"... above all, the criticism reflects the President’s unapologetic distaste for violent confrontation and for making loud threats, no matter how empty those threats may obviously be."
Writes Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker, responding to criticism of Obama for his supposed lack of manliness.
What pushed me over the line as I pondered whether to blog this was remembering that, of my huge number of tags about Obama, I have one for Obama and manliness.
July 31, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
57 comments:
Is he saying people think Obama's a pussy?
What? The President makes empty threats all the time.
"Red lines"? "Assad must go"? What were those?
How many different red lines has this guy, with the unapologetic distaste for making loud, empty threats, drawn so far?
"Perceived flaws" is an interesting frame. How about the author telling us what the "actual flaws" are and why the author thinks the "perceived flaws" are not real.
Or is all criticism because racism and shut up!
His biggest flaw is that he doesn't know what he doesn't know.
I think he's saying Obama needs to grow a pair. Should have had a pair before he started the job, but still.
"Fox News contributor said about the President. But this kind of thing is not confined to the weirder fringes:"
I stopped reading there.
New Yorker again.
"the President’s unapologetic distaste for violent confrontation and for making loud threats, no matter how empty those threats may obviously be."
Like John Lynch and Paul Zrimsek, I am at a total loss as to how Gopnik can write that with a straight face. Is he taking the piss here? The President's foreign policy has been defined by loud-mouthed blustering threats backed either by nothing or by acts so halting, faltering, and pathetic that doing nothing would have been better -- at least then our enemies might have trembled in fear that our wrath had not yet descended upon them.
Meh. You can tell he's a pussy by the way he mounts a shotgun, or rides a bicycle.
I think the idea of the "manly-man" appeals to the far right and not really to the rest of us. To me it's kind of a twisted concept of maleness. Not a protector or a dynamic kind of pizzaz but a bully. Putin is a good example of it. People's lives don't matter to him. Power matters to him. Who's the top dog? That's what I think machismo is all about. It's like Saddam Hussein. It's all about a pecking order and who is on top. Pretty boring really. Who has the biggest......weapon :-)
Well, a man who unironically compares himself to a bear has to expect a few comparisons.
In the spirit of reconciliation, though, I will compare Obama to the legendarily manly Achilles*.
*Who spent most of the Iliad in his tent throwing a huge tantrum.
Yeah, I have to go with John Lynch on this one. Obama constantly makes macho threats. He just doesn't actually follow up on them.
We don’t need tough guys. We need wise guys.
One of the saddest delusions in life is the belief that being bad at one thing means you've got to be good at the opposite.
Not every nerd is smart.
Not every wimp is wise.
Sad but true.
Yeah, this Admin. isn't about making loud empty counterproductive threats, you guys. They drew a red line against doing it, if I recall.
He finds violent confrontation distasteful. That's why he's the one standing between you and the pitchforks. So when you hear people suggesting he's ok with violent confrontation, punch back twice as hard. If they bring a knife, you bring a gun. And if that doesn't work, two words: Predator drones. Because he's trying to find out whose ass to kick. So be careful, because while he's unapologetic in his distaste for violent confrontation, he's also really good at killing people.
I don't think it's accurate to say that our first gay President has only effeminate flaws. The blustering and empty threats are a genderless display of weakness; his ignorance isn't especially effeminate, and his arrogance is arguably a more stereotypically male flaw, as is his habit of ditching work to watch or play sports.
The New Yorker doth protest too much.
How does Obama compare against the 14 leadership traits that the Marine Corps says a leader, male or female, should possess?
Justice, judgment, dependability, integrity, decisiveness, tact, initiative, endurance, bearing, unselfishness, courage, knowledge, loyalty, enthusiasm.
Not very well.
Then there's the photo of Obama holding a poodle that Putin tweeted yesterday.
Pitiful.
Someonehastosayit has it about right.
Teh Won is not well connected to reality. Nor is he very curious.
