‘Top Gun – Maverick’ is Action-Based “Dad Cinema” At Its Very Best

‘Top Gun – Maverick’ is Action-Based “Dad Cinema” At Its Very Best

The moving story in “Top Gun: Maverick” of a fatherless son’s journey toward healing is proving popular with audiences worldwide. This is a film highlighting the importance of fatherhood, portraying a tale of reconciliation and redemption.

Top Gun: Maverick is smashing box offices, and it’s easy to understand why.

The film is spectacularly outpacing its weak-because-they’re-woke counterparts, because the film’s unapologetic dad themes resonate.

Alongside the gutsy F-18 camera shots, audiences are in love with the Tom Cruise/Joseph Kosinski sequel because its father-son backstory hits home.

Even the, “it’s all flag-waving, MAGA propagandist tripe” critics are applauding the sequel for keeping to the consistency of the first film’s deep relational backbone.

As The Atlantic’s David Sims explained, the film’s ‘emotional weight rests on Pete Mitchell (Maverick) fighting to earn the respect of Goose’s son (Rooster), who blames Maverick for the tragic loss of his father.’

Childhood Memory

For me, Top Gun: Maverick cut deeper.

My family and I recently saw the film for a birthday bash. The only thing missing was my dad.

Watching the first Top Gun at the cinema with my dad was to be one of the only long-lasting positive memories I would have of him.

It was 1986, I was 9, and we’d turned up late to the cinema.

Missing the iconic afterburner intro of the first Top Gun, dad and I slid into our seats in rhythm with Tony Scott’s smooth golden orange sunset, shot high above a lone F-14 landing on the silhouette of the USS Enterprise.

It became a shared interest, a mutual pursuit, a common bond solely shared between father and son.

From the soundtrack, which always seemed to be on repeat in our broken-down housing commission home, to the old-school Amstrad computer game, the movie connected us.

This was true, right up until my dad’s final week, when, knowing he would never get a chance to wear it, I gifted him a T-shirt with the Top Gun logo on it.

Now covered in dust, I still hold onto the volumes of Warplane magazines he’d chosen to buy me, instead of paying “through the teeth” for participation in a weekend sport.

Healing

I related to the second film because of the first.

Similar to ‘Goose’s’ son in the film, I was confronted by what was lost, what might have been, and what my dad chose to abandon somewhere along the way.

The sequel made the memories all the more material when Val Kilmer (Iceman), tells Maverick — still haunted by the death of ‘Goose’ — “It’s time to let go.”

Seeing the first film at the cinema in 1986 with my dad was an oasis event, an anomaly of normalcy in a wasteland of ash.

This explains why, in almost every scene of Top Gun: Maverick, I heard, and felt my dad’s absence, and choked up at Hans Zimmer’s rendition of Faltermeyer’s iconic Top Gun anthem.

We’re taught in The Good Book to raise up thanksgiving in the face of suffering. Even the smallest object or event that is worthy of our gratitude puts points on the board when it comes to healing trauma.

In retrospect, watching Top Gun with my dad in ’86 was the first, and only time he offered me a healthy introduction to manhood.

His wasn’t perfect, but that was a perfect day. That day my dad did good, and for that I thank him.

For me, the only thing missing from Top Gun: Maverick was the man who took me to see the first one, sitting, at his best, beside me and my uber-impressed family.

Top Gun was, and is, about loss, grief, and recovery; fatherhood, and fatherlessness — as much as it is about courage, defiance, and the determination to overcome obstructions encountered along the way.

The sequel builds on its original father-son backstory. It is “dad cinema” at its very best.

To lean on Miles Surrey’s review in The Ringer,

‘Every single dad — past, present, and those who are expecting to be dads in the near future — should check out Maverick, if not for the sanctity of ensuring Dad Cinema doesn’t fade away, then for experiencing a blockbuster that surpasses its predecessor in every respect.’

___

First published at Dads4Kids.

Thank the Source

Is Praise For Will Smith Woke Hypocrisy?

Is Praise For Will Smith Woke Hypocrisy?

Emily Jashinsky: Surely by now you’re aware that Will Smith spontaneously decided to slap Chris Rock on the face during Sunday’s Academy Awards broadcast. “Keep my wife’s name out your f-cking mouth,” Smith shouted after returning to his seat, upset by a joke Rock made about Jada Pinkett Smith’s hair. (She has a condition called alopecia that results in hair loss. Rock joked about her being in “G.I. Jane 2”.)

Just moments later, before anyone could really digest the moment, Smith won Best Actor. He apologized tearfully to the Academy, saying he felt defensive of his family. “I’m overwhelmed by what God is calling on me to do,” Smith explained.

[embedded content]

Eddie, was this good for anyone? Was Smith’s defense of his wife masculine or petulant? 

Eddie Scarry: It was a joke and a harmless one, no less. Jada and Will parade their weird lives online, in magazines and in newspapers for everyone to see. That anyone would make fun of her bald head—she says she has alopecia—comes with the territory. I want to know why the Oscars said nothing immediately about physical violence being intolerable. 

EJ: Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., tweeted and deleted a defense of Smith’s smack on the basis of his wife’s alopecia. It’s pretty interesting that she deleted the post. Nikole Hannah-Jones, on the other hand, called it an “assault.” 

The ethics of this are perfect for debate, which will give the moment a ton of life in the news cycle. Smith and Rock will do big sit-down interviews about it. 

Is Rock going to have to grovel for making a joke about hair? 

ES: Ugh, this is where I wonder if we’re feeding into a P.R. stunt. Maybe! And yet either way, when did physical violence become okay? If it had been Liam Hemsworth to jump on stage and do that, what would the headlines be like then? I have a guess: “This is how WHITE MEN behave!”

Will Smith has typically been a respectable, upstanding figure. What he did at the Oscars fulfilled a negative stereotype. Too bad the rest of the media won’t call him out on that.

EJ: I’ll just add, Smith’s tearful acceptance speech for Best Actor in the Leading Role—an award he totally deserved—was completely redeeming. He’s obviously going through some dark stuff in his personal life, but connecting his reaction to Richard Williams’ famously aggressive defense of his family was pretty poignant, as was his candid anecdote about Denzel Washington pulling him aside to warn the devil gets you at your highest moment. 

Smith should have taken the joke like Rock took the punch. He didn’t, he addressed it, apologized to the Academy, and we learned he’s passionate about his family. It’ll be legendary and rightfully so.

Source

‘A Gentleman’s Guide’ To Fighting For Masculinity In A Culture Of Toxic Feminism

‘A Gentleman’s Guide’ To Fighting For Masculinity In A Culture Of Toxic Feminism

The 21st century has not been kind to men in the developed world. By most metrics, they have fallen behind women in school, the workplace, and at home. More and more women are now choosing to opt out of marriage and children altogether because, among other reasons, there are simply too few good men with whom to start a family and make a home. It seems that many men are fine with this, contenting themselves with beer, porn, and video games.

There are various reasons to explain this situation, but at the top of the list is the breakdown of the family and the absence of fathers. With fewer male role models, it logically follows that boys are more likely to grow up into losers who can hardly take care of themselves, let alone a wife and kids.

A related to this reason is the influence of media and technology. Filling the void left by an absent father, the great majority of boys are raised by the screen. Whereas their father would teach his son virtue and play catch with him, it’s now Disney indoctrinating his son with anti-male narratives, and Nintendo keeping him company while he plays indoors by himself.

However, there is an alternative explanation for the decline of men, or at least an explanation that goes one step further: modern feminism, an ideology that has vilified men, disparaged the family, and “liberated” women from the home. It can be argued that feminist ideology in schools, in media, and even in the legal system collectively crippled men and incited women to actively compete against them, if not outright destroy them.

Although picking one of these explanations in itself doesn’t necessarily fix the problem of lackluster men, it does ultimately inform any proposed solution. Most guides for manliness and personal success tend to focus on the first two causes—bad role models and bad habits. However, the recent book of writer S.K. Baskerville, A Gentleman’s Guide To Manners, Sex, and Ruling the World, seeks to address the latter cause of modern feminism, as is indicated in the subtitle: “How to Survive as a Man in the Age of Misandry—and Do So with Grace.”

Baskerville’s other goal in this book is to move the conversation away from adopting the popular poses of suave manliness (“to be like David Niven or Lawrence Olivier, to tie a bow tie, mix a martini, and dance the quadrille”) and discuss “the logic behind the rules [of being a gentleman].” All too often, advice for men tends to dwell on these caricatures of masculinity without explaining the principle behind it. If that’s all the reader wants, he can read any number of manliness manuals that cover “the different options for tying a tie, landing an airplane, and other everyday necessities.”

So what is the underlying principle of masculinity? According to Baskerville, it’s leadership: “Being a man has always meant being a leader, and it always will mean that.… Leadership is not an option but an imperative; it, too, comes with the Y chromosome.” All the other manly virtues like strength, courage, and industry all stem from the idea that a man must lead and assume responsibility. Moreover, becoming a leader is all the more important at a time when true masculinity is deemed toxic and men are told to step aside. 

It is with this deeper purpose in mind that Baskerville goes on to discuss “the basics” of gentlemanly habits. Much of this is common sense—don’t use profanity, don’t dress like a slob, avoid silly cliches and colloquialisms, steer clear of vices, learn to write well, get some exercise and be mindful of others, etc.—but Baskerville takes the time to explain the rationale of each gentlemanly habit. As a man, it’s essential to project an image of maturity and seriousness. Dressing like a child, saying stupid things, and lacking self-control all detract from this. 

In his next chapter, Baskerville broadens his discussion into the gentlemanly lifestyle, focusing on dancing, music, sports, firearms, military service, church, and philanthropy. Although there’s little to unite these activities besides being things that a gentleman has to think about, the discussion is pleasant enough. If anything, Baskerville demonstrates here that conservative principles go hand in hand with being a gentleman: He exercises self-reliance, can defend himself and his country, and assumes responsibility both for himself and his community.

Perhaps the strongest discussion in this book (aside from the introduction) is Baskerville’s treatment of a gentleman’s education, in which he deftly cuts through the pretension and sophistry that passes for sophistication these days. He rightly derides the gimmicky degrees peddled by “prestigious universities” and provides a beautifully succinct summary of a liberal education, which would create “men of the right character and outlook, with rounded educations and the self-confidence to acquire more as needed.” These men learned job skills on the job, but learned how to think, live, and behave at the university.

Acknowledging that most universities have forgotten this original purpose, Baskerville follows this with a quick guide on being properly educated in literature, history, philosophy, music, art, science and math, and foreign language—basically a DIY liberal education. Unlike similar “must read” lists of education essentials, Baskerville’s is surprisingly feasible. An average man with a normal full-time job could comfortably make his way through all of it in a few years’ worth of leisure time.

Unfortunately, following the book’s strongest chapter is perhaps the weakest chapter on “women and family life,” where Baskerville launches into his indictment of feminism and its effects on the home. To be fair, he is tasked with resolving a difficult dilemma: Most women want a strong man who can provide for her and potential children, but most women also want to be empowered and independent.

The best response that Baskerville can muster is to seek out a “lady” who observes the rules of courtship and does not seek to emasculate potential suitors. Unfortunately, such ladies are far and few between, leading Baskerville to suggest seeking far and wide, even if it requires looking at women in other parts of the world. Unlike Baskerville’s educational recommendations, his advice on meeting and relating with the other sex seems rather out-of-touch and facile.

On the topic of marriage and sex, Baskerville’s advice is a little better. He’s aware of the cheap view people today now hold of marriage, particularly hedonistic young men, and argues that, on the contrary, marriage is all about conserving masculinity in the culture: “to protect the bond between fathers and their children and, with it, the intact family.” Furthermore, for the gentleman, marriage and children simply come with the territory: “The best training for ruling the world is by starting with those you love.”

Nevertheless, despite the attempt to remain constructive, Baskerville can’t seem to hold back his resentment and paranoia towards feminist indoctrination: “It is women, especially politically radicalized women … who will get the upper hand, many of whom do not like men like you.” Whether one agrees with this claim or not, it’s difficult to see how this does anything constructive. If Baskerville means to encourage caution, he could just say so instead of giving the impression that the majority of women today hate gentlemen. Rather, this claim mainly serves as a moral escape hatch for men who have fallen short.

In truth, and Baskerville conveniently omits this detail. All too many men have suffered through their own mistakes, not because of some feminist boogeywoman. Nowhere in his book does he address the common addictions (pornography, alcohol, drugs, video games) that hold the majority of modern men down, especially young men. Although one might argue that ending these habits and assuming the role of masculine leadership is implied, more must be said in the interest of relevance and practicality.

Only too late does Baskerville seems to take up the problem of mediocre masculinity, as he urges men in his conclusion to take charge and “stop adopting the stance the world is unfair and that it is your job to take every opportunity to tell the world why it is so unfair.” Thus, after a promising beginning, and a well developed middle, the conclusion of Baskerville’s argument about masculinity falls somewhat flat.

This isn’t to say that it isn’t enjoyable to read. True to his subject matter, Baskerville writes like a gentleman: he is witty, concise, and accessible without being needlessly crass or blunt. His research of other gentleman’s guides throughout history also helps distinguish his effort from the others and provides useful context for the ongoing conversations on masculinity.

Altogether, Baskerville’s case for men becoming gentlemen is mostly strong, if a little flawed. He revives the case for gentlemanliness that has diminished in recent years and advances the right positions. But, it will fall to his gentlemen readers to continue this momentum and apply his wisdom to young men today.

Yes, men are struggling to adapt to more a feminized world, and they could certainly use a little more sympathy and support, but they also have the power to assert themselves and be the leaders, fathers, and husbands they were meant to be. As Baskerville successfully establishes, being a gentleman is not a matter of social status, but of perception and initiative.


Source

David French Is Completely Wrong About How COVID Affects Masculinity

David French Is Completely Wrong About How COVID Affects Masculinity

An “obsession with masculinity” allegedly characterizes the American right — and David French is obsessed with it. He’s so obsessed with it, in fact, that he couldn’t pass up an opportunity to tweet about it even if it meant putting his scientific ignorance about COVID-19 on full display.

French’s most recent attack on the right’s so-called masculinity obsession came in response to an interview between Fox News’s Tucker Carlson and former British politician Nigel Farage. According to French, the duo’s discussion of how COVID-19 “weakened” Boris Johnson “as a man” was “nuts on its own terms and further evidence that a very, very weird obsession with masculinity is part and parcel of the new right.”

“Somebody who knows [Boris Johnson] told me … that getting COVID emasculated him. It changed him. It feminized him. It weakened him as a man,” Carlson said to Farage. “The virus itself — this is true — does tend to take away the life force in some people, I notice. I mean, it does feminize people. No one ever says that, but it’s true.”

French decided to dunk, and not only did he slip into one of his habitual blunders whereby he tends to view every argument of his political opponents through the lens of the 45th president’s personality — more on that later — but his characterization of the conversation as “nuts” was scientifically wrong.

One study from the Taylor and Francis Group in September 2020 found that COVID-19 lowers men’s testosterone levels. While reports had already indicated that COVID patients with low testosterone fared worse on average than those with higher levels, this study was the first to show that the Wuhan virus itself actually depletes levels of the hormone.

“In our study, the mean total testosterone decreased, as the severity of the COVID-19 increased. The mean total testosterone level was significantly lower in the ICU group than in the asymptomatic group,” according to the findings as recorded in Science Daily. “The patients who died, had significantly lower mean total testosterone than the patients who were alive.”

Additionally, more than 65 percent of the 46 male patients who were asymptomatic (of 232 total males) experienced a loss of libido.

This research wasn’t an outlier. It was replicated in a study by the National Institutes of Health, the government agency that employs Anthony Fauci, which found that patients with COVID-19 had “significantly lower levels” of testosterone than members of the healthy control group. Furthermore, low testosterone was “associated with higher risk of ICU admission and death outcomes … after accounting for clinical and laboratory parameters.”

Health researchers have theorized that the testosterone component of COVID-19 outcomes could explain why hospitals experienced such a high volume of virus-stricken male patients.

In other words, scientific research pretty clearly indicates a close relationship between coronavirus infection and the depletion of a pivotal hormone to men’s sex drive, physical strength, and physique. Low testosterone can cause erectile dysfunction, fatigue, weight gain, and depression — the kinds of things that cause men to be “emasculated” or “weakened,” as Carlson put it.

Perhaps French wasn’t aware of these studies when he called the exchange “nuts.” Or perhaps he chose to ignore them so he could pull Trump and the supporters French finds so distasteful into the conversation — because that’s what he did when he shifted gears to the “new right.” In the same Twitter thread, French then shared an article he wrote last week as part of his new gig contributing to The Atlantic: “The New Right’s Strange and Dangerous Cult of Toughness.”

In it, French speaks from his soapbox about the “emerging culture of the right — a culture that idolizes a twisted version of ‘toughness’ as the highest ideal and despises a false version of ‘weakness’ as the lowest vice.”

“What makes the claims of toughness and weakness especially curious and dangerous,” French claims, “is the way in which they’re tied to the person of Donald Trump.” This is the lens French applied to the Carlson clip, linking to the article as “more on the new right’s obsession with twisted forms of toughness.”

Carlson’s comments weren’t about Trump, though, and they weren’t about abstract toughness. His comments were about the weakening of Boris Johnson as a direct result of his rough bout with COVID, and they were true and scientific. French is still just too hung up on his Trumpian political opponents to recognize that when he diagnoses their “obsession with masculinity,” he really just reveals his own obsession: them.

Source

INTERVIEW: Masculinity and Marriage are Broken But They Can Be Fixed

INTERVIEW: Masculinity and Marriage are Broken But They Can Be Fixed

In a conversation earlier this year, coach Elliot Hulse and rapper Zuby gave a 12-minute rundown on why marriage is still to be valued despite the downsides and its degradation in today’s world. One of the keys, they argue, is for men to reclaim their self control.

During the enlightening conversation, Zuby explained,

The institution of marriage has been subverted to a point where people who are even pro-marriage, and pro-family, have trepidation about it.

He pinned the concerns that marriage-hesitant men have on the legislative and legal system. “People are looking at those divorce statistics going, these are not great odds,” Zuby remarked.

[embedded content]

Failures on Both Sides of the Gender Divide

Speaking of the contributions that men and women “bring to the table,” Zuby said,

Everything’s just kind of disintegrated to a degree where both — certainly from a male perspective, but I think even to a degree from a female perspective — the value of marriage is a lot less compared to what it used be even a few decades ago.

When Zuby asked Hulse whether marriage hesitancy and devaluation could be reversed, Hulse responded,

Part of the problem is fornication; promiscuity; the hook-up culture. Because when you put sex in front of the relationship, instead of putting relationship in front of sex, women have all the power.

Hulse added, 

They like to say we live in a patriarchy but we don’t. We live in a matriarchal, gynocentric world that’s woman-led. So when we speak in terms of what to do, [we need to] look at the fact that the divorce laws and courts are stacked up against men.

A Legal System Biased Towards Women

To prove his point, Hulse explained how when a relationship doesn’t work out, it is men who regularly get the blame. He noted that the reasoning is often petty and “very effeminate from the woman’s side.” An example he gave what when women say, “he just didn’t give me the tingles anymore.”

Sometimes, he said, “It’s made-up stuff. They could decide at any point [to leave] for whatever they want. They could just pick up, leave — and not only that, take half your money, and take your kids.

People “always side with women,” he said.

Cautioning that he doesn’t deny that domestic violence is a problem, Hulse hinted at how domestic violence can come from both sides. He argued that abuse exists, “but the word abuse has been abused.” He provided an example:

I know people, a couple, I’ve seen for a long time. She comes out with, ‘Well it’s been an abusive relationship.’ I’m like, ‘What are you talking about? There’s no way this guy’s abusing you.’

When Hulse pressed the issue, he was told by this woman, “Well, it is emotional abuse. He’s not talking to me!” Of these claims, Hulse summarised: “It was a lie.” 

The Restoration of Gender

Hulse then returned to his main premise, stating that marriage has become “useless; not meaning anything, because sex has been put before relationship.”

He argued that men see the legal side of things, and ditch marriage for hook-up culture on the grounds that, “I could just have sex, and not have to deal with this woman, who’s gonna flip out on me and take all my money.”

In commenting on whether marriage can be fixed, Hulse answered “No,” explaining that marriage cannot be fixed until gender roles are restored — where men are men, and women are women.

He targeted feminism as the primary cause of this “perversion” of marriage that invariably painted married women and mothers as victims.

The “whole narrative of suppression,” Hulse said, “created this situation where women not only want to leave men, but become men.”

