In the war of toxic masculinity vs Trump badmouthing, toxic masculinity has lost.

[Dreiko]

So...the atlantic just put out an article criticizing Trump for literally not being "manly" enough. I guess, if being manly is good, toxic masculinity is not real. I knew I was doing the right thing in being myself and not being unmanly for fears it'll cause toxic on my friends (outside of the poison type ones and steel type ones anyhow). Huzzah!

(they literally praise :“toughness, dominance, self-reliance, heterosexual behaviors, restriction of emotional expression and the avoidance of traditionally feminine attitudes and behaviors.” )

Donald Trump, the Most Unmanly President

Why don’t the president’s supporters hold him to their own standard of masculinity?

www.theatlantic.com

I find this incredibly amusing, but I still thing it is more dumb than it is amusing.


Thoughts? Comments? Funny pokemon jokes?

 

[McElroy]

Not every working-class male voted for Trump, and not all of them have these traits, of course. And I do not present these beliefs and attitudes as uniformly virtuous in themselves. Some of these traditional masculine virtues have a dark side: Toughness and dominance become bullying and abuse; self-reliance becomes isolation; silence becomes internalized rage. Rather, I am noting that courage, honesty, respect, an economy of words, a bit of modesty, and a willingness to take responsibility are all virtues prized by the self-identified class of hard-working men, the stand-up guys, among whom I was raised.

And yet, many of these same men expect none of those characteristics from Trump, who is a vain, cowardly, lying, vulgar, jabbering blowhard. Put another way, as a question I have asked many of the men I know: Is Trump a man your father and grandfather would have respected?

You sure have an opinionated way to read an article.

(they literally praise :“toughness, dominance, self-reliance, heterosexual behaviors, restriction of emotional expression and the avoidance of traditionally feminine attitudes and behaviors.” )

These aren't the author's own words, though, he doesn't praise these traits but the men who are these things and more.

 

[Agema]

So...the atlantic just put out an article criticizing Trump for literally not being "manly" enough.

Thoughts? Comments? Funny pokemon jokes?

I think you've misread that article in a way to suit to your own opinions, rather than accurately represent the author's. And very obviously so.

 

[Silvanus]

It doesn't take much time to get to the following bit in the article;

"The question is not whether Trump fails to meet some archaic or idealized version of masculinity. The president’s inability to measure up to Marcus Aurelius or Omar Bradley is not the issue. Rather, the question is why so many of Trump’s working-class white male voters refuse to hold Trump to their own standards of masculinity [...]

So, it's quite explicitly saying that it's not comparing him to a standard the author himself holds; he's saying that Trump's supporters hold this standard, but then don't apply it to the President.

 

[Dalisclock]

It doesn't take much time to get to the following bit in the article;



So, it's quite explicitly saying that it's not comparing him to a standard the author himself holds; he's saying that Trump's supporters hold this standard, but then don't apply it to the President.

It's similar to how a bizarrely large number of evangelical christians love the man when he completely fails to meet the standards of what they consider "A good/moral person". I'm also 99% sure they wouldn't accept if their children acted/talked the way he does but apparently hating all the same things they do gives him all the passes, all the time.

 

[Silvanus]

It's similar to how a bizarrely large number of evangelical christians love the man when he completely fails to meet the standards of what they consider "A good/moral person". I'm also 99% sure they wouldn't accept if their children acted/talked the way he does but apparently hating all the same things they do gives him all the passes, all the time.

Very much so. Or here, in the UK: Conservatives talk about traditional family values and how they must be protected, and simultaneously vote for a man who cheated on his wives and abandoned his children. Conservatives are described as the party of responsibility, and their leader has lost two jobs in the past for lying.

 

[Trunkage]

Atlantic:
Toxic Masculinity is where you bully and threaten someone.( I.e. Trump)

Masculinity is where to do as you say, you keep promises and you’re courageous and honourable (I.e, not Trump.)

Dreiko: let’s rename what Atlantic says is masculine as toxic and pretend the toxic claims are just made up

Dreiko, not everything that is ‘masculine’ is toxic. No one ever has claimed that. When a ‘masculine’ action hurts others, particularly for personal gain, that’s toxic.

 

[Trunkage]

So, I don’t particularly like some of these claims, pretending courageousness or honesty is (sololy) masculine Is a stretch. Women are REALLY into promises and keeping them and everyone generally doesn’t like bullying.

