Peterson: Trump is a Real Man’s Man

Jesse Lee Peterson, the astonishingly ignorant and bigoted Worldnetdaily columnist and frequent Sean Hannity guest who thinks women should not be allowed to vote, has identified “what Trump has that others don’t.” Answer: He’s a very virile, manly man who doesn’t go for all that feminine thinking stuff.

Trump’s enemies disparage him as a “blowhard” and an “egomaniac,” say he’s hurting the Republican brand (I think they’ve damaged it enough themselves!), and imply he’s a racist. But all of this is a dodge – it’s not the real reason they hate him.

They hate him because he’s acting like men acted in an earlier time, before they started shaving their body hair, apologizing for their beliefs and crying on national TV shows. Trump’s presence is highly embarrassing to feminized men and men-hating women in the media and “sophisticated” political circles…

Unfortunately for Trump’s enemies, he has real attributes that have made him wildly successful. He’s discussed these qualities in his books.

In his business classic, “The Art of the Deal,” Trump explained the huge impact his father had on him, giving him the confidence he needed to succeed in the world.

In “Think Big and Kick A– in Business and Life,” Trump further discusses some of these attributes he’s now using to befuddle his opponents:

  • “Too many people have stopped trusting their instincts. They cut off a natural sense that we are all born with.”
  • “Everyone who does anything is criticized. Expect it. Listen to it. Then dismiss it. I’ve been criticized for everything I’ve ever done. I do not let it get to me. … Do not let it stop you. Speak up and stand out.”
  • “I like to go against the tide.”
  • “When you are attacked publicly, always strike back.” Ask Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham about this one.
  • “Don’t think about how you can make money. Instead, think about what you can produce or what service you can offer that is valuable and useful to people and your community. … And most important, what will you have fun doing?” Unexpected, wise advice.

I asked my radio crew recently if they had the “Trump” personality. This kind of personality is God-given, but most lose it when their fathers fail to guide them properly, and their mothers take out their anger toward their fathers on their children, especially their sons. The difference between Trump and most is – I believe – his father’s positive influence.

This column is not an endorsement of Donald Trump’s campaign. It’s an endorsement of the manly qualities of old.

Yes, he’s “manly” because he responds to criticism with insults rather than substantive answers. He’s “manly” because he “trusts his instincts” instead of, ya know, thinking, which is what girly men do. This is a pretty standard right-wing view of how men are supposed to behave — always decisive, never apologizing, never giving a moment’s thought to whether they might be wrong or not, always choosing immediate action over considered action. It’s a combination of their toxic views of masculinity, their anti-intellectualism and their psychological preference for everything to be pure black and white.

Sadly, a lot of men share this view and follow it in their own lives. That’s why so many men prefer violence over negotiation (this is why the right wing hates the Iran deal, because they hate the very idea that a problem could be solved cooperatively rather than violently), “toughness” over intelligence, and macho bluster over thoughtfulness. If these things are “manly virtues,” count me out. And those posing macho men can throw their childish insults at me — “pussy,” “girly man,” “emasculated,” “mangina” — all they want. I’ll just laugh at their predictable ignorance and the insecurity they’re trying so damn hard to cover up.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • reddiaperbaby1942

    “Think Big and Kick A– “?

    This is a wimp-out. A real man would say “ass”.

    Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/07/29/peterson-trump-is-a-real-mans-man/#ixzz3hHknGq4s

  • colnago80

    That’s why so many men prefer violence over negotiation (this is why the right wing hates the Iran deal, because they hate the very idea that a problem could be solved cooperatively rather than violently),

    This is certainly true of many of the Reich wingers who have denounced the Iran deal. However, what all too many of the commenters on this blog and on the other side of the issue fail to address is that substantive objections have been raised to some of the terms of the agreement. For instance, I have raised the issue of inspections of the Parchin military nuclear research site, which is not in the agreement itself but in a separate side agreement, which Secretary Kerry declined to address in his testimony and not a single supporter of the agreement has addressed in a substantive way, certainly not on this blog. The agreement appears to state that no on site inspections will be allowed and that the inspectors will not be allowed to collect soil samples from around the site but will have to accept samples supplied by Iran which will be collected without observation by the inspectors. This is total nonsense and the Congress should refuse to approve the agreement unless and until the administration supplies full disclosure of what has been agreed to in the side agreement. If, in fact, the side agreement is as I described, then the agreement should be rejected and the negotiators sent back for further negotiations.

