Masculinity as Pathology?

Leaving aside the woke Gillette ad brouhaha, a related but more high-toned controversy has erupted over the American Psychological Association’s labeling “traditional masculinity” as harmful and even pathological.

Gay men have various reactions to “traditional masculinity” since while growing up many were bullied and belittled for their perceived lack of masculinity, especially if their behavior and demeanor was, in fact, effeminate. Others, particularly those who came of age in the ’70s and early ’80s, may have fetishized and adopted the hypermasculine clone persona. But you don’t have to defend all aspects of “traditional masculinity” to conclude that the latest round of progressive and feminist-inspired critiques have gone overboard, and that often traditionally masculine assertiveness and even aggression have built and defended a robust, dynamic enterprise culture, while inspiring men to put their lives on the line to save others and to keep us free.

OK, a little snark about the Gillette ad, and an assessment by Jon Gabriel at Ricochet:

Jon Gabriel writes:

Promoting social issues can be effective marketing, but notice the difference. P&G’s female-directed ads make women feel better about themselves. The company tells women “you’re great just as you are” and tells men “you’re bad and need to change.” I’ve yet to complete my Marketing Ph.D., but I don’t think a message of “Women are revolting, buy Secret” would spike profits.

Challenging the Elites

Like other progressive movements, LGBTQ activism has wedded itself to the cultural and financial elites. Recall the Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment was delivered at a gala LGBTQ fundraiser in Manhattan featuring Barbra Streisand. The fundraiser reportedly brought in around $6 million, with ticket prices ranging from $1,200 to $250,000, with many paying $50,000, according to reports, which at the time I wrote about here.

‘Vice’ Distortions

Matt Latimer writes:

At first, the film shows [Dick Cheney] lovingly accepting his daughter Mary as she tells him of her sexual orientation and even giving up his presidential aspirations to protect her. But later, in a scene that was clearly invented, the Mary accuses her parents of coldly throwing her under the bus on the issue of gay marriage when it suits their other daughter’s political purposes. The true backstory is this: Liz, running for office in Wyoming in 2013, was being attacked by fellow Republicans for supporting gay marriage, since she had a gay sister. Liz expressed opposition to same-sex marriage, putting her at odds with Mary’s view. While Dick Cheney himself had supported gay marriage since 2000, he issued a statement defending Liz’s differing stance. Same-sex marriage was a difficult topic for many people, so it wasn’t unusual for one daughter to have a different view of it than another and for a parent to still love them both. Not long before that, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party had opposed same-sex marriage, too. It was also perfectly understandable for a father to want to help his other daughter any way he could, and Liz was losing the race badly. This clearly painful, anguishing dilemma is not explained to viewers at all. Instead, we are shown Cheney, looking down absently, while a tearful Mary accuses him of betrayal.

NYT Looks at Gay Conservatives

Point:

“I think the trans issue gets more attention than it warrants,” says Jamie Kirchick, a center-right gay writer and visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution who opposed Trump’s military ban but who believes “the gay movement has been overtaken by transgender issues affecting a minuscule percentage of the population.”

Counterpoint:

The unwillingness of many gay conservatives to prioritize the struggle of transgender people comes as little surprise to Richard Goldstein, a gay former executive editor for The Village Voice who published “Homocons,” a scathing book about gay conservatives, 17 years ago.

More. The comments section to the NYT article is full of clichéd comparisons of gay conservatives with Jews supporting Nazis. Well, if you have no understanding whatsoever that there are, in fact, actual arguments for limited government and individual vs. collective rights (not, mind you, that you disagree with such arguments, but that you’ve gone through four years of higher education and think that being conservative (or even libertarian) simply denotes bigotry), then you might assume that ritually reciting this comparison is a game-winner.

Furthermore.

Bake Me a Cake, Redux

The Colorado civil rights commissioners and LGBT activists share a set of core beliefs on what is acceptable as religious dissent—and the extent of state power in compelling artistic expression that violates the religious beliefs of a provider of creative services. Meanwhile, conservative Christian artisans have a different set of core beliefs at odds with the progressives. Consider, however, who is supporting cultural diversity here and who supports state-imposed uniformity.

Religious Animus Revisited

The Washington Blade reports that Sen. Krysten Sinema (D-Ariz.)

…the first openly bisexual person elected to the U.S. Senate, didn’t place her left hand on a bible as per tradition. Instead, she used a book obtained from the Library of Congress which includes both the U.S. and Arizona constitutions.

The Pew Research Center for Religion & Public Life states that Sinema is the only member of Congress that identifies as “religiously unaffiliated.”



Progressives in general are increasingly showing their animus.

There’s Always a Hierarchy

Social justice warriorhood is ostensibly about the victimhood of blacks, women, Muslims, transgender people, etc. But it’s also, and ultimately, about ensuring the power dominance of the highly privileged white liberal elite. On the left, identity politics has all but killed and buried old-fashioned class analysis as the matrix for understanding power relationships.

If progressive politicos, academics, pundits, funders and activists were more confident in their views, they wouldn’t be so very afraid of engaging with nonprogressive viewpoints.


The cultural contradictions of progressivism.