Irrespective of media, one now consumes a near-constant diet of articles about "toxic masculinity." It seems to have become something of an obsession. Indeed, the most vociferous voices seem to have a pretty big problem with masculinity in general. And, unfortunately, many such voices have found their way into the halls of academia. From pre-schools to universities, there is a Utopian social engineering experiment underway. An effort to make society "genderless," or perhaps more accurately, to make it generderless ... in a female-kind-of-way. Boys are being programmed to suppress their biological natures and ... behave like girls. Indeed, many question whether there is such a thing as a biological nature at all.
It is far more pervasive than most people think. Teachers no longer tell children to, "Form two lines, girls on one side, boys on the other." Games and activities are limited to those that preclude boys from employing their natural advantages in size, speed and strength. Competitiveness is seen as unhealthy and often sanctioned. No winners or losers. High energy is a deficit of attention. Self-assertion is defiant misbehavior. The "female way of doing things" - cooperative, well-behaved and emotionally-available, has become the filter through which boys must pass.
But all this social engineering in pursuit of a Utopian ideal, not of equality but of sameness, ignores the overwhelming biological evidence (to say nothing of the evidence of your eyes) that maleness and femaleness, at any age, is not the same. Boys and girls, men and women are simply wired differently. There are 100+ physiological differences between the male and female brain. Indeed, researchers can look at brain imaging and tell, with 93% accuracy, whether the brain is male or female. No blood or hormone tests required, just images. And yet, social activists dismiss such disparities as being "insignificant." Males and females are the same and any "apparent differences" are the result of "social construction." (Keep in mind that the difference between human and chimpanzee DNA is only 1.5% so ... an "insignificant amount" can go a long way.)
Anyone who follows my posts knows I don't care for ideologues. And, it doesn't matter which kind. Ideologues view the world through a lens that transforms everything into "right or wrong," "for or against" ... "friend or foe." They obsess about a handful of "sacred axioms," and make "talking point" assertions about the nature of reality, none of which are allowed to be subjected to peer review. There's no room for nuance. No acknowledgement that some problems are complicated and therefore not amenable to simple solutions.
I am a political and philosophical Centrist. The moral philosophy I most associate with is Aristotle's, "Virtue Ethics," which, in a nutshell, states that "Virtue" is to be found between two extremes of "Vice." Most people, whether they're familiar with Virtue Ethics or not, tend to agree in principle. But not the ideologues. People in the middle are "aiders and abettors." By listening to both sides of an argument, they give a "platform for the expression of evil." By asking for evidence to support an assertion, as logical people are inclined to do, they detract from the "ineffable nature of the Truth."
They're right ... and you just have to accept it. And, if you don't, you become subject to approbation and assertions of moral turpitude: With respect to feminist activists, you're a "sexist; misogynist; or rape-culture apologist." No amount of hyperbole or bombast is off the table.
It's hard to imagine an aspect of humanity more fundamental to the functioning of society than the relationship between men and women. For hundreds of millions of years, just about every animal on Earth has been genetically programmed to reproduce via male-female coupling. And, all throughout the animal kingdom, we see vast differences in both male-female appearance, and behavior. Male peacocks, with their notoriously colorful plumage, pompously strut their stuff to impress an onlooking female. Male bighorn sheep smash their heads together in a way that, apparently, impresses the girls. It all seems a bit silly. And yet, there it is. For whatever reason, Nature thought these were good ideas and built them into the blueprints.
Anyone whose daughter has ever made them sit through countless hours of "America's Funniest Videos" will have noticed a similar pattern amongst humans. The only time a woman appears in such videos is when her newly-wed husband talks her into getting up on a table in her wedding dress, or, she's involved in an actual mishap that gets caught on tape. With guys, it's almost always some stupid pre-meditated stunt (in front of an audience) that, amazingly, doesn't result in death or paralysis.
But there are two sides to every coin. It is that same dare-devilry and dismissal of risk that drives the exploration of the unknown, inspires invention and fuels the entrepreneurial spirit. It is the same assertiveness and aggression that causes playground brawls that drives males to protect women and children, even at the expense of their lives.
"We don't need male protectors."
