It's perfectly possible to be knowledgeable, hardworking and sensitive about music, while also being such an unreflecting product of the patriarchy that it never occurs to you that you are not entitled to comment on a talented young female musician's lack of "gravitas" and "modest" clothing. Pro Bono's link absolutely shows why she had had enough.
I don't like Lebrecht's personality and business model - it seems like he fashions himself as the Hedda Hopper of the classical music world. However, I really liked his Mahler biography, he is certainly knowledgeable and hard-working and can be sensitive writer about music:
Not sure, but hasn’t Congress passed a law to forbid the president to do that (i.e. rendering US citizens to foreign courts, the ICC in particular)?
The ICC's jurisdiction is restricted to crimes committed in places under the jurisdiction of countries that are bound by the treaty that set up the court. The US is not a signatory, so is unlikely to extradite a US citizen. Iran has signed, but not ratified, the treaty.
Extradition to individual foreign countries is controlled by individual bilateral treaties. The US has treaties with something over a hundred countries. Dual criminality is a keystone -- whatever crime the individual is charged with has to also be a crime in the US. This creates headaches for the US sometimes, as "conspiracy" is not a crime in many countries. Eg, Julian Assange was extradited to the US on relatively minor charges -- the big charges were all conspiracy. And of course, under a recent SCOTUS decision, it appears that all acts committed by a US President are lawful.
Not sure, but hasn't Congress passed a law to forbid the president to do that (i.e. rendering US citizens to foreign courts, the ICC in particular)? Apart from that, that's not how US politics work. Alas, I fear it would be political suicide.
Perhaps more than you care to know about Norman Lebrecht.
"Ultimately, Norman Lebrecht’s reputation reflects the divided nature of classical music commentary today: a once-dominant voice whose sharp style secured attention and influence but whose methods have increasingly drawn scrutiny, culminating in the loss of his long-standing BBC platform. The evidence from peer reviews, legal records, artist statements, and public reactions points to a figure who remains widely discussed—yet more often as a cautionary example of boundary-pushing journalism than as an unchallenged authority."
But there is the 'Invade the Hague' Act, so one should use a different location.
The Nuremberg court room (Saal 600) is available (and has been reconstructed in its form used for the trials). The gallows was makeshift, so it does not exist anymore. It was a faulty construction anyway.
I would propose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_from_a_gun as more suitable. What about quartering by use of 4 Hellfire missiles?* Or the major Kong exit (bunker buster or MOAB, not nuclear).
For others nibbling to death by rabid chihuahuas or starving naked molerats could be an idea.
*expulsion from the forces has to happen before since quartering soldiers is unconstitutional
There are people who can't do an art but set themselves up as keepers of standards about that art, standards they present as Truth, rather than their own perspective. The same thing happens with visual art. The gatekeeper gets legitimacy by upholding convention and, thereby, the establishment (or those who consider themselves to be the establishment and have the power to act that way). The establishment that the gatekeeper represents probably has expectations for women which are in the standard. There may be more of a tolerance of men who deviate from the standard than women.
Interestingly, in terms of visual art, the convention is to be seen as unconventional, and the establishment loves the "outsider" that has been taken in as an insider.
I know I am over-simplifying. I think the dynamic I described exists but there are other dynamics as well. One is all the fans who ignore the gatekeepers and love the artists of their choice anyway. Another is commerce and marketing which can shower vast rewards on someone who is hated by the gatekeepers.
And, of course, there is such a thing as good and bad in any art. I just don't think clothing choices count as part of the evaluation.
No reason to disrupt the tranquility the good people of Nuremberg. A simple transfer to the Hague and the ICC will do.
Granted, the US has declined to join the ICC. But as I recall, all it takes is getting the defendant to a country which is a member to get them arrested and sent for trial. ("Extraordinary rendition" anyone? Best use for it ever!)
Should we applaud the mini star of whore for his honesty to publicly state that the US military will not feel obliged to obey any laws of war, that there will be no rules of engagement or any other woke or leftist stuff and that this war is definitely not about a changing Iran towards democracy?
