Tuesday, July 5, 2016

More Man-ness

I could say that I written on this topic before, but I've written on every topic before.

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.
If all of this is true (and I am too lazy to connect all the dots for you, reader), do men not have a moral obligation to be strong? To be brave? To be capable of saving their families from perils of the kind that appear in every dystopian movie?

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.

Nope.
Since then two things changed: the West came to rely on Middle Eastern oil, which they could simply take by force, but which they did not, thus making various desert chieftains into rather powerful kings. Secondly, but related to the first, the West lost its martial vigor. The Muslim world respected, indeed, feared, the West up until this point. There should be no surprise that they would not respond well to the kind of respect the modern West thought fitting to bestow upon them. And with every additional kind gesture, this boldness has continued to grow. Now, it should not be the case that people become hostile to those who are being nice to them, but it is simply human nature that people would interpret kindness as weakness. Muslims are rather straight-forward in their reasoning here, and not as subject to self-delusion about human nature as we seem to be here in the West.

Yep. Man carrying shark. Yep.
Long story short, the world is a dangerous place. There have been no wars fought on North American soil for a long time. Even with 9/11 and the other terrorist attacks we have not seen a widespread recognition that we are in danger, under attack, and that strength may be required of us. Although I was not around then, I bet you that in the 1940s men were not being encouraged to develop their more gentle feminine side. I think this observation transcends the authority of one's political commitment: men need to be strong to defend what's theirs.

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.

10 comments:

  1. There's nature, then there's human nature, which gives rise to/is expressed in human culture, including government, entailing (at least notionally, for most people) the more or less Hobbesian bargain to forego the need for personal strength and valor, insofar as we all agree to do so, and insofar as there are government agents (working at the behest of government bureaucrats) who are delegated to physically enforce the truce we have adopted in order to separate ourselves from the state of nature, red in tooth and claw. And including machines, which reduce the need for and value of physical strength - but brute strength has never gotten any human being very far, it's intelligence and political strength that matter. -DM

    ReplyDelete
  2. Consider Justin Trudeau, former bouncer, capable boxer (you're probably stronger than him, but he could still probably punch you out), prime minister, alpha male, Catholic(!), WYD speaker(!) - but a total twat who aggressively promotes the worst of feminism and of the gender fluidity agenda. -DM

    ReplyDelete
  3. loved this. Don't think I haven't thought whether I could take him down ;-)

    Yes, brains are far better than brawn, but I don't think it gets us off the hook of responsibility to work on ourselves. I think someone has a sort of responsibility to insurance (if he has a family and if he can afford it), and if so, he has a responsibility to his physical strength in case of emergency.

    ReplyDelete
  4. colin kerr is effeminate because:
    - he spends all day making dumb memes
    - he constantly complains about bureaucrats but is lazier than them
    - he talks about physical strength but doesn't have the strength of character to get a job
    - he argues with women online constantly (because quite frankly, men don't think he's worth their time)

    ReplyDelete
  5. 2¢: We women need to be constantly argued with and men should avoid Colin because they would be dwarfed beside his heroic strength. Just send him a cheque for the job he is doing and keep a safe distance.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "men should avoid Colin because they would be dwarfed beside his heroic strength" lol

    "Just send him a cheque for the job he is doing and keep a safe distance." double lol

    ReplyDelete
  7. You know you are on to something when rage suddenly raises its head. As I always say, if all you ever get is polite agreement or nothing at all, what you wrote could have stood not to have been written. As for the ad hominems, as a Christian I should say that what you have written is far too generous to the actual facts of the matter. I am far lazier than you can imagine. Yes, please send me a cheque and keep your distance. That is the introvert's mantra.

    It amazes me how frightened many women are of men realizing that their masculinity is important and that we cannot let it falls into abeyance. For too long women have been conniving with government and education, etc., to have much more than their fair say. Men are starting to realize this, and this scares lazy coddled women.

    But again, who knows more than an anonymous commenter making ad hominems about bravery and integrity?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rage? No. Pity for your family, especially for your wife? Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. An anonymous troll speaks of strength of character. I feel so enlightened. Rage? No. Pity for your hypocrisy? Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ouch! James 3:8: "no human being has ever found out how to tame the [anonymous] tongue; a pest that is never allayed, full of death-bearing venom"

    ReplyDelete