Macho Men

We might be on the verge of voting in our first female president so it seems only fitting that in its closing days this election has suddenly become about…

Masculinity.

Oh hey.

This is what happens in a country primarily ruled by men.

 And, in terms of the top job, ONLY ruled by men.

As a gay man I’ve always had an odd relationship with the “M” word. 

Macho. Effeminate. Toxic. Weak. Strong.  Hot.  Silent. Violent. Loving. Sensitive.  Kind. Caring.  Caretaker. Provider. Independent. Lone Wolf.  Alpha. Beta. Follower. Leader. President. King.

me

Searching for identity through the decades I can testify that nobody knows exactly what “M” is because it depends on the situation and, quite frankly, the month and the year and the decade that you ask.

This is why most men that I know choose to take what they want from one or more of the above categories, as well as from others of their own (Note: And/or from those passed on to them by their families), mix it all together in adolescence and through their twenties, and emerge as you see them, nee us, today.

A messy experiment in maleness that has no real definition and knows no bounds.  Or constraints.

Like.. whatever this is!

True, I’m being a little cute by half.  But some of us guys learn to do just that to confuse you.   Though mostly it’s to avoid giving you a definitive answer or read on who we are.

We try to pretend we’ve got secrets..  But usually, in our quiet moments, we’re simply just as confused as you are. Or anyone.

This weekend I went to see The Apprentice, aka the Donald Trump origin story, so you wouldn’t have to.  Actually, you should see it.  It’s gritty, troubling, never-boring and features two top notch performances by Sebastian Stan (Younger Trump) and Jeremy Strong (Younger Trump’s lawyer/mentor Roy Cohn).   

Oh my car phone

One of the things that might surprise you is that much of  DJT’s big, bold, amoral, ruthless faux “masculine” behavior was taught to him by a small, closeted, gay Jewish man from New York City in the 1970s. 

Okay, you might think you already know this but to actually see it fully dramatized on a great big movie screen is to finally really KNOW it. 

Me, on the way to the theater

Roy Cohn was a wealthy, powerful lawyer and kingmaker in New York.  A thoroughly corrupt but extremely successful man who traveled in the most exclusive monied circles in the city who rose to fame as lawyer for the disgraced 1950’s right wing Commie-chasing Senator Joseph McCarthy, and as the U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor who won a questionable espionage case against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and took public and very gleeful pride when it led to their electric chair executions in 1953 and left their two young children parentless.

But back to the film.

OK but only if we can talk about Ivana’s coat

To see a fangless, twenty-something wannabe, pudgy, nothingburger Trump from Queens literally on his knees worshipping at the feet of the silk suited, Satanic Cohn – locking eyes into his death stare as various male assistants and boyfriends linger about and help him do his dirty work – is one of the great juxtapositions of hateful masculine power broking I’ve ever witnessed.  

Whether it figuratively or literally happened in that moment, history and facts and Trump himself often credits Cohn’s three cold, creepy phrases as his North Star to success in life as a powerful and VERY Alpha Male.

  1. Attack, Attack, Attack
  2. Deny Everything and Admit Nothing (aka – What Is Truth?) – and –
  3. Never Admit Defeat (aka – Always Declare Victory)
Hear our prayer

The Cohn/Trump strongman is a fictional strawman packaged with a big red ribbon instead of a femmy pink one.  A shell game and a blame game whose only end game is winning at all costs.  In other words –personal gain. 

It is this breach of masculinity that former President Obama stepped into this past week at a rally for Kamala Harris in Pittsburgh. Addressing the Trump by way of Cohn brand, he spoke specifically to the men in that very large (Note: The LARGEST!)  crowd when he stated:

“I’m sorry, gentlemen, I’ve noticed…especially with some men who seem to think Trump’s behavior — the bullying and the putting people down — is a sign of strength…

Real strength is about working hard and carrying a heavy load without complaining. Real strength is about taking responsibility for your actions and telling the truth even when it’s inconvenient. Real strength is about helping people who need it and standing up for those who can’t always stand up for themselves.

Obama was more blunt at a small campaign office full of Black men later that day when he pushed the message further and more personally.  Noting that he was getting reports from the campaign that energy and turnout in black communities, especially among males, was not quite where it was when he was running, and that it “seems to be more pronounced with the brothers,” he told them point blank:

Part of it makes me think — and I’m speaking to men directly — part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that…. Well, women in our lives have been getting our backs this entire time… When we get in trouble and the system isn’t working for us, they’re the ones out there marching and protesting.”

Say that again

And for those on the fence, still tempted by the power brand of Trump, aka the strength he exudes, Obama had a calm, well-reasoned but extremely compelling contrast between the Black and Asian heritaged Kamala Harris and the Supremely White former president, and lawfully confirmed despite his inability to do so,  2020 presidential loser.

On the one hand, you have somebody who grew up like you, knows you, went to college with you, understands the struggles and pain and joy that comes from those experiences…And on the other side, you have someone who has consistently shown disregard, not just for the communities, but for you as a person.”

Will someone please pick up the mic?

It will be “interesting” to see whether a more evolved,  21st century type of “M” will break through the zeitgeist and allow the first woman in U.S. history, a woman of color no less,  to occupy the Oval Office.

Yes allow.  Because the old-fashioned kind does not cede the ground easily.

Village People – “Macho Man”

Forward Backward Thinking

The many fans of writer extraordinaire Aaron Sorkin’s TV fantasy of the presidency, The West Wing, were able to luxuriate in nostalgia this week.

Simpler times

In support of Michelle Obama’s When We All Vote, a non-partisan (Note: Ahem) organization that seeks to encourage voting in groups that too often sit out elections (e.g. young people, communities of color), HBO Max presented a staged reading, with the original cast, of Sorkin’s favorite WW episode — season 3’s Hartfield’s Landing.

