As I mentioned in my previous post, it has been decided that I am this week’s Worst Person Ever for a couple of things I recently wrote.
One was a criticism of the idea that the government should fund your birth control. I’ve already expanded upon that (correct and appropriate) criticism here. The other was a tweet and an article — or really a homophobic rant stemming from my fragile masculinity, as its been described by the media — warning fathers that we need to be there to raise our sons lest they grow up confused about their masculine identity:
Dads, this is why you need to be there to raise your sons. pic.twitter.com/8ybirgppKi
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) January 6, 2017
The man in the picture goes by the name Manny Mua. He was recently anointed as Maybelline’s new spokesmodel. He responded to what I said, which resulted in his fans displaying their tolerance and open mindedness in the usual way. My friend Manny spent a while retweeting and “liking” many of the attacks against me, obviously trying to encourage more of it. So, more and more of his fans dutifully came to remind me that Manny is a kind and compassionate and gentle and utterly perfect human being while I am a barely sentient bucket of vomit and I should immediately hang myself so as to free the Earth from the burden of my existence, and so on. (The “sentient bucket of vomit” thing is verbatim, by the way. I had to respect it for its originality at least. Although I had to wonder how an animated mass of vomit would go about hanging itself. The logistical difficulties seem insurmountable, if you ask me.)
Manny’s dad soon chimed in, understandably so. He told me that he supports what his son does, he did raise him well, and my comment stems from ignorance about the LGBT community, which is populated by some of the “most real and most kindhearted people” on Earth. It was, according to Manny, a “f*cken SAVAGE” beat down, and according to Yahoo News and other outlets it was an epic comeback that succeeded in “nailing” a “bigot” and a “homophobe,” etc. I don’t know, I thought his response was more measured than that. At least a lot more measured than the tolerant liberals who told me that my kids should die of AIDS .
Anyway, I’m not actually interested in getting into an argument about how this particular makeup model was raised. As I said in the article I wrote on the topic last week, it’s certainly possible that a boy could be raised by a good father and still end up living a confused and disordered lifestyle. That very well could have been the case with Manny. I have no idea. Maybe he’s the exception to the rule. Could be. Who knows?
That’s why I never said “This dude, specifically, was raised by a crappy dad.” Rather, I said “this sort of dude is why dads — plural, universal — need to raise their sons.” Much like I might point to a liquor store robbery in the inner city and say “this is why inner city kids need dads at home.” If it were to turn out that the particular liquor store robber in the particular case I used to make my general point did indeed have an attentive father at home, that wouldn’t negate my point. Nor would I apologize for using that case to make the point. It’s still true, regardless of that person’s biography, that this is the sort of thing that is often the result, or partly the result, of a dad not being physically, spiritually, and/or emotionally present in the home.
I’m also not going to get into another long explanation as to why men shouldn’t dress themselves up as women. I’ve already done that. To summarize, my reasoning goes like this: Men shouldn’t dress up like women because men aren’t women. There’s a certain logic to that, you have to admit. But we can once again go into detail on that revolutionary idea another time. Instead what I’d like to focus on is the Left’s relentless attempt to have it both ways on every topic imaginable. Yesterday we discussed how they do this with respect to birth control. Now we have another great example.
I’ll show you what I mean with two points:
First, the Left celebrates this kind of “gender bending,” making heroes out of those who engage in it, clearly making it out to be something much more significant than a mere fashion choice, but if you voice any objection they immediately claim that you’re making a mountain out of a fabulously adorned molehill. They transition from “CARE ABOUT THIS” to “WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT THIS?” so fast that it leaves you dizzy. Indeed, I’ve been told a thousand times over the past few days that “it’s just makeup” and “makeup has no gender” and “it doesn’t matter what someone wears” because “it’s just fashion.” In [insert other time period or culture] men wear/wore makeup all the time. It’s actually pretty normal. Why am I making such a big deal about it? And so on.
But then, sometimes in the very next sentence, I’m called a bigot and worse for criticizing a man who wears makeup. Now wait a second. If a man’s choice to wear makeup has about as much inherent meaning as a man’s choice to wear a blue raincoat, how am I some kind of super villain for finding it objectionable? If I went into a long diatribe insulting men who wear blue raincoats, you may say that I’m eccentric, possibly insane, but bigoted? “Men who wear blue raincoats” is not a category of humanity that one can really be bigoted against, is it? The act of wearing a blue raincoat is truly so morally neutral that you would simply laugh at anyone who had strong feelings against it.
That, however, is not how the Left responds when you criticize dudes who wear female attire. They treat it as an attack on a way of life, a lifestyle, a belief system, a set of principles, a philosophy, a worldview. If they didn’t mean to treat it that way, they wouldn’t line up to wish death on your children for being opposed to it. It seems they do think it’s a big deal when a guy dresses like a girl. It represents something, communicates something, promotes something deeper than the makeup itself.
I agree. And its that thing, the thing beneath the makeup, that I’m talking about. To respond to my criticism by suddenly pretending — after all the swooning and fanfare — that “makeup is just makeup” is ridiculous. This gender bending thing is more than a fashion statement, and we all know it. At least have the guts to admit it.
Second, the left constantly shoves those belief systems and principles and “lifestyles” in our faces, demands that we accept them and celebrate everyone who lives by them, but then if we decline, they shout at us that we ought to mind our own business. The conversation usually goes like this:
Liberal: “Look at my lifestyle! Look at it! Accept it! Applaud it! Celebrate it! CELEBRATE IT, DAMN YOU!”
Liberal: “Why don’t you mind your own business, weirdo?”
Manny — again, using him as an example because he has offered himself as an example — has chosen to put himself and his belief system in the public eye. He is being handsomely paid to do so, in fact. And leftists have chosen to present him as one of many mascots for a new and bold way of approaching gender. The media did many approving stories about him because they believe in what he represents, and he does not seem to have ever shied away from this attention. We have been told explicitly and implicitly, “Look at this person. Look at what he’s doing. It’s good. It’s right.” And Manny has said, “Look at me. Look at what I’m doing. It’s good. It’s right.” The same with Bruce Jenner and whoever else. These people put themselves out there. They are presented to us. They present themselves to us. We do not seek them out. They are put in front of us and we’re obliged to approve.
Well, I don’t. That’s all. I think the behavior is disordered. I think the philosophy on gender which underlies the behavior is toxic. I think the increasing feminization of men is a symptom of a decaying culture. I think it’s another consequence of the collapse of the nuclear family. I say all of this because they brought it up. They bring it up constantly, every day, every hour. Every time you turn on the TV or go online or walk outside, the Left is engaged in another attempt to promote its ideas about sex and gender. I’m not the one harping on it. They are. I’m simply responding and I make no apologies for responding. And I certainly make no apologies for presenting my case against their worldview by using as examples the very people who have chosen to position themselves, very publicly and very profitably, as examples of this worldview. It’s not like I’m taking a picture of a random guy I saw at Walmart. I’m using a guy from the multi-million dollar ad campaign of a major makeup manufacturer. A person who has chosen to publicly promote something which I think is harmful and grotesque. It is not “bullying” to disagree with the value system and lifestyle that a public figure promotes.
If people have perverse ideas about sexuality and gender, I would quite prefer it if that fact never came to my attention. I would like to “mind my business.” But when they’re literally parading those ideas through the street, the ideas, much to my chagrin, have become my business. I didn’t choose to make them my business. I didn’t break into their home at night to conduct an investigation into their sexual preferences or “gender identity.” I was just minding my own business when suddenly this perversity was put in front of my face, intentionally, loudly, with confetti and trumpets. I have three options at that point: Obey and applaud, keep my mouth shut and wait for them to go away, or voice my objection.
I choose the third option.
We see again that the leftist agenda in matters of sexuality and gender (and everything else) has never been to gain mere “rights” or “tolerance.” It has always been this: affirmation. The fact that they so desperately seek affirmation ought to be a clue that they are not nearly as confident in their lifestyle choices as they let on. But whatever the psychological reasons behind it, what Christians and conservatives cannot do is buy into the preposterous notion that affirmation, love, and compassion are all the same. One of these is not like the other.
What frustrates me more than almost anything else is intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty is what makes most of our discussion and debates in this society so utterly fruitless. It’s why they almost always devolve into incoherence within seconds. The problem is that one side, and sometimes both sides, refuse to be honest about their intentions. The Left tries to spark a conversation about sex and gender, but then when we engage, they deny that they were ever trying to have the conversation in the first place.
Liberals: “Hey, look at this lifestyle. Isn’t it great?”
Me: “No, not really. Here’s why…”
Liberals: “Why are you talking about this?! Stop victimizing me!”
I’m talking about this because you wanted to talk about this. And you still want to talk about it. You just want everyone to be saying the same thing. But when I go off script, you immediately change course. The rules you set for the conversation are designed precisely to stifle the conversation you started. It’s like challenging someone to one-on-one basketball but stipulating that the other guy isn’t allowed to take any shots or play any defense. That’s not how the game works. That’s not how conversation works. And I’m not going to play by your rules. It’s just that simple.
To see more from Matt Walsh, visit his channel on TheBlaze.