GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Why leftie men often look like cucks

by

I missed this last week, but here it is now. Study: Physically Weak Men More Likely To Be Socialists.

An academic study from researchers at Brunel University London assessed 171 men, looking at their height, weight, overall physical strength and bicep circumference, along with their views on redistribution of wealth and income inequality. The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, ​found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men.

Brunel University’s Michael Price believes this may be a product of evolutionary psychology. “This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society,” said Dr. Price. “Our minds evolved in environments where strength was a big determinant of success. If you find yourself in a body not threatened by other males, if you feel you can win competitions for status, then maybe you start thinking inequality is pretty good.”

So, physical “haves” feel less threatened and enjoy inequality. In other words, they’re dumb jock bullies. That’s one interpretation. But it’s undermined by Brunel’s own evidence:

“When Dr Price factored in time spent in the gym some, but not all, of the link disappeared,” notes The Times, suggesting there may be something to men with capitalistic views hitting the gym.

[ILC stares at his shoelaces, wonders if he should cough] That strikes me as more truthful.

  • Those who go to the gym, tend to be stronger.
  • And they tend to understand the importance of health and strength in daily life: not only in appearing impressive to people, but in actually having more energy, being able to move more easily, having a reliable daily feeling of accomplishment and positive discipline, etc.
  • And they tend to understand accountability for your own results. (Physical training teaches nothing, if not that.)
  • From there, and at the risk of over-generalizing, they often drift into common-sense libertarian-conservative views, emphasizing personal responsibility.
  • The process can also work in reverse: if you believe in personal responsibility, you may find yourself going “Hey, why don’t I hit the gym / get strong?”

At least that’s been my experience. I know some leftie gym buffs – again, you can’t over-generalize – but I live in a super-lefty area. (And the few who like MSNBC for real are always either women or weak, older men.) The percentage rate of being libertarian-conservative seems, to me, a bit higher among gym buffs than the general population. And the link is: philosophy of personal responsibility.

If you’d like to learn about strength training, a good place to start is www.startingstrength.com. (No affiliation.) They emphasize perfecting your “form” or technique to prevent injury. And that strength training is something for all people, of all ages. The leader, Mark Rippetoe, is sort of a gruff, dogmatic, ex-power-lifter – and I *think* he’s libertarian-minded, or at least anti-Hillary.

Never Mind

by

Not only has Donald Trump decided he’s not against Mohammedan immigration after all, but now it seems Caitlyn Bruce Jenner is reconsidering that whole transsexual thing.

It would be unfortunate if the celebration of Jenner’s transition encouraged any confused teenagers to commit themselves to irreversible chemical and surgical treatments. (The alternative, teaching them to accept and celebrate their natural bodies, would have been barbaric and cruel.)

How to Make Weak and Dependent Children

by

Pretty much just stealing this post from Doug M, and just adding that what he says applies to gay yewts as well; teaching them to be pussies and wait for someone else to stick up for them is not the answer to bullying. But it is an effective way to create a generation completely dependent on external validation, conformity, and dependence on Authority Figures.

So, their “solution”? Turn to strangers at a bus stop. Cuz they’re niiiicer? Then they top that: a little girl ought to turn to strange men because 1] she cannot possibly just walk away and wait for a bus alone [??!?] or 2] she cannot possibly find within herself the resources to mock back at the other girls.

Think about a situation where a boy is challenged to fight and just rolls up in a whimpering little ball [as boys are being trained to do]: he’ll be taunted and smacked until the rest lose all interest. It doesn’t address the situation whatsoever: it merely marks the rolled-up boy as prey — both in the minds of others and in his own mind. If ya can’t handle it as a 3rd grader — or a 7th grader — howinhell are ya gonna handle it as an adult?

Along the same line, this girl is modeled as just siting there and taking it. Before running away to be with other people — inappropriate people — to salve her ‘wounds’.

How is that going to prepare her for a lifetime of other people challenging her — of Life challenging her — sometimes nicely, sometimes meanly? How will she develop the inner resources to judge her own behavior? Or will she be forever dependent on the kindness of strangers?

I notice that a lot of the “bulling” talk was the two girls quoting some un-named “Others” who said the mean things; as if that gave it more weight.

How about teaching a gurl to ask — or even think — “Why are you so interested in what *I’m* doing? What do you care if I read or wear make-up? I must be pretty important if that gets you all worked up!”

