The Anti-Toxic Masculinity President

While it’s impossible for any relatively sentient person not to realize that one candidate lacks even the most basic knowledge of civics necessary to run a government, it’s similarly hard to ignore that his opponent openly proclaims herself to be a supporter of women, children and minorities. She said so in the debate, and there’s no reason to doubt her on this. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

That would be fine, if that’s what you support in your enlightened self-interest. Maybe some guy in Kentucky who is unable to feed his family takes issue with this, but then, maybe the sad feelings of women who are exhausted by enduring men saying hello to them on the street matter more to you. You’re allowed to decide what values matter most to you.

But there is a flip side to this that is being promoted in the backpages of section one of the New York Times that should also be factored into the calculus. It’s not merely a matter of helping some groups more than others, perhaps because they need it more under a certain value system or perhaps because they feel that historical deprivation of rights compels a change.

There is a concomitant assault on the unmentionables, the deplorables. Some may be racist and sexist, by the traditional definitions rather than the fluid ones used to denigrate anyone who does not pray at the progressive altar. But most are just rather ordinary people. Regular guys. The new contention is that men are the villains of the new society.

Following the revelation of Donald Trump’s “pussy” tape, a story of inductive shame appeared, extrapolating Trump’s words and conduct to all men.

The leaked footage of Donald J. Trump boasting of sexually harassing and assaulting women is just one particularly notable example of an all-too-common phenomenon: Far too many men treat women’s bodies as if they are fair game for anyone who happens to encounter them.

This kind of behavior isn’t just offensive; it also imposes real costs on women. The burden of avoiding and enduring sexual harassment and assault results, over time, in lost opportunities and less favorable outcomes for girls and women. It is effectively a sort of gender-specific tax that many women have no choice but to pay.

There wasn’t just one baseless leap, but two. The first logical failure was fairly obvious, that Trump was Everyman, and his conduct was an “all-too-common phenomenon.”  Trump claimed fame allowed him to engage in criminal sexual conduct. “Far too many men” aren’t famous. Trump was an example of the obvious, that regular guys could never do such things. More importantly, would never do such things. What follows is an empty feminist trope that men think women’s bodies belong to them.

The second logical failure has even less connection to anything beyond fantasy. That “this kind of behavior…imposed real costs on women.” A “gender-specific tax,” if you will, that “women have no choice but to pay.” What are these “real costs”?

“I really do think of it as a tax on opportunity,” said Nancy Leong, a law professor at the University of Denver who researches civil rights and identity issues. “On workplace opportunity, on opportunity at school.”

This is the “I strenuously object” school of thinking, beyond which there is nothing but empty rhetoric. Not a “real cost” in the bunch, but heart-rending vagaries.  And what does this compel women to endure at the hands of these Trumpian Everymen?

Schools, parents and society at large tell women to take “personal responsibility” for their safety, even if that means limiting their own freedom.

Kinda like everyone else in society. Lock your car door. Take the keys. Don’t say stupid stuff on twitter if you don’t want people to call you stupid, and never send guys you don’t know naked pictures. All because ordinary guys are exacting this opportunity cost on women because Trump is famous and thinks he can grab women’s genitals.

But that’s only stage one of the assault on regular guys. The Times’ next thrust goes for the jugular, Donald Trump’s Toxic Masculinity.

Growing up in a factory family in small-town Indiana, I led an uncertain life with only a few constants: fear of losing it all, frustration with a world out of our control and the ever-present need to “be a man,” a phrase that always carried with it an air of responsibility and torment. To be a man was to maintain the appearance of toughness, to never let on that you were weak or in pain.

It was a command I heard repeatedly at home and around town, handed down by my stepfather and role models. My stepdad was fond of saying, “Boys don’t cry — crying’s for women.” One of my high school football coaches gave injured players this choice: “You a football player or are you a little girl?”

You might notice there’s nothing in there about Trump. Rather, the writer, Jared Yates Sexton, an assistant professor of creative writing at Georgia Southern University, apparently has daddy issues and has finally found an outlet for his angst.

Sexton uses the Trump tie-in, without which the important part of his op-ed would have no news hook, to make Trump his Everyman as well.