This is where senior White House staff obsess about what the first reported presidential primary vote will be in a fictional 48-person New Hampshire town.  After all, the results will dominate the news all day and, if it goes well for the POTUS, it will set a positive tone for all the hoped for favorable press their boss will receive.

LOL remember when there was no news?

And, as we all now know, there is nothing more urgent than setting an upbeat tone in order to win the White House.  Right?

Well, history turns on a dime and what seemed urgent in 2002 and then became just plain silly in light of 2016 could easily, once again, become necessary in 2020.  Right?

Right Jon, right???

Sure!  As I explained to my students this week online via Zoom, because there’s been a deadly pandemic going on for the last eight months and we couldn’t possibly all be in the same room or breathe the same air, history swings like a pendulum – from left to right and back again.

To which one of them blurted out:

So,  when IS it going to swing back?

Yikes, good question #teachablemoment?

I, of course, immediately blurted back that they had to go out to the streets and, while safely socially distanced, swing it back the way they wanted.  Until I realized this was not only likely impossible but sounded like a Grade C imitation of the response Sorkin himself would give. 

Nor do I even believe it in the darker days of 2020.  Which, I confess, is most all of them.

Still, when you live in a purported democracy that’s about all you have, isn’t it?   It’s really just in how inspiring a way you can express it. 

Like a bad haircut, maybe it just needs time.

Well, Mr. Sorkin’s once again done an excellent job on that score as both writer and director in his latest film, The Trial of the Chicago 7. (Note…. the segue).

Dropping on Netflix just one day after the gauzy West Wing redux, his new Netflix offering (Note:  Because, well, our pandemic politics has shuttered most movie theatres and shoved this planned major theatrical release from Paramount right into your home stream) is anything but delicate.

Instead, it’s a theatrically cynical look back into history when the U.S. government was intent on using politics and every piece of the legal system, whether illegally or not, to punish and jail those who dare to take their protests onto the streets.

Look back? Who’s gonna tell him?

Side Note:  It seems particularly fitting it dropped after a week of Senate hearings aimed at putting arch Conservative (and self-possessed handmaid) Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the US Supreme Court.  When asked this week by a Republican senator to name the five freedoms the Bill or Rights guarantees for all Americans, Ms. Barrett could only think of four – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.

The one freedom that stumped her?

The right to petition the government for redress of grievances, OR, freedom to protest.

And there was laundry talk!

Fittingly enough, the clairvoyant Mr. Sorkin’s new legal drama takes us back in time to the late sixties, when this very issue was very, very VERY publicly spotlighted.  This was a time when the federal government, newly controlled by the uber conservative and freedom of protest loathing Richard Nixon, decided to charge a group of young and somewhat renowned and popular anti- Vietnam War protestors for conspiracy and crossing state lines with the intent to incite riots at the site of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

Your next Netflix watch

Take the antics of this cross-section of long and short-haired, hippie and preppy, respectful and comically stoned and disrespectful young people – and mix it with a real-life first amendment-hating and often blatantly racist judge tasked with carrying out those charges by newly installed and diabolically fascist federally empowered Nixon flunkies and, well, you can see where hilarity and mass national conflicts could ensue.

And where the comparable present-day hyperbole might begin.

It’s not a particularly pretty story to look back on, even with the much hoped for and very pithily delivered Sorkin bon mots.  But even if you don’t love Sacha Baron Cohen’s Borat movies or his borderline irredeemable prankster antics, you couldn’t experience anyone better portraying the late Yippie leader Abbie Hoffman, who famously feasted on yanking the chain of the establishment and even of his co-defendant Tom Hayden, the more straight-laced founder of Students for a Democratic Society so well evoked by Eddie Redmayne.

Also big hair moment

Ditto for so many others, including Frank Langella’s racist persecutor/Judge Hoffman, whose shared last name with Abbie is an ongoing joke, as well as a brief but memorable appearance by Michael Keaton as Ramsey Clarke, the much more liberal former attorney general from the previous Johnson administration.

It is the shifting of the pendulum of justice between left and right, liberal and conservative, and everything in between that gives the story of this Trial of the Chicago 7 its present day resonance.  At least for those of us hoping that this Election Day is about to once again cause a major shift back to what we used to think of as American sanity.

This. This. This. This. #VOTE

Yet at the same time it’s also this very issue that makes this movie inescapably scary.  As one watches the absolute conviction a single judge, backed by a new presidential administration, has towards enforcing racist and regressive views, and notes how willing both are to twist or even ignore the very laws it’s charged with enforcing in order to permanently silence those who oppose them, one can’t help but wonder — how many times CAN the pendulum shift back and forth before it all together cracks apart?

Sorkin’s courtroom antics and filmmaking dexterity do a great job of zeroing in on the core issues at stake and give us a happy ending from five decades ago that ensures American democracy will continue.

But this week’s US Supreme Court hearing, the one that will very likely (and somewhat dubiously) enshrine perhaps the most conservative judge in American history onto OUR Supreme Court, combined with the challenge for the umpteenth time of once again shifting the American presidency away from, well, fascism (Note: Fascism being the kind word), is a very steep, real life, hill to climb. 

Holding on tight to that last shred of hope

Especially in the middle of a global pandemic.

Where our ability, and even right to vote as we can, is being challenged at every turn.

Sorkin has written and imagined the way forward for us by going back in time.  But we now have to figure how to carry it out.

Another pat answer from me that borders on the cliché. 

Still, life’s never been quite as efficient, or satisfying, as any one Sorkin movie or TV series, much as we all (Note:  Well, the majority of us), would like to continue to pretend it to be.

Bob Marley – “Get Up Stand Up”