Lovely, funny, and somewhat chastening for those of us women who really like men and wish they were better at the job. Indeed, man up. I'm looking forward to 2026 with The Bulwark. Thanks for everything you do for us and the country. PS: Worth a look at Jemima Kelly's piece in the FT this week: "In praise of male courage | The heroes of Bondi Beach should be celebrated in an era of ‘toxic masculinity.’" I'd like to think that's what we mean by "man up." If the link doesn't work (the FT is usually locked) I can post a few bits. http://ft.com/content/de12a366-f2ef-4bd2-aa49-ea10bbc506ed
As one of that gender, I suggest that it will not be a "man" who does that, but an infant, mewling and puking in the nurses's arm...., as noted in Shakespeare's "As you like it" concerning the seven stages to being a man:
Well, it takes the Canadians to do it but if you want to understand the modern male watch a few episodes of the Red Green Show. Especially the discussions between Red and the character played by the great Gordon Pinsent that cover the "Three Little Words Men Find so Hard to Say: I Don't Know."
The newsletter was perfect except for that last command- “man up!” It seemingly contradicts the whole argument before it. The existence of that phrase is rooted in assumptions that got Trump elected. I’m not offended, just pointing out the glaring contradiction.
Linda, sometimes one has to be offensive to overcome a stupid defensive position. Telling one of those "infants" to grow a vagina since they have no balls, is a good way to do that. If Betty White can say that, ....
Worth a look at Jemima Kelly's piece in the FT this week: "In praise of male courage |
The heroes of Bondi Beach should be celebrated in an era of ‘toxic masculinity.’" I'd like to think that's what we mean by "man up." If the link doesn't work (the FT is usually locked) I can post a few bits. http://ft.com/content/de12a366-f2ef-4bd2-aa49-ea10bbc506ed
When in doubt, I pick the woman. Although I try to research every candidate I vote for, sometimes, there's not much out there about down-ballot candidates (e.g., county judges) in Democratic primaries. In those cases, or if two candidates seem equally good, I pick the woman. Why?
1. They're more compassionate.
2. They have better interpersonal skills.
3. They're more pragmatic.
4. They're generally smarter.
And last but not least:
5. They're MUCH less creepy! (Sec. Noem excepted...she's forkin' creepy)
Trump only cares whether the woman could plausibly be described as "hot." So Alina Habba keeps getting jobs, and Elise Stefanik is left out in the cold.
What's weird is that in the corporate world, the women in upper management I work with are total sociopaths. It's like they are trying to "out guy the guys". I've seen them straight-up lie to superiors before to save themselves or make themselves look better, throwing someone else under the bus in the process.
Not all women are empathetic and good leaders; some are bullies. Ask any girl in the 7th grade about other girls in their school, they'll tell you. I think our competitive national attitudes allow bullies to win in the corporate world...male or female. And in other spheres too.
I would note that there are a lot of women who have few or none of those qualities. But I agree that when you have no information, that’s a better choice, if only because men are already so over-represented. As we get to more even representation, I expect we’ll see more women who are duds. Just law of averages. And I am not so sure that women are necessarily more compassionate, etc. What they have (usually) is an enlarged frame of reference about how the world works. Women who are competing in business or politics or academia are to some extent already dealing with how to navigate a male dominated world while not being a man. That *may* (not always obviously) predispose you to being receptive to the possibility that persons who are not like themselves may also have different frames of reference, take different things as “given” and thus experience the world differently. The subordinated classes always have to read the oppressor’s viewpoints as well as their own experience. White men, especially upper-middle class white men are accustomed to thinking that they are the exemplar, the “norm,” that the world is made for them. Perhaps they are expected to compete with other men for those things, but they are the center of things. They belong. Women know they have to make space, that the world was not made (largely) by and for them. So protective gear might not fit. Seats might be too low or counters too high. Child care is invisible and to the extent that it requires time away from work it demonstrates lack of commitment, and so on and so forth. Women (or any minority) may simply see more just because they already know that their experiences aren’t universal. That’s a powerful knowledge. It might sometimes read as compassion or conscientiousness when it could be just more information from which to make decisions.
DHS-Noem comes from some tiny farm, not a ranch about 99 west of me, sandy, poor soil. there is
a place nearby where a cool natural arena was formed by nature, maybe not glacial, maybe
the wind. anyway so they have held small rodeos there for quite some time, I think Kirist's
daddy's place is within about 15 miles of there. at times helicopters would fly in someone
talented, if they could afford it. Not a real rodeo fan, but I went, was a great place to
camp full of cowpies, dried cattle manure. No mosquitos though and the food was good.
That's where she is from, really a backwater. some of her good skills are sort of hidden, her personality and repeating and repeating the mantra makes her look quite ignorant.
wonder what her final goal is, she killed a lot of her citizens in the state of S. Dakota, not all
native Indians, some others as well. Pandemic . I've spoken with residents of that state, they think
she is pretty low on ethics. Yup, she learned some management skills, like take money
from there and place it over here. for her, it's all about image, think of the dental video,
what type of a shallow person thinks others want to look/peer inside of her mouth.
pure vanity, way off balance. the money stuff will catch up to her, I'm referring to
fraud, swindle outright theft. will catch her one day. but, the personal pain she is inflicting is pretty spectacular, that is what she wants, look at me, we need to stop looking.
as a person - pretty dang ugly inside. I have heard they took every gov't program they
could, where she was raised, do you ever hear her speak about her mother? or often
about a daughter, so therefore she must be the ONLY woman . yeah, think about that.
