GQ Magazine just dropped a massive 7000-word article on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and to hear the reactions of some of her haters it’s as if it had been dropped directly on their toes.
Centered around several lengthy discussions AOC had with GQ correspondent Wesley Lowery in recent months, the article discusses a wide range of topics, from the personal to the political, including the sexual assault she endured in her barista days, the politics of the Green New Deal, and the perils of conventional masculinity.
It’s that last topic that seems to have aroused the most, well lets just call it passionate response from her haters online, many of whom took to Twitter to make sure everybody knows that AOC has no right to talk about the subject.
The assorted tweeters give an assortment of reasons why AOC should be disqualified from speaking about masculinity — she’s a liberal, a Democrat, a feminist, a woman. But the most striking reason is the one given in the final tweet there: she’s not a “real woman.”
Now Lina Money here doesn’t explain what a “real woman” is or why AOC isn’t one. But other commenters had no problem answering this question: AOC isn’t a real woman because she isn’t with a real man. Her fiancé isn’t some square-jawed, wide-chested Chad; he’s a soy boy beta cuck with a problem beard.
Some took him to task for not punching a comedian making fun of his fiancée on the Capitol steps.
Others declared that real women only like “toxic” males because SCIENCE.
I’m just glad I don’t live in this guy’s head. In her comments in this article, and in both her personal and political life, AOC makes clear that none of us have to, and that this is a very good thing, for us and for the world.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
As for Trump, well wow, that is quite a bit of vexatious litigation. I think he must be bored. Or he’s just trying to get his conspiracy narrative out there in time for 2024. But I did enjoy the judge’s snark.
The judge in the documents case is now getting stick for allowing the special master application. But as mentioned, that wasn’t an unreasonable request. The judge could have dismissed the application on procedural grounds. Trump again just took the opportunity to push his conspiracy theory. But I can see why the judge did it. She was pretty explicit that it was just to stop him saying it was a stitch up.
@ big titty demon
Now this has been interesting. A lot of my most hard core “Corbyn would be ok if he wasn’t so right wing” friends have found themselves gobsmacked that they are crying. But generally the Queen was very popular here. She had something like a 90% approval rating. Helen Mirren said that whilst not a monarchist, she was a “Queenist”. I think there was a general understanding that, even if you didn’t think the job was necessary, there was no denying the Queen did that job well.
(Funnily enough the one group that hasn’t called off their ‘strike’ is the criminal bar. They have though stopped actually protesting.)
But, even on the left here, there was a lot of respect for the queen, so it’s no surprise the unions have reflected the public mood. Traditional English Socialism is complicated. Orwell is one of the best writers on that still I think. But Clement Attlee also wrote an interesting piece on the monarchy.
I’ll reproduce in full as I know we have some politics buffs here.
Not at all to invalidate the feelings of Alan or his friends or anyone who’s experiencing grief in relation to the Queen, but my experience has been a different one.
For context, I’m a white English woman from a family of Thatcherite Tories, who is now left wing but not a traditional English socialist (more of an SJW type), and who works in an NHS organisation with a particularly high number of workers and patients who are people of colour. I’m not actually sure if *anyone* I know is saddened by the queen’s passing (it’s of course very possible that many of them are but I’ve given off vibes that I wouldn’t be sympathetic, but generally people I know seem pretty apathetic about it).
I’m a republican (small r!), who has at times been sympathetic to the argument that the queen is at least good at her job in providing a particular kind of international diplomacy. I’ve since come around to the opinion that the queen wasn’t MAXIMALLY bad at that job (she did it much better than say, Prince Phillip would have done), Diana, Meghan and Harry have really highlighted how much more she could have been doing and didn’t. I don’t mean that she could have showed up to an event in a Black Lives Matter t-shirt and smashed a statue of slave-owner Edward Colston (although I would have strongly endorsed that! But I get that her job theoretically is to provide steady quiet ‘polite’ diplomacy rather than radical calls to action). I mean that Diana, Meghan and Harry (while they were still performing royal functions) all made at least *some* effort to make ‘polite’ symbolic gestures that also supported social justice. Diana made a point of shaking hands with an HIV+ man on camera in 1987 while opening a hospital that specialised in treating AIDS. Harry and Meghan made an official visit to Reprezent FM in Brixton in 2018- which was a very small gesture, but it was symbolic (not sure if this is the best US analogy, but maybe think of it as comparable to a President’s wife making an official visit to a Black-run cultural instiution in Harlem, or Tulsa?). It’s not so much that I think visiting Brixton was the greatest achievement ever, or that they singlehandedly demolished white imperialism- it’s more than by making that sort of quiet gesture, it highlighted how the queen *wasn’t* seen making similar gestures- I don’t recall ever having seen her at a phot op for a Black or Asian-run business in the UK (as opposed to in an international context), or a business in a working class neighbourhood of a city, or at an event relevant to the LGBTQ+ community. So what I’m mainly feeling at the moment is anger.
