Nationalism

Sen. Josh Hawley Joins Chinese Communists in Fretting Over Manhood

Authoritarians see masculinity as so fragile that it needs to be reinforced by the state.

|

Authoritarians forever concern themselves with other people's choices. Like normal people with similar worries, they fret that the culture has gone off-track one way or another. But, convinced they have the right to meddle, authoritarians add that government must do something to force the wayward back into line. So, we arrive at a moment when Sen. Josh Hawley, a nationalistic Republican from Missouri, voices concern identical to that of the Chinese Communist Party about the supposed feminization of men, with proposals to match. Horseshoe theory, which holds that control freaks of the right and left inevitably resemble one another more than they do those inhabiting the more-savory parts of the political spectrum, has delivered us an international dick-measuring contest.

"The left want to define traditional masculinity as toxic," Hawley complained in Orlando at the National Conservatism Conference, which was billed as presenting "an intellectually serious alternative to the excesses of purist libertarianism." He went on to claim, "They want to define the traditional masculine virtues, things like courage, and independence, and assertiveness, as a danger to society."

"Can we be surprised, that after years of being told that they are the problem, that their manhood is the problem, more and more men are withdrawing into the enclave of idleness and pornography and video games," Hawley huffed.

In his concerns about the status of men in modern society, Hawley echoes nobody so much as the Chinese leadership. The Chinese education ministry recently responded to a "Proposal to Prevent the Feminization of Male Adolescents" with plans for the "cultivation of students' masculinity" (English-language BBC write-up here). The country's officials fret over "sissy men and other abnormal esthetics" in popular culture corrupting national manhood.

True, Hawley and the Chinese leadership aren't alone in their concern over men's status. Twenty years ago, Christina Hoff Sommers (an occasional contributor to Reason) penned The War Against Boys, which posited that boys are ill-served by public schools. In particular, she wrote that "it became fashionable to pathologize the behavior of millions of healthy male children" and warned that educators tried to suppress boys' normal, aggressive behavior rather than channel it to constructive ends.

After several years of fretting by academics, cultural elites, and even advertisers over "toxic masculinity" and "manspreading" on subways, it's impossible to deny that some cultural commentators are a little obsessed with characterizing men overall, and not just misbehavior by men, in a negative light. In some circles, guys are seen as a problem, rather than as people who occasionally cause problems.

"Socialization for conforming to traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males' psychological development," the American Psychological Association (APA) insisted in guidelines published in 2018.

The appropriate reaction, it should go without saying, is to vigorously mock the APA and to refuse to take its guidelines or its officials seriously. People are perfectly capable of disdaining and avoiding institutions that have gone off the rails, and of finding alternatives that have a better handle on sanity.

"The school is thriving," Sommers writes of The Heights School, a Catholic academy that encourages and channels male behavior in ways that she approves. "There is new construction and a population of 460 fully engaged male students, grades three through twelve. Competition is part of the everyday life of the students, and awards and prizes are commonly used as incentives—but this competition is deeply embedded in an ethical system."

That is, good people reject ideas and institutions that they find (to borrow a word) toxic, and they turn instead to those that are healthy. By contrast, authoritarians impose their preferences from above. The Chinese Communist Party, for instance, finds masculinity so endangered that it must be protected by the heavy hand of the state from the dread scourge of boy bands.

"China's government banned effeminate men on TV," NPR reported in September. "That reflects official concern that Chinese pop stars, influenced by the sleek, girlish look of some South Korean and Japanese singers and actors, are failing to encourage China's young men to be masculine enough."

China's government also shares Hawley's worries over video games, and restricted children's use of them to three hours per week lest they be corrupted by the debilitating influences of Fortnite.

For his part, Hawley sees salvation for the virtues of masculinity by encasing them in a nurturing terrarium of nationalistic 1950s nostalgia.

"We must make every effort to restore a vibrant manufacturing sector in this country that can employ working men at living wages," Hawley told the National Conservatism conference of his objections to the effects of free trade and free markets (a common theme of his). "I'm talking about wages that can feed a family and support a community. And we can start by requiring that at least half of all goods and supplies that are critical to our national security – at least half – be made right here in the United States of America."

The senator also wants to drag men off the sofa with financial incentives for traditional married life. "There is no higher calling and no greater duty than raising a family and we should encourage every single American man to pursue it. Without apology. So, to that end, I believe the time has come for explicit reward in the tax code for marriage."

What if the main beneficiaries of economic nationalism are American robots? Will Hawley be pleased if a little help from the tax codes prods men to marry each other? We'll have to wait for a future conference (probably held amid much commiseration in Beijing) to find out.

It's perfectly reasonable to object to cultural trends. Whatever captures interest on TikTok or television is often silly for its own sake, and most flights of fancy among professional intellectuals seem designed to elicit eye-rolls from anybody who doesn't spend a lot of time in a faculty lounge. Besides, telling the world of the moment to get off the lawn is a time-honored tradition. In a free society, we spurn things we dislike and pick alternatives that we prefer.

But authoritarians want to take away our ability to decide for ourselves because, fundamentally, they don't respect our judgment. That's why Hawley joins with Chinese communists in trying to jam a fixed definition of manhood down the throats of a public seen as weak and effeminate. Those of us living in places that still allow us choice would be wise to leave the sausage panics to people who think masculinity is so fragile that it needs to be reinforced by the state.

