Cultural Gadfly

Quick context and then I’ll let the rest of this speak for itself. As I was perusing that arena for intellectually stimulating free distribution of ideas (of course I’m talking about facebook here), I came across a thread from a friend’s profile upon which two “enlightened” women were talking about how insensitive and barbaric the sorry excuses for men that are crawling the surface of this planet are, especially in regards to women who have suffered the atrocity of rape. After pointing out that I didn’t realize sweeping generalizations of the opposite sex were still considered enlightened (I was then told I just didn’t get the joke), I pointed out that maybe the problem of men’s insensitivity could be due to something a little closer to home. I’ll let the rest of my post speak for itself.

I was just thinking that a lot of today’s language concerning gender is not about creating equality but rather destroying distinction among the sexes. The example that comes most readily to mind is the idea that two moms or two dads are really no different than a traditional mom, dad family.

Now I think one of the large problems with this endeavor to destroy distinction is that it will not create a new ideal hermaphroditic gender role. Instead, men are most likely to preserve their understanding of a masculine role, and then, in the interest of “equality,” simply apply that same role to women. This is why I think the virtues of gentlemanly behavior have suffered since the age of feminism (the folks over at ArtofManliness.com say this better than I could should you be interested to hear more in this strain).

Now to the issue at hand. Men, as a rule, have very little compassion for other men who have been victimized. This idea hearkens all the way back to Aristotle, who, when explaining the necessity of rhetoric, says that it is dishonorable for a man to be unable to defend himself either physically or verbally. An example much more to the point might be the general epithet applied to victims of prison rape, “bitch” (not an especially compassionate name for a rape victim, but understandable from a masculine standpoint).

Now whether or not this lack of compassion is just or not is not the issue at hand; it is merely a facet of the masculine gender role. The other key facet of the masculine world view that balances this one has unfortunately been eradicated by feminist criticism, namely women should be afforded extra care. At one point in time, men were encouraged to defend a woman BECAUSE she was not a man (Women and children first!). In other words, you don’t defend a fellow man in the same way that you would defend a lady. But if their is no distinction, and men are more inclined to view everyone in a masculine gender role, then a key element of the motivation to protect a woman, even from oneself, is lost. Does it not now seem more understandable (although still horribly unjust) for a man saturated in today’s gender language to view a rape victim as someone who should have simply done more to defend herself?

So, that’s about it. It seems to me that if feminists would just let men be men than maybe, just maybe, we could return to an age of chivalry were any affront to a lady would be considered an affront to our ability as a man to serve and protect them. (I leave you with some truly manly pictures to make my point visually.)

Categories: Culture, Culture of Life, Traditions \\ Tags: Feminism, Gender Roles, Manliness