The last month has been a whirlwind of allegations and accusations of sexual assault from the heights of Hollywood to the halls of Congress, Big Media, and beyond. Men from all walks of life, political beliefs, and social classes are losing their marriages and livelihoods, not the mention their reputations, due of the assaults and unwanted attention they have perpetrated on women (and in some cases men) in their lives.
The irony is that in many of these situations the ones being exposed (pun intended) reside within the warm cocoon of the liberal cultural elite. Most of these people have spent a lifetime—and a great deal of effort and money—sneering at and debasing the culture of practiced faith, respect for women, the institutions of traditional marriage and family, all the while portraying men of that “debased lifestyle” they disparaged as unenlightened peasants and troglodytes.
Now it appears the men who mounted these assaults—both literally and figuratively—are nothing but patriarchal misogynistic perverts. But unfortunately we’re seeing commentators—including women such as Michelle Obama—who actively enabled the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Al Franken, Bill Clinton, and John Conyers, pinning the problem on “toxic masculinity” as if all men are responsible for (and capable of) abusing the people around them in this way.
While there is delicious irony in seeing those individuals who treated traditional culture like their personal scratching posts run out of town on rails, there remain in their places those who share these hateful views about the “rest of us” and who are seizing upon this time as an excuse to launch a modern day Salem witch hunt. Hate of all things male has been rallying cry of the left over the last 100 years on behalf of the equality movement. The movement for women’s equality under law was and remains a good and just endeavor. And it should also be acknowledged that there remains much to be done, due in no small part to the actions of the Weinsteins and Frankens of the world who clearly did not practice what they preached.
How did we get here?
In Search of Lost Virtues
When you consider that the “sex positive” culture of the 1960s and ’70s turned sex from a function of emotional love and committed relationships working towards the goal of procreation into a casual, transactional exchange at the whims of the participants, it’s not hard to understand how the likes of Clinton, Spacey, and Conyers “evolved.” The former put the emphasis on the other, the latter on the self. Five decades of Hollywood and the media assaulting the institutions of marriage and the family, culturally objectifying women in print and in film, and normalizing abhorrent behavior and lifestyles can do that.
Beyond mainstream Hollywood, we have another serious problem: easy access to pornography for young men online who are conditioned thereby to view women as objects. After years of conditioning, we are “shocked” to find their behavior in line with their conditioning? Are we not being irrational to think there will be rational behavior in the face of such conditioning?
Moreover, as we have embraced the worthy effort of opening up all doors to women—and by extension girls—the culture has also embraced what I think is an unintended consequence of taking the “boy” out of the boy in our educational and organized activities systems. Christina Hoff Sommers’s almost two-decade-old research looks downright prophetic on the effects our culture wars have had on the next generation of men. What’s even more disappointing is that this campaign, given the recent news cycle about bad male behavior, appears to have accomplished little.
So, how do we continue to empower women while ending the campaign against masculinity that has, in part, created this crisis in our culture?
We all make choices every day: to objectify or not, to harm or not, to respect or not. Whatever happened to self-control and dignity? While we’re at it, whatever happened to being faithful and being true to a promise? Whatever happened to being virtuous? The Latin root word of virtue is “vir,” meaning man. Definitionally, to be a “man,” means to partake in virtue. “Manly” does not mean showing off with Gaston-like bravado, boasting about one’s power over others, but instead possessing strength of will, honor, and compassion.
The “masculine gentleman,” focused on self-sacrifice, self-discipline, honor, and gentle strength was a character Hollywood used to embrace—with Jimmy Stewart, Gary Cooper, and John Wayne filling the roles. But somewhere along the line, in an effort to “equalize” the sexes, these values became deficiencies. Service for others, using strength to sacrifice for families and communities—once paramount to being a true and good man—became demerits that undercut the standing and role of women.
But these are the very values that required discipline, holding back passions and base desires, and building out of self-control some dignity and respect. Isn’t self-control what in many ways sets us apart from the beasts?
Toss them out and it’s not a surprise that we become more like beasts than men.
Set a Noble Course
Without virtue, self-sacrifice, or self-discipline, the world in many ways devolves into nothing but a collection of objects. When objectification occurs—whether it is men or women doing the objectifying—a human being, an eternal soul of unfathomable value, is reduced to nothing but an object for selfish pleasure. But then again, if the teaching is that we are nothing but products of chance, with no particular value beyond, say, a tree or a light bulb, then perhaps all of this was inevitable. Is it possible that this really does come back to what we believe about who we are as human beings, the immortal soul, and what our purpose for existence really is?
I am trying to teach my sons to be noble, to be magnificent, to be epic, to be courageous. The word noble is an archaic one, but it’s one that should come back into fashion because it captures the essence of everything we seek in men; the ideas of self-sacrifice and discipline and courage and gentle strength. So we must seek to be noble in a world that wants us to be anything but—a world that wants us to conform to it. A quarter-century ago, the nonconformists were the likes of Weinstein and Clinton and their ilk.
How ironic that today, I am raising my boys to be the nonconformists, pushing back, making the right choices every single day. We had a friend of the family growing up who was an air traffic controller. He said if a plane started off wrong by just an inch it’d be off by miles in the end. Little choices make the man, and by degrees, people shift with daily decisions to find themselves years later miles off course.
The world is a better place with masculine gentlemen. It’s just we need more of them.
element_content=””]
No Sir.
Politics is Power.
This is a power struggle on the Left and in the Ruling class [same] to cast down the old has been’s and take their power and Empire – and Empire it is…
This is not good news for the Right, anymore than the Fall of Mirabeau and the rise of Murat, Danton and Robespierre was good news for France.
The Clinton Foundation for instance is government by Cartel: who controls the government, it’s policies and its vast contracts. The Foundation arose out of Re-Invented govt [contracted out] as govt ceased to be able to provide basic services ala the almighty checks and other goodies. As this was a legitimate need and the same conditions exist the Cartel model of Governance isn’t going anywhere. A Mafia falls the younger Mafias take it’s place – and it’s rackets. The Cartel/Foundation model is hence the New Political Party – the Foundation took over the Democratic Party – now a Front Company – and this is our new model of Politics.
There are vast sums at stake. As well as vast power.
So power will be taken by young and hungry leftists who will at the same time gain vast wealth.
It has nothing to do with morality. Just power and it’s enabler of money.
Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check itGoogleNetJobsTopWorkFromHome….
It’s no surprise that the people who want to confiscate more of our earnings, force us to buy a health plan at outrageous prices, dictate what we can and can’t say in public, prohibit us from using our natural resources and reject the freedoms embodied in our Constitution are the very same people with a greater proclivity for sexually forcing themselves on others.
Real men don’t vote democrat.
Real men don’t vote.
No real apes don’t vote, or eat creche.
Dear article author, you are dead wrong, and very racist! All cis-gender white males are part of the problem, not the solution, and stand on the wrong side of history. They are obstacle to progress and social justice.
Hmm, a sexist calling the author a racist.
