Monday, April 18, 2016

Donald Trump: Machismo without the Manliness

I have, on numerous occasions, pointed out that when it comes to manly men, Donald Trump does not make the list. Compared to great leaders like Eisenhower and MacArthur, Trump is a caricature of manliness. Machismo, si; manliness, no.

A manly man would inspire confidence. Trump provokes revulsion. His negative ratings are the highest on record. He has insulted and offended his way to front runner status and believes that the rest of the Republican Party will unite behind him. His flunkies have been threatening Republican Party delegates.  Real men negotiate deals; macho men make a lot of noise and sell themselves. Real men are humble; macho men suffer from excessive hubris.

Naturally, those who are enamored of the Donald will have nothing of such disparaging words, but, in truth, Donald Trump is what manliness looks like in a feminized world.

I have argued this ad nauseam, so I had decided that perhaps it would be better to leave the issue alone. Of course, I always like to give people reason to fulminate, but sometimes, enough is enough.

This morning, however, I chanced upon an article by David French in National Review. In it French explains why so many misguided folk are flocking to Trump because they believe that he is the antidote to feminism.  As it happens, I have been making the case against feminism for years now on this blog, so I do not believe that I am a late arrival to this cause.

The problem is that Trump does not make the case against feminism. He does not represent masculine values in any traditional or recognizable sense of the term. He is a living, breathing caricature of masculinity, the one that feminists have been trafficking all these many years. If Trump represents true manliness, then feminists are right about men. So says David French.

Put that one in your peace pipe and smoke it.

French lays out his argument:

Some Americans believe that Donald Trump is the answer to feminism. He’s the fearless man. He’s the strong man. He’s the man who laughs in the face of the social-justice warrior and demonstrates the appeal of pure, unadulterated aggression and virility. In reality, however, he’s a great gift to feminism: the man who will revive a failing ideology.

Feminism has created something like a degendered—or is it degenerate-- society. In Sweden they force schoolboys to pee sitting down, because peeing standing up is sexist. Feminists demean the traditional male role of provider or breadwinner because liberated women can provide for themselves.  Of course, liberated women who can provide for themselves often have a great deal of difficulty finding a man who will play the properly feminine role in their relationship, but that is just a sign of entrenched societal sexism.

Obviously, some men continue to embody the traditional virtues. Others strike out against feminism by becoming the feminist caricature of masculinity.

French writes:

Many more men are left confused, aimless, and often angry. They simply can’t and won’t conform to a genderless society. Absent exposure to those few American subcultures that still retain an understanding of distinctly virtuous masculinity, they live in a state of frustration, with many ultimately embracing negative stereotypes, living a life in full reaction against feminism. While not rapists, they are predators — seeking serial sexual conquests. While not criminals, they are bullies — using threats and swagger to get their way. Life is about winning, and women and money are the ways in which they keep score.

He continues:

The masculinity of Trump is exactly the caricatured, counterfeit masculinity of the feminist fever dream. It takes the full energy of manhood and devotes it to sex, money, and power. It’s posturing masquerading as toughness and anger drained of bravery. (Is the man who recoils from Michelle Fields and obsesses over Megyn Kelly really going to take down ISIS?) Trump represents aggression channeled into greed. Apologies are for the weak, and self-sacrifice is for suckers. Trump is a kind of man that many people can recognize but none should emulate. He is the indefensible man.

Some of us have been suggesting—because we like to preach to empty choirs—that the Trump candidacy itself is a caricature, a counterfeit. As French suggests, real men do not obsess over Megyn Kelly. Real men do not show how tough they are by manhandling Michelle Fields. 

It's the same in his politics. When a candidate does not possess the knowledge or the experience to do the job, when he has never really thought about the issues in question, when he declares openly that he will allow himself to be manipulated by his advisors, when he does even understand the nominating process you are not dealing with the real thing. If you think that a bloviating and blustering amateur will stride on to the world stage, will take command and will start pushing Putin and Xi Jinping around, you have been smoking the wrong kind of cigarettes.