@ beneficiary
Oh don’t worry; it’s not like you’d hurt my feelings or anything. You make very good points. They’re especially relevant as there’s the thing of whether Charles will be an ‘activist’ King. Although people have analysed his initial speech as an indication he understands he will have to rein (reign?) himself in a bit in his new role. But as you say gestures are important.
For me though it’s not so much about the passing of a person (although I sympathise with their loved ones) it’s just a feeling of loss, or maybe change?. Because something that represented stability has gone. That’s why I made the twin towers analogy. They were just (pretty ugly) buildings. I doubt many New Yorkers gave them a second thought. But I can understand why their absence triggers something. Not just because so many people died; but because it shatters illusions of permanence and stability. Familiar things can be comforting because they just give a feeling of security and continuity.
Any of that make sense?
@ Alan
It does make sense, although my feelings are more akin to beneficiary of imperialism’sthan to yours.
I was on holiday in Northumbria when Diana died, was bemused by the friend we were holidaying with’s reaction, and then alienated by what seemed to be the whole nation’s grief. However I was seriously pissed off when we came to go home on the Saturday of her funeral and had trouble finding a pertol station open. Once we did get our petrol the driving was surreal, like those pictures of just opened motorways with virtually no traffic, but that did make the drive back to Sheffield very easy and fst. So my take away is “what do I need to ensure we have while everyone else is closing down to mourn?” rather than any personal grief or even sense of loss.
I am concerned about Charles and his meddling ways, given that the Queen did the same in exempting the Royal estates from various laws I see no reason that he will stop that practice, which is in my view an abuse of the position.
I’m mildly sad about the Queen, since she was queen years before I was born. Like everyone under 70, it is a change in something that’s always been there.
People liked Liz — does anyone outside his family like Charles? He’s going to have all the bad habits of monarchy and none of the noblesse oblige.
I admired her ethic of putting her head down and getting on with the job. She must have gotten tired of hearing the national anthem, and opening rec centers/hospitals/civic buildings. She was actively queening up till 2 days before she died. And she lived to be 96, and seems to have been genuinely liked by her family.
For someone who wasn’t born to the job, she did it well and faithfully.
Chuck is an upper-class twit who is going to abuse those Crown powers about land owning etc. even more. While I like his environmental stance (for peons, not himself), I don’t think the public needs him wittering on about homeopathy and wasting taxpayers money on it.
Might have been better off with Queen Anne, really.
Kings named Charles lead to civil wars, so that’s an ominous thought. Of course we only have 2 data points there.
Reaction to the Queen: Ah, there she is, the fixed point.
Reaction to Charles: Not this git again.
@GSS ex-noob: It’s from a Bollywood-movie called ‘RRR’, takes place in late colonial India. It’s over three hours long, mainly about britain being evil and throwing (CGI)-tigers at people. Added a trailer to give you an idea (Advise turning captions on).
@Alan
I have a friend (American) who is married to a man from the Midlands. I’ve never really heard him say much of anything about the royal family before (though I have a vague memory suggesting his father is a baronet), mostly because we’ve always had other things to talk about, but my friend mentioned she’d had to break the news to her husband. So I asked how he’s doing.
Her answer was that he was sad because she’s been a constant in his life. All four of us are GenX, so up until a few days ago, Elizabeth had always been the Queen – though admittedly that meant more to my friend and her husband, since he’d grown up in the UK and she’d lived there a while after they were married, plus I believe they’ve arranged for her to have dual citizenship or something like that. My only personal feelings about the Queen are much simpler: she bore a slight resemblance to my father’s sisters (no surprise, given that that’s the most English side of my family), so as a young girl I’d noted she wouldn’t’ve looked out of place at a family reunion. But for my friend’s husband, the Queen’s death is a big gap in his personal sense of the world.
This reminds me that for a time, my mother had a friend who was also an acquaintance of the royals (six degrees of separation and all).*
He quite liked Her Maj (said she really did have a sense of humor), Queen Mum (a bawdy sense of humor and booze always to hand), and he was quite fond of/felt sorry for Diana.
He had an extremely low opinion of Charlie, though. Thought he was dull and not that bright, and generally the upper-class twit sort. He worried about Britain after Liz was gone. Luckily he didn’t live to see it.
I thought of him when I saw the clip of C3 waving his hand impatiently till some servant scooted the inkwell and pens a few inches over. Long shot revealed Wills was not above moving things with his own hands.
*Though that’s only 3 degrees, right? I have a Bacon Number of 2.
None of them are WRONG, just hopelessly, hilariously un-self aware. Just like her