WHO’S on the wrong side? YOU are part of this problem for Democrats:
“The whole Democratic Party is now a smoking pile of rubble: In state government things are worse, if anything. The GOP now controls historical record number of governors’ mansions, including a majority of New England governorships. Tuesday’s election swapped around a few state legislative houses but left Democrats controlling a distinct minority. The same story applies further down ballot, where most elected attorneys general, insurance commissioners, secretaries of state, and so forth are Republicans.” http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13576488/democratic-party-smoking-pile-rubble
https://archive.is/epdXa
“Roughly 80%of us now live in states either partially or totally controlled by Republicans. Two-thirds of our nation’s governors are now Republican — tying a 94-year-old record — and an all-time high 69 of 99 state legislatures now have Republican majorities. In half of our 50 states, both the state legislature and the governorship are controlled by Republicans. And that’s aside from the fact that Republicans control Congress and the White House and have appointed a majority of justices on the Supreme Court.” -USA Today, June 26, 2017 https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/26/democrats-connect-voters-mary-kate-cary-column/423269001
“Dartmouth Study Finds Democrats Are The Least Tolerant Students On Campus”
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/dartmouth-study-finds-democrats-least-tolerant-students-campus/
“The Democratic Party is viewed as more out of touch than either Trump or the party’s political opponents. Two-thirds of Americans think the Democrats are out of touch — including nearly half of Democrats themselves. …a large chunk of Democrats feel that their party is united in a vision … that’s at odds with the concerns of the American public.” -Washington Post
https://archive.is/SAj6w
“Views Of Democratic Party Drop To Lowest Point Since 1992” https://hotair.com/archives/2017/11/07/poll-views-democratic-party-drop-lowest-point-since-1992/
“Republicans don’t have near as big a woman problem as Democrats have a man problem.” -Wall Street Journal
http://www.wsj.com/articles/kim-strassel-america-is-war-on-women-weary-1412900814
I still think Jarka is being satyrical – not even a genuine Lib psychotic is as extremist as she is.
You may be right. I’m always aware of Poe’s law.
Yeah – Poe’s Law is why she has me befuddled.
Sarcasm or hopelessly lost?
It is wearying, but must be done.
Your comment, neither original nor articulate, is both racist and sexist.
Good luck, and get well soon.
hahahahahahaha – what a hilariously stupid comment. Thanks for the comic relief. It weren’t for white males there would be no progress. Please point to the great advances and progress brought about by the non-whites of the world. I am sure there must be some things you can refer to.
There is this new mode of expression out there called sarcasm. Possibly you’ve heard of it. If not, you probably will soon.
Troll Win 7/10!
Enough rabid talking points but maybe a bit too forceful. Work in a bit more content between the buzzwords and you can reach 10/10 quickly.
Would be trolled again.
Masculinity is what protects “the folks” from death and slavery.
Hominid, my old buddy, how are you?
Great! Spending Thanxgiving with my kids & grandkids.
Hope you’re having fun, too.
Are you sure? History seems to tell us that out of control ‘masculinity’ gave us untold MILLIONS of deaths from wars and provided the energy for slavery since the beginning of human history.
Nope – history tells us exactly the opposite. You Lib psychotics invert reality.
Funny that you don’t mention their accomplishments which have resulted in virtually all of the progress in history.You also don’t mention all of the millions of killings for which women are responsible….
Camille Paglia once wrote: “If civilization had been left to women, we’d all be living in grass huts.”
And still arguing about the most minuscule details of said hut….
And competing for the attention of the male with the biggest hut.
Those “untold millions” are nothing compared to the millions killed by the Left seeking to create their version of utopia. Feminized cultures will always lose to masculine cultures as we will see as Europe becomes a Muslim continent within a generation.
You clearly know nothing of history.
No doubt at all about that. If the left ever does succeed in extirpating masculinity from men, we will be a conquered nation forthwith and will deserve it. (This is part of the underlying concept of the constant jokes about the French and modern Italians – societies that crumbled facing hard men). Facing physical hardships, fighting people who may have advantages over you and winning through determination and skill, not backing down to threats, putting your life on the line to defend those too weak to defend themselves, being strong enough to take a beating and keep on fighting are sort of the 101 things that men have had to do for history to protect their civilization and make it possible for those who have the ability to create and nurture life to do so.
Thank you, Mr Ryun. My son opens the door for women and gives up his seat on the bus for women. He’s been reviled for it, but I’m proud to say he doesn’t care. He says he’ll treat a woman like a lady no matter how she acts. Also that a gentleman doesn’t sit while a lady stands. There’s still masculine men out there!
The women today don’t deserve to be treated like that
Fortunately most women today don’t WANT to be treated like that. They prefer to be treated as self-sufficient equals. And hopefully their parents have raised them to hold open doors for people who actually need assistance regardless of whether they are male or female.
I hold the door for men and women and I am a woman. I don’t think that today’s women should be put on any special pedestal like in previous times because their behavior doesn’t merit it.
Why must women “merit” respect? Shouldn’t we be respectful of ALL men and women? (Obviously I’m not talking about NeoNazis or gang members here.)
Actually I’ll go out on a limb here – you can’t throw out the neo-Nazis or gang members either. They may be stupid people, but they are still people and should be treated with respect as such. You don’t need to respect their opinions but their persons is a different matter.
I watched the interactions in my town – sitting at a town meeting where some bright, young father said for all his neighbors in the audience to hear “If these old people think we can’t afford to raise the school budget they should just get out of town. This is our town now.” You may not think you agree with the young man saying that, but when the New York Times described those same old people as “racist” “haters” from the TEA party you may have nodded your head in agreement to exactly the same statement.
I realize that the New York Times needs a villain for their stories, but I am not willing to hate whoever they deem to be the villain of the moment. NeoNazis were part of the conservative rallies in Charleston, violent, ANTIFA members were part of the counter-protest, and assassins were part of the Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas – I am not willing to hate all the participants in any of these.
I’m a woman and I don’t believe treating people with common kindness while expecting a gentleman to show me special courtesy because I am a woman are mutually exclusive. Men become better people when they are encouraged to exercise their natural protective instincts and treat women with respect, and women become better people when they behave like they are worthy of that respect.
Beautifully said. thank you
Thank you for the kind comment :)
Courtesy is given; respect must be earned – to confuse the two is a mistake.
You have missed a great deal of life cad, still time to catch a little of it.
Gentility means doing nice things for people who may not “actually need” them.
Strange you say that. I have never given up my seat on a bus for a woman and had her refuse it. Not once in tens of dozens of times. I have never reached up into the luggage compartment abover the seats in an airplane to lift out a notably heavy suitcase that a woman struggled to get up there and had an expression of anything other than thanks – ditto offering to lift the case up in the first place. It is consideration 101. When someone is giving up a foot in height and 80# in muscle to me by virtue of gender, helping out when needed is just a rational considerate thing to do.
