Posted on July 30,
2017
Masculine, Tails I Lose
Liberal anti-man double talk
by
Daniel
Clark
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.
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 
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