I feel there is a quote from a fourth American woman that is worth adding, attributed to Abigail Adams in one of her letters to her husband: “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.” (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0241)
Kind of right about the women. There's a reason that it was after Trump's election that millions of us travelled to Washington DC to protest. Sadly, as one of them, I have to report that if it were up to white women only, we would be exactly where we are.
Will never forget the woman insisting that tRump was right about Obama's birth certificate. She was a customer where I worked. All I could do was walk away.
The question is: What should one believe? I'm old enough to have seen a whole lot of seemingly contradictory behavior on the part of American voters. Such as in 2012 they re-elected Barack Obama as president and four years later his polar opposite.
With virtually every election cycle some pundits -- both professional and armchair -- will insist that the results have some grand meaning. For example, remember when Karl Rove predicted that the Republicans had achieved a "durable" majority? Yet only a few years later it was busted.
This is not a new phenomenon. How could the same country that elected William McKinley -- Trump's Gilded Age role model -- later sweep Franklin D. Roosevelt into office?
If we are going to make judgments about American voters, we might also seek to better understand our motivation in doing so. Is our primary goal to build winning coalitions that allow us to reform our governing institutions in meaningful ways? Or is it to sit alone at our computer and "otherize" those we happen to disagree with?
The difference between now and all the previous pendulum swings is that the regime in power is blatantly attempting to eliminate the constitutional system that could remove it from office. This makes "otheriz[ing]" the Trump Gang appropriate and patriotic, "Steve".
Yes, they are attempting to end democratic government. However, it hasn't happened yet -- and may not if we play our cards right. History suggests that the best way to thwart authoritarian takeovers is popular mobilization. That arguably means coalescing with people that one may not be ideologically similar to -- perhaps even some Trump voters who think he has gone too far.
At any rate, history doesn't end if an authoritarian regime takes power. For example, the 1,000-year reich didn't last nearly that long. And even the highly repressive Pinochet regime eventually lost its grip on power.
The Obama years were the beginning of the Tea Party movement, when a large fraction of Republican voters rebelled against the corporate politicians who supported international involvement. John McCain and Mitt Romney represented the Republican old guard. In 2016, "new voters" came out to elect Donald Trump. They weren't really new. They were there all along, just waiting for the right combination of xenophobia and overt racism in a candidate they could enthusiastically support.
The excesses of the Gilded Age led to the labor movement at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. But to really gain power, it took a complete collapse of the economy and world-wide disaster, the Great Depression. Are the Republicans again breaking the economy (for most people) so badly that history will repeat? We will see. And such a disaster could end up differently. In the US, FDR Democrats came to power. In Germany and Italy, fascists took control. It ended poorly for them.
You can't fix a problem that you don't understand. There are always people like Donald Trump in every society. A healthy society keeps them on the fringe. A sick society makes them king. Trump isn't the problem, he's the symptom of a sick society. The American voters who elected him are the problem. Why did they do it? What would it take for them to vote differently? These are the important questions.
Can’t dip clean water from a dirty pool…or something like that, usually attributed to Lincoln. On the other hand “dirty pool” has been around for as long as humanity’s existence. Maybe it’s a matter of stalwart forces on either end of the good/evil spectrum and a large swaying mass in the middle, ready to lean into whatever makes their own haphazard existence more tolerable. A racist will always be a racist (perhaps) but will keep that under wraps if society signals racism as unacceptable. When those signals wane, then the racism emerges in full force.
FYI: you can delete or edit your comments by clicking on the three dots (...) to the right of your name. In this case, to avoid having to retype the whole thing, you could copy and paste it where you want it, then delete it here. I've had to use that function many times!
Our drone policy on Venezuelan boats basically mimics the logic used by the chopper gunner from Full Metal Jacket at this point:
(ad-libbing) "The speed boats that run are narco-terrorists! The speed boats that stand still are well-disciplined narco terrorists!"
That's basically the logic of Pete Hegseth's Department of War on Drugs in a nutshell. Only they're too scared to take on the Mexican cartels who are actually producing fentanyl and sending it to the US because the Mexican cartels would actually hit us back.
Imagine if they were drone striking Americans who illegally bring guns into Mexico that end up killing Mexicans and how we would react to those actions.
Fun fact: a gun manufactured in the US is statistically more likely to kill a Mexican national than an American.
This fits in with the theory that Trump, though projecting power and action and behaving like a bully is actually a pathetic weakling. unfortunately, Republicans are even less courageous and fail to confront the bully.
Travis, I believe you are right. Those boys don't have the balls to go after real cartels. They would put out contracts on all the tRUMP admin. and probably get them.
Exactly! Just look who the ICE scumbags are invading. Work places, schools, courts, working class neighborhoods. Not one "gang controlled" area on the hit list.
I don’t think it is just the cartels who would fight back. There is a lot of cooperation and intelligence sharing with the Mexicans much of it coming from their side. The Mexicans would, rightly, consider unilateral attacks in their country as acts of war which would have far larger economic and global ramifications. Venezuela on the other hand is a much easier target with fewer, for the moment, side effects.
The Mexican cartels use the high seas too. We don't have to hit them on Mexican territory. We could at the very least be blowing up their narco submarines in international waters if we were actually taking the fentanyl crisis this seriously.
If we were really taking the fentanyl crisis seriously we would be focusing on treatment and the social causes which drive it. Unless you fix that, everything else is a supply and cost issue. But I guess blowing up boats and people of questionable legality makes Americans feel better while not addressing the route causes.
“wishful and credulous beings that they are” is one way to describe men…..
The only man that I can name that publicly went against Trump in real time was Alexander Vindman. He paid with his career for it, but he showed what actual courage looks like.
He was joined by a very long list of women; Marie Yavonivich, Fiona Hill, Liz Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Cassidy Hutchison, and many more.