Wonderful article. “Feminism” should be re-named “imitative masculinism” because its goal is to turn women into imitation men ( or, as a writer on Taki Mag put it “crap men”). Women should be proud of our enormous purpose in carrying on life– giving birth and raising children. Why isn’t Sarah Sanders raising her own unique three young children instead of working as a presidential press secretary, a job many others could do? Whom would her own children prefer to raise them, their own mother or a less qualified stranger? Why are women trying to become imitation firemen or street policemen in dangerous areas? Huge differences in physical strength and other bodily and psychological differences are not to be wished away. Why have ordinary American women followed like sheep the prevailing liberal orthodoxies pushed & promoted by dissatisfied, aggressive, highly intense and angry women like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem? Ordinary women have let themselves be pushed into imitative masculine roles that they are not best fitted for. Our society as a whole has been pushed in a direction that is not good for most people, and middle class men have allowed themselves to become dominated by their feminist wives and are now too week-kneed & hesitant to resist, show their authority, and restore family order.
Good lord! You’re making the case for women to stay barefoot and pregnant and to be obedient to their men? In 2017??? what a fukked up world view.
Hahahaha why aren’t you at breaking news?
That is the basic purpose of women. It is the most important thing they can do with their lives. What is more important than having the next generation and raising them into good people who are the building blocks of a healthy functioning society? What could possibly be more important than that? The fact that you consider that to be effed up shows how effed up this country has become. Women can have careers after they raise their children. It’s called stages of life and it’s been done by plenty of women. And the basic purpose of men is to provide for the family he creates. We really have made things much more complicated and stressful than they need to be. No wonder half this country and more is drugged out and effed up in some way or another. It’s a wonder anything functions anymore
What a primitive viewpoint. Thank God my daughter won’t have to grow up with such limited opportunities. My wife is a CPA AND a great mother. I weep for my country when I read backward ass thinking like yours.
i weep for your daughter not having her mother raise her during the important years.
i can feel how angry you are since trump won – btw your username delights me xxxxx
How is she not raising her? Because she works? Because she has multiple post graduate degrees? Because her earnings mean we can send her to the best schools, provide the bet advantages and ensure she attends the best Universities? You really think some C-student high school graduate that just stays home with their kids provide a better childhood? Thanks for reaffirming my lowly opinion of you.
Lol someone is triggered by a few words! Did you get a time out somewhere? ????
THankyou Trayvon xxxc
Thanks Trayvon for triggering you.
You really do not get it. Is it all about things? The best schools or colleges? Don’t you know that all that means nothing compared to the emotional and psychological development of the child through the love of his/her parents? You are the one that is rightfully pitied for you truly have no understanding of what is truly important in this life.
You think a child has to be with it’s mother 24/7 to fully develop emotionally and psychologically? God, our education system is worse than I thought.
i like your NEW thread on BN i see you are triggered!
3 days isn’t long xxxxx
Yes biology is somewhat primitive isn’t it? It doesn’t change to conform to today’s ‘modern’ viewpoints that one can change their sex – they can’t- that men can raise babies the same as women etc etc. Biology is the same as it has been since the history of man started. Yes it is indeed primitive in that regard.
another blowhard who hasn’t evolved…..
EVOLVED? Are you so blind as not to see where this is all headed? Do you think the Muslims with their Sharia is evolved? It is the stupidity of you and others like you that is signing your own death warrant as Europe will be a Muslim continent within a generation (birth rate) and the US will shortly follow.
The muslims are coming, the muslims are coming………
You can lead FVCKDEPLORABLE to water, but you can’t make him think.
FVCKFVCKDEPLORABLE, FVCKFVCKFVCKDEPLORABLE, FVCKFVCKFVCKFVCKDEPLORABLE, FVCKFVCKFVCKFVCKFVCKDEPLORABLE, … oh, wait, repetitious nonsense seems to be kinda juvenile.
That is undeniably true.
Geez – you’re a genuine imbecile.
It’s called demographics and you can’t fight them.
Actually, we can. Nukes work well. Other methods are also useful,
That isn’t a real solution. It’s simplistic and uncivilized and a pandora’s box, which could very well beset reciprocity, which may well be humanity fate in the end anyway. And no, it may not be the end of the world, but it certainly wouldn’t make the world any better. In the end, what goes around comes around and that’s a certainty. The world has seen nothing, but those types of solutions for millennium. They always end up costing more than they ever produce, the loss is always worse than any short term political gain.
Actually; it’s just the opposite. Not acting has always cost more than acting, and by magnitudes. We have a very advanced society and a burgeoning population as a result of the “failures” you inappropriate mentioned. Self defense is a fundamental human right.
Perspective please. You are advocating nuking as a response to demographics. And claiming that under the right to self defense. That’s just nuts.
They will kill all of us in our sleep. Buy weapons while you still can.
Get back on your meds and leave the street drugs alone
Similar “thoughts” were expressed about the Nazis and the Communists. This time is no different. The weak ones, like you, always have to be bailed out by the stronger ones.
Your ignorance of basic human physiology is astounding. Not that i would expect much more from someone with such a crass username.
OMG, i said crass, i must be geriatric.
Human physiology is keeping a woman from having a job and being a great mom? Do tell!
hey, do you know what the word evolved means? clue… it does not mean what you think it means.
So biology is a blowhard?
There is a good deal of truth in what you say, but even if it were possible I wouldn’t be comfortable forcing anyone to adhere to that standard. Some women kill their off spring both in society and in the wild. There is a great deal of variation in nature and we live in civilization, which is a combination of nature and society.
I am not forcing anyone to any standard. Biology is biology. For some reason, in our modern society we think we can change biology which is ridiculous.
No one disputes biology, but there was a “Rosie the riveter.” I’ve seen “Bull dyke cops” tougher than some men. Not all, not even most, but some. Most men never wrestle with a bear, here in the 21st/c. Those days are long gone.
Many women were terribly unhappy with their assigned “Natural” roles. There was an awful lot of unnecessary misery and waste of talent, human potential in the old, “Natural order.” Biology makes certain demands, but the division between britches and corsets was mostly contrived and certainly is longer applicable.
Now the question of where most women, the greater majority find the most fulfillment and happiness is another matter. I’m not as smart as the average bear. I learned everything by making mistakes first. I wouldn’t deny any one the same privilege, man, or woman. I think women know their own plumbing at least as well as you and I and they can make their own choices. A woman doesn’t have to change biology, hers, or anyone else’s to be a professional, or exert any number of other choices.
Who raised your daughter while your wife was busy being a CPA?
Is there anything your wife could do that is as important as raising her children herself? That is the bottom line to the whole issue. It is the denigration of that all important role that is the lie of Progressivism.
What an idealistic, misplaced, unrealistic point of view you have. Promulgating this philosophy, which is so at odds with, and contrary to reality, does more harm, and creates more misery and unhappiness than any sexual harassment or verbal rudeness could ever accomplish. It’s tantamount to passing a law that sets PI to be equal to 3.000, cause you don’t like fractions. or one that sets the price of
What utter nonsense. I’m serious, did you have a point?
Like anyone who uses a nom de plume like yours could ever be serious, or taken seriously.
