One of my all-time favorite conservative weak rhetorical tricks is to build up strawliberals who do very stupid things and then throw a fit when said strawliberals won’t do those very stupid things. More often than not, it’s tangentially related to a value that does exist that said wingnut finds repulsive. For example, in the comment moderation queue at Pandagon, I’ll often find a series of comments that call the bloggers and commenters racist/homophobic/sexist things or threaten them or things like that. After 3 or 4 of these comments, you’ll read, “Gosh, you liberals don’t seem to like free speech as much as you think.” Which means the commenter is almost surely a fascist who hates the First Amendment and has convinced himself that the law requires you to put up with the virtual equivalent of someone starting fights in bars, possibly to justify morally his desire to ban any non-White-House-press-release-based reporting. That free speech is completely protected in that he can start his own blog to call everyone here every name under the sun is irrelevant—surely liberals must be bigger hypocrites than Republicans who pass anti-gay legislation while sucking some cock at night. Surely.
But setting up a strawliberal value and then getting angry when liberals won’t honor it (while excusing yourself from honoring it, of course) is not just the hobby of drooling wingnuts that leave nasty comments at liberal blogs. From Kathy G. comes this awesome entry to the genre from James Kirchick, who has convinced himself that “tolerance” means that liberals are obliged to set up free brothels for wingnuts to make up for the perceived sex gap between people whose politics make them too repulsive to fuck and people who get laid through the old-fashioned process of making themselves appealing enough to attract volunteers.
‘I can’t date someone with a different belief system” is what he told me. I expected this answer from the guy I had been casually seeing. From early on, I suspected that our differing political bents – his liberal, mine more conservative – would ultimately cause a split. Once, we had a heated argument when I said offhandedly that people who could not afford to care for children should not have them (not a policy prescription, just a profession of personal ethics). After that, I tried to avoid political discussions altogether. So his answer did not come as much of a surprise when, a few weeks after we broke up, I asked him for his reasons. His beliefs euphemism didn’t render the blow any softer: We’re both Jewish.
So much for dating a proud, progressive, and ostensibly tolerant liberal. But with him, as with other liberals I know, tolerance does not always extend to appreciating someone else’s differing political views. Now living in Cambridge and having grown up in the suburbs of Boston and gone to school at Yale, I’ve been surrounded by liberals for nearly all of my life. Most would be astonished to hear that they’re the most intolerant people I’ve ever met. After all, I, the supposedly closed-minded conservative, never considered this guy’s liberal politics anathema to the point of wanting to call off our relationship.
I love that last sentence. Translation: Because my standards are exceedingly low due to desperation, those who are less desperate should lower theirs accordingly. Kirchick’s article has the side benefit of proving that homosexuality is no barrier to being a Nice Guy®. Forewarned is forearmed.
Conservatives have some funny definitions of “tolerance”. When you hear a conservative whining that liberals aren’t “tolerant” enough, they probably don’t mean that liberals wish to reorder society so that discriminating against people based on race, sexual orientation, sex, etc. No, in wingnut-speech, it’s perfectly tolerant to want to roll back women’s rights, gay rights, and to dismantle the gains of the civil rights movement. What’s intolerant is fighting for your own belief systems, if you are liberal. Call it the Bill Donohue definition of bigotry—opposing his hatred of women, gays, non-Christians or anyone who isn’t to the right of Attila the Hun is “bigotry”. True tolerance is inviting the NSA in to tap your phones.
One does wonder how far Kirchick would take his “tolerance means sleeping with people who wish to ruin this country and strip away your rights personally” attitude. Should feminists prove our “tolerance” by handing out hand jobs at KKK rallies? One suspects even he sees that his fake definition of tolerance should be constrained, since he tries to cover up his own political inclinations, paying tribute to the idea that people should be allowed to have moral standards when it comes to who they have sex with.
At Yale, most people knew me as “the gay conservative” for a column I wrote in the school paper, and my notoriety – not the source of sexy fascination that I might have hoped it to be – certainly did not help my dating prospects. My reputation preceded me. Once, at a party, a gay freshman who had only been on campus for a few days was introduced to me and said, “Oh, you’re that [expletive] conservative.” On Facebook.com – where people of my generation self-importantly advertise themselves to the world – I selected “Libertarian” to describe my “political views.”
“Libertarian”, a word that’s increasingly coming to mean “conservative who wants people to think he’s a bit more bedable than Rush Limbaugh”. Why use devious labels if you believe you’re entitled to sex with the partner of your choice, regardless of repulsive personal qualities? It almost implies he only wishes this made-up definition of “tolerance” to extend to getting him laid, but is fine if it doesn’t work for anyone else.
It does make me realize that if conservatives really do define tolerance as “sex on demand with whoever you want whether they like it or not”, that explains why so many straight people seem to think that legalizing gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. Maybe they think that legalized gay marriage means that their marriages will be dissolved and they’ll be married off to members of the same sex by force? Nah, just kidding. I suspect that exactly no one who plays this “tolerance means you’re not allowed to participate in the democratic system” card really thinks about what tolerance might be, except that they know it’s Stupid and therefore you should be able to hold it against liberals, whether you know what it means or not.
If you want to have some fun jabbing your eyeballs out with pencils in frustration, read the comments at Ezra’s. Their resident stupid-conservative-who-thinks-he’s-clever is defending the idea that tolerance means you should invite someone with repulsive and immoral political views into your bed. But he wants to believe that while also believing that you should be able to discriminate based on religious values, a juxtaposition that’s forced him into the position of arguing that political values aren’t real values in the same way that bowing with your left side instead of your right side to the Sky Fairy is a real value.
To some, all politics is local(ized to the genitals.)
I like this part:
I’ve been surrounded by liberals for nearly all of my life. Most would be astonished to hear that they’re the most intolerant people I’ve ever met.”
So when nearly everyone you’ve ever met is a liberal, liberals are the most intolerant people you’ve met. [Twist of the year!]
Even taking this guy at his word, he fails basic logic.
-MH
Why is it that when I hear a conservative bleat about a lack of tolerance, I immediately hear Mandy Patinkin in my head saying “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”?
Amanda,
can the “suck some cock at night” in the first paragraph be changed to “suck some non-consensual cock at night”? that would be more accurate.
One of the aspects of wingnuttia I’ve been baffled by is their complete ignorance of the concept of consent. In comments here and elsewhere on the Bob Allen or the College Republicans Mouthpiece who assaults sleeping men, the wingnut commenters’ logic says: “these guys are pervs, so are you liberals, why don’t you embrace each other?” Well, where to start, right? But maybe the idea that liberals like sex between consenting adults of the same socio-economic means (to avoid prostitution of those who would rather have other jobs). That means that, err, the other person would have to consent and / or not be paid for their services.
Why is it that progressive/liberals/commies/hippies can get sex for free from people who like them, and Republicans can’t even imagine what that must be like or that there is a difference between consensual friendly sex, paid-for diapering and blow-jobs, and assault?