Citing Hollywood’s mystical re-imaging of woman as transcendent, all-powerful beings, Hulse articulated how this false image “denies women their true power because telling women they need to be like men to be powerful takes away a woman’s real power.”

Men Must Take Back Their Self Control

For Hulse, a big part of the answer in restoring marriage is answering the perverted, blurred distinction between men and women. Men need to break free from society’s demand that men be weak and effeminate in order to be acceptable. Moreover,

Men need to stop tolerating promiscuity. Men need to stop being addicted to orgasm because we’re making ourselves weak. We’re making ourselves addicted. We’re making ourselves easily manipulated.

The first step, Hulse said, is for men to “take back their sexual power” through the dignity of self control. When it comes to self control, he believes that we have none:

That’s why everybody is obese, and addicted, spending 90 per cent of their time scrolling through things on their phone, because we’re all pleasure addicted.

Hulse encouraged men to “Start loving boundaries. To be a living sacrifice, because men will never be an authority unless they have an authority, and that authority comes from God.” He concluded: “I want a woman as a woman that requires me, you and men to be real men.”

Zuby and Hulse’s 12-minute hustle offers quite a bit to chew on. There’s a lot to agree with, yet some points are bound to upset haters or fence-sitters.

The takeaway point is that marriage cannot undergo restoration until men and women are restored, reconciled and reunited by the mutually beneficial roles, responsibilities and purpose for which they were created.

Thank the Source

Leftist Pundits, Media Melt Down over Josh Hawley’s Defense of Masculinity

Leftist pundits, media, and politicians have erupted in anger at Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) defense of traditional masculinity and his criticism of pornography.

Hawley delivered a keynote address at the National Conservatism Conference in Orlando, Florida, in late October. During his address, he highlighted the need to strengthen and empower men so that they can serve as an “unrivaled force for good.”

During his speech, Hawley lamented that too many men have withdrawn into the “enclave of idleness, and pornography, and video games.”

He explained:

Responsibility is one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind, and men must be held responsible for their actions.

Still … can we be surprised that after years of being told they are the problem, that their manhood is the problem, more and more men are withdrawing into the enclave of idleness, and pornography, and video games.

I found the comment by one young man to the Wall Street Journal particularly evocative, and particularly heartbreaking. He said, “I’m sort of waiting for a light to come on so I can figure out what to do next.” I suspect he speaks for many.

And while the Left may celebrate this decline of men, I for one cannot join them. No one should.

The crisis of American men is a crisis for the American republic.

[embedded content]

Hawley then told Axios’s Mike Allen that he hopes to make masculinity a signature political issue.

“We’ve got to say that spending your time not working … spending your time on video games, spending your time watching porn online … is not good for you, your family or this country,” Hawley said.

Hawley’s criticism of men retreating into the “enclave” of pornography led to a virulent reaction from leftist pundits, politicians, and other figures.

Jemele Hill, a contributing writer for the Atlantic, wrote, “If a Dem running against @HawleyMO doesn’t run an attack ad that says Hawley is coming for your porn and video games, it’s a missed opportunity. Because for sure, if a Dem said this, that would be the lead story on Fox News and they’d drive that message into the ground.”

Morgan J. Freeman, the producer of Teen Mom and Sixteen and Pregnant, “If I were God, I’d strike this toxic masculinity fuck-head from the face of the Earth…. NOW!”

Ana Navarro-Cardenas, a CNN commentator, said, “That masculinity needs defending and #joshhawley is its self-appointed defender, is laugh-out-loud funny.”

Rolling Stone wrote, “Josh Hawley’s bizarre obsession with masculinity is the most pathetic front yet in the GOP’s culture war.”

Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) claimed, “This is what Republicans do now, they’re trying to scare the hell out of their voters. …it’s going to lead to more violence. It’s going to lead to more people getting hurt.” –Former GOP Rep. @WalshFreedom on Sen. Josh Hawley saying there’s a ‘left-wing attack on manhood.’”

Jennifer Rubin, the “Never Trump” and “pro democracy” opinion writer for the Washington Post, remarked, “Worse than foolish. Propagating misogyny. Disgusting.”

Former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), whom Hawley ousted in 2018, said, “SMH [shaking my head.]”

Former Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA), who resigned after she admitted to having an inappropriate relationship with a campaign staffer, said, “Lol like anyone thinks Josh Hawley is masculine.”