It is so thoroughly fkd up that my wife has to work instead of raise our newborn. Meanwhile we need to put our newborn in daycare where God knows what kind of shit they’ll fill his brain with. Wed both much rather her be home with him but twenty years of leftist bs in nj and you can’t raise a family with out 2 working parents. So yeah thanks for your “progress”
Seems you simply didn’t work hard enough to get a job making enough to allow only one of you to work. That’s Darwinian capitalism for you!
Yup that’s it I didn’t work hard enough. Great call there. Me and millions of other Americans families with two working parents. Yup we are all lazy bums. If only we had worked harder or you know murdered our fetuses. Wow the contempt you lefties have for the working middle class is stunning.
You worship at the alter of Rand and complain when you fail to claw your way to the top. Hilarious.
Keep it up. This is why all you btchs bawled your eyes out at Javits last November. God but that was a sweet day. That’s why your opinions are trite and meaningless. Peace out jackass
Insults when you’ve been exposed as a dumbass. Typical for a deplorable
Here you go people whenever you got a whiney troll in the comments throw that glorious night in their face they can’t handle it. I just wish some enterprising gop’er had snuck in there to bottle up their tears. Id have feasted on the “essence of failure”. Here’s looking forward to a replay in ’20!!
YOU worship at the altar of Marx and couldn’t claw your way out of a wet paper sack.
FYI people, this obnoxious response is precisely y the left lost in 16. Debasement of our labor, government interference with the labor market, ridiculous regulations, confiscatory taxes and fees, self perpetuating corruption, obamacare, obamaphones, trade deals that take advantage of American toil in favor of third world nations, concerted efforts against the energy sector…and no the reason my wife has to work and cannot be a stay at home mother is because I didn’t work hard enough. That my desire for my child to have a stay at home mother makes me deplorable and racist. F*** you. There is no middle ground anymore with people like this nut
YOURS is the “backward ass thinking” of the delusional Lib.
I know you are buy what am I? Geez…..
Non sequitur. You’re devoid of logic.
You must not be married or dating or even involved with someone from the opposite sex. I don’t think I have ever seen such a stupid comment in current times.
Written by a feminized male who has long ago placed his balls in a lock box never to be seen again. Try doing some research on birth rates in the West and what that means for the next generation when faced with the onslaught of Islam and Sharia. Try looking beyond yourself to where we are headed.
You are so full of crap you’re eyes must be brown. Has nothing to do with my balls, has everything to do with narrow , bigoted, prejudiced outlook on the world, US and society in general. What’s your solution? A version of Handmaids tale. Who pays you for your drivel.
LOL I have been married for 31 years and I have children.
Yours is a personal view I am comfortable with, but it’s not a universal standard.
The basic purpose of men and the most important thing they can do with their lives is also having and raising good people who are the building blocks of a healthy functioning society. What could possibly be more important than that? The fact that you consider that to be effed up shows how effed up this country has been. You seem to want to deny men the ability to raise their children and deny women the ability to provide for their children. Those are essential freedoms.
Fun fact- only women can have babies. And women’s bodies and their make up in general are designed to care for those children. Men do their part by providing for the mother and the children. I am not denying anyone anything. I am merely pointing out nature and biology and how it works. If you have a problem perhaps you can call Mother Nature and tell her what you think.
You are again stating an absolutist position that — because of pregnancy and breastfeeding — women can only care for children and men can only provide, for their entire lives. That’s not natural or biology.
Of course it is natural and it is in fact biology. Here are some articles for you to get a little educated on the subject because you clearly don’t have a clue. Women are hard wired biologically to care for infants and young children, they are naturally inclined to nurture children and that’s a fact. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/womens-mens-brains-respond-differently-hungry-infants-cries. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dollars-and-sex/201401/why-do-mothers-care-more-about-their-children-fathers. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446017/men-womens-parenting-decisions-reflect-female-nurturing-desires
I agree with that quote, but it rebuts your point. You have consistently said that women can only care for children and men can only provide — as much as you try to talk around the point. So according to “nature and biology” women are more inclined that males during the months of pregnancy and breastfeeding. It does not say that women are inclined and men are not inclined. And is says nothing about the 50-70+ years after those months when parents are “inclined” to love and give of themselves to their children. I can understand why you would not want to admit to your extreme position.
The only sentence where I used the word only was where I stated that only women can have babies. In my other statements I said what the basic purposes of men and women are. I never said that only women can care for children and that only men can provide. I stated that women are biologically more suited to caring for babies and young children than men and men are biologically more suited to being providers than women are. And I am talking about when they are babies and and young children. I am not talking about what they are adults 50 years later. That’s just ridiculous.
I am glad you are tempering your comments, but you still nowhere allow for men caring for their children. I still consider that denial of a basic freedom. Even your continued use of “basic purpose” ignores your own acknowledgement that it is a degree of inclination to care during an important but tiny fraction a child’s long life.
I’d also point out that the studies said that women are inclination to want to nurture children. I did not read that they were necessarily “more suited to caring” for their children. Each couple should be free to decide which parent is “more suited” for the various needs of their children and divide that care as the feel is best for their children.
And finally, your presumptions are based on generalities. You don’t address mothers and fathers that whose “inclinations” toward their children are different from the norm. Again, parents should have the freedom to decide what is best.
I am not allowing or not allowing anything. Do I make laws? I am merely pointing out reality and biological facts. You seem to be having an argument with mother nature.
I think it is you who is arguing with “mother nature.” You take a small, albeit very important, part of most women’s lives and state it is their “basic purpose” to make an implication about their whole lives. You make likewise generalizations about men’s lives and continue to deny them what you referred to as “stages of life”. Again you say you are “merely pointing out reality” when you are only pointing out a small part of reality and imply it is all of reality.
“You take a small, albeit very important, part of most women’s lives” How nice of you to trivialize motherhood and fatherhood too. But then I am not surprised given the culture. Having children isn’t a small part of one’s life- unless you are just a self centered puke who thinks the world should revolve around you. I know many people like that and some of them are parents and their kids suffer. It’s sad
Nice try changing the subject. We were talking just when they were babies and you want to pretend I was saying all of “motherhood and fatherhood.” Nice try but I am not buying it. The fact that you then resorted to name calling makes things clear for me.
The only sad part is that we both agree on the importance of parenting, motherhood and fatherhood, and children. I just think parents should be able to choose to both care for and provide for their children in a way that works best for them. I don’t want to limit them because of what someone says their “basic” whatever should be. And I am certainly not saying things are “effed up” because they ain’t like they used to be.
Huh? Changing the subject???? I thought we were talking about having babies and caring for them and the roles that women and men play in this aka motherhood and fatherhood. Or do you leftists have some other made up name for it now? Maybe you call it zehood? And where did I say that people cannot choose what they want? In all my statements I am pointing out biology and how women are naturally more inclined to care for babies and young children and men are naturally more inclined to be providers. I am not trying to control anyone. I am merely pointing out biology and yet you seem to really have an issue with biology. Tell me, are you one of those people who believes that people can change their sex? The left likes to call us science deniers but the left appears to be biology deniers.
The study you pointed to said women have and increased “inclination to want to nurture children.” It does not say that men do not have an inclination to nurture children. It does not say anything about women or men being inclined to be providers. You imply a lot.
