Real men don’t ask; they tell.  (Real men don’t care what others think.)
Real men are dominant.

DR. MANHATTAN: Pay attention.  You will all return to your homes.

RIOTER: Oh, yeah?  And what if we don’t, ya big blue fruit?

DR. MANHATTAN: You misunderstand me.  It was not a request.

[The rioters disappear.]

LAURIE: Jesus.

DR. MANHATTAN (internal monologue): The next day, I am reading in the paper of two people who suffered heart attacks upon suddenly finding themselves indoors.  More would have suffered during a riot, I’m certain.

Alan Moore, Watchmen issue 4, December 1986.

Real men don’t care what others think.

After a full year, the people have grown weary of a president who talks pretty, promises much and delivers nothing. The misery facts don’t lie: Obama Nation has brought us a 10 percent unemployment rate (1.7 million more people unemployed today than a year ago); almost $2 trillion of new outstanding public debt, and 139 bank failures.

Add to that the arrogance of a leader who thinks he’s so much more self-aware than the presidents before him that he must apologize to the world for American “selfishness” (U.S. relief to Haiti, hello?), while at the same time failing to enact policies to keep Americans safe from al-Qaida terrorists, and it is no wonder Democrats find themselves in a woozy state this morning.

—Sherman Frederick, “Massachusetts election a warning to our own Harry Reid”, Las Vegas Review-Journal, January 20, 2010 (available at http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/massachusetts-election-a-warning-to-our-own-harry-reid-82143482.html); Media Matters staff, “Las Vegas Review-Journal publisher: Obama thinks ‘he must apologize to the world’ through ‘U.S. relief to Haiti’”, Media Matters for America, January 20, 2010 (available at http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001200008).

Real men don’t care what others think.
Real men make tough decisions.

[I]t looks to me like women in general, and the women whose educations I am responsible for in particular … aren’t just bad at behaving like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks. They are bad at behaving like self-promoting narcissists, anti-social obsessives, or pompous blowhards, even a little bit, even temporarily, even when it would be in their best interests to do so. Whatever bad things you can say about those behaviors, you can’t say they are underrepresented among people who have changed the world.

Remember David Hampton, the con artist immortalized in “Six Degrees of Separation”, who pretended he was Sydney Poitier’s son? He lied his way into restaurants and clubs, managed to borrow money, and crashed in celebrity guest rooms. He didn’t miss the fact that he was taking a risk, or that he might suffer. He just didn’t care.

It’s tempting to imagine that women could be forceful and self-confident without being arrogant or jerky, but that’s a false hope, because it’s other people who get to decide when they think you’re a jerk, and trying to stay under that threshold means giving those people veto power over your actions. To put yourself forward as someone good enough to do interesting things is, by definition, to expose yourself to all kinds of negative judgments, and as far as I can tell, the fact that other people get to decide what they think of your behavior leaves only two strategies for not suffering from those judgments: not doing anything, or not caring about the reaction.

…

If you walked into my department at NYU, you wouldn’t say “Oh my, look how much more talented the men are than the women.” The level and variety of creative energy in the place is still breathtaking to me, and it’s not divided by gender. However, you would be justified in saying “I bet that the students who get famous five years from now will include more men than women”, because that’s what happens, year after year. My friend talking to the reporter remains the sad exception.

Part of this sorting out of careers is sexism, but part of it is that men are just better at being arrogant, and less concerned about people thinking we’re stupid (often correctly, it should be noted) for trying things we’re not qualified for.

…

It would be good if more women got in the habit of raising their hands and saying “I can do that. Sign me up. My work is awesome,” no matter how many people that behavior upsets.

—Clay Shirky, “A Rant about Women”, Clay Shirky, January 15, 2010 (available at http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/01/a-rant-about-women/); see also Kate Harding, “A Rant about Socialization”, Salon Broadsheet, January 19, 2010 available at http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2010/01/19/shirky_rant/index.html) (“The key phrase … is ‘men and women need to work together to change the culture’ — otherwise, just telling women to put themselves out there more, as Shirky’s done, is asking them to risk serious social and professional penalties to get the same rewards as men.”; Deanna Zandt, “More on Shirky’s women rant: speaking up, ‘natural’ behavior, and storytelling wins”, Deanna Zandt, Tuesday, January 19, 2010 (available at http://www.deannazandt.com/2010/01/19/more-on-shirkys-women-rant-speaking-up-natural-behavior-and-storytelling-wins/) (“There are times that I feel damaged and inauthentic when I’ve been acting like an overconfident jerk, and that’s not how I want to ultimately live my life. I wrote this post from that place, of wanting to change the culture so that different personality traits can be rewarded, so that we can have (as I said) a more holistic, welcoming set of standards.”).

