoned child and they actually want us to swallow him as our dad. Why are they looking at these men as their new daddy figures?”
The answer is partly because the anti-family, neo-Marxist Left believe the State should serve as society’s father figure. But there is another aspect to this: the Left is trying to co-opt masculinity, which they know is the domain of the Right, and to redefine it in order to demonize the Right-wing version as toxic and boost the Left-wing version as enlightened, modern, and pro-feminist.
Ross Douthat observed in The New York Times (“Masculinity is on the Ballot”) that progressives – champions of the likes of Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer and Harvey Weinstein – should think twice about promoting “the special personal virtues of the male feminist.” He also warns that the “cool progressive dad” model of parenting is “rooted in a misguided belief that kids are supposed to be more enlightened than their parents, that a good dad just listens and learns from his wise progressive teenager.” This is “a good way,” he concludes, “to set your kids adrift”:
If you look at the data on the teenage mental-health crisis of the past decade, the indicators are conspicuously worse for liberal kids, who are seemingly more anxious and depressed than their conservative peers.
Sociologist and Of Boys and Men author Richard Reeves chimed in too. Reeves, who runs a think tank to address the problems of the American male, wrote in The Wall Street Journal recently, “Even by Trumpian standards, the Republican campaign has adopted a boldly chauvinist tone.” He criticized last month’s RNC for featuring “a parade of manly men” like retired pro wrestler Hulk Hogan and Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White. Reeves complains that the Republican party “is now promoting a hypermasculine ideal that alienates female voters”; he cites Vance’s “childless cat ladies” jab as an example of the Trump campaign seeming to “denigrate women.”
On the contrary, the conservative masculine ideal is not a turnoff to female voters – only to feminist voters. And by “feminist” I don’t mean a supporter of equal rights for women or equality of women before the law – those aims were achieved decades ago. By “feminist” I mean the far Left activist whose most cherished sacrament is the right to murder her own unborn child, and whose vision for the future is an emasculated civilization led by careerist girlbosses. Remember Hillary Clinton’s slogan, “The future is female”? That’s not equality – that’s male replacement misandry.
Reeves goes on to acknowledge that male struggles are real, but he dismisses as “misogynistic” and “pernicious” the view that “the advances of women have come at the expense of men.” As for Reeves’ take on Walz, he claims Harris’ VP choice “opens up new possibilities for presenting masculine virtues in a way that isn’t demeaning to women.”
Actually, Walz’s “virtues” are demeaning to men and women alike. He was Governor, you will recall, behind a bill requiring tampons be made available to “all menstruating students” in school bathrooms – as if boys can menstruate (they can’t, but Walz believes in erasing the lines between male and female even when biological reality precludes it). Is it “21st century masculinity” to believe that men can be women and should be allowed to utterly dominate women’s sports and infiltrate women’s private spaces like gym locker rooms? Do Democrats defend that as manly? Isn’t that the real “misogynistic” and “pernicious” view?
Democrat women like Dana Bash can pretend all they want to be overheated about Tim Walz and Doug Emhoff, but the reality is this: Leftists are the ideological enemy of traditional masculinity because it is the warrior spirit of the nuclear family, which Marx openly called to abolish. The independent, competitive, aggressive, freedom-seeking spirit of traditional masculinity is the greatest threat to the collectivist agenda which the totalitarian Left seeks to impose on society. What Bash diminished as a “testosterone-driven, gun-totin’” brand of masculinity is a threat the Left cannot hope to beat head-on, so she and her fellow progressives must subvert masculinity by holding up, as role models, de-clawed and deferential beta males like Walz and Emhoff.
The Left likes to smear conservatives as feeling threatened by powerful women, but it is actually the Left that is threatened by manly men.
Follow Mark Tapson at Culture Warrior
Women want to define what men are/should be, men want to define what women are/should be. But feminism has been at war against masculinity for decades and this isn’t surprising in that the success at men of achieving job #1 as men, has made men somewhat obsolete.
Indeed, women have never felt more secure, ever in known history. Men have been tamped down by law while men continue working to give women more of whatever it is they want.
Only a fundamental sense of insecurity will make women realize their dependence on men but it’s uncivilized for men to willfully create such a scenario … yet the cultural ascendance of the female psyche ultimately invites violence, it’s only a matter of time.
Take a look at the communist and Nazi marching armies, the women look far more sinister than the men.
When two men fight it’s over, when two women fight it’s forever.
Emhoff and Weiz aka Kommie Kamala’s clowns 🤡
Now that Tim Walz is in the limelight watch for his ‘tampon masculinity’ consuming his ego to the point where his already quirky behaviour gets so bizarre that he becomes a major all round embarrassment.
I’ve noticed Walz’s hand gestures when Kamala is introduced and while she speaks, like a small child toward their mother, or perhaps the court jester to his queen.
court jester to his queen.
BOOM!!! Tenring sho.t
Tampons have strings attached; and so do these girly-men.
It was Doug Emhoff that “cheated on his first wife by banging the nanny, impregnating her…”
Thanks for catching that. Corrected.