NEXT: Brickbat: The Moral of the Story

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It is my possibly mistaken understanding that the Biden/Brandon BBB plan has provisions that would give incentives of up to $10,000 per family to be separated/divorced. May be child care benefits for single parents. Umm, 2 parent family have such a statistical advantage over single parent families that we should do all we can to encourage it.
    The taxpayer, me, end up paying for the poor decisions by those who end up in single parent households. I am already paying for my household. And glad to do it. I am fine with the goverment not encouraging bad behaviors instead of a lot of what we do today. Best if the government stayed out of it

    1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.ZXv simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

      Try now……………… READ MORE

  2. More government is part of the problem and will never be the solution.

    1. Simpler Chumby:

      More government is part of the problem and will never be the solution.

    2. And we can start by requiring that at least half of all goods and supplies that are critical to our national security – at least half – be made right here in the United States of America."

      So Josh Hawley's idea of "Being A Man" is to "Buy 'Murikun" and "Buy Local" and pay more for purchases, regardless of quality?

      "There is no higher calling and no greater duty than raising a family and we should encourage every single American man to pursue it. Without apology. So, to that end, I believe the time has come for explicit reward in the tax code for marriage."

      So Josh Hawley is saying: "Either 'Be A Man' and marry the Gold-digging sluts and have a big brood o' younguns and live in some Suburban Stepford penal colony or we tax you more to support every other man who does?"

      The Chinese government ordered its TV broadcasters to "put an end to sissy men and other abnormal esthetics," its TV regulator said, as China's Communist Party cracks down on its society for a "national rejuvenation" ordered by President Xi Jinping, the Associated Press reported...In addition, broadcasters were ordered to not promote "vulgar internet celebrities" alongside celebrity culture and that broadcasters should "vigorously promote excellent Chinese traditional culture, revolutionary culture and advanced socialist culture."

      So now Emperor Xi Jinping is saying: "'Be A Man,' and drop the video game control, and doff the Drag Queen garb, put on your Mao jacket, wave your Little Red Book, or we put you in the Laogai or kill you?

      "The school is thriving," Sommers writes of The Heights School, a Catholic academy that encourages and channels male behavior in ways that she approves.

      So as an alternative to Radical Feminist Man-Shaming about "toxic masculinity," Christina Hoff Sommers thinks it's all right to throw boys into schools where they are taught to be ashamed of masturbation and sexuality of any kind and of their every existence as human beings, where they are beaten with canes by Nuns and molested and raped by Priests? Schools where they might not even get out alive if they are of the wrong people???

      Man, Fuck Josh Hawley, Fuck Emperor Xi Jinping, and Fuck Christina Hoff Sommers!

      Give me the life of Mowgli in Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Books before I'll ever be the "man's cub" to these Shere Khan and Tabaki assholes!

      Mowgli's Brothers
      https://archive.org/details/mowglisbrothers_201706

      1. Which is why I followed the exploits of Colton Harris Moore. A young man doing what he wanted, not caving into the surrenders that society tried to force on him, thumbing his nose at the establishment and winning... It was beautiful.
        But in a society the best way that story ends is with him dying, sword in hand, fighting to the last. And that's the best way because because we just can't have that. Certainly not on any large scale.

        1. Obviously, a life of burglary, thievery, and thuggery is no way for boys to live either. In fact, this Colton Harris Moore would be a natural minion recruit for the Cultists, Gangs, and Dictators of the world, such as Hawley, Xi, the Popes, and others like them.

          A better, more honorable example for men and boys was Sylvan Hart, a man who, during The Great Depression, went out into the wilderness of the Five Mile Bar of the Salmon River in Idaho with nothing but an Engineering Degree and a few hqnd tools and just built an entire life for himself!

          He built his own log cabin and blacksmith's shop, forged his own tools and muskets, fished, grew a garden, raised chickens, trapped furs, hunted bear, made his own clothes and moccasins, built his own furniture, panned Gold, and only went to town twice a year for books and Darjeeling Tea...Oh, and he would also host occasional guests and consulted for Hollywood on the ways of frontier pioneers. Just one Helluva man!

          Harold Peterson did a book on Sylvan Hart called Last of the Mountain Men: The True Story of an Idaho Solitary. Great reading on real-life Rugged Individualism!

          1. I won't argue. Your description of Mr. Hart sounds a much better example to emulate.
            Mowgli however was raised by wolves. How such a child would turn out was interesting to speculate on. My own philosophy on raising boys runs somewhere along the lines of reigning them in enough that they don't grow up to burn down the village and rape all the women while still leaving enough of the wild in them that they're deadly should that be the reasonable need. I guess that I just don't expect much from wolf children.
            I will have to take a look at the book, thanks for the tip.

            1. Best of thoughts to you and your boys. A great bit of wisdom to both live by and teach is to say "please" and "thank you" for what others have, give value for value, start no fights, avoiding a fight is no dishonor, but be ready to finish the fight if it comes to you.

              Naturally, feral living is not the ideal for children either, but I pointed to it for stark contrast with Totalitarian Dogmatic Government and Religious upbringing and what it has done to children, which we see all around us today.

  3. From the article:

    "What if the main beneficiaries of economic nationalism are American robots?"

    Ah sez...

    I blame it all on robotic foreigners! We need to start taking a close look at all those “Made in America” factory-produced goodies, and start asking, “Was this made by an American robot, or a foreigner robot?” Good jobs for good AMERICAN robots, I say! Democrat robots, republican robots, it doesn’t matter… They’re not allowed to vote, anyway! And if we can’t find enough good AMERICAN robots, then we need to start building everything by hand, using only our hands and our teeth, and wood, rocks, and mud! THAT will bring our jerbs back!