But no. The goal seems to be teaching children [future adults, yanno] to give up, give in, be passive, not even think of defending themselves, not even agree with their own preferences / ideas enough to defend them, not even think enough of their own persons enough to defend themselves. The key is it teaches them to give more weight to the opinions of Others than to their own. To give more credence to Social Pressure and .Gov Regulations than to their own researched and considered Values.

If everybody did that, who would make the decisions?

[youtube]https://youtu.be/75gsCJaXTnQ[/youtube]

Masculinity Is Not Just An Act

by

It took a woman to say it, but the presumption of bitter feminists (which therefore must be treated as the Cultural Norm) that masculine traits are a pathology, and not being in touch with our feelers is a crippling handicap is misguided and socially damaging.

Christina Hoff Summers, writing on Time.com (the online version of that current events pamphlet in your doctor’s waiting room), shatters the assumptions about manhood and masculinity that form the foundation of contemporary feminist thought. To summarize the main points briefly:

  1. Masculinity is not a mask, it’s how men are.
  2. Despite feminist desires to the contrary, it’s unnatural for men to act like women.
  3. Masculine behavior in boys is not a mental disorder; again, contrary to what feminism teaches.
  4. Men don’t need to express emotions to each other empathetically in order to be psychologically health.

The video below, linked by a commenter a few months back, illustrates the point quite well (and infuriates feminist YouTube commenters).

[Read more…]

From the comments: What we must acknowledge about the left

by

In the comments for my last post on Obamacare commenter Ignatius began his discussion of the legislation’s undesirable albeit unstated aims with the observation: “I believe that political discussions would be much easier if those on the right jettisoned this quaint idea that leftists have good intentions.”  I highlighted that sentence in a subsequent comment, and other commenters took up the theme, as well.

Commenter Eddie Swaim observed:

While reading the comments about “the left,” it suddenly occurred to me that after listening to Rush Limbaugh for 25 years, he has always been careful to separate “the left” politicians in D.C. from “the left” common everyday folk. I always agreed with him but now I’m not so sure. Most of the gay male liberals that I know fall right in line with the D.C. politicians. Anything and everything is o.k. if it hurts [conservatism] or wins them a battle against the right, whether or not their action is legal or ethical. The ends always justify the means.

Likewise, commenter Steve linked to this video of Ann Coulter discussing the tendency of liberals and the lamestream media to fall back on “racial demagoguery” to advance their agenda in cases like the Zimmerman trial.

I thought of all three comments when I came across another link to an article by John Hawkins dated March 27, 2012.  Hawkins’ article is entitled “5 Uncomfortable Truths About Liberals,” and I encourage everyone to read the whole thing.  For the moment, though, I’ve summarized his five points below.  Hawkins writes that:

1) Most liberals are hateful people.

2) Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred.

3) Most liberals are less moral than other people.

4) Most liberals don’t care if the policies they advocate work or not.

5) Most liberals are extremely intolerant.

Now while the language in those observations is strong enough that Hawkins could be accused of engaging in hyperbole, I think a certain amount of strong language is necessary for describing leftist rhetoric and means of argumentation.  There’s no need to take my word for it, though, read the whole thing and decide for yourself.

I would say, though, that in both the Zimmerman case and in the debates (and protests) over late-term abortion restrictions in Texas, we’ve seen many of the traits Hawkins describes displayed quite openly by many leftists.

Likewise, consider this article in The Advocate which a Facebook acquaintance brought to my attention.  The article focuses on the “mighty change of heart” which many Mormons have undergone on the issues of gay rights and gay marriage.  True to what both Hawkins and our commenters noted, most gay leftists will have none of it, as is very evident from their comments on the Advocate article.  Rather than welcome the changes underway in the LDS church, they are expressing their hatred and intolerance for the Mormons in very hostile language.  Read the comments there and see for yourself.

Now while I know a number of our readers might believe that the Mormons brought the hatred on themselves through the church’s advocacy against Proposition 8 in California in 2008, I’d point out a few things that the left never will, namely: 1). Despite what the HRC and its allies would have us believe, opposition to gay marriage isn’t necessarily motivated by hate, however easy or convenient it may be to believe that, and 2). Individuals are and should be defined by more than their affiliation with some group or collective.  The gay left is always up in arms about what this group or that group said or did about some gay issue, but they never have qualms about denouncing or smearing or insulting members of that group in a similar manner.

