Professional feminist Ruth Whippman, per her own account, as obviously any well-adjusted person would, lay on the birthing table in 2019, in the throes of labor, feverishly checking Twitter for the latest #MeToo Maoist denunciations of celebrities and politicians in a panic that the male baby still in her womb would turn out to be a rapist.
Related: Hillary Debuts Ultra-Cringe Suffragette Musical on MSNBC
For her, you see, welcoming new life into the world, rather than a divine manifestation of the highest human purpose, was an “incredibly fraught political project.”Via NPR (emphasis added):
At night, as I battled insomnia, heaving my bump around the bed from one achy compromise to another, my pregnant brain churned out a ticker tape of bad outcomes for my unborn boy - rapist, school shooter, incel, man child, interrupter…
boys clearly need special attention because there is a systemic problem with how we're raising boys that's teaching them it's OK to do wrong. You know, I think during the #MeToo movement, we kind of realized that we had normalized this serious systemic male harm that was happening…
I have three boys, and the final one was born right as the #MeToo movement was exploding. It was a year into the Trump presidency, and just raising boys felt like this incredibly fraught political project. You know, aside from all of the normal challenges of parenting, I think the idea of raising boys - and multiple boys - felt very politically charged.
Whippman recently treated readers of the Newspaper of Record to her insights on the 2024 election and the contrast between the “toxic masculinity” of JD Vance and Trump vs. the “positive masculinity” of Tampon Tim.
Related: Hillary Claims ‘Climate Change’ Killed 500,000 Last Year, ‘Particularly Pregnant Women’
Via The New York Times (emphasis added):
The electorate is faced with a choice, the story goes, between two models for masculinity. Toxic versus positive. In response to the vein-popping, furious, felon model of the right, the left is offering us a more morally upstanding and expansive “positive masculinity.”…
After the cartoon supervillainy of Donald Trump and the smarmy misogyny of JD Vance, the “positive masculinity” of Walz and his ilk is a joyful relief, and these programs are often doing good work. But when it comes to truly shifting cultural norms for the next generation of boys and allowing them to embrace their full humanity without shame, we might do better to ditch the masculinity rhetoric altogether. Because rather than challenging the old stereotypes and patterns, the whole positive masculinity framework actually seems to be reinforcing them…
There is a lurking sexism in the whole positive masculinity conceit. If we have to attach the label “masculine” to a behavior before it can have value to men, then we are subtly communicating that embracing anything associated with women is a demotion, even an indignity. “Positive masculinity” is not about de-gendering universal human qualities, and certainly not about encouraging boys to believe that they could have something to learn from women or female cultural norms. It’s more an attempt to scrub away the humiliating stain of womanhood from any trait or behavior before letting boys anywhere near it.
What we can glean from this diatribe is that it’s impossible for a man to win in the third-wave feminist paradigm; it’s an unsolvable riddle. If you behave like a traditional “toxic” man, it’s well-established by now that is evil. But, if you embrace a “positive masculinity,” which is ostensibly exactly what these feminists want, you’re also playing into gender stereotypes. It’s a rigged carnival game. The correct solution is apparently to castrate yourself or, better yet, just kill yourself.