French describes Trump’ supporters in less than flattering terms:

He has brought out of the woodwork a bloc of people who apparently believe that the answer to political correctness isn’t truth and virtue but rather becoming what the other side most hates. If the other side polices language, then the answer is vulgarity. If the other side embraces diversity, then the answer is flirtation with white nationalism and white-identity politics. If the other side tries to cast men as dangerous, sex-obsessed bullies, well then hoist the middle finger, glory in Trump’s apparent sexual and financial success, and relish the whining of feminists and “betas” everywhere.

Trump’s masculinity is a cheap counterfeit of the masculinity that’s truly threatening to the cultural Left: man not as predator but as protector, the “sheepdog” of American Sniper fame. This is the brave man, the selfless man who channels his aggression and sense of adventure into building a nation, an economy, and — yes — a family. This is the man who kicks down doors in Fallujah or gathers a makeshift militia to rush hijackers in the skies above Pennsylvania. Or, to choose a more mundane — though no less important — example: This is the man who packs up the household to take a chance on a new job, models strength for his family when life turns hard, teaches his son to stand against bullies on the playground, and lives at all times with dignity and honor.

How quaint: dignity and honor as masculine virtues. Not in the world of Trump.


10 comments:

Ares Olympus said...

Stuart: Feminism has created something like a degendered—or is it degenerate-- society. In Sweden they force schoolboys to pee sitting down, because peeing standing up is sexist.

It does get tiring to use Sweden as a punching bag, not just because its 25% of my heritage. Such whining does seem more like the whimpy machismo of Trump than maniliness.

How exactly are toilet habits enforced for Swedish schoolboys? Even if they're using toilets rather than urinals, who exactly is in the stall with each boy to enforce this hypothetically sissy discharge orientation?

Okay, you win, let's check out the facts. I'm curious.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/sweden-left-party-toilet-stand_n_1590572.html
----------
Male representatives on the Sormland County Council in Sweden should sit rather than stand while urinating in office restrooms, according to a motion advanced by the local Left Party.

Known as a socialist and feminist organization, the party claims that seated urination is more hygienic for men — the practice decreases the likelihood of puddles and other unwanted residue forming in the stall — in addition to being better for a man’s health by more effectively emptying one’s bladder, The Local reported.

But not everyone agrees.

“Men scatter urine not so much during the actual urination as during the ‘shaking off’ that follows,” John Gamel, a professor at the University of Louisville, wrote while addressing the issue in 2009. “As a result, forcing men to sit while emptying their bladders will serve little purpose, since no man wants to shake himself off while remaining seated on the toilet.”

A representative from the party said he hopes to move toward sitting only bathrooms.
---------

And another article from 2015 in Germany, with a fun graphic demonstration included.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/a-victory-for-the-right-to-pee-standing-up/384754/

Strangely or not, I'm sympathetic towards the argument of hygiene, but I'd just say "I'm sorry, I'll be more careful next time." and see how well that flies.

My experience has also found women are more repulsed by cleaning home bathrooms than men, or at least it is more apparent from a standing perspective with a seat up that a bit of regular scrubbing is in order, while women can sit without ever looking downward at all into the dark abyss of growing biofilm.

If I recall even bossy Gandhi (or the movie version) he had trouble with his woman to do the lowly toilet cleaning work.

I wouldn't suppose Drumpf cleans his own toilet and surrounding drippages, but I bet he doesn't make his wife do that either. That's what Blacks and Latinos are for.

Scullman said...

Next Week from David French on National Review:

Trump's bathroom habits. How does he wipe? Does he fold toilet paper or bunch it up, and what does it mean?

Don't miss it! This could be the journalism that turns it for the Republican Primary.

Sam L. said...

No, Ares, that's what employees are for. You injected race into it.

Jim Sweeney said...

Were you old enough to remember MacArthur, you would know his heroism was often manufactured by the PR department he maintained on his own to promote his personal vanity. Truman didn't fire his ass for nothing. MacArthur wanted a war with China which is why he wanted to bomb across the Yalu into the Dandong staging area to anger the Chinese army as it set up and reinforced in Korea. Truman and Acheson said No but MacArthur petty and peevish as always, did his best to use the media to manipulate them. He lost and was embarrassed forever even though he was welcomed home by millions because he, like Trump, was also a person of accomplishment. His rebuilding of Japan was masterful but was based less on his genius than his being de facto president of the Philippines for years prior to WWII. Sans that, he'd just be another 5-star. (He also hated the Marine Corps and its officers which and who invariably outshone his Army.) Eisenhower was also petty and had a furious temper, was a well-known ass-kisser to getting ahead and could never deal with a Patton who was adored by the troops. That should begin to sound familiar. I'll take Patton and Chesty Puller over MacArthur and Ike any day.