A few more thoughts, with pro bono's link, it certainly pushes it over to sexism, had it only been the reposted message by Wang, I might have hesitated, but reading his wikipedia page, he seems like a real jerk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Lebrecht
(don't know why my wikipedia always has each reference on a different line)
Mentioned in the wikipedia page, but worth a read on its own is Hurwitz's piece about him.
https://www.classicstoday.com/journalist-norman-lebrecht-dead-at-61/
She doesn't need him. He needs her. He's a gossip and a hanger on, much like Jann Wenner.
I propose the portmanteau "gatecreeper" for this particular combination of self-importance and sexism. I do think he's being sexist in his assumptions about Wang's popularity and need for his legitimation.
Must hurt to both be this wrong and get sacked over it.
I know what to call it: contempt for the recipients of this ridiculous farrago of an excuse. It's like a truculent 15 year old coming up with an absurd explanation for his appalling behaviour, and daring the listener to prove it isn't true. As if everybody in the world doesn't know that if the US forbade Israel to attack Israel would have no choice but to obey. And, since Trump likes to act the irresistible hard man, it has no internal coherence or consistency either. It's pure contempt, for Congress, the American public, and the other nations of the middle east.
So the US attacked Iran because Israel was going to attack Iran and then Iran would attack the US which made it an imminent threat. I don't even know what to call this.
I think I have touched on that in the most recent post about Yuja Wang and if folks want to take the conversation there, please feel free to copy paste any comments from here that you want to use as a springboard.
I'd also like to point out that part of the problem with these discussions of good and bad masculinity is the constant sliding back and forth that we do between "masculinity" and "men." We can argue over how much of a market share different versions of masculinity have amongst men, but the heart of the problem is not one of market share, but rather of which version(s) of masculinity are treated as if they are representative of the gender as a whole. Toxic masculinity is increasing its market share and has tremendous traction and influence among younger men who are anxious about their gender status.
And I think it's important to let young men know that when we criticize a model of masculinity as toxic, we are not saying that men as a gender are all toxic, just that particular ways of being a man in the world are toxic to both the world around them and to the men who are practicing that way of being. Everyone involved is damaged and depleted by it.
"Not all men" doesn't seem to me to be a good tactic for combating the flood of online influencers who are poisoning society with their zero-sum, competitive, dominance-focused, deeply insecure and damaging version of masculinity. We need a compelling alternative that is not based in zero-sum, winner-take-all dominance.
GftNC, perhaps the problem is precisely that most men are like the Good Men you describe. We don't really see an obvious reason to label ourselves. The anomalies, the various flavors of bad guys, they need labels. If only so the rest of the world knows which kind of bad behaviors to watch out for from a particular individual.
But why do we need a label? Aren't we the default, the general expectation? (Yeah, I rather think we are.) Still, if somebody thinks we do need a label, "Gentlemen" works for me.**
** I realize that some may object to this, on the grounds that this has class overtones. Bosh!
Partly I say that because, in my misspent youth, I came across a story, with characters definitely not upper class: Gentlemen, Be Seated! It leapt to mind just now.
My first response to the question of what to call a non-toxic masculinity was "feminist" And it's true. It is also, however, a sure way to lose the very men to whom you are trying to give an alternative way of being.
I blame the patriarchy.
I would also say "non-toxic masculinity," but an evangelical author has already built a brand around that one. Strike two.
I'm leaning towards "regenerative masculinity" - analogous with regenerative agriculture: a masculinity that builds up the other beings in its environment rather than depleting the others around it.
Something like that...
Masculinity needs to be sustainable. Toxic masculinity isn't. It harms every being involved and leaves all of them depleted.
I've posted a lot on this thread about how many men act, or have acted, or want to act in what are now considered dodgy or immoral (or worse) ways. As a comment from the other side, which also has a lot of truth to it, this is Caitlin Moran in today's Times. I don't know what the proportions are (good v the other kind), but I know plenty of the sort of men she describes. The references are very English, but I think the men of ObWi will understand them...
