Letters to the Editor
-
As usual
Shooter (now there's a name to conjure with) is firing blanks.
-
@alden
What are the relevant attributes you see in the picture? What virtues are embodied in this guy's image? I thought you had an argument to make, but apparently you're ashamed to post it in public.
I hope you never try this unworthy stunt again.
-- alden
Anyone can lose their hair. That's not a signal of a lack of masculinity or lack of an ability to take care of yourself or your loved ones in a pinch. But to be pudgy as that little kid, Pugsly of The Adams Family, and to be as pasty as the Pillsburry Doughboy, well I wouldn't go around calling people "sissy marys" no matter what, but if I looked like that guy, I'd be extra careful not to do that. For one thing, if he ever really does get pushed around or forced to defend himself he'd run out of oxygen in about 10 seconds. That's not to mention the bloody nose.
Get a reality check. The guy looks like your classic fricking dweeb. There is nothing wrong with that on it's face, but if you're going to put out insulting shit like does, well, you're dead meat.
-
The New Militarism: Wannabe Warriors and the Media That Enable Them
The doughy pantload appearance of people like Karl Rove, Fred Kagan, William Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Hemingway, et al, is relevant in the context of the overarching philosophy they adhere to, which is militarism: "the doctrinal view of a society as being best served when it is governed by concepts embodied in the culture, doctrine, system, or people of the military."
(Pardon the Wikipedia cite, but I don't have time to work up a more scholarly reference.)
"Militarists hold the view that discipline is the highest social priority, and claim that the development and maintenance of the military ensures that essential order in society." (ibid)
Just look at these guys: do they have a physically disciplined appearance?
It's not hard to imagine them getting together for a screening of 300, drooling over their popcorn as they oogle all those fantastic abs on display.
A case of inverted projection if ever there was one. As I commented on a previous thread,
Anyone who came of age in the late '60s and early '70s knows that they had far greater chance of getting high and laid after a Vietnam war protest rally than say, a Young Republican manning a table at a local college encouraging other kids to enlist.
-
"P.S. Suggested cover image: an action figure."
Yes, but the action figure should be a bit pudgy... and bald. With multiple chins.
-
Book Titles
“The Baritone Castrados”
“Viagra masculinity”
“Viagra male”
”Fancy pants Republicans”
“GOP Man Crushes”
“Faux-male”
“Hyper-gelded Republican”
“Non-Tea bagable GOPer”
-
How about
MARSHMALLOW WARRIORS: How the hypocritical right suckers America
-
oh, man...
... but Glenn Greenwald has serious issues here.
But there's one repeated falsehood that needs to be addressed:
"From George Bush's codpiece ..."
I assume you're referring to his photo in a flight suit. Sorry, but your ignorance shows. I used to wear such a flight suit and G-suit for a living.
You'd better strap the thing up tight against your crotch, because if you don't, the moment you pull, say, two G's, the suit starts to inflate, and you'll be singing soprano shortly thereafter. Bush, a former fighter pilot, knew this full well, but I'm sure the naval aviators with him probably reminded him, too.
No room for a codpiece, Glenn, but yours and others speculation as to such speak volumes, as does your obsession with having your manliness challenged.
-
book title
From Homer Simpson to Samson:
How conservatives create and exploit the hero myth
-
Been there, done that
Suppose Mark looked like Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Arnold, or the Marlboro Man. Would it make his attacks legitimate?
Sampson141
We already had the male model type, his name was Jeff Gannon. And no, it didn't.
The country has been through a lot at the hands of these assholes, allow us our gallows humor and a healthy laugh when they turn out to be somewhat less than their pulp fiction makes them out to be. Especially when they're only joking anyway. And I think it's good that Glenn published the guy's photo. Nice to finally see what kind of men Ann Coulter prefers, when she can lure them out of the men's room and away from their methamphetamines.
I got my lunch money taken from me at knife point more than once, and was working graveyard in a big city gas station (and getting held up) when guys like Mark were glorifying Gary Gilmore. I'm enjoying the payback. So sorry.
-
Glenn
>>The issue isn't whether Hemingway looks masculine. It is whether he exudes any of the traditional masculine attributes...
Do people "exude attributes" apart from the way they look? You were talking about his voice? So the issue isn't whether he looks masculine but whether he exudes masculine attributes...in the way he looks?
Let's scratch all of that -- it's about whether he looks masculine. As I and a few others have pointed out, you then get into a debate over what looks "stereotypically masculine." Bald and fat vs. flowing locks and thin? A cardigan vs. a muscle-T? Ronald Reagan cowboy vs. Brokeback cowboy? You've already lost once you are bogged down in this.
>>The picture demonstrates that he is the type which stereotypically lacks those virtues.
So he says, in so many words, "They look effeminate." And your response is, "Oh yeah, YOU look effeminate." This may or may not be subjectively true, but it really isn't an argument that you want to make. It sounds childish and isn't effective. It is a textbook ad hominem attack. Yes, they are engaging in childish ad hominem attacks on people's appearances. You can point that out without using their tactics.
The real point is that they don't have some objective criteria for what looks masculine and what doesn't: their opponents are effeminate by virtue of being their opponents. It wouldn't surprise me if some of these same people suddenly found "effeminate" characteristics in Jeffrey Hart or James Baker or even Bill Buckley or any other GOP traitor of the month. Just as I'm sure Joe Lieberman's manliness and masculinity have surged compared to 2000.
Whether or not people like Hemingway look stereotypically masculine or effeminate is just a subjective argument that is not worth making. Unless you are trying to argue that this is a movement of closeted, self-hating homosexuals (in other words, they not only look effeminate according to you, but they are in fact homosexuals). You can make that kind of psychological case (and it seems like you are flirting with that argument without making it explicit) -- but is that the argument you want to make?
The "my enemies are effeminate and gay" mentality is nothing new on the Right. Moravia wrote a novel about it long ago. The other half of his argument (if you want to call it that) is that these 'conformists' have deep doubts about their sexual orientation. You seem to be making that argument on the sly: "Do you think that your physical appearance (see here) has anything to do with your need to mock publicly the masculinity of others?" In other words, is all of this fueled by your own insecurities? If you want to make that argument (and I don't know if you do), you should make it directly and not comb their pictures for "stereotypical masculine traits." You may have the "right" to do it because they brought it up, but it's a loser of an argument.