That may be it. I seem to think it was something RAW had written about once and I just forgot to take note of who he was quoting, I’m not sure. Part of the problem with reading a lot, combined with fairly cruddy memory, I guess.
I would feel sorry for them. If they hadn’t spent so many of my adolescent years making me fear being singled out as a f-slur.
I don’t want to give them a pass just because they’ve internalized their homophobia.
I managed to get past it, and I’m in no way extraordinary. They have no excuse in my figuring.
What I’m dying to know, though, is if at any point in this just-so story, did this person call Josh “sir”? Because if he’s vying for being like the Golden Dawnuld all of them fawn over, he needs to work on getting the bullshit down just pat.
I get it. I’ve never been a real target of such things - other than the usual McCarthyite stuff nearly all males - or at least any male deemed to be one iota “abnormal” (which definitely includes me for a lot of reasons so I’m sure my sexuality was always in doubt by such fragile minds) - are subjected to by such people but…I cannot help but wonder how men like that might have turned out if they were not raised under such silly and arbitrary thinking about sexuality. They might actually be…nice. And whole.
Which has always been useful to them as a justification for all kinds of shitty discrimination. “If they didn’t want that, then why did they chose to be x?”
my experience with those kind of men is that their relationship to women, and non cis or non straight men is a “performance”
everything everything everything about their life is a worry and an attempt at measuring up in the eyes of other men
that’s part of where objectification comes from: be seen with a woman who other men find attractive, as opposed to finding a person that they themselves want to be with ( in whatever capacity )
as the saying goes, you are what you pretend to be. and they literally can’t stop without losing their perceived status, and the men around them can’t stop without losing their perceived status. so they’re all miserable, insufferable, angry men their whole lives ( give or take some occasional miracles ) and they replicate their behavior generation after generation
Sometimes they stay angry even when they manage to break free
It’s like Hawley’s reversed cause and effect in his assertion and he’s got the cause wrong. It’s quite a trick…
Especially since the quote makes it clear: this “gentleman” is aimless and videogames are filling his time as a result. So is Hawley claiming that feminism made him aimless? (If only he were “manlier” he’d have work that gave him purpose?) Rather than, say… feeling disconnected from the job market/economy/educational system/society? Because that would seem to be directly connected with issues around late-stage capitalism - but of course we can’t say that, so “feminism” becomes this incredibly weird (especially in this context) scapegoat. “Feminism is making young men aimless! And definitely not a job market that demands college educations that can never be paid off at these stagnant wages, the lack of obvious career paths, the realization that young people will never have the stability or quality of life of their parents and grandparents…”
I kinda think more men are watching porn and playing videogames because there is a sh*t-ton more porn and video games widely available.
My early man-hood? Sears catalog and space invaders.
Damn spoiled men these days!
maybe we need a new word for righteousness anger
Yeah, men should be playing sports. Nothing more manly than seeing your bros naked while changing into their uniforms and slapping their butts after a good game before showering together.
CNN’s headline is that this is his diatribe against toxic masculinity. Isn’t it the exact opposite?
Must not have been a big fan of T-rex
… and probably a confession veiled as an accusation.
It is, but Hawley’s trick is to emphasise the “populist” part of “sado-populist” in his rhetoric just enough that the corporate media will make him sound vaguely progressive. Those outlets also presented him as an anti-monopolist and champion of free speech (he is neither) when he went after the social media platforms for supposedly censoring conservative users.
Fascism is a populist ideology, one that positions itself in opposition to the elites. Populist, however, is not the same as progressive. Institutions like the corporate media that serve the elites won’t or simply can’t acknowledge that, and your more clever sado-populists take advantage of that fact.
In josh’s world all this makes perfect sense. he probably went from an all male group of friends in HS, to college fraternities, to secret societies, which led him into business and political dealings with other men, white men, men with money and clueless about how regular people live. They all sit around and discuss the problems of the world in their little white man bubble, and they have come up with the solution: it’s the women. brilliant!
I think what he means is “If we forcefully removed females from the workforce and ended any protections for women…”
Just blame women for your problems aimless guys! It’s easy. That way you never have to change. It’s a classic.
Of course it’s the same people who are like: “You only fix economies by forcing an entire demographic out of the workplace ways that are absolutely guaranteed to cause catastrophic poverty and homelessness because homeless people make the best exploited labor pool… oops quiet part…”
Yes, they are a cunning linguist.
:: shows self the door ::
Wasn’t there something in the past year or two about a subset of “hyper-masculine” men who don’t wipe for fear of becoming gay? Or is that some horrible nightmare that I’m misremembering?
(please tell me it was just a nightmare)
.
Also:

My early man-hood? Sears catalog and space invaders.
Damn spoiled men these days!
For your consideration, a perfectly normal picture of manly, masculine man Josh Hawley enjoying a healthy, heterosexual kiss with his wife: