Ever since his comments on toxic masculinity were publicized, conservative commentators have lost it. And channeling my inner Carrie Bradshaw, I can’t help but wonder: Why are they so triggered by a man with the confidence to tell the truth? https://t.co/RvoofjBFpw

— Jonathan Capehart (@CapehartJ) March 6, 2023

Having grown up in a family filled with strong, female working women, I have never been under the illusion that women cannot be equal partners in a marriage. In my own marriage, the division of labor is pretty equal, and I even do some of the traditional female duties such as cooking. And thank God! I cook much better than my wife. She manages the finances. And thank God! I am a financial mess.

So I am all about equality of the sexes.

Yet there is something deeply embarrassing about having to suffer through a profile that begins like this:

This Women’s History Month, I want to celebrate a man: Doug Emhoff.

In American politics, we are not accustomed to seeing men sacrifice their careers for powerful female spouses. At the White House level, we’ve never seen it before at all.

As the husband of Vice President Harris, Emhoff has the title of second gentleman. With that comes a host of duties once performed by female spouses. But as the first man in this role, he is not only shattering perceptions of gender roles; he is also taking a sledgehammer to toxic masculinity.

Emhoff is literally being celebrated during Women’s History Month (what is a woman, anyway?) because he apparently hates men or at least masculinity.

The concept of toxic masculinity is, in itself, offensive in the extreme. It’s not that there aren’t toxic men–there are many. It’s not even that men can’t be toxic in ways that are particularly masculine–obviously they can be. We all know the type, so I won’t even bother to describe it.

Yet the same can be true of any group for which there is stereotypical behavior. I would get in trouble delineating all the different ways in which various stereotypes are to capture a slice of truth regarding many members of any recognizable groups, but we all have stereotypes burned into our skulls that are neither entirely inaccurate nor truly representative.

A huge chunk of comedy is based upon tapping into those stereotypes and manipulating them for comic effect.

But when such terms are used as a weapon to denigrate a group, the stereotypes become invidious.  “Toxic masculinity” is a concept intended to strip men of their agency and put us in our place. We are supposed to be ashamed of who we are–to be emasculated.

Poor Doug Emhoff. He has been chosen to be the symbol of emasculation and is being celebrated for being a beta male.

“We’ve kind of confused what it means to be a man, what it means to be masculine. You’ve got this trope out there that you’ve got to be tough and angry and lash out to be strong. It’s just the opposite,” he said. “Strength is how you show your love for people. Strength is how you are for people and how you have their back. And how you stick up for other people and [push back] against bullies.” Hear! Hear!

I don’t know about you, but my reaction to Emhoff’s description of masculinity is that he isn’t describing masculinity, but a bully. When I think of men I think of firemen, astronauts, soldiers, and construction workers. People who do things and build things to make the world a better place.

Good fathers don’t get drunk and beat their children, humiliate others, or lash out to assert dominance. Those are the anti-heroes in books and movies, not the heroes. The good guys in books and movies can be violent, of course, but in the service of doing good by fighting the baddies. They can be gruff but should have a heart of gold.

Emhoff, on the other hand, seems to think that the ideal man is a simp. Or, more precisely, he is promoting that idea, I am pretty sure he is performing a role here rather than speaking his truth. At least I hope so.

To me the striking thing about this article was the first thing I noticed: in a profile on Emhoff, picturing him at a podium speaking, his image is out of focus while his wife’s image is tack sharp. He is literally out of focus in a profile supposedly focused on his virtues. He is blurred, and that is what is good about him.

Yuck.

Emhoff doesn’t really count, even in his own story.

I grew up in an age where feminism was all about empowering women, and ensuring that they enjoy the same opportunities as men. We can argue about whether the individualism inherent in this vision of society was a step forward, but the claim to equal justice was undeniable. If our society was to be about promoting individual happiness over all other values, then every individual should have the same opportunities.

I think the vision is flawed, not because the demand for equal opportunity is unjust or bad for society, but because the highest good is promoted as an individual’s own happiness, rather than the creation of something greater than one’s own pleasure.

The flaw in feminism was not the claim to the inherent value of women and the feminine (remember when feminism actually claimed that feminine virtues were a good thing? Neither do I). Rather, the flaw is not recognizing that both the masculine and feminine virtues should both be directed not at the good of each individual, but for the good of the family as a whole.

In other words, neither men nor women should be primarily focused on their own individual good, but on the good of the whole. The masculine and the feminine virtues exist for the same reason men and women do: to create something greater than the individual parts. A family, a community, a civilization worthy of perpetuation. Not merely the transitory pleasures that appeal to one individual or another.

The denigration of masculinity offends particularly because the attacks on masculinity undermine masculine virtues that are necessary to the preservation of society.

We may see the day–and this doesn’t bother me–when the distribution of politicians, lawyers, doctors, and similar professions are equally distributed among men and women. But I suspect we will never see the day when the sex distribution of miners, firemen, plumbers, and electric linemen is equal. Electric linemen are over 96% men, and I suspect that the distribution will never get to 50-50. Do you?

This isn’t a knock on women. It is simply a recognition that despite all the ideological hoo-ha, men and women are, on average, different. We have different strengths, weaknesses, temperaments, etc. That’s actually a good thing because together we can become a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. Take women out of the equation and society dies in one generation. Fire all the male miners, construction workers, and electric linemen and you will revert to the stone age right quick.

The Left hates that because they need to atomize people, equalize them, and squeeze everything unique out of each of us.

I sincerely hope, and strongly suspect, that Doug Emhoff isn’t the beta male simp he is being portrayed to be. It is likely a performance.

I hope that at least in his own home he is not out of focus, blurred and inconsequential as a person.