Trump is a musical theater fan who dodged the draft, gossips about teen actors love lives, has never worked a day in his life, isn’t in shape and has no signifiers of masculinity. He gets to be the pinnacle of masculinity purely because he represents cruelty.
Likewise no matter how grizzled whoever the Dems put up is they will always be effeminate in comparison, no matter how many of their supposed criteria for masculinity they fulfill.
Beyond the dems, none of their political opponents can ever be real men. No socialist is anything but a (gay) effeminate loser, nothing but their unwillingness to be performative cruel will ever be considered.
Direct quote
Editing to add another direct quote
Okay yeah, that reeks of radfem-style gender essentialism.
I don’t think I’m doing gender essentialism at all. I think I’m doing gender abolitionism, just through correctly identifying which of these social castes is one built on the back of wanting to do oppression and which of them is a formation of being oppressed. Name one aspect of masculinity that isn’t inherently tied to the oppression of women.
I’m too nonbinary to think that there are any concrete aspects of masculinity. We’re in agreement here that it’s made-up social constructs all the way down.
Therefore, I also think it’s foolish to insist that all aspects of masculinity must be inherently toxic.
Yes because masculinity, as a social caste, is built around misogyny and the oppression of women. This is nothing to do with gender essentialism or bio essentialism. Doing misogyny is THE way to affirm your participation in the social caste of masculinity.
Do you think it’s possible for trans men to pass without being misogynistic?