Lunatic Republican: Trump & DeSantis Have Large Penis Energy

 

She’s totally chasing power.
Given that worship of (traditional) masculinity is a part of fascism, it’s important to fascists that their leaders are the most manly men, and that extends to shallow nonsense like this.

literally no Republican has that energy. Especially considering their love of overcompensating trucks and high power arms.

 

It’s yuge! That’s what people are telling me. It’s fabulous, you wouldn’t believe it.

 

As an aussie looking on at the freak show with jaw wide open I can say that Republican strongholds in the USA seriously need to check what substance they’re putting into the water…….
Big Dump Energy. Massive Dump Energy, in fact
Yeah but she did say ” Amen” after she claimed Trump and DeSantis have large private parts, so it is somewhat holy.
Lake is the one who is openly saying that Arizona’s 11 electoral college votes have already been decided to go to the 2024 Republican candidate.
The “E” stands for “Envy”
BDE approved by Jesus 🙂 She’s like Sarah Palin with short haricut.

 

Jocko Willink Evaluates Celebrities Slapping Each Other. Will Smith and Chris Rock, Oscars.

Chris Rock making the most harmless joke and Jada telling Will to slap him for that is one of the best examples of how thin skinned and sensitive people have gotten today.

 

Will Smith laughed at the joke until he saw his wife did not approve and then felt obligated to slap Chris Rock. So yes, she did for all intents and purposes direct Will to slap Chris. Jada apparently wears the pants in the family.

 

Jocko makes some great points. Especially about a smack being more about humiliation than an attempt to harm. Never really listened to his podcast before. Can’t help feeling that his insights into human interactions might have further appeal. Maybe he should do a guest spot on Ru Pauls Drag Race, if that’s still a thing? THAT would be funny 🙂
Depending on what level Will Smith is in Scientology, this is totally acceptable behavior to display. Leah Remini goes into it pretty deep. G.I. Jane is a strong independent woman who overcomes the odds of adversity in a male dominated military organization within a more male dominated section of the military known as the Navy SEALs. If anything it’s compliment to her resilience and power. Why anybody would take offense to that joke is above and beyond me. It is clearly all her bruised vanity.
Chris Rock behaved like a class-act. I’m impressed with how he handled such a weird situation.
I don’t know man, I really think that Chris Rock putting his hands up defending himself would have actually made him look super weak. The camera showed Will even laughing at the joke at first and Rock saw it, too, so he probably thought Will was in for the joke and just wanted to come up stage and mess with him in a funny and gentle way. In a setting like this (Oscars, roast, high profile) the least you’d expect is an assault. So I don’t know about Jocko’s comment about Chris making a mistake of not defending himself. Were it in a street corner at night and someone would walk to me like this, ok, like bro – chill out. But on a fucking stage, having a celeb coming to you with tons of people watching? You just could’t predict it. What if Will would have actually wanted to just mess around with Chris and then Chris puts his fucking hands up? Then he would look stupid and weak. Summarized, Chris Rock did everything 100% correct in the moment. People now just want to outdo him by adding things that they never would have even thought about in Rock’s shoes so they don’t look stupid lol 😝 Peace out
These are people who know that the world watches them. Will Smith just showed his fans that it’s okay to slap people for what happened. This in a world with increasingly weaker moral values. It’s just waiting for agression to come from this. They should have pulled his awards and fined him for doing this.
Echo was spot on with his assessment when talking about the celebrity class: “You guys couldn’t take a joke cause you guys are all sensitive and weak.” #truth #micdrop
its always easier when its not with your wife
Echo f-ing nailed, on the head, exactly what was going through Will’s mind: I’m not afraid of taking a beating from Chris, I’m afraid of taking a beating from Jada, so I’m clear to walk up there… If it were Joe Rogan?! Forget about it.

Why is that in Asian culture, “feminine looking” guys are more popular while in western culture, manly guys are more popular?

Are they feminine? Or do different societies and cultures have different definitions of masculinity and feminity?

Western (more specifically American toxic) masculinity is usually about physical powers and the willingness to use violence to solve every problem, you know, your typical macho man.

The entire idea of Chivalry was originally a kind of code of conduct for warriors, soldiers.

East Asians, and in particular, Chinese society value a different kind of masculinity.

I wrote about it here:

Chinese concept for a gentleman is quite different from the west, what we called “君子”. “君子” is the “ideal man” in Confucius teaching, a standard for every literati or layman to achieve.

The flip side of 君子 is 小人, which literally translate into “little or petty man”. The ideal of “君子”, or a true gentleman was defined by Confucius as the following:

第一,君子不妄动,动必有道

A true gentleman does not rush into action, every thing he does must have a good reason, or serve a higher purpose. This also implies that a gentleman will always evaluate the consequences of his action before he make a move.

第二,君子不徒语,语必有理:

A true gentleman does not speak empty words, he does not gossip, he does not lie, he does not curse. When he does speak, he will always speak out of reason, his words should carry weight, should come after consideration, should be graceful and merciful.

第三,君子不苟求,求必有义:

A true gentleman does not covet, may it be money, power or fame. When he does go out and pursue something, it must have a higher purpose, what he’s after should benefit his country and fellow men.

第四,君子不虚行,行必有正:

A true gentleman believes in justice and honor. Everything he does should follow his ideal. He will not do things that goes against his principle, and he will always consider the consequence before taking action. He should not go with his heart and do whatever he likes, this will damage his reputation and honor.

Other “gentlemenly” characteristics often mentioned are humble spirit, peaceful mind and tolerance. A true gentleman would not fuss over little things, they will not get angry over meaningless insults or being offended by careless mistakes. We often say ”君子坦荡荡,小人常戚戚” (A true gentleman has a magnanimous heart, while a little man always worr about every little thing).

So as you can see, the recurrent theme in Confucius “君子” is

Honor, caution, justice, and a higher purpose.