Caitlin Moran: Stop calling all men toxic. They’re mostly goodThe men around me are a universe away from Dominique Pelicot, Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate — funny, nerdy and very surprised by how much they’ve come to enjoy the gym Caitlin Moran Monday March 02 2026, 5.00am, The Times
What do we call the good men? In a world of “toxic masculinity”, incels and the manosphere? A world where the president of the United States hisses, “Quiet, piggy!” and the news is dominated by the Pelicot trial and Epstein? In a world where, only last week, the frighteningly popular activist Nick Fuentes said that all women need to be put in “gulags — breeding gulags”?
What do we call the men who aren’t like this? What do we call the good men? This week is also the first anniversary of Adolescence — which became a one-word reference for the kind of boy we’re terrified of. But what do we call the good boys? What is the one-word reference for them? I look around my world and it’s filled with men who seem to come from a wholly different universe from Pelicot and Fuentes. They have utterly different DNA. These men are both rock solid and lighthearted. They’re very funny, very nerdy and very surprised by how much they’ve come to enjoy the gym in later life. They can’t even discuss how devastated they’ll be when the dog dies. They take their mum flowers; they mentor younger men without really mentioning it, and they sit in meetings texting, under the table, ludicrous Eighties pop song lyrics to friends who are sad.
Their masculinity is the quiet, unshowy, utterly implacable kind. I’ve seen each and every one go into battle for the ones they love. I have seen them make the phone calls, cancel the deals. I’ve seen them, when necessary, take other men to one side — somewhere quiet, somewhere dark — to explain, in a manner that’s almost friendly, that it would be a very risky decision to behave like that again. That today is the day these behaviours end.
So what do we call these men? These men who are, evidently, the majority of men. For — let’s remember — the majority of men don’t want to put women in gulags. They don’t want to build a gulag! Building a gulag would be a nightmare. Putting up the shed was hard enough. “You call them ‘the Good Men’!” shouted one audience member at a live event, when I asked this question on stage. “Because … they’re the good men!” And, obviously, I love that idea. But the problem is, everyone thinks they’re the good men. No one thinks they’re the baddie. Andrew Tate and Donald Trump believe they’re saying what every man would say, if he only had the balls. Dominique Pelicot claims he loves his wife. Epstein denied everything. They don’t think they’re the bad guys. After all, history is full of men who act like this. In Greek mythology; in Roman history; in the reports of every invading army. Marital rape was still legal in this country until 1991. 1991! After Kylie, and acid house! So you can’t call the good men “the Good Men” — because, ultimately, it means nothing. It describes nothing specific.
The fundamental problem is, we still have no male equivalent to feminism. There is no global movement for male progress and happiness — that wants to leave the bad old ways, of history and mythology, behind. It is inevitable there will be a movement, at some point. There is only so long people can keep discussing “the crisis in masculinity” before some smart young man sighs, opens his laptop, lights a fag and starts writing the male equivalent of The Female Eunuch.
But until there is a movement, with a name, and objectives, there is no name to call the men who would be part of that movement. Nick Fuentes has named himself an incel; Tate, a misogynist. But the good men have yet to name themselves. And the lack of a name means that, even though they are the majority, they seem almost … invisible. Because we cannot talk about something if it doesn’t have a name. “How about ‘Gentleman’?”
I have been despairing to my husband that I am part of the problem; I cannot think of a name for the good men, either. “I love the word ‘gentleman’,” he says. “Gentle-man. As the Smiths lyric goes, ‘It takes guts to be gentle and kind.’ An old-fashioned gentleman is honourable and dutiful, while also being clubbable, well dressed, and ready to ‘have a quiet word’ with other men who are being loud, discourteous or just mad. The word already exists. It’s … ‘Gentleman’.” And — like some masculinity pH test — it seems to work. It immediately divides all men into two categories. Trump, Pelicot, Tate, Epstein, Fuentes? They test negative for “gentleman”. Attenborough, Palin, Rashford, Obama, McCartney, Southgate? Gentleman-positive. Chemically, taxonomically, genetically, gentlemen.
