Masculinity seems to be a topic that’s been in the media a lot. When Tim Walz’ son Gus enthusiastically shouted “That’s my Dad!” while crying with pride at the DNC, some conservative pundits called him names and said Walz had raised a son who wasn’t manly. When it was pointed out that Gus is neurodivergent, some pundits took down their critiques. Others embraced this version of fatherhood, the acceptance of one’s children without embarrassment or requiring them to fit into a box for others.
This isn’t a new conversation, though. Conservatives like Tucker Carlson, Josh Hawley, and J.D. Vance (to name just a few) have been pushing a more strident version of masculinity, one that leans into male supremacy, testosterone-fueled outrage, taking swipes at non-patriarchal families and individuals, and “bro culture.” In this version, men are shamed for not being “manly” enough, and women are shamed if they lack male protection or don’t appear feminine enough. I mean, look, they lost me at tanning their testicles to increase their testosterone.
You could parse these two models as related to the two models for marriages that are often discussed: egalitarian or complementarian.
- Egalitarian Marriages focus on equal sharing of roles and responsibilities, with decisions made collaboratively and without a hierarchical structure.
- Complementarian Marriages emphasize distinct, complementary roles based on gender, with the husband often taking on a leadership role and the wife assuming a supportive role.
About a decade ago, in a Gospel Doctrine class, the teacher posed that question to the group. Was the ideal marriage (and the version the Church taught that we should strive for) egalitarian or was it complementarian? It was an interesting discussion because while a majority of the class at that time said it was the “egalitarian” model, the older folks were the ones who promoted the “complementarian” model. And frankly, the case could be made that the (shudder) Proclamation on the Family can be read either way. It talks about gender roles, but it also talks about individual adaptation. This definitely seems to be a societal shift that is influencing people’s lives, regardless of what the extremely elderly church leaders might think is ideal. And yet, there has also been a rise in the lauding of the “tradwives” in social media, which is basically cosplay for clicks rather than reality, but it’s popular for a reason.
I have long felt that the alignment with Evangelicals is creating a strange uptick in “patriarchal” messages, even among younger couples, in which the wife is definitely #2 in the marriage, the VP, not an equal partner. But when I think about Mormon marriages I’ve seen in practice, a high percentage of the husbands are engaged in tasks my dad never did: changing diapers, doing housework, washing dishes, doing the cooking. It seems to me that even those who talk traditional gender roles, for whatever reason, don’t really believe what they are saying. They act more egalitarian than they talk.
Back to the Vance / Walz comparison, though. Each of these VP picks demonstrates a very distinct form of masculinity, and yet both are very familiar to any of us who have spent a significant portion of time in Mormon congregations. In an online discussion elsewhere, people shared some fun “Mormon” examples of these stereotypical personalities, so I’ll share some highlights.
- Tim Walz is the guy who claims who was just “resting his eyes” during sacrament meeting.
- Tim Walz is the guy who always knows which storage closet has the volleyball net in it.
- Tim Walz is the guy who knows how to rig the church’s satellite dish so that people 2000 miles from Provo can watch the BYU game.
- Tim Walz is the guy who overbids on the ugly cake at the young women’s fundraising auction.
- Tim Walz is the guy who lets the kids ride around the cultural hall on the chair cart.
- Tim Walz is the guy who says waving and honking counts toward your ministering.
And for contrast…
- J.D. Vance is the guy who is constantly having to sing his favorite hymn to himself.
- J.D. Vance is the guy who used to get excited whenever Packer spoke at conference.
- J.D. Vance is the guy who always mentions he was a Zone Leader whenever he bears his testimony, even decades after his mission.
- J.D. Vance is the guy who glares at the mom of seven whose kids aren’t quiet enough during the tail end of sacrament meeting.
- J.D. Vance interrupts the family Christmas party to ask where he can watch the Christmas devotional.
- J.D. Vance is just a little too proud of how many of his ancestors were polygamists.
- J.D. Vance is the guy who volunteers to monitor the transgender member when they go to the bathroom.
- J.D. Vance is the guy who rants about BYU going “woke” when they allowed Coke to be sold on campus.
- J.D. Vance is the guy who rolls his eyes in ward council when someone raises the issue of the YW/YM budgets not being equal.
- J.D. Vance is the guy who prays for moisture when it is currently raining.
- J.D. Vance is the guy who insists sacrament meeting bread should be white.
- J.D. Vance is not the guy you assign to bring the donuts.
While these are just silly ways to look at these two very different people, I thought it was very revealing for two reasons: 1) they represent a real contrast in terms of how masculinity is modeled, and 2) it was really easy to see both these types of masculinity in our congregations. I think that as people who lean left (the majority who frequent the blog), we tend to critique the Vance types in our congregations; heaven knows I can’t stand those guys. But sometimes we overlook just how many Tim Walz types there are as well. This is regardless of their political affiliations. I know lots of conservative men whose politics I abhor but who are Tim Walz types at church, who show up for the youth and care about them as individuals and want to make it fun. I also know a whole lot of Vance types, regardless their political affiliation, who are all about themselves, who are trying to demonstrate how important they are, who are performative and feel inauthentic. That’s how I perceive these two individuals anyway; you may see them differently.