He thinks he know it all, thus doesn't need any more information.
He thinks he understands the problem, therefore his solutions should be obviously perfect and accepted.
He does not understand that other people, acting from different fact bases, with differing motivations are going to do things he didn't expect.
"like invade xxx"
or
"not set up a state exchange even though..."
"I think I'm a better speech writer than my speech writers," he reportedly told an aide in 2008. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm . . . a better political director than my political director."
Nothing is more feminine than "empty threats," seriously.
Next Obama will be moderating comments.
Obama, a gurliman? Naw. A rookie and narcissistic prick? Absolutely! Everything he has touched for the last six years has been fucked up. No exceptions.
Bluster appears to me to be Obama's go to.
That article is a mess.
Wisdom is not simply the absence of hypermasculine bluster. And the "tough guy" can be both wise and tough, by projecting strength when it is appropriate. The concerns about cowardice have to do with bluster that is not backed by action- either making threats that are ambiguous (do this, or ELSE!) or issuing ultimatums without following through on consequence.
But I suppose, in the absence of much praise to give Obama, this author has to fall back on, "At least he's not like that embarrassing cowboy, Bush!" With a healthy dose of, "Hillary is next and perhaps a real woman will be more wise."
Taranto's last item yesterday goes directly to this - seems like the President questions his own manliness.:
"President Obama stopped at a coffee shop on his way out of Kansas City on Wednesday, but said it was too late to order the specialty of the house," reports David Jackson of USA Today:
Instead, Obama went with iced Earl Grey tea before mingling with customers at Parkville Coffee.
When a barrister offered tea with lavender, Obama said thanks, but no thanks: "I'm not confident enough to order that."
Jackson buried the lead here, didn't he? The Obama economy is so bad, trained lawyers are relegated to menial jobs like serving tea.
Obama is a mama's boy and always has been, hello? Look at who he surrounds himself with, name a single strong macho male type in this administrations inner circle.
Then there is Clinton confessing that he had Osama in his gun sites and failed to take the "kill shot" the day before 9/11. 300 Kandahar civilians are more important than 3000 Americans. Just like Obama, Clinton believes that Americans are not as valuable as collateral damage on a bin laden hellfire hit. Feminine traits haunt the latest crop of democratic men in power. That includes Kerry and Hillary.
Bill Clinton was our first Black President, so Obama is either our first female or first gay President. Maybe both, so now we don't need to have either one, for diversity's sake. Nothing against either, or being a Black President, except being an identity President means that he has been one of the worst Presidents of the last century.
I think that Obama's feminine side may suggest why nations trust men more in difficult times. Bare shirted Putin is openly calling him a sissy, and getting away with it. Who is protecting America, while Obama is getting free birth control for Fluke and Julia? While pink slips are going to our troops engaged in combat in Afghanistan, and MS 13 is using the flood of kids on our borders to invade and recruit? Do we really want another self indulgent, narcissistic, female type President, after his example?
All of the above is just a part of the "Culture of Humiliation" that Monica Lewinsky denounces in the new Vanity Fair.
Stop man-shaming our leader!
The Ancient Effeminate Ones: A One-Act Play:
Scene One: Two ancient women are reading The New Yorker.
Lady Macbeth: "What the fuck?"
Antigone: "Putz."
Finis
Michelle Obama and Tom Doniphon agree, Barry IS a pussy!
Do we really want another self indulgent, narcissistic, female type President, after his example?
A comment from the 2008 Dem primaries struck me, Bruce.
It was something that implied that Hillary had a higher testosterone level than Obama.
After her inaction on Benghazi, I'm not sure that is correct...
There is an old saying...
"Little dogs bark, big dogs growl".
Obama's supposed disdain for violence and his blusterous talk are signs of being a two-bit bully and NOT a 'unmanly' sign.
But I guess the left can't tell the difference.