Perhaps the name of the good men is “gentlemen”. Until another name comes along.
My prediction, which is mine, is that this was the LAST SOTU from Trump.
Why? Because just a few days after Jan 20 2017, when JD can potentially serve two extra full terms, Trump will have a "sudden fatal medical event".
JD has already offed a Pope and a Queen of England, and is only known by an alias of an alias, so it fits.
Now, the other interesting question is whether Usha realizes that as JD gets close to running for the top job, JD will be motivated to give HER a "sudden fatal medical event" so he could marry the widow Kirk.
If Usha does understand the risk, then she might need to arrange a "tragic, fatal, freak, furniture accident" that removes JD.
All of this will be in the coming season of "Game of Armchairs", look for it on cable!
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Yuja Wang, networking, transactionality and that guy”
It's perfectly possible to be knowledgeable, hardworking and sensitive about music, while also being such an unreflecting product of the patriarchy that it never occurs to you that you are not entitled to comment on a talented young female musician's lack of "gravitas" and "modest" clothing. Pro Bono's link absolutely shows why she had had enough.
"
I don't like Lebrecht's personality and business model - it seems like he fashions himself as the Hedda Hopper of the classical music world. However, I really liked his Mahler biography, he is certainly knowledgeable and hard-working and can be sensitive writer about music:
https://welltempered.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/classical-music-review-mahler-is-the-new-beethoven-critic-norman-lebrecht-argues-in-his-new-book-%E2%80%9Cwhy-mahler%E2%80%9D/
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/sep/04/mahler-lebrecht-memoir-beethoven-ninth
On “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”
Not sure, but hasn’t Congress passed a law to forbid the president to do that (i.e. rendering US citizens to foreign courts, the ICC in particular)?
The ICC's jurisdiction is restricted to crimes committed in places under the jurisdiction of countries that are bound by the treaty that set up the court. The US is not a signatory, so is unlikely to extradite a US citizen. Iran has signed, but not ratified, the treaty.
Extradition to individual foreign countries is controlled by individual bilateral treaties. The US has treaties with something over a hundred countries. Dual criminality is a keystone -- whatever crime the individual is charged with has to also be a crime in the US. This creates headaches for the US sometimes, as "conspiracy" is not a crime in many countries. Eg, Julian Assange was extradited to the US on relatively minor charges -- the big charges were all conspiracy. And of course, under a recent SCOTUS decision, it appears that all acts committed by a US President are lawful.
"
Not sure, but hasn't Congress passed a law to forbid the president to do that (i.e. rendering US citizens to foreign courts, the ICC in particular)? Apart from that, that's not how US politics work. Alas, I fear it would be political suicide.
"
I'm guessing that any President sending miscreants to the ICC would decline to invoke the ‘Invade the Hague’ Act.
On “Yuja Wang, networking, transactionality and that guy”
Perhaps more than you care to know about Norman Lebrecht.
"Ultimately, Norman Lebrecht’s reputation reflects the divided nature of classical music commentary today: a once-dominant voice whose sharp style secured attention and influence but whose methods have increasingly drawn scrutiny, culminating in the loss of his long-standing BBC platform. The evidence from peer reviews, legal records, artist statements, and public reactions points to a figure who remains widely discussed—yet more often as a cautionary example of boundary-pushing journalism than as an unchallenged authority."
Norman Lebrecht: Polarizing Classical Music Figure
On “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”
But there is the 'Invade the Hague' Act, so one should use a different location.
The Nuremberg court room (Saal 600) is available (and has been reconstructed in its form used for the trials). The gallows was makeshift, so it does not exist anymore. It was a faulty construction anyway.
