The far-left mocked, belittled, and, in Hollywood productions (from Archie Bunker to Al Bundy to s character Charlie Harper in “Two and a Half Men”) parodied manliness into a thin cultural stereotype. With this accomplished, they began to blame masculinity (what they denounce as “toxic masculinity”) for everything theyve done to men, and/or, especially, to boys.
The left next conveniently spun this into a political and marketing scheme: They defined the enemy as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals on the right, and presented themselves as the ones who could solve the now well-established crisis with boys.
This is a clever political scheme, as manly men dont tend to vote for Democrats â those men are too self-reliant for the lefts government-empowering, cradle-to-grave entitlement programs â so weakening men, via attacks on strong, caring, protective and chivalrous masculine men, is, to a , smart politics.
Also, there is an angle here that gives the left a social issue in which they are cast as offering maternal care â this might impress unmarried women and single mothers who are more likely to vote for Democrats.
Now, though it is an inconvenient fact to the far-left that the so-called “manosphere,” a term that includes a lot of new voices â some beneficial to young men and some that are not â is clearly a countermovement to the lefts attacks on masculinity, they can talk this away by claiming toxic masculinity is to blame for all that is negatively impacting young men.
The left can even pretend they are virtuous as they rip down statues of Americas Founding Fathers and all but erase boys heroes from school textbooks â a tragedy I am pushing back against with my forthcoming book “Cool Heroes for Boys” â as they frame this as an effort to protect young, impressionable men from historically imperfect men (as if any of us are perfect).
With this all done, some on the left can even use this as a marketing opportunity.
A current example is Jennifer Siebel Newsoms â the wife of California Democrat Gov. â documentary “The Mask You Live In” (2015). This is a propaganda film on “toxic masculinity” that claims the phrase “be a man” is one of the “most destructive phrases in this society” and asserts that manliness is simply a social construct (no biology involved whatsoever). This film, along with curricula and educational materials, has been marketed to schools, universities and other institutions, many of which are in California, which have paid Jennifer Siebel Newsoms nonprofit.
Now enter the lefts Elmer Fudd and former nominee for vice president of the United States, Minnesota Democratic Gov. , who actually said on a recent podcast with Gov. Newsom: “I think I scare them a little bit [on masculinity].⦠My identity is not hunting. My identity is not football coaching. My identity is not, you know, a beard and a truck.”
Actually, those are all stereotypes perpetuated by the left. Manliness is not a guy with bulging biceps either; any reasonable person, after all, would say that if there is, say, a car accident, and some scrawny man saves a life as a muscled jock panics and so is no good to anyone, then the unimpressive-looking guy is manly and the jock is not.
Clearly, actually being manly is about character, not brawn. It is about competency, not uselessness. It is about actual compassion for others, not feigned virtue signaling. It is about selflessly being willing and able to even if no one is recording it on their phone. In sum, being a real hero is about deeper things. It is not, and has never been, misogynistic.
An interesting aside is that our teens feel the lack of depth in the lefts attacks on actual manliness; for example, a recent “Teens & Screens” survey from the Center for Scholars & Storyteller at UCLA found that teens want to see more s in television shows and movi
