"Let me be clear. I don't think the homoeroticism is the weird part...."

Says Democratic Congresswoman Becca Balint (D-VT), talking about Pete Hegseth and testosterone:

"There are so many people in this administration that have some weird, like, intense homoerotic feelings toward men while also being incredibly homophobic and not just homophobic but, like, hate mongering, fear mongering about the LGBT community. Let me be clear. I don't think the homoeroticism is the weird part. The weird part is that they pretend that that's not what it's about. And so, Pete Hegseth was, like, the example of this, like the manly-manly rugged macho man, and I don't know if you know who Tom of Finland is. Tom of Finland — this is gay male porn that was drawn by a man, and, like, Pete Hegseth is the embodiment of that. So I feel like they must be looking at that as, like, their example of what men look like...."

I blogged about Tom of Finland back in 2014 in a post titled, "Finland issues stamps honoring an artist whose 'sleek sado-masochistic drawings with abundant amounts of beefy male nudity' portrayed 'a sensual life force and being proud of oneself'" ("The first quote in this post title is the way the NYT described the work of Touko Laaksonen, AKA Tom of Finland, and the second quote is from someone in Finland who chose the particular images for the stamps, who added: 'There is never too much [sensual life force and being proud of oneself] in this northern country'")(the only image at my post is of one of the stamps issued by Finland).

Balint gets pretty excited about her ideas in that clip, and that made me want to look up what she studied in college.

"Trump seemed very low-T in his East Room address."

Taunts Maureen Dowd, in "Low-T, High Chair" (NYT).

I’m surprised that Pete Hegseth, who says his “High-T Department of War” will start screening testosterone levels of “war fighters” age 30 and older, didn’t rush over to shoot up the flaccid 80-year-old commander in chief with the elixir of manhood needed, as he put it, to give America “the leading edge of lethality.”.... 

There was barely a peep from Republicans on Capitol Hill about the speech.... You could almost hear the fervent wish of Republican lawmakers watching the president: Please, Donald, move on! But he can’t. His father’s admonition that there are only "killers" and "losers" plays in a loop in his head, reducing him to jelly.... 

[H]e seemed impotent, raving about nonsense....

Tearing Trump down like that, Dowd adds to the mythology of male sexuality as the center of strength, courage, and reason. That's not feminism. 

"The Trump administration’s spotlight on testosterone and its increasing availability through online clinics come at a time when exaggerated, uncompromising, even aggressive masculinity is in vogue..."

"... in Hollywood and online in the so-called manosphere. Wildly popular figures like Joe Rogan and Andrew Huberman have spoken about their own use of T.R.T., framing it as a medical treatment for aging. But many influencers go much further, amplifying the message that being 'low T' is synonymous with low status, weakness and sexual inadequacy — and often profiting off promotional links to T.R.T. clinics, or even starting their own. That message seems to be reaching younger men in particular. Clavicular, the 20-year-old streamer who popularized the 'looksmaxxing' subculture, which casts the relentless pursuit of physical attractiveness as the clearest route to social capital, has said that he started using testosterone at age 14 to achieve 'a more dimorphic look.'..."

From "Why So Many Men Are Obsessed With Testosterone/From the Trump administration to online influencers, the hormone is increasingly seen as the key to achieving a new male ideal" (NYT)(gift link).

President Trump would like you to appreciate his swirly hair.

He posts this at Truth Social:

He's saying, Look, her hair is swirling and mine is swirling too. Just a little. Not as much. But definitely swirling. Still masculine, but delightful. In that whirly swirly feminine way. The First Lady way.

"I wasn't worried. I understand life. We live in a crazy world."

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Bransen Gates (@branhattan)

"Men tend to seize on the largest size they ever were at any point. If a man wore a size 11 athletic cleat in high school..."

"... he’ll forever be convinced he’s an 11, not the 10 he truly needs in a dress shoe.' 'It’s a macho thing,' agreed... the owner...  a high-end shoe store in Chicago. 'It’s still based on that whole your-shoe-size-is-your-package-size thing.'" 

From "Why Do Men Buy Shoes That Are Too Big?/It’s an affliction — and not one relegated to the Trump administration" (NYT).

The Trump connection is not forced. It's the reason the issue is in the news. JD Vance has been telling the story of Trump asking men their shoe size and saying "You know you can tell a lot about a man by his shoe size":

"Don’t allow this broken culture to send you a message that you’re a bad person because you’re a man, because you like to tell a joke, because you like to have a beer with your friends or because you’re competitive."

Said JD Vance, last year, quoted today in "Bench Presses, Pull Ups … Kid Rock? The White House Had a Very Manly Week/President Trump’s top cabinet officials are pumping iron in public" (NYT).

The Vance quote appears near the end of the article, right after: "Mr. Trump’s latest masculinity proclamations sum up this administration’s hard-line approach to maleness, where the most powerful men in the country can just relax and be men who appreciate other men — in a strictly manly way, of course."

