> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:34:25 -0400
> Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But in the end what I was saying was that neoconservatism and
> neoliberalism
> > have conspired to reinscribe a "traditional" masculinity
>
> Why would they need to do that? What is there to bother the
> neo-whatevers in feminism -- as that term is generally
> understood, namely equality of inequality across the gender
> line?
Neoliberals don't need it need it - though competitive individualism has a deeply gendered history - but their electoral success is and has been tied to a collaboration with neoconservatives who clearly reify masculine superiority and priority as traditional. A conspiracy theorist might argue that neoliberals use neoconservative masculinity and religiousity to dupe and fracture the masses but I don't think their combined anti-feminism is conspiratorial at all, seems to me it is quite up front and straightforward.
I guess one interesting twist on all this is that once a guy has established his masculine credentials, it is now more than OK for him to express otherwise "girly" emotions w/r/t family, education, community, god, etc... think Tony Dungy... but those emotions and feelings must not pollute the world of business or sports that guys watch in their man-caves, ugh.