Bravery, defending the weak, and fighting the evil, martial prowess, these western chivalry values don’t really matter much for the Chinese. In fact, traditional Chinese value looks down on physically powerful fighters. 武夫 (martial person) is considered a derogatory term. Chinese ideal men are intellectuals who change the world for the better through policy and administration of a country. What we’re looking for in a Ideal Man is more spiritual than physical, more about honor, justice, every action should be for a higher purpose, for the greater good.

We don’t talk about 君子that much nowadays, but the concept has always been part of Chinese culture and our collective psyche as a people (if such thing exists). It’s not to say Chinese are not brave or don’t have passion, of course we do, but culture wise, we don’t encourage such passion. A true gentleman is a peaceful intellectual, a capable ruler who always cares for his people, and he writes beautiful poems, and play instruments. (probably have 3 wives, sleeping with the servant girl, and courts the most beautiful courtesan, funny the principle of a true gentleman mentions very little about being faithful…)

Originally written for: What are the archetypes of masculinity?

Although, I’d like to add that the ideal man, the concept of 君子, was surprisingly consistent through out Chinese history, with the exception of Yuan and Qing dynasty (both were non-Han Chinese dynasties). Since Confucius formalize the this concept of “gentlemen”, it had been promoted by all Han Chinese emperors afterwards regardless of which dynasty. Even Qing Dynasty with Manchu rulers who might have favored horseback riding and martial prowess more than Han Chinese culture, they don’t think martial arts was higher than intellectual pursuit, they just didn’t think it’s that lowly an activity.

Chinese culture traditionally values intellectual pursues more than physical ones. A real man, or in this case, a gentleman (君子) is defined by his character, his intelligence, and his willingness to build a better society for the lesser men (and women) using his pen (instead of his sword).

That is not to say that Chinese style masculinity is not toxic. We have our own toxic masculinity all the same. It’s just we don’t particularly value aggression in men.


I have had many comments (usually from men) talking about how toxic masculinity is BS. And I shouldn’t use that word.

OK.

Let’s talk about toxic masculinity.

The most common rhetoric is that while the idea of masculinity is fine, some aspects of masculinity can be toxic. For example, in the US, boys are allowed, sometimes even encouraged to resolve issues using violence. Men are not allowed to express or discuss their emotions, except anger. Men are expected to deal with their mental issues on their own, with alcohol. Pop media glorify the “alcoholic lone hero” stereotype.

I think we have progressed enough to realize that those stereotypes are damaging to men. But people would argue, what is wrong for men to be strong, brave, protecting the weak, stand up for what is right?

Well, nothing wrong with that. But none of those features should be “men only”. Everyone, regardless of their gender, can and should be strong (in character), brave, willing to stand up for what is right. It is not masculinity, it is being a decent human being.

Similarly, I don’t think any of the traditionally feminine characteristics such as “detail orientated”, “caring and loving”, “good with children”, should be women-only traits.

So if you ask me, the moment you assign a certain aspect of humanity to a certain gender, it becomes toxic.

The moment you start measuring men and women with traditional masculine or feminine features, the moment you start talking about people are not man enough or woman enough because they didn’t do this or that, the moment you assign a gender to a personality trait, it becomes toxic.

So yes, the entire idea of “masculinity”, that somehow you need to behave a certain way to be considered “man enough”, that entire idea is toxic.

People came to me saying “well, I play music and I read books, how dare you tell me I’m not man enough?”

I’m not telling you anything. If you get so triggered by the mere word of “toxic masculinity” and you have to write a 10-page essay telling an internet stranger how manly you are…

well, you’re an example of toxic masculinity.


The notes of this answer are longer than the answer itself… but I need to explain this shit.

I got quite a few of you “Chinese experts” telling me that recently Chinese government had been pushing this “against feminine men” propaganda movement.

And yes, from the surface, it seems that the Chinese government is promoting a certain type of masculinity that is compatible with the traditional western “macho man” stereotype.

But the propaganda movement is not about pushing men to be more macho. No. The movement is about pushing people (men and women) to get married and have children.

China is facing populating aging problem. And their 30 years of single-child policy made the situation a lot worse. They recently had loosened the policy and allowed families to have two children. However, contrary to what they must have expected, single women do not want to get married, mothers with one child do not want to have a second child.

And about the same time, social media and public opinion started to talk about Chinese men being “gigantic babies”. After all, all the marriage age people are from single-child families. Men are considered to be irresponsible, selfish, didn’t care about the family,never growing up and take the responsibility”.

The government started to create public opinion against the popular “youth” culture, which was led primarily by Korean boybands.

Of course, the actual reason that a lot of women do not want to get married is that getting married means giving up their careers, having children even more so. Those who already have one child do not want to have a second child because raising one child is already hard/expensive enough.

But all of these are difficult social issues without simple solutions.

Now keep in mind that the Chinese government was dominated by economists and mathematicians. That’s why they’re very good with economic policies and very very… very bad with social progressive changes.

Remember that time when they banned game consoles for 15 years because they thought kids might get addicted to video games?

It’s this level of stupidity and ignorance of sociology that get us policies like this. They don’t understand large-scale misogyny is the real reason women don’t want to have children, but sure let’s write some sensational articles about how the younger generation lost their manhood. That will sure get men to become responsible adults.

And you lot reading translated articles from CNN or whatever, thinking you

Nike’s End of Men

Why Nike no longer wants us to Be Like Mike

“Hey bro! Check out this Nike ad!” This was my entry point into a new world.

I transferred dorms because a clerical quirk sent me to the “Substance Free” building, not that there’s anything wrong with being substance free. It’s just that the choice is its own selection bias of people who opted out of college as we commonly know it. The people in my hall were nice but … different. On Day 1, the effusively odd RA had nicknamed me “Ethanol.” Both my roommates spent weekends with their families, as did so many in the building. This was, perhaps, all commendably wholesome behavior, and should be more of a mainstream practice, but it made for an eerily silent atmosphere during the time when the rest of campus was partying. One day, the friendly RA changed my nickname from Ethanol to “Chuh-Chuh-Oh,” a reference to ethanol’s chemical formula script of CH3−CH2−OH. That night, I filled out the transfer form for a different dorm and a new life.