Real men are not women.
Real men are not sensitive.
Real men don’t care what others think.

2) [W]hen the press corps decides to abandon all restraint and go for the head shot, it usually tells us a lot more about the reporters’ bosses and what they’re thinking than it does about the reporters themselves. Your average political reporter is a spineless dweeb who went to all the best schools and made it to that privileged seat inside the campaign-trail ropeline by being keenly sensitive to the editorial wishes of his social and professional superiors.

…

And when all these people start getting in their ears about this or that guy doesn’t have “winnability,” or doesn’t have enough money to run, or has negatives that are insurmountable, all that thinking inevitably bleeds into the coverage. It’s not that the reporters are “biased.” They just don’t have the stones, for the most part, to ignore all the verbal and non-verbal cues they get from authority figures about who is “legitimate” and who isn’t.

…

To illustrate the point via haiku:

Journos are pussies

Only attack when it’s safe

Lay off entrenched pols

3) So Sarah Palin is now in that category of politician whom reporters feel safe in attacking.

Some of this is definitely her own fault — in addition to the dynamic described above, there’s an additional complicating converse that says that when a politician doesn’t kiss the press’s ass all day long, he or she can expect to get reamed in print until the next ice age. And Sarah Palin not only doesn’t kiss the press’s ass, she treats them like dogshit, openly[.]

Obama’s press people, meanwhile, behaved like a team of well-trained Starbuck’s baristas: quiet, accomodating, nonconfrontational. Then again, the reporters mostly all worshipped their boss, so they didn’t have any reason to behave otherwise. That part of the media-conspiracy narrative is definitely true. I remember one particular trip when Obama came back to our part of the plane wearing jeans and a white button-down shirt and there was audible chirping from several female reporters.

…

That said, even back at the very beginning of the campaign, before the signal came down that it was okay to start giving Obama big sloppy blowjobs on the air, when reporters were all slamming the one-term Illinois Senator for being a “lightweight” prone to “rookie mistakes” … . Obama’s press handlers observed the prime directive. They did not interfere with the reporters’ civilization. There was a “let the chips fall where they may” attitude that helped out a lot when the Beltway consensus finally shifted and the money started pouring in behind the candidate; there was no bad blood to overcome when the press had to change its mind again and embrace an “Obama is now the presumptive frontrunner/We are now at war with Oceania” posture.

Palin never had anything like that kind of attitude toward the press[.]

The press corps that is bashing her skull in right now is the same one that hyped that WMD horseshit for like four solid years and pom-pommed America to war with Iraq over the screeching objections of the entire planet. It’s the same press corps that rolled out the red carpet for someone very nearly as abjectly stupid as Sarah Palin to win not one but two terms in the White House. If there was any kind of consensus support for Palin inside the beltway, the criticism of her, bet on it, would be almost totally confined to chortling east coast smartasses like me and Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan.

What the people who are flipping out about the treatment of Palin should be asking themselves is what it means when it’s not just jerks like us but everybody piling on against Palin… . You teabaggers are in the process of being marginalized by your own ostensible party leaders in exactly the same way the anti-war crowd was abandoned by the Democratic party elders in the earlier part of this decade. Like the antiwar left, you have been deemed a threat to your own party’s “winnability.”

And do you know what that means? That means that just as the antiwar crowd spent years being painted by the national press as weepy, unpatriotic pussies whose enthusiastic support is toxic to any serious presidential aspirant, so too will all of you afternoon-radio ignoramuses who seem bent on spending the next three years kicking and screaming your way up the eternal asshole of white resentment now find yourself and your political champions painted as knee-jerk loonies whose rabid irrationality is undeserving of the political center. And yes, that’s me saying that, but I’ve always been saying that, not just about Palin but about George Bush and all your other moron-heroes.