- Do you see these two models of masculinity at church? Which do you see more of?
- Do you think the church advocates egalitarian or complementarian marriages more? Which do you think most church members actually have?
- What are your Walz / Vance “that guy” contributions?
- Are there other politicians you can imagine as Mormon stereotypes? (Personally I can’t really picture either Harris or Trump in a Mormon congregation).
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Vance is a Marine who served in combat in Afghanistan. He has two children that call him Dad. You might have seen them if you had watched the GOP convention.
Walz is a weekend warrior who earned a pension. I’ve known a lot of them.
Partisanship is a funny thing. God Is On My Side not yours.
Your last bullet was not your main point but you’re right! Neither Harris nor Trump seem like Mormon types but Walz and Vance both are.
“Egalitarian Marriages focus on equal sharing of roles and responsibilities, with decisions made collaboratively and without a hierarchical structure.
Complementarian Marriages emphasize distinct, complementary roles based on gender, with the husband often taking on a leadership role and the wife assuming a supportive role.”
We don’t have complementarian marriages in the church because when it comes down to brass tacks, women are primarily making the decisions as the family COO – the “mental load” of the cleaning, the kids, the clothes, the clutter, the food, the care tasks, the running of FHE, etc. All of this got packaged as “nurturing” and “support” – but it’s not. It is “feminine presiding” and should be identified as such.
When “feminine presiding” is recognized and valued, the marriage dynamic does shift more to an egalitarian structure – absolutely. But our church culture doesn’t have egalitarian marriages either because our culture doesn’t. Roles and Responsibilities are equalizing both inside and outside of the home, but equal pay/equal reward for efforts inside or outside the home is not there.
The primary difference between the 2 models is in part the broad strokes of “who sets the rules for transferring decision-making authority”.
In my experience, when a partner is in a more defensive mindset, the dynamic shifts to more of a “complementarian” approach as the individual focuses on how well they are “following the rules” and/or their partner isn’t.
thhq,
Vance served in Iraq, not Afghanistan. As a correspondent. Here’s how he described it: “As a public affairs marine, I would attach to different units to get a sense of their daily routine,” Vance wrote. “Sometimes I’d escort civilian press, but generally I’d take photos or write short stories about individual marines or their work.” He has said he never saw real combat.
Does that really matter though? He served in uniform as did Walz. “Thank you for your service” to both of them.
I only brought it up because hawkgrrl left it out. Partisanship engenders selective blindness.
One of the weekend warriors worked for me for a while. He was like Sgt. Bilko.
I think Trump may share some of the same traits as THHQ.
Harris reminds me of some of the women who are vocal about issues in this blog BTW, I admire them.
My mistake. Vance served in Iraq. Now where did Walz serve? Name a county.
If you guys weren’t so funny I’d stop posting. I’m your Summer Wheatley pinata. Swing away!
We’re marching to Zion
The beautiful city of Progressivism
Harris does fit in a Mormon ward. She is the usually feminist with a high power job who is usually quiet because strong women or feminist women are forced to the fringe, especially when their husband quits his job to support her in hers. I have known several. They often marry late, have two kids or less, unless they marry too late for kids. They have a Masters degree or PHD, and yes they are rare, maybe two per ward average. If you don’t know anyone who fits that, it is because you don’t SEE them. They do not sacrifice their career to their husband, which sometimes makes marriages less stable and they are high energy, hard working, assertive, strong women.
But of women I have known who fit this kind of Mormon, PHD psychologist married to a house husband, Medical doctor married to a contractor, Medical doctor married then divorced from her house husband, school principal married to a teacher, her with PHD, him with just teaching certificate. PHD in Law married to school principle and divorced, another doctor marital status unknown, and medical doc single, Mayer of Provo Ut, married, then widowed (I think?) High up in the National Park Service, married to a cop. My Daughter in law in government of Brigham City, married to IRS worker. Sometimes their husband has less earning power, and sometimes the same. Sometimes they are openly feminist and other times they just take full advantage of things feminists have worked for while denying they are feminist.
Walz reminds me of the old guy who takes cookies from the dessert table and puts them in his sport jacket pocket.
Vance reminds me of an Old Trapper jerky ad.
I think it’s common for Mormons to talk more patriarchal than they act. We have inherited the language of the past, including taboos on describing anything as “feminist” or “egalitarian”, but we are influenced by the broader cultural trends of the present, whether we recognize it or not. I’d guess for younger generations in particular, Mormon marriages are more egalitarian than complementarian.