Gideon Gentry said...

I don't like anyone running but I guess I'll have to vote for whatever is running against Hillary but the only reason people like Trump is they have the mistaken impression he will actually deport illegal aliens and stop the Muslim invasion. It's not about feminism and all the dudes at the NR are not manly either. Ike was ok, MacArthur not so much.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Sam L. @April 18, 2016 at 10:04 AM:

Ares injects race into everything.

One of the core dogmas of the Church of Liberal Pieties, particularly of their Inquisition and thought police: race is all that matters, and other religions are troglodyte rubbish.

Exhibit A: In order to create a just society, we have to "eracism," which means we'll use race to evaluate who receives preferential treatment or exemption, whether in employment, college admissions or history class. I know, I know... it seems contradictory. While most Leftists eschew religion's supposedly ridiculous claims, Leftist dogma requires one to believe that racial preferences will end racism. The Leftist doesn't see race, while relentlessly condescending about his deep love of Bantu tribal music. This cultural love is exclaimed at great volume, oft repeated, and inevitably something he heard on NPR or at Starbucks.

Exhibit B is the silly, patronizing bumper sticker "coexist." All religions should coexist until Leftism banishes them, which isn't really coexistence, is it? That's the mysterious dogma of "tolerance." You see, Lefties love to talk about tolerance as the highest virtue, but they don't really tolerate much at all. That's called "intolerance," for those following in your workbooks at home...

Racism is for silly, ignorant, stupid conservative people, while at the same time NPR explains that racism is "bad software" in our homo sapiens genes. Yet the Leftist imagines himself exempt from this software glitch. Yes, I know... it's hard to reconcile "eracism" with racial preferences, but those are government programs designed to rewrite the genetic code, er, the bad software. Don't you get it? So the Leftist is the new superhuman, the newly evolved species... the one above it all. But isn't that how we got the gas chambers? Never mind, let's move on...

So racism and religion are really bad software, which isn't written into the evolved mind of the Leftist. Quaint, no? After all, Ares is a software programmer, so he is by extension a geneticist, too. Fun!

Meanwhile, Ares checks his "facts" in.................................... in the Huffington Post.

And to top it all off, Ares brings us back to his 25% ancestral wonderland: Sweden. He's an expert. Therefore, since I'm 100% Irish, I should be all in, believing in fairies, leprechauns, and banshees, right? And be really drunk all the time, too.

Ares says Sweden is a "punching bag," which is unfair. All Leftists strive to be fair to all who share their interpretation of the Leftist civic religion and dogma. Unfairness directed by the Leftist at the bad people is called "social justice." You see, Islamists aren't the only ones who want to destroy the infidel.

Scandinavian countries are used as proof positive for all Leftist ideas -- particularly economic and social theories. If Leftists didn't have Scandinavia and Israeli kibbutzes, there'd be no control group. But those control groups work as long as there is a racially monolithic, small, geographically-distributed population. Once you get the Muslims in Stockholm, the deep Scandinavian social fabric falls into tatters... the control group fails. But that's because of racism, the Leftist says, so it doesn't matter. That's bad software. Simple!

Bernie Sanders is the true believer -- he injects Scandinavia into everything. Perhaps he should move there. Or read "Animal Farm" so he can possibly come back to the light.

Leftism is a form of faith, a religion with its own nomenclature, dogma, articles of faith, idols, liturgy, etc. Just don't tell them that, or they'll spontaneously combust!

Anonymous said...

Oh gee! Another anti-Trump screed. How surprising...........NOT!

Scullman said...

In WWl McArthur won the DFC twice and Seven Silver stars in combat action. Seven. What a slouch.

That's one hell of a good PR Dept.

Ares Olympus said...

Good rant IAC, I hope it made you feel better.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Thank you. I do. Much better.