I think we can say without a doubt that if you are looking for who actually “had balls” in the last decade it certainly wasn’t the people who were born with them!!
I see a bunch of men who are at the Bulwark who gave up their careers, their friends, and in some cases their marriages. What Bill and George, in particular, gave up should never go unrecognised.
I think both of them have certainly paid a price. I would also add they were late to a party that many people warned about decades ago. If Limbaugh, and Newt, and The Tea Party, and Jerry Falwell, and on and on and on weren't flashing red lights....
I am not shitting on all men, I am merely pointing out that far too many in very high profile positions have most always placed their personal goals above the greater good.
I have the great good fortune to be pretty much surrounded by self-possessed American women. I find it's easier to be a self-possessed man because of it.
I wasn't familiar with him until his Apprentice show (I was born in the 80s), and I didn't like him then. I despised him during the GOP debates. It was one of the debates with Hillary Clinton where it hit me plainly that there was nothing redeeming whatsoever about this sentient cesspool and that I was looking at a cockroach in human form.
I think that there are certain people in the world that the world would be better off without (people who by their choices and actions make everything and everyone around them worse off), and Trump is one of them.
I stopped watching the Today Show way back when because they kept having him on as a guest since his show was on NBC. I couldn’t stand him then and can’t stand him now. I wrote them an email and told them I’d switch to a different show if they didn’t quit having him on. Of course they didn’t even reply. So I switched to CBS, which I’ve also quit watching since Ellison bought them out. Sigh.
I was watching ABC. He(IT) was being interviewed by, I believe, Joan London. Marla Maples, sitting there had just had his daughter. London asked him what he hoped for his baby daughter. His reply. That her tits are as big as her mother's. That has stained by mind and speaks volumes about his lack of character.
funny, I often thought he was selfish and an attention hog way back then, but
on ' letterman' I was entertained, not by ' the donald' but the healthy slighty
disguised repulsive skepticism which Dave was very very good at, so it made me laugh, I thought what a bozo, the financial news always had him in some ( usually small/short ) article, I imagine he pushed them, stay in the news. His whole life he thinks he is so
important, I hope all his crypto and bit coin falls through the floor, the only way to
truly insult him is to take his money, even a little taken from him, really truly hurts
him inside, so let's not send him to jail or have him on home arrest, let him roam around until he has a big stroke or some other awful thing, take some of the dough,
steal it from him, like E Jean Carroll ( not naming HER as a thief ) he has to shut his mouth about her, OR she will ( attorney )
attempt to take more. The only other way to inflict hurt and suffering is to shave his head or kill the roots or make the scalp so slippery no plugs can attach themselves, such a small man, and definitely NOT presidential material, a lot of women saw that.
crazy-town. for one, not qualified, low on ethics two, no character qualities, NONE
three, has always lied, exaggerated, falsely bragged and lied about stupid stuff, about anything four, spent his life in court or having his lawyers in court, does not pay his
debts, uses intimidation. five, he's an asshole, pretty obvious, Yes, I was once
watching him, not with liking him, hell no. he was a dipshit, now, he is a doofus.
just look at him, where is the common sense. The media was weak then and is
much weaker now. ignore the remarks, tune him out. mute the mouthy rude bimbo.
I don't care if he is president, I say we are leaderless now, he's a child.
I can vividly remember reading the Enquirer while standing in check out lines, and being totally disgusted with the whole 'models on the arms of men' thing in upscale NY society. Trump was seemingly always on the cover. I couldn't believe anyone would take him seriously in the Apprentice and I never watched a single episode.
Bill: "But please, men, even if you don’t bow your heads, do mend your ways. Man up!"
Maybe a majority of men like what they see in the Trump administration. Maybe a majority of men want women in what they consider their correct place. Look at Hegseth. Look at RFK Jr.. Both cretins of the highest order, and yet their behavior towards women is not disqualifying. It's a feature, not a bug.
Personally, I find that behavior repugnant, but that's because I'm not an asshole.
I just completed viewing Ken Burns’ “The Revolutionary War”. I invite remaining republicans and American males to watch and contemplate what was achieved 250 years ago. I know, most won’t bother. They will get what little they know of the past and present from Fox and Truth social.
Psychologist Adam Grant writes in yesterday's New York Times: "...women are less likely to be narcissists and psychopaths — and more likely to prioritize the collective good. Countries with more female legislators are less likely to go to war, and peace agreements involving women are 35 percent more likely to last at least 15 years. In the early stages of the pandemic, countries and U.S. states led by women had lower Covid-19 fatality rates, in part because they did a better job showing both confidence in their plans and empathy for people’s pain. And organizational psychologists have found that when male leaders are stressed, they’re more likely to be hostile and abusive. Tell me again that women are too emotional to lead."
Excuse me if I'm jumping on your comment with a comment of mine that might be irrelevant to yours, but...I've noted before in comments that I have some misgivings about the broad acceptance of what's called 'human nature.' Specifically, that the values and viewpoints of the women's half of humanity are largely missing from how human nature has been defined, and in fact what we call human nature is pretty much male human nature. The absence of women's voices and influence historically have led us to a misunderstanding of who/what humans are, and present a lopsided view of ourselves. Once women are truly able to be real participants in governing and power I think a true redefining of our human nature will be possible. And it will be quite different from the reigning definition.
Awhile back I saw a guy list all the great things that men do more than women. Some of them I would not quibble with. The most curious one was "sacrifice themselves in war." I wanted to ask: "Hey, buddy, you do realize that men start those wars, don't you? Why is it so great that men go out killing each other - and victimizing women and children too -- when it might be avoided?"
