3
   

Republican Phallus / Femiphobia Theory

 
 
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 08:05 am
Very interesting articles about Republican / Conservative femiphobia follow. I've always had a keen interest in human behavior and psychology, so this makes sense to me.

I'm placing this is politics, but I'd like to focus on the theory, it's applications and implications regarding politics, and how it affects future politics. Do you agree or disagree with the theory? How does this change your view, if at all? What are the implications for any chance of having a female president? If you agree with the theory, how did we get set back to this point? etc. Intelligent discussion encouraged.

Quote:
Stephen J. Ducat Dissects "Anxious Masculinity," Making Sense of America's Strutting, in a Psychoanalytic Kind of Way

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

I saw the Republican National Convention as essentially a hyper-masculine strut-fest. The real point of the convention was to make John Kerry their woman.... They had already done that with John Edwards by dubbing him the "Breck girl." And Arnold Schwarzenegger went on to proclaim that any men who were anxious about the loss of jobs under the reign of George W. Bush were, as he put it, "economic girlie-men." The inference was that Democratic candidates who were always whining about pink slips may as well be wearing pink slips.

* * *

Like a jilted lover out to prove his masculinity with a series of new conquests, our Bush regime today seem always out to prove something. They will fight any war (with or without allies). They will ram through legislation (with or without the democrats on board). They will eliminate supportive social programs (since only wimps need "safety nets"). In other words, their America is a John Wayne/Rambo/Terminator figure. But why? Recently Stephen J. Ducat, author of The Wimp Factor, talked with BuzzFlash about where this delusional and destructive mindset comes from, and how it manifests itself in our country's domestic and foreign policies. When you think about it, the right wingers have played our fears and fantasies darned well, exploiting fear on the one hand and our hopes and dreams on the other. Perhaps "anxious masculinity" played out on the world stage does help explain the right wing's virulent attitude towards Hillary Clinton, and their determination to slur Vietnam war hero John Kerry as "French." As George Lakoff has commented, "It is crucial to notice and understand the central role of a certain version of masculinity in American politics. Ducat's book helps enormously."

Stephen J. Ducat is a clinical psychologist in private practice and a professor at the New College of California. He is a candidate at the Psychoanalytic Institute of Northern California.

* * *

BuzzFlash: In your book, The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, & the Politics of Anxious Masculinity, you argue that the current positions and attitudes of the Republican Party and Bush Administration can best be viewed through a certain lens that we traditionally associate with the he-man, the virile figure--you call it the phallus. Briefly, how would you define "anxious masculinity?"

Stephen J. Ducat: It's a culture based on male domination and a culture in which most things feminine tend to be devalued, even if they are secretly envied. In such a culture, the most important thing about being a man is not being a woman. This powerful adult male imperative to be unlike females and to repudiate anything that smacks of maternal care taking is played out just as powerfully in politics as it is in personal life. In fact, political contests among men are in many ways the ultimate battles for masculine supremacy. This makes disavowing the feminine in oneself and projecting it onto one's opponent to be especially important. This femiphobia--this male fear of being feminine--operates unconsciously in many men as a very powerful determinant of their political behavior. Also, this femiphobia constitutes a very significant motive for fundamentalist terrorism.

BuzzFlash: You're drawing a parallel between the extreme right wing in the United States and the Islamic fundamentalists, in that they are both highly fearful of overbearing feminine influence?

Stephen J. Ducat: Absolutely. Femininity is seen as a contaminant, and there is an attempt to repudiate those aspects of one's self that seem feminine. This is something that fundamentalists around the world share. As I argue in the last chapter of my book, there is particular tension between Christian fundamentalists in this country and the extreme Islamic fundamentalists elsewhere, surrounding this kind of devaluation, repudiation and fear of the feminine.

BuzzFlash: You discuss "anxious masculinity" as exhibited by right wing America, the Bush Administration, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and George Bush. Why "anxious?" Is it that their masculinity has got to be constantly reproven?

Stephen J. Ducat: Yes. In fact, the kind of hyper-masculine strutting that we see on display by right wingers is a defense. It's a defense against this anxious masculinity, against this fear of the feminine. In a culture in which it's so important to deny the feminine in men, masculinity becomes a really brittle achievement. It's quite Sisyphean--you know, you can never quite get there. You're always having to prove it.

