Tuesday’s edition was about manhood, specifically the variety of manhood that’s the focus of a recently published book by US Senator Josh Hawley.

I wrote that Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs makes all kinds of arguments in favor of manhood as if manhood requires arguments in favor of it. I wrote that manhood, like anything else that constitutes a human being’s individual identity, does not require arguments in favor of it. It is what it is.

So, I asked, why is Hawley making arguments in favor of something that does not require arguments in favor of it? My answer was that Hawley’s book isn’t about manhood. It’s about power. Manhood doesn’t require an argument. Political dominance in the name of “manhood” does, however. People don’t offer up their necks freely. They must be persuaded to offer up their necks.

---

Hawley and the rest do indeed give the impression that they aren’t sure that what they’re saying is true until someone in the audience says it is. But let’s not confuse the insecurity that’s natural to authoritarian politics with the insecurity that’s natural to heterosexuality.

---

One of my favorite subscribers responded in what is, typically for him, a bit of blazing insight. Mr. Thornton Prayer said that: 

“I think there may also be a third element – Hawley’s internal sense of being less than manly. When I see him, Ted Cruz and the bigtime rightwing YouTube trolls, none strike me as being particularly masculine. I think they’re all engaged in some performative dance to convince themselves and the outside world that they’re ‘tough’ and ‘strong’ when in reality, they sense that internally they’re just a bunch of wimps – and they sense that everybody knows it.”

Mr. Prayer added that, “given the authoritarian obsession with trans and gay people, their ‘manhood’ performance is all the more necessary.”

Indeed, Hawley, Ted Cruz and the rest don’t come off as naturally manly. They come off as naturally nerdy. For some men of certain generations, nerdy is the opposite of manly. The nerds exacted their revenge, of course. They conquered the world with their “knowledge economies.” Yet Hawley and the rest act as if they regret winning.

Mr. Prayer is right in another way.

Hawley, Cruz and the rest of the nerds seem to be performing manliness rather than embodying it, like they read about it in history class rather than grew into it. This is where his and my comment join. 

Hawley, Cruz and the rest of the nerds don’t care about their arguments. One “performance” is as good, or bad, as another.

What matters, to them, is achieving outcomes in their favor. What matters, to them, is whether the target audience for their arguments believes them. If it does, the argument was good. If it doesn’t, the argument was bad. The argument’s moral nature is irrelevant.

---

---

Because their arguments depend entirely on the favorable reaction of their target audiences, Hawley, Cruz and the rest give the impression that they are performing a role rather than being themselves; that they are not sure that what they’re saying is true until someone in the audience says it is; that they fear reactions that are unfavorable to them; that they are, in effect, asking for permission; and that until that permission is granted, they remain insecure about what they’re saying.

Whatever you think manliness is, it’s nothing if not sure of itself. So yeah, “a bunch of wimps – and they sense that everybody knows it.”

But here is where where Mr. Prayer’s comment and mine part ways. 

Hawley and the rest do indeed give the impression that they aren’t sure that what they’re saying is true until someone in the audience says it is. But let’s not confuse the insecurity that’s natural to authoritarian politics with the insecurity that’s natural to heterosexuality.

In other words, they are not “insecure” about their manhood.

This is common in liberal circles. I don’t know why. It’s probably rooted historically in a reasonable desire for revenge. Ten thousand years of human history have put men at the top of every unit of organized human effort. Changing gender politics offer a chance to flip the script.

But they are not “insecure” about their manhood. Why?

Because they don’t believe enough in arguments in favor of manhood for insecurity to be genuine. A straight man who’s truly insecure is being sincere. (He’s being sincere even when denying his insecurity). Not so with Hawley, Cruz and the rest. These are deeply cynical politicians. One “performance” is as good, or bad, as another. 

To imply, as Mr. Prayer does, that their “manhood performance” is all the more necessary given the rightwing obsession with LGBT politics is, in reality, to give them more benefit of the doubt than they deserve.

---