Friday, August 24, 2007

View of Men

Thirty years ago (!), feminist polemicist Marilyn French wrote The Women's Room, in which she stated, "All men are rapists." When I was in college in the 1980s, photocopies of our "Face Book" appeared around campus with the caption "Potential Rapists." The photos were, of course, of men only. The usual uproar ensued, with no action taken by the college to remove, discourage, or otherwise hamper this exercising of free speech (the college took similar non-action in the regular removal and destruction of the one or two conservative papers on campus, but that is a different story).

Yesterday's Moving On column in the WSJ was on the current state of aversion to men. My intent today is not (necessarily) to decry the ongoing denigration and devaluing of men in society; rather, I am (ironically) in solidarity with my sisters on certain points.

While the article points out the usual insults and betrayals (e.g., the coach who dares not hug a player, the requirement of a "female parent" on the sidelines at all times), amidst the pain are some stark truths.

The article points out that "[g]uidelines issued by police departments and child-safety groups often encourage [children lost in malls] to look for 'a pregnant woman,' 'a mother pushing a stroller' or 'a grandmother." These are examples of "low-risk adults." Men need not apply.

Child Advocate John Walsh, of America's Most Wanted fame (and who tragically lost a child to a stranger), advises parents to "never hire a male babysitter." (Duh!)

I am not complaining about these portrayals, but I am asking/hoping that we change them We could start off with a simple admission: Men and women are different.

I have unwittingly agreed with John Walsh on these very pages: of COURSE you would not hire a male babysitter (despite what the liberal nags online and in town say; and how easy it is for them to say so, given the tiny odds of a male being sent--or even HIRED--by a babysitting agency) or male-run daycare center (would such a thing even be allowed?).

How has the status of men fallen so low? Why does the death spiral continue? How have we let this happen? And why are men excused from adulthood?

Fact is, as we allow men to run amuck, to extend indefinitely their adolescence via, e.g., unwed motherhood or, yes, same-sex marriage (in which the complementarity of parenting is destroyed, replaced with the false notion of the absolute interchangeability of male/female roles or more pointedly, given the ratio of M/M to F/F unions and the intentions of those units, the supposed dispensabilty of the male input altogether). Modern feminism decries the former burdensome role of women, where they were expected to be the moral influence of society (expected by themselves, it appears, given that since their abdication the position goes unfilled), and yet right.now.at.this.very.moment women accrue greater and greater responsibility.

Liberal policies on criminals place individual privacy concerns over community safety (in my opinion); pornography pervades every aspect of our "culture," sex sells. [I state again, that I now sound like the Apoplectic Lutherans I ridiculed in high school causes me no end to amusement and pain.]

I was thinking last night about the purpose of marriage: one purpose, really, is to tame men. A countries proportion of unattached men has a direct effect on its propensity to make war (duh!). Yet we allow men (encourage them, one might say--that is, the absence of peer pressure against unwed motherhood is pretty much the same as encouraging men to forego the whole marriage thing) to remain war- and whore-mongerers. (Let's here it for equality!) And then those who DO care are browbeaten into submission.

Men dare not touch their students or athletes (and, ironically, research shows that girls need physical attention more than do boys). If you review the picture at the top of the page, you will see that some might choose to refrain from touching their own daughters. The picture--a BILLBOARD program in Virginia--is supposed to urge women to follow their gut instinct, and the program directors deny that the picture could be interpreted to call into question any adult/child interaction, right down to father/daughter.

[As an aside, yes, this is concerning to me because I am the father of daughters, and lemme tell you--they need attention! Tickling, rough-housing, hugging, and whacks on the bottom. If I am not affectionate enough, they let me know, climbing into my lap, wrassling me around the house. And I revel in it. But no way in heck am I going to coach a girl's team, teach a class, or do anything that would put me at risk with anyone else's children. What the WSJ deems the "predator panic" is just too prevalent. Oh--so, THANKS to all you 1980s campus Feminists: I hope you are happy with what y'all have wrought (and, sadly, maybe you are).]

A Feminist I knew once stated that it was acceptable if, in the name of equality, men be brought down. "If that's what it takes." (Strangely in line with communism--where everyone is equally miserable--I might point out.) Well, looks like she got her wish. Men are ignored, discarded, exempted from their societal requirements to mature (themselves) and nurture (others). Weird (to me) that because men cannot nurture as well as women then they are no longer required to do it at all.

My other diatribe, by the way, is that in order that a (very) few may succeed, all must suffer. I have written before how the "freeing" of a few professionals and academes has enslaved the other 90% of women, shackled now as they are to jobs. Just. Like. Men. [I forget where I was going with this: I had another "success for the few = failure for the many" epiphany, but it escapes me at this moment.]

I am petering out here; my question is this: why are men "allowed" to be different (which we all know anyway, really) when it comes to crime/rape/predatory behavior, but we are said to be exactly-100%-the-same when it comes to our value as parents or, lately, as humans? I would think that, logically, if one accepts the first proposition (which I do), then one must accept the second. How do we re-integrate men into an increasingly segregated society?

Oof. e-NOUGH.

2 comments:

trip said...

Funny thing happened today. Yesterday, while standing in line to drop the 4yr. old to preschool, I was chatting with the other dad. Well my 1 yr. old (whom I was holding) leaned out to him with both hands... 'hold me.' So, I handed her to him as I might have one of the mothers.

So, today he apologized if I was offended... It is so disappointing that he felt awkward. He is a super dad.

On another note, as a youth I attended a summer camp for 2 weeks of every year. It was sponsored by the Kiwanis Club and called... wait for it... Man For Boy Camp. How awesome is that. Of course the name has changed since then.

Anonymous Bosh said...

Yup. I keep thinking about the sign pictured for this entry. My entry today (9/21) is a record of a standard event: an early morning run with my daughter followed by a visit to a coffee shop. Often we sit around on a park bench.

Sometimes on the way home I push her bike; sometimes she jumps down to a stream and explores in the culvert; sometimes we hold hands.

Now and again I wonder whether the cops will show up...

We are SO whacked out now--paranoid parents (which is part of the drive behind "helicopter" parenting). No mor long days spent in a field watching clouds...