Part of the reason is that this type of masculinity is defined largely in terms of domination. The problem is that domination--either in a personal or a global context---can never be a permanent condition. It's a relational state. It's dependent on having somebody in a subordinate position. That means you could be manly today, but you're not going to be manly tomorrow unless you've got somebody to push around and control, whether that is an abused wife or another country. So this kind of masculinity is really brittle.

BuzzFlash: Then peace is a threat to anxious masculinity?

Stephen J. Ducat: It's a threat because of its link to the feminine. In fact, I have a chapter on the 19th Century, when there was enormous debate about whether the U.S. should embark on the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars. In a number of editorial cartoons, peace itself was personified as female.

BuzzFlash: You cite examples in your book of how your psychoanalytical approach applies to the political world in a very specific way. First of all, let's take the efforts by the Bush Administration to portray Kerry as "French." Should we assume that this was a way of saying he's feminine?

Stephen J. Ducat: Absolutely. It's a rather transparent code word for being feminized. I also saw the Republican National Convention as essentially a hyper-masculine strut-fest. The real point of the convention was to make John Kerry their woman. That's what they wanted to do. They had already done that with John Edwards by dubbing him the "Breck girl." And Arnold Schwarzenegger went on to proclaim that any men who were anxious about the loss of jobs under the reign of George W. Bush were, as he put it, "economic girlie-men." The inference was that Democratic candidates who were always whining about pink slips may as well be wearing pink slips. Real men, you know, don't worry about the losers in the new global Darwinian economy.

This theme was echoed by a number of people, including Zell Miller, who said that not only was Kerry suspiciously French, but he would even let Paris decide when America needs defending. There was the implication that, if Kerry were ever to run the White House, he would imperil the masculinity of all men by turning the U.S. into a kind of submissive bottom in the global contest for supremacy, the deferential housewife in the family of nations.

Cheney basically echoed the same themes, referring to Kerry as sensitive, faint-hearted, weak, wobbly, soft. Since the reign of Bush, even the notion of negotiation or diplomacy, or international cooperation became very suspect. For many Republicans, collaboration raises enormous femiphobic anxieties, even if they're collaborating--and perhaps especially if they're collaborating--with Democrats. GOP strategist Grover Norquist once said that bipartisanship is another name for date rape. So that tells you about his anxiety, I think.

BuzzFlash: To cooperate, then, is to give up one's masculine prerogative to assert oneself as a male leader?

Stephen J. Ducat: Absolutely. In the world they live in, you're either a top or a bottom. Mutuality, democracy, equality--that makes no sense to them.

BuzzFlash: Well, as Jon Stewart said recently in the context of the John Gannon/Jeff Guckert scandal in Washington, if you're on top, you're not gay. That may explain the inner circle acceptance of gays within the Republican Party, in spite of the gay-bashing national political line they give to their followers.


Read the rest...

Buzzflash Interview
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 5,997 • Replies: 61
No top replies

 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 08:13 am
Here's another article regarding Dr. Ducat as it appeared in the SF Chronicle:

Shrinking Bush

Quote:
"The Wimp Factor" suggests that American hyper-masculinity -- as seen in, but not limited to, the Bush administration, Christian fundamentalism and right-wing U.S. policy -- has created a contentious political landscape in which more and more men are becoming conservative. In campaign battles, politicians, meanwhile, "feminize" their opponents to establish macho credibility and call into question their opponents' manhood. (In his speech at the Republican convention, Vice President Dick Cheney told delegates that Kerry "talks about leading a 'more sensitive war on terror,' as though al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side.")

Ducat said that men with the extreme type of masculinity afraid of characteristics traditionally considered feminine -- self-reflection, attunement to others, appreciation for human interrelatedness -- may become sociopaths: those possessed of a guilt-free capacity to hurt others for personal gain.

"The Bush administration is the most sociopathic American administration in my lifetime," Ducat said, citing the administration's unilateral assault on Iraq and, leading up to it, apparent falsehoods about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi ties to al Qaeda.

0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 09:49 am
Uh, is this too heavy a subject to address before noon?