Projecting their “shadow” onto Republicans and gay conservatives

by

As I worked on my essay answering the question “What does it mean to be gay”, I reviewed a paper on individuation I had written for a class in Jungian psychology and highlight this passage on the “shadow”(that part of one’s self of which we remain unconscious) as it is particularly relevant to an issue about which I have blogged in recent days:

In recent debates on gay marriage, we see how many gay people have projected their shadow onto Republicans and social conservatives.[1] Promoting a benefit concert for the gay group, “Freedom to Marry,” John Cameron Mitchell, an openly gay actor and writer, not merely faulted [then-]California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for vetoing a same-sex marriage bill, but accused him of enshrining “fear and loathing in the Constitution”.  Mitchell is not the only gay activist to accuse the Governor – and other opponents of gay marriage – of hatred.  Even as they vilified the Governor for vetoing the gay marriage bill, that Republican signed four gay-friendly pieces of legislation.  That is, the anti-gay image that many projected onto him did not correspond with the reality of his record on gay issues.

Instead of understanding why this politician has a different opinion on gay marriage than they do, they define him as evil.  To be sure, gay activists are not unique in ascribing such aspects to their ideological adversaries:

It is in the nature of political bodies always to see the evil in the opposite group, just as the individual has an ineradicable tendency to get rid of everything he does not know and does not want to know about himself by foisting it off on somebody else.  (C.G. Jung, The Essential Jung, 398)

Thus, in projecting something about themselves onto Governor Schwarzenegger, gay activists are only doing what activists have done frequently throughout history.   As a gay conservative blogger, I have frequently found some of our critics projecting their shadow onto me.  Almost since the moment my blogging partner launched the blog, it has attracted regular critics who often post nasty remarks in our comments section, misrepresenting our ideas and attacking us personally.[2]

While I don’t know precisely what these individuals are projecting onto us, I note that their angry expressions are similar to those of other gay leaders – and activists.  Like John Cameron Mitchell, they vilify Republicans and those on the political right in harsh and derogatory language.  To some degree, it seems that Republicans have become a kind of collective shadow for a large number of gay people, particularly gay activists.
[Read more…]

Responding to the question, “What does it mean to be gay”

by

In honor of Gay Pride Weekend in Los Angeles, Patrick Range McDonald of the LA Weekly asked me to write an essay answering the question, “What does it mean to be gay?”  This is my response:

I can’t remember the last time I was asked — or even considered — the question, “What does it mean to be gay?” I don’t really think much about being gay any more. I just am gay. My sexuality is an essential part of who I am, but it doesn’t define my existence.

I take it for granted that others know. As a result, I am occasionally surprised when women interpret my friendly interest as a romantic (or sexual) advance. Ever hopeful that men I find attractive will find me attractive, I often forget that woman too can be drawn to me.

After all, most people in our society seek romantic/sexual attachments with members of the opposite sex. It’s only natural that then a woman would take an interest in a single man. And when one does, her interest serves to remind me of the difference created by my emotional/sexual orientation and the journey required to find myself where I now stand — taking that difference for granted.

Unlike our straight peers, gay individuals must distinguish ourselves from the social norm in order to be true to — and live out — some of our deepest feelings.

You can read the rest here.

Why Tyler Clementi Still Matters

by

It has been nine months now since Tyler Clementi’s suicide dominated the news.  And I fear many of have forgotten that sensitive young man’s difficult transition to college life.

While it has become easier to come out America today (than it was twenty years ag0), it will always be difficult to be different, even if we do achieve the “full equality” to which many gay activists aspire.  To be sure, young gay people currently have a plethora of places to go for guidance and support.  Through the “It Gets Better” videos and other social (as well as traditional) media, they have testimony and images of older gay people who are open about and comfortable with their sexuality.

They still, however, face the challenge of being different at a period in life when many aspire to conform to their peers.

One concern I’ve had with those videos, the most enduring legacy of the suicide, is that they lack the personal contact that many young people need at difficult moments as they take their first steps on their path of adulthood.  They have just a face and voice on a screen and not a hand on their shoulder or a kind word directed to them personally.