Oh and also it should be “robes” for the KKK, not “robs”. But hopefully that one doesn’t confuse anyone except people called Rob.
Amanda,
can the “suck some cock at night” in the first paragraph be changed to “suck some non-consensual cock at night”? that would be more accurate.
One of the aspects of wingnuttia I’ve been baffled by is their complete ignorance of the concept of consent. In comments here and elsewhere on the Bob Allen or the College Republicans Mouthpiece who assaults sleeping men, the wingnut commenters’ logic says: “these guys are pervs, so are you liberals, why don’t you embrace each other?” Well, where to start, right? But maybe the idea that liberals like sex between consenting adults of the same socio-economic means (to avoid prostitution of those who would rather have other jobs). That means that, err, the other person would have to consent and / or not be paid for their services.
Why is it that progressive/liberals/commies/hippies can get sex for free from people who like them, and Republicans can’t even imagine what that must be like or that there is a difference between consensual friendly sex, paid-for diapering and blow-jobs, and assault?
Oh and also it should be “robes” for the KKK, not “robs”. But hopefully that one doesn’t confuse anyone except people called Rob.
What if Kirchick meets a real libertarian on facebook and that guy gets pissed off at him for his political views (not to mention his lying)? Are libertarians intolerant then?
Also, I wonder how many of those liberals are actually liberal and not just moderate Democrats or even non-political. It may just be “I live in a blue state/district so I assume everyone here is liberal”. Not that it’s impossible to be an asshole and a liberal, though.
Ah, no, it’s “jobs”, like “hand jobs”.
I admit it; I am extremely intolerant regarding neo-conservatives. I find their worldview, for the most part, mean-spirited, greedy, and overly self-righteous.
And I refuse to apologize, so there!
It may just be “I live in a blue state/district so I assume everyone here is liberal”. Not that it’s impossible to be an asshole and a liberal, though.
Ah, but all liberals (like ethnic minorities and gays and women) are merely part of a homogenous, single-minded entity. So any idea expressed by a single liberal is held in equal regard by all liberals. Likewise, all liberals must be held accountable for the errant behavior of the one standing in front of you.
I think this is just another iteration of the Nice Guy rant, which ultimately boils down to “Why do these sub-humans who are not ME expect ME to treat them as people? Did I mention ME?”
It’s simple.
To these people, politics and issues are just a game. Sure you might play hard, but at the end of the day, it’s nothing personal, ya know?
But to us, this shit matters. Politics are a sign of morality, and morality matters. So someone who has immoral politics is probably immoral in other areas, in our view, and we don’t want anything to do with them.
‘I can’t date someone with a different belief system” is what he told me.
Maybe what he really meant was, “I can’t date a narrow-minded, self-centered jerk like you”.
It’s funny. you call it “favorite.” it’s actually something I find utterly infuriating. like “beat them with rubber hoses” infuriating. It stinks painfully of the attempt at “gotcha” which way too many people have mistaken for actual rhetoric.
There seems to be a real belief among some on the left and right (mostly right, in my experience) that in arguing, you do not need to prove that YOU are right, only that the person arguing against you is wrong. So if the person claiming that military intervention doesn’t work, all you have to do is show one small example where lives in iraq are better, and all of a sudden the hundreds of thousands of dead and displaced, the wasted money, the ruined credibility, none of that counts because some LIBERAL said the war was categorically bad, but the army painted a school, and without the war, that school would have gone unpainted!
This shows two things: a fundamental failure of this nation to educate our young in the laws of rhetoric and logic, and the abhorrent belief that politics is nothing but a game with winners and losers. As much fun as winning an election or policy debate might be, the ONLY application anyone has any business following is trying to select what would be the best course of action for society.
“Libertarian”, a word that’s increasingly coming to mean “conservative who wants people to think he’s a bit more bedable than Rush Limbaugh”.
My favorite definition of a libertarian– and I can’t remember where I stole it from– is ‘a conservative who wants to sleep with liberal women.’
Their resident stupid-conservative-who-thinks-he’s-clever is defending the idea that tolerance means you should invite someone with repulsive and immoral political views into your bed.
He’s an ardent and articulate defender of illogic and the primitive responses of the ‘moderate’ or ’swing’ voter, a battle he wages using nitpicky accusations of illogic and emotionalism. Either he’s the most sophisticated troll I’ve ever seen, or he thinks he’s helping those silly liberals become more intellectually rigorous (::eye roll::); in either case, he contributes nothing useful to political discourse. I’d love to comment over there more, but he’s really a deterrent.
Oh, and I think Kathy’s entirely right that tolerance is a civic virtue, at least as promoted as a liberal political good. Whether Lou Dobbs wets his pants or not at the sight of anyone with brownish skin is generally not my concern, except insofar as he manages to influence the public discourse… then, I still maintain that he’s entitled to feel that way, but I get to call him a fool/coward/asshole/whatever in an attempt to minimize his influence.
I am never going to understand the conservative/libertarian lack of grasping that tolerance of intolerance is by definition an impossibility. if one tolerates intolerance, it means that you are being less tolerant, because you are allowing intolerance to exist.
Being tolerant does not mean accepting everything. It means ensuring that anyone can believe what they want, so long as they don’t think they have the right to impose that on anyone. Just because you think it should have the right to exist, however, doesn’t have to mean you think it’s a good thing.
For instance, I don’t agree with religious head-coverings. I disagree with them on a fundamentally feminist level, at my core. I’ve heard all the arguments for them, and I honestly disagree. However, I would fight to my last breath to allow a woman to chose to wear a religious head-covering.
But again, that level of nuance going over the head of conservatives/libertarians doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
To Kirchick … I totally support your right to be a dick, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are a dick.
lol Dave, I think that is the political equivalent of “it’s not you, it’s me”. Looks like Kirchick would believe that one too … very classic ‘Nice Guy’ behaviour
They never call conservatives intolerant for wanting to date the “goody two shoes” who waited until Daddy said it was okay to give up her pearl of great price, instead of the “dirty girl” who experimented with bisexuality in college.
Is it just because it is expected of them?
I dated a “conservative” for about six weeks once. The reason I stopped seeing him was because I found him to be an intolerant, racist, mysoginist creep, without a hint of social conscience. He was sexually selfish, infantile, callous (yet utterly needy), and a social boor.
So I couldn’t toerate his intolerance, therfore I’m intolerant. Yawn. Fine. Whatever.
Karmankin
But to us, this shit matters.
It also matters to many conservatives, but they,
unlike you, are tolerant of other viewpoints,
which was exactly the point.
I’ll try to make it simple enough for you to
understand. They understand that others have
different views, but don’t assume that they are
bad people because of it. They are tolerant of
other viewpoints; you are not.
“It also matters to many conservatives, but they,
unlike you, are tolerant of other viewpoints,”
Yeah, and those who disagree with them politically hate America, and want the terrorists to win.
And want everyone in America to speak Spanish. And force abortions on teenage girls.