Go to any war-zone on Earth and find a single woman who shares such sentiment. I've been there, there aren't any. It is only the insularity of ideology that can account for such naivete. In the entire history of the species, there is no known example of women providing for the defense of the community.
"We don't need to 'defend the community' anymore. Humanity has progressed."
The gas chambers of Nazi Germany and the Gulags of Soviet Russia occurred in the lifetimes of our parents and grandparents. More modern examples of the thin veneer of civilization can been seen on nightly newscasts almost daily. Humanity has not progressed one iota.
While social engineering activists say they "don't hate men" ... they do seem Hell-bent on emasculating them. To neuter the negatives. The arrogance and hubris required to believe that one possesses the insight to tease apart the good from the bad of human instinct and intuition, is mind-boggling. The Silent Majority needs to find its voice. And, I suspect, the ones who ought to be the most vocal are the women: While geldings are better behaved than stallions, they make notoriously poor paramours.
We Don't Hate Men
As a bonus, I thought I would share a story (lightly edited) I recently recounted in another poster's comments section, to demonstrate the sheer magnitude of the insanity. This is what happens when ideologues become unhinged:
I once attended a poetry group reading and was asked by the organizer to give a 30-minute lecture on the neuroscience underlying poetic verse (I've explained the phenomenon in numerous posts). As part of my lecture, I used one of my poems as an example.
Of the two dozen people in the room (three-quarters of whom were women), everybody thought the poem was brilliant ... except one. And she ... was furious. As you can imagine, she was a strident feminist. She thought my poem was a "tour de force" of male patriarchy. As evidence of her assertion, she proffered lines from my poem such as:
"Shakespeare knew and so do you"
- Using the opinion of a straight white male to infer what everyone else should think.
Who held the longest sword
- Swords are associated with male power and dominance ... male metaphors = the patriarchy.
... The Big Men play their game,
- Nevermind that it was a criticism of "Big Men," it was still more male domination.
War brought to you, what would you do,
For you, your wife, your child,
- More military metaphors (male) and clearly the poem is addressed to a male ("... your wife"). But the worst of all:
The Laws of Man do not war ban,
They make a fight more fair,
Two swords same length, Two swords same strength,
Of the Law ... Big Man beware.
How come you didn't use the "Laws of Humanity"!?!?
Uh ... nothing useful rhymes with humanity. It has too many syllables and the wrong rhythm. And ... it doesn't sound poetic. Man, capitalized in such context, is a stand-in for Mankind which is a stand-in for Humanity. It's been that way since English was invented, and I'm not changing it because feminists think it privileges men. "Monsieur," in French, has exactly the same meaning as does "Mister" in English. But, "Mon" + "Sieur" means, "My Lord. Should we change that too?
"PATRIARCHY!!!
- And, imagine a poet channeling Shakespeare. Oh, the affront.
"Why didn't you use Emily Dickenson?"
"Because no one in their right mind thinks Emily Dickenson was even in the same league as William Shakespeare."*
"Well, then, which woman poet do you think was in the same league as Shakespeare?"
"No one. Not a single one in all of human history ever came close."
- Of course, no male poet did either. Not in any language in any time frame. Shakespeare is singular in all of human history. He has no peer.
PATRIARCHY!!!"
- Here's the offending poem if you're interested:
*****
What was not mentioned in the aforementioned story was that the woman doing the haranguing ... was a teacher. This is the kind of indoctrination to which, at least some, of our children are being routinely subjected. No classic of literature, whether Shakespeare or Mark Twain, is now safe from the censoring sensibilities of those with the most extreme opinions ... and a willingness to use the shrillest voice to express them.
Thankfully, it's not all teachers. As you can see in the post that precedes this one, I'm a big defender of the profession. Nevertheless, as the Far Left post-modern doctrine spreads, more and more children become exposed. And good luck if you're child is a straight white male.
In fairness, there was a silver-lining regarding this incident: The other women in the room ... went ballistic. Common sense, it would seem, is not yet completely dead. It's just so seldomly heard.
Quill.
In for a penny, in for a pound. Here are a couple of other lion-themed poems that firmly establish my male patriarchal credentials:
A nice Father's Day toast:
And here's one I had my daughter send to her newly acquired boyfriend (incidentally, she loves it):