Clint Watts, who works for MSNBC, wrote, “Didn’t know a component of strong masculinity was not being able to take criticism. What a bunch of nonsense & also surprised Hawley is the spokesman for masculinity. Is this guy running to be the leader of all incel’s?”

While many leftists have expressed outrage after learning of Hawley’s speech, the Missouri senator believes that helping men can also help America.

“American men are and can be an unrivaled force for good in the world—if we can strengthen them, if we can empower them, if we can unleash them to be who they are made to be,” Hawley said during his National Conservatism speech. “Then they shall, in the words of Scripture, “build up the ancient ruins; they shall raise up the former desolations; they shall repair the ruined cities, [and] the devastations of many generations.”

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.

Source

Leftist Pundits, Media Melt Down over Josh Hawley’s Defense of Masculinity

Leftist pundits, media, and politicians have erupted in anger at Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) defense of traditional masculinity and his criticism of pornography.

Hawley delivered a keynote address at the National Conservatism Conference in Orlando, Florida, in late October. During his address, he highlighted the need to strengthen and empower men so that they can serve as an “unrivaled force for good.”

During his speech, Hawley lamented that too many men have withdrawn into the “enclave of idleness, and pornography, and video games.”

He explained:

Responsibility is one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind, and men must be held responsible for their actions.

Still … can we be surprised that after years of being told they are the problem, that their manhood is the problem, more and more men are withdrawing into the enclave of idleness, and pornography, and video games.

I found the comment by one young man to the Wall Street Journal particularly evocative, and particularly heartbreaking. He said, “I’m sort of waiting for a light to come on so I can figure out what to do next.” I suspect he speaks for many.

And while the Left may celebrate this decline of men, I for one cannot join them. No one should.

The crisis of American men is a crisis for the American republic.

[embedded content]

Hawley then told Axios’s Mike Allen that he hopes to make masculinity a signature political issue.

“We’ve got to say that spending your time not working … spending your time on video games, spending your time watching porn online … is not good for you, your family or this country,” Hawley said.

Hawley’s criticism of men retreating into the “enclave” of pornography led to a virulent reaction from leftist pundits, politicians, and other figures.

Jemele Hill, a contributing writer for the Atlantic, wrote, “If a Dem running against @HawleyMO doesn’t run an attack ad that says Hawley is coming for your porn and video games, it’s a missed opportunity. Because for sure, if a Dem said this, that would be the lead story on Fox News and they’d drive that message into the ground.”

Morgan J. Freeman, the producer of Teen Mom and Sixteen and Pregnant, “If I were God, I’d strike this toxic masculinity fuck-head from the face of the Earth…. NOW!”

Ana Navarro-Cardenas, a CNN commentator, said, “That masculinity needs defending and #joshhawley is its self-appointed defender, is laugh-out-loud funny.”

Rolling Stone wrote, “Josh Hawley’s bizarre obsession with masculinity is the most pathetic front yet in the GOP’s culture war.”

Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) claimed, “This is what Republicans do now, they’re trying to scare the hell out of their voters. …it’s going to lead to more violence. It’s going to lead to more people getting hurt.” –Former GOP Rep. @WalshFreedom on Sen. Josh Hawley saying there’s a ‘left-wing attack on manhood.’”

Jennifer Rubin, the “Never Trump” and “pro democracy” opinion writer for the Washington Post, remarked, “Worse than foolish. Propagating misogyny. Disgusting.”

Former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), whom Hawley ousted in 2018, said, “SMH [shaking my head.]”

Former Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA), who resigned after she admitted to having an inappropriate relationship with a campaign staffer, said, “Lol like anyone thinks Josh Hawley is masculine.”

Clint Watts, who works for MSNBC, wrote, “Didn’t know a component of strong masculinity was not being able to take criticism. What a bunch of nonsense & also surprised Hawley is the spokesman for masculinity. Is this guy running to be the leader of all incel’s?”

While many leftists have expressed outrage after learning of Hawley’s speech, the Missouri senator believes that helping men can also help America.

“American men are and can be an unrivaled force for good in the world—if we can strengthen them, if we can empower them, if we can unleash them to be who they are made to be,” Hawley said during his National Conservatism speech. “Then they shall, in the words of Scripture, “build up the ancient ruins; they shall raise up the former desolations; they shall repair the ruined cities, [and] the devastations of many generations.”

