The prospect of Nancy Pelosi capturing the top spot in Congress and the continued rise of Hilary Clinton has unleashed a masculinity crisis according to Texas blogger Amanda Marcotte:
The asswipes are relentless. Fear-mongering about a female Speaker of the House backfired before the election, but the needle-dicked conservative punditry has a deep, relentless need to trot out their psychosexual issues for the rest of the world to cringe at.
Psychosexual issues? Oh yes… apparently commentator Chris Matthews was uncomfortable with the sight of Senator Clinton’s husband standing in the background while she gave her victory speech:
To Tweety, it’s strange that any man could be comfortable enough with himself to stand there and support his wife without freaking, tackling the microphone and yelling, “Me big man! Me no have small cock! Woman lesser!” This shows the extent of his projection of masculine anxiety.
Is Amanda onto something here or has she been reading too much Freud?
- photopress:Weiners_and_gorge.jpg,full,centered[↩]
What a load of tripe.
Freud really has a lot to answer for, the misogynistic mountebank.
Most conservative men welcomed Margaret Thatcher with open arms. And I suspect many in the US would be happy to see Condoleeza Rice as President.
When a President’s son is ruining his father’s achievements, and an ex-President’s wife responds by standing for President, you can never have too much Freud.
Jason Soon:
Disagree with the style in which it was presented if you like but it’s definitely not tripe.
You’ll find this loud-mouthed adolescent male rubbish all over America – and in some ex-service groups, such as in parts of the R&SL, and in both the ALP and the Liberals here in Australia too. Presumably, this comes from “guys” who are short-changed in their wedding-tackle and who are too timid to find out what makes women tick.
It’s this attitude to women that makes fundamentalist terrorists the true soul-mates of right-wing extremists.
Margeret Thatcher only came to power – and stayed there – through massive marketing and through the incredible stupidity of the Labour Party at the time. The sex of the candidate had absolutely nothing to do with it; Britain voted for a woman because anything at all was better than Labour’s duds. If Pol Pot had been a candidate, he would have beaten Thatcher hands down. She was good at tub-thumping speeches but she wrecked the British economy instead of reforming it; she was awful as a prime minister..
I would have thought that was precisely Jason’s point…
I was there when Maggie got elected. I voted against her. I worked in the government’s PR apparatus at the time, and occasionally I stood in the lift with people who were coming back from the palace.
The nation wanted to be monstered. It wanted to be smacked by Matron. it wanted to be held down, whipped and made to weep for its sins.
A nation whose real power structure depended on people who had been raised in a system of boarding schools, nurses, toffee superiority, concepts of duty, naiceness, horses, retrievers and ordering the servants around. Whose members discovered after Pater died that he kept all the receipts for those weekends on the Continent with a French woman with a horsewhip.
The rest of them had been taught to obey people like that. Who felt satisfied and protected in that structure. Who knew it gave them a certain superiority over other people further down the dung heap.
Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but these are genuine, dark underbelly forces that manifested in the Iron Lady.
Thanks David – I needed that!