I get the sense that the idea of complementarianism is getting talked about a lot in Evangelical circles lately, but it’s relatively absent in the Mormon world. If I had to pinpoint the reason for this difference, I’d say that the Proclamation is playing a role here. It’s now Mormons’ reference document, effectively superseding some much more problematic writings of Paul in the New Testament about gender roles. The Proclamation mentions gender roles, but also emphasizes equality, and can easily be interpreted, as you suggest, as supportive of relatively egalitarian arrangements in marriages, even if people don’t think of it in those terms.
Regarding the comments about whether there’s a Harris in the church, I’ll agree with Anna that they exist, but are rare enough at this time to not be a stereotype that people can readily think of in their ward. I’ll just say I think of myself as being married to someone who reminds me of Harris.
I personally have seen a Trump in every ward I’ve ever attended all over the world. He’s that guy that is perpetually stuck in primary/nursery because the EQ and SS simply cannot deal with him hijacking every single lesson and making 10+ comments. He inevitably bears his testimony every month without fail. And we teach our children not to make eye contact with him ever.
Otherwise to join in the fun:
Walz is that one guy in the ward choir
Vance is the guy that calls other people’s churches a whore
The main trait I share with Trump is working for a company built on debt. It changes how you think. Always under austerity, burning through your cash flow to service debt, and eventually going under as the whole thing is run into the ground. Trump runs hotels, I made paper, hardboard and boxes, but same deal. The CA and OR plants I worked in are gone forever. There is no incentive to build new ones.
I hope that this isn’t a metaphor for America, but based on working in debt-driven companies for 30 years I’m pretty cynical.
The mortgage worked the hardest and was the busiest of us all.
It worked on nights and Sundays it worked each holiday
It settled in among us
And never went away
“JD Vance is where charisma goes to die” Brian Tyler Cohen
If you haven’t seen the video of JD Vance ordering donuts at a Georgia donut shop, it is a must watch. It was so painfully awkward I could barely make it through. It was like watching Michael Scott from the show The Office run for vice president. At the shop, he actually says, “my name is JD Vance and I’m running for Vice President.” (Of course they knew beforehand he was coming). To which the donut shop worker responds in a polite but blowing-off just-make-your-order-already way, “oh, ok.” The workers wanted nothing to do with the guy. He is the true embodiment of weird.
thhq, it is quite curious that you criticize people for partisanship when you regularly and repeatedly spout off right-wing drivel. In almost all of your comments, you do not come off as the above-the-fray person as you picture yourself to be.
Drivel: an ad hominem word used for something you don’t agree with.
@thhq your trolling is kinda boring and predictable. If you’re gonna troll, at least entertain us (Sent from my ipho…)
Honestly I think that the majority of the men in the church are trying really hard to be good dads, care about their kids and spouse, and want their kids to grow up in a positive environment. There are absolutely the loud overbearing bros around, and there’s almost always at least one in every ward, but I wouldn’t argue that they’re the majority.
As an organization, I think the leadership structure tends to emphasize complementarian style.
In the real world, I think the line between the two gets blurred, and the roles adapt to the needs of the family. That’s happened in my own family – when we were first married, my wife worked full time while I finished school. When we had young kids, she decided to quit her job to be a stay-at-home mom and I provided all the income. As our kids got into school age over the last several years roles have shifted again – she’s working outside the home and travels regularly for work, while I work mostly remotely and do most of the cooking and kid wrangling…it will probably shift again at some point.
Walz is that guy who steps up to coach the youth basketball team when the normal coach doesn’t show up, and probably does a better job than the regular coach. He probably does it with a t-shirt tucked into dad jeans and New Balance 608s.
Vance is the guy who glances around nervously wondering when someone who knew him in Jr. High is going to ask him to coach (until Walz steps in).
I’ve always imagined Bernie Sanders in fast and testimony meeting – unapologetically rambling on, wearing mittens up to the stand, and telling deadpan dad jokes while the bishop looks uncomfortable.
Sorry I can’t entertain you Pirate. I’d like to nod along with the getalong gang here but that would bore me.
It’s boring enough to try to get through the long winded predictable posts here. Beam me up.
Walz is the male primary teacher who sings every song as enthusiastically as the first day he heard it. Walz is the male primary teacher who secretly gives the kids hints in “hot” and “cold.”
Anna: Maybe it’s not that I didn’t SEE women like Harris. Based on your description, I WAS a woman like Harris. There were some of us in my Singapore ward, and my Scottsdale ward, but I really wouldn’t say there were ever very many of us or that, in my own experience, that it’s a Mormon stereotype. Being outspoken, confident, compassionate, and having common sense while not spouting the expected party lines got me a whole lot of bewildered looks and being ignored in most of my wards (with those two exceptions), which didn’t really bother me personally, but it made me wonder what I was even getting out of being there. I’m glad to know there are others like me out there, but I think Quentin’s right, that there aren’t a whole lot, and probably fewer as time goes by. I haven’t been in a ward like that since before the PoX.