Yeah, those are tolerant conservatives right there.
Aaaah Libertarian, then I assume you believe KKK members can be nice people too. After all, it’s not because their beliefs are different that they are bad people…
And I also assume that you have Taliban friends. You wouldn’t want to be intolerant, now, would you?
“They are tolerant of
other viewpoints; you are not.”
Uh, yes we are. That doesn’t mean we have to date, fuck, or befriend people we don’t relate to.
Libertarian -
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Plenty of conservatives assume that liberals are evil - hell, growing up in the 80’s evil and liberal were pretty much synoymous.
If someone hold views I find morally repugnant (as many conservatives do toward women, or towards minorities, or towards gays, or towards the poor, or on any number of issues of the day) then they ARE BAD PEOPLE. By pretty much the definition of “bad people” - “bad people” are people who are bad, who have bad beliefs and act accordingly. If you believe that gays are evil and they should be deported, or rounded up into camps, or even “just” fired from their jobs for being gay then you are a BAD PERSON and I don’t have to associate with you.
And this whole idea of “tolerating intolerance” is stupid. I’m a big advocate for free speech - I defend to the death the right of any individual to hold whatever belief they want. And because of that, I also have the right to think someone is an asshole for holding a particular belief. I have have the right to actively work to make sure that that person’s belief never gets enacted into law, and I even have the right to point out that “hey, this guy has this belief and it makes him an asshole.” That’s free speech and tolerance - you can have a belief that makes you an asshole, and I have the right to point out that you’re an asshole. And nowhere does it say that I have to like you just because I “tolerate” you.
Oh yes, the gentle, open-minded strawconservative who only wants to have an honest debate about important policy issues. You might want to let Bill “Dailykos is just like the KKK” O’Reilly know about that one. I think he missed the memo. And Ann Coulter probably needs a refresher course as well.
Yes it does, SarahMC. Unless I go out and marry some fuckwit Log Cabinite, I’m being intolerant.
…and “Libertarian” staggers out into the sunlight to tell Karmankin how intolerant it is to apply morality to people’s political beliefs - and by proxy condemn all of us regular Pandagonians for being intolerant of intolerance…
Dude, being “tolerant” simply means you don’t shoot somebody on sight just for holding or expressing certain beliefs different from your own. However, it certainly doesn’t mean you have to blindly embrace those beliefs with no acknowledgment they are anathema to your own beliefs. If their views are sufficiently repellent, you don’t have to pretend. You are not required to maintain friendships or relationships with people who disgust you.
This is a lesson that seems never to penetrate the Conservative/CryptoCon/NeoCon/LibertarioCon shield of self-righteousness.
“I’ll try to make it simple enough for you to
understand. They understand that others have
different views, but don’t assume that they are
bad people because of it. They are tolerant of
other viewpoints; you are not.”
WTF? Um, where the hell have you been since 1994? Which “conservatives” are you referring to? Have you been in a coma since 9/11? Do you understand what the word “Conservative” means in the current American political landscape? Been smoking some really brain-damaging shit for the last several years?
“Libertarian” - dude, get treatment. You’ve got some kind of really serious dissociative disorder going on…
And stay away from sharp objects…
Having said that, I would not want you to be arrested and deported. Nor tortured. Or sent to a reeducation camp. Or locked up for being subversive. That would be intolerant.
As a tolerant person, I’m content to call you stupid and be concerned about your mental health…
You know Jeff hon, that might be their strategy, because without such, who the hell WOULD marry a log-cabinite?
Tolerate = believe others with different beliefs have all equivalent civil rights under the law, including the right to participate in the political system.
Tolerate /= believe others with different beliefs are morally and ethically equivalent; believe others with different beliefs are socially and sexually appealing.
I tolerate all sorts of people. I only want to share my time, attention and body with people who respect me. If someone’s political, religious or other beliefs disrespect women, including me, I can choose to spend my time with such a someone. That does not make me intolerant, as I am in no way attempting to limit their exercise of their beliefs. I am simply not interested in being personally disrespected by them.
If tolerance means that I must befriend or bed down with people whose opinions specifically note that I am not an equal human being (as I believe conservative philosophies often do), am I permitted any standards at all? What does it take to prove that I am truly tolerant in this frame of reference? Should I hang out with a pimp — not a rapper who calls himself a pimp, but a full-on, sexual-slave trader? Should I let him beat and enslave me for his financial gain because — hey — that’s his belief system and I should be tolerant of it? That sounds reasonable…
Hell, I couldn’t degrade myself by marrying someone that hated both himself and me.
What I truly enjoyed is yet another example of “libertarian” being used for the umpteenth time as “I’m a conservative but need a different word to hide behind because I’m actually ashamed of what I am and say”. I would really love to see “true” libertarians objecting to this usage. No, wait, they’re too busy being over here on progressive blogs complaining about how libertarians are unfairly maligned if they are called conservatives.
News for ya boys! If you let the dogs lie down with you, don’t be surprised if others call you on the fleas.
“boys” — hmmmmm — Raises another question, doesn’t it? Are there any female libertarians now that Ayn is dead?
You know, at least the troll wrote us some poetry.
I don’t think all conservatives are bad people. A lot of them are seriously screwed up, and maybe even evil, but certainly not all. It’s sort of sad, but the ones I know feel like they are bad people because they can’t bring themselves to be as hateful and intolerant as their church tells them they should be. Why it doesn’t occur to them that the problem is with the church and not them, I don’t know.
tolerance is overrated. i don’t tolerate anyone different from me and my beliefs. no seriously. if you’re so stupid as to listen to rush limbaugh and vote republican, i don’t want you in my life because you don’t add any value to it and in fact, you give me anxiety and stress. therefore, don’t talk to me. (family members excluded. i like my family.) i’m quite intolerant. i have yet to hear a decent reason why that’s so bad.
I do wish some true liberals on television would directly challenge the asshats who pop up and decry the intolerance of the tolerant sect on precisely the grounds you mention: that our intolerance extends itself TOWARDS intolerance.
Frankly, I’d have kicked that ass in the shins if we had gone out on a date and he had started touting the greatness of HMOs and ignored all the people HMOs effectively help kill each year through their hedging of payouts and offering treatments.
Also, I really hate to see self-hating gays cry when they wonder why another gay guy would - surprise! - be intolerant of his support for the most virulently anti-gay administration we’ve possibly ever seen in this country.
I think this is actually the most important public service he’s ever likely to provide. Kirchick proves by example that Nice-Guy-itis isn’t completely grounded in misogyny, but is a sense of entitlement that transcends gender roles.Or does it? Does Kirchick’s version of Nice-Guy-itis mean that any of his sex partners must, on some level, be acting out the feminine role? Or does it really have nothing to do with masculinity at all?
Field reports from other gay men about gay Nice Guys® are urgently needed. Is there a lesbian equivalent?