The same guy also found it offensive when women try to do things that are supposed to be the province of men.
I was struck by that, too. I wonder what accounts for women being less likely to be narcissists and psychopaths. I also wonder if female narcissists tend to manifest differently.
I can't quote statistics, and don't know for sure, but I think women are more likely to be empaths. And couples consisting of empath women and narcissistic men are actually common enough to be "a thing." Don't know if it's nature or nurture - probably both.
On the other hand, a woman who lived next to me for years is a bully and very narcissistic, so it does happen for sure.
There's also overt and covert narcissism; don't know if women are more likely to be the latter?
Narcissistists and psychopaths likely do poorly caring for babies and small children. Thus the children of female narcissists & psychos were less likely in hunter / gatherer days to survive.
Blithering, fanatical eggheads with soft hands to go with their soft minds, both a product of their soft, comfortable lives... who mistake cruelty for insight, and masculinity and machismo for moral character, and who will cry the live long day like little girls if the freedom and liberties which are derived from liberalism and the attendant liberal democracy it enables in our country - and which they currently still yet enjoy, courtesy of the vigilance and resistance of all of the rest of us - are one day gone, and their comfortable lives become much less so.
MAGA intellectuals: an oxymoron. With emphasis on moron.
Re: An Attack on the Home of Vladimir Putin. First, Putin has about 7 homes, including the one which Navalny called "Putin's Palace," an estate about as big as a small country. The home supposedly attacked, at Novgorod, northwest of Moscow, is roughly functionally equivalent to Camp David. The allegation is that Ukraine fired *91* drones and that *all* of them were shot down. There is so far not a shred of evidence--no drone debris, nothing--that this occurred. Yet Trump relates the story as if it were gospel: a whaddabout to counter Putin's nightly attacks across Ukraine.
Regarding the supposed drone attack on one of Putin's many homes: Experience now should tell us that Ukraine is pretty good at these surprise drone attacks on Russian soil. If they had really tried, I think they'd have had better success - and certainly one or two of those "91" would have hit their target.
I'm still trying to figure out the source of the outrage.
Putin personally directed an attack on Ukraine. He made it clear that it was his goal to decapitate the Ukraine government if he could, which would necessarily involve killing Zelenskyy.
So what puts the criminal head of a terrorist state out of bounds for direct retribution? If Ukraine could end the war with a strike on Putin, I fail to see a problem.
Agree. I also fail to see the problem with Ukrainian attacks on Moscow or St. Petersburg (so long s those attacks aren't leveled against purely civilian targets, like hospitals or schools). There may be strategic/political reasons for Ukraine to choose not to launch them, but a nation that starts a war of aggression can have no legitimate complaint when that war comes to their own soil.
Putin realizes Trump identifies with him. He’s been yowling again of late about being “violated” by the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, so Putin’s setting him up to feel vicariously “violated” for Putin. Trump is not totally devoid of empathy, just not for those who actually deserve it.
Lovely, funny, and somewhat chastening for those of us women who really like men and wish they were better at the job. Indeed, man up. I'm looking forward to 2026 with The Bulwark. Thanks for everything you do for us and the country. PS: Worth a look at Jemima Kelly's piece in the FT this week: "In praise of male courage | The heroes of Bondi Beach should be celebrated in an era of ‘toxic masculinity.’" I'd like to think that's what we mean by "man up." If the link doesn't work (the FT is usually locked) I can post a few bits. http://ft.com/content/de12a366-f2ef-4bd2-aa49-ea10bbc506ed
I'm sure some man will come along and "man-splain" it for us (bless their hearts)
As one of that gender, I suggest that it will not be a "man" who does that, but an infant, mewling and puking in the nurses's arm...., as noted in Shakespeare's "As you like it" concerning the seven stages to being a man:
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
Well, it takes the Canadians to do it but if you want to understand the modern male watch a few episodes of the Red Green Show. Especially the discussions between Red and the character played by the great Gordon Pinsent that cover the "Three Little Words Men Find so Hard to Say: I Don't Know."
The newsletter was perfect except for that last command- “man up!” It seemingly contradicts the whole argument before it. The existence of that phrase is rooted in assumptions that got Trump elected. I’m not offended, just pointing out the glaring contradiction.
“Why do people say, ‘Grow some balls’? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.”
— Betty White, 50 Classic Quotes About Why Women Are Better Than Men
I’d like to use the gender-neutral “grow a spine”. I wish it would catch on, and nobody would have to feel defensive.
Linda, sometimes one has to be offensive to overcome a stupid defensive position. Telling one of those "infants" to grow a vagina since they have no balls, is a good way to do that. If Betty White can say that, ....
I just say, "Grow up!"
So true, but omg I laughed my coffee right out my nose reading that!
Ya' gotta be careful with your coffee in any Bulwark comments section!!
Betty White, whodathunkit?
Yes, but are you surprised? :-)
Given her beyond wholesome image, yes, but that is in the absence of knowing who the originator(ess?) of the quote was.
OMG! Betty White????? 😆
I think that line was intended as an ironic pun.
Wrote a bit in response, as a general comment. Thanks.
Maybe we should demand men to "Woman Up'". Seems too many men have the wrong idea of what it is to truly "Man up".
Worth a look at Jemima Kelly's piece in the FT this week: "In praise of male courage |
The heroes of Bondi Beach should be celebrated in an era of ‘toxic masculinity.’" I'd like to think that's what we mean by "man up." If the link doesn't work (the FT is usually locked) I can post a few bits. http://ft.com/content/de12a366-f2ef-4bd2-aa49-ea10bbc506ed
"better at the job"
Resolution material
When in doubt, I pick the woman. Although I try to research every candidate I vote for, sometimes, there's not much out there about down-ballot candidates (e.g., county judges) in Democratic primaries. In those cases, or if two candidates seem equally good, I pick the woman. Why?