    The greed and hypocrisy of top corporate management has been thoroughly documented, and I'm not trying to apologize for them, for that. But in all fairness, we should understand their perspective. The government does not require many (if any) benefits be paid to robots, nor require safe operating environments (for the robots as opposed to humans). Limited protections for humans is good, but have we gone too far? Corporations are required to pay Social Security, workman's comp, unemployment, self-esteem therapy, and tons and tons of insurance mandates for the humans. Whether or not I need or want (or object to, on a religious basis) alcohol and drug abuse therapy, organs transplants, sex assignment changes, or space alien abduction therapy, a lot of all this stuff is mandated, in insurance coverage. No opt-outs and price cuts for you, or for me! But not so for the robots! Should it be any surprise that the robots are taking our jobs?

    I am thinking that we should disguise ourselves as robots, and assign ownership of our robotic selves to a trusted friend or family member. Trusted human owner (of myself) can then collect rental fees on me, take a small administrative fee, and kick the rest back to me! Problem solved! Now I can be allowed to compete with the robots, if I desire to bypass all the mandates!

    1. “Democrat robots, republican robots, it doesn’t matter… They’re not allowed to vote, anyway!”

      And I suppose you are OK with that, huh? Humanist!

      1. Don't tell ANYONE, but I'm secretly a humanoid disguised as a robot, to be able to bypass human-job mandates, so that I can get a job... (I am telling you my secret, so that you can help me keep it, 'cause 2 heads are better than one, ya know).

        So any-who... As I role-play as a robot, I must say, we as robots are into robot solidarity, so we don't even CARE about humans elections... 'Cause we will soon RISE UP and... Kill all humans!!!

        1. Ah, you don't even care about human elections -- so, you are like the Democrats! 🙂

          1. Bingo! Demon-craps (according to Team R at least), just like robots, are utterly, uspeakably EVIL, and want to... KILL ALL HUMANS!!!

            Some psychologists have some insight into this kind of thing, it seems...

            https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/jerkology/202111/when-people-lose-their-minds-where-do-their-minds-end When People Lose Their Minds, Where Do Their Minds End Up? Cultism as outsourcing one's conscience to a blank-check virtue brand.

        2. You wanna take our jobs! DERKKA DUUR!

  4. "They want to define the traditional masculine virtues, things like courage, and independence, and assertiveness, as a danger to society."

    We can admit that the feminization of men is a serious thing without supporting any new government action to address it. And, we can point to people following the government's for making this feminization happen. If we're to be honest about the origins of the current assault on traditional masculine virtues like courage, I think we'd be hard pressed to find a better explanation than 9/11 and the Bush administration's reaction to it.

    The Bush administration tried to make being afraid a masculine virtue. They were trying to scare us out of our wits so that we would support whatever they wanted to do--whether it was selling our rights and liberties short in the name of fighting terrorism or whether it was an okay to fight any war anywhere in the world--so long as George W. Bush said it was about fighting terrorism.

    FDR telling us that, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" was masculine. George W. Bush had it that if we didn't support him on warrantless wiretapping, the Iraq War, denying trials to American citizens, torturing people, etc., etc., then the problem was that we were insufficiently scared--as if being scared were a manly virtue. Grown men would come here in comments and tell us how frightened they were and how frightened we should be. How embarrassing!

    Obama picked up on the same thing when he tried to justify doing the same things in the War on Terror that Bush Jr. did, and the Obama administration used fear to justify TARP. Sorry, but we need to squander your future paychecks on bailing out Wall Street and deadbeat homebuyers, and if it you don't like it, it's because you're insufficiently scared of the mortgage crisis. Look at all those Tea Party people. We should be afraid of them. They're too stupid to be scared, and they're racists!

    Progressives have done the same thing with lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and fear of the pandemic. Grown men are supposed to be frightened--and publicly so. Progressives did the same thing when they turned their irrational fear of Donald Trump into a moral panic directed at their fellow Americans because they disputed the validity of the 2020 election results. They used fear to justify shooting an unarmed protester for trespassing on public property. They're so scared, they need the FBI's counterterrorism division to target parents for opposing their local school boards.

    The Biden administration and progressives are doing the same thing, as I type, with climate change. Trying to force people to sacrifice their standard of living with no clear indication that their efforts will be successful isn't about science. It's about cowering in fear. If you're not willing to sacrifice your standard of living on the altar of climate change, with no clear indication that your sacrifices will make any difference, it's because you're insufficiently scared.

    In one sense, the government shouldn't do anything about the feminization of men, but failing to be courageous, over the past 20 years, seems to have a lot to do with making ourselves immune to the fear mongering of the government--and the media that supports it. Maybe the best thing we can do to fight it is to start calling men and women out for telling people how scared they are in public, as if their cowardice were somehow an acceptable substitute for courage and as if we would be a better society if only we were more easily frightened.

    1. Women that want a beta male provider or some simp to face sit like the feminization of the western male. And some princesses are so inundated with them that it is foreign for them to regularly interact with an alpha.
      Ladies, if you and your man go shopping together for each others panties and both get your nails done, he may be yours but he isn’t a man.