Donald J. Trump, especially the Donald J. Trump we heard last week on tape, is nothing new to me. His macho-isms, his penchant for dividing the world into losers and winners, his lack of empathy for anyone but himself — it all reminds me of home, and the sense I had, even as a boy, of a system of privilege that has ailed this country since its beginnings, but now seems to be, and sees itself, fading away.

So what if it’s beyond tenuous. All he needs is “it all reminds me of home” to connect the dots, and Trump is the poster boy for all men who make Sexton cry.

Taking refuge in traditional masculinity is a coping mechanism that works only so much as it deadens a man and his emotions. In its most pure state, masculinity is a hardening shell meant to protect men from the disappointments and travails of life, a self-delusion that preserves them from feeling overwhelmed by the odds against them.

If Sexton wants to wear a dress, go for it. Makes no difference to me. But I like being a man. I like manly stuff.* My son does too. We had Pretty Pretty Princess in the house when he was a kid, and he chose not to play with it. We had it because my daughter, whom we bought an Erector Set that didn’t interest her at all, demanded it. Nobody forced either into role stereotypes, but that was what they chose.

Criticize Trump all you want for what he said and did. He deserves it. But he’s no regular guy, and opportunistically using him as the poster boy to eradicate “toxic masculinity,” as has been one of the goals of progressives for a while now, and has seized control of college life and young, impressionable minds, already, is an intolerable step beyond the pale.

It’s not just that Hillary Clinton wants to champion the causes of women, children and minorities, but she wants to do so by making it wrong, evil, to be masculine. Trump doesn’t suggest he will regulate conduct compelling men to grab women’s genitalia. If the New York Times gets its way, will Clinton outlaw the feminist vision of “toxic masculinity” because of the gender tax it places on women? After all, she will be the president for all of America, except men.

*Just last night, I kissed my wife without affirmative consent. She liked it. Then she did the same to me. I liked it too.

16 thoughts on “The Anti-Toxic Masculinity President

  1. Dan Gray

    I’ve always thought that “be a man” was really just another way of saying “life isn’t fair; get over it”. But maybe life isn’t fair because of toxic masculinity. :'(

  2. david

    How could she not like it? I bet you were wearing your admiral uniform and cowboy boots, the very image of masculine pulchritude . . .

          1. Jim Tyre

            Of course you speak of Sven Rehnquist, the younger brother of Bill, who lived in the bowels of the Court.

            You may not know this, but I’ve had to play second fiddle to my twin brother Bill all my life. He got all the goodies, and what did I get but the chance to pull up the rear, so to speak. Nine months of sharing those close quarters you all call a Uterus with the guy, he gets first billing, being as he was born fifteen minutes before me. Them doctors was so excited, when it came my turn to be born , they slipped and dropped me on my head.

            Course they all said it had something to do with all that Chinese food my ma ate while she was preggers, or her working in that laundry, and they called me Mongoloid. More like Mongolian Idiot. When I was a teenager, everbody started hating Asians, so they started telling me that I had Down’s Syndrome, but I don’t think that I inherited anything from Hugh Downs by that time.


  3. Jonathan

    Maybe its me, but i don’t see or hear Clinton talking about masculinity (toxic or otherwise). Agree or disagree with her values or agenda, but it’s not right to put these words in her mouth. Mock away.

    1. SHG Post author

      Read my post carefully and you won’t have to suffer being mocked. Read my post through your politics and you leave comments like this. So yeah, I think it’s you.

      1. Jonathan

        The first sentence of your last paragraph imputes the Times’ view to Clinton. And supposes you know what she wants. And it was gratuitous because the third sentence was perfectly adequate to conclude your point.

  4. Mr. Median

    “the Puritans compressed whatever mirth and public joy they deemed allowable to human infirmity; thereby so far dispelling the customary cloud, that, for the space of a single holiday, they appeared scarcely more grave than most other communities at a period of general affliction.” Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter.

  5. John Barleycorn

    everyone borrows, you ready for the switch backs?

    fort greenfield.

    dylan walks/ed the foot hills.

    P.S. Your smile might crest with less aggregation. You should use it more often.

    “Jesus” is out, but you could be in.

    Mules and miles.

Comments are closed.