I thought it would surely spark some debate. I think it's critical to understanding the republican approach to policy, as well as their presentation of arguments. Am I the only one?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 10:02 am
squinney- I am fascinated by the thesis expressed by the professor. And yes, his ideas DO resonate within me, though I obviously had not thought it through as thoroughly as the professor.

I had, for some time, observed the correlation of the way that certain ideas that were presented this year on the political stage as anti-feminism. I had often mused that there was not too much difference between the Christian right and the Muslim fundamentalists, with regards to their perception of, and relationship to, women.

The problem is that I think that the man has a definite agenda, and is using pop psychology to try to understand political phenomena. I really don't want to get into adversarial political discussions.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 10:06 am
I would like to believe the reason no one has jumped on this is that it's crap.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 10:09 am
Actually, if you don't take it personally, it's kind of interesting.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 10:17 am
FreeDuck- I agree. If you consider the people to whom the message was being sent, I think that it was quite powerful, and politically savvy.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 10:18 am
I agree. Somebody knows their target base quite well.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 10:20 am
You are correct Phoenix. Consider the audience that reads buzzflash. I am sure the liberals will eat it up as they do any commentary that shines that dark, evil light on the Bush administration. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 10:26 am
McG, you seem to only enjoy combative conversations. Us vs. Them and whatnot. Have you no interest in anything for its own sake or are you only interested in taking immediate sides and battling it out?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 10:28 am
McGentrix- I don't read Buzzflash, and I voted for Bush. That does not mean that I completely discount everything that is being written, just because I don't care for the political agenda that is being espoused.

One of the things that I find most distressing about politics, is that many people treat it almost like a religion................my party is all correct, and yours is all wrong. Personally, I think that both political parties have huge, gaping deficiencies. It is up to me to weigh the options, and then choose what I think is most appropriate for me, and my country.

It is the sort of absolutist, either or, black and white thinking that prevents people from expanding, growing, and seeking out a glimmer of truth from the morass of bullshit that is thrown at us by the media.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 10:35 am
Bravo, Phoenix!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 10:41 am
I'm sorry. You enjoy reading a hyper-partisan screed based on pseudo-psychoanalysis? Let's look at some of the highlights from Mr. Ducat...

Quote:
Like a jilted lover out to prove his masculinity with a series of new conquests,


Rolling Eyes Metaphors are better left to poets and playwrights.

Quote:
BuzzFlash: You're drawing a parallel between the extreme right wing in the United States and the Islamic fundamentalists,


Isn't that the goal of sites like Buzzflash? Make the conservatives look like the bad guys?

Quote:
Stephen J. Ducat: Absolutely. It's a rather transparent code word for being feminized.


A code word? What is this, second grade?

Quote:
Stephen J. Ducat: The Republican homosexuals are not only honorary heterosexuals; they become honorary homophobes, as the most recent scandal illustrated.


So only liberals can really be homosexual now? Please.

Quote:
BuzzFlash: So with Gannon, who said on his web sites, you know, that he was a military guy, a Marine, and always on top, he's acceptable because he's a man's man?

Stephen J. Ducat: Yeah.

BuzzFlash: He's not penetrated; he penetrates.

Stephen J. Ducat: That's right. Militarystud.com.


But it isn't about that, right cycloptichorn? The Gannon story has nothing to with his sexuality, right?

Quote:
Stephen J. Ducat: Well, you know, there are a lot of different kinds of right-wing women. There are under and middle class Christian fundamentalist housewives who seek desperately to be the compliant good wife, to stay at home, who have embraced their position of subordination as a virtuous condition. And there are those who I think are more hypocritical, the highly educated, upper class women like Ann Coulter who advocate a life of domestic docility for the under class sisters. Meanwhile, they're in the public eye and are as powerful and self-authorizing as any male politician. And by being part of the economic elite, they can buy their way out of certain difficulties by virtue of their class position, whether it's having wealthy husbands or enough money in their own right to get the health care they need, to get the reproductive care they need and so on.


This doesn't offend you moral feminist liberals?!

Quote:
Stephen J. Ducat: He put a woman in a position of power to implement his policies and cushion him from information that he doesn't want to know about. And you have to keep in mind, as highly placed as Condoleezza Rice is, she is his underling. She does the bidding of the core group of neo-cons.