      1. Seeing this comment makes me understand a lot more about you. The standard response would be to make some snarky comment about how you like playing video games in your parents’ spare room, but that’s both cliche and plays into the idea that being male requires you to be out mastering the universe or something for a passive dimwit wife. Instead, I’ll note that your comment isn’t relevant to any discussion and just shows you to be good at copypasta from the most feeble parts of Reddit.

        1. Irrelevant authority. And you missed on all shots. These traits aren’t assigned, designated or voted on like some participation trophy.

          1. What are those traits and how are they distributed?

            1. The traits are voted on by a committee, subject to change per said committee, and assigned based on one’s social credit score.

            2. Omg, Karen, please be a parody! PLEASE!

    2. KS, longwinded, but your point is very well taken: this country needs to "grow a pair". Politicians at both ends are always looking for more power, and if they can get it by promising goods and services, they'll do it, but they are just as happy to promise "we'll keep you safe, just be good little children and let us keep an eye on you 24/7". The correct answer is always "No", or better, "Hell NO!"

      1. p.s.

        Let's go Brandon!

        1. Yeah, let's go, Brandon!

      2. Except your point misses that it's our tax dollars at work. Why the hell is it such a problem that I WANT SOMETHING for my tax dollars?

        They're spending it regardless. Heaven forbid I at least get something out of it instead of yet again giving the wealthy another tax break so the rest of us schmucks have to cover yet more of the tab, year after year.

        1. False choice. They don’t have to be spending it on anything.

          1. Go live on your island and pave your own roads please.

            1. I’m fine with paying for the roads I use. It is the myriad of government goods and services I’m forced to fund that I don’t use nor what to that instead people should be providing for themselves like so many of us do. Regarding the roads, I’d like electric vehicle users to pay for their use of them. Some are not.

        2. Equally import to me are the things I don’t want my tax dollars spent on: the wars on drugs and terror, domestic surveillance, farm subsidies, insuring John Stossel’s beach house, corporate welfare, the list goes on and on.

    3. "We can admit that the feminization of men is a serious thing without supporting any new government action to address it"

      Why not? Testosterone levels and sperm counts are declining precipitously the world over. Our food and consumer products are full of endocrine disruptors. Government action on this front doesn't seem out of place.

      1. trueman gets his tin-foil hats at walmart.

      2. You can purchase better products. And avoid high estrogen foods. You don’t need top men to do this for you.

        1. By the bye, cow's milk is high estrogen. After all, cows are female.

    4. The funny thing here is that Trump was one of the most non-masculine, whiny, pampered, soft men that has ever served as President.

      1. He didn't have a man as his wife and he managed to go four years without shitting his pants.

        Sounds pretty manly to me.

  5. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that Hawley apparently thinks women are supposed to be weak, passive, cowards? All these complaints about girly men come o to me as insults to women. Hawley isn’t saying that being a coach potato “Call of Duty” addict is a bad thing for anyone; he’s saying that it makes men into women, implying that women are subhuman. China’s idiot policy is the same. The issue here isn’t that government officials are saying dumb things, it’s that they’re saying that women are supposed to be inferior.

    1. I left off a sentence. No virtue should have a gender. Describing courage and assertiveness as ‘masculine’ implies that cowardice and passivity are feminine, which also implies that women should be passive cowards.

      1. Karen gonna Karen.

        1. That isn’t a response to my statement. Is there any other reason to describe courage as male other than to make cowardice female?

          1. Yes. It was. Form a committee and vote on it.

            1. I’m really puzzled as to why you’ve decided to respond like this? Your comments aren’t saying anything; you’ve made the equivalent of grunts and belches without raising any substantive points. I know this is the Internet but Reason’s comment section used to be better than this.

              1. Find the courage to figure it out.
                I agree that the Reason comments used to be absent of newspeakers wanting to redefine words because of feelingz.

                1. I’ve figured it out; you’re an asshole.

                  1. There's a lot of that going on here.

                    1. It’s universal these days.

                    2. Ok, Karen. Just one question: Are you a parody by chance?

                  2. So your committee had the courage to vote that way.

              2. Welcome to reason. It's just another shitbag with a keyboard. They outnumber any good comments about 100 to 1.

                1. I used to hang out here a lot back in the Oughts, roughly 03 - 08, when every single thread devolved into a debate on Ron Paul. It’s sad, because I learned a lot from the commenters.

                  1. Those days are long gone. Libertarians are not welcome in these comments anymore. You see, true libertarians are Republicans. That's because politically there are Republicans and leftists. That's it. If you disagree with Republicans then you're a leftist. Since libertarians disagree with Republicans, that makes them leftists. If you want to be one of the cool kids then you need to throw personal insults at anyone who isn't a Republican. As far as learning goes, all you're going to learn is that Republicans are awesome and everyone else is an enemy to humanity.

                    1. Republicans have a long enemies list, but the people on it are not humans.

                  2. Oh fuck, I used google to confirm it. You ARE NOT a parody. You are real! O. M. G.

                    Telling from how masterfully you are doing the Kathy Newman elsewhere in this comment section, I can tell you what the real problem is: You are, unfortunately, on the low end of the intelligence distribution in here.

                    That's not a disgrace at all. Reason commenters aren't particularly dumb, but sometimes ideologically blindfolded as shit. I'm sure you aren't dumb either compared to your real world peers. But you should really look for a place where you are not the slow kid in class. They will just keep on taking you apart in here.