What’s different now is who else is saying it. You had these people eating out of the palms of your hands (remember what it was like in the Dixie Chicks days?). Now they’re all drawing horns and Groucho mustaches on your heroes, and rapidly transitioning you from your previous political kingmaking role in the real world to a new role as a giant captive entertainment demographic that exists solely to be manipulated for ratings and ad revenue. What you should be asking yourself is why this is happening to you. Even I don’t know the answer to that question, but honestly, I don’t really care. All I know is that I find it extremely funny.

Matt Taibbi, “Yes, Sarah, There Is a Media Conspiracy,” Taibblog, Nov. 23, 2009 (available at http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/11/23/yes-sarah-there-is-a-media-conspiracy/).

Real men don’t care what others think.
Real men don’t ask; they tell.
Real men impose discipline.
Real men make tough decisions.

While visiting Afghanistan last July, I met a key provincial governor who every U.S. official told me was the best and most honest in Afghanistan—and then, they added, “We have to fight Karzai every day to keep him from being fired.” That is what happens to those who buck the Karzai system.

This is crazy. We have been way too polite, and too worried about looking like a colonial power, in dealing with Karzai. I would not add a single soldier there before this guy, if he does win the presidency, takes visible steps to clean up his government in ways that would be respected by the Afghan people.

If Karzai says no, then there is only one answer: “You’re on your own, pal. Have a nice life with the Taliban. We can’t and will not put more American blood and treasure behind a government that behaves like a Mafia family. If you don’t think we will leave—watch this.” (Cue the helicopters.)

So, please, spare me the lectures about how important Afghanistan and Pakistan are today. I get the stakes. But we can’t want a more decent Afghanistan than the country’s own president. If we do, we have no real local partner who will be able to hold the allegiance of the people, and we will not succeed—whether with more troops, more drones or more money.

—Thomas Friedman, “Not Good Enough,” The New York Times, Oct. 13, 2009, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=2 (via digby, “Hey, Pal,” Hullaballoo, Oct. 14, 2009, available at http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/hey-pal-by-digby-while-i-appreciate.html).

Real men are aggressive.
Real men don’t care what others think.

Machiavelli said for a prince it is better to be feared than to be loved.

For much of his presidency, most of the world feared George W. Bush. For a brief, shining moment after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, America’s enemies feared Bush, while almost all the rest of the world loved him.

That is the perfect situation for any US president. It can’t be sustained, of course, and Bush squandered the love part of the equation much more quickly and much more comprehensively than he should have. But he never lost the fear bit.

Here’s my worry about Obama. Lots of people love him and he is indeed very lovable. But I wonder if anyone at all, anywhere in the world, really fears him.

Let’s move forward a bit from Machiavelli for our strategic guidance. Let’s refer instead to the great classic of American strategic pedagogy, Happy Days.

Happy Days pivoted around the friendship between two very different American teenagers, Richie Cunningham and Fonzie Fonzarelli.

Richie was clean-cut, wholesome, an absolute goody-goody, and everybody loved him. Fonzie, especially in the early series, was a tough nut. Greased-back hair, always astride his outlaw motorbike, decked out in Marlon Brando T-shirt, Fonzie inspired fear and envy in men, and swoons among the gals.

Everyone was frightened of Fonzie. He could banish bad guys with a look. In one episode, Fonzie tried to teach Richie his style. Richie practised the grimaces, the flexes, the stares, but alas the bad guys were not impressed and certainly not deterred.

In the midst of a desperate scrape, Richie turned to Fonzie imploringly and asked: Why are my deadly looks, threatening flexes and strategic grimaces having no effect?

Oh yeah, Fonzie replied, I forgot to tell you. For all that to work, once in your life you have to have hit someone. You cannot imagine a deeper strategic insight.

At some point, Obama is going to have to do something seriously unpleasant to someone.

—Greg Sheridan, “Lots of People Love Obama, but Does Anyone in the World Really Fear Him?”, RealClearPolitics, Sept. 24, 2009 (available at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/24/waiting_for_a_fonzie_moment_in_obamas_richie_cunningham_presidency.html), via John Aravois, “More Fonzie, Less Richie,” AMERICAblog, Sept. 25, 2009 (available at http://www.americablog.com/2009/09/more-fonzie-less-richie.html).