Right after the Vance quote, we get: "All of this hints at a powerful political current that politicians like Mr. Vance and Mr. Trump instinctively know how to channel."

The article ends with 2 quotes from law professor Joan C. Williams: "One of the only arrows in [Trump's] quiver is being the man" and "Picking wars all around the world, that’s what’s really going on."

It's not fair to judge the NYT article — by Katie Rogers — without watching this for context:

BawitMAHA https://t.co/npFlS2NxTo

— HHS (@HHSGov) February 17, 2026

ADDED: "Let’s Talk About RFK Jr.’s Workout Pants/Our health secretary is a jeans guy, and he knows it" (The Atlantic)(gift link).

"Big Time, Strong, Glamorous, and Exciting."

What do you want from football?

I'm reading Trump, complaining about football, at Truth Social: "I can’t watch the new NFL Kickoff. Like many others, I just turn my head. Who has the right to make such a change? So disparaging to the game! The original was Big Time, Strong, Glamorous, and Exciting. The ridiculous new Kickoff Rule takes away the prestige and power of the game. I hope College Football doesn’t follow suit!"

Glamorous.... the most powerful man in the world cries out for the old-time macho brutal collision of giant male bodies and what he's missing is the glamor.

I'm looking up "glamorous," and I like, for Trump's use of the word, the OED's second definition: "Attractive or appealing in an exciting way, esp. because out of the ordinary or suggestive of a more colourful or thrilling way of life." One of the sample quotes is from the 1960 novel, "The Custard Boys": "The cinema, the newspapers and the war books conditioned us to look upon war as glamorous and exciting."

Perhaps somewhere in Trump's fervid mind there's the notion that MAGA really means "Make America Glamorous Again."

Trump wore a lapel pin depicting himself.

Questioned about it, he said "Somebody gave me this. Do you know what that is? That's called a 'Happy Trump.' And considering the fact that I'm never happy—I'm never satisfied. I will never be satisfied until we make America great again. But we're getting pretty close, I'll tell you what. This is called a Happy Trump. Somebody gave it to me. I put it on."

 

And that's that. Somebody gave it to him and he put it on. Wore it on camera. I wonder what other things people could get him to pin onto himself just by giving it to him. He could be pranked so easily. But I suspect that he exercises some judgment about what to pin on himself. 

And who attaches an image of himself to himself/herself?

It happens, mostly entertainment celebrities in T-shirts.

"The White House has explained the East Wing’s demolition as 'renovation,' and the necessary prelude to a multimillion-dollar ballroom."

"This is the architectural equivalent of a celebrity-style makeover: a redo to admire as a luxury commodity, an old building rejuvenated, history erased.... Of course, when celebrities go under the knife, we never see the surgery. Nor do we see the blood, bruising or scars. These aspects just get disappeared, before the eventual 'reveal' of the transformation. This is why the honesty discourse around surgery is complicated: Think of it as a film with some segments edited out, making the transition seem magical, and free of any gruesome in-between stages.... The Treasury Department has reportedly prohibited any further photos of the East Wing’s demolition site — we must not see the patient on the operating table...."

I'm reading Rhonda Garelick's "Americans Love a Makeover, as Long as It’s Invisible/The gutting of the East Wing of the White House and our national preoccupation with 'renovation'" (NYT).

AFTERTHOUGHT: Taking Garelick's analogy very seriously, I could believe that Trump's buildings are, for him, the equivalent of a woman's body and face.

There has alway been a womanly aspect to Trump, and I think that is one of the (many) things that trouble those of us who have focused on his weirdness over the years. A transwoman is easier to fathom. Rather that to be focused on his own body and face, he has pushed this awareness out to the buildings that surround him. He's deeply invested in extreme achievement in the field of aesthetics — he's said "I'm a very aesthetic person" — and he may be too much like those actresses who overindulge in plastic surgery as they experience their time running low.

If I am right, it's not just a matter of the "gruesome in-between stages" of the reconstruction work. It's also the final result. Why does the NYT include that photo of Kristen Chenowith?

"The uniformed body crystallizes all these associations we have. It makes your chest look broader, your posture straighter, your shoulders stronger. It becomes shorthand for words like manly, strong, brave, dominant."

Said Paul Achter, "an associate professor of rhetoric at the University of Richmond, who has written on 'military chic,'" quoted in "Why Trump Loves a Man in Uniform/As thousands of soldiers prepare to march in President Trump’s military parade, what exactly will we see?" (NYT).

The article is by Vanessa Friedman, who writes that, in a military parade, "the uniformed body is part of a mass — denatured and subsumed into a whole — and particularly when the parade in question does not signify the end of an actual conflict." "Instead of honoring the sacrifice of individuals... it becomes a moment of sheer pageantry dedicated to the glory of the state or the head of state...."