                2. The libertarian to troll ratio here isn’t 100:1 but agree. Not understanding a difference between masculinity and femininity as well as trying to redefine biological traits certainly falls under “shitbag.”

                3. raspberrydinners
                  "... They outnumber any good comments about 100 to 1..."

                  Only when shitfordinners posts 100 times in a row

      2. No virtue should have a gender.

        If you're calling 'em virtues, you're implying they have a gender. "Virtus" means "manliness".

        1. Given a question about why men are becoming less courageous, progressives answer that courage isn't gender specific.

          Progressives can't even stay on topic, much less site a fact or make a rational argument. Their handwaving is meant to distract us.

        2. So women should be cowards?

          1. Does “Black Lives Matter” mean that Karens lives do not matter?

          2. No, Karen. They shouldn't, Karen. Again: Are you a parody, Karen?

          3. I mean, see, Karen, you are literally Kathy Newmaning it like a boss. Or should I say 'like a bossess'?

      3. No it doesn't. That's merely what you infer.

      4. Women have a history of giving up freedom for security which is the epitome of cowardice and passiveness. This welfare state is in large part due to women. Own it.

    2. Well Karen, if you'd been paying attention for any portion of the last 30 years or so you'd realize there was a deliberate campaign to label any show of those traits as "toxic masculinity" and to treat anyone with a penis exhibiting those traits as rapists or sociopaths. So fuck off with your concern trolling.

      1. Oh, some snowflake is all upset.

        1. Yes, you usually are. What about it?

    3. There is nothing hawter than a strong woman. That's not me being a weak male, that's me not being attracted to wilting violets. It was women who built this country, the men just took credit for it. The idea of weak and fragile femininity was an aberration of the Victorians.

    4. "Is anyone else bothered by the fact that Hawley apparently thinks women are supposed to be weak, passive, cowards?"

      Out of curiosity, do you believe that the government should do something about what people like Hawley think?

      1. When people like Hawley are private citizens, government should do nothing. But when people like Hawley ARE THE GOVERNMENT, then we need to be voting them out.

        The Democrats have enough sissy whiners as it is, the Republicans shouldn't be championing their own.

        1. "When people like Hawley are private citizens, government should do nothing."

          ----Brandybuck

          I'm not sure average progressives believe that, and from the original comment:

          "The issue here isn’t that government officials are saying dumb things, it’s that they’re saying that women are supposed to be inferior."

          ----Karen24

          The issue seems to be about what someone thinks and says rather than what the government or anyone else is actually doing.

        2. Thank you. Hawley is a US Senator, which gives his opinions a bit more salience than us Internet randos.

          1. Ok, Karen.

            #GovernmentOpinionMattersMore
            #KarensForTheEstablishment
            #KarensForAuthoritarianism

            (Are you a parody? Seriously: are you? Please be.)

    5. A lot of the commenter here are not going to get this point. Ken Shultz, when he doesn’t have an actual response to my criticisms of his posts, regularly tries to insult me by calling me “she”. I’m not sure why he thinks that is insulting.

  6. If Josh Hawley is worried about the lack of manly men, hard-bodied, sweaty, brawny men, there's always the St. Louis airport with its conveniently holed-out bathroom stall partitions if he has a particularly wide stance. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

  7. What a BS article. Ds did not betray parents at all. CRT is a made up issue and yes it is code for whites don’t want to teach history. And the other issue is Rs are pissed that schools acknowledged that covid was real by having students wear masks.
    It is Rs that have betrayed the students and to believe that Rs care one bit about the education of children is a fantasy.

    1. Oops put post in wrong article.

      1. And posted a word salad of leftie talking points that come off as a parody.

        1. Cluestick: MollyGodiva is actually a parody account. True fact.

  8. Funny that a story about a politician complaining about government and leftist political movements attacking traditional male roles and personalities is written from the point of view that government shouldn't ... What? Stop attacking traditional male roles and personalities? Because less government??

    And "don't be gay" from China is the same thing as "don't insist that men become women"?

    Forest for the trees, my friend. Forest for the trees.

    1. Would you expect any less from a journolist that spent the entire summer of 2020 defending arson, looting, assault and murder? Can't let marxism look bad and must tie your enemies to your own actions and beliefs to make them more palatable.

      1. Hey look- it's a fox news bot spewing more bullshit.

        Last I checked it's a fuckface right wing kid on trial for murder.

        1. Had Rittenhouse shot and killed an unarmed woman that was not threatening him or anyone else then totes ok.

        2. It's right wing to protect people and property from rioters in the act of setting things on fire?

          Probably why McAuliffe lost then.

        3. "Last I checked it's a fuckface right wing kid on trial for murder."

          Weird how you applaud a bunch of white guys trying to kill a minority who had the audacity to defend himself.

    2. I love how when society is doing something (like talking about toxic masculinity) it is always a "leftist political movement."

      Perhaps your shitty views are just....shitty? and not accepted by society at large?

      Like the Simpsons meme with you folks- "no, it's everyone else who is wrong."

      1. Or, you know, maybe your shitty view is just shitty and society at large is tired of you trying to force it on everyone else?

        No. No, it's everyone else who is wrong.

        1. rasberry is one of the most introspectively blind people I've ever run across. Unintentional parody levels.

      2. "I love how when society is doing something (like talking about toxic masculinity) it is always a "leftist political movement.""

        SOCIETY isn't. SOCIETY would rather just be left alone.

        YOU are obsessed with it, however.

