Remembering 'Man Enough' (cc: NYT)

The New York Times still isn't quite getting masculinity. Happily, Dave is here to help. Revisiting an election whopper for the ages.

The New York Times recently dropped a real floater of a podcast on masculinity. It’s quite bad, and you can (and you should) read a comprehensive takedown of it right here, courtesy of Substack’s own LastBlueDog .

If you’re pressed for time though, you could just take a look at the first question that was put to the only man in the discussion and note the first part of his answer:

Nadja Spiegelman: I wanted to have a conversation about masculinity in a post-#MeToo world…First, a little table setting. Where are we now? How would you describe the state of young men in this country right now?

Frederick Joseph: I think that we are in an abysmal state.

I think the reality is that we’ve always had patriarchy at the intersection of capitalism and white supremacy, and how those things feast on one another and lift one another.

Well, at least they got off to a balanced start.

I’m not going to break this down bit by bit - at least not for now. Instead, by way of response, I’d like to take us on a little trip down memory lane. Since progressives are obviously still struggling to understand masculinity and how it works, I’m going to spend a few moments kicking a dead horse.

Not only is that just fun for me sometimes, it’ll hopefully highlight at least a corner of what masculinity isn’t and how it doesn’t operate.

That’s right, ladies and germs, we’re going to be reexamining whether or not we are…"Man Enough.”

For a host of reasons, Kamala Harris was always going to have a hard ride beating Donald Trump. She had little time to define herself, was campaigning strapped to an administration that was hemorrhaging popularity, and she represented a party that had broken faith with the American voter.

Still. There were also some own-goals.

Picking Tim Walz was one. Snubbing Joe Rogan was another. Both fell under a wider umbrella of *the Harris campaign has a hard time connecting with men* which was not always a terribly mysterious mystery to unravel.

Case in point: the “Man Enough” ad.

The now-infamous “Man Enough” video wasn’t just a catastrophe for being cringe (though it was). The spot fundamentally didn’t work. It canceled itself out.

Either of the two messages it tried to transmit could have played on their own, but the combination made it a disastrous wash.

Let’s explore:

Message #1:

If you’re “too manly” to vote for Kamala, you’re not manly at all. Your masculinity is fragile.

This is an actually potent message, and one I’ve seen work many times.

There is a subtype of insecure man who lives in constant fear of being called gay or girly, so his whole life becomes an exercise in overcompensation.

You’ve met this man.

He won’t show emotions other than anger or humor, he won’t admit to liking books, or movies, or songs that women like, he won’t let his wife peg him, and he never misses an opportunity to highlight his supposed virility, even going so far as to desperately demand that he be allowed to compete to prove it if challenged.

These are the guys who are afraid to have tampons in their shopping carts. Guys who will weirdly brag about how bad their hygiene is because they think avoiding shampoo makes them “rugged.”

What’s funny about these men though is that their balloons are so easy to pop. Manipulating them is the simplest thing in the world. You just have to question their manhood and they will do anything - literally anything - to reclaim it.

Oh, are you not man enough to do the dishes?

Too much of a pussy to change that diaper?

Are you afraid you’ll grow a vagina if you vote for Kamala Harris?

You could honestly say to these guys, “I bet you’re not man enough to put my balls in your mouth,” and the percentage of them that would get on their knees to show you up would clear single digits.

So this is an actually strong angle for a political ad.

But libs being libs, we had to also have…

Message #2:

Masculinity should have a more expansive definition, actually.

And it nukes the whole spot.

This ad was an example of liberals getting offended by their own good idea. It made them like Jedi contemplating using the dark side of the Force.

The bit only works if it’s traditionally manly men saying “I’m man enough” to [do the thing]. You need guys like The Rock, Arnie, Chris Hemsworth (who I know is Australian, but whatever).

But liberals can’t abide that.

That’s too rigid an application of gender roles for them. Who are we to say that the effeminate weed with crossed legs isn’t a “real man?” Obese endomorphs with giant, saggy tits are just as Valid as fit gym-bros.

And of course, this makes it not relatable to its target audience. Because the kind of man whose sense of manhood could be punctured by casting a vote for a woman is going to find association with the kinds of men in this video shameful and disgusting.

Like, imagine a toothpaste spot that featured a bunch of guys in jackboots, round helmets, and black longcoats with armbands brushing their teeth, and concluding, “Crest: The #1 Choice For Nazis.”

I mean, geez. This kind of makes me not want to buy Crest. Why would this be what you choose to highlight?

But, comedy!

I’m aware that the video was a comedy spot - the guy who directed it has written for Jimmy Kimmel. But that makes it all the more perplexing to me.

I get the joke if it’s a joke against Harris voters. It’s funny if it’s calling male feminists dysgenic, low-T freaks. But it was (I’ve checked) meant to help Harris.

How? That makes no sense.

That means that the butt of the joke was…the group they were trying to win over. Who does that?

Kamala Harris: the clear choice for women.

Because women are fucking retarded.

*This ad was paid for and approved by the Harris for President campaign.

Was this just liberals not being able to help themselves? They actually just couldn’t get through the spot without trashing the people they hate? Like when Tim Walz finally addressed the fraud allegations against Somali-Americans in Minnesota but he still had to open by reminding everyone that actually, white men were worse?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Democrats will not be able to convince men to vote for them so long as they hate men. They don’t hide it well.

We can tell.