I would propose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_from_a_gun as more suitable. What about quartering by use of 4 Hellfire missiles?* Or the major Kong exit (bunker buster or MOAB, not nuclear).
For others nibbling to death by rabid chihuahuas or starving naked molerats could be an idea.
*expulsion from the forces has to happen before since quartering soldiers is unconstitutional
On “Yuja Wang, networking, transactionality and that guy”
There are people who can't do an art but set themselves up as keepers of standards about that art, standards they present as Truth, rather than their own perspective. The same thing happens with visual art. The gatekeeper gets legitimacy by upholding convention and, thereby, the establishment (or those who consider themselves to be the establishment and have the power to act that way). The establishment that the gatekeeper represents probably has expectations for women which are in the standard. There may be more of a tolerance of men who deviate from the standard than women.
Interestingly, in terms of visual art, the convention is to be seen as unconventional, and the establishment loves the "outsider" that has been taken in as an insider.
I know I am over-simplifying. I think the dynamic I described exists but there are other dynamics as well. One is all the fans who ignore the gatekeepers and love the artists of their choice anyway. Another is commerce and marketing which can shower vast rewards on someone who is hated by the gatekeepers.
And, of course, there is such a thing as good and bad in any art. I just don't think clothing choices count as part of the evaluation.
On “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”
No reason to disrupt the tranquility the good people of Nuremberg. A simple transfer to the Hague and the ICC will do.
Granted, the US has declined to join the ICC. But as I recall, all it takes is getting the defendant to a country which is a member to get them arrested and sent for trial. ("Extraordinary rendition" anyone? Best use for it ever!)
"
"Should we applaud the mini star of whore for his honesty to publicly state that the US military will not feel obliged to obey any laws of war,"
It'll make the war-crimes trials easier, it's true.
Hartmut, could you check if the Nuremberg courtroom/gallows are available? Danke!
"
Should we applaud the mini star of whore for his honesty to publicly state that the US military will not feel obliged to obey any laws of war, that there will be no rules of engagement or any other woke or leftist stuff and that this war is definitely not about a changing Iran towards democracy?
On “Yuja Wang, networking, transactionality and that guy”
A few more thoughts, with pro bono's link, it certainly pushes it over to sexism, had it only been the reposted message by Wang, I might have hesitated, but reading his wikipedia page, he seems like a real jerk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Lebrecht
(don't know why my wikipedia always has each reference on a different line)
Mentioned in the wikipedia page, but worth a read on its own is Hurwitz's piece about him.
https://www.classicstoday.com/journalist-norman-lebrecht-dead-at-61/
Ouch!
"
Interesting pro bono. It looks like it was before the email tantrum and none of the pages I saw mentioned it. Makes it look even more egregious.
"
She doesn't need him. He needs her. He's a gossip and a hanger on, much like Jann Wenner.
I propose the portmanteau "gatecreeper" for this particular combination of self-importance and sexism. I do think he's being sexist in his assumptions about Wang's popularity and need for his legitimation.
Must hurt to both be this wrong and get sacked over it.
What a self-important little man.
On “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”
I know what to call it: contempt for the recipients of this ridiculous farrago of an excuse. It's like a truculent 15 year old coming up with an absurd explanation for his appalling behaviour, and daring the listener to prove it isn't true. As if everybody in the world doesn't know that if the US forbade Israel to attack Israel would have no choice but to obey. And, since Trump likes to act the irresistible hard man, it has no internal coherence or consistency either. It's pure contempt, for Congress, the American public, and the other nations of the middle east.
"
So the US attacked Iran because Israel was going to attack Iran and then Iran would attack the US which made it an imminent threat. I don't even know what to call this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/mar/02/us-israel-war-iran-live-updates-attacks-strikes-tehran-lebanon-beirut-hezbollah-dubai-latest-news?page=with%3Ablock-69a5fa488f0863f6a3f000cf#block-69a5fa488f0863f6a3f000cf
On “Yuja Wang, networking, transactionality and that guy”
Perhaps this post by Lebrecht has something to do with it.