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.

Source

What My Dad Taught Me, His Daughter, About Manhood — And Why It Matters

When I read “To Kill A Mockingbird” for the first time — and every time since — I invariably pictured my father as Atticus Finch. It didn’t hurt that he’s a lawyer and looks like Gregory Peck, with glasses, determined features, and dark hair falling over his forehead. But the resemblance was deeper.

After I read of how Atticus gently sat Scout down on the porch swing and explained our imperfect world to her childish ears, I thought of each time my dad would do the same when I discovered some new hurt or crisis. His explanations of the deep obligations of integrity sounded like the heartfelt lessons in which my dad explained to me the importance of doing what’s right.

Like my dad, Atticus was enduringly wise and capable of solving anything. He carried the weight of the world on his shoulders, in the selfless hope of making it better for his children.

It’s easy to idolize your parents as a child, and of course no one is flawless. But as an adult, I continue to look up to my dad greatly. He taught me about the world, and about the integrity and sacrifice necessary to live well in it. In doing so, he also taught me, his daughter, a great deal about manhood.

It’s been observed plenty that the American leftist cultural narrative doesn’t teach boys what they should be learning about manhood. It goes without saying that teaching boys how to be good men is an indispensable part of a flourishing society.

But the public sphere’s masculinity vacuum hurts girls too. Women have no shortage of interactions with men — we marry them, work with them, go to church with them, grow up with them, and raise them. We have a cultural imperative to teach boys how to be men, but we have just as much need to teach girls what masculinity looks like, and to expect it from the men in their lives.

My dad taught me to respect and expect integrity, sacrifice, and wisdom from men. A man worth his salt doesn’t let fear or pressure intimidate him out of doing the right thing, condemning evil, or standing up for those who can’t defend themselves.

Through his example of going to a taxing and wearisome job every day, then coming home to help my mom with dinner, fix a broken sink, or work in the yard, my dad showed me good men make sacrifices. Women aren’t exempt from the obligation to live sacrificially too, of course. But what separates men from boys (and women from girls) is an eager and persistent decision to place others’ needs above their own. To listen patiently even after a long day, to place duty above pleasure, and to do so out of love.

As he’s made those sacrifices, my dad has also shown me how much a man should value his family. He and my mom have cultivated our family as a great source and depository for each other’s encouragement, support, fun, and rest.

I’ve also learned from watching him that manhood includes a strong sense of duty. In high school, my favorite thing to watch with Dad was HBO’s “Band of Brothers,” and each episode prompted deep discussions about duty and leadership. Out of a sense of sacred obligation to God, loved ones, and country flow daily sacrifices and the motivation to continue them. Inseparable from that duty, too, is a strong sense of loyalty toward those to whom love obligates you.

Dad also instilled in me that men should be — and women should appreciate them being — capable. From knowing political and historical details to being able to change a tire or fix things around the house with his hands, I could always trust his expertise. When I was little, he was the one who could make my skinned knees magically better through a sly or funny change of subject I didn’t even realize had happened.

Not all men have to be history buffs or amateur carpenters, of course, but there is something deeply admirable about being a capable and knowledgeable problem-solver. For all of the elite sneers about “mansplaining,” capability is a quality we should be careful not to devalue.

So is wisdom. Problem-solving isn’t limited to fixing appliances. It also includes thoughtful insight and discerning counsel. As a woman, there are few virtues I’ve learned to admire more in men than good judgment and its wise application.

I also learned from my dad to expect, but also earn, respect. He took me on daddy-daughter dates and always opened the door for me. I remember him making a special point to dance with me at my cousin’s wedding when I was little. From preschool to my professional life, he has always celebrated my victories but never let me be complacent with success or gave empty praise.

There’s plenty more to admire about my dad, like the matchless sense of style he’s sported since the 1980s. But as he’s helped teach me to be a principled and well-rounded person — and thus a better woman — he’s also shown me what strong masculinity looks like. His example has equipped me to expect and celebrate genuine masculinity in my own friendships and interactions. And more than anything, it prompts me to be grateful for such an exemplar — this Father’s Day and every day.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)