Having It Both Ways

Let's see. Leftists usually complain that hawks are excessively masculine (example here). This is sometimes combined with a stereotype of conservatives as rural, uneducated, fundamentalist Christians. So when there's a group of us wingnuts who are urban, bookish, and neither fundamentalist not Christian, the obvious complaint is that … neocons (or whatever the latest term is) aren't masculine enough:

It sometimes crosses my mind when spending time with certain friends that there seems to be an inverse relationship between the intensity of their hawkishness and the extent to which they scan as traditionally masculine, and that this is particularly true for those Jewish-American men who continue to suffer from what the early Zionists thought of as the pathologies of the diaspora. Thankfully, such men today make up just a fraction of the American Jewish population, but you can still find them, intense thinkers who are prone to spilling things on themselves and getting winded after half a mile on a bicycle.

I was about to call the combination (complaints about both an excess and a deficit of masculinity) a non-falsifiable argument until I realized that there was no actual argument. I guess it's a non-falsifiable irrelevance.

I suspect that the greatest ire on the left is found when they see somebody who is a counterexample to their usual irrelevant stereotypes. If they ever see, for example, somebody disagreeing with them who is both a Ph.D. and a professional soldier, they'd probably accuse him of treason or something …