My new roommate was named Carlos and he’d split his time growing up between San Francisco and Guatemala before landing here as a transfer student at age 21. Within the first hour of meeting, he asked me, “Do you drink?” and pulled a rum bottle out of the minifridge. Carlos could get booze. Legally. Like a grownup. So naturally I assumed this worldly individual knew everything and I needed to learn. He certainly was game to teach, imposing harsh lessons when I came up short over the course of our friendship. There was that one morning, after I got too drunk to ask out my future wife, when I awoke to his getting me off the couch with the painful crack whip of a belt. But I digress.

Since Carlos had lived mostly outside the United States, he was able to follow soccer on a level I’d never encountered in my hometown. Back then, before social media and the advent of scarf-wearing Northwestern fútbol hipsters, big-time European soccer was like the metric system: Known to almost all but ourselves. But Carlos knew, and immediately used LimeWire to curate me a massive archive of 1990s through early 2000s soccer highlights. What was I doing in the world without them?

Oddly enough, in trying to inculcate me in soccer fandom, he started not with game highlights, but with the advertisements. Yes, Carlos was an educator and a voluntary footsoldier for Big Apparel. Going in, I had no clue about high-quality, internationally popular Nike soccer ads. The ads, written by the legendary Wieden+Kennedy firm, were miniature movies, films that were often creatively daring but also quite funny. The most popular of these ads might be “Good vs. Evil,” from 1996, where Nike’s best soccer players team up to play Satan’s literal army. The blending of sacrilege, theology and comedy just worked, like a more ambitious version of Space Jam that somehow took itself less seriously than Space Jam.

Action movies of this era usually featured a hero who coolly tagged his kills with a catchphrase and this ad was no exception. Extremely French superstar Eric Cantona pops his collar, his trademark look, and calmly intones, “Au revoir,” before literally killing Satan with a fiery screamer of a goal, right through Beelzebub’s belly. This ad rules. 10 out of 10. It’s no wonder it ascended to the level of college dude-bonding material. I must have watched it dozens of times that year.

Yes, I know ads aren’t supposed to be high art. I understand that they are the purest distillation of manipulative greed. And yet, they sometimes are culturally relevant generational touchstones. While Nike was weaving soccer into enduring pop culture abroad, it was having a similar kind of success with basketball and baseball stateside. These ads weren’t just pure ephemera. Michael Jordan’s commercials were so good that, as he nears age 60, his sneaker still outsells any modern athlete’s.Chicks dig the long ball” is a phrase (a) that can get you sent to the modern HR department and b) whose origins are fondly remembered by most American men over the age of 35.

Modern Nike ads will never be so remembered. It’s not because we’re so inundated with information these days, though we are. And it’s not because today’s overexposed athletes lack the mystique of the 1990s superstars, though they do. It’s because the modern Nike ads are beyond fucking terrible.


Existence Dissonance and Its Discontents 

They’re bad for many causes, but one in particular is an incongruity at the company’s heart. Nike, like so many major institutions, is suffering from what I’ll call Existence Dissonance. It’s happening in a particular way, for a particular reason and the result is that what Nike is happens to be at cross-purposes from what Nike aspires to be.

From Sara Germano’s excellent Financial Times article on Nike’s civil war:

“It’s been a tumultuous period for Nike,” says Trevor Edwards, the former brand president of the company who left in 2018. “It is so based on passion for sport, passion for the Nike brand, and that passion is starting to dissipate internally.” The result is one of the most challenging moments in the company’s history. It must contend not only with a radical shift in retail strategies but also the wider cultural reckoning with the intersection of race, gender and power. In interviews with current and former employees, industry executives, consumers and retail partners, divisions emerge over how to tackle such issues while remaining true to the spirit that has set the brand apart from other sportswear manufacturers. One question looms above the rest: is it the end of an era for Nike?

For all the talk of a racial reckoning within major industries, Nike’s main problem is this: It’s a company built on masculinity, most specifically Michael Jordan’s alpha dog brand of it. Now, due to its own ambitions, scandals, and intellectual trends, Nike finds masculinity problematic enough to loudly reject.

This rejection is part of the broader culture war, but it’s accelerating due to an arcane quirk in the apparel giant’s strange restructuring plan, announced in June. Under the leadership of new CEO John Donahoe, Nike is moving away from its classic discrete sports categories (Nike Basketball, Nike Soccer, etc.) in favor of a system where all products are shoveled into one of three divisions: men’s, women’s and kids’. Obviously Nike made clothing tailored to the specificities of all these groups before, but now, Nike is emphasizing gender over sport. Gone is the model of the product appealing to basketball fans because they are basketball fans. It’s now replaced by a model of, say, the product appealing to women because they are women.

And hey, women buy sneakers too. Actually, women buy the lion’s share of clothing in the United States. While women shoppers are market dominant in nearly every aspect of American apparel, the clothing multinational named after a Greek goddess happens to be a major exception. At Nike, according to its own recordsmen account for roughly twice as much revenue as women do.

You might see that stat and think, “Well, this means that Nike will prioritize men over women in its new, odd, gendered segmentation of the company.” That’s not necessarily how this all works, thanks to a phenomenon I’ll call Undecided Whale. The idea is that a company, as its aims grow more expansive, starts catering less to the locked-in core customer and more to a potential whale which demonstrates some interest. Sure, you can just keep doing what’s made you rich, but how can you even focus on your primary business with that whale out there, swimming so tantalizingly close? The whale, should you bring it in, has the potential to enrich you far more than your core customers ever did. And yeah yeah yeah, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, but those were birds. This is a damned whale! And so you start forgetting about your base.

You can see this dynamic in other places. For the NBA, China is its Undecided Whale. It could be argued that the NBA fixates more on China than on America, even if the vast majority of TV money comes from U.S. viewership. The league figures it has more or less hit its ceiling in its home country, so China becomes an obsession as this massive, theoretical growth engine.

Similarly at Nike, male purchasing power is taken as given. They are the Decided Dolphins or whatever extended animal metaphor you wish to use. So, it’s the Undecided Whale of women who present as that glorious bridge to the future and thus drive company strategy. Nike is one of the world’s biggest apparel companies despite lagging with women? Imagine if it didn’t lag?! That’s the thinking, anyway. On to wooing the whale!