Quoting Achter again: "It’s difficult to see this and not see Leni Riefenstahl" (that is, Hitler, as presented in "Triumph of the Will").

When it comes to expression about the military, is there some reason to prefer the rhetoric of "sacrifice" over that of "glory"? A parade is a form of expression. It's visual speech, visual propaganda. Can you tell whether the theme is sacrifice or glory? Is it inherent in the nature of a military parade that it will say: glory?

"Errol Musk, the father of Elon, has described the feud between his son and Donald Trump as 'over the top,' likening it to a clash between 'gorillas' fighting for dominance."

"Musk, 79, advised his 'alpha' son, 59, to accept that the president was the more dominant of the two and would 'win this round.' 'In any successful group of animals, whether gorillas, elephants or human beings, the dominant males will always fight for dominance,' Musk said, predicting that an eruption of bitter exchanges between two of the world’s most powerful men 'would now fizzle out.' Musk added: 'The problem you get with really good quality people is that the men all think they should be the general. They will have to sort it out and because Trump is the one who was elected, Elon is going to have to accept he is not going to be the general.... Trump isn’t vengeful. He will win this round with Elon and not hold it against him. A big person can forgive easily, only small people can’t. Things have gone over the top, but this is the situation when alphas fight it out. I’ve told Elon he has said his part, but now he must allow things to calm down — and I hope he will.'"

The London Times reports.

ADDED: Remember this:

"'Duck Dynasty' was a simple entertainment, but it was also a complicated mash-up of several of the most popular TV genres of its time."

"It had some connection to 'hicksploitation' reality shows like 'Here Comes Honey Boo Boo' and to series like 'Deadliest Catch' that celebrated people who worked with their hands. It also had the structure and beats of a mockumentary sitcom. Like 'Modern Family,' it often ended with voice-overs summing up the episode’s themes and lessons.... Like 'The Office,' it structured stories around staffers goofing around the warehouse and cooking up schemes like flooding the loading dock to create a duck pond. But there was a key difference.... It was about work, family and faith — a typical episode would close with a prayer over a meal.... 'Duck Dynasty' was affectionate for backwoods ways and tradition.... It gave the patriarch Phil plenty of airtime to sermonize about manhood and encourage his grandsons to marry 'a meek, gentle, kind-spirited country girl.'.... Phil’s opinions came out more blatantly and less telegenically, however, in a 2013 GQ interview, in which he called gay sex a sin and insisted that southern Black farm laborers were happy in Jim Crow-era Louisiana. ... A&E suspended him from the series.The punishment seemed, at the time, like the affirmation of a new cultural order.... The Trump 2016 campaign was in many ways a successful appeal to voters like Phil Robertson, who believed that their views were being silenced, their icons canceled, their traditions trampled, their beliefs insulted.... [Trump] promised... to restore the rich and meaningful lifestyle of their ancestors...."

From "'Duck Dynasty' Is Coming Back to a Changed America/The family reality comedy, being revived on A&E, was a lighthearted entertainment — that anticipated a decade’s worth of cultural politics." (NYT).

The article is about the revival of the show. Phil Robertson does not appear in it, and, as we talked about here, he died a few days ago. 

Asked the famous question "What is a woman?," Trump does one of his weaves.

Yesterday, in the Oval Office:

"Well, it's sort of easy to answer for me, because a woman is somebody that can have a baby under certain circumstances. She has a quality. A woman is a person who's much smarter than a man, I've always found. A woman is a person that doesn't give a man even a chance of success. And a woman's a person that in many cases has been treated very badly, because I think that, uh, what happens with this crazy, this crazy issue of men being able to play in women's sports is just ridiculous and very unfair to women and very demeaning to women. And that's got to be about a 94% — I read today — it was a 94% issue, and I watched the other day, I watched congressman, Democrat Congressman, fighting for the fact that men should be allowed to compete, essentially, in women's sports, and I say, I hope they keep that going, because they'll never win another election. That's a big deal. But women are basically incredible people do so much for our country, and we love, we love our women, and we're going to take care of our women."

That's a lot of words, but if you had to boil it down to one word, I think you'd have to go with: paternalistic. The first thing he thought of was the capacity to have babies. He veered into abstractly praising women and digging into the transgender question, but he ended with the most basic expression of paternalism: We love our women, and we're going to take care of our women.

Things that get my "Trump's masculinity" tag.

I didn't take this interesting photograph, but the person who did doesn't want to be named. The location is the Galleria in Houston, Texas. Closeup:

The size and positioning of the eagle make me uneasy. Does the eagle have large talons?

"It wasn’t planned. That wasn’t two coaches throwing guys over and saying 'This is happening' — none of that happened. That was as organic as it gets."