1. They're more compassionate.
2. They have better interpersonal skills.
3. They're more pragmatic.
4. They're generally smarter.
And last but not least:
5. They're MUCH less creepy! (Sec. Noem excepted...she's forkin' creepy)
What you said. I'm also of the opinion that Noem is a clinical psychopath.
Weird how those people are attracted to Trump, and how Trump is attracted to them.
Not so much. Birds of a feather comes to mind. Remember, Felon Trump had four years to check the sewers for vermin. They found each other.
It's nice when the vermin know your address. They will swim to you, and bring their relatives and friends with them.
Reach out and touch someone!
Trump only cares whether the woman could plausibly be described as "hot." So Alina Habba keeps getting jobs, and Elise Stefanik is left out in the cold.
Poor Elise doesn’t have Mar-a-Lago face. It involves a lot of plastic surgery.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/maralago-face-conservative-girl-makeup-brutal-aesthetics-of-maga-trump-gaetz-guilfoyle/
Trump is a psychopath, too in my opinion.
That's because she is and under Trump and Miller she's allowed to let her freak fly.
Yep - there has to be a 'Ricarda Nixon' out there..
What's weird is that in the corporate world, the women in upper management I work with are total sociopaths. It's like they are trying to "out guy the guys". I've seen them straight-up lie to superiors before to save themselves or make themselves look better, throwing someone else under the bus in the process.
I think that speaks more to what the corporate world seeks and rewards and less about the nature of women.
Not all women are empathetic and good leaders; some are bullies. Ask any girl in the 7th grade about other girls in their school, they'll tell you. I think our competitive national attitudes allow bullies to win in the corporate world...male or female. And in other spheres too.
Apparently a lot of corporate higher ups are psychopaths.
100% how I have been voting since 2016.
I would note that there are a lot of women who have few or none of those qualities. But I agree that when you have no information, that’s a better choice, if only because men are already so over-represented. As we get to more even representation, I expect we’ll see more women who are duds. Just law of averages. And I am not so sure that women are necessarily more compassionate, etc. What they have (usually) is an enlarged frame of reference about how the world works. Women who are competing in business or politics or academia are to some extent already dealing with how to navigate a male dominated world while not being a man. That *may* (not always obviously) predispose you to being receptive to the possibility that persons who are not like themselves may also have different frames of reference, take different things as “given” and thus experience the world differently. The subordinated classes always have to read the oppressor’s viewpoints as well as their own experience. White men, especially upper-middle class white men are accustomed to thinking that they are the exemplar, the “norm,” that the world is made for them. Perhaps they are expected to compete with other men for those things, but they are the center of things. They belong. Women know they have to make space, that the world was not made (largely) by and for them. So protective gear might not fit. Seats might be too low or counters too high. Child care is invisible and to the extent that it requires time away from work it demonstrates lack of commitment, and so on and so forth. Women (or any minority) may simply see more just because they already know that their experiences aren’t universal. That’s a powerful knowledge. It might sometimes read as compassion or conscientiousness when it could be just more information from which to make decisions.
DHS-Noem comes from some tiny farm, not a ranch about 99 west of me, sandy, poor soil. there is
a place nearby where a cool natural arena was formed by nature, maybe not glacial, maybe
the wind. anyway so they have held small rodeos there for quite some time, I think Kirist's
daddy's place is within about 15 miles of there. at times helicopters would fly in someone
talented, if they could afford it. Not a real rodeo fan, but I went, was a great place to
camp full of cowpies, dried cattle manure. No mosquitos though and the food was good.
That's where she is from, really a backwater. some of her good skills are sort of hidden, her personality and repeating and repeating the mantra makes her look quite ignorant.
wonder what her final goal is, she killed a lot of her citizens in the state of S. Dakota, not all
native Indians, some others as well. Pandemic . I've spoken with residents of that state, they think
she is pretty low on ethics. Yup, she learned some management skills, like take money
from there and place it over here. for her, it's all about image, think of the dental video,
what type of a shallow person thinks others want to look/peer inside of her mouth.
pure vanity, way off balance. the money stuff will catch up to her, I'm referring to
fraud, swindle outright theft. will catch her one day. but, the personal pain she is inflicting is pretty spectacular, that is what she wants, look at me, we need to stop looking.
as a person - pretty dang ugly inside. I have heard they took every gov't program they
could, where she was raised, do you ever hear her speak about her mother? or often
about a daughter, so therefore she must be the ONLY woman . yeah, think about that.
I feel there is a quote from a fourth American woman that is worth adding, attributed to Abigail Adams in one of her letters to her husband: “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.” (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0241)
Virginia is about to inaugurate our first female governor. And her name happens to be Abigail 🥰
The exerpts that Ken Burns used from Abigail Adams in The Revolution really made me want to read more about her.
Kind of right about the women. There's a reason that it was after Trump's election that millions of us travelled to Washington DC to protest. Sadly, as one of them, I have to report that if it were up to white women only, we would be exactly where we are.
I, unfortunately, agree with that.
Will never forget the woman insisting that tRump was right about Obama's birth certificate. She was a customer where I worked. All I could do was walk away.
That could have been the women John McCain famously corrected in 2008!
Still, white women are doing better than white men when it comes to Trump.
An unbelievably low bar, but, not nothin’…
Ooof, probably right unfortunately.
I thought that too, but there's always hope
I'll offer just one modification to Maya Angelou's comment: When American voters show you who they are, believe them.