Libertarian wrote:
Have you ever actually heard conservatives discuss abortion and reproductive rights? If not, what’s your secret? I have never heard/seen a conservative suggest that pro-choice advocates *aren’t* at least seriously deluded, and usually they go straight to “evil baby-killers”.Depends how you define masculinity? It ain’t necessarily about getting fucked. But it is about entitlement.
Then again, most of us also realize that gay freedom is anathema to conservatives.
It also matters to many conservatives, but they,
unlike you, are tolerant of other viewpoints,
which was exactly the point.
Because some of them are very desperate to get their hands on some liberal booty, believing (apparently with good reason) that most of the good sex is going to liberals doesn’t make them “tolerant”. It makes them entitled pricks.
The irony is that none of us would ban conservatives from voting, etc., but the Bush administration is actually infiltrating and spying on the loyal dissent. But who cares about civil rights? The important thing is setting up who gets to choose who they have sex with (conservatives get this right) and who doesn’t (liberals, particularly cute women and gay men).
Jeff, I’m assuming you’ve run across gay Nice Guys®, though hopefully only briefly.
Het NGs seem to have a script where they’re entitled to sex from women just because they’re male and bathe. Occasionally.
My question is, what’s the gay NG script? Is he entitled to sex from you because you’re: poorer, darker-skinned, more femme, more butch? Or is he entitled to sex because he’s *him*, and therefore naturally better than everyone, male or female?
Yeah, I think that’s getting at the crux of the issue. There is something about entitlement that is wedded to how masculinity is performed culturally in our society.
This is not to say that there aren’t women who have entitlement issues. However, it’s not bonded to femininity the way it is to masculinity. I think a classic example is that women generally tend to see being rejected as something being wrong about them, rather than there being something wrong with those they have affectional intentions upon, like it is with ‘Nice Guys’
(remember, I am talking in cultural terms here; generalisations, and so by definition there are going to be exceptions; anecdotal and otherwise)
Okay, MAJeff, m’dear: define masculinity. I am deeply curious as to how you will do so.
Cha-ching.
Re: “intolerant liberals”. I have a very dear friend who is very conservative. He does rant a bit about liberals (and says it would be different if more liberals were like me
). But his idea of a liberal is something very different than what we here in left blogostan call a liberal.
The people he’s calling “liberal” would generally proudly consider themselves “moderate/liberal” but are the kinds of people that we’d criticize for trying to define themselves as the left edge of acceptable debate and for marginalizing us as dirty hippy moonbats.
Perhaps this is an issue in general. What/who conservatives think of when they think of liberals (e.g. media types, the “liberal” pastor who is wont to make the church service more “relevent” but is actually rather unserious about his pastoral duties, etc) are very different than actual liberals?
Of course, this is being encouraged by movement conservatives in order to make sure liberals are discredited as people will think “liberals are like X” (based on their impressions of “liberals”), “Y is liberal” (as Y is a bona fide liberal), “therefore I can’t stand Y”. So the question is, how do we reclaim liberalism and make sure people know what real liberals are like rather than having impressions of liberalism based on a bunch of wankers.
FWIW, I wonder if the criticisms of “Pharisees” in the Gospels have a similar origin. The Pharisees actually were a pretty liberal bunch … but just as there are “liberals” that give us all a bad name, perhaps there were “Pharisees” that gave that movement a bad name, e.g. in the sectarian circles in which the Jesus movement began? So the dynamics of certain people criticizing “liberals” based on the behavior of people who claim to be liberals but are not, actually is an old phenomenon?
In any case, this also relates to my theory that “centrist” voters are not too different than 2000 Nadar voters, except that centrist voters are not leftists: in both cases there is the mentality of “both sides are equally bad” and the GOP has been excellent at exploiting that attitude in both cases.
(Good, I get the chance to pick two good brains instead of one.)Sarah, wouldn’t you say that is a limited definition of “masculinity”. It is equally arguable that masculinity is also tied up with societal expectations regarding duty, sacrifice, responsibility, straight dealing, and so forth. I personally would arguable that “masculinity” is a deranged teeter-totter, with hyper-expectations at one end and hyper-entitlement at the other, with boundless societal and psychological, cultural and personal demands yanking it up and down erratically and violently, with it never being permitted to balance in the middle.
Your thoughts?
You left out the best bit, Amanda:
So Kirchick won’t date conservative men, because he finds them embittered and patronizing. He thinks it’s an injustice that liberals won’t date him, but if he met himself in a bar, he wouldn’t give himself a second look.
Sheesh.
“i’m quite intolerant. i have yet to hear a decent reason why that’s so bad.”
Because people with different ideas than you have knowledge you don’t and make important contributions to society.
An example would be Henry Ford, an intolerant ass-bag if there ever was one. So does society reject his contributions because of his views in certain areas? You can say yes, but society loses. Or you can say - this part of his contributions work and his ideas are nonsense - thanks for the model T and no thanks I don’t want to goose-step in your parade.
I think this discussion is treating the fringe as the norm. We all work with people who vote differently than we do, attend a different church (or don’t) than we do, have different family setups than we do, and we don’t villify them…we eat lunch with them, ask them what they did over the weekend, and honestly listen to the events and ideas generated in their very different lives. And generally we actually like them and call them friends. Real people (not tv talking heads or soundbigte machines etc.) actually get along pretty damn well despite their differences in political and social leanings. To stop listening to other with a different viewpoint is to claim you know it all - and I guarantee you that you don’t. I sure as hell don’t.
DAS, I’m glad that you put “centrist” in quotation marks. The media use it to mean “roughly halfway between the Dems and the GOP” or “on the left of the GOP”. When measured by policy, preferences rather than by party affiliation, however, “center” means roughly in the middle of the Democrats. Nobody wants to mention, that math and those facts, however. They’d rather do smug little pieces on how bloggers don’t do their homework.
This reminds me of that one South Park episode where Mr. Garrison is trying to get fired so that he can sue the school and get money. At the end he says something like:
“You tolerate a screaming baby on a plane. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t piss you off!”
If sounds better in context than out, but it’s been a while since I have seen it.
Libertarian:
Jeez, Amanda, are you paying this asshat under the table, or something? It’s like he’s trying to prove your point for you.
This reminds me of that one South Park episode where Mr. Garrison is trying to get fired so that he can sue the school and get money. At the end he says something like:
“You tolerate a screaming baby on a plane. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t piss you off!”
If sounds better in context than out, but it’s been a while since I have seen it.
No. The criticisms of Pharisees in the New Testament get more strident in the later-written documents (i.e. strong in John, weak in the letters of Paul).This is almost certainly because after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) Christianity and Phariseeism (which is ancestral to rabbinic Judaism) were the largest Jewish variants still standing. Other forms of Judaism all had sacrifice in an actual Temple as their focal point; Christianity and Phariseeism were able to do without a Temple, and so they were each others’ competition.
(read Surpassing Wonder by Donald Harman Akenson for a fuller treatment of this period.)