It’s important that we always remember that for as much good as those videos may accomplish, we must also always pay attention to the personal.  We may feel good about recording our experiences for such a video, but we do better when we take the time to listen and respond to a young person in need.

If my experience as an uncle has taught me anything, it’s that an older adult’s encouragement of and interest in a child, adolescent or young adult can help give them the strength to weather life’s storms.  And this applies most particularly to those who differ from the social norm.

RELATED: On Tyler Clementi & the Importance of Mentors

Seeing gay people as individual human beings rather than defining us by group stereotypes

by

In a post on ice skater’s Johnny Weir’s comment in coming out as a gay man about “pressure” being “the last thing that would make me want to ‘join’ a community“, Ann Althouse gets at something that many, particularly gay activists, in conversations on coming out:

Some people think of themselves as, above all, individuals, and when others think the most important thing is their membership in a particular group, they resist. They don’t want to be defined by a single quality, especially when it’s a quality that makes other people see them in terms of the group stereotype, and not personal uniqueness.

There is a lot in which this diva says, so I recommend you both read her post and ponder these words.

It often seems that the gay rights’ movement pursues the notion of group rights rather than individual ones.  That is is why I believe we need develop a conservative message on gays, independent to that developed by the left-leaning gay groups, organizations which are helmed by men and women who with a background in Democratic politics and liberal ideologies seem beholden to statist theories of rights.

Hopefully more on this anon, much more in the coming year.

Well said, Ann. (H/t: Reader Leah)

DADT Repeal May Usher In A Colorblind Society

by

One of the best arguments I’ve heard against the repeal of DADT (which, as we say in the business is now OBE) is that it will lead to a new level of mamby-pambyness vis-a-vis gay troops demanding they be treated “fairly”. Often as we’ve noticed, when any “rights” group is looking for “fairness” it’s often simply code for “special rights”.

For the majority (based on my experience) of gay troops, our lives will likely not change much on a day-to-day basis. I, for one, am not planning to “come out” to anybody save a few close friends where I work. I’m expecting, in fact, that they likely know about me anyway. (After all, such a devilishly handsome man with so much going for him my age not married? He must be gay! Har har, but anyway…) Inasmuch, I don’t expect most gay troops will be demanding anything much more than simply not getting kicked out if we forget to use the gender-neutral pronouns when speaking of our dates.

This is not to say there won’t be a few (which will likely seem like much more than a few) flamboyantly unprofessional troops whose conduct will surely be seen as unbecoming and hopefully will be counseled right away. That will be a touchy subject I’ll save for another post.

For now let’s talk about “special rights”.

Many have argued this is a stepping-stone to a larger “gay rights” agenda. I’ve never seen it as such, and I regret that there will definitely be many gay “rights” champions who will misuse this to further their own agenda (much as those opposed to gay “rights” will also use it to further their agenda). They have no concern necessarily about the defense of the Nation nor about the military. We are a tool for them to use and they should be ashamed, if they knew any such thing as shame in the first place.

There’s another thing that I think might come of this which would be a good sign. Check out this quote from the DoD’s report on the repeal of DADT:

We do not recommend that sexual orientation be placed alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and complaint resolution processes under the Military Equal Opportunity Program. We believe that doing so could produce a sense, rightly or wrongly, that gay men and lesbians are being elevated to a special status as a “protected class” and will receive special treatment. In a new environment in which gay and lesbian Service members can be open about their sexual orientation, we believe they will be accepted more readily if the military community understands that they are simply being permitted equal footing with everyone else.

(emphasis added)

This is a sentiment I (as most libertarian conservatives) have long espoused: Equal treatment, not special treatment. Which leads to the next logical question: Why should “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin” be the basis for special treatment either? If gays and lesbians “will be accepted more readily” if not treated differently, wouldn’t that also be the same for members of these other groups? What an interesting outcome of this whole episode if the entire concept of “special” categories of troops went by the way-side?

For all the talk (and legitimate, I might add) of “unintended consequences” surrounding the repeal of DADT, what a happy accident it would be if, by virtue of this new policy change, we had to rethink how we treated everybody. Because if there’s no good reason to treat gays and lesbians as “diversity programs” (and there isn’t), then why do we need them in the first place? This could be a whole new chapter in respecting each other as individuals and as part of a larger team rather than the social balkanization the Left so often loves to use to drive us apart.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)