Since I’m reflecting on media matters, I might as well take a look at the latest Rush Hudson Limbaugh III scandal. How is it that a grown man with as much general experience as this man has can call a highly respectable, educated student who testifies before Congress (and looks like a Madonna) a “slut” and a “prostitute” and claim she wants us all to watch her having sex? (Nancy Keenan was in the same crosshairs.) This seems to me totally irrational, even if you’re baiting the lower instincts of some pretty retrograde listeners. I mean, I think it’s a serious enough discrepancy for Limbaugh’s doctor to take an interest. More than channeling Archie Bunker -- close to psychotic. Seriously. But maybe he’s reacting to the fact that women like Fluke or Keenan would never have any relationship to him except mercy friendship.
Rush’s Viagra was impounded at the airport because he had no prescription. Assuming he has one now, does that mean he wants us to watch him have sex -- well, assuming we don’t mock his you-know-what? With equal disregard for consistency, he rails against drugs but got a jail sentence for abusing hydrocodone.
Beyond that, I do recognize Rush’s frame of reference. I did not expect to find a guide to how to be like him. http://manhood101.com/principles101.pdf This showed up on www.therawness.com where the writer is focused on “game” which is supposed to be the relationship between men and women who are looking for mates, mostly in Manhattan. “Ricky Raw” is a good deal more sophisticated than Rush would appreciate. I’m not quite sure why he likes “Manhood 101” but it’s dead on if you’re looking for a description of the Limbaugh mindset. I had a hard time reading it, partly because sometimes I laughed so hard I had to go do something else for a while. (That remark would be exactly what the pseudonymous authors of “Manhood 101” would define as a typical feminist reaction, equivalent to making fun of the size of his penis.)
The assumptions -- those described as characteristic of men as well as women -- are familiar to me. I’ve spent a lot of my life alongside working class (redneck), under-educated, homophobic, day labor guys, including those of “color,” and have even taken “men’s jobs” like being an animal control officer. I was friends with some of them and not out of mercy. But I do feel a certain amount of mercy for the group as a whole. The ideas come from the experience of older white men (like WWII or Korean Era) who’ve had a culture shift imposed on them late in life. Only a few kids think like this now and most of them are in backwaters where they can’t find jobs and get drunk for fun.
These older guys -- the grampas now -- are the men who made sacrifices in order to obey the rules early in their lives, but now find themselves disadvantaged all over again. (Even before their retirement funds were savaged.) The tide is against them, their virtue is threatened, and they don’t know what to do about it. They often conclude, as does this set of principles, that the answer is order and control, enforced by whatever it takes short of being arrested. (That line can be elusive.) Manhood 101 approves force, especially against women and children, but not against other men. I’ve seen this enacted, heard what it did to family life, so many times. They take a point of view they understand to be military, but do not realize that the military has moved on. No longer is the military’s object to dominate, to regiment, to show physical strength. Ask ‘em. (Limbaugh’s father was a jet pilot but Rush himself was classified as 4-F because of a Pilonidal cyst. Do not look at the photo of one on Wikipedia.)
Ask Limbaugh’s four wives about domination, regimentation, taking care of baby (Rush). Serial polygamy, of course. He’s not bin Laden. (Although recently it is suggested that it was bin Laden wife #1 who actually ratted him out because of jealousy of wife number three -- the most recent one, quite a bit younger.) You can’t ask Limbaugh’s children anything because there aren’t any. No wonder he gets all upset about abortions and contraception.
Two statements in Manhood 101 brought me up short. “The government is responsible for making its citizens happy.” How on earth did that get into this discussion of tough, competent guys and how they control everything? Then “you must impose restrictions but remember they make you responsible.” Like, locking people into the house but making sure they don’t starve? Or beating your children and then wondering why they aren’t happy? Very strange. This is a website, by the way, where you can download the pdf for free -- brightly illustrated with droll clip art.
The dilemmas these guys wrestle with are a strange tangle of sex, control, status, and health. Health looms big in these principles: brush your teeth, take showers, get exercise, don’t get fat, don’t smoke -- these are all the things that women would tell them! Half the time the idea is to find the blonde babe who’s normally unattainable for nerds like you and to make her love you, and the other half is to find a mom who will make you go to bed on time and keep the house immaculately orderly. Very confusing. Although I have to admit I had one parishioner who had solved the problem: he attracted a mother and daughter combo. I wouldn’t count on that solution. He was kind of a Brad Pitt type and very wealthy.
This sort of thing is very vulnerable to mockery. Here’s one youngster take on the ideas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IQjV-1WeLA&feature=related
And while the guys are fooling around, this is a vid about what the girls are doing.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/africas-girl-power/
I’m sure they are as capable as boys of spotting cheesy scams and rackets. Their idea of "game" is not tick-tack-toe -- it's LIFE.
No comments:
Post a Comment