“I guess Romney can be deemed ‘attractive’ in some quarters. But it’s in a sort of department-store mannequin way. He reminds me of someone who might be cast as a caracature of a politician in an old sitcom. Handsome, says the right things, but awfully plastic.”
I’m going to make a risky “stereotype” extrapolation.
Three Mormon men have ben present during my lifetime:
My uncle was a career Army Officer, husband, father of three
A neighbor during high school, now an MD (Stanford, UCLA medical, honor roll), husband, father
My next door neighbor, lawyer, husband, father of three.
All three lifelong Mormons, one marriage, no juveline delinquency I know of for the children. Very serious in demeanor. I think this goes with the cultural norm for adult male Mormon men.
For these three and for Romney, loosening up, casual, humorous only comes with some effort.
My two male cousins (sons of uncle) left Mormonism, but they have most of the same seriousness, stiffness, as their dad.
It is a cultural thing, like Victorian age Britain, or Puritan age New England.
I think you have a good point, and I’ve often considered that to be the case. I actually like the old-fashioned, button-down, quiet-strength that used to define maleness in the first half of the 20th Century. I relish it, whether in my memories of my family members, or watching it on display in old movies. The weak, metrosexual ‘maleness’ as it is now defined in the culture turns my stomach.
So, ostensibly I should be more open and forgiving towards Romney. But with him, there’s a certain distant aloofness that makes me feel uncomfortable, although sometimes I wonder if this is partly being driven by my knowledge and disapproval of his liberal history. Reagan, Palin, or even Perot... I’d be quite at ease in a foxhole under fire, with them by my side. Can’t say this about 95% of politicians, and that includes some pretty good ones when it comes to issues and stances.