The question is: What should one believe? I'm old enough to have seen a whole lot of seemingly contradictory behavior on the part of American voters. Such as in 2012 they re-elected Barack Obama as president and four years later his polar opposite.
With virtually every election cycle some pundits -- both professional and armchair -- will insist that the results have some grand meaning. For example, remember when Karl Rove predicted that the Republicans had achieved a "durable" majority? Yet only a few years later it was busted.
This is not a new phenomenon. How could the same country that elected William McKinley -- Trump's Gilded Age role model -- later sweep Franklin D. Roosevelt into office?
If we are going to make judgments about American voters, we might also seek to better understand our motivation in doing so. Is our primary goal to build winning coalitions that allow us to reform our governing institutions in meaningful ways? Or is it to sit alone at our computer and "otherize" those we happen to disagree with?
The difference between now and all the previous pendulum swings is that the regime in power is blatantly attempting to eliminate the constitutional system that could remove it from office. This makes "otheriz[ing]" the Trump Gang appropriate and patriotic, "Steve".
Yes, they are attempting to end democratic government. However, it hasn't happened yet -- and may not if we play our cards right. History suggests that the best way to thwart authoritarian takeovers is popular mobilization. That arguably means coalescing with people that one may not be ideologically similar to -- perhaps even some Trump voters who think he has gone too far.
At any rate, history doesn't end if an authoritarian regime takes power. For example, the 1,000-year reich didn't last nearly that long. And even the highly repressive Pinochet regime eventually lost its grip on power.
See reply below.
Amen brother!
JVL would totally agree w/ you.
The Obama years were the beginning of the Tea Party movement, when a large fraction of Republican voters rebelled against the corporate politicians who supported international involvement. John McCain and Mitt Romney represented the Republican old guard. In 2016, "new voters" came out to elect Donald Trump. They weren't really new. They were there all along, just waiting for the right combination of xenophobia and overt racism in a candidate they could enthusiastically support.
The excesses of the Gilded Age led to the labor movement at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. But to really gain power, it took a complete collapse of the economy and world-wide disaster, the Great Depression. Are the Republicans again breaking the economy (for most people) so badly that history will repeat? We will see. And such a disaster could end up differently. In the US, FDR Democrats came to power. In Germany and Italy, fascists took control. It ended poorly for them.
You can't fix a problem that you don't understand. There are always people like Donald Trump in every society. A healthy society keeps them on the fringe. A sick society makes them king. Trump isn't the problem, he's the symptom of a sick society. The American voters who elected him are the problem. Why did they do it? What would it take for them to vote differently? These are the important questions.
Can’t dip clean water from a dirty pool…or something like that, usually attributed to Lincoln. On the other hand “dirty pool” has been around for as long as humanity’s existence. Maybe it’s a matter of stalwart forces on either end of the good/evil spectrum and a large swaying mass in the middle, ready to lean into whatever makes their own haphazard existence more tolerable. A racist will always be a racist (perhaps) but will keep that under wraps if society signals racism as unacceptable. When those signals wane, then the racism emerges in full force.
Oops. I intended to reply to Steve. My bad.
No problem - I enjoyed reading your comment!
FYI: you can delete or edit your comments by clicking on the three dots (...) to the right of your name. In this case, to avoid having to retype the whole thing, you could copy and paste it where you want it, then delete it here. I've had to use that function many times!
Um, no, neither "delete" or "edit" do not show up for me when I click on the three dots.
All it shows is:
Copy Link
Restack
Collapse
Report
I am writing this from a Windows laptop. Perhaps the options to "delete" and "edit" are available on a different platform?
That is so weird! I'm on a Windows laptop as well (using Chrome browser), and when I click ... it shows:
Edit
Copy Link
Restack
Collapse
Delete
These are the choices I've had since I first subscribed to TB. I'm nowhere near a computer geek and have no explanation. :-(
and I need to edit this last post!
Are you using the Substack app? Apparently those two don’t work from there.
Our drone policy on Venezuelan boats basically mimics the logic used by the chopper gunner from Full Metal Jacket at this point:
(ad-libbing) "The speed boats that run are narco-terrorists! The speed boats that stand still are well-disciplined narco terrorists!"
That's basically the logic of Pete Hegseth's Department of War on Drugs in a nutshell. Only they're too scared to take on the Mexican cartels who are actually producing fentanyl and sending it to the US because the Mexican cartels would actually hit us back.
And of course, we must never acknowledge the demand for fentanyl on our side of the border!
And we must never acknowledge that the Mexican cartels are so well armed because of America's extremely lax gun laws.
Imagine if they were drone striking Americans who illegally bring guns into Mexico that end up killing Mexicans and how we would react to those actions.
Fun fact: a gun manufactured in the US is statistically more likely to kill a Mexican national than an American.
This fits in with the theory that Trump, though projecting power and action and behaving like a bully is actually a pathetic weakling. unfortunately, Republicans are even less courageous and fail to confront the bully.
Travis, I believe you are right. Those boys don't have the balls to go after real cartels. They would put out contracts on all the tRUMP admin. and probably get them.
Exactly! Just look who the ICE scumbags are invading. Work places, schools, courts, working class neighborhoods. Not one "gang controlled" area on the hit list.
Pete Hegseth is a perfect example of why cowards should never be placed in positions of leadership, ESPECIALLY military leadership.
I don’t think it is just the cartels who would fight back. There is a lot of cooperation and intelligence sharing with the Mexicans much of it coming from their side. The Mexicans would, rightly, consider unilateral attacks in their country as acts of war which would have far larger economic and global ramifications. Venezuela on the other hand is a much easier target with fewer, for the moment, side effects.