I’m not really understanding the military comments either, but I don’t come from a military family. (My dad served in the Navy in WW2, which he said consisted of swimming and drinking beer.) To me, if you’ve served your country, we should thank you for your service. I don’t understand these d**k-measuring contests about how long someone served, where, at what rank, etc. It just seems like a difference without a distinction. Honorable service is honorable service. It’s like those people who served missions who think they are better than others because of minor differences like being a district leader or serving in a high or low baptizing area. There’s a certain definition of masculinity that depends on these types of stupid comparisons. These are literally the opposite of what Jesus preached. He said if you do your service to be “seen of men” you already have your reward. Yay for you. You get to be the most important. That doesn’t make you a better person. It’s kind of insecure and small, a fragile masculinity.
Hawkgrrrl, for those who served, being truthful about one’s service is important. When someone lies about their service to conflate themselves, we call it “stolen valor”. When a veteran is humble enough to downplay their service and simply let their awards speak for them, it’s recognized as “honorable”.
As for our two current VP nominees, it’s apparent that Walz qualifies for “stolen valor” (the only “weapon of war” Walz ever carried “in war” was apparently a baguette in Tuscany, and it looks like he ate the entire baguette). Walz says that he retired from the National Guard so that he could run for public office, yet there have been several politicians that have done both–there was no need for him to “retire”, but it was a very convenient excuse when his unit was on the verge of deploying to Iraq. Vance has humbly tried to downplay his service. Each of them speak volumes, and make any choice obvious. As one who has been to Italy, Iraq, and Afghanistan, that’s my two cents, FWIW.
hnorth1: Walz was in for 24 years, 4 years past the retirement threshold. Vance was in a journalist role and never saw action. I agree that Walz saying he “carried weapons into war” is a misstatement, although he did train others for war using these weapons. I don’t personally think Walz’s statement truly qualifies as “stolen valor,” but I can see how someone might see it that way in good faith. Neither of them saw any action, so from where I’m sitting, they both served in a similar way. If you personally think Vance is humble, downplaying his service, I guess that’s your perspective, but I don’t see him as having an iota of humility; the persona he’s chosen to portray is deliberately mean-spirited and sarcastic toward others. I see a smug a-hole. YMMV.
I don’t personally care for your fat shaming of Walz. To me, the real service Walz did that matters most is being an awesome school teacher. I agree he looks older than his actual age. Baguettes are delicious.
At a ward activity, Walz is the guy who shows up early to set up and/or stays late to clean up, without being asked or thanked. Vance is the guy who awkwardly carries 2 folding chairs under each arm, makes a big show of it, then quickly leaves.
And as a military veteran I very much understand the nuance (the so-called d**k-measuring contest, which is apropos) of servicemembers attempting to compare service records to determine who served “more honorably”. It’s a part of the culture, but in the end, mostly irrelevant. Honorable is honorable, and both men served honorably. It is worth mentioning that one of those men had an unremarkable, average-to-mediocre stint in the service, and left as soon as he met his minimum obligation, in order to move on with his life and make lots of money. Ostensibly there is nothing wrong with that, until you juxtapose it with the service of the other man, who diligently climbed the ranks over decades, proving himself over and over again, eventually becoming a command sergeant major (senior enlisted advisor, charged with mentoring and advocating for junior enlisted troops, a not particularly glorious but extremely important and challenging job), all while maintaining a humble public-sector civilian career and raising a family. Yes, both men served honorably, but one is more deserving of my respect and my vote.
Interestingly, both men were motivated to join the military by the educational benefits, as a ticket to educational opportunities and social mobility that they otherwise may not have had. What they each chose to do with those benefits were starkly different. Especially because one of those men is now publicly seeking to tear down social programs, just like the ones that helped lift him out of poverty. And yes, I consider the G.I Bill to be a generous social program, which I gratefully took advantage of myself and dare anyone to convince me it isn’t.
hnorth1, Walz served 24 years in the National Guard. 20 years is considered a full-time service at which you can retire from military service. By quibbling about possible embellishments and misspeakings over his military career (his campaign released a statement saying that he simply misspoke when he said “carried in war”) all you do is reinforce the fact that Walz served in the military. And then you say that Vance has been “humble.” If by humble you mean willing to humiliate himself in the service of someone he once called “America’s Hitler” then I agree. Vance has no principles, morals, or values. He has shown that he will compromise his soul if it will get him political power. Not to mention that Vance is now doing the bidding of the biggest liar (over 30,000 lies during his time in office according to the Washington Post) in US political history who is said by retired Marine Corps General John Kelly who served as Trump’s Chief of Staff as calling US service members “suckers and losers.” Vance is also championing the guy who made up that he had bone spurs in order to get out of the Vietnam War draft. So you come on here to overreact some possible embellishments by Walz and call him dishonorable all while being alright with Vance kissing the ring and licking the boots of a pathological liar, conman, criminal, rapist, hater of lower classes and military members? Vance isn’t humble and he certainly isn’t honorable. Walz is leaps and bounds more honorable and honest than Vance. Vance is a pathetic loser.