Their idea of a Man is one who isa total Vegan Hugs Trees instead of their Wife and Kids Rides a Pink Bicycle and lives in a Rainbow-colored Tent and Meditates each day before their Wheatgerm/Soy Buns for Breakfast and demand everyone must live like him
The nanny state is female in nature and inevitable due to peace, prosperity and the political empowerment of women ; it’s the endgame for the West ..a place where great nations go to die of decadence and exhaustion
We’re Third Century Rome, and transgenderism is just another castration cult.
“requiring tampons be made available to “all menstruating students” in school bathrooms”
Gay child molesters create the need.
Leftist so-called masculinity requires the individual to, without question or hesitation, grovel at the feet [or kiss the ring] of the “steal, kill, and destroy” global oligarch handlers resulting in a debased/reprobate mind (Romans 1:28). Evil is a bottomless pit from which there is no end to the prevarications (Genesis 11:6) since those so employed truly “delight in the perverseness of evil” (Proverbs 2:14). We can oppose such lawlessness, such deliberate massacre of the image of God, however, the ultimate solution will have to be a divine intervention. By all indications, that could be right around the corner.
The Democratic Party’s notion of masculinity is such that it sees Jazz Jennings as a role model for boys. No more “toxic masculinity”- castration can be fun!
How fashions change. Just yesterday, the Democ-rat role model for “masculinity” was The Kenyan, that half-white communist sodomite who keeps turning up like a bad penny. Turning up, ha ha.
I’ve never understood why the butcher half of the Obamanation transitioned. Big Mike probably teases Barry about being “low T”.
Doug Emhoff and Tim Walz….what a pair of pansies. Especially Walz with the way he prances around on stage. And Emhoff looks like a completely emasculated girly man sitting next to Kamala, with that little rainbow flag.
The last time the Dems tried this was back in the 80s with Dukakis poking his head out of a tank and Walter Mondale and his girly smile. How’d that work out for the Dems?
With war looming on two continents no one really wants a male feminist as either the VP or Mr. 2.
This is definitely the “Angry Women’s Campaign”
Pansy: Now there’s an expression I haven’t heard in a long time. So politically incorrect, yet still a useful word. I need to work it back into my vocabulary. It will give my rhetoric a sharper edge, plus it will piss off the Left.
It’s one of my favorite words but I use it sparingly
You are correct. It was Walz’s nanny that impregnated him.
Tampon Tim probably lactates.
Emhoff is the “ fathered a love child with the nanny and then got divorced” figure. Oh, how slimy, cliche, and just gross!
The greatest threat for the Dems and feminists is the alpha male. Trump is hated because he is a decisive pragmatist who knows exactly what he wants. Feminists are threatened by men who know what they want and express their independence from the chains of the new definition of masculinity.
I am afraid it is more sophisticated than toxic masculinity. It’s about power. The Dems have convinced some that it is about gender while disguising their megalomaniacal motivations. Little girls on the playground try to dominate the boys without much success. Harris is that little girl on the playground convincing the world that beta males are preferable.
I have observed and heard many stories of women forsaking their beta husbands for authority figures because their husbands were too agreeable. Beta males don’t turn women on because the balance in marriage is dysfunctional.
Now we have these clowns trying to convince us to reverse the natural order.
These Dems are poison and should be remanded to bottom rung of the societal order.
The details may have changed but that’s about all that really has changed.
This all puts me in mind of the Apostle John’s letters to the seven churches in Asia Minor, about two thousand years ago. He srngly warns he saints in tose cities bto be n their guard aainst the idolatry in each place.
Each city had its own temple, and they all had variations on the theme of sexual idolatry being the form of temple worship. Money would be paid by the males to have he females who lived/worked there to “service” them. Any resultant children would be allowed to be born (they lacked the technology of destroying the babies prior to birth) and then the child itself would also be “offered” as another sacrifice to the false gods. The temple prostitutes would be considered and worshipped as idols in their own right. the males would pay their dues by using them. John cautions “bretheren keep yourselves from idols” had a specific meaning then. “Don’ t go in to the temple whores”.
The parallels with today’s oversexualised culture are hard to escape. The disregard of the value of children born “inconveniently” are also pretty inescapable.
Of course men should be willing to own up to their part in this. I’m thinking of the legacy of a guy like Hugh Hefner. I’m no expert on this so I’m not suggesting that it all comes back to that, but it seems like what he represented helped give feminism a kind of reactionary moral pretext for encouraging women to covet that kind of thinking and rebrand it as “empowerment”.
“21st century masculinity”
You mean like Sam Brinton and “Rachel” Levine? Or is that 21st century femininity?
On the Left women like Kamala and Hillary are the vanguard warriors and “men” like Walz and Emhoff are the ones who nurse the children.
Today’s feminism means that women are on the top and it’s their who men get the vapors.
(I know this is an ad hominem attack but logic went out the door when our society decided trans-gender operations that mutilated children were civilized. Remember the Nazi’s thought they were progressive and civilized too.
My maternal Grandfather was a real man. Born 1902, there was nothing he could not fix; nothing he could not do. Hunt, shoot, correct his grandkids (me) he was a “mans, man.” I miss him.
What is Tim Walz? A prissy, hippy. 60s do nothing. His military career? He abandoned it and his soldier comrades.
TW. Go Away. Take “Her” with you.