Here’s the main issue for Nike in this endeavor: The company, as a raison d’être, promotes athletic excellence. While women are among Nike’s major sports stars, the core of high-level performance, in the overwhelming majority of sports, is male. Every sane person knows that, though nobody in professional class life seems rude enough to say so. Obviously, there’s the observable reality of who tends to set records and there’s also the pervasive understanding that testosterone, the main male sex hormone, happens to give unfair advantages to the athletes who inject it.

Speaking of which, there’s a famous This American Life episode from 2002 where the public radio journos actually test their own testosterone levels. The big joke of the episode is just how comically low their T levels are. Sure, you would stereotype bookish public radio men in this way, and yet the results are on the nose enough to shock.

As a nerdy media-weakling type, I can relate to the stunning realization that you’ve been largely living apart from T. Before working in the NBA setting, I was an intern in the cubicles of Salon.com’s San Francisco office, around the time it was shifting from respectable online magazine into inane outrage content mill. Going from that setting to the NBA locker room was some jarring whiplash, like leaving the faculty lounge for a pirate ship. To quote Charles Barkley on the latter culture, “The locker room is sexist, racist, and homophobic … and it’s fun and I miss it.”

The NBA world conversations were loud, rude and hilarious, without regard to sensitivities, absent the competing empathies that obsessed Salon’s writers. After big games, you could sense that cathartic release of adrenaline in the air, as large men bellowed and talked their shit. You could get bullied out of nowhere. What are you wearing? Did your mom pick that out? A buddy who worked for a team told me that Shaquille O’Neal had a tendency to get naked, tackle the team trainer and mock hump the poor guy. And that was fine because it was funny to everyone present and whatever was funny could be allowed. In this world of physical competition, there are no rules, only codes. It’s how the sausage gets made, so to speak, before the public is served a sanitized version of giant dudes fighting a simulated battle.

If you’re committed to marketing sports overall, you’re marketing, at the very least, a brand of masculinity. Dominating your opponents isn’t the only way to be a man and doing so isn’t exclusively the province of men, but the act itself is a disproportionately male endeavor, and also something that really appeals to male audiences. The nation that contains more female than male sports fans … doesn’t exist. 

Nike sold the public this rented masculinity, year after year, and the public bought it, including the many women who found Nike’s pitchmen and products to be charismatic. Michael Jordan was a hypercompetitive alpha male asshole who viciously humiliated not just his opponents, but his teammates as well. The millions who tuned in for the Last Dance documentary found these dark impulses of his to be highly captivating.

What the viewers were drawn to in Jordan, what the ensuing memes drew off of, was what Jennifer Lawrence’s character in American Hustle theorized about a good perfume scent: “Historically, the best perfumes in the world, they’re all laced with something nasty.” So yes, masculinity is toxic. And that’s also what people love about it, similar to how they’re addicted to the rotten rinds in cheese. All that striving for greatness is indivisible from the selfish need to inflict cruelty on your dominated foe. Take away the latter and there is no sports. It’s just exercise.

Now we have Nike producing ads directly against the kind of “toxic masculinity that made The Last Dance a runaway hit. In an article titled, “Marcus Rashford boots toxic masculinity out of frame in Nike ad,” a writer describes a talking soccer ball whose spiel seems to be right out of the MJ mindset, if not the Black Mamba’s:

First of all, you’ve got to be greedy! I’m looking for that nasty streak. You don’t ask, you take. You’re either the star of the show or a loser,” the tough Cockney football growls his outdated advice, exemplifying the nasty side of the sport.

With a kick, the toxic football is booted out of frame before he can voice any more of old-school spiel. Heralding in a new era of sport, the nasty football has been punted out by Marcus Rashford MBE, who has made a name as a formidable voice for social justice.

A nasty streak is bad? It’s awful to “take” in the realm of competition? Soccer is a bit different from basketball culturally, but if Nike’s depiction of an “old-school” soccer mentality is real, it’s not that much different. It’s all about crushing your enemies, mercilessly, be they perfectly nice gentlemen or the devil himself. Au revoir.


Soccer

The “Good vs. Evil” ad boasts a “Like” to “Dislike” ratio of 20-to-1 on YouTube. On June 17th of 2021, Nike put out an ad ahead of the Euro Cup that referenced “Good vs. Evil” as briefly as it could. In this case, a little child popped his collar and used Cantona’s catchphrase. As of this writing, the new ad has earned a thousand more punches of the Dislike than of the Like button.

When you see it, it’s no surprise that the latest Euro Cup ad is disliked. I mean, you have to look at this shit. I know we’re so numb to the ever-escalating emanations of radical chic from our largest corporations, but sometimes it’s worth pausing just to take stock and gawk.

The Wieden+Kennedy Euro Cup spot begins with a zaftig girl yelling, “We celebrate the birth of a new land! The land of new football.” And look, I didn’t want to draw attention to a real-life kid’s appearance, but I’m not mentioning any names and this is Substack, not Twitter, so perhaps we can assume some containment of unflattering descriptions. It’s worth mentioning the choice because typically Nike uses an athletic demigod to sell its product. It’s a tried-and-true model. You want to be like a great-looking athletic superstar with 0% body fat, right? You want to transform yourself into something more similar to peak human performance, correct? Well, you can start by wearing these shoes.

But today we are in the land of new football, where we take dictatorial direction from less-than-athletic minors. After her announcement, we are treated to a montage of different people who offer tolerance bromides.

“There are no borders here!”

“Here, you can be whoever you want. Be with whoever you want.”

(Two men kiss following that line, because subtlety isn’t part of this new world order.)

Then, a woman who appears to be breastfeeding under a soccer shirt, threatens, in French, “And if you disagree …”

And this is when the little boy gives us Cantona’s “au revoir” line before kicking a ball out of a soccer stadium, presumably because that’s what happens to the ignorant soccer hooligan. He gets kicked out for raging against gay men kissing or French ladies breastfeeding or somesuch. Later, a referee wearing a hijab instructs us, “Leave the hate,” before narrator girl explains, “You might as well join us because no one can stop us.”

