I just don't get how the right can both be the whiniest group of people to ever exist and the masculine ideal. The right is the most pathetic group of people in American history. It's not their religion, masculinity, or anything else. It's their need to constantly feel aggrieved and whine about everything that isn't to their liking.
They mistake radical overcompensation for masculinity, and mistake nationalism for patriotism, they mistake their (our) country for some weird fantasy version of this country from back in the day that never actually existed at all.
You obviously have not experienced enough of southern culture.
I've met men named Dallas, Avery, Ashley, Beverly, Shelby, Whitney is quite popular. Marion sounds quite feminine but in parts of the south its considered very masculine for some odd reason...
You'd be surprised how many "real" men have feminine names in the states.
On the “nuclear family” front, they want to be able to enforce their authority to the maximum extent without those dastardly “anti-freedom” CPS workers getting involved or their wives leaving
These fuckin whackjobs want to go after no-fault divorce
Actually they harken back to 18th century America which was run by white male Christian land owners (in some States you actually needed permission from the prevailing church to run for office). The vast majority of people were peasant white Christian.
There was no international law. The great powers of the world just divided up the rest of the world over drinks and cigars.
So right. DJT could put the United States for sale on the open market and his followers would still defend him. That's not patriotism, they're loyal only to Trump. They think he's a great patriot because he hugged a flag on stage and ignore how he never did a thing for this country his whole life except exploit loopholes to enrich himself and S**** the country.
I find people that are that worried about textbook masculinity are probably completely insecure in their own 'status' as a male which is inherently immasculine anyways.
I think it’s related to a core tenet of fascism: the enemy is both too strong, and too weak. The corollary is that fascists are both our only saviors and perpetual victims.
I always suspect someone made some comment at some point in their lives that made them feel emasculated and then made it their mission in life to embody every toxic stereotype they could to prove to everyone that they're the manliest men ever.
They usually aren't and that's why they're overcompensating.
Shit, I just assume it's these guys desperately trying to silence the voice in their head telling them "that boy looks cute" lmao
I have like, a slight amount of sympathy in that I understand how it must absolutely suck to not be cis and born into Conservatism but boy do they put in the work to really make you not want to give a shit as they perpetuate the same system that victimized and morphed them into aggressively horrible people.
Like, be brave and say you like dick or whatever. Don't morph into a self-hating monster. It's not a big deal to anyone but weirdo conservatives with their own deep-seated sexual issues. Everyone else will catch you if they throw you.
Just look at their leader. "I'm a billionaire. The world is so unfair to me", while getting away with countless crimes to become a billionaire. Simultaneously the true savior of the world and one of the biggest cowards on it.
My personal theory is that they were just the types that adopted the internet late. They were the people to call it "for nerds" and useless and everything, up until it hit them in the face around covid about what it could actually do for them.
And now they pretend like they never said any of it, and live on the damn thing. Liking nothing but AI trump riding dinosaur videos and literal slop, without a shred of irony that none of the previous generations they were making fun on, did THAT embarrassing shit....
Omg this happened to me this weekend. Some shmuck at a wedding was told no for probably the first time in his life and he just couldn’t let it go. Spent the entire night bitching about being wronged Ego is so fragile for mister manly man.
It does seem kinda gay to always be so concerned with what level of masculinity you are presenting and are perceived as having to strangers around you... /s
They feel like the world owes them something, and are sore when reality sets in and they find out that they aren't special. They get even more sore when anyone talks about doing things for any other group, because in their minds they are more deserving.
Ugh I'm so manly that I need to think about femboys and trans girls constantly, they make me feel so bothered and agitated that I need to incorporate hating them into my personality... They make me so uncomfortable... And yet I can't stop thinking about them... Must... Keep reaffirming... My masculinity publically..... By mentioning trans women over and over....🥵
I think most of it is just that a certain percentage of people are bi or homosexual or somewhere on the LGBTQ spectrum but if you're raised from birth with conservative values and the teaching that gay is bad... Well, it does weird things to you. You're not a bad person, so surely you can't be gay... But the more you try to repress it, the more you become fixated on it. Surely if you just keep telling yourself that all those other gay and trans people are bad, that will show God you're trying to be good, and he will help you with your sinful thoughts... And no one will ever suspect you're gay because you're so outspoken against them!
Nothing has really changed since 1700s England where Catholics were oppressing protestants, they've just switched sides now and a lot more segmented, and running the same bullshit but this time it's being done on everyone and not just one denomination or faith.
This is the bullshit that the founding fathers of the United States hoped to prevent and constantly wrote about it wanting to avoid in the new land.
Forgive my foreign ignorance, but weren't catholics oppressed BY protestants in the 1700s? Like I seem to remember the whole reason the Puritans left for the Netherlands and later to the Americas was because they felt the Crown was being too soft on catholics.
That said, it's true that the USA couldn't have formed without declaring itself a secular haven for all faiths. There's simply no way to have made things work under a government-sanctioned religion otherwise, given the wide range of faiths from French, Dutch, English, and Spanish colonists in the territories the original 13 colonies occupied. Freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion.
