JD Vance really needs to take his minivan to a car wash…
That’s quite the smile. I wonder exactly who Gallant is contemplating revenge on. The laws of physics I guess? Are Goofus and Gallant actually a superhero and supervillain origin story?
“There are no men like me. Only douchebags…”
Seems “submissive” is a really important trait for him. That, my friends, would be a huge red flag for anybody i know. He’s not looking or a wife, he is looking for a possession. Period.
“Submissive” is the thing to watch out for. I knew a family. Big time Baptists in the south. Grandma ruled the clan with her old time religion. Not an unusual thing to happen. Everyone knew she was keeping the farm running and everyone respected it and respected her as a lady.
Now… that sounds like a far fetched story doesn’t it? But “submissive” only shows up in some sects of these religions. Like… for instance… how not all Mormons were FLDS.
Religious communities had a responsibility to their own people to protect them from the ones who compulsively need to capture a quota of “submissive” humans… they failed.
We do not have to accept their failures as the norm for our own communities though.
All is not yet lost:
Vasectomies are awesome, I can fully recommend them to other testicle havers.
We Can Do Better Than ‘Positive Masculinity’
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/08/opinion/positive-masculinity.html
As its political standard-bearer, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Tim Walz, is still required to constantly prove his masculine credentials. It is only by presenting as a man’s man and a veteran who loads his speech with sports metaphors and gun references that he earns the social leeway for his more feminist sensibilities. After all, only a “real man” is secure enough to fight for tampons in the grade school bathrooms.
It would be hard to imagine a program aimed at busting stereotypes for girls that branded itself “Aspirational Femininity” and told girls that they could be scientists or chief executives or rugby players or president of the United States and “still be feminine and attractive.”…Thanks to the work of the feminist movement, any self-respecting progressive would instinctively flag the framing as either laughably reductive or straight-up oppressive. But we still see masculinity as something innate and immovable, rather than a limiting social construct.
'There is a lurking sexism in the whole positive masculinity conceit. If we have to attach the label “masculine” to a behavior before it can have value to men, then we are subtly communicating that embracing anything associated with women is a demotion, even an indignity. “Positive masculinity” is not about de-gendering universal human qualities, and certainly not about encouraging boys to believe that they could have something to learn from women or female cultural norms. It’s more an attempt to scrub away the humiliating stain of womanhood from any trait or behavior before letting boys anywhere near it.
What the boys I interviewed needed was not a new model for masculinity but for the important adults in their lives to grant them freedom from that paradigm altogether.
All humans, regardless of gender, have the capacity and the need for toughness and fallibility, gentleness and emotionality, wild courage and tender nurture. If we really want to help boys break free and find more expansive and healthier ways to show up in the world, it’s not “positive masculinity” that they need, but full humanity.
It would be hard to imagine a program aimed at busting stereotypes for girls that branded itself “Aspirational Femininity” and told girls that they could be scientists or chief executives or rugby players or president of the United States and “still be feminine and attractive.”
I can imagine it. In fact, I think this is just Barbie. 
Does it brand itself as “Aspirational Femininity”?
The Barbie slogan is “you can be anything” which sounds pretty aspirational to me. I don’t know if the femininity is as explicit but it seems widely understood that way.
Sure, but Barbie’s not a “program” in the sense referenced here. (It’s tough sometimes to quote parts of longer articles when they contain references to earlier parts of themselves.)
The article says earlier:
“Positive masculinity” has been around for a while. Most likely coined in early 2000s by psychologists as a way of working with male patients in therapy, the term has now become the go-to framework for the wider progressive discussion about boys and men. It has also inspired a spate of programs and initiatives aimed at enticing boys to embrace more feminine-coded virtues such as emotional vulnerability and nurturing. Masculinity has had an unfairly bad rap, its proponents argue, becoming permanently shackled to the word “toxic.” …
“Healthy or positive masculinity is the idea that men can be emotionally expressive, have female friends or mentors, and express their emotions without feeling emasculated,” the website of one such program in North Carolina says. The former professional football player Don McPherson uses the branding “Aspirational Masculinity” for groups he runs for boys and young men that focus on violence prevention and emotional vulnerability. When three psychologists from the American Psychological Association’s Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinities set up a similar initiative for adolescent boys, their stated goal was to preserve the positive about traditional masculinity “while jettisoning what’s bad.”
"While keeping men strong, we want to remove the aspects of strength that get us in trouble,” one of them said, not quite able to get onboard with any conception of manhood that did not basically come down to strength.
Anyway, the article’s not about femininity. 