Is that last line supposed to be … inspiring? That’s what a movie villain says, like if Bane took the form of Stan Marsh’s sister. Speaking of which, was this ad actually written by the creators of South Park as an elaborate prank? It’s certainly more convincing as an aggressive parody of liberals than as a sales pitch. Why, in anything other than a comedic setup, is a woman breastfeeding in a big-budget Euro Cup ad?

It’s tempting to fall into the pro-vanguardism template the boomers have handed down to us and sheepishly say, “I must be getting old, because this seems weird to me,” but let’s get real. You dislike this ad because it sucks. You are having a natural, human response to shitty art. This a hollow sermon from a priest whose sins were in the papers. Nobody is impressed by what Nike’s doing here. Nobody thinks Nike, a multinational famous for its sweatshops, is ushering us into an enlightened utopia. Sure, most media types are afraid to criticize the ad publicly. You might inspire suspicion that what you’re secretly against is men kissing and women breastfeeding, but nobody actually likes the stupid ad. No college kid would show it to a new friend he’s trying to impress, and it’s hard to envision a massive cohort of Gen Z women giving a shit about this ad either.

Now juxtapose that ad not just against the classics of the 1990s but also the 2000s products that preceded the Great Awokening. Compare it to another Nike Euro Cup advertisement, Guy Ritchie’s “Take It to the Next Level.”

Now this is a hell of a soccer ad. It slickly transports you to a realistic POV of what life is like at the absolute height of competition. Not only do you follow a story arc, but you bounce around to different aspects of a stardom journey. People love it, as evidenced by this ad reaping 22,000 Likes to a mere 301 Dislikes as of this writing.

Here’s the problem, insofar as problems are pretended into existence by our media class: The ad is very, very male. Really, what we are watching here is a boyhood fantasy. Our protagonist gets called up to the big show, and next thing you know he’s cavorting with multiple ladies, and autographing titties to the chagrin of his date. He can be seen buying a luxury sports car and arriving at his childhood home in it as his father beams with pride. Training sessions show him either puking from exhaustion or playing grab-ass with his fellow soccer bros. This is jock life, distilled. Art works when it’s true and it’s true that this is a vivid depiction of a common fantasy realized.

Nike’s highly successful “Write the Future” ad (16,000 Likes, 257 Dislikes) works along similar themes.

The 2010 World Cup spot plays on the idea of how history might revere the tournament’s winner or scorn the loser. Ah, a history fixation. So dorkily, stereotypically male, as Mark Corrigan might attest.

It is not a politically correct ad, in part because it features cultural stereotypes of the nations involved. The stereotypes just happen to be dead on, and funny, especially in the section that covers angsty England. Again, art works when it’s true. That’s perhaps not exactly why the ad would be wrongthink at today’s Nike, though. It wouldn’t be made at today’s Nike because it depicts winning as glorious and losing as humiliating. The former can be tolerated, but the latter is just too damn mean. Toxic, even. The new Nike spin on “Just Do It,” is basically, “At Least You Tried.”


Basketball

Nike’s basketball ads are garbage now as well. Quick, think of the last one that was great. You’ve an impressive memory or remarkably low standards if you instantly called up something from the past five years that wasn’t this Kobe retirement ad from 2016. Team USA basketball should have provided a nice launching pad for some Nike spots, but no.

The recent Olympic ads were especially heavy on cringe radical chic, and might have stood out less in this respect if the athletes themselves mirrored that tone on the big stage. Not so much in these Olympics. It seems as though Nike made the commercials in preparation for an explosion of telegenic activism, only to see American athletes mostly, quietly accept their medals, chomp down on the gold, and praise God or country. Perhaps you could consider Simone Biles bowing out of events due to mental health as a form of activism, but overall, the athletes basically behaved in the manner they would have back in 1996.

But Nike forged onwards anyway. This ad in celebration of the U.S. women’s basketball team made some waves, getting ripped in conservative media as the latest offense by woke capital.

“Today I have a presentation on dynasties,” a pink-haired teenage girl tells us. “But I refuse to talk about the ancient history and drama. That’s just the patriarchy. Instead, I’m going to talk about a dynasty that I actually look up to. An all-women dynasty. Women of color. Gay women. Women who fight for social justice. Women with a jump shot. A dynasty that makes your favorite men’s basketball, football, and baseball teams look like amateurs.”

When she says, “That’s just the patriarchy,” the camera pans to a bust of (I think) Julius Caesar. At another point, the girl says, “A dynasty that makes Alexander the Great look like Alexander the Okay.” Fuck you, Classical Antiquity. Fuck you, fans of teams. You’re all just the patriarchy. Or something.

Nike could easily sell the successful American women’s basketball team without denigrating other teams, genders and ancient Mediterranean empires that have nothing to do with this. Could but won’t. The company now conveys an almost visceral need for women to triumph over men because … well, nobody really explains why, even if it has something to do with Undecided Whaling. In Nike’s tentpole Olympics ad titled “Best Day Ever,” the narrator fantasizes about the future, declaring, “The WNBA will surpass the NBA in popularity!” ​

By comparison, the scornful U.S. women’s basketball team ad makes some sense. While it’s perhaps poor form that the ad’s star denigrates men so as to appeal to women, at least the ad is about celebrating a women’s team specifically. In that context, I guess you can understand some battle of the sexes shit-talking, even if the content gets fairly insane. But the general Nike ad, the one featuring all the main sports, wishing for a future in which the WNBA surpasses the NBA? Doesn’t equal but surpasses?

The NBA built Nike into a behemoth and now Nike tells the world it wants the WNBA to surpass it. If that reality is even possible, it probably includes broke Nike executives jumping out of windows. Hilariously, Nike also tells the world, “The only problem with the WNBA is you’re not watching it”. They aren’t marketing greatness anymore. They’re marketing resentful insecurity. But why?