On “Perpwalk Imperial”
I think I have touched on that in the most recent post about Yuja Wang and if folks want to take the conversation there, please feel free to copy paste any comments from here that you want to use as a springboard.
"
I'd also like to point out that part of the problem with these discussions of good and bad masculinity is the constant sliding back and forth that we do between "masculinity" and "men." We can argue over how much of a market share different versions of masculinity have amongst men, but the heart of the problem is not one of market share, but rather of which version(s) of masculinity are treated as if they are representative of the gender as a whole. Toxic masculinity is increasing its market share and has tremendous traction and influence among younger men who are anxious about their gender status.
And I think it's important to let young men know that when we criticize a model of masculinity as toxic, we are not saying that men as a gender are all toxic, just that particular ways of being a man in the world are toxic to both the world around them and to the men who are practicing that way of being. Everyone involved is damaged and depleted by it.
"Not all men" doesn't seem to me to be a good tactic for combating the flood of online influencers who are poisoning society with their zero-sum, competitive, dominance-focused, deeply insecure and damaging version of masculinity. We need a compelling alternative that is not based in zero-sum, winner-take-all dominance.
"
GftNC, perhaps the problem is precisely that most men are like the Good Men you describe. We don't really see an obvious reason to label ourselves. The anomalies, the various flavors of bad guys, they need labels. If only so the rest of the world knows which kind of bad behaviors to watch out for from a particular individual.
But why do we need a label? Aren't we the default, the general expectation? (Yeah, I rather think we are.) Still, if somebody thinks we do need a label, "Gentlemen" works for me.**
** I realize that some may object to this, on the grounds that this has class overtones. Bosh!
Partly I say that because, in my misspent youth, I came across a story, with characters definitely not upper class: Gentlemen, Be Seated! It leapt to mind just now.
"
My first response to the question of what to call a non-toxic masculinity was "feminist" And it's true. It is also, however, a sure way to lose the very men to whom you are trying to give an alternative way of being.
I blame the patriarchy.
I would also say "non-toxic masculinity," but an evangelical author has already built a brand around that one. Strike two.
I'm leaning towards "regenerative masculinity" - analogous with regenerative agriculture: a masculinity that builds up the other beings in its environment rather than depleting the others around it.
Something like that...
Masculinity needs to be sustainable. Toxic masculinity isn't. It harms every being involved and leaves all of them depleted.
"
I've posted a lot on this thread about how many men act, or have acted, or want to act in what are now considered dodgy or immoral (or worse) ways. As a comment from the other side, which also has a lot of truth to it, this is Caitlin Moran in today's Times. I don't know what the proportions are (good v the other kind), but I know plenty of the sort of men she describes. The references are very English, but I think the men of ObWi will understand them...
Caitlin Moran: Stop calling all men toxic. They’re mostly goodThe men around me are a universe away from Dominique Pelicot, Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate — funny, nerdy and very surprised by how much they’ve come to enjoy the gym
Caitlin Moran
Monday March 02 2026, 5.00am, The Times
What do we call the good men? In a world of “toxic masculinity”, incels and the manosphere? A world where the president of the United States hisses, “Quiet, piggy!” and the news is dominated by the Pelicot trial and Epstein? In a world where, only last week, the frighteningly popular activist Nick Fuentes said that all women need to be put in “gulags — breeding gulags”?
What do we call the men who aren’t like this? What do we call the good men?
This week is also the first anniversary of Adolescence — which became a one-word reference for the kind of boy we’re terrified of. But what do we call the good boys? What is the one-word reference for them?
I look around my world and it’s filled with men who seem to come from a wholly different universe from Pelicot and Fuentes. They have utterly different DNA. These men are both rock solid and lighthearted. They’re very funny, very nerdy and very surprised by how much they’ve come to enjoy the gym in later life. They can’t even discuss how devastated they’ll be when the dog dies. They take their mum flowers; they mentor younger men without really mentioning it, and they sit in meetings texting, under the table, ludicrous Eighties pop song lyrics to friends who are sad.