The Mexican cartels use the high seas too. We don't have to hit them on Mexican territory. We could at the very least be blowing up their narco submarines in international waters if we were actually taking the fentanyl crisis this seriously.
If we were really taking the fentanyl crisis seriously we would be focusing on treatment and the social causes which drive it. Unless you fix that, everything else is a supply and cost issue. But I guess blowing up boats and people of questionable legality makes Americans feel better while not addressing the route causes.
It seems with many of our problems, drugs especially, we don't have the imagination to address the root causes. We'd rather play whack-a-mole.
That is because Venezuela is an easier target. Mexico and China, not so much!
I would support raids on fentanyl and meth factories in Mexico, preferably without loss of life.
“wishful and credulous beings that they are” is one way to describe men…..
The only man that I can name that publicly went against Trump in real time was Alexander Vindman. He paid with his career for it, but he showed what actual courage looks like.
He was joined by a very long list of women; Marie Yavonivich, Fiona Hill, Liz Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Cassidy Hutchison, and many more.
I think we can say without a doubt that if you are looking for who actually “had balls” in the last decade it certainly wasn’t the people who were born with them!!
Kinzinger too.
I see a bunch of men who are at the Bulwark who gave up their careers, their friends, and in some cases their marriages. What Bill and George, in particular, gave up should never go unrecognised.
I think both of them have certainly paid a price. I would also add they were late to a party that many people warned about decades ago. If Limbaugh, and Newt, and The Tea Party, and Jerry Falwell, and on and on and on weren't flashing red lights....
I am not shitting on all men, I am merely pointing out that far too many in very high profile positions have most always placed their personal goals above the greater good.
I have the great good fortune to be pretty much surrounded by self-possessed American women. I find it's easier to be a self-possessed man because of it.
I was lucky to be raised by 2 strong women, my mom and then my sister. I feel that I'm a better man for it!
He has repulsed me since the 1980's. Have never understood the 🍊 "Ap-peel".
I wasn't familiar with him until his Apprentice show (I was born in the 80s), and I didn't like him then. I despised him during the GOP debates. It was one of the debates with Hillary Clinton where it hit me plainly that there was nothing redeeming whatsoever about this sentient cesspool and that I was looking at a cockroach in human form.
Come on. Say what you really feel. 😏
Remember him lurking behind Clinton during the debate. Was probably wishing she was 14 years old. 👍
I completely agree.
I think that there are certain people in the world that the world would be better off without (people who by their choices and actions make everything and everyone around them worse off), and Trump is one of them.
That comparison is unfair to cockroaches, which are harmless and actually fill a needed ecological role in their native habitat!
I stopped watching the Today Show way back when because they kept having him on as a guest since his show was on NBC. I couldn’t stand him then and can’t stand him now. I wrote them an email and told them I’d switch to a different show if they didn’t quit having him on. Of course they didn’t even reply. So I switched to CBS, which I’ve also quit watching since Ellison bought them out. Sigh.
I was watching ABC. He(IT) was being interviewed by, I believe, Joan London. Marla Maples, sitting there had just had his daughter. London asked him what he hoped for his baby daughter. His reply. That her tits are as big as her mother's. That has stained by mind and speaks volumes about his lack of character.
He's garbage.
He’s a creeper. There is something deeply wrong with him.
Old time TV is dying. I read an article saying the average age of viewers is 70.
For sure. I only watching network tv on rare occasions at this point. We cut the cable and stream most of our shows.
Trump still thinks it’s #1. That’s why he obsesses over CBS. Even the Oscars are moving to YouTube!
funny, I often thought he was selfish and an attention hog way back then, but
on ' letterman' I was entertained, not by ' the donald' but the healthy slighty
disguised repulsive skepticism which Dave was very very good at, so it made me laugh, I thought what a bozo, the financial news always had him in some ( usually small/short ) article, I imagine he pushed them, stay in the news. His whole life he thinks he is so
important, I hope all his crypto and bit coin falls through the floor, the only way to
truly insult him is to take his money, even a little taken from him, really truly hurts
him inside, so let's not send him to jail or have him on home arrest, let him roam around until he has a big stroke or some other awful thing, take some of the dough,
steal it from him, like E Jean Carroll ( not naming HER as a thief ) he has to shut his mouth about her, OR she will ( attorney )
attempt to take more. The only other way to inflict hurt and suffering is to shave his head or kill the roots or make the scalp so slippery no plugs can attach themselves, such a small man, and definitely NOT presidential material, a lot of women saw that.
crazy-town. for one, not qualified, low on ethics two, no character qualities, NONE
three, has always lied, exaggerated, falsely bragged and lied about stupid stuff, about anything four, spent his life in court or having his lawyers in court, does not pay his
debts, uses intimidation. five, he's an asshole, pretty obvious, Yes, I was once
watching him, not with liking him, hell no. he was a dipshit, now, he is a doofus.
just look at him, where is the common sense. The media was weak then and is
much weaker now. ignore the remarks, tune him out. mute the mouthy rude bimbo.
I don't care if he is president, I say we are leaderless now, he's a child.
I can vividly remember reading the Enquirer while standing in check out lines, and being totally disgusted with the whole 'models on the arms of men' thing in upscale NY society. Trump was seemingly always on the cover. I couldn't believe anyone would take him seriously in the Apprentice and I never watched a single episode.
Bill: "But please, men, even if you don’t bow your heads, do mend your ways. Man up!"
Maybe a majority of men like what they see in the Trump administration. Maybe a majority of men want women in what they consider their correct place. Look at Hegseth. Look at RFK Jr.. Both cretins of the highest order, and yet their behavior towards women is not disqualifying. It's a feature, not a bug.
Personally, I find that behavior repugnant, but that's because I'm not an asshole.
