Bloomberg writer argues Tim Walz’s ‘traditional masculinity’ is a threat to Republican voters
Tampon Tim, Low-T(estosterone) Tim, call him what you want, is the face of a big, fat, middle-aged, sweaty-palmed, pervert groomer. He’s spent a significant part of the last 30 years obsessed with adolescent deviant sex. Has he fantasized about it? Acted on it? Peachy Keenan sums it up best here:
"Hello, Ma'am? I stopped by to speak to your son about his private parts and what he likes to do with them. Mind leaving the room so we can be alone? And don't worry--I brought plenty of tampons and some porn from the library." pic.twitter.com/EM3JmpOegW
— Peachy Keenan (@KeenanPeachy) August 12, 2024
But, according to a new opinion column by Francis Wilksinson and published by Bloomberg on Friday, Walz is a “manly man” defined by traditional “masculinity,” and it is these characteristics that are “terrifying” to the MAGA voters:
Tim Walz’s Masculinity Is Terrifying to Republicans
Kamala Harris’ running mate has traditional ‘manly man’ traits. He’s also not frightened of women, afraid of Black people or terrified of the future.
…
Any liberal Democrat whose resume includes football coach, military veteran and sharp-shooting hunter is a challenge to MAGA mythology, which posits that liberalism and feminism threaten traditional masculinity, so you’d better vote Republican before marauding Amazons take your endangered man card away.
Those traditional manly traits are threatening enough on their own. But if such a marksman, state-title-winning football coach and regular guy can happily play second fiddle to a Black woman running for president, then what does that say about MAGA’s efforts to reverse-engineer the 21st century? After all, if a middle-aged, heterosexual White guy who likes to hunt doesn’t have to live in constant fear of losing status and doesn’t need traditional gender and racial hierarchies to validate his life choices, then what does he need Donald Trump and JD Vance for?
First of all… saying that Walz is not “afraid of black people” with the insinuation being that Republicans are is a grossly irresponsible and ugly thing to say for mere race-baiting drama. Conservative Republicans aren’t “afraid” of black people. In fact, some of my favorite conservatives are black, and they don’t scare me at all; I would revel in their company if given the pleasure: Thomas Sowell, who formerly identified with the teachings of Marx, Walter E. Williams, a brilliant historian and economics professor, and of course, Clarence Thomas. In fact, between Low-T Tim or any one of the aforementioned black men, I’d only be “afraid” of what Walz would do to my two young sons (and seriously afraid at that) if given the access, or to me, if given the permission of the federal government.
Would Walz be “afraid of black people” if he were dropped into the Congo without his armed personal security? What about Haiti? Does “BBQ” the cannibal scare him? What if he were thrown into the middle of a gang war of Chiraq? We know from his own record that war zones do in fact scare him, especially ones that include these four little letters in sequential order: I-r-a-q.
But, for the sake of the argument, let’s just say he’s not afraid of a single black person on the planet. Is he afraid of Middle Eastern Muslims? Again, that runny, yellow streak dribbling down across his back-fat, which he earned for bugging out on military service before a deployment, would suggest so.
But all that is beside the main point, which is that we “Republicans” don’t despise Walz because he’s traditionally masculine, but because he isn’t. He’s the very manifestation of toxic masculinity, or everything that is wrong with the modern XY guy. Sure he (presumably) possesses the anatomy and chromosomes, but none of the attributes that make a human male into a real man.
He rejects the responsibility to protect innocent children, but rabidly advocates they be grotesquely butchered before birth, and if they do make it out the birth canal alive, he insists on sexualizing and “trans-ing” them.
He doesn’t promote a dynamic in which men protect and provide for the weaker sex; instead he stands for “women’s liberation” which just means misery and dysfunction for all.
Virtues like honor, chivalry, duty, and self-sacrifice are completely foreign and repugnant to him.
He has no concept of traditional morality, a paradigm that must be upheld by men as the stronger and more dominant sex.
So he totes a gun and wears camo? That’s called a costume, and it’s that charade that disgusts us.
Here are a few examples of true traditional masculinity for reference:
The young boys who trekked nine miles in the New England snow, many of them barefoot and leaving a trail of blood, so they could take the Hessian troops in their fight for liberty.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
American generals of history-book wars who turned in submission to the Lord.
The Man who lays down his life for his friends.
Fathers who embrace their roles, committing to one woman in marriage, loving her and their children.
An old historian who held the hands of a young child to comfort him as they were lined up before the German firing squad.
Nathan Hale.
Those men, of all colors, who jumped off the boats at Normandy, only to get sawn in half by entrenched machine guns.
A Green Beret who sacrificed his freedom, career, and future when he learned about the abuse of one little boy at the hands of a local police official.
I would need countless lifetimes to adequately address this, so this is where it ends.
Heaven help us if anyone like Low-T Tim ever becomes the archetype for “traditional masculinity.”
Image: Lorie Shaull, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons, unaltered.