I dunno that I can any more. Honestly, when I see personal ads looking for “masculine” men, I never know if I fit. I mean, while watching a Vikings game, I can get downright butch, but I’ve also got a flair for design. I have more than one emotion, so I guess that works against being masculine….I guess it’s a bunch of different axes.
But, the rise of the “versatile” gay man has, at least among many gay men, “degendered” certain acts, like getting fucked. We dumped those roles. Sure, some men retain them, but a lot of us don’t view fucking/getting fucked as gendered—it’s fun.
Sorry about the double post.
lol, so 6079 hon, Jeff and I are just your pet caged sociologists, aren’t we?
But as to your question, you have to also not see masculinity as an island. Heterosexual masculinity (as dominant, hegemonic masculinity) is about unfettered access to, and control of, female sexuality. In order to maintain such a masculinity in the face of lack of access and control, ‘Nice Guys’ place the problem within the women they feel they should be able to have, would only the women realise this, rather than turn it around and reconstruction masculinity.
Hence, in the gay-male sense, one can construct one’s performance of masculinity in terms of having access, and control of, another’s sexuality, this time that of another man. If one is wedded to hegemonic masculinity, as conservatives tend to more so be, then the dehumanisation of one’s sexual object choice (at least through having lack of agency, particularly through the feminisation of that object choice) through making one’s lack of sexual access a problem located in that object, it almost removes the requirement of that object being female.
And you can see that in Kirchick’s article.
Libertarian, that was the worst attempt at iambic pentameter I’ve ever seen.
try again now. BaBUMbaBUMbaBUMbaBUMbaBUM
You LIBerALS think YOU’RE so TOLerANT.
But IT turns OUT you ARE the REAL biGOTS.
PeoPLE should SET aSIDE their VIEWS in BED.
and IF you CAN’T love REDS, you HAVE no HEART.
Oh, and I’ll add that this is not to say that women can’t act entitled when it comes to access to another’s sexuality.
However, reactions to that actually involve censures for acting gender-inappropriately, NOT as a performance of correctly gendered behaviour.
I understand that the conservative position on animal cruelty is that it’s OK because they are lesser beings.
Should I think that those who hold the conservative position are animal cruelty are OK people just to be your view of “tolerant”?
Or should I be a normal human being and tell those conservatives to get the fuck out of my face?
I have a lot of people in my life who have different political views from me, and no, I don’t think they’re bad people. (Frequently misinformed perhaps.) I am perfectly happy to tolerate a whole range of beliefs, attitudes and personal quirks in my family, friends and circle of acquaintance.
However, when it comes to the most intimate relationship of my life, the rules are different. I need closely shared values. I need complete acceptance of and from my partner. I need to trust that we’re on the same page (or at least in the same book) when it comes to the important things in life.
If that’s intolerance, then, fuck yeah, I’m incredibly intolerant.
Christianity and Phariseeism were able to do without a Temple, and so they were each others’ competition. - Doctor Science
This certainly is the case, but I can’t help but think that some of these criticisms of Pharisaic Judaism have antecedents that date back to even the times in which the events descibed in the Gospels were supposed to have taken place.
Certainly, groups within the sectarian millieu from which, no doubt, Christianity arose, critizied the Pharisees for their occassional cooperation with the Romans and their acceptance of the illegitimate high priests of the time, in terms that wouldn’t have been too different from those which occur in the Gospel of Matthew. And no doubt many of the “men of the soil” of the time would have found specific Pharisees to be hypocrites in the same way that liberals (e.g. “the liberal media) are criticized today by the unwashed masses as well as poeple who should know better … and those criticisms likely formed the substratum from which the authors of the Gospels drew, in writing their own documents whose goal was to argue for the up-and-coming religion of Christianity (even a solid Christian has to admit the Gospels are designed to be persuasive rather than purely historical documents … think of the very name “Gospel”
).
And, nu?, this is similar to how conservatives take advantage of (mis) perceptions of liberals today … not that the early Christians were conservative (they were, in some ways, rather leftist), but the point is that the argumentation follows similar patterns, eh?
I am entitled to my excellent taste in pets.
Well, I want better treats dammit!!!!
Yeah, and if you’re hoping we’re going to breed, you’ve got another thing coming …
On the other hand, I will perform for access to Pottery Barn …
Libertarian’s stopped even trying.
Back in your playground days, if there was a kid who bullied you constantly, made you eat mud, slammed you up against the fences and generally tried to humiliate you and have you subjugated to their will, you would do whatever it took to get away from that person. You wouldn’t cozy up to them, or their gang.
Back in your middleschool days, if there was a clique who were notorious for blabbing secrets all over the school, you wouldn’t talk to those people.
In your highschool days, if there were kids who liked to steal shit, you wouldn’t invite them to your house.
Women with bodily autonomy chose not to fuck men who want to take that autonomy away.
Gays and Lesbians chose not to look for partners in people who belong to a group that looks to criminalize their sexuality and otherwise firm up their status as second-class citizens.
Politics should not stay out of the bedroom when the politics of the other side is so heavily invested in regulating the bedroom.
Field reports from other gay men about gay Nice Guys® are urgently needed. Is there a lesbian equivalent?
Oh yes, and I’m not one of the pet sociologists so I’ll have to offer field anecdotes:
Lesbian Nice Guy®: Well, I thought since we’d been on a few dates now, you just weren’t ready for sex with a woman.
Lesbian Nice Guy®: But I’m professionally employed and out to my parents! What more could you want?
Not-Yet-Lesbian Nice Guy®: I’m not asking you to help my cheat on my fiance, because what I want you to do to me isn’t really sex…but can you do it to me right this minute?
Seriously. All of these women had been told that I’m a progressive, politically active gold star lesbian who came out at 13. Yet they were entitled to sex, based on these brilliant claims!
If there is data on women who act entitled to lesbian sex because they’re not assholes, I’m unaware of it.
MAJeff, Sarah: Thanks for your thoughts. You’ll note the common note between your takes: an ability to define masculinity only through its negative or cliche components on the one hand, combined with an inability to provide positive definitions on the other. We as a culture are genuinely clueless, I think in providing a definition of masculinity which isn’t dated, negative or partial or reactive,and your short summaries are excellent mirrors of our culture’s confusion.
I would argue, though, that we need a definition, and a positive one if that, if for no other reason than to supplant the outdated, anti-female notions inherent in the old definition. Antifeminist conservatism has grasped the nettle of defining what is a Man, with near-iron popcult success. Part of that problem, perhaps, is that feminist and egalitarian thought have not provided a dynamic, inspiring replacement which incorporates the best of the old with the better world of the new. Many men are providing vigorous nonsexist examples of masculinity, but it is within the purview of their own lives rather than being a culture-wide concept that others — confused, searching and want-to-be-decent others — can understand and use as a model for their own lives.
Put simply, how do we turn our sons into men — and be proud of doing so — without abandoning the field to caricatures like Doug Giles?