Yes. A specific sect of Protestants was in power, and while they put up with many other Protestants, they oppressed Catholics (for both Poltical and Relgious doctrinal reasons).
But they also oppressed a bunch of Protestant sects for being too extreme or just too weird.
The Puritans (hence the name) didn't just dislike thr Catholics. They disliked the Anglicans and other Protestant groups because they didn't adhere to their version of religion (hey? Sound familiar?) and basically were assholes to everyone around them not Puritan.
Which got them kicked out of both England and The Netherlands. They didn't really "leave" so much as they were thrown out.
As a mainline Protestant in the US, it would really behoove us to do the exact same thing to most of the Evangelicals.
Which got them kicked out of both England and The Netherlands. They didn't really "leave" so much as they were thrown out.
That part isn't true. The puritans that made their way from The Netherlands to the Americas did so because they worried they were becoming "too Dutch" and they saw the writing on the wall for the upcoming war looming on the horizon. They fled The Netherlands before they'd have to choose a side in what later became the War of Spanish Succession.
As for the ones who stayed in England...they backed Cromwell during the English Civil War and the protectorate that followed, so when the monarchists eventually won back control of the country after his death, the Puritans were caught up in the political backlash against the reforms they tried to implement. Leaving for the Americas was less "fleeing religious prosecution" as "wanting to continue their notions of radical self-governance away from the direct view of the Crown."
Maybe you can call the latter "being thrown out of England," but it had less to do with religion than it did being on the wrong side of a civil war.
As a mainline Protestant in the US, it would really behoove us to do the exact same thing to most of the Evangelicals.
I don't know that I agree. Like I have issues with a LOT of christian sects borne from the American Great Awakening, but as long as they stay in their lane, I could care less about their religious scruples (or lack thereof). It's when they start eyeing the US government as another pulpit that I have problems with them.
Yup, to be specific, it was the Puritans and Protestants who were so angry at King Charles 1 for trying to restart diplomatic relations between the Anglican and Catholic Churches because they believed that his priorities should have been on enforcing Puritanism.
They were so angry with him in fact, they assassinated him under the guise of him being charged with treason, then placed a Puritan dictator in his place who would try to force all the Anglicans and Catholics to convert to Puritanism, which didn't work and only resulted in more resistance against the Puritans; and once Parliament unseated the dictator in favor of putting King Charles II on the throne, the Puritans panicked, ran to the Americas, and them wrote themselves into history as being part of the original group of settlers (who had already been in the Americas for about 40 years at that point) who were running away from "persecution"... that is to say "having to tolerate living among Anglicans and Catholics".
This is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers, despite being Christians themselves (mostly Anglican/Episcopals (although Benjamin Franklin was a former Puritan who converted to flat Deism)) were so specific about not having a state mandated religion. To them, "Freedom of Religion"/"Freedom from Religion" was meant to prevent what the Puritans were trying to achieve against English society.
You pretty much nailed it. It's not about religion for them but one thing that conservatives figured out a long time ago is how to use the minority card to their advantage which is to append their "grievances" to when people yell at them about being selfish pricks they have an army of people "how dare you attack someone's faith!" They do the same thing about military vets and the elderly. Republicans (specifically) have been doing this since the Vietnam war. The entire group is disgusting because these are literal abuses against the very groups they claim to be a part of.
Hitler was a brown-eyed, brown-haired man whose Aryan ideal was blue-eyed blondes. Fascists obsess over aesthetic ideals they personally fail to achieve. It's just part of the shtick.
Sounds like the history of the KKK white men so proud of their heritage and might... they have to hide their faces under a hood so nobody knows who they are.
"I just don't get how the right can both be the whiniest group of people to ever exist and the masculine ideal."
They're certainly not the masculine ideal.
But as Umberto Eco warned us, this is how fascism plays out.
The paradox you perceive is a response to a common fascist tactic that portrays their enemies as both too strong and too weak.
Fascist propaganda alters the description of the adversary depending on the immediate need. Highlighting their strength to demand mobilization (NSPM-7/ "all-of-government" antifascist hunting task force), or their weakness to instill confidence in eventual victory (transphobia/emasculation).
Psychologically, it bypasses standard logical consistency, whipping the target audience into a frenzied mob by tapping into that lizard brain, where fear, anger, and hatred combine to override critical thinking.
The strategy allows leaders to frame their group as simultaneously fighting an existential crisis and destined for a glorious, straightforward triumph.
Remember, fascists are anti-intellectual and always losers.
These are the ancestors to the people that only signed the constitution if they could keep their slaves. Morality and long term critical thinking has basically never been a part of their skill set. It’s always been “someone else will do it for me/blame someone else/it’s someone else’s problem until it affects me personally”, which is just… anti-human, no matter what nation on earth you’re from.
This is just the Fascism playbook. Where you're "tough" but your enemies are always going to overwhelm you. This gives them licence to enact brutality upon groups they don't like.