Zach: One of the saddest delusions in life is the belief that being bad at one thing means you've got to be good at the opposite.
Not every nerd is smart.
Not every wimp is wise.
Nicely put.
There is a germ of an interesting article/discussion in Gopnik's reference to K.A. Cuordileone's work, re the rise of the "tough guy" - as opposed to the preceding culture of manliness. According to Cuordileone, says Gopnik, this had its origins in the Kennedy administration; I think one could connect it to to the wider infantilization of public life and politics, a process beginning in that era.
Unfortunately, this is used here only as a hook for a comically blinkered defense of Obama, who is effeminate and incompetent. The stupidites of "tough guy" politics don't change that.
If your name is Adam Gopnik, chances are you are wimp.
The neutered President.
What happens when a boy is raised by a liberal woman without a father's influence. Doesn't even have a chance.
St. George: Then there's the photo of Obama holding a poodle that Putin tweeted yesterday.
I think it's a shameful sign of the times that world leaders (or their minions) lower themselves to unmanly twitter pissing matches. Or tweet at all.
But I admit I laughed.
It's not a man or woman thing, it's an incompetence thing.
"What happens when a boy is raised by a liberal woman without a father's influence. Doesn't even have a chance."
What happens when a country elects him to the highest office in the land - twice.
This is getting silly. You don't get to be president without substantial amounts of toughness, decisiveness and ruthlessness. Obama's biggest problem was that he was unprepared for the job (as all presidents are to some degree) and did not address that common deficiency with really first rate advisors. His cabinet appointments have been weak, and with the exception of a few (Gates, Axelrod, Emmanuel) his closest advisors have not been that impressive.
That said, Obama has been manly in ways his critics can not recognize easily. He has been steadfast in his non interventionist approach. It seems to be a core belief, and he could easily pose as "manly" by violating it. But from a different point of view it's "manly" to stick with your approach under pressure.
He can't throw a baseball and is unfamiliar with guns. His dog walks him. I suppose that's unmanly ibut it's pretty superficial. If you think of his youth, he did not have one consistent person demonstrating to him the conventional trappings of American manhood. The fact that he lacks some of those can be misleading.
So far his presidency looks pretty unsuccessful. We will know better in 10-20 years if that is true. But if it proves to be so, I doubt lack of manhood will be seen by many as the reason.
"Obama’s perceived flaws are the ancient effeminate ones..."
Like narcissism and vanity.
"We don’t need tough guys. We need wise guys." Wise, Bama ain't. Gopnik, neither.
Obama in Cherokee means "Throws Like A Girl."
Google "Obama first pitch." He's a show pony. Pushes the ball, and revels in his incompetence.
That one pitch pretty well sums up his presidency.
Angleyne...
Yes, it's shameful, but we are in a world filled with shameful people. And worse.
Image matters.
Woman lifting torch in harbor.
Old man clearing brush on ranch with chain saw.
Vulgar man holding up beagle by its ears.
Young healthy-seeming man playing "touch" football or at the rudder of a sailboat.
Confident happy man, even though he is horribly paralyzed and unable to walk.
Wars start when on party misperceives not only the strength but more important the willingness to fight of the other party. Our man cuddles poodles.
Professor Althouse specifically called attention to sunsong's comment: "I think the idea of the "manly-man" appeals to the far right and not really to the rest of us... Pretty boring really. Who has the biggest......weapon :-)"
Sorry for nitpicking, but why highlight the standard hackneyed female dismissal of the elements of manliness? This is an essentially non-serious comment, combining snarky superiority with a sublime certainty that the commenter will never have the job of facing down an international bully or actually defending someone who is threatened by one.
It's easy for some (especially the non-participants) to dismiss the whole thing as "boys being boys," but such an attitude is not helpful - it isn't even original.