Middle-Up Revolution

There are theories on the emergence of woke capital, with many having observed that, following Occupy Wall Street, media institutions ramped up on census category grievance. The thinking goes that, in response to the threat of a real economic revolution, the power players in our society pushed identity politics to undermine group solidarity. Well, that was a fiendishly brilliant plan, if anyone actually hatched it.

I’m not so convinced, though, as I’m more inclined to believe that a lot of history happens by happenstance. If we’re to specifically analyze the Nike Awokening, there is a recent top-down element of a mandate for Undecided Whaling, but that mandate was preceded by a socially conscious middle class campaign within the company.

This isn’t unique to Nike, either. Given my past life covering the team that tech moguls root for, I’ve run into such people. They aren’t, by and large, ideological. Very few are messianically devoted to seeing the world through the intersectionality lens. They are, however, terrified of their employees who feel this way. The mid-tier labor force, this cohort who actually internalized their university teachings, are full of fervor and willing to risk burned bridges in favor of causes they deem righteous. The big bosses just don’t want a headline-making walkout on their hands, so they placate and mollify, eventually bending the company’s voice into language of righteousness.

In 2018, a New York Times article detailed the middle-up “revolt” within Nike, driven by women who had enough of an “environment that had turned toxic.” According to the report, the Nike company culture wasn’t so far from that of the locker room, which will run you into some problems when your locker room employs 75,000 people, with both sexes included. Even if Nike had thrived over the decades, its ways didn’t seem sustainable in the modern world. Finally, a concerted push from middle class female employees led to multiple high-profile male ousters, including the aforementioned Trevor Edwards. From the NYT:

Finally, fed up, a group of women inside Nike’s Beaverton, Ore., headquarters started a small revolt. Covertly, they surveyed their female peers, inquiring whether they had been the victim of sexual harassment and gender discrimination. Their findings set off an upheaval in the executive ranks of the world’s largest sports footwear and apparel company. On March 5, the packet of completed questionnaires landed on the desk of Mark Parker, Nike’s chief executive. Over the next several weeks, at least six top male executives left or said they were planning to leave the company, including Trevor Edwards, president of the Nike brand, who was widely viewed as a leading candidate to succeed Mr. Parker, and Jayme Martin, Mr. Edwards’s lieutenant, who oversaw much of Nike’s global business.

In the aftermath, the company has externalized the turmoil within through the ads mentioned above, blasting out self-conscious lectures towards the blameless masses. It reminds of how, with the advent of #MeToo, we were treated to sermonizing awards show speech after sermonizing awards show speech from actors blaming broader society, as though Hollywood wasn’t especially depraved. Yes, Joe in Iowa, our grotesque behavior means it’s time for YOU to start treating women better. Got it??

All the guilt and atonement transference make for bad art. And so the ads suck. There’s no Machiavellian conspiracy behind the production. It’s just a combination of desperately wanting female market share and desperately wanting to move on from the publicized sins of a masculine past. So, to message its ambitions, the exhausted corporation leans on the employees with the loudest answers.

There’s a lot of interplay between Nike and Wieden+Kennedy when the former asks the latter for a type of ad, but the through line from both sides is a lot of cooks in the kitchen. Based on conversations with people who’ve worked in both environments, there’s a dearth of personnel who are deeply connected to sports. In place of a grounding in a subculture, you’re getting ideas from folks who went to nice colleges and trendy ad schools, the type of people who throw words like “patriarchy” at the screen to celebrate a gold medal victory. The older leaders, uneasy in their station and thus obsessed with looking cutting edge, lean on the younger types because the youth are confident. Unfortunately, that confidence is rooted in an ability to regurgitate liturgy, rather than generative genius. They’ve a mandate to replace a marred past, which they leap at, but they’re incapable of inventing a better future.

Meanwhile, Nike’s growth has sputtered. From Germano, again:

By the end of the decade, the company’s succession planning — and its numbers — were in turmoil. Nike had told investors it planned to hit $16bn in sales directly to consumers by 2020; at the end of fiscal 2019, the figure was barely $12bn.

Nike’s existential dissonance has derailed its journey. Still, the megacorp should be fine, at least in the near term. The issue with a phrase like, “Get Woke, Go Broke,” is that some corporations have a near-monopolistic grip on a market. Nike’s next 10 ads could just be Megan Rapinoe solemnly humming “Fight Song,” and they’ll still be profitable, mostly because those scorned men will keep buying the product.

Ironically, Nike mattered a lot more in the days when its position was less dominant. Back when it had to really fight for market share, it made bold, genre-altering art. The ads were synonymous with masculine victory, plus they were cheekily irreverent. And so the dudes loved them. Today, Nike is something else. It LARPs as a grandiose feminist nonprofit as it floats aimlessly on the vessel Michael Jordan built long ago. Like Jordan himself, Nike is rich forever off what it can replicate never. Unlike Jordan, it now wishes to be known for anything but its triumphs. Nike once told a story and that story resonated with its audience. Now it’s decided that its audience is the problem. It wouldn’t shock you to learn that Carlos hated the new Nike ads I texted to him. His exact words were, “I don’t want fucking activism from a sweatshop monopoly.” He’ll still buy the gear, though, just not the narrative. Nike remains, but the story about itself has run out. Au revoir.

Hypermasculinity

Hypermasculinity is a psychological term for the exaggeration of male stereotypical behavior, such as an emphasis on physical strengthaggression, and sexuality. This term has been used ever since the research conducted by Donald L. Mosher and Mark Sirkin in 1984. Mosher and Sirkin operationally define hypermasculinity or the “macho personality” as consisting of three variables:

  • Callous sexual attitudes toward women
  • The belief that violence is manly
  • The experience of danger is exciting

They developed the Hypermasculinity Inventory (HMI) designed to measure the three components.[1] Research has found that hypermasculinity is associated with sexual and physical aggression towards women[2][3][4] and perceived gay men.[2] Prisoners have higher hypermasculinity scores than control groups.[5]

 

Emotion[edit]

While popular identification of hypermasculine traits tends to revolve around the outward physical aspects of violence, danger and sexual aggression, much less consideration is given to the emotive characteristics that define those men deemed “hypermasculine”. Hypermasculine attitudes can also include emotional self-control as a sign of toughness.[6] To be emotionally hardened or indifferent, especially toward women, is to display what Thomas Scheff calls “character” – composure and impassiveness in times of great stress or emotion.[7] Of this hypermasculine stoicism, Scheff observes, “it is masculine men that have ‘character’. A man with character who is under stress is not going to cry and blubber like a woman or child might.”

