“The tactical problems presented by the appearance of weakness as a group explain, to some extent, the visceral response many have to displays of flamboyant effeminacy. The word effeminacy is a bit misleading, because this really isn't about women. The dislike of what is commonly called effeminacy is about male status and practical concerns about tactical vulnerabilities, and it is more accurate to discuss dishonor in terms of deficient masculinity and flamboyant dishonor.”

Pg 60-61
The Way of Men (2012)
Context: Flamboyant dishonor is not a failure of strength or courage. Men who are flamboyant dishonorable are flagrant in their disregard for the esteem of their male peers. What we often call effeminacy is a theatrical rejection of masculine hierarchy and manly virtues. Masculinity is religious, and flamboyantly dishonorable men are blasphemers. Flamboyant dishonor is an insult to the core values of the male group. Flamboyant dishonor is an openly expressed lack of concern for one's reputation for strength, courage and mastery within the context of an honor group comprised primarily of other men... Flamboyant dishonor is a little bit like walking into that room full of men who are trying to get better at jiu-jitsu and insisting that they stop what they are doing and pay attention to your fantastic new tap-dancing routine. The flamboyantly dishonorable man seeks attention for something the male group doesn't value, or which isn't appropriate at a given time.

Source: Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (1990), p. 27

Between the Bridge and the River (2006)

Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say (2000)

1780s, The Debates in the Federal Convention (1787)
Source: Madison's notes (25 August 1787) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_825.asp

No Compromise – No Political Trading (1899)

The Way of Men is The Way of The Gang
The Way of Men (2012)

1930s, Fireside Chat in the night before signing the Fair Labor Standards (1938)
Context: I certainly would not indicate a preference in a State primary merely because a candidate, otherwise liberal in outlook, had conscientiously differed with me on any single issue. I should be far more concerned about the general attitude of a candidate toward present day problems and his own inward desire to get practical needs attended to in a practical way. We all know that progress may be blocked by outspoken reactionaries and also by those who say "yes" to a progressive objective, but who always find some reason to oppose any specific proposal to gain that objective. I call that type of candidate a "yes, but" fellow.

The Labours of Hercules (1967)