Said Jon Cooper, the coach for Canada, quoted in The London Times:

Here's the video at YouTube. Judge for yourself. Political theater? Is this about Trump — Trump and his tariffs and his fifty-oneness?

Meanwhile, Trump himself was at The Daytona 500 and — with his lovely tiny little granddaughter — the sports-related masculine political theater was not brutishly macho but nobly patriarchal:

ADDED: The oversized MAGA hat emphasizes the tininess of the granddaughter, and it made me think of this image of Elon Musk in a giant hat:

pic.twitter.com/nhRCtyA3wj

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 7, 2025

You can see the hat as it is — large — or you can perceive the optical illusion that Musk is a tiny person, a child. Musk famously tweeted: "I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man." And I've been thinking the love is a boy's love for the father he never had. Musk real father was — as Musk tells it — "a terrible human being" who has done "almost every evil thing you could possibly think of." The giant hat is a bid to be seen as a boy, to be loved by a father.

8 things about this Maureen Dowd column, "Who Will Stand Up to Trump at High Noon?"

Here's the column.

Here are the 8 things I want to say about it:

1. The headline refers to a Western movie where "high noon" is the time for a shooting duel. To say "Who Will Stand Up to Trump at High Noon?" is to generate an image of shooting Trump. Even if Trump had not been shot (and targeted by a second assassination attempt), it is wrong to say something that either is or can be mistaken for an invitation to shoot the President!

2. Under the headline is a photograph from the movie "Shane," and Maureen Dowd discusses the movie "Shane," which she saw when she was quite young. She never mentions "High Noon." I guess Westerns are interchangeable to NYT headline writers. 

3. "High Noon" had a villain and a hero and so did "Shane." Good guys and bad guys. Binary. 

4. I remember when Democrats loved to talk about how nuanced they were in their sophisticated thinking,

"The boys in our liberal school are different now that Trump has won."

This is an article by "Anonymous" in The Guardian, ostensibly written by a girl who is a senior in a high school in New York's Hudson Valley — a "mostly liberal" place, we're told. She purports to be capable of perceiving and reporting how boys have changed since 10 days ago. I have no idea how accurate any of this is, but I'm interested in the text that was published, which says something about The Guardian's attitude, if nothing else:

When we walked into school on the morning of 6 November, we exchanged quick glances with the other girls in our social circle – looks filled with uncertainty and dread about the future.... [A]s we walked to our first period classes... we noticed a very different attitude among our male peers. Subtle high-fives were exchanged and remarks about the impending success of the next four years were whispered around. It didn’t make much sense.... 

"Is this rightward drift among young men simply a short-lived, Trump-inspired episode or a more permanent transformation?"

"The answer lies partly in Ms. Harris’s ability to connect with and motivate young voters as the campaign nears its end.... But to win more votes from young men, Ms. Harris must address their fears head-on and present a bold vision that speaks to their desire for purpose and strength.... Ms. Harris needs to go big.... Ms. Harris should make a sweeping national call to both military and civilian service — name it the Generation Z Compact to Rebuild and Renew America. Such a plan would offer a sense of identity, community and patriotism, while providing economic stability and skill-building — things many young men feel they are missing...."

Writes John Della Volpe, the director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, in "Trump’s Bro-Whispering Could Cost Democrats Too Many Young Men" (NYT).

It's a little late for that sort of thing!

"On one side, there’s the enlightened maleness embodied by Harris’s vice-presidential pick and her husband, Doug Emhoff."

"These are the good progressive dads... the 'nice men of the left' who do guy things like coach football but also manifest liberal and feminist virtues.... Then there is the other model, the dark side of the Y chromosome: the toxic masculinity of Donald Trump, the anti-cat-lady conservatism of JD Vance.... But has liberalism perfected a model of modern masculinity while conservative culture slouches somewhere far behind? I’m skeptical.... First, I would have thought that by now liberals would be hesitant about proclaiming the special personal virtues of the male feminist, the enlightened pro-choice dude. After Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer and Harvey Weinstein, after MeToo case studies too numerous to count, surely we can say that sleaze percolates on the left and right alike....  Second... a strong, religiously motivated commitment to marriage and family — [is] not necessarily... anti-feminist.... [N]eo-traditional households actually show relatively egalitarian patterns of burden-sharing between spouses and strong paternal involvement in child rearing...."

Writes Ross Douthat, in "Masculinity Is on the Ballot" (NYT).

Douthat expresses skepticism about the generalizations and caricatures on both sides. I'll just add that feminism is dysfunctional if it doesn't stand apart from partisan politics. 

ADDED: I interact with Grok again:

 

I laughed a lot, and I'm not exactly sure why, but Meade didn't think it was funny at all, so I tried again:

That's only funny for being a terrible failure at understanding the prompt. Where's the dadness? Where's the feminist virtue? Why is he in a stadium? The first picture was funnier.