Self-imposed emotional monitoring by men has also greatly affected the conditions in which they communicate with women.[6] Ben-Zeev, Scharnetzki, Chan and Dennehy (2012) write of a recent study that has shown many men to deliberately avoid behaviours and attitudes such as compassion and emotional expression, deeming these traits feminine and thus rejecting them altogether. Scheff adds, “The hypermasculine pattern leads to competition, rather than connection between persons.”[7] In the context of intimate or emotional communication (especially confrontation) with women, the masculine male often withdraws emotionally, refusing to engage in what is termed affective communication (Scheff). In a similar study of affective communication behaviours, gender contrast – the deliberate or subconscious negation by one sex of the behaviours of the other – was far more evident within the young boys used as test subjects than of the girls.

Where this insistence on emotional indifference manifests in the physical definitions of hyper masculinity is discussed by Scheff: “Repressing love and the vulnerable emotions (grief, fear and shame, the latter as in feelings of rejection or disconnection) leads to either silence or withdrawal, on the one hand, or acting out anger (flagrant hostility), on the other. The composure and poise of hypermasculinity seems to be a recipe for silence and violence.[7]

In visual media[edit]

Ben-Zeev, Scharnetzki, Chang and Dennehy point toward images in the media as the most important factor influencing hypermasculine behaviour, stating “After all, media does not only reflect cultural norms but can and does transform social reality”.[6] This is based on the fact that physical and emotional elements of hypermasculine behaviour are manifested regularly in advertising, Hollywood film, and even in video games through the use of very strong imagery: muscular men overpowering women in advertisements, actors portraying staunch male characters who do not give in to the emotional appeals of their female counterparts and countless video games whose story lines are based strictly on violence. The constant availability of these images for every-day public viewing and use has indeed paved the way for the construction of a system of re-enactment (consciously or unconsciously) by both men and women, of the values they perpetuate (Ben-Zeev et al.).[6]

Brian Krans describes the results of a study in which advertisements in men’s magazines were analyzed for hypermasculine appeal: “The team found that at least one hypermasculinity variable appeared in 56 percent of the 527 advertisements they identified. Some magazines’ advertisements included hypermasculine messages a whopping 90 percent of the time.[8] Krans reports that the researchers were concerned that such ads, which are generally aimed at young male audiences, are playing a very prominent role in shaping the still-developing attitudes toward gender of these young men.

In the gaming industry, hypermasculinity is experienced mainly through the fantastic and often violent situations presented in the gameplay, and as well by the typical design and character traits of the playable characters: often powerfully built, bold and full of bravado and usually armed. “The choice of female characters and actions within games leaves women with few realistic, non-sexualized options“, while female characters, like Lara Croft, are but illusions of female empowerment, and instead serve only to satisfy the gaze of men.[9]

Hypermasculine styles in gay male culture are prominent in gay disco groups of the 1970s such as Village People, and are reflected in the BDSM gay subculture depicted in the film Cruising (1980). The term “hypermasculine” also characterizes a style of erotic art in which male figure’s muscles and penis/testicles are portrayed as being unrealistically large and prominent. Gay artists who exploit hypermasculine types include Tom of Finland and Gengoroh Tagame.

An article titled “Marketing Manhood in a ‘Post-Feminist’ Age” by Kristen Barber and Tristan Bridges also highlights the existence of hypermasculine traits in advertising. Old Spice, a predominantly male hygiene brand, used an image of Isaiah Mustafa in a tub dressed as a cowboy with the slogan “Make Sure Your Man Smells Like a Man” to advertise for their products. Both Barber and Bridges find that the ad is problematic because of the subliminal support for the idea that a distinct so-called masculine scent exists and the fact that it seeks to perpetuate stereotypical male characteristics. The advertisement also strategically dresses Mustafa as a cowboy to represent a hardworking, rough man in an attempt to create a greater appeal towards men to look and smell like him.[10]

Effect on women[edit]

The media’s influence in creating gendered behaviours operates strongly upon women. In the same way that male consumers seek to conform to the physical and emotional characteristics predicated by stereotypes in visual media, so too do women tend to fall into the trap of conforming to the imagined social norms.[8] Only, the media encourages them to fulfill the roles of the submissive and subservient women depicted in advertisements and commercials; in other words, the system pressures women to assume their roles as the focal points of the violence and sexual callousness of men. “Advertisements depicting men as violent (particularly towards women) is disturbing, because gender portrayals in advertisements do more than sell products. They also perpetuate stereotypes and present behavioural norms for men and women.”[7]

Effect on men[edit]

Societal expectations have propagated the formation of gender roles between what is deemed masculine and feminine. However, these gender roles can have negative impacts of men and their mental wellbeing. If a man is unable to meet the designated masculine criteria, it can oftentimes lead to feelings of insecurity, inferiority, and overall psychological distress.[11] Some may also believe that an inability to live up to a certain gender role may jeopardize their social capital in their communities.

Effect on race[edit]

Scholars assert that colonizers’ perception of the colonial black subject as an uncivilizedprimitive, “irrational nonsubject[12] served as justification for the traumas inflicted on them, and that the legacy of such a perception is still evident in today’s society. As a means of resistance, black men project hyper-masculinity in order to combat the feelings of powerlessness that are imposed on them by an “abusive and repressive” society.[13] However, this merging of black identity and masculinity has “overdetermine[d] the identities black males are allowed to fashion for themselves”,[14] perpetuating negative stereotypes of all black men as inherently violent and dangerous.