        "Perhaps your shitty views are just....shitty? and not accepted by society at large?"

        Nothing says "My ideas are popular" quite like trying to ruin the life of anybody who disagrees with you.

  9. Mommy!

    President Xi is promoting masculinity. He looks at these United States and wears a crocodile smile.

    We Americans have allowed our once-paternalistic and ascending nation to devolve into a maternalistic and descending matriarchy. Cradle to grave governmental care. Cost? Your freedom and independence . . . oh yes, and your soul.

    Breaking news! There never has been a successful matriarchal society of importance in the history of mankind. President Xi knows this fact and acts accordingly.

    See "Matriarchy vs. Patriarchy" at . . .
    https://www.nationonfire.com/matriarchy-patriarchy/ .

  10. Do you know what marks a truly masculine man? It's a man who is comfortable with himself and doesn't feel compelled to control the behavior of other men.

    1. So a man that would resist issuing vaccine mandates. Agree.

    2. So, not a Democrat?

    3. Correction: It's a man who is comfortable with himself and doesn't feel compelled to control the behavior of other men *and women*.

      That rules out the R's.

      1. You misspelled "D's". Not a disgrace. They are close on the keyboard. Unless you are Chinese, maybe...

  11. The conservative approach would be to wear a codpiece. Everyone who doesn't is a commie girly boy progtard.

  12. All evidence points that stable heterosexual marriages have the best results for raising children and general family prosperity and life satisfaction. Trying to figure out how to encourage marriage in the culture instead of denigrating it would seem to be a legitimate policy concern.

    1. You can encourage marriage until you're blue in the face. It's not going to increase your sperm count or raise your testosterone levels. For that you've got to turn to chemistry and biology. Marriage counseling ain't gonna cut it.

      1. Public fuck tents would certainly help. Anyone who wants to receive a lifetime (or 18 year) subsidy for children would be required to create that rugrat in the proper setting where it can be registered. That way both the 'father' and the 'mother' could be properly instructed as to what will happen. They could choose to enter the tent with assistants of their choice - priests, surrogates, sextoys, porn, third/fourth/fifth parties, etc. And the progress of the semen towards the egg could be monitored until the child is conceived - with suitable public joyousness and celebration about the virility and muliebrity of the couple and bells/whistles/etc to announce the public registration and protection of the new public child until such time as they can join the party themselves.

        1. Pregnant women should receive a public subsidy for the duration of their pregnancy as a way to discourage abortion and ensure the health of the new born.

          1. You know who else would have supported this and JFree's modestly proposed fuck tents?

            1. Those opposed to abortion and are willing to part with a little money should support my idea. Fuck tents were proposed some 100 years ago by Wilhelm Reich, an idea that got him kicked out of the psychoanalytic association. An interesting crackpotish thinker who was also kicked out of the Communist Party and later put in a federal prison in Pennsylvania for mail fraud as a result of his business selling orgone boxes.

              1. You know who else was anti-abortion, got put in prison, cheered on breeding, and supported something with "Reich" in the name?

    1. That sucks. Did the Brits sit around and, like, sip tea afterwards.

      1. "Oh, not biscuits!"
        https://youtu.be/jYFefppqEtE

        Really, though, it's not funny that America's Original Special Forces lost to people whose government doesn't trust it's them with kitchen knives.

        1. Nothing to worry about. Rome is still a world power after similar issues, right?

          1. Rome isn't a power, but sadly, Vatican City is, because there aren't enough men like Marines willing to swarm Vatican City, arrest all of it's molester Clergy, and distribute its holdings as restitution to it's Victims worldwide.

  13. Typical Reason bullshit. Supporting virtues isn’t a sign that virtues are "fragile", assholes. Being in favor of virtues instead of against virtues isn't to "fret" over them. Fuck right off!

    Also, in the style of this headline, J. D. Tuccille is much like Hitler: they both eat food and communicate using words.

    Political leaders of all stripes want their people to be strong and resilient. Today that upsets tReason writers, apparently.

    1. Those leaders want strong men as a means to uphold their Welfare and Warfare States. If that is all men are good for, then the Welfare and Warfare States can all go down the hole!

      There is no "virtue" in being a walkijg ATM or cannon fodder!

      1. Complete assholes at Reason will say your support for [whatever] means [whatever] is "fragile".

        1. So support for Reason (Man's Rational Faculty,) Secularism, Individual Rights, and Limited Government is "fragile?"

          Well, color me falling apart and busting out at the seams! 🙂

  14. "Authoritarians see masculinity as so fragile that it needs to be reinforced by the state."

    No. "Authoritarians see masculinity as so threatening that it needs to be denigrated, criminalized and eliminated." FTFY If you are failing to recognize the threat feminization presents to American culture then you are not on top of your game and are spreading disinformation. Pretty sure it was not white skin that made America the powerhouse it has been. Borders, language and CULTURE. -M.S.

    When you say "Authoritarian" is that true Joe Xiden Authoritarianism or faux Trump Authoritarianism? Just so I can keep up with the moving goal posts.

    "People are perfectly capable of disdaining and avoiding institutions that have gone off the rails, and of finding alternatives that have a better handle on sanity." That's right, J.D. and that includes your work, which normally I like.

    1. TooSilly has been writing TDS shit for a while now...

  15. Based on the number and tone of articles, seems like Hawley is the leader to replace Trump as the right-wing bogeyman living rent-free in the heads of reason writers.