BuzzFlash: If you're a woman, we'll let you in the club as long as you act like the guy on top?

Stephen J. Ducat: As long as you support and act like the guy on top. Of course, having Condoleezza Rice in her position doesn't translate into anything meaningful for other women. I think Condoleezza Rice's current position is evidence of how failure is no impediment to promotion in the Bush regime.


Reading this crap will lead you to what conclusions?

The problem I have with all of this is that liberals will read this, applaud it, cherish it, but fail to realize that it is garbage.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 11:00 am
McGentrix wrote:
This doesn't offend you moral feminist liberals?!


Who are you talking to?

I don't have to agree with everything presented to find it interesting. It IS interesting . How about the recurrent image used to deride progressives. The one that shows a US soldier on one side (red state) and a blue haired freak freak of ambiguous sexual identity on the other (blue state)? What's that about? A similar one was just used to trash the AARP.

Like it or not, conservatives have tied themselves to machoness, and the messages we get from them, be it campaign messages or just the daily propaganda, are rife with imagery and descriptive language that paints them the party of righteous masculinity and the dems as the party of girly men and, what to call it, oh yeah, feminist liberals. It doesn't make it true, but it is clear in their marketing that that is the message they want us to receive.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 11:09 am
FreeDuck wrote:
It doesn't make it true, but it is clear in their marketing that that is the message they want us to receive.


And the people who accept what is marketed hook, line and sinker, merely reinforce their pre-existing beliefs. In that way, the country becomes more and more polarized, because many people are reluctant to learn any new information that would tend to undermine their already formed opinions.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 11:49 am
Quote:
But it isn't about that, right cycloptichorn? The Gannon story has nothing to with his sexuality, right?


Quit acting like a damn fool, McG.

The fact that the main story about G/G isn't about his sexuality doesn't preclude the fact that the man is a hypocrite for being secretly gay while writing virulently anti-gay articles.

Sometimes you're like a fourth-grade child in your argumentative tactics...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 12:26 pm
I believe someone here doth protest too much. Rolling Eyes

I had picked up on a lot of the comments, imagery and marketing of macho-ness before and during the campaignes. However, I hadn't put it all together in my mind. When I read the two articles cited, I realized it was pretty much on target with the uncomfortable feelings I had about the events mentioned, as well as the current administration.

I don't consider psychoanalysis "pop psychology." I also don't think it is all marketing or political agenda. I think it would take a pack of psychologists, behavorists, advertisers, and marketers to put all of this together as a campaign, and years of training to keep everyone on message. That's what is disturbing to me. It hasn't taken all of that because this is really how these people think and feel!

One can't "act" day in and day out without giving away their true selves. If it were all marketing, someone would slip. Someone would show their feminine side and blow the agenda. So, while some of it is marketing, I would suggest that at least an equal part is not.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 12:32 pm
Quote:
I don't consider psychoanalysis "pop psychology."


I did not mean to imply that psychoanalysis is "pop psychology". It is a credible academic area of thought. What I was attempting to get at was that I felt that the professor was not truly being an even handed and disinterested scientist by the way he was couching his ideas.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 12:34 pm
I agree, squinney, that a lot of it is capitalizing on already existing cultural biases.
0 Replies
 
Thomas Hayden
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 01:23 pm
The republican victory has really shocked you, libbies. You just desperately look for something to justify your supposed moral high ground. If this implies calling Bush administration sociopathic, or suggesting republican housewives are domestic slaves(but this is evident, you'll say, a mother who wants to take care of her children personally instead of leaving them in front of the TV all day can only be an insane Republican. Let's not talk about the idea of carrying them to the church...)

It isn't surprising to me that Coulter reacts so aggressively, if she is insulted in the way this article does. (You'll object: this article only tells the truth. Conservative commentators are led by hypocrisy. In fact, every Republican voter in the last election didn't really want to vote for Bush,there was a massive brainwashing operation trough subliminal propaganda in Fox TV) .

Wake up and face the evidence. You lost the last elections because the people wasn't convinced by your policies.That's all. You'd better ask What went wrong? instead of posting emabarrasing pieces of cranky liberal journalism like this.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Republican Phallus / Femiphobia Theory
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 08:17:14