Why spend energy on comparing VP Candidates’ “war” experience when in Trump’s words, VPs don’t matter and the man himself never served, bone spurs, right?
But as a 43-year retired teacher, I’ve known even in the small district I worked in, three men who were “National Guard” service men. All three were officers, a coronal who was my superintendent who served his summer tours all over the world and then finished with 5 or 6 years in the Pentagon. Another was a Captain in the Navy who serviced his two-week tours in three different countries and on Aircraft Carriers. The final was a major who served both stateside in support of soldiers in Iraq and in Iraq as a Captain and eventually a Major commanding 250 soldiers in an artillery brigade. Two retired after 25 years and one after 20 years. Why did they do it because teaching doesn’t pay very much and they did it to both supplement their income and to disrupt their lives a weekend here and a couple of weeks in the summer instead of being like me working multiple jobs and disrupting my family life it seems everyday because I was either working or tired.
Vance, a corporal with four years, calling out Walz a master sergeant with 24 years (only needing 20) is a joke. Then to have someone believe it when we have an all-voluntary military force where individual soldiers have many varied assignments to make the military run. They all went to boot camp. They all learned how to use weapons. They all had to be prepared and ready to go to the front line.
Vance and Trump haven’t downplayed anything. They have done everything they can to confuse, divide, and put down actual service (remember Trump’s comments about McCain?). I don’t believe Walz has stolen his valor any more than Vance has turned his back on the lessons learned in Hillbilly Elogie.
Hawkgrrrl:
You are clearly a gifted and knowledgeable writer; and I enjoy many of your articles. However, IMO, this one is just nonsense – and has (most likely) been written for the joy that comes (to some) from publishing yet another on-line political war of words.
No one is changing their opinions based upon the comments made here and nothing is gained by just another blood-letting forum; that really is just one in thousands. Personally, I think you’re better than this.
Now, I know that some of the regulars around this place will simply say “if you don’t have an opinion on the subject – just go away”.
Okay…..my opinion is this “For the Love of God – please let men just be men; of all stripes and sizes and temperaments; instead of attempting to force every male into some kind of (clay filled) moldable, pliable, being of mush; that everyone will like because they’re basically nothing but a public construct.”
God, it is so damn frustrating to see this garbage in this space…….Carry on.
I am a Harris type too by Anna’s (solid, imo) definition. PhD. Two kids in my mid thirties. Trot my progressivism out strategically but unapologetically in my local congregation.
One of the reasons I’m still in the pews most Sundays is because I know way way WAY more Walzes than Vances. Those guys are everywhere in our community. Walz is the guy who cheerfully ditches second hour and sorts out your car when he overhears you telling someone your tire/oil/engine light went on. Walz is the guy who may or may not have pinched his own grandchild to walk the halls with the crying toddler during the high council speaker’s talk. Walz is the guy who maybe hasn’t had a youth or primary calling in ten years but still knows every single kid’s name in the ward and their favorite sports teams. Walz’s pancakes are the stuff of 4th of July breakfast legend, and he brings his wife her favorite flowers whenever he does the grocery shopping, which happens regularly.
Sure, we all have both sides in us. But the problem in my experience is we are a church primarily of Walz’s led by Vances. And they have an unfortunate tendency to bring out the Vance in even the Walziest among us.
If American voters as a whole really cared about military service we would have Presidents McCain, Kerry, and Dole. But we got glad-handing buffoons who avoided military service like Clinton and Trump. G.W. Bush did learn to fly airplanes during the Vietnam War. Although he never made it over there, his training did prepare him to put on a flight suit and be landed on an aircraft carrier to speak in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner while there still remained years of bloodshed and incompetence.
Did the GI in Virginia in 1944 who was tasked with making sure that each soldier fighting in Europe got at least one orange with his rations serve in WWII?
An elder I knew showed me his Korean War badge which he earned although having joined two years after the Korean War ended. He was stationed in Germany. I think Congress had not yet signed documents bringing hostilities to an end, though hostilities had ended.
grizzerbear55: So, just to clarify, are you more of a Walz or a Vance guy at church?
Hey moderators, I welcome thhq’s input and I appreciate the light touch moderators take on this site, but isn’t it about time to give thhq a comment limit or something? Now that their comments aren’t truncated anymore I think it’s pretty clear that most of them aren’t very constructive and don’t follow the forum rules.
On masculinity, we have a real problem in America with men’s mental health. Men are almost 4x as likely as women to commit suicide. I won’t pretend to fully understand why but the data suggest that it is partly because men are socialized to be tough, to repress emotion, to be independent, and to deal with problems through aggression rather than through emotional connection.