This continued stereotype of aggression and hyper-masculinity is due to the environment in which young African American males are raised. Adolescents raised in distressed communities are more inclined to adhere to violence and this is due to the multiple factors that coerce violence in these communities.[15] These factors support the notion of community violence, being exposed continuously to the use of guns, knives, and drugs.[16] Research has shown that 45% and 96% of African American youth that live in urban areas have seen community violence from assault to murder.[17] This continuous exposure to violence brings a normality of the idea that aggression supports authority.[18] This sense of a need to hold authority is a crucial development that leads to hyper-masculinity in black men.

Other than the environment, another imperative factor to a child’s growth are the parents or adults that surround them. These relationships are a big variable in the growth and development of the youth.[19] They are measured by Social Capital which is the amount of time parents spend with their children, how close they are to each other, and anything that is given to the children that will increase their social development.[20] One main factor that decides a child’s relationship and view of authority is based on the parents’ strictness.[21] This strictness is shown by parents controlling their sons and enforcing an expectation of masculinity. For example, expecting them not to cry, to deal with problems themselves and even forcing them to play sports. Young black men that were raised in a strict environment tend to have done better in school and socially, but they also tend to believe they have more authority as they grow older, especially as a man.[22] It is a stereotype that African American families lean towards being more strict than others. This parenting strategy of being strict or harder on young African American boys causes them to suppress their emotions due to this misguided notion that this makes them more of a man.[23] For example, famous actor Will Smith raises his sons in an unorthodox way. He treats his children equally to any other adult which reduces the amount of authority they seek and the amount of masculinity his sons feel they need. A quote from the famous artist Donald Glover describes the anger that many black males hold for their own hyper-masculinity. He says “Black men struggle with masculinity so much. The idea that we must always be strong really presses us all down – it keeps us from growing.”

In his 2002 book Soul Babies: Black Popular Culture and the Post-Soul AestheticMark Anthony Neal states that black masculinity became synonymous with a unified black identity during the Civil Rights Movement. Neal claims that the hyper-masculinity translated as violence within the black community to protect from violence directed at the black community from white America. Black gays and women were sometimes censured outright in an effort to merge black identity with masculinity. Huey P. Newton, in an effort to improve ties, wrote an essay to advocate for a stronger alliance between black political organizations and the women and gay members of their community.[24] In it, he admitted that this popularity of hypermasculinity drives a tendency towards violence and silencing of women and gay men, which didn’t permit these marginalized members to become a part of the black identity.

“Who’s the Man?”: Masculinities Studies, Terry Stops, and Police Training

to racially profile is a product of gender as well as race. If policemen are using Terry stops and frisks to play the game of “who’s the man?” rather than just to gather evidence of crime, then we need to change the gender dynamics of policing. I propose that we do so by changing the cultures of police forces. This can be achieved by establishing extensive training programs designed to root out the attitudes and rituals that perpetuate a macho police culture.2 ° In order to demonstrate that the Terry doctrine’s promotion of masculinity contests is a problem that ought to be addressed by training programs, this Article is structured as follows. In Part I, I propose a comprehensive theory of how masculinities affect policing. I review the hegemonic masculinities school of thought, which is the dominant school within masculinities studies, and identifies the following background

 

principles of the hegemonic pattern of masculinities 21 in the United States: (1) men’s concern with the opinions of other men;22 (2) anxiety over whether one has proved one’s manhood; 23 (3) a competitiveness reflected in a need to dominate other men and a general aggressiveness; 24 and (4) a denigration of contrast figures reflected in a repudiation of femininity and homosexuality as well as subordination of racial minorities. Next, I describe two manifestations of the hegemonic pattern of U.S. masculinity: (1) a chip-on-one’s-shoulder attitude known as the culture of honor stance and (2) an exaggeration of masculine qualities known as hypermasculinity. Then I identify two important aspects of the pattern of police officer masculinity that is hegemonic in the U.S.: (1) the predominance of command presence as a paradigm for police officer behavior and (2) the unofficial rule that police officers must punish disrespect. All of those aspects of masculinity come together to create and enhance the risk that policemen will enact command presence in order to stage masculinity contests with male civilians. Having developed a comprehensive theory of police officer masculinity, Part II tests and applies that theory by considering the Terry decision. First, I demonstrate that a crucial part of the decision seems to be animated by the assumptions behind the hegemonic patterns of U.S. and police officer masculinity.

Specifically, I suggest that part of the Terry Court’s refusal to exclude evidence obtained from stops and frisks not based on probable cause derives from its conclusion that officers sometimes initiate encounters with citizens for reasons unrelated to evidence gathering. 26 The Court later acknowledges that in such encounters, policemen may be “motivated by the officers’ perceived need to maintain the power image of the beat officer, an aim sometimes accomplished by humiliating anyone who attempts to undermine police control of the streets. 27 Part II also discusses how the Terry Court’s implicit assumption that officers will inevitably engage in masculinity contests is consistent with mainstream views about police at the time. This may have subtly led the Terry Court to favor an answer to the question of whether officers could conduct stops and frisks without probable cause that allowed officers to shore up their masculinity. Additionally, I show that contemporary incidents of police bullying by means of Terry stops and frisks which appear to be solely incidents of racial profiling are actually instances where race and masculinity intersect to produce the result. Having demonstrated the risk that police officers will turn Terry stops into masculinity contests, Part III proposes responding to such masculinity-based police bullying by changing the cultures of police forces. In this Part, I distinguish my views from those of legal scholar Angela Harris by arguing that the solution to masculinity-based police bullying is to train officers to enact command presence only when it is necessary, not to attempt a dramatic change from a punitive to a restorative model of 28 justice. Then I detail how training currently fails to properly instruct officers on when to enact command presence. Finally, I propose that police training explicitly address racial and gender stereotypes, and that officers be trained in how to verbally diffuse tense situations. Having explained how to get police officers to stop initiating masculinity contests, Part IV concludes by explaining why officers themselves would be better off if they stopped bullying civilians in futile attempts to maintain their image as “the man.” Before starting the substantive analysis, it will be helpful to note that the insights in this Article are most applicable to men. After all,