What are the inclined roles for “motherhood and fatherhood” when the child if 5 or 10 or 15? Still the same inclinations?
I am pro-family. I think we should support “motherhood and fatherhood” by supporting mothers and fathers to care for infants. As kids get older, I support parents being the opportunity to be caregivers or providers for their families — whichever they want and think is best.
“The study you pointed to said women have and increased “inclination to want to nurture children.” It does not say that men do not have an inclination to nurture children. It does not say anything about women or men being inclined to be providers. You imply a lot.” Just look around you. Mothers are the ones who are most involved with child care and usually men are the main providers. It’s like this everywhere which isn’t to say people aren’t choosing what they feel is best for them. I didn’t say that men don’t want to nurture children but women have a stronger nurturing nature. it’s just the way it is. As I said, you are arguing with human nature and biology.
First, “Just look around you” in a terrible argument. 100+ years ago women couldn’t vote or own property, 200+ years ago they were chattel. Should people have just looked around then? Should they have just said it was “human nature and biology”?
Second, you are focusing on this nurture generality to avoid your initial statement which was essentially: men should be the providers and women the caregivers, and we are effed up because they are not taking the roles you think they should. There are also cultural reasons why women “are most involved with child care and usually men are the main providers” that have nothing to do with biological inclinations. You don’t want to talk about those, just “mother nature”. The bottom line is that you don’t want men to nurture or women to provide — despite what they might want.
So your comparing childbearing and child rearing to voting and owning property? Seriously??? You’re just repeating yourself and talking in circles. I am not making laws for people. People can do whatever it is that they want. However biology is biology and yes biology shows that women are better at child rearing and men tend to be providers. When we go against that yes our society suffers as we see demonstrated today. It isn’t so much that men and women have switched roles, it’s that no one is really taking care of the children. The best person to do that on a day to day basis for young children is the mother as she is naturally and biologically inclined to rear and nurture children. Those are facts. Yes men can rear children if that is their choice but most men don’t WANT to stay home with kids. They want to be working. And most mothers WANT to be home with their children. This is just the way it is. They both have choices to do whatever it is that they want but these are the choices that most people make and the reason for that is because of biology. It has nothing to do with culture – it’s part of our makeup. Sorry but that is the reality. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over and you aren’t making any new or valid points. So come back again and tell me that men and women should have a choice and i am trying to deny them that choice. Blah blah blah.
You your argumentation technique now is to say “You just keep repeating the same thing over and over” and “Blah blah blah.” After you repeat the same thing about what “most men don’t WANT” and what “most mothers WANT”, but this time shouting. What would you have shouted 100 or 200 or 500 years ago?
We have never disagreed that women want to care for their children. Where we disagree is whether men would stay home when their children are born, or whether women would like to have careers. My opinion is that this country is “effed up” because it does not support both mothers and fathers to be both caregivers and providers, in whatever proportion works for them. No parent should have to choose caring for their children over career and vice versa. If we really cared about families, we wouldn’t make half-baked “nature and biology” arguments and put our money where our mouths are.
I am glad you are tempering your comments, but you still nowhere allow for men caring for their children. I still consider that denial of a basic freedom. Even your continued use of “basic purpose” ignores your own acknowledgement that it is a degree of inclination to care during an important but tiny fraction a child’s long life. You said it was “the basic purpose of women. It is the most important thing they can do with their lives.” If so, what is womens’ “purpose” for the other 50+ years of their lives? Are they limited only to that “basic purpose” and can have no purpose (such as providing) for the rest of their lives? And is caring for children not mens’ “purpose” at all?
I’d point out that the studies said that women are inclination to want to nurture children. I did not read that they were necessarily “more suited to caring” for their children. Each couple should be free to decide which parent is “more suited” for the various needs of their children and divide that care as the feel is best for their children.
And finally, your presumptions are based on generalities. You don’t address mothers and fathers that whose “inclinations” toward their children are different from the norm. Again, parents should have the freedom to decide what is best.
You are refusing to look at the degeneration of our culture and society into a crass, obscene, ignorant, classless abyss. For the most part this is due to the abdication of parents, primarily mothers, who put their own priorities far ahead of their real responsibilities.
You’re talking about values and you can’t hoist them on society. For the most part they have been rejected by this society, sadly.
Where was the barefoot and pregnant suggestion?
I doubt you read much, but Guy Odom makes a good case that strong women raise strong men. In previous times, when those strong women had no opportunities other than raising the children, they raised strong men. Now, they, rightfully, have other alternatives. Result–we have weak men. All things have consequences; there is no unalloyed good. It is a good thing that women have more opportunities, but there is a price.
Our problem is too few strong men. Not “toxic masculinity”, whatever that is.
https://www.amazon.com/Mothers-Leadership-Success-Guy-Odom/dp/0962400602/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1511801540&sr=1-5&keywords=guy+odom
How do you define these strong men? Give me an example you find to be as close to the archetype as possible?
Teddy Roosevelt
The liberal progressive who ushered in a new era of regulations? The one who had such a soft side that the Teddy bear was named after him? That one? Good Choice!
So, having a soft side excludes you from being a strong man?
Of course not. But anyone that includes the F word in their screen name is best blocked.
The man who wrestled a bear? Charged San Juan hill after single handedly raising a division of calvary? Got the Panama Canal built? And yeah in the meantime was a teddy bear. That’s the point you all miss. Real manliness is just as much about kindness to those you love…including innocents you might never have met as it is about defeat of those who would harm those who would harm your family country and way of life. And add in determination to realize your goals, to build a better life for your loves ones, and yeah you got a man. A man is a guard dog not a wolf. The same can be said about all the people men idealize. Jimmy Stuart, Gary cooper and so on. Take all that away and you get the man child all of you lefties rail about. Pajama boys and video game basement dwellers. But go ahead paint with a the broad brush as we all have come to know and love from the racist fascist left
You chose the progressive, liberal hero of the left. Hilarious.
Teddy would puke on the Left for what they have done to the Nation and to the term “Progressive”. You are so empty of life and meaning.
You back on breaking news yet after your temper tantrum? I like your 2 threads on the den complaining and you were quickly put into your place.
Boy they do this hissy fits don’t they?
Yeah news flash dick. I don’t care about that a man is a man. So was mlk amd ghandi. If the whiney fascists modern pajama boy lefties were anything like TR we would be in much better shape as a nation.
You didn’t even know he was a liberal. Hilarious.
Get outta ur mommas basement once in a while loser. You mite just learn a thing or two. TR ran as an R then split into his own Bull Moose party. Which was “progressive” back in the 1890s which has about as much in common with modern liberalism as manliness has to do with Harvey Weinstein. I invite you to address any of the other dozen points or people I made if you can somehow summon up the intellectual honesty. Hell summon up an intellect
Oh and here’s another one for u…danger heres a trigger warning…Stephen Willeford. The hero of the Texas massacre.
I would nominate TR, Jr.
The Greatest Generation men provide a good example also.