As to the mismatch between Trump and this version of masculinity... I think that discounts economic grounds that someone could vote for Trump. He did help steel workers and they may think he can do the same for them

 

[Generals]

As to the mismatch between Trump and this version of masculinity... I think that discounts economic grounds that someone could vote for Trump. He did help steel workers and they may think he can do the same for them

While this is quite a tangent to the main topic it's important to note that they should equally expect to be screwed by Trump. Because something a lot of people forget is that Trump's trade war is hurting businesses which use the resources he wants to be produced in the US. I remember reading about companies which used steel to produce bolts (and others) which had to lay off people due to dropping margins as a consequence of higher steel prices.

 

[Agema]

It's similar to how a bizarrely large number of evangelical christians love the man when he completely fails to meet the standards of what they consider "A good/moral person". I'm also 99% sure they wouldn't accept if their children acted/talked the way he does but apparently hating all the same things they do gives him all the passes, all the time.

Firstly, they're Republican voters (small government, social conservatism), so they'll vote Republican just because they most represent and will work towards those values. That's enough.

Some will want to go further and find a way to reconcile their beliefs with the person they're voting for. Trump's history is clearly a disaster in terms of evangelical Christian values, he clearly prefers golf to church, and doesn't seem remotely religious except the usual boilerplates. But the easiest way to do it is to sell it as a tale of reform and redemption:
"Sure, he's been a truly horrible man for decades. But he's changed now, because he turned to Christ!"
"He's still learning to be a better person in the name of the Lord."

Faith will find a way, even if that's gross delusion.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Agema]

However, it is not unexpected considering that a lot of the people who make those claims have also turned out to be conniving bastards that wouldn't know integrity, honesty or a spine if it slapped them in the face (ie. Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson, the MRA community etc.)

I think what's happened is that our cultures have increasingly turned to victimhood and grievance across the spectrum. That I would suggest is potentially due to a sense of empowerment amongst traditionally less favoured, and amongst others the fact that the feeling of optimism and improvement in society is failing: job insecurity, low pay and wealth inequality, etc. The masculinity of the article was the masculinity of a time where a working class man could reliably work hard for decent wage and provide his family, in a good and stable community. If society has eroded the ability to do that, without a reconsideration of what masculinity is, it's going to create a lot of angst. That angst will then seek an outlet: enter Trump, etc.

I think that also fundamentally underpins the somewhat regressive nature of that end of politics: it's the element of looking back to the old days and wanting to recreate it, rather than looking back at the old days as an inspiration to create something new.

 

[Baffle]

Conservatives are described as the party of responsibility, and their leader has lost two jobs in the past for lying.

Would really like to see that become three jobs by the end of the week.

 

[Dalisclock]

Firstly, they're Republican voters (small government, social conservatism), so they'll vote Republican just because they most represent and will work towards those values. That's enough.

Some will want to go further and find a way to reconcile their beliefs with the person they're voting for. Trump's history is clearly a disaster in terms of evangelical Christian values, he clearly prefers golf to church, and doesn't seem remotely religious except the usual boilerplates. But the easiest way to do it is to sell it as a tale of reform and redemption:
"Sure, he's been a truly horrible man for decades. But he's changed now, because he turned to Christ!"
"He's still learning to be a better person in the name of the Lord."

Faith will find a way, even if that's gross delusion.

My favorite being(and this is a real qoute) "He's a Baby Christian".

Well, one of those descriptors is true......

 

[Silvanus]

Would really like to see that become three jobs by the end of the week.

Come on, Baffle, it's only sensible to hold our Times journalists to a higher standard than our Prime Ministers.

 

[Dreiko]

Atlantic:
Toxic Masculinity is where you bully and threaten someone.( I.e. Trump)

Masculinity is where to do as you say, you keep promises and you’re courageous and honourable (I.e, not Trump.)

Dreiko: let’s rename what Atlantic says is masculine as toxic and pretend the toxic claims are just made up

Dreiko, not everything that is ‘masculine’ is toxic. No one ever has claimed that. When a ‘masculine’ action hurts others, particularly for personal gain, that’s toxic.

Actually, my stance is that there's nothing that's toxic masculinity personally speaking, but the article listed things that I quoted which many here overlooked due to confirmation bias causing them to cherrypick only the things which are inoffensive out of the totality of the quote (look up at the op and don't read past things like "heterosexual behavior" or "avoiding feminine attitudes" or "dominance", if someone made a post praising dominant men in any other context they'd be called an incel or an alt right or a nazi) which I know those who do think such a thing as toxic masculinity exists would define thus.

And hey, I never claimed EVERYTHING masculine is toxic, just that some of the things listed would be considered toxic if they were listed as good traits to have generally and not in the context of berating Trump for lacking them. Is this nuance so hard to grasp?


