I am interested in the subject of maleness. It never needed to be discussed, that is, until feminism and homosexualism were given so much credence. Now we are reaping our just desserts and it has weakened us all.
Bottom line: masculinity is the physical strength of the human species. Femininity is the nurture of children. Everything else that can be said about men and women are auxiliary to this main fact. Some women are strong, some men are nurturing. Women can do other things than nurture children, men can do other things than be physically strong, but these are their intrinsic biological functions, capabilities that flow from biological realities, realities like men have testosterone and women lactate. Their brains facilitate these key functions too: men are one-dimensionally intent on accomplishing concrete goals; women are neurotically attentive to the signs and signals in the people around them.
A lot of people tend to think that to be healthier, we must be better balanced. I say, excuse me, better balanced than nature? Where is this better balance coming from and what significance can it have? Isn't health a fact about biology? So that to be a healthy lion a lion must be adept at doing lion things? So that to be a healthy man, a man must be adept at doing intrinsically man things? Some might respond, but you are not just a man, you are a person too, and there are things about either gender that are true about both, and so are not these common things important too? Sure, insofar as working on them does not undermine that gender-specific things. One would not want better eyesight at the cost of his hearing, for instance. Even more, while both men and women can do things like vacuum and make sandwiches, isn't it crucial to ensure that the rarer functions (those that only one gender can do) are protected? This is to say, that it is more important that a woman be able to lactate than it is that she be able to vacuum? Conversely, those things that a man can do - fight, chop with an axe, plow, dig? As we will see this summer, as apparently they are going to let men compete as women in the Olympics, men are stronger, faster, etc. If you want to get barbarians off your land, if you want to build a log cabin, or plow a field, you should get some men, some strong men.
|The fact is, through all of human history, |
men like this were necessary.
Why then do we allow men to be de-masculinized? Even Catholics do it. I bet every women reading this does it. All women want men to be more feminine when it suits them, and it periodically does suit them. Men are intrinsically territorial and commanding. But that's kind of a buzz-kill, eh ladies, when antiquing with your man or cooking brunch with him? I have to tell you, a man is not a man if he is easy to live with.
The rising tide of Islamism is a reminder of this duty to be strong.
From the 7th to the 16th century Islam was a fearsome foe to the Christian West. Soon after this the West began to vastly outstrip it in terms of warfare. The reasons for this are not easily summarized and still somewhat speculative. Nevertheless, from about the 1683 defeat of the Turks at Vienna, Islamic culture began to decline relative to the West. After that point, Muslims ceased to factor in Western politics very much. They played an insignificant part in the outcome of the two world wars, for instance, and functioned as little more than insignificant satellites of the two world powers during the Cold War.
|Yep. Man carrying shark. Yep.|
The dominance of the West has allowed us to believe that history has been transcended, can be transcended, and that we don't need to resort to force anymore.
If you think a Christian man is a feminized, gentle man, I think you are wrong and unscientific. Catholic doctrine requires that one protect the weak. It affirms a right to ownership of one's property and to the means of securing his livelihood and that of his family. In this sense, it is immoral to be weak.
Now, of course, I could have put all of this a little more delicately. But I don't like to. If you haven't upset somebody with something you wrote, you haven't written something significant and so you shouldn't have written it. In sum, Christian men need to think about this side of things. We have neglected it.