Grizzerbear55 says, “Please let men just be men; of all stripes and sizes and temperaments; instead of attempting to force every male into some kind of (clay filled) moldable, pliable, being of mush; that everyone will like because they’re basically nothing but a public construct.”
I’m not sure exactly what they mean, but I’d modify it to say, “Please let men be human—masculine, feminine, strong, connected, tender, and open.” Ymmv on Walz’ example of masculinity but I think he’s clearly a good example of humanity and parenting and leadership. Maybe if we stop expecting men to be solitary lone wolf James Bond types who heroically carry the world on their shoulders and swing a big stick and instead expect everyone to be the socially malleable, emotionally vulnerable, interdependent mammals we are, we won’t see so many suicides and particularly murder-suicides from our emotionally suffering brothers.
Walz is the guy who protects women from sexual predators.
Vance is the guy who sends men on missions and then marries their wives while they are away.
Today Vance told Kamala Harris, the Vice President of the United States, to “go to hell” when he was questioned about Trump violating the law and letting his aides get into a scuffle with Arlington Cemetery agents over using hallowed ground for a campaign opportunity.
Did the VP call either of them to task for it? No. Vance was questioned by a reporter when his Tourette’s got sparked and just thought it was an opportunity to take a cheap shot at a non-involved person.
Vance is the guy who would be picking up random pieces of litter on the pavement.
That should read Walz would be the guy cleaning up the litter.
Vance vs Walz as mascots for masculinity is endlessly entertaining. All the joking aside, there’s a real crisis of masculinity in society at the moment.
Saying this sort of thing almost instantly gets classified as the whining of the patriarchy for things becoming more equal, but that’s not what I’m trying to say. The last 50 or 60 years have been revolutionary for women, and I’m not implying that any of that progress should be walked back or that women are in any way the root cause of the problems men are facing today.
There are simply a lot of men (young men especially) who are struggling to find their identity in today’s world. There was sort of a vacuum of male identity created over the last two decades caused by many factors:
First, there is the decreasing need for physical labor, military service, and other roles historically performed by men. The role of men is society has simply changed, and it’s happened pretty quickly.
Additionally, a sort of uncritical man-hating and misandry became cool. There were absolutely some disgusting men engaged in deplorable behavior that deserved a day of reckoning, but the brush started getting applied to men more broadly. The idea that all/most men were somehow guilty by association for sharing a gender with Harvey Weinstein alienated a lot of men.
Meanwhile, the progressive left was really more focused on individualism, women’s rights, and LGBTQ+ rights, which is great, but it also ceded control of the conversation about masculinity. The right (especially the alt right) saw this as an opportunity to seize disenfranchised male voters. The far right happily filled the void by telling men that it’s ok to be a man (which is true) and that the other side HATES men and thinks that men should be weak and pathetic (which is not true but proved to be an effective tactic in identity politics).
There is plenty of data to show how men are struggling. 75% of “deaths of despair” are men – this includes things like suicide, alcoholism, and drug overdose. Fewer and fewer men are going to college after high school, to the point where some universities are actively trying to recruit more men to enroll. There are also surveys of women that say there is a lack of men they’d be interested in dating (much less marrying)…which to me means that the many men are failing to grow up well enough to even be attractive as partners. The discouraged men then just turn to porn, politics, video games, and internet echo chambers.
At the end of the day, young men (and all men) want to feel needed, respected, and loved (and not just by a significant other). With the death of things like scouting, the disintegration of community (church and secular), absent fathers, etc., I’m just not seeing the kinds of strong, positive male role models that I had in my formative years…and there will always be some smiling politician who is more than willing to step in to fill the void for a vote.
Vance reminds me of JFK.
Walz reminds me of Biden.
If Mr. Walz is elected and serves two terms as vice president, and then if he serves two additional terms as president, when he finishes his service after 16 years he will still be younger than Mr. Trump is now.
Donald Trump is old! He’s even older than Bill Clinton, who left the presidency 24 or so years ago. Trump, Clinton, and George W. Bush were all born in 1946.
Thanks for the age-ism ji. But Biden will always be the oldest. Trump did the Democrats a big favor by exposing him at the debate.
“Walz reminds me of Biden”
That’s as a compliment, and no rational thinking Democrat would see that as anything other than an immense compliment. At the DNC Convention, Biden was received by raucous praise and chants of “We Love Joe” and “Thank you Joe” that lasted several minutes. Democrats didn’t ask Biden to step aside because he is a failed president. They asked him to step aside because he is too old to effectively campaign in what is clearly one of the most pivotal elections in US history, and that clearly showed in his most recent debate against Trump. Democrats and democracy itself simply can’t afford to lose. As a president, Democrats love Joe Biden. He is easily the best president of my lifetime (I was born in the Carter years) and one of the greats in US history.
