Walz as the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in an age when so many men have been “red-pilled” into reactionary politics — and with Vance as the other ticket’s comparison — is a real opportunity for a different vision of masculinity to culturally take root.
In many ways, an excellent article, but I do take minor issue with the way it is framed here.
I think that this different version of masculinity was always there, culturally. I think it was because if it wasn’t men like Walz would not exist already. Many men like this do and many men like this did. I think it does them a bit of a disservice to talk about their masculinity as though it’s not culturally accepted. Rather, it’s like the article discusses, the left just fails to meaningfully describe these men and why their masculinity is good and what you should aim for. Meanwhile Walz is seemingly actually fairly good at, if not necessarily articulating why his version of masculinity is good, showing why is it good.
Which is also I think an aspect of why we forget that these men were always there culturally. Traditionally, these men have often been quiet stewards, not the kind of men who would seek any kind of media attention. So while the manosphere festered with freaks who simply won’t shut the fuck up with outright drivel, misogyny, and racism, these men have simply been… existing, being good fathers, uncles, and brothers in their families, not trying to win awards or accolades.
EDIT: For example, I think there are many more Joe Peras out there than people think.