Hell yea they do! I look to my grandfathers as inspiration and role models. They have both long since passed but their memories still work to shape me to this day. One was 1st Cav in the pacific the other worked on a minesweeper.
The fukked up world view is your 2017 one.
Typical foaming at the mouth reaction to a viewpoint that you don’t agree with nor understand.
NO wonder your daughter is emotionally and intellectually messed up. I hope you spent your 3 day vacation with her
Every one of our existing problems relates to the policies of the Progressives beginning in the early 1900’s as the foundation of their view of reality is not reality at all but their wishful thinking of what they would want reality to be. Since they have no concept of unintended consequences and are simply unable to recognize their own mistakes, Western Civilization under their governance has simply loaded one mistake after another falling further and further away from truth and objective reality. We have tossed aside the foundations that anchored our civilization as being chains prohibiting us from becoming who Progressives think we should be. As a result, there no longer exists a human understanding of what is truly important as we see in the birth rates of the nations who make up Western Civilization – being so low as not replacing themselves. Instead, as a result of the spiritual and psychological weakness brought about by the many doubts raised by Progressivism, the West is manifestly unable to defend itself from the invasion of the Muslim hordes whose birth rate is 5 per woman such that Europe will be a Muslim continent within a generation.
AND MAKE NO MISTAKE – the pivotal turning point to all this was women being given the vote as Progressivism has depended upon the emotionalism of woman as their source of political power ever since. That is why every appeal of the Democrats in this country is an emotional one. By gutting the masculinity of men in the name of feminism, society has rendered itself defenseless in its confrontation with masculine cultures.
Sarah Sanders and every other woman who is working, is working for whatever their reasons are. They can and should have that choice. Some can do both well. Others can’t do either one well. Other points you make are well taken, but you would be well advised such buzz words as authority and family order are no longer widely accepted and commonly understood terms across society. They are personal choices and the world isn’t going backwards whatever you may think, or prefer. And that’s just what it is.
Yes, true, the women should have the choice. But today’s young woman do not see it as a choice. When my college age son was in high school exactly one young woman, in his class of 200 kids, expressed the desire to marry and create a home for her future family. She was viewed with kind indulgence as an eccentric. The gals these days no longer have a choice.
Well I have to disagree. While sympathetic to your point of view the truth is simply that they chose to be the way they are. There are many reasons. First and foremost their own families. There is simply no end to dysfunctional in today’s family and presumes there is even a proper family in play. Single parents are all too common. Even two parent families are often dysfunctional. And then our whole society sends them the wrong messages, but there is a choice and that one girl you cite proves it. It’s not a popular, or easy choice, but it is there.
The fact that they don’t see it our way doesn’t equate to them not having a choice eve, if it’s mostly too late when they do figure it out.
I am glad for the sexual revolution for it helped me out.
I am also glad those in Hollywood are being outed.
and
I am all in support of Masculism
MGTOW!
true
Thoughtful treatment of an important topic.
It occurs to this observer that men confident in their masculinity feel no need to validate themselves through conquest, nor do they feel the necessity to defend their masculinity.
An old school, and possibly antiquated perspective in the current climate.
Cowboy up, cupcake. Be a man or don’t, but if you can’t figure it out yourself, you never will.
“Manhood coerced into sensitivity is no manhood at all.” – Camille Paglia
This was her observation several years ago.
We are way too far down the road of enlightened liberalism to turn back. Masculinity is already seen as toxic by 50% of the population and most male predators (politicians, sports stars or actors) always get away with it in the end. “Being a man” means voting Left, but being the biggest jerk personally you can get away with.
Really, the problem is women’s self-control isn’t it? I mean, they spend billions (trillions?) every year to accentuate their sexual allure, then act offended when men respond to those efforts. They demand deference and gentility, then drop their panties for the “bad boy” who exemplifies all they claim to abhor.
There’s a simple answer: legalize prostitution.
Well, legalizing prostitution would solve your problem anyway. At least then there would be some sexy looking women who wouldn’t reject your advances.
Or get me fired for asking them out.
Other ideas: work uniforms, no makeup or scent at work.
Yeah – let’s pretend biology doesn’t exist. The typical Liberal solution.
I believe this solution has been attempted – it’s called the hijab. No thank you. The answer, really, is to go back to the law as it is currently written and recognize both the agency of everyone involved and that “assault” and “harassment” require “intentional” acts that are “offensive” – not the subjective notion of “being offended” – and also some measure of power disparity.
I was being just a tad ironic . . . but the question remains: What do women want?
I guessed you might be. But the real irony is the perpetual belief among men (and women) that a person of the opposite sex actually knows what they want or has any better grip on the world than yourself or anyone else does – before he or she stumbles upon the truth of it through the grace of God and the wisdom of experience. (Which of course also is why we have Country Music.)
Woman seemed to have thrown off virtue as if it were a shackle. Thanks, 1960s rebels without a clue. Then, because someone must be civilized, while women go all sex in the city lifestyle, so they demand virtue from men. Snake, here taste your tail.
“..rebels without a clue…” I love it!
OK. Whenever I try and read articles here, every 5-10 seconds my screen will jump down to the comments section. This is not the only website where this happens, but its the only one I visit often enough to associate the site with the problem. Has anyone else had this problem?
If you chop down a giant Redwood then decide it was a mistake, how do you correct it?
You can’t stand the tree back up and glue it to the stump. It is dead. You have killed it. If you want it back you must plant one and let it grow.
“That takes too long!!
What can we do to get one now?”
You can remember it and sing of its glory and teach your sons and daughters to honor its memory and cherish the sapling while it grows.
Mr. Ryun rightly disparages Clinton, Franken, Weinstein and “their ilk” throughout this article. Who is this “ilk”? I assume Trump, Judge Moore, Rep Tim Murphy, and countless other “pro-family” GOP members of Congress and hypocritical GOP-aligned televangelists must be included — even though they presumably were raised in traditional-masculinity environments.
I’m sorry, but the traditional masculine belief system you’re talking about didn’t practice “respect for women,” only protection for ‘good’ women and ‘correction’ for those who didn’t conform, even when the non-conformist parts were beyond a woman’s control, like race or body type. And as wholesome as it might sound to value women as mothers and helpmates for men as they go forth into the world…that’s still objectification! You’re still only seeing women as what we are for. You’re still part of the problem.
And in what universe were Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne the same type?!
He’s talking about aspirational archetypes, and he’s right. Ever read “Shane”?
“A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” — Robert Browning
Ah – the fallacious “men can’t possibly understand us women” declaration.
I said nothing of the kind. But can you acknowledge that thing happening right now makes a strong case that there are many many men who aren’t even trying to understand or listen? Particularly when she’s saying ‘no’?
Just because you state it obliquely doesn’t change the essence of your trite and fallacious argument.
I believe you are too busy projecting victimhood on women and motive on men. While it is true that many cultures eventually recognized or acknowledged gender roles or embraced certain themes within their popular literature, enforcing stereotypes existed mostly within the aristocracies of the day- the so called wealthy class. For the rest of the folk, the harsh realities of life and survival hardly left people on the sidelines – even to the extent that it sorted them into “traditional” roles or resulted in women spending a lot of time being mothers and “helpmates” (whatever that is). Even today – that type of self sorting of tasks happens as a necessity – and it does not automatically objectify anyone or manufacture victims.