Real men make tough decisions.
Real men don’t care what others think.

JOURNALIST: Mr. President, you made it a practice of not commenting on personnel moves.

W. BUSH: Of course I did.  And you can understand why.  Because we’ve got people’s reputations at stake.  And on Friday I stood up and said I don’t want to appreciate speculation about Donald Rumsfeld.  He’s doing a fine job, I strongly support him.

JOURNALIST: Well, what would you say to critics who believe that you’re ignoring the advice of retired generals, military commanders, who say that there needs to be a change?

W. BUSH: I say I listen to all voices.  But mine’s the final decision.  And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job.  He’s not only transforming the military, he’s fighting a war on terror—he’s helpin’ us fight a war on terror.  I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld.  I hear the voices.  And I read the front page.  And I know the speculation.  But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best, and what’s best is for Donald Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense.

Real men make tough decisions.
Real men are aggressive.
Real men are not caring.
Real men are not sensitive.
Real men don’t care what others think.

“Obviously, we are gratified that the Iraq strategy we have long advocated … has become the policy of the U.S. government, because we believe it is the right policy for the country and the world. But we feel no joy and little satisfaction. It would have been much better if Saddam could have been removed without war, or if he had been removed at the end of the previous Gulf War. We wish a peaceful resolution were now possible. But it is not. Wishes are not facts. Saddam has proven—he had proven by December 1997—that he will not disarm peacefully. And he must be disarmed. So war will come.

We are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N., and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam’s regime. It will produce whatever effects it will produce on neighboring countries and on the broader war on terror. We would note now that even the threat of war against Saddam seems to be encouraging stirrings toward political reform in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a measure of cooperation in the war against al Qaeda from other governments in the region. It turns out it really is better to be respected and feared than to be thought to share, with exquisite sensitivity, other people’s pain. History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts.”

—William Kristol, “The Imminent War,” Weekly Standard, Mar. 17, 2003 (via Anonymous Liberal, “Bill Kristol: Pundit Superstar,” Unclaimed Territory, Jan. 2, 2007, available at http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/bill-kristol-pundit-superstar.html).

Real men don’t care what others think.
Real men impose discipline.

“It’s a West Texas thing—and a symbol of his approach to diplomacy, politics and the war on terrorism. [George W. Bush is] the Texas Ranger of the world, and wants everyone to know it. He’s the guy with the silver badge, issuing warnings to the cattle rustlers. He will cut deals when necessary—his history shows that—but, as a matter of inclination and strategy, he’s the toughest talker on his team. So far, in the aftermath of September 11, that stance has served him, and the country, well. The question is whether it will in the future.”

Howard Fineman, “George Walker, Texas Ranger: To Understand Bush’s Style, Look to His Roots,” Newsweek, Feb. 13, 2002 (available at http://www.newsweek.com/id/63448), via Paul Krugman, “Professor in Chief,” The Conscience of a Liberal, July 22, 2009 (available at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/professor-in-chief/).

Real men are dominant.
Real men are primitive.
Real men don’t care what others think.
Real men don’t change.

“Now Ms. Wolf has to make the unfun Gore fun. She has come up with her most un-feminist notion yet: Urge a gentle, new-age beta male to act like a Fight Club macho alpha male, the sort who bares his teeth and drags women off to his cave.

“She has a point. Women are impressed by swagger and paternalism in presidential candidates, just as men are.”

—Maureen Dowd, “Liberties; The Alpha-Beta Macarena,” New York Times, Nov. 3, 1999.

Real men don’t care what others think.
Real men don’t change.

Real men are aggressive.
Real men don’t care what others think.

” ‘A direct parallel is now being drawn between the fight for freedom from Islamist tyranny in Iran and across the Middle East and the fight decades earlier for freedom from Soviet tyranny,’ said Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

” ‘It’s almost as if the president lacks confidence in the greatness of his own nation,’ he added. ‘He seems unwilling to aggressively project American global power, as if it were something to be ashamed of.’ “

—Scott Wilson, “Iran Unrest Reveals Split in U.S. on Its Role Abroad, Washington Post, June 23, 2009.