Posted on July 30, 2017
Masculine, Tails I Lose
Liberal anti-man double talk
If you’re not familiar with the phrase “toxic masculinity,” you soon will be, because liberals have begun using that concept to explain to themselves why Hillary Clinton lost. It cannot be that she was the worst major party nominee of all time, who didn’t even campaign in some key states. No, Hillary must have been unjustly deprived of the presidency because the electorate was infected with a poisonous strain of manhood.
The concept of toxic masculinity does not mean that all men are bad. It merely assigns blame for certain men’s bad behavior on their masculinity. In a way, this actually absolves men of blame, much in the same way that liberals traditionally blame criminals’ actions on society, while decrying any serious punishment of the criminals themselves. If an individual man treats women badly, he is not to blame. His Y-chromosome made him do it.
<![if !vml]><![endif]>Like most of what liberals profess to believe, toxic masculinity is riddled with contradictions and double-standards they never feel the need to explain. For starters, can you imagine a bunch of academic pointyheads theorizing about “toxic femininity” causing bad behavior in women? Such a suggestion would be roundly condemned as sexist, and rightly so.
The primary characteristic that liberals associate with masculinity is violence. That’s not altogether unfair, nor is it necessarily a negative attribute, as long as the violence is exercised judiciously. There are times when violence is called for, but when those times arrive, liberals deny that violence and masculinity have anything to do with each other. Instead, they insist that women are equally capable of serving in the same roles as men in combat and on the police force. They make cornball movies in which petite superwomen routinely clobber men twice their size, and even encourage women to compete against men in violent sporting events. Whenever someone refers to women as the gentler sex, feminists recoil as if “gentler” were synonymous with “inferior.”
There used to be a mechanism for restraining the senseless violence and abuse of women that are being attributed to toxic masculinity. It was a code that men were expected to live by, that was known to some as chivalry. Feminists hate the concept, and have all but driven it from our society by now. Yet they bemoan its absence as if they were oblivious of their own responsibility.
When liberals refer to toxic masculinity, they don’t really mean that it’s an aberrant type of masculinity. What they mean is that masculinity itself is a collection of negative traits, and there simply needs to be less of it. This is a superficial caricature of masculinity that does not take inner strength and moral grounding into account. What they call masculinity can only be understood as such by those who have no idea what it means to be a man. Russell Crowe is not manlier than Harrison Ford. Emotionally lashing out at the slightest provocation is not more masculine than calm <![if !vml]><![endif]>deliberation. A man who mistreats a woman is not more of a man than one who tries to protect her.
If masculinity were toxic, it would take a special kind of scoundrel to encourage women to be more masculine. Transgenderism would be a one-way proposition, designed to make men less manly, but not to make women more so. Instead, we’re all expected to celebrate women who “identify as” men, even those who physically poison themselves with testosterone in a vain attempt to actually change their sex. Shouldn’t that be regarded as a tragedy, instead of a triumph?
Academic liberals have been yammering about toxic masculinity since the 80s, but it has only become “a thing” (in the parlance of our times) since Hillary’s defeat. Funny the subject never came up during the presidency of her husband, who was known even by his friends to exhibit “purple rages,” and who treated women like something with which to wipe his mouth after eating. Strange that the phenomenon was not discussed when Bill Clinton’s “bimbo eruptions” squad was sliming women, some of whose only offense was to have wandered onto the radar of his libido. All right, so Donald Trump is crass, but nobody has ever accused him of being a face-biting rapist.
To liberals, these hypocrisies are unimportant. They know their stated concerns are phony, and are only meant to signal to each other their next line of attack. The fact that it requires slandering 49 percent of the population just shows that their strategic aptitude hasn’t improved any since November.
The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press