  • colnago80

    Re #2

    Missing link: http://goo.gl/HN8jl0

  • alanb

    …which Secretary Kerry declined to address in his testimony and not a single supporter of the agreement has addressed in a substantive way, certainly not on this blog.

    It’s kind of hard to comment on an agreement which is classified. Kerry has said that he is willing to discuss the details in closed session, but evidently it’s more important express opinions before getting facts. Kerry says, “The IAEA has said that they are satisfied that they will be able to do this in a way that does not compromise their needs and that adequately gets the answers they need.” I have no reason to believe otherwise. Do you?

  • colnago80

    Re alanb @ #4

    Shorter alanb: Just trust Kerry and don’t ask questions. Wasn’t that hou we were bamboozled by the Cheney Administration in the run up to the Iraq war? In particular, he has failed to explain why the side agreement is secret and isn’t part of the actual agreement itself.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    Trump explained the huge impact his father had on him, giving him the confidence money he needed to succeed in the world.

    Fixed it.

  • alanb

    Actually we are trusting both Kerry and the IAEA. Are you really suggesting that they are no more credible than “You’re for us or you’re against us” Dick Cheney? Cheney’s motivation for lying was pretty clear. What’s the motivation here?

  • colnago80

    Re alanb @ #7

    Excuse me, you quote Kerry as saying that the IAEA is on board with this agreement. Is the IAEA aware of this side agreement?

    The Obama administration badly wanted a deal with Iran and is well motivated to at least shade the truth about this side agreement. If there’s nothing sinister about it, why is it secret? No, I don’t trust Kerry’s unsupported word any more then I trusted Cheney. I believe in trust but verify.

  • colnago80

    Re alanb @ #7

    You know that Brayton has cited numerous examples of lies coming out of this administration over the years on this blog.

  • John Pieret

    colnago80:

    What are the Iranians going to do at Parchin without uranium or centrifuges, which the deal allows the IAEA to track?

    Here’s Aaron Stein, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at the Royal United Services Institute, re Parchin:

    Parchin is a red herring; I have no idea why the IAEA is so hung up on Parchin. They won’t find anything there — it’s completely stripped of anything of value.

    The real concerns about Iran’s PMD were weapons-specific tests. I’m talking about the development of a shock implosion system to generate a nuclear explosion and the conducting of weapons-specific mathematical and computer modulate tests. …

    This was all about Parchin. Will they get access to that little shack out in the boonies of this large base to go look at what used to be a detonation chamber that doesn’t exist anymore? The detonation chamber is not there, the ground around it has been razed, they’re not going to find anything at Parchin.

    This came down to a pissing contest about whether or not we could go walk into Parchin, which is irrelevant. In the deal they’re going to give managed access to Parchin, and you know what? We’re going to lose on this because they’re not going to find anything at Parchin. All of this will come down to nothing.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/7/16/8974507/iran-deal-explained-expert

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    colnago80’s right. The Obama “Administration” and the IAEA are in on it. They’re probably hiding Iran’s Bombs at Area 51. Area 51 is widely known as “America’s Parchin”. Think about it!

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Also, on topic:

     

    Peterson is right. More men used to be jerks.

  • Alverant

    Don’t forget his “manly” lawyer’s claim about how you can’t rape your wife because she’s your possession and not a human being.

  • alanb

    colnago80 @8: Is the IAEA aware of this side agreement?

    Google is your friend. You should be able to find the answer to that question in under 10 seconds.

    colnago80 @9: You know that Brayton has cited numerous examples of lies coming out of this administration over the years on this blog.

    And each time it was pretty clear what the political motivation was. If this was 2012, that statement may mean something. But this is a deal that both Obama and Kerry are hoping to be a part of their legacy.

  • Alverant

    colnago80 #9

    The right wing aren’t asking questions about the Iran deal. Asking questions implies you are willing to listen to the answers. What the right wing is doing with respect to the treaty is making accusations that just happen to end in a question mark. They’re not willing to consider any explanation other than the one they invented in their heads because their minds are made up and there’s no convincing them otherwise. It’s fundamentally no different than a creationist who “questions” evolution by parroting the same tired, and answered, “questions” about it because it’s easier on their egos to pretend no one else has thought up those “questions” than to do a little research and realize they just might be wrong.