Actually, geeky little me flipped him over my shoulder to a shattering drop onto the ground. I got a pro forma ticking off from the principal who was fully aware of that lad being a bully. If my kid did it today he’d be suspended under a zero-tolerance policy and the bully would be validated as a victim.Don’t laugh. It happens. Tolerance seems for many educational bureaucrats to be intolerance for self-defence.
First off, I’m not sure why “different belief system” means “conservative” if their religions are the same on the surface. Certainly there are plenty of Catholics who have different belief systems. Orthodox Jews certainly have different belief systems then Reform.
But let’s take him at his word. They have the exact same religious ideals and beliefs. Does that NOW mean the guy broke up with him because he’s conservative? No. “Different belief systems” could be as simple as how you treat people. Do you treat people with respect? Or it could be how you view money. Or how you view the importance of personal hygiene.
But again, let’s assume that Mr Kirchick is correct in assessing his previous partners’ aversion being due to his politics. I’m not sure how that equates “intolerance.” I’m pretty sure that attraction has its own set of rules.
At least for me, I tolerate many things in friends that I would never tolerate with someone I live with. I also “tolerant” many people who I wouldn’t associate with. I may not like them. But I don’t deny their right to exist.
I do wish this guy had made some attempt to define what he means by intolerance. I mean, apparently the fact that he groups all Boston liberals as “the most intolerant people he’s ever met” doesn’t make him intolerant, because he’s still willing to date them. Maybe not respect them, but what’s that got to do with anything?
I was going to type something, but NonyNony got to it first–thanks, NonyNony.
Also, Karpad, your post is [heart]. You should totally get a deviantArt account to post that to! :}
lol, well, I wouldn’t say they’re ‘Nice Guys’ because they’re not performing masculinity so much as being entitled arseholes.
However, I’ll add to your list *smile*:
There was one woman who actually got offended and sent me some abusive messages because I turned her down when she said she had a husband that didn’t mind if we had a sexual relationship.
I was like “But I’d mind. I’m monogamous”. She came back that how could I have that attitude when she was being honest and upfront with me … I should appreciate it … and that this was why women like her lied to lesbians, because we were so intolerant.
I should have gotten that conversation framed.
Course, the women I have experienced this with pale into insignificance when compared to the amount of men that think that somehow me being lesbian is a personal affront to them. Or that they’d be doing me a favour, not to mention how incredibly awesome they are in bed …. REALLY! Or that they should be allowed to watch. Or that I should be flattered that they think it’s really hot.
Course, I could in part blame all this in the fact that apparently I give off no gay-dar, to the point where I think I must be stealth to gay-day, have anti-gay-dar, or be coated in gay-dar absorbing materials.
Yet, baby, yet.(”Jenkins! My largest butterfly net, and be quick about it!” “Sir!”)
Actually, geeky little me flipped him over my shoulder to a shattering drop onto the ground. I got a pro forma ticking off from the principal who was fully aware of that lad being a bully. If my kid did it today he’d be suspended under a zero-tolerance policy and the bully would be validated as a victim.Don’t laugh. It happens. Tolerance seems for many educational bureaucrats to be intolerance for self-defence.No shit. But I guess that’s a rant for another day.
I’m interested to see how Pandagonians respond to the underlying issue that catalyzed Kirchick’s breakup: What’s the consensus on the question of not having children if you can’t afford them?
blockquote tags done et each other.
Ay-yup. Plus a nice dose of: I can overlook your horrible morals in order to fuck you — why can’t you extend the same courtesy to me?
6079, can a butterfly net complete a dissertation? If so, get one in the mail to me, stat. (The class of which I am not a member being ’sociologist’, not ‘pet’.)
Sarah, I thought I was the only dyke in history to have been propositioned with that oh-so-attractive line, My husband/boyfriend doesn’t mind. !!??!??!?
At some level this is the ultimate Nice Guy-ism, the willingness to ask for sex using the argument ‘Of course I’m wonderful; I’m not holding your deviance against you, am I?’.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the Nice Guys were the ones who couldn’t understand why they can’t get laid when they are so brave and honest (credit to Arlo Guthrie).
6079:
Your last clause points to the problem, I think.
Any “positive” definition of masculinity pretty much has to define itself in opposition to, or at least in contrast to, some definition of femininity. And that’s not a project that many male feminists are going to be interested in, because men who are feminists (or pro-feminist) don’t tend to be gender essentialists.
I don’t think you need a “culture-wide concept” of masculinity to talk in general terms about what men should be and do as non-sexist people in a sexist world. Maybe you’re just looking under the wrong lamppost.
Is it bad that I saw there were 69 comments on this thread and giggled?
In all seriousness, I come from a family that is very conservative, I have friends with conservative views, and I can get along with them just fine. In my younger, hornier days I was often more egalitarian as well, and dated at least one conservative woman for a stretch of time.
But as Phoebe pointed out above, when it’s someone I may* be spending the rest of my life with, that’s a different story.
*”may” because it’s a moot point now, as I’m happily married. In many ways, she’s even more leftish than I am.
WF
To clarify, I thought that Nice Guys were performing entitlement, not masculinity.
Shows what I know about masculinity. Quick, get me MAJeff and a TV tuned to the Spike channel!
(Evil smile.) Broolynite: Methinks that if I were strong enough to rip lampposts right out of the ground and look under them then I would already have some pretty predictable ideas about what “masculine” meant. (PS: I just had my Dodgers shirt cleaned. It looks wonderful.)I guess what I am trying to get at is that we live in a confusing culture and many boys and many men are struggling to come to grips with how to be a man and how a man acts. For many of those people shrugging them off and saying “well, be a good, egalitarian person” (a) just won’t cut it because they are, in fact searching for that “`culture-wide concept’ of masculinity”; and (b) leaves the thuggish, sexist fools free to define the answers for them. In a way it is almost a marketing challenge. Think of egalitarianism as Apple. It was almost destroyed by Microsoft thanks to a business plan which rested on “we’re soooo good that people will come to us! We don’t have to be accessible and affordable!” Egalitarianism faces the same challenge. If we are content to be 10 to 15% of the market/population then any chances of a just and equal society is doomed.
Mezosub, it’s not the sort of comment to take seriously.
Every time I’ve heard it, it’s been used in one of several profoundly unattractive ways:
(1) By people who dislike children, have no intention of having any, and then–being genuinely intolerant–begin to throw out objections to any social structure that makes having children even remotely feasible. Thus, in response to a an employee taking a sick day to care for an ill child: “But that’s a misuse of a sick day–she isn’t sick! You shouldn’t have children if you can’t afford to take care of them!”
(2) By conservatives who want to object to any proposal for taxpayer-funded healthcare for children or to public schools/libraries/museums. “Why should I have to pay to support your children? You shouldn’t have children if you can’t afford to take care of them!”
(3) By the truly obnoxious rich. “What do you mean you don’t have a nanny/private tutor/enormous SUV? You shouldn’t have children if you can’t afford to take care of them!”
(4) By racists who are looking for a socially acceptable way to say, “black people and Mexicans shouldn’t have children.”