Their masculinity is the quiet, unshowy, utterly implacable kind. I’ve seen each and every one go into battle for the ones they love. I have seen them make the phone calls, cancel the deals. I’ve seen them, when necessary, take other men to one side — somewhere quiet, somewhere dark — to explain, in a manner that’s almost friendly, that it would be a very risky decision to behave like that again. That today is the day these behaviours end.
So what do we call these men? These men who are, evidently, the majority of men. For — let’s remember — the majority of men don’t want to put women in gulags. They don’t want to build a gulag! Building a gulag would be a nightmare. Putting up the shed was hard enough.
“You call them ‘the Good Men’!” shouted one audience member at a live event, when I asked this question on stage. “Because … they’re the good men!”
And, obviously, I love that idea. But the problem is, everyone thinks they’re the good men. No one thinks they’re the baddie. Andrew Tate and Donald Trump believe they’re saying what every man would say, if he only had the balls. Dominique Pelicot claims he loves his wife. Epstein denied everything. They don’t think they’re the bad guys. After all, history is full of men who act like this. In Greek mythology; in Roman history; in the reports of every invading army. Marital rape was still legal in this country until 1991. 1991! After Kylie, and acid house!
So you can’t call the good men “the Good Men” — because, ultimately, it means nothing. It describes nothing specific.
The fundamental problem is, we still have no male equivalent to feminism. There is no global movement for male progress and happiness — that wants to leave the bad old ways, of history and mythology, behind. It is inevitable there will be a movement, at some point. There is only so long people can keep discussing “the crisis in masculinity” before some smart young man sighs, opens his laptop, lights a fag and starts writing the male equivalent of The Female Eunuch.
But until there is a movement, with a name, and objectives, there is no name to call the men who would be part of that movement. Nick Fuentes has named himself an incel; Tate, a misogynist. But the good men have yet to name themselves. And the lack of a name means that, even though they are the majority, they seem almost … invisible. Because we cannot talk about something if it doesn’t have a name.
“How about ‘Gentleman’?”
I have been despairing to my husband that I am part of the problem; I cannot think of a name for the good men, either.
“I love the word ‘gentleman’,” he says. “Gentle-man. As the Smiths lyric goes, ‘It takes guts to be gentle and kind.’ An old-fashioned gentleman is honourable and dutiful, while also being clubbable, well dressed, and ready to ‘have a quiet word’ with other men who are being loud, discourteous or just mad. The word already exists. It’s … ‘Gentleman’.”
And — like some masculinity pH test — it seems to work. It immediately divides all men into two categories. Trump, Pelicot, Tate, Epstein, Fuentes? They test negative for “gentleman”. Attenborough, Palin, Rashford, Obama, McCartney, Southgate? Gentleman-positive. Chemically, taxonomically, genetically, gentlemen.
Perhaps the name of the good men is “gentlemen”. Until another name comes along.
On “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”
Heh heh!
TOO many years, it's so hard to keep track of them all.
Just lucky for me that someone will notice these things when I have a lapse.
BRB, need to fix a nagging Y2K problem.
"
...just a few days after Jan 20 2017...
Prediction is easy, especially when it's about the past.
"
copying a comment I made elsewhere:
My prediction, which is mine, is that this was the LAST SOTU from Trump.
Why? Because just a few days after Jan 20 2017, when JD can potentially serve two extra full terms, Trump will have a "sudden fatal medical event".
JD has already offed a Pope and a Queen of England, and is only known by an alias of an alias, so it fits.
Now, the other interesting question is whether Usha realizes that as JD gets close to running for the top job, JD will be motivated to give HER a "sudden fatal medical event" so he could marry the widow Kirk.
If Usha does understand the risk, then she might need to arrange a "tragic, fatal, freak, furniture accident" that removes JD.
All of this will be in the coming season of "Game of Armchairs", look for it on cable!
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.