  • colnago80

    Re John Pieret @ #10

    How does Stein know what is going on at Parchin? Has he visited the site? Does he know anyone who has visited the site? According to Wiki, it was inspected 12 years ago by the IAEA. A lot can happen in 12 years.

  • sugarfrosted

    Colnago doesn’t have time for negotiations. That would leave less time for nuclear holocaust and giving my best friend’s family radiation poisoning.

  • colnago80

    Re Alanb @ #14

    John Pieret addressed the Parchin issue @ #10. If Stein is right, why can’t Kerry just inform the Congress that our information is that there is nothing at the Parchin site and that any attempt to modify that situation can be adequately monitored by satellite surveillance or other means.

  • colnago80

    Re Alverant @ #15

    True, but there are also non-Reich wingers who have questions about this agreement and are expecting answers, including Parchin.

  • John Pieret

    How does Stein know what is going on at Parchin?

    Oh, I don’t know … maybe the US has used its spy satellite technology to see what was going on there and … here’s a wild idea … maybe we have spies in Iran! The question still is what are they going to do at Parchin without uranium and centrifuges?

    If Stein is right, why can’t Kerry just inform the Congress that our information is that there is nothing at the Parchin site and that any attempt to modify that situation can be adequately monitored by satellite surveillance or other means.

    Kerry has offered to talk to them in executive session, where sensitive information is usually shared with Congress. Why is Congress insisting that we tell the entire world where we and the IAEA get their information?

  • bmiller

    I still don;t understand colnago’s fundamental goals here. Is his primary goal a major shooting war in which tens of thousands of people are killed, millions wounded, trillions wasted, and the world economy collapsed so that a country, Iran, which is no more insane his precious Zion or, for FSM’s sake, PAKISTAN. Is the only thing Colnago will accept is a decade plus of brutal war?

    Sickening.

  • caseloweraz

    Peterson: They hate him because he’s acting like men acted in an earlier time, before they started shaving their body hair, apologizing for their beliefs and crying on national TV shows. Trump’s presence is highly embarrassing to feminized men and men-hating women in the media and “sophisticated” political circles…

    Thank you, Archie Bunker…

  • lldayo

    I bet he can’t leg press 2000 lbs like real men can.

  • freehand

    A man’s man? The closest Trump comes to being a “real man” is acting like a schoolyard bully, who is always in danger of running into that quiet fellow or lass who is a lot more dangerous to cross than one could guess by looking at them. Perhaps we should look to real men like James Bond(1). Nope, the hair alone would make Bond dismiss Trump as an ass and a coward. What real man worries about what people think of his hair? If he is a gentleman his appearance is tasteful, if he is a lumberjack he is certainly not doing comb overs.

    .

    What disciplined man would speak carelessly, when it might endanger the mission at hand? Boxers, soldiers, scholars, athletes – what has Trump done except to inherit money and learn how to make sure other people pay when he runs a business into the ground? I suppose he could match the morals of someone like Jim Bowie, who partly made his wealth by buying and selling slaves. But Bowie didn’t break his contracts as a businessman, and is famed for his martial skills and courage. Real men are not marked by brutish behavior, social cowardice, lying in business relationships, serial polygamy, physical laziness, nor classless narcissism.

    .

    1. Or all those real real men – and women – for whom Bond is an archetype.

  • colnago80

    Re bmiller @ #21

    My goal is very simple, prevent the mad mullahs who run Iran from developing r acquiring nuclear weapons. Period, end of story.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    colnago80’s right. And the best way to accomplish this is to close our eyes and start punching.

  • Michael Heath

    Aleverant writes:

    Don’t forget his “manly” lawyer’s claim about how you can’t rape your wife because she’s your possession and not a human being.

    The premises you assert here were not the premises used by Trump’s lawyer to falsely claim Trump couldn’t rape his wife.

    From a debate perspective, it’s bad form on our part when we defame our opponents, for a number of reasons. Plus it’s just plain wrong to lie about others.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    They hate him because he’s acting like men acted in an earlier time, before they started shaving their body hair, apologizing for their beliefs and crying on national TV shows. Trump’s presence is highly embarrassing to feminized men and men-hating women in the media and “sophisticated” political circles…

    Peterson seems to be confused and unable to remember whether he is criticizing Republicans or Democrats.