So there's a subset of Obama critics who aren't racist but are, instead, sexist and homophobic. This is a useful distinction. It's important to analyze how any criticism of Obama is based on some deep seated character flaw on the critic's part. In a future column, Gopnik will explain how those who oppose Obama's spending programs are anal retentive........It's interesting to note that the two Soviet leaders who were most admired by generic New Yorker writers were Lenin and Gorbachev. I don't think Gorbachev's leadership worked out so hot for Russia, but I'm fairly certain that Gopnik never wrote a negative word about him. It's between Gorbachev and Obama as to who best defines the ideal qualities of leadership in Gopnik's mind.
Effeminate or emasculate? Projection or displaced bigotry?
"Then there is Clinton confessing that he had Osama in his gun sites and failed to take the "kill shot" the day before 9/11. 300 Kandahar civilians are more important than 3000 Americans."
Clinton was being interviewed on 9/10 about things that happened back when he was president, not things that had yet to happen in 2001. If the only way to get Bin Laden was to kill 300 innocents in the process, you might make an argument that it would have been worth it, but only in hindsight. At the time Clinton made that decision, he could not have known that Bin Laden was going to kill 3000 Americans.
This is like blaming Woodrow Wilson for not hunting down Corporal Adolf Hitler at the end of WWI.
He has been steadfast in his non interventionist approach.
All you Libyans just keep quiet a minute. Idealization is a delicate process, and we don't want your ill-timed guffaws mucking it up.
Obama the Europhile, like most other Europhiles, forgot that it's OK to be snobby and Europhilic as long as you've got an uncle across the Atlantic who can blacken the bully's eyes should the need arise.
As it is, the world has become very ugly because we have testicular deficiency in the White House.
There are plenty of regular good guys that use their obvious testosterone to quietly stand idiots down with the real thing in defense of their neighborhood, family, and friends; so yeah, put me on their side. It's not feminine when you see it in action.
Putin looks like a cheesy circus act with that lizard nip wild animal stuff. World leader level macho gravitas or 90s Van Damme wannabe? Are they the same now? They might be, but I would hope the First World had left all that to the more narcissistic, attention-starved corporate heads.
I remember the positive reaction to the Obama family from the extremely downtrodden in other areas of the world. It meant something to see the respect with which Michelle and daughters were treated in places where you've been told you aren't shit if you aren't male or don't produce sons. Being a public symbol of the "devalued" being treated well absolutely matters.
What everyone is missing is that saying a particular trait is necessary for a particular job isn't the same thing as passing judgment on that trait in general.
To be a surgeon one needs a steady hand, but one might well be very effeminate and still be a good surgeon; conversely the manliest man on planet Mars with a shaky hand will be a lousy surgeon but would almost certainly make for a better world leader.
A world leader needs to project strength or that leader's country's enemies will take advantage of the apparent weakness. That's as true of the job of world leader as the need for a steady hand is a prerequisite for a surgeon. It is neither good nor bad outside of context, but in context it is vital.
That said, Obama has been manly in ways his critics can not recognize easily. He has been steadfast in his non interventionist approach.
Obama's escalated one major war, launched a second one in Libya, and killed thousands of people through drone warfare in various countries around the world.
If that's "non-interventionist", what do you call, say, Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon? Isolationists?
Let's just say that Obama exhibits an apparent willingness to grab his ankles.
"Meh. You can tell he's a pussy by the way he mounts a shotgun, or rides a bicycle."
Or throws a baseball. Or lifts weights.
I'd say our government is all too quick to issue threats of violence and to follow up on them with violent action, and our people all too quick to cheer our violence and demand even more. We're the most murderous nation in the world at this time, and have been for decades. Whatever one wishes to perceive in Obama's personality, or Bush's or Clinton's, or any of the rest of the swine who have sat in the White House for the last few decades as regards their relative "manliness" or "pussyness," these are trivialities; our foreign policy is unceasingly belligerent and always ready to kill or to support others who kill in service to our (or a mutually beneficial) agenda.
Post a Comment