Surely you jest! Life is about the roles we fulfill, men and women. Every bit of your complaint is also applicable to women’s expectation of men, seeing them “as what they are for”. Accepting a role and the responsibility relating thereto does not objectify a man or a woman but rather provides meaning, value and purpose to one’s life. The simple reality IS that men and women are different and are made to complement each other is the roles they fulfill. You can complain about that all you want but you would be banging your head against the wall.
Despite a careful word search, I was entirely unable to find any mention of Roy Moore.
I actually agree with you. If the author felt he should mention, Bill Clinton and Conyers, he should have mentioned Trump and Moore. I am pretty sure that there is only he said/she said at this point for them. And I am a Trump supporter. I just believe in being balanced. Something neither side seems to want to stick with today. Probably another example of the erosion the author is referring to.
Indeed.
Once again, technology will solve this problem:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/5008805/sex-robot-craze-digisexuals-men-sleep-dolls/
I agree with the sentiment and the direction. However, we must also acknowledge that women get what they ask for – when they WANT this type of man again, value this type of man, and make him the exemplar again – that is the kind of men we will be and they will have. Many of us are old-fashioned, as it is termed, and do stick to these values. Feminists to a large part revile us and mainstream media – including creative media in the arts – makes fun of us. We are the last group that can be treated so without any fear of sanction to those who make the jokes and purvey the hate. We love women and value them, but they do not seem to like us.
Perhaps that has something to do with a bunch of liberal guys, who aren’t all that attractive, taking advantage of their powerful positions over women. Those same women who, as a group, may have been a little cruel to them in various social situations over the years as we know women can be. That doesn’t excuse their behavior at all, but may explain some of it.
As usual, you overlook the main reason for all personality traits and behavioral choices – genetics.
The only thing “usual” Ad Hominem, would be your silly statements.
The author acts as if the good old days of respectful gentlemen have been perverted by the sexual revolution and modern liberalism. Does he really believe in some 1950’s romanticized notion of male behavior? Study history. Men with power have been raping, molesting, and otherwise subjecting women to their control since time began. It’s only because of modern media, the internet, and a very recent societal swivel towards women’s rights and concerns do we have all this public condemnation and focus. It has nothing to do with politics other than politicians tend to be men in positions of power.
I believe the author was commenting on the choice to be made from the myriad human characteristics we all possess, male and female (or on the spectrum if you prefer), whether that be a capacity for violence or greed, or to succumb to temptations of every sort. In a world occupied by billions and a history comprised of tens of billions of individual stories, each culture must necessarily select which ideal it wishes to pursue or elevate as a virtue. History is replete with strong and powerful women renowned for their own sexual appetites – hardly victims – and the fabled “Mrs. Robinsons” who might now be accused of being sexual predators themselves as we “re-interpret” our past cultural norms and behaviors in the most Orwellian fashion. Just as it is replete with instances of corruption and depravity – and yes, sories of rape, molestation and otherwise. To say that base behavior has always existed is dismissive of central theme that separates humans from beasts, the will to choose and conform our behavior and shape out environment, as juxtaposed to the antelope that only reacts to its environment.
Humans rationalize all sorts of behaviors and choices (antelopes don’t) – to murder, to drop smart bombs, to enslave, and this continues today. That aside, the author asks “How did we get here?”, and then proceeds to answer with speculative assertions about the 60’s counter-culture, porn, TV, and some romanticized loss of male virtue based on Hollywood archetypes (of all things). If you’re going to tackle the question, have some understanding of the question you’re asking and know the difference between causation and correlation.
Yet, here we are in this pathetic state of Liberal-dominated lunacy. You pretend there is no cause? How stupid is that! You pretend the cause is not obvious? How stupid is THAT!
People love to blame the media for our ills, but without scientific study or rational analysis it’s all speculation. For example the assertion that violent video games lead to violent behavior does not jive with a steady decrease in youth violent crime since the 90’s whilst video game sales have soared.
Society cannot be tested through the scientific process. One is left with systematic observations and logical thinking. It is obvious that Liberalism has led to decadence and lunacy in society. You simply wish to deflect with sophistry.
Thank you for the advice you appear not to be following. It’s painfully obvious that you and I discern in this article a different question. And that – in many ways – was my point and the point I saw in the article – that societies and cultures “romanticize” different behaviors from the myriad that exist. The question is – what traits should be romanticized. Pop culture has, for the last three decades, romanticized free love and casual sex as a virtue, while embracing the idea that strong men are dolts, dangerous, deranged, or destined to be damaged in mind and spirit. But that was a choice because that same rationalizing that causes people to murder propelled others to storm a beach in Normandy, run into a burning tower, or go barefoot toward the sound of gunfire to stand down a killer of women and children while they prayed.
It isn’t about those in power that this article relates to but to the average, regular men and the stereotypes they have been bombarded with for the last several decades. The real point is that once you discard God, all bets are off for the bottom line becomes that Human Beings really are nothing but beasts and of no intrinsic value.It is this view that has led those on the Left to summarily kill many tens of millions of people in their effort to build their utopia.
Men are toxic predators.
Women are ho’s or victims.
Children are aborted or abandoned.
Isn’t left-wing feminism humane and exhilarating?
Rush Limbaugh said it 25 years ago: “Feminism exists to give unattractive women greater access to power.”
Ah yes rush another man’s man. Hell yeah
What a nice and profound little piece. Unlike the bigoted alt-right garbage that usually pollutes the pages on this journal
What the hell is a “masculine gentleman?” And how does having a wife/mother who is subordinate to her husband in every way help develop one?
You keep right on harboring distorted stereotypes in your little mind. I am sure they fill the awesome gaps in your understanding of reality. If you ever get a clue, you will realize how stupid you have been and reject the brainwashing you have received from your masters in the media.
So you can’t answer my question?
If you could please point out the words ‘wife’ and ‘subordinate’ in the actual article in question, that’d be great.
Your question doesn’t warrant an answer. “When will you stop bating your wife?” assumes facts not in evidence, just like your question. A masculine gentleman would never have a wife who was subordinate to him. I will use my Grandmother as an example Marguerite H Smith (see this pdf for evidence https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/…//cdn.amgreatness.com/Women_in_State_Elective_Postions.pdf) She ran a restaurant and was a State Legislator in the 50’s. My Grandfather was a gentleman. My father and his brothers were raised as gentlemen. My Grandmother was firmly against the ERA. She felt it was a useless piece of leftist legislation and that any woman who wanted to exceed, was fully capable of doing so. She was not suppressed in any way by her husband.
I choose not to accept your distorted stereotypes. Your other posts have fully exposed you as a fundamentally clueless individual satisfactorily meeting the demands placed upon you as a “useful idiot”. If you don;t know where that term originates, google it.
You’re too short for this ride.
