Bruce Everett: “the faux-masculine shibboleths that I’m expected to observe”

I didn’t get it, and I haven’t got it for most of the time. I’m only just getting it – the faux-masculine shibboleths that I’m expected to observe, in order to be ‘one of the guys’.

Especially the degradation of women as rite of passage.

Don’t get me wrong…

I’m nobody’s knight in shining armour (I think this will be the last time I repeat this for some time), and I don’t believe in chivalry towards women – chivalry, as opposed to decency, assumes that women are frail objects to be protected like delicate porcelain in a world they’re not equipped to deal with. Women are no such thing.

I’ve got an interest in this. If pseudo, and actual misogyny, are used as defining criteria for what it is to be masculine, then I consider that an imposture. I don’t want that group identity lumbered on me, and moreover, I’m willing, if imposed upon, to fight for my stake in masculine culture to the exclusion of other men.

Gentlemen, if you’re going to make an asshole out of yourself in the first instance, I’m not going to take much notice when you make squeals of indignation, when you get a little comeuppance. That is unless, I find it justifiable, useful, and entertaining, to laugh at you.

Seriously though, some men really shit me. The things that some of you expect me to take on board as normal, or healthy, or unappealing-but-otherwise-not-rebarbative.

And so Bruce begins.

I’ve wondered about this. I’ve seen the way seemingly “nice” guys act when they’re around each other. They don’t act like that when it’s one on one with me, but get them in a group and all bets seem to be off. When questioned later about it, they deny feeling that way, and yet, in those instances when I’ve been present,  I’ve never heard any of them call the others out for sexist language and outright misogyny. And I’ve wondered, doesn’t it bother them? If they say they’re not like that, how can they let that stuff slide?

And I wonder about the guys who don’t feel this way and what going along to get along does to them deep inside.

Bruce gives me a bit of a window. Better, he tells me what he’s going to do about it.

Go. Read. 

This is my body

The girl won today, but pretty soon the ‘fun’ will be over and it will be time for the boys to step in

And I don’t have much more than a passing interest in which one of these loons it will ultimately be, but . . .

Iowa Straw Poll Top Three: Bachmann (4,823), Ron Paul (4,671),  Tim Pawlenty (2,293).   Followed by: Santorum (1,567), Herman Cain (1,456), Rick Perry (718), Mitt Romney (567), Newt Gingrich (385), Jon Huntsman (69) and Thad McCotter (35). Out of almost 17,000 votes. (Via the Washington Post)

I found this little throw-away from the Los Angeles Times interesting:

One of those wearing one of the dozens of purple “Rick Perry for America” t shirts was Craig Schoenfeld a Des Moines attorney who had previously worked in other campaigns, most recently leading Newt Gingrich’s Iowa operation.

He predicted that Iowans would warm to Perry as the true conservative “who can win… It becomes an issue of pragmatism.”

Pragmatism? Say what?  

I think either one of them would be catastrophic, but there isn’t a sliver of daylight between Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry when Tea Party comes to Christianist Fundie shove, so what Schoenfeld really means is that it’s an issue of penis-ism. 

Have they started calling her “divisive” yet?

And so it begins. Or does it?

Nope, there was no doubt in my mind she would run. So when Rachel announced the “breaking” news last night my first thought was, Oh joy, another stupid tea partier who doesn’t know her ass from a hole in the ground, thinks she is capable of being POTUS.

My second thought was, Crap, when will the sexism start? Please don’t make me have to defend her from misogyny, please, please, PLEASE!

I assumed it would not be a matter of if, but a matter of when. I didn’t have to wait long. Less than 12 hours, it appears. Peter Daou’s tweet showed up on my Facebook page at 5:10 a.m.:

So I clicked through the tiny url to find this to the WaPo RSS feed. And yep, that was the title of Milbank’s column. Or so it appeared.

I popped over to the Washington Post Opinion page and there it was again on the front page.

But when I clicked through to the actual Milbank column, this is what I saw:

Huh. So, either Dana Milbank changed his original headline, or some other doofus at the Washington Post just had to sex it up a bit.

When I read Milbank’s actual column, it is free of sexism. Basically, the circus that was the Republican debate last night had plenty of inanity to go around. And Milbank does an excellent job pointing it out.

King treated viewers to a peculiar game, asking each candidate a “this or that” question. Does Bachmann favor Elvis or Johnny Cash? (Answer: both.) Does Santorum prefer Leno or Conan? (Neither.) Further questioning revealed that Pawlenty prefers Coke to Pepsi, Romney likes his wings spicy, Cain enjoys deep-dish pizza, and Paul prefers his BlackBerry to the iPhone.

You know, when that young person asked Bill Clinton, “Boxers or briefs?” I didn’t think that “professional” debate moderators would adopt him as their journalistic role-model.

Milbank continues:

She served Tea Partyers all their favorites: “I want to announce tonight President Obama is a one-term president. . . . I will not rest until I repeal Obamacare. . . . There is no other agency like the EPA. It should really be renamed the job-killing organization of America. . . . I fought behind closed doors against my own party on TARP.”

Actually, Bachmann didn’t have much of a role in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, but nobody was keeping score. They were too busy counting kids. “I have five sons. . . 16 grandkids,” Romney reported.

“Karen and I are the parents of seven,” Santorum boasted.

“I’m the father of two,” said Pawlenty.

“Father of two, grandfather of three,” contributed Cain.

But none could compete with Bachmann: “I’ve had five children, and we are the proud foster parents of 23 great children.” She mentioned that last statistic twice more during the debate.

Nope, not a drop of sexism in Milbank’s column. So why the sexist teaser? Did he choose those words, or some nameless editor at the WaPo?  The other OpEd teasers seem pretty straightforward.

Robinson’s OpEd reflects his teaser.

Normally, we’d expect the rest of the field to make an issue of every crazy, intemperate thing the leading candidate has ever said or done. This year, however, the pack is assailing Romney with documented examples of chronic, blatant, incorrigible moderation. Even — shudder — pragmatism.

Oh, the humanity.

At Monday night’s debate in New Hampshire, none of the other candidates would say to Romney’s face what they’ve been saying behind his back. But the offstage Mitt-bashing surely will continue. The truth is that Romney is basically an ideological conservative who believes in tax cuts as a panacea and is content to watch the American middle class continue its long, sad decline. But in today’s Republican Party, merely positioning oneself to the right of Ronald Reagan isn’t enough. Apparently, it’s also necessary to eschew all reason.

E.J. Dionne’s  column does as well.

I didn’t expect to think that Michele Bachmann would be the big winner of tonight’s Republican debate in New Hampshire, but that seemed the obvious conclusion. She was at ease and forceful without looking at all crazy or out-of-control. It’s a sign of how far to the right the Republican Party has moved that she didn’t stand out for her extreme views.

Rubin’s tease matches the content of her column as well.

So, I’m puzzled by the Milbank teaser. His idea? Or someone else’s?