Bushco portrays itself as the testosterone administration, epitomized by Bush's "top gun" landing on the carrier. The US had to pop Saddam because he was picking a fight, same with Iran. OBL can be dismissed because after all, we've driven him into a spider hole somewhere. The US can't pull back in Iraq or it would be a sign of weakness. The Dems are "girlie men" who have always been weak on defense and now want to surrender instead of upping the ante. By criticizing a strong commander in chief they are acting treasonously and undermining the troops. When they are attacked themselves, they either respond weakly, just whimper, or slink away.

This played well with Joe and Jane Sixpack for awhile, until they lost a couple of their kids in the war. But the rednecks, approximately 30% of the US adult? population, are still eating it up. Bully on, George. You're making a name for yourself as real manly man, a true bad ass not to f*ck with. You sure showed Saddam, didn't you?

do with masculinity, machismo or femininity and no one has the right to stick their nose into other people's privacy. If they do violate another person's space, they'll have to be prepared for a fist rammed in their overgrown proboscis.

But I'm loathe to throw out masculinity - the question of what it means to be a man - entirely, because in so many men I've known it has been a force for good; something that made them stand up, be counted and take responsibility - not something that was evil.

Have you ever known any women that were willing to stand up, be counted and take responsibility? I believe in self-confidence and security in your own identity, and since sexual identity is very much a part of that, I understand that one's own sexuality is experienced as a positive force. However, cleaving that positive force from half the human race and then writing paeans to it is not going to be good for the excluded half, and that raises the insecurity of the included (am I really masculine?) and that gets you very bad things. It always gets you macho.

...was Canadian , was he not?

Masculinity is a social construct and has to do with how a man is expected to behave in a society. It's heavily dependent on context. As a consequence preferred sexual practice and sexual orientation can certainly be a part it. Pretending otherwise is naive. (Of course, there's nothing that says that, for example, male homosexuality is necessarily feminine (or anti-masculine), and there are (or were) societies where homosexual practices are (or were) considered masculine. Similarly, there are plenty of homosexual men who are ultra-masculine independently of their sexual orientation.)

It's somehow both disappointing and inevitable that someone will pick a tragedy to provoke an unreasonable reaction, and spout some pet theory. This is no worse and no better than the people who talk about how gun control or ubiquitous concealed carry or whatever would have somehow ameliorated things at Virginia Tech, or Columbine.

"Have you ever known any women that were willing to stand up, be counted and take responsibility?"
I married one and proud of it!
As for the other subject of M or M.
My father told me that "violence was the primitive method of settling an argument".
As for Gays; He said, "judge people for who they are, not what they are".
He is 89 years old. Old enough to be from the old school who hate everyone who is not conforming to old standards.
All I can say is "sit back and listen to everyone". You don't have to agree. You just have to listen and understand.

_{repressive governments mix administrative clumsiness & inefficiency with authoritarian tendencies.}

Perhaps the difference is has to do with which virtues are mandatory, and which are 'extras'?

So to be masculine it is mandatory that one have the physical strength, reliability, courage, responsibility, and confidence to stand up, be counted, and not pick fights or tolerate bullies. If you can be sweet to babies and orphans, so much the better, but not necessary.

And to be feminine it is not mandatory to have these things, as nice as they might be on top of such traditionally feminine virtues as sweetness, nurturing, and sensitivity.

Seems right: you might disapprove of a woman who backs down from fights, or is irresponsible on the job, but couldn't she still count as feminine? Similarly, you might disapprove a man who doesn't care about the handicapped or orphans, but couldn't he still count as masculine?

Somebody please explain to me why one's sexuality is threatening to any body unless that body is unsure of own. Am I off topic? Do men really think about their identity in terms other men's sexuality? Men have real problems.