Once again, I would ask why Sara Palin is not a feminist icon. College educated, self made. unabashedly feminine, Former Governor, VP candidate of a National Party, mother, grand-mother, spokesperson, has killed her own food, etc. Seems like a better resume than Hillary. And when asked about her own experience with sexual assault, refused to embrace the victim label before making very positive statements about creating a culture that respects all women. You don’t even have to like her politics, but credit should be given where credit is due.
I liked the fact that she took control of her sexual urges and banged a huge black basketball player when she had the chance.
She didn’t abort her Down’s syndrome baby. To the Lib-Leftists (feminists), THAT is her unforgivable sin.
Daughter was a paid ($262.5K) abstinence spokesperson & ONLY make 3 babies outta wedlock…
I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. My point was that women are not – by nature – and should not be – victims. So – to the extent the daughter never claimed victimhood – the three babies might make her a teaching moment – or a role model – depending on what circumstance brings you to her story.
It displays poor parenting & dishonesty in upbringing. I can see why you cannot see it.
That may or may not be so, but it’s often foolish to conflate the sins of a child with the sins of a parent. I can see why you cannot see it.
You new theory is Sarah didn’t raise bad kids? WHEW, I see your point.
Haven’t you heard? Bristol has been married for quite some time to the Father of her children.
They had 3 fathers, perhaps you haven’t heard.
She’s nobody’s icon because she’s a dunce. Next question.
“‘Manly’ does not mean showing off with Gaston-like bravado, boasting about one’s power over others, but instead possessing strength of will, honor, and compassion.
But these are the very values that required discipline, holding back passions and base desires, and building out of self-control some dignity and respect. Isn’t self-control what in many ways sets us apart from the beasts?
Toss them out and it’s not a surprise that we become more like beasts than men.”
Most amusing to read all this on a Trumpie website. Just sayin’.
I read this article twice in trying to figure out what the hell this guy is talking about? Is this another screed about liberals, is he blaming bad behavior on Hollywood, is it pornography, what does Michelle Obama have to do with Conyers, Weinstein et al?
And to use movie characters as models?? What’s that about. Could be they were fine people off screen, but they ACTING on screen. 25 years ago Weinstein and Clinton were not non conformists, they were pigs, as they would be today.
I read the article again, still don’t know what his point is, but decided I don’t care.
Social mores and norms built and conceived over generations act as a sort of a social immune system. Respect, fitness, religion, morality, charity all benefit society as a whole. Then in the 60s onward the left worked to destroy those mores, many times using those very values to destroy others. From allegations of racism to whines of ‘fat shaming’ these left wing agitators are nothing less than social AIDs. They destroy social protections, is it any surprise that modern society is so clearly ill and lacks means to defend itself?
Chivalry is destroyed by satisfaction fulfilled. Could a bit of cultural reserve be all that is needed?
Feminist and their leftist enablers have been seeking to destroy masculinity for decades. The masculine traits of virtue, honor, self reliance, self sacrifice, strength, stoicism, self control. and courage, are despised and rejected by the left. And they wonder why men without these anchors act no better than animals.
The real issue for the left is that it has built militant ideologies around ideas that are fantasies and lies, which deny the realities of human nature. They define “gender” as some kind of socially invented artificial construct that has nothing to do with human biology. By refusing to acknowledge the impact biological differences have, they come up with social and cultural dogmas that do not work, and will never work, because they are divorce from reality.
The past “patriarchal” norms that they hate and rail against were the natural outgrowth of human nature, dictated by biology.
And the one thing that effectively constrains that nature and defines ac workable structure is the one thing they reject more forcefully than anything else: religion.
Sex is determined by X and Y chromosomes.
You can’t change that. It’s called genetics, biology, i.e. established scientific fact, > 99% of scientists agree.
Anyone who denies that or insists that gender is a social construct are science deniers.
Statements like “…an eternal soul of unfathomable value….” and “…the immortal soul, and what our purpose for existence really is?” are utterly mindless and fatally undermine what could have been an excellent piece.
Noble Course… indeed!
Children are entitled to their innocence. Adults are so radicalized about their sexuality they are ignoring or exploiting this sacred value.
What was the right of passage that transitioned boys into men? Has it become tattoos? And women, too.
When boys grow to become responsible, respectful and productive they are attractive to women.
Why do women need to feel equal to men?
They are capable of performing the miracle of childbirth a man (hopefully) will never achieve.
Granted, there are other tasks and talents women have mastered, and offspring is not meant or possible for everyone, but why alienate half the human population to prove a point? Are feminists happy humans or are they miserable angry misanthropes distorting conventional roles in contempt of perceived patriarchal aggressions. Maybe they were molested as a child or need to justify their sexual preference. Anger forges their challenge against authority… nasty women, even if the message manipulates truth.
A noble course of respectful gender-osity is needed if our CIVILization is to survive.
Good parents teach their kids that they ARE equal – whether it’s teaching their girl children that they are equal to boys, or teaching their black kids that they are equal to whites: what makes us equal does not stem from superficial traits, but from something deeper.
It’s the weak, clueless parents (and other authority figures) who teach their kids that something in the world needs to change before the kids can become equal.
Thank you for sharing something I have been talking about for some time now. In man’s rush toward more pleasure he has embraced the destruction of his life and family. We desperately need to submit ourselves to God.
Good for you, for standing up to defend masculinity, and for teaching your sons.
Service
and nobility are for both sexes – though sometimes (maybe even often)
the two sexes practice them differently. Service and nobility and honor
and courage are all part of life having meaning and purpose, and it’s
this lack that is the reason why some of our nation’s most affluent,
indulged kids are committing suicide.
Masculine men need no defense…Masculinity isn’t a sickness…It’s a gift from God.
How some Lefty wimps choose to act is their problem…But it’s manly men that will defend women from their abuse.
As we recently discovered in Houston, liberals have no problem with strong noble men when they need to be rescued from rising flood waters. Or did I miss the carpetbagger feminists refusing to be saved by “toxic masculinity?
GOP= Grabbers of Puss/ Rapepublican party :)
*Wild applause from Great Britain*
Sexual harassment is not a child of the 60s. It is as old as time. Blaming it on boomers is a stretch, no matter how much of a mess they have made in so many areas.
If you’re Defending Masculinity esp by Intellectual Argument congratulations you’ve walked directly into Leftist Enemy’s prepared Ambush. They are not purging Masculinity. Anymore than Increase Mather did in Salem. They are weaponizing Female Hysteria to purge internally and seize the power from the defeated Old Guard.
They are weaponizing Female Hysteria to purge internally to seize power.
After and even as part of power consolidation the Left will now armed with Tribunals on the surface to purge masculinity and in fact all the awesome powers of the Statist/Leftist coalition to destroy Right.
The New Left destroys the Old Left -that lost – to seize their enormous powers and resources.
They then will proceed to destroy their enemies on the Right, alt-Right, Trumpers and ultimately Trump and the people who elected him as their Champion.
Being Intellectuals who don’t understand Power unlike the Left which does you are missing the main point.
Politics is Power – not morality. Or truth. Or facts. Or the slippery and self serving tool of reason.