1. Mike Rapkoch

    Milt:

    Excellent. Roger Scruton has observed that when men are separated from children the children lose there natural protector. Men, in that sense, may also be losing the sense of their natural role.

  2. Aaron Miller

    I’ll always remember a debate with a college classmate who believed she was being unjustly discriminated against as a woman because her employer, a small business owner, would not let her drive the delivery truck at night. This was in an area of San Antonio rife with gang activity. I pointed out to her that a young, slender, pretty woman was more likely to be a target of crime. She said that was her risk to take. No, I responded; it’s the employer’s truck, the employer’s products, and the employer’s worker — the risk was not all hers. She didn’t care. She still called it sexist.

    Moral of the story: Sometimes to acknowledge plain, if unfortunate, realities is “sexist”. I could say it’s a symptom of Leftist dogmas, but it might just be human nature. Human beings are not merely logical.

    The feminist bent of education in the liberal arts takes a form similar to the self-hatred of Western historians. Literature and history professors seem to think all men — white men, in particular — should be ashamed because “sins of the father” (an ironic stance, considering how liberals are so eager to abandon their cultural and religious heritage).

  3. Aaron Miller

    One way in which modern men have been “feminized” — a way I might never have noticed if I hadn’t taken linguistics courses — is that men are now taught to speak like women. Hedging has become increasingly common as we are all discouraged from being assertive.

    We are taught not to claim knowledge of objective truths. Rather, we pose everything as an opinion.

    General observations are never assumed as such, but must be qualified with phrases like “usually”, “most”, and “in general”.

    We must always say “he or she”, “him or her”, or otherwise include both sexes in sentences involving indefinite subjects. One must say “spokespeople” or “represenatives” rather than “spokesmen” or “Congressmen”. 

    Obviously, men typically favor direct and blunt, whereas women are more inclined to circumspection in their sympathetic efforts. 

    It seems that feminism and political correctness overlap to some extent.

  4. Ontos

    Aaron Miller:”One way in which modern men have been “feminized” —…..— is that men are now taught to speak like women. Hedging has become increasingly common as we are all discouraged from being assertive…….. Obviously, men typically favor direct and blunt, whereas women are more inclined to circumspection in their sympathetic efforts.It seems that feminism and political correctness overlap to some extent.”

     Aaron, when you said “we are all discourged from being assertive”, you fall into the noose of the language police.   The opposite of your [new to me ] term called “hedging” is not “assertive” but “definite”. It is as simple as that.  There is a feeling tone of aggression, that feminist language police wish to impose on mere definiteness.   The hallmark of clear thinking and indeed a masculine approach is defiiteness which seeks to become more and more comprehenssive.  That is the path of knowledge.   To shrink from definiteness is to defeat oneself and be ripe only for the authority or influence of others.   Language police must always be resisted.  Your last comment that “feminism and political correctness overlap to some extent” is imprecise.  PC is marxist tactic.  Feminism is an application of the marxist tactic of inciting unrest among groups which they see as ripe for being convinced that they are being “oppressed”.   PS: Your college classmate was acting and feeling like a 12 year old girl that objects when she discovers the limits of her female existence.  You can call it “human”; or more precisely “childlike”.  Usually, children grow out of these tantrums unless they are humored and thus “enabled” and coaxed into prolonged immaturity.

  5. John Russell

    I read Men on Strike, am glad I did so, and am grateful to the Dr. Helen Smith for writing it.   I was confused, however, by her use of two pejorative terms for men who were, in part, to blame for the predicament that their fellow males are now in.  The terms were “Uncle Tim”—applied to male culprits on the left—and “White Knight”—applies to male culprits on the right.   Dr. Helen uses “White Knight” again in this podcast  (listen to the discussion starting around 11:17).  How can a man know that he is a White Knight?  If he says, “Oh, you know, women have to to be protected…” I propose that a society can not function for long unless marriageable men and women have a common understanding of the conditions that under which a man is eligible to mate.  In the old days those conditions included the ability to protect. As a male child grows to adulthood he first acquires the ability to protect himself; then the ability to protect his future wife; and, and, finally the ability to protect his future family.  Protect from fear.  Protect from want (viz. provide).  If he can do those things he is eligible to mate: if he can’t, he is not. Apart from his looks his readiness and ability to protect was the principal, if not the only thing a suitor had to offer a debutante when he wooed her.   Question for Dr. Helen: If a suitor assures a debutante the he can, indeed, fulfill the role of protector as described above would you counsel her to reject him on the ground that he is a (gasp!) White Knight?

  6. Milt Rosenberg

    Excellent contributions for which I am grateful. If you would like to have access to hundreds of radio programs that we did over many years with eminentos, scholars, literary figures , public issues debaters and just people (i.e. cops. taxi drivers. chefs, physicians and aggrieved academics—just go to: http://www.miltrosenberg.com.

    .

  7. Michael Collins

    Mike Rapkoch:Milt:Excellent. Roger Scruton has observed that when men are separated from children the children lose there natural protector. Men, in that sense, may also be losing the sense of their natural role.

     A related point:  If a woman wants to have an abortion, despite the fact that the father believes she is killing his child, he has no rights.  She may have that abortion regardless of his wishes.  On the other hand, if the man doesn’t want her to have that child, she may nonetheless bring the child to term -and sue him for child support.   In other words the choice is exclusively hers to make, but the responsibility remains partially his.  Another example of the way in which the law is stacked against men, especially including their role as protector.

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In