And the notion of praising these men with those traits without praising the traits themselves is ludicrous because if you do that for anyone else they will literally not care about your praise and focus on those traits. The focus is selective and conveniently applied. It's only ever ok to praise those men who have those traits in the context of berating Trump for lacking them.

But see, what is wrong with lacking those traits if you weren't praising them? Isn't it GOOD that he lacks them if you didn't mean to praise the traits? It literally doesn't make sense to badmouth Trump for lacking these traits if you don't believe that lacking them is in some way condemnable. It only makes sense to write this piece on the foundation that having these traits is good in some way.

 

[gorfias]

Has the writer of this article ever been to the USA? "Trump is an obvious coward. He has two particular phobias: powerful men and intelligent women." Err, Trump defeated more than a dozen more experienced Republican contenders to become POTUS. He is a supporter of intelligent women, like his daughter. Why is the labor class swinging in his favor? Because his opponents have abandoned them. They disdain them. To paraphrase them, "coal miners should learn to code." Good writer on the topic: "Frank points out that the Democrats have done little to advance traditional liberal goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal... Frank lays bare the essence of the Democratic Party's philosophy and how it has changed over the years. A form of corporate and cultural elitism has largely eclipsed the party's old working-class commitment,"

 

[Agema]

"Trump is an obvious coward."

Trump is a coward. We could start at his shameful dodging of the draft during Vietnam with a bogus medical exemption, but that's a limited concept of cowardice.

He's a narcissist, and narcissists tend to be, deep down, cowards. You can see Trump's cowardice in his pathetic bullying, belittling of others and boasting. Here's a man who has risen to the highest office in the land, and he's an insecure weakling who can't take criticism without flying off the handle. Cowards repeatedly pick on people weaker than them. Cowards make empty threats they can't enforce. Cowards cannot tolerate disagreement, and need to surround themselves with cronies to feel safe. Cowards refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.

He has two particular phobias: powerful men and intelligent women." Err, Trump defeated more than a dozen more experienced Republican contenders to become POTUS.

Trump needs to dominate. Powerful men are a threat, particularly to someone as insecure as Trump. You can see this by the way he's surrounded himself with toadies, how he drives his supporters to express their admiration for him, how he's demanded loyalty and obedience from them. He will challenge powerful men because it's the only way he can feel superior to them should he beat them, but it stems from fear, envy and resentment.

He is a supporter of intelligent women, like his daughter.

Of course he isn't. He doesn't support anybody except where they're useful to him.

Trump clearly surrounds himself with... a certain type of woman: attractive, preferably blonde, and that he can safely feel superior to. His daughter is under his power. He does not have a healthy attitude to women. When we looked for wives, I suspect most of us looked for women who are in many ways our equal, who we'd go through life with as partners. Look at Trump's wives (and also the many affairs he's had, the models he's ogled and touched up). The sexual assaults, the imposition of his power over them. Some of them will have been smart, but let's not ever pretend Trump was interested in them for their brains or talents. He's never wanted an equal, he wants someone pretty who is dependent on him, a trophy to indulge himself or show off. That's because he's a cowardly, insecure weakling. He cannot handle the idea someone may stand up to him, at times make him feel inferior. Especially a woman.

 

[Hawki]

I think what's happened is that our cultures have increasingly turned to victimhood and grievance across the spectrum. That I would suggest is potentially due to a sense of empowerment amongst traditionally less favoured, and amongst others the fact that the feeling of optimism and improvement in society is failing: job insecurity, low pay and wealth inequality, etc. The masculinity of the article was the masculinity of a time where a working class man could reliably work hard for decent wage and provide his family, in a good and stable community. If society has eroded the ability to do that, without a reconsideration of what masculinity is, it's going to create a lot of angst. That angst will then seek an outlet: enter Trump, etc.

I'm curious though as to what the main driver is - Trump, or economics? Because the GFC happened in 2008/'09, and there wasn't this surge of identity politics immediately afterwards. Maybe they reinforce each other though.

 

[tstorm823]

But the easiest way to do it is to sell it as a tale of reform and redemption:
"Sure, he's been a truly horrible man for decades. But he's changed now, because he turned to Christ!"
"He's still learning to be a better person in the name of the Lord."

Faith will find a way, even if that's gross delusion.

If you want the actual biblical perspective, you could compare Trump to Zacchaeus. Someone with an awful record of sin, given opportunity by Jesus to make amends for his copious wrongs, and then the self-righteous in the crowd indignantly protested that someone so sucky should be given that opportunity.