I thought Walz was the guy who fiddled while Minneapolis burned. I may be wrong. Harris is the lady that gets up in testimony meeting and speaks in tongues. I am still trying to understand what she is saying. I don’t think I’ve heard a concrete policy position from her.
Mitt Romney was the Prussian Junker who realized to late that the old codes no longer applied. Mike Lee was the ill-mannered Bavarian Gauleiter who enthusiastically cheered on every lie. JD Vance scoffed with his professors at the lunatic clown who was gaining political power, but a few years later confiscated their houses and art collections.
I second what Pirate Priest said.
I had a semi-church attending male close family member fall in to a deep depression for a variety of reasons not related to the church. For 4 years, this family member relied primarily on me and another family member to keep themselves afloat as their emotional support system. The stance of the brethren in our close-knit and connective branch was, “he should have asked” for emotional support.
My family member got through the tough times and eventually found the emotional support he needed in counseling (which he got involved with because he didn’t like the person he was turning into in interactions with family members). He still doesn’t have a church-based emotional support system. He is the male role model for his father. He’s fine with this, but knowing what I know – I worry.
We are going to continue to lose male members this way as they are dishonestly “fine” enough and powerless enough to fall through the cracks like that.
I think that most of the problem is that what is being called out for the brethren isn’t what they actually need to pay attention to from a “surviving in this life” perspective to live D&C 121 properly and to circulate power throughout their relationships instead of hoarding it under “authority” and “control”.
I have four grandsons heading out into the world in the next five years. They live by the places I used to work. Those old mills are long gone, without a trace. None of the hundreds of us who worked there could make a living doing that any more.
Life was tough when I finished school but there was a family-supporting job even if I hated it. Music and woodworking were pastimes, but never anything that would have put our daughters through Catholic schools.
I can’t imagine the world the grandsons will be entering. Maybe academics, maybe ministry. Maybe even something big enough to support a family. It won’t be in a mill, and it won’t be playing video games.
I thought Walz was the guy who fiddled while Minneapolis burned.
Donald Trump didn’t think so at the time: “I know Gov. Walz is on the phone and we spoke and I fully agree with the way he handled it the last couple of days.”
Now whether Trump’s approval was a good thing or not is another story. (I’ll send a link to the quote in a separate comment so that at least this much won’t get caught in the spam filter.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/01/politics/wh-governors-call-protests/index.html?cid=ios_app
At the start of this thread I mixed up Sgt. Gene Vance with JD. Mea culpa.
Reading the news about what happened at Arlington. I guess we can add this: “Trump/Vance are the guys who shamelessly turn a visit to Arlington in to a campaign stop, despite being reminded that they’re not allowed to do that, and then have their spokesperson say that the person who tried to stop them was ‘obviously having a mental health episode'”.
I am not sure what kind of Mormon Trump would be, but from the pushing at a national cemetery, we know what kind of tourist he is. He is the kind who interrupts services in a Gothic Cathedral with a flash camera and loud voice, he is the kind to walk up to a bison for a photo op, he is the kind to toss beer bottles at elk, he is the kind to walk on “closed for revegetation” areas, or walk onto the geyser basin. Not only is he the touron, but he is also a jackrist (combination of jackass and tourist)
And Gov. Cox from Utah was right with Trump at Arlington National Cemetery.
Kirkstall, I am more and more concerned about the mental health of boys and men in our society. I truly believe that patriarchy has become a straitjacket for many boys and men. Because the stereotypical male has limited roles, and the primary role is “boss” or “alpha” (which, btw, animal behaviorists say is a poor understanding of wolf and other canine behavior) few men can achieve those roles. I saw a snippet of the movie”Billy Elliot last night and I really felt elated about a boy, a family, and a community that were willing to release Billy from the strict boundaries of working class masculinity. The final scene with an adult Billy playing the lead in a male Swan Lake was stunning. Many LDS parents are doing a fantastic job of parenting, or at least that’s my opinion, ymmv. However, the Mormon paradigm for fathers is as limiting as that for mothers. We cannot expect boys to thrive when the model they’re presented is several centuries out of date. Like it or not we are in a society which, since the Industrial Revolution, has made these roles obsolete. All that is solid melts into air.
tbhq says “But Biden will always be the oldest.” Predicting a Harris win, eh? Trump will become the oldest if elected.
Anna: Based on the Arlington happening, Trump would be posting photo ops from the Celestial Room, his staff members pushing over the 80 year olds running the place if they were told to be reverent.
I agree with vajra2. Pretending we can make the world go back to what it was 100 years ago is pointless. At some point we have to figure out to make the world as it is work for men and boys. Maybe I’m hopelessly optimistic, but I do believe we can do that without sacrificing women and girls.
I so agree that the ONLY solution is to find a way that accommodates men and women, boys and girls.
It’s my opinion, that the only way for that to happen is for each individual to listen to the people in their circle and be open to solutions that fit their particular metric. For people to make choices with the common good included with the particular good. Cookie cutter “rules” aren’t making any of us feel whole and empowered. Flexibility, empathy and compassion need to be our primary tools.