Given that in the real world the vast majority of us are one patch of ice or slick bit of roadway away from not being able to afford our children, it’s a nasty, stupid comment however it’s used.
Good news, bad news, PheonixRising. First, the good news. Yes: mine can. It’s lucid, educated, and a delight to listen to. Bad news: the opinions of a man who thinks his butterfly net is talking to him are, I respectfully submit, not to be trusted.Wait a minute, what did I just say?
Oh dear. I just undermined every single post I ever wrote. I think I will now go and disappear in a puff of logic.Rachel,
When you say you’re “intolerant”, you’re actually huying into the strawliberal definition:
Here, you’re not suggesting that those people are traitors, or should be locked up, or simply shouldn’t be allowed to exist at all: you’re just saying you choose not to associate with them because they don’t add value to your life. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s (to me) the moral equivalent of saying “I don’t like dogs, therefore I don’t ‘hang out’ people who have dogs.” As long as you’re not advocating that all dogs be rounded up and put down, no one can really say anything about you not liking dogs.
Here’s the telling part to me:
If you were truly intolerant, there would be no exclusions or exceptions: you would not be able to “like” any family members who disagreed with you. (I can dredge up numerous examples of family rifts, disowned children, unaccepted spouses, ignored parents, and “crazy” uncles all caused by breaking from the core family’s religion.) It sounds like what you’re saying is “I choose not to associate with strangers who disagree with me, but I associate with my family members whether they agree with me or not.”
I dunno. That sounds pretty damned tolerant to me.
Oh, and 6079, on the “entitlement as part of masculinity” issue? Is it possible that entitlement has become synonymous with masculinity in our culture because it was encouraged or overlooked in boys? I mean, there might be equal numbers of entitled males and females born, but most females would have the sense of entitlement stomped out of them by the end of elementary school. Just a thought.
6079, re-defining “masculinity” and “femininity” is still sexist. Because what is masculine is inherently not feminine, and vise versa. Any time you say “this is how to be a man,” you are being essentialist and sexist, because it suggests that women aren those positive things.
I don’t disagree. I am not arguing that the older (and still cherished by many!) definitions “masculinity” don’t incorporate entitlement. I’m arguing that is time to craft and “market” ones that don’t.Get some Budweiser, start belching at inappropriate times, and scratch your groin a lot. If it’s sports, yell at the television intermitently.
_____________________
@6079, how about we dump “what it means to be a man” and figure out “what it means to be a good person.” Really, when it comes to distribution of attributes titled “masculine” and “feminine” we should be trying to take and value the best of both, try and figure out ways to allow everyone to experience them as best the can, and stop worrying about which genitals the people doing those activities have. One of the reasons masculinity confuses me is because I’ve always felt something of an outsider to it. Even though I’m fairly gender conventional, the whole thing just doesn’t “fit.” Reconstructing gender is about multiplying the possibilities for people to take “masculine” things and “feminine” things and integrate them into their lives in whatever way they see fit. It’s about breaking down institutional practices that attempt to force people in one direction or another based on gender…
I’m not interested in rescuing masculinity; it’s too tied up into binary hierarchies.
Agree with all of this, Amanda. Here is a disturbing fact about the wingnut doctorine: In a 70-day period beginning April 18 and ending June 28, wingnuts applauded the destruction of 53 years of progress by the SCOTUS.
Conservatives are NOT libertarians. They are authoritarians. Let’s take the libertarian label back from these wannabes in the neocon party.
I HATE conservatives. They are very similar to the Nazis.
I’m interested to see how Pandagonians respond to the underlying issue that catalyzed Kirchick’s breakup: What’s the consensus on the question of not having children if you can’t afford them?
well, it’s utterly tangental to the subject at hand, but sure.
First, I almost garantee that wasn’t the subject at hand, even if Kirchick think otherwise. He said “offhand that people who can’t afford to raise kids shouldn’t have them.”
what, exactly does that mean? More than likely, he made a comment about dismantling safety net programs with that obnoxious form of entitled speak wherein the speaker assumes that any audience there is must agree with them. What “people” is he referring to?
What it really phrased in a fair manner, or did his wording reflect an utter disregard for other people as human beings?
my guess (which I emphasize is a GUESS) was it was something along the lines of his saying “offhand” that “Why should I have to pay for welfare just so some woman can have a 5th kid by a 4th baby daddy?”
but setting aside that the argument wasn’t actually about people having kids they can’t afford, Yes, people shouldn’t, in the same sense they shouldn’t buy a car they can’t afford. the difference is, you can’t repossess a kid. A child is a person and requires to be treated as such, and if they cannot be afforded by their parents, it’s up to society to make sure a certain minimum standard of living is maintained. We aren’t taking care of the parents who don’t know how to plan their money. we’re taking care of the kids, who didn’t have ANY fucking say in the matter. they’re here, and must be treated as human beings now that they are.
In a completely neutral, intellectual and academic way there may be no arguing with that. But we don’t live in such a world even though we may debate in that fashion. Gender constructs will exist, and gender expectations will exist, and people will look to them in order to find frameworks on how to understand and live their lives, and those constructs include “masculinity”. I argue that we make “masculinity” the tool of crafting a better society rather than tagging pejoratives on it. Is America’s black culture “racist” for struggling to come to grips with what it means to be black in this day and age? Nope. That debate — and the one that I advocate over “masculinity” — is merely the highly complex, fluid means of seizing the good from the bad and holding up as the ideal to be realized. I have a nine year old here. I hold up the same qualities to her and define them as female, because she identifies as a girl and dislikes being identified as a boy, even in jest, and finds many “people” definitions waffly. I personally see no problem with taking a positive and defining it as Male AND Female, depending on who you’re talking to, any more so than I have no problem in moving from English to French idiom when I switch languages.Jeff, I’m not interested in rescuing masculinity; it’s too tied up into binary hierarchies, I’m into stealing it and leaving the sexists without a hook to hang their idiot hats on. Otherwise, I agree with what you have to say as it is a rather better crafted version of what I had to say in post 84.
Budweiser? That’s not a beer, that’s penance.
Did Jeff not say something along the lines of what I said (which you just argued with)?
Hopefully the child-as-fashion-accessory craze will subside soon and the rich people can stop being so indignant that poor people are trying to emulate their trend.
“Reconstructing gender is about multiplying the possibilities for people to take “masculine” things and “feminine” things and integrate them into their lives in whatever way they see fit. It’s about breaking down institutional practices that attempt to force people in one direction or another based on gender…”
6079, can I curl up on the floor and just listen to your “pets” a little while longer? Every time I do, I feel hope for the human race and wish more people were equally able to express what tolerance should mean. Sarah and Jeff- THANKS… virtual homemade fudge for all.