Trust some women. Don't trust these women: Kellyanne Conway, Nikki Haley, Betsy Davos, Elaine Chao, Karoline Leavitt, Pam Bondi, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Linda McMahon, Lauren Boebert, Anna Pauline Luna, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Marsha blackburn, Monica De La Cruz, Candace Owens.
+ Megan R Kelly, Melania, MTG, Elise stefanik....right? I get bill's point - but let's go by character and displayed behaviour and not be too binary
When it's two-to-one, the "one" is still formidable. But it's a lot better than one-to-one.
We owe a lot to that one-sixth of women with better sense than their betesticled counterparts. 😏
Men, you have the right to a secret ballot. You do not have to shout out on the public square. Just use the secret ballot!
I just completed viewing Ken Burns’ “The Revolutionary War”. I invite remaining republicans and American males to watch and contemplate what was achieved 250 years ago. I know, most won’t bother. They will get what little they know of the past and present from Fox and Truth social.
Psychologist Adam Grant writes in yesterday's New York Times: "...women are less likely to be narcissists and psychopaths — and more likely to prioritize the collective good. Countries with more female legislators are less likely to go to war, and peace agreements involving women are 35 percent more likely to last at least 15 years. In the early stages of the pandemic, countries and U.S. states led by women had lower Covid-19 fatality rates, in part because they did a better job showing both confidence in their plans and empathy for people’s pain. And organizational psychologists have found that when male leaders are stressed, they’re more likely to be hostile and abusive. Tell me again that women are too emotional to lead."
Excuse me if I'm jumping on your comment with a comment of mine that might be irrelevant to yours, but...I've noted before in comments that I have some misgivings about the broad acceptance of what's called 'human nature.' Specifically, that the values and viewpoints of the women's half of humanity are largely missing from how human nature has been defined, and in fact what we call human nature is pretty much male human nature. The absence of women's voices and influence historically have led us to a misunderstanding of who/what humans are, and present a lopsided view of ourselves. Once women are truly able to be real participants in governing and power I think a true redefining of our human nature will be possible. And it will be quite different from the reigning definition.
Awhile back I saw a guy list all the great things that men do more than women. Some of them I would not quibble with. The most curious one was "sacrifice themselves in war." I wanted to ask: "Hey, buddy, you do realize that men start those wars, don't you? Why is it so great that men go out killing each other - and victimizing women and children too -- when it might be avoided?"
The same guy also found it offensive when women try to do things that are supposed to be the province of men.
I was struck by that, too. I wonder what accounts for women being less likely to be narcissists and psychopaths. I also wonder if female narcissists tend to manifest differently.
I can't quote statistics, and don't know for sure, but I think women are more likely to be empaths. And couples consisting of empath women and narcissistic men are actually common enough to be "a thing." Don't know if it's nature or nurture - probably both.
On the other hand, a woman who lived next to me for years is a bully and very narcissistic, so it does happen for sure.
There's also overt and covert narcissism; don't know if women are more likely to be the latter?
Narcissistists and psychopaths likely do poorly caring for babies and small children. Thus the children of female narcissists & psychos were less likely in hunter / gatherer days to survive.
RE: MAGA *intellectuals*?
Please.
Blithering, fanatical eggheads with soft hands to go with their soft minds, both a product of their soft, comfortable lives... who mistake cruelty for insight, and masculinity and machismo for moral character, and who will cry the live long day like little girls if the freedom and liberties which are derived from liberalism and the attendant liberal democracy it enables in our country - and which they currently still yet enjoy, courtesy of the vigilance and resistance of all of the rest of us - are one day gone, and their comfortable lives become much less so.
MAGA intellectuals: an oxymoron. With emphasis on moron.
Do you mean "cry like little boys"? or "cry like babies"?
No offense directed toward little girls or the women they turn into. And either of the above two would have served just as well.
But I raised three daughters; I meant what I wrote.
Re: An Attack on the Home of Vladimir Putin. First, Putin has about 7 homes, including the one which Navalny called "Putin's Palace," an estate about as big as a small country. The home supposedly attacked, at Novgorod, northwest of Moscow, is roughly functionally equivalent to Camp David. The allegation is that Ukraine fired *91* drones and that *all* of them were shot down. There is so far not a shred of evidence--no drone debris, nothing--that this occurred. Yet Trump relates the story as if it were gospel: a whaddabout to counter Putin's nightly attacks across Ukraine.
Regarding the supposed drone attack on one of Putin's many homes: Experience now should tell us that Ukraine is pretty good at these surprise drone attacks on Russian soil. If they had really tried, I think they'd have had better success - and certainly one or two of those "91" would have hit their target.
Trump is to Putin what Karoline Leavitt is to Trump
I'm still trying to figure out the source of the outrage.
Putin personally directed an attack on Ukraine. He made it clear that it was his goal to decapitate the Ukraine government if he could, which would necessarily involve killing Zelenskyy.
So what puts the criminal head of a terrorist state out of bounds for direct retribution? If Ukraine could end the war with a strike on Putin, I fail to see a problem.
Agree. I also fail to see the problem with Ukrainian attacks on Moscow or St. Petersburg (so long s those attacks aren't leveled against purely civilian targets, like hospitals or schools). There may be strategic/political reasons for Ukraine to choose not to launch them, but a nation that starts a war of aggression can have no legitimate complaint when that war comes to their own soil.
Putin realizes Trump identifies with him. He’s been yowling again of late about being “violated” by the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, so Putin’s setting him up to feel vicariously “violated” for Putin. Trump is not totally devoid of empathy, just not for those who actually deserve it.
Trump thinks Putin is his friend.