I am always fascinated how the man who is strong enough in his convictions to do whatever the hell he wants is considered the “weak” one whereas the “macho” shit is afraid of his own shadow and that some other man may not like what he’s doing.
In the 90s, especially in high school environments, homophobia wasn’t just common, it was socially reinforced. Gay was used as an insult, casually and constantly. People rarely questioned it. Teachers didn’t intervene unless things turned violent, and even then, the issue addressed was the aggression, never the prejudice. It was an era when appearing different, even slightly, could make you a target. Most people avoided standing out if they could help it.
During that time my grandma gave me a pink terrycloth nightgown. On her it was a nightgown, but on me it fit more like a long shirt. I thought it was amusing and comfortable, so I wore it regularly without giving it much weight.
Each time someone hurled gay slurs at me, I replied, “I’m secure enough not to care what other people think. Can you say the same?” They usually followed up with more immature remarks, which I’d call out too. The problem wasn’t what I wore, it was that I wasn’t afraid to wear it.
Because it’s specific types of strength that are part of traditional masculinity, not any and all types.
These things are mostly arbitrary, right? There doesn’t have to be some simple, overarching principle. Masculinity can be any combination of things, no matter how difficult it is to summarise them.
I also think though that there’s a real desire amongst progressives to find “contradictions” to “prove” that is bullshit. So they imagine that this guy who said that something is not manly is “afraid of his own shadow” when they have no reason to believe that. He’s probably incredibly confident in his masculinity but he also believes that masculinity is something worth “enforcing”.
We haven’t seen him worry that he might not meet the standard, only be part of enforcing it. It’s pretty silly to think that the latter implies the former
I am always fascinated how the man who is strong enough in his convictions to do whatever the hell he wants is considered the “weak” one whereas the “macho” shit is afraid of his own shadow and that some other man may not like what he’s doing.
The manliest thing a man can do is whatever the hell he wants.
In the 90s, especially in high school environments, homophobia wasn’t just common, it was socially reinforced. Gay was used as an insult, casually and constantly. People rarely questioned it. Teachers didn’t intervene unless things turned violent, and even then, the issue addressed was the aggression, never the prejudice. It was an era when appearing different, even slightly, could make you a target. Most people avoided standing out if they could help it.
During that time my grandma gave me a pink terrycloth nightgown. On her it was a nightgown, but on me it fit more like a long shirt. I thought it was amusing and comfortable, so I wore it regularly without giving it much weight.
Each time someone hurled gay slurs at me, I replied, “I’m secure enough not to care what other people think. Can you say the same?” They usually followed up with more immature remarks, which I’d call out too. The problem wasn’t what I wore, it was that I wasn’t afraid to wear it.
Only those macho dudes think that though. Literally everyone else know the truth.
I feel like it’s the “loudest voice in the room” effect. There’s so many insecure men that security is rarely visible and thus ostracized as otherly.
Because it’s specific types of strength that are part of traditional masculinity, not any and all types.
These things are mostly arbitrary, right? There doesn’t have to be some simple, overarching principle. Masculinity can be any combination of things, no matter how difficult it is to summarise them.
I also think though that there’s a real desire amongst progressives to find “contradictions” to “prove” that is bullshit. So they imagine that this guy who said that something is not manly is “afraid of his own shadow” when they have no reason to believe that. He’s probably incredibly confident in his masculinity but he also believes that masculinity is something worth “enforcing”.
We haven’t seen him worry that he might not meet the standard, only be part of enforcing it. It’s pretty silly to think that the latter implies the former