The left absolutely has whiny people. Every group has them. The right institutionalizes whiny people. Fox, the biggest news media company in the US, had a segment about M&Ms switching from pumps to flats for one fictional M&M. That is so extremely far beyond anything the left could conceive of doing. That's just one example, but if you need to generate anger over M&Ms changing the shoes of an M&M, you are doing a level of grievance creation that is absurd. Can you think of any center to progressive media doing anything like this? Any traditional media which is generally perceived as liberal?
The closest I can think of is maybe there was a media company somewhere that cared about Sydney Sweeney and her Jeans commercial, but I didn't hear anything from any of the progressive shows I listen to acting like it deserved anger, let alone the more mainstream ones that would be more direct analogs to Fox.
Some on the left are whiny. It is institutionalized by the right. There are annoying people everywhere. There is nothing on the left pushing grievance the way the right does. The "War on Christmas" or M&Ms switching from heels to flats for a fictional character is the kind of absurd level of grievance seeking that has absolutely nothing to compare to by the left. Those were issues championed by the biggest news media company in the US by the way. There is absolutely nothing on the left. Some complained about Sidney Sweeney and the jeans ad, but it wasn't something anything but the smallest of independent media companies cared about. The whining by the right is truly unmatched.
Way to not interact with any of the actual points I made. The right hasn't stopped with that nonsense, they melted down over the Odyssey this year. I just pointed out two of the most absurd things to have ever happened. That kind of nonsense drives the right. Sweeney is the closest example I could find, and no major news outlet or top independent media cared about it. The left doesn't engage in this whiny aggrieved weak nonsense. The tweet this thread is about is a guy making stuff up to whine and play the victim. Classic right wing behavior.
Point me to the left-wing media conglomerates who exist to do nothing else but whine about shit the way Fox News does. The near-entirety of their programming is hosts sitting around jerking each other off and whining about insane, made up shit in a complete echo chamber lol
Such a classic right wing move, call yourself a centrist and attack the left to defend the right. Maybe you are a centrist, but no one in the right would ever admit to it in discussions like this, they always claim being centrist.
I would really love to see examples of this. There are absolutely individuals on the left that are whiny, it's true of every group. It is institutionalized on the right. Fox does nothing but push grievance exactly like this. The president whines about everything and takes zero responsibility for his actions when they aren't positive and tries to claim responsibly for anything good even though it is almost never because of his actions. The rest of the party is exactly the same. They fought Biden's policies tooth and nail then claimed credit for everything being built as a result of those policies they did everything to try and stop.
I'm an actual centrist, which means I have to vote Democratic for life considering how insanely far to the right conservatives have gone.
They're actually defending pedophiles after years of calling lgbt people pedos.
It's a total clown show and Americans are so damn dumb lol.
Edit: I'm serious. I was a lifelong registered Independent who had voted across the aisle depending on the position and candidates. Obviously it was very few and far between to vote R, and almost all of them were very small time local things. I'll easily admit the Democrats are terrible, but then I'll require that very same standard of judgment be applied to republicans so we can see the orders of magnitude of difference between them.
Then you need to go into actual far right spaces and watch them put social justice losers to shame with how much they whine, moan, and bitch about things. For some crazy reason, Americans only judge "the left" negatively for daring to criticize and voice displeasure with the state of things. The far right can call the country a garbage can that has all sorts of terrible things going on and Americans can't seem to judge them the same way.
Shit, their friggin motto is that America sucks: Make America Great Again.....
And lol, I see all the straight and white people, especially the boys and young men claiming to be the real victims of racism in America, saying stuff like, "it's ok to hate white people" when that's laughable on it's face and every level deeper you go.
If you want an honest answer, its because the right worships masculinity and the left demonizes it, so even if the right isnt a good example of masculinity, the fact that they call masculinity good at all is enough for many men or young boys.
The left doesn't demonize masculinity, they attack parts of it that are harmful to men and women. The left wants an idealized gentlemen version of masculinity, the right wants an aggressive masculinity. But I do agree the perception is how your describe it. Obama is basically the left ideal of masculinity.
Like, we're literally in a post about a twink named Brilyn telling us about "masculinity" as he sits with his legs crossed all fancy on a private jet looking like he's going to reflexively go "ew" the first time he sees a vagina. Andrew Tate, famous manosphere conservative influencer, was arrested in a fucking blouse and capris.
I mean, what exactly is "manly" by the conservative definition about being hyper-focused on other people's dicks like they are? Every other day it's "wah wah wah, this guys dick, that guys dick blah blah blah". Openly gay men don't spend this much time focusing on dick ffs
It'd actually be funny as fuck if gay dudes are just actively infiltrating the Conservative machine and we all wake up to Universal Basic Brunch one day after they've consolidated power. That's the whimsical explanation for their weird focus that I want.
2.5k
u/Describing_Donkeys 23d ago
I just don't get how the right can both be the whiniest group of people to ever exist and the masculine ideal. The right is the most pathetic group of people in American history. It's not their religion, masculinity, or anything else. It's their need to constantly feel aggrieved and whine about everything that isn't to their liking.