By all means; join me. I too like to be reassured that there still are people who Think out there. I do my best to get over the fact that they do it better than I do. Call it masculine humility.dorothy, i think there’s subtle connotative differences in “tolerate”.
i don’t tolerate facebook friends posting racist notes so i unfriend them and ignore their messages asking me why and pretty much never speak to them again. i knew my family before i became political so they’re kind of grandfathered in, but only if they avoid talking to me about politics. i haven’t spoken to my father in almost two years because of his insistence on forcing me to listen to him.
on the other hand, i “tolerate” kids in grocery stores. i don’t go around blaming parents; i just try to do most of my shopping at meijer at 1 a.m.
“tolerance” suggest to me this image of me heaving a big sigh, shrugging my shoulders, and not letting it bother me. that’s not how i feel about conservatives and thus, i don’t view myself as tolerant.
Here’s one I overheard recently:
A guy said I was culturally intolerant because I didn’t change my last name when I got married. He said the culture expected it and since I wouldn’t do it, I was the one who was intolerant.
I just spent a weekend away from the kids with my husband, who cross-dressed the entire time. We had a delightfully relaxing few days.
It took me years to be comfortable with his preferences and wardrobe, and I have apologized to him for bringing a set of standards into our marriage that weren’t mine. I felt if he were “masculine” he wouldn’t want to dress up, as well as wondered if I weren’t “feminine” enough.
Then one day it finally made sense to me, that I wasn’t thinking for myself based on my relationship with this wonderful man, but using what I felt our roles were supposed to be according to “Society”. Once I understood that, it was easy to discard those notions.
6079 @ 1:25 pm
“I guess what I am trying to get at is that we live in a confusing culture and many boys and many men are struggling to come to grips with how to be a man and how a man acts.”
This is so very true. My S.O. is the best example of a non-asshole masculine man that I know, but despite how great he is and his accomplishments he still deals with some insecurity about it.
Most of it stems from the fact that his dad was mostly MIA during his formative years and he had to find his own way.
Men might have a more healthy self-image as a whole if in general dads weren’t, for the most part, assholes. Just a thought.
I hear you. But I still think there’s another option.
My message to my daughter about who I want her to grow to be isn’t just “well, be a good, egalitarian person.” I want her to be powerful, and brave, and fierce. I want her to be thoughtful, and kind, and careful. I want her to leap to the aid of those who need her help, and to think hard about what help they really need before leaping. I want her to be righteous without being self-righteous, and gentle without being fragile. I want her to be able to yell and cry and scream when it’s called for, and to be able to be silent and still when that’s what’s needed. I want her to be strong, and I want her to know it’s okay to be weak sometimes too.
If I had a son, I’d want all of that for him. If I were mentoring someone who was struggling with how to be a man and how a man acts, I’d advise him along those lines, and try to model that behavior. But I’m not comfortable with saying that that’s what masculinity means to me, or that that’s how I believe a man should act, because for me it’s not gendered behavior.
Feminists have an easier time talking to — and about — girls than boys, because there are models within feminism through which we can exalt both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine virtues in girls and women. We all understand that it’s good for girls to be strong, and that there’s no conflict in principle between a girl being strong and a girl being kind.
With boys and men its harder, no question. But I don’t believe the answer is to be found in a feminist reclamation of masculinity. Menschlekeit, maybe, but not masculinity.
Culture = Society = anonymous “They” = know-it-all busybodies.
No fudge for ANY of them.
Llelldorin and karpad, thanks for addressing my question.
I suppose I was looking at it and just letting my mind wander around, thinking: “Well, Kirchick, if there are people having children who can’t afford them and you disapprove so much, then why aren’t you volunteering at Planned Parenthood, or writing letters to your Congresscritters to repeal the Hyde Amendment, or donating doses of Plan B ordered from internet pharmacies?”
Let me see if I can fix Kirchick’s statement for him: “[p]eople who can’t afford to raise kids shouldn’t have them be barred by wingnut policies from accessing birth control and reproductive healthcare that would prevent unwanted pregnancies.”
Any better?
Brooklynite, an excellent post. This bit leapt out at me:
And There’s the rub. Feminism has given us the ability to give those great messages to girls, and be unafraid to “package” them (sticking with the marketing meme) as female virtues. What worries the hell out of me is that there is no similar balanced approach to boys. I sometimes look at the messages that they get and worry that they are being pissed on by so-called progressives if they act “male” and by conservatives if they act “girly”.This is why I have dug in my debating heels on the word “masculinity” because I don’t want a “feminist reclamation of masculinity”, I want an egalitarian theft of it. Feminism boldly took so-called “male” concepts like strength and toughness and claimed them for girls. Bravo. I say follow that example, steal the very concept of “masculine” from the knuckle-draggers and refashion it with equal verve to produce boys who see no dissonance between the qualities of strength, independence, kindness, patience, charity, toughness and honesty.
I want the misogynist, narrow troglodytes left in the alley of history, alone with the whimpering question “but what’s left for us?” and the cold comfort of the answer “oblivion, and good riddance”.
My strikethrough didn’t work, dammit!
And it looked so pretty in the preview, too.
Yes, I believe so.
Hellooooo, I’m a deity, not a dachshund. A proper sacrifice, please…like Guy Pearce.
Sarah in Chicago:
Yes! Because it’s an important piece of scientific evidence.Self-centered entitlement is IMHO a basic, underlying part of the human psyche. Our society’s image of masculinity doesn’t *give* men a sense of entitlement, it re-inforces or grabs onto that natural babyish sense that “I’m King of the World!” This makes “masculinity” feel more natural: because one of the things in it is a truly natural though immature solipsism.
One way to get boys to believe that they don’t have to be assholes to be Real Men, of course, might be to teach them that women are assholes just as much as men are, and thus assholery doesn’t buy you masculinity cred. Are Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin sekritly fighting for feminism?
why do I think not?
Elaine Vigneault:
This made me laugh, but not in a good way. It just makes no sense at all.
http://www.guypearcefan.net/
Please accept this offering and quit piddling on the carpet. (I am so gonna get bunnied for hijacking the thread, Oh GReat Biscuited One)
“One way to get boys to believe that they don’t have to be assholes to be Real Men, of course, might be to teach them that women are assholes just as much as men are”
Very, very well said. Women are equally capable- certainly I have been an asshole on occasion and when it was pointed out to me, have apologized.
That all seems very abstract to me, 6079. I’m not clear on how you square the circle of getting people who oppose gender essentialism to cheer for “masculinity,” however defined, and it’s not clear how that project, even if it’s embraced, gets the kind of cultural traction you’re talking about.
Attitudinal change is slow. There’s no magic wand. I think you’re right that feminism has struggled with the question of how to feel about strength and assertiveness in boys, but I don’t agree that attitudes on the subject are monolithic today. They’re in flux. It’s a hard question. It’s a legitimately hard question, and people are right to struggle with it. I’m ambivalent about it myself.
It is clear to me, though, that a lot of what represented idealized masculinity a couple of generations ago now seems ridiculous or malevolent to a lot of people — more than just the few who identify as self-conscious feminists. Role models are different than they used to be, and the space available to boys is expanding.
I shouldn’t have said “the few who identify as self-conscious