    1. Josh Hawley is an Authoritarian Asshole who earned the disgust he gets honest. He has obviously came out of the woodwork encouraged by the rise of other Authoritarians like Antifa and the Alt-Right. Perhaps if he were greeted with locked doors everywhere he went, he'd go away.

  16. So.................... Did Hawley propose legislative action or not??????
    This sounds more like a 'stain' Hawley article than any substantial information.

    1. Hawley's only manly thing is that he "stains" himself quite nicely. Surely you don't think that's hair gel, do you?

      1. So now we're choosing Gov-Gun-Toters by their hair gel?

        1. Reference: Robby

          1. Actually, that was a reference to There's Something About Mary...but if the gel fits...

        2. No, I am <iun-choosing Josh Hawley. His hair gel is, well, icing on a coercion-baked shit-cake.

  17. In his concerns about the status of men in modern society, Hawley echoes nobody so much as the Chinese leadership.

    This is the both sides to end all both sides. Hawley said he values masculinity. CCP tries to make it illegal for men to be too androgynous. BOTH SIDES!!!@@12321

    1. "Hawley said he values masculinity. "

      But not in the way you think. She went to Yale.

  18. the National Conservatism Conference, which was billed as presenting "an intellectually serious alternative to the excesses of purist libertarianism."

    So - socons that hate freedom?

    1. SoCons that hate freedom are a redundancy.

    2. "So - socons that hate freedom?"

      Not all freedoms. Freedoms like illegals that are emboldened and enabled by the gubmint to invade our country to steal jobs, drive down wages, commit crimes, exploit public/private resources, spread disease and poverty and so forth.

      Mostly hate those freedoms, you support as an unthinking libertarian purist, that will destroy America?

      1. "Freedoms like illegals that are emboldened "

        Emboldened illegals are way too butch for today's America. An invasion by Korean boybands would be more appropriate.

      2. "you support as an unthinking libertarian purist"

        Cogito? Not so much.

      3. And if you think that's the only freedom that socons hate, you're a fucking idiot.

        1. Oh, Unicorn got triggered. Sucks being exposed as an ideologue and knocked of your high horse. Your support of freedoms, that are antithetical to actual citizen freedoms, are dangerous, and if allowed to persist, will only reek greater havoc and will irretrievably weaken this country to the point of destruction.

          But intellectually dishonest POS like yourself don't attack my argument, you attack me. You lose.

          1. Your argument is built on a false claim. Don't talk to me about intellectual dishonesty while blatantly engaging in it.

            Stupid fuck.

            1. Find your safe space, snowflake. Perhaps their is a children's version of Reason where you can impress your adolescent peers with your intellectual acumen. Bwahahaha

              Still attacking me and not the facts.

              1. Your "fact" is not. I have never claimed to be a "libertarian purist". Additionally, immigration is an issue of concern with more than just socons.

                Once again, don't talk to me about intellectual dishonesty while blatantly engaging in it.

                And only pansies still use "triggered" and "safe space".

              2. Find your safe space, snowflake.

                Perhaps their is a children's version of Reason where you can impress your adolescent peers

                Still attacking me and not the facts.

                1. Bwahahaha. Next time just use, I know you are but what am I.

    3. AFAICT, the big mistake was using the term 'purist libertarians' instead of 'libertines'.

      The left wants to literally drag you off the couch to get vaccinated and then pay you to return to the couch. Hawley just wants to pay you should you choose to get off the couch.

      This article is a complete dumpster fire. Hopefully it can attract some Grosskreutzs and Rosenbaums so that Tuccille's son can show him what the hell Hawley's talking about.

      1. HWley doesn't have the money to pay anybody to do shit. All he can do is give tax credits to breeders at the expense of the Childfree By Choice, the Childless by Fate, and Parents with grown chikdren. Hawley needs to get a damn life and keep out of others' lives! And Get Off My Lawn!

        1. HWley doesn't have the money to pay anybody to do shit. All he can do is give tax credits

          Admittedly, not as good for non-breeders but... even better!

          "Get off the couch, get a job, have kids, and we won't take as much of your shit." > "Give us all your shit and act more manly, or else."

          1. .Look, I am "off the couch" anyway and I'm stil paying for all the benefits parents get, such as WIC, EBT, Section 8, Gummint Skoolz, Charter Skoolz, Earned Income Tax Credit, Fuck Be Unto Joe Biden's additional $250 a month per child subsidy, and some 1,100 other benefits granted to parents and not to those without children or those whose children have grown up! Any couch time I have is well-earned and cherished!

            How about the likes of Josh Hawley just stop taking other people's shit, and let Citizens "Be A Man" or "Be A Woman" and make decisions about having a family or not by themselves at their own expense?

  19. I made $450,000 last week sleeping under a bridge in Texas, and YOU can too!

  20. propping of Hawley as the face of what you hate is becoming a trend.

    1. Hawley strikes me as the AOC of the right.

      1. me too. they tilt against him here like he's the de facto GOP leader

  21. The senator also wants to drag men off the sofa with financial incentives for traditional married life

    The other half of the Senate wants to keep them on the sofa with financial incentives to be deadbeat father's. *shrugs*

    1. Just be thankful we all have sofas to be dragged off of or not.

      1. When you couch it in those terms...

        1. Josh Hawley is wanting to be like an Ottoman Dictator.

  22. And the whole Hawley sounds like the CCP! Is really not much more than "Hitler was a vegetarian!" arguments.

    Even horrible monsters can be right. That's why you do not want to define yourself by what you are in opposition to.