No one and no class of people can be expendable.
JD Vance is indeed a creepy weirdo, it’s kind of bizarre that Trump picked him as his running mate. But as with Mike Pence, Trump chooses someone that he thinks will make him look better in comparison. Pence was this humourless milquetoast puritan. Vance, is one of those terminally online and very obviously self-conscious guys whose also a big-time suck up.
People forget that Vance was a liberal suck-up for a time. He was trying to break into those costal elite social circles, but more recently saw the opportunity for better grift on the MAGA side of things and went head-first into the whole online groyper world.
Walz, is seemingly a normal dude, the stolen valor thing is damming, but that’s par for the course for just about every politician who has run for office in the past 30 years or so. Pete Buttigieg was doing the same when he ran for the party nominee last election. Walz is almost too normal for a guy high enough to be considered VP. I’m predicting that some kind of sexual abuse allegation will come up at some point. Especially as he was a high school football coach.
What’s more interesting about Walz, is how he’s part of the right-wing aesthetic the democrats are going for now. The Harris-Walz camo hats and all that. It pairs *nicely* with the hard-right turn the democrats are taking on immigration and Gaza. For whatever-reason, they’ve calculated that they don’t need the under-40 vote or muslim/arab American vote, and they’re thinking they can pick up conservative voters. Hence the folksy Walz and the camo hats and promises to be just as/if not more brutal on immigrants and Palestinians than the republicans are.
Your choices here are Red MAGA or Blue MAGA.
I’m almost too gob smacked to type. Nevertheless, I’ll gather what focus I can to point out that the above is a pretty sick example of projection that says more about the author than it does about Gov. Walz.
…or could the writer be confusing Gov. Walz and Rep. Jim Jordan?
What it says about Golden Glue is a certain degree of honesty and cynicism.
The offhand comment is that “an allegation will come up at some point” in part because of Gov. Walz’s profession working with active, mostly-male (maybe all male – I don’t know the high school football demographic well), teenagers.
The honesty in forecasting that there are sexual abuse situations that Gov. Walz would have encountered as high school coach that would surface now is dishearteningly realistic because “Sex sells” and “sexual allegations damage character”.
Waltz doesn’t have to have done anything to get the smear campaign in this day and age. Even if Walz handled every situation he encountered as coach appropriately, 1 situation reported as being mishandled, or even 1 situation convincingly sold as being mishandled through lies will keep the allegation alive.
The republicans are already saying that Kamala could not have got the jobs she got without sexual favors, so to smear her vp is more of the same. Appearently succesfull women are not chosen on merit, but because of sexual favors in trumps world.
The debate should be very interesting. If Kamala wins or even holds her own, they might have to come up with a different attack. She might prove she is not dumb as a bag of hammers. All women will realise that attacks on kamala are attacks on them. It is just how men like trump see women.
Kudos to Pirate Priest for making a serious comment about current manhood struggles. Playing partisan wack a mole is amusing but not very enlightening.
I read an article in The Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago entitled “Behind the Movement to Turn Back the Clock on Gender Roles.” I highly recommend finding this article and reading it. I found it incredibly thought-provoking. My wife and I had a lot of conversations about the ideas, especially in light of the ongoing drama with Hannah Neeleman.
I’m a male RN. So trust me when I tell you that I know a thing or two about the crisis of masculinity, identity, and gender roles. Do you have any idea how many people have quoted Greg Focker “Meet the Parents” lines to me when they find out my profession? I also want to say “amen” to everything that Pirate Priest has said. There is a reason why Melinda French Gates, one of the most influential donors to feminist causes, recently funded Richard Reeves, president of the American Institute for Boys and Men
I think part of what helps my own identity is that I was the primary earner, and a high earner at that. I was the managing director of operations for a large company and had hunderds of employees under me. But I hated my job. I went into nursing because I had an amazing (male) nurse take great care of me when I had acute appendicitis. I was too old to economically go back to med school, but I thought that retraining as an RN would be a good route to a decent job where I could be a caregiver, which is what I decided would be a meaningful second half of my professional life.
In the WSJ article, Lyman Stone is quoted. He is religious conservative who directs the Pronatalism Initiative at the right-leaning Institute for Family studies. Here is what he said about the “new ideal” of fatherhood/manhood:
Lyman’s reframing of manhood/fatherhood as “highly involved” gives me hope for a societal shift in how men’s roles can change with the times. We don’t need to have Alpha Con or stream Joe Rogan podcasts, just be highly involved in whatever your kids do, even if that’s video games.
Anecdotally, my grandsons and I have been playing Clash of Clans online for seven years. They got me into it, and at times I’ve been the only player, but they come back to it to improve their villages. In that period many board games have come and gone, and they’ve grown out of lots of other video games and Minecraft, but this one persists for some reason.