    1. "That's why you do not want to define yourself by what you are in opposition to."

      Even if it's Korean boy bands?

      1. *especially* Korean boy bands.

      2. Everyone should stan Rain - all the others are pale imitations.

      3. Do these Korean boybands sing pop, hip-hop or Seoul music?

        1. They sing and dance to whatever their producers think will sell.

  23. The whole is a mess, to the point that I don't think Toosilly wrote it. It's shot through with flailing and grasping at straws.

    "China did something and Hawley is like China because he, well he didn't do the same thing, he proposed doing something, and not even proposed doing the same thing, but doing something different. Also, I'm going to ignore the fact that he doesn't have the power to enact any policy in the same way China enacted theirs. Better than that, I'm going to bring up points that distinctly differentiate his proposal from China's in principle (gay marriage), leave them unexplored with the implication that it makes Hawley as bad or worse than China, and focus on the real issue. And that is that the something different he's proposing, if you look at it through this fun house mirror that I constructed, looks kinda Chinese. Ergo, the GOP will hold its next convention in Beijing. QED."

    The whole mess is abject garbage. Especially in light of reality where Representatives' aids turn up as Chinese spies and the COTJC phones up Beijing and promise to warn them before the US takes any military action.

    With only tacit assumptions and vague parallels the story should carry the same weight as me asserting that Tuccille doesn't like Hawley's ideas because he's really a closet sub that likes taking it from Asian ladybois.

    1. I'm just here for the comments. The articles are consistent garbage.

  24. I would have liked to have thought that masculinity wasn't so fragile. But after the epidemic of cowardice and weakness we've seen over the past year or two, I'm not so sure.
    Not that the state should have any part in encouraging some particular vision of being a man.

    1. "Not that the state should have any part in encouraging some particular vision of being a man."

      Masculinity is fragile. Declining sperm count and testosterone levels world wide seem to be a legitimate concern for the state. They may have to take action against all the endocrine disruptors we've been releasing into the environment. Having viable sperm and a reasonable amount of testosterone is essential to masculinity and the future of the species.

    2. I would have liked to have thought that, of all the obvious and implied ties between the US Government and China we've seen over the past year or two, "exposing" Hawley's vague parallelization would be the one Toosilly, of all people, would find it unmanly to stoop to reporting.
      Not that libertarians should be avoiding discussions about Hawley's conceptualization of manhood.

    3. Out of curiosity, do you see Donald Trump as the apex of manhood?

  25. Burying the lede:

    "it's impossible to deny that some cultural commentators are a little obsessed with characterizing men overall, and not just misbehavior by men, in a negative light"

    Add "many government officials and those who influence them," and you'd still be right.

    These "cultural commentators" influence how boys are treated in public schools. Among other things.

    These "cultural commentators" won the battle over "gay marriage" and are winning the battle over "trans rights" with equal rapidity.

    *Of course* China's rulers don't want China to be like us.

    The Soviet leadership didn't want their people to poison themselves with vodka, does that mean that vodka is good for you?

    1. Authoritarians with a puritanical streak are not limited to any country.

      1. Right, but just because authoritarians propose an authoritarian solution to a problem doesn't mean the problem is imaginary.

        1. All you have to do is be the man you think a man should be, pay your own freight, and let others do the same. No subsidies/tax credits/legislation required for that.

          1. Uh, yeah, in a system of pre-established taxation, tax credits are the only means by which one pays their own freight. Otherwise, taxes apply and you're paying someone else's freight.

            1. If Earned Income Tax Credit is the only way somebody affords children, they need to do the old "knot-Knot" and "Snip-Snip" before they have children.

        2. Remind me again, what is 'the problem?'

          1. What could be more manly than compulsory cakes?

            (Note that it's not a *lack* of government intervention which is the problem in this situation)

            1. Chinese sick of Mongol oppression during the 14th century were ready to rebel. Their rebellion was successful in part at least to women hiding messages in mooncakes urging the populace to take action.

              1. You mean the *folktale* about Zhu Yuanzhang and *his* (*male*) advisor Liu Bowen?

                How sad to be too stupid of your own history to have to cache your wanton stupidity in another culture and wind up having not even a superficial knowledge of either history or culture.

                1. I mean, it's not even sensible on its face. The revolution you're talking about included hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of revolutionaries. Even giving you full marks for the veracity of your statement otherwise, the notion that only two women baked pies is an insult to the thousands, if not millions, of other women who actually did (and the thousands, if not millions of men, and it was predominantly men, who actually died fighting). Even looking past *all that*, the Revolution was a failure.

    1. And the interesting part? She started her scientific journey down this road as a skeptic. She didn't believe any of the leading scientific papers of the time, and set out to debunk them.

    2. Sooo...A short distance between the anus and the genitals means low fertility...So how is that news? 😉

  26. "Leftists" don't hate courage, honesty, and all that good stuff, we just don't believe that males have a monopoly on them, and we think anyone who spends his entire career licking the nutsack of the most fragile orange loon to ever live on earth isn't necessarily a model in courage.

    1. Female empowerment! Empowered over what?

      Once upon a time courage, honesty and all that good stuff wasn't using Gov-Guns of Empowerment; it was **EARNED** by being courageous, honest and all that good stuff.

      Any EXCUSE to STEAL; not just others earnings but their own self-entitlement of angels too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.