Wimps and Barbarians (on being a Man)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Naturally, I asked if she wanted to come along and try. Disappointingly, she wasn't all that enthusiastic. Do you think maybe she was a lesbian? That is after all the only plausible explanation why chicks don't jump all over macho guys like us...

Um... not trying to offend you... but she probably already has a guy with a bigger... er, gun... :D :D :D

Don't take it personally though... go and buy something more macho ;)


Regards,

Trooper


P.S. Why, it all makes sense now... so that's why I'm single. Good thing my firearms permit is due this april :eek:
 
Then there's this from Peggy Noonan ...

Anyone remember this one?

SOURCE

PEGGY NOONAN

Welcome Back, Duke

From the ashes of Sept. 11 arise the manly virtues.

Friday, October 12, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

A few weeks ago I wrote a column called "God Is Back," about how, within a day of the events of Sept. 11, my city was awash in religious imagery--prayer cards, statues of saints. It all culminated, in a way, in the discovery of the steel-girder cross that emerged last week from the wreckage--unbent, unbroken, unmelted, perfectly proportioned and duly blessed by a Catholic friar on the request of the rescue workers, who seemed to see meaning in the cross's existence. So do I.

My son, a teenager, finds this hilarious, as does one of my best friends. They have teased me, to my delight, but I have told them, "Boys, this whole story is about good and evil, about the clash of good and evil." If you are of a certain cast of mind, it is of course meaningful that the face of the Evil One seemed to emerge with a roar from the furnace that was Tower One. You have seen the Associated Press photo, and the photos that followed: the evil face roared out of the building with an ugly howl--and then in a snap of the fingers it lost form and force and disappeared. If you are of a certain cast of mind it is of course meaningful that the cross, which to those of its faith is imperishable, did not disappear. It was not crushed by the millions of tons of concrete that crashed down upon it, did not melt in the furnace. It rose from the rubble, still there, intact.

For the ignorant, the superstitious and me (and maybe you), the face of the Evil One was revealed, and died; for the ignorant, the superstitious and me (and maybe you), the cross survived. This is how God speaks to us. He is saying, "I am." He is saying, "I am here." He is saying, "And the force of all the evil of all the world will not bury me."

I believe this quite literally. But then I am experiencing Sept. 11 not as a political event but as a spiritual event.

And, of course, a cultural one, which gets me to my topic.

It is not only that God is back, but that men are back. A certain style of manliness is once again being honored and celebrated in our country since Sept. 11. You might say it suddenly emerged from the rubble of the past quarter century, and emerged when a certain kind of man came forth to get our great country out of the fix it was in.

I am speaking of masculine men, men who push things and pull things and haul things and build things, men who charge up the stairs in a hundred pounds of gear and tell everyone else where to go to be safe. Men who are welders, who do construction, men who are cops and firemen. They are all of them, one way or another, the men who put the fire out, the men who are digging the rubble out, and the men who will build whatever takes its place.

And their style is back in style. We are experiencing a new respect for their old-fashioned masculinity, a new respect for physical courage, for strength and for the willingness to use both for the good of others.

You didn't have to be a fireman to be one of the manly men of Sept. 11. Those businessmen on flight 93, which was supposed to hit Washington, the businessmen who didn't live by their hands or their backs but who found out what was happening to their country, said goodbye to the people they loved, snapped the cell phone shut and said, "Let's roll." Those were tough men, the ones who forced that plane down in Pennsylvania. They were tough, brave guys.

Let me tell you when I first realized what I'm saying. On Friday, Sept. 14, I went with friends down to the staging area on the West Side Highway where all the trucks filled with guys coming off a 12-hour shift at ground zero would pass by. They were tough, rough men, the grunts of the city--construction workers and electrical workers and cops and emergency medical worker and firemen.
I joined a group that was just standing there as the truck convoys went by. And all we did was cheer. We all wanted to do some kind of volunteer work but there was nothing left to do, so we stood and cheered those who were doing. The trucks would go by and we'd cheer and wave and shout "God bless you!" and "We love you!" We waved flags and signs, clapped and threw kisses, and we meant it: We loved these men. And as the workers would go by--they would wave to us from their trucks and buses, and smile and nod--I realized that a lot of them were men who hadn't been applauded since the day they danced to their song with their bride at the wedding.

And suddenly I looked around me at all of us who were cheering. And saw who we were. Investment bankers! Orthodontists! Magazine editors! In my group, a lawyer, a columnist and a writer. We had been the kings and queens of the city, respected professional in a city that respects its professional class. And this night we were nobody. We were so useless, all we could do was applaud the somebodies, the workers who, unlike us, had not been applauded much in their lives.

And now they were saving our city.

I turned to my friend and said, "I have seen the grunts of New York become kings and queens of the City." I was so moved and, oddly I guess, grateful. Because they'd always been the people who ran the place, who kept it going, they'd just never been given their due. But now--"And the last shall be first"--we were making up for it.

It may seem that I am really talking about class--the professional classes have a new appreciation for the working class men of Lodi, N.J., or Astoria, Queens. But what I'm attempting to talk about is actual manliness, which often seems tied up with class issues, as they say, but isn't always by any means the same thing.
Here's what I'm trying to say: Once about 10 years ago there was a story--you might have read it in your local tabloid, or a supermarket tabloid like the National Enquirer--about an American man and woman who were on their honeymoon in Australia or New Zealand. They were swimming in the ocean, the water chest-high. From nowhere came a shark. The shark went straight for the woman, opened its jaws. Do you know what the man did? He punched the shark in the head. He punched it and punched it again. He did not do brilliant commentary on the shark, he did not share his sensitive feelings about the shark, he did not make wry observations about the shark, he punched the shark in the head. So the shark let go of his wife and went straight for him. And it killed him. The wife survived to tell the story of what her husband had done. He had tried to deck the shark. I told my friends: That's what a wonderful man is, a man who will try to deck the shark.

I don't know what the guy did for a living, but he had a very old-fashioned sense of what it is to be a man, and I think that sense is coming back into style because of who saved us on Sept. 11, and that is very good for our country.

Why? Well, manliness wins wars. Strength and guts plus brains and spirit wins wars. But also, you know what follows manliness? The gentleman. The return of manliness will bring a return of gentlemanliness, for a simple reason: masculine men are almost by definition gentlemen. Example: If you're a woman and you go to a faculty meeting at an Ivy League University you'll have to fight with a male intellectual for a chair, but I assure you that if you go to a Knights of Columbus Hall, the men inside (cops, firemen, insurance agents) will rise to offer you a seat. Because they are manly men, and gentlemen.

It is hard to be a man. I am certain of it; to be a man in this world is not easy. I know you are thinking, But it's not easy to be a woman, and you are so right. But women get to complain and make others feel bad about their plight. Men have to suck it up. Good men suck it up and remain good-natured, constructive and helpful; less-good men become the kind of men who are spoofed on "The Man Show"--babe-watching, dope-smoking nihilists. (Nihilism is not manly, it is the last refuge of sissies.)

I should discuss how manliness and its brother, gentlemanliness, went out of style. I know, because I was there. In fact, I may have done it. I remember exactly when: It was in the mid-'70s, and I was in my mid-20s, and a big, nice, middle-aged man got up from his seat to help me haul a big piece of luggage into the overhead luggage space on a plane. I was a feminist, and knew our rules and rants. "I can do it myself," I snapped.
It was important that he know women are strong. It was even more important, it turns out, that I know I was a jackass, but I didn't. I embarrassed a nice man who was attempting to help a lady. I wasn't lady enough to let him. I bet he never offered to help a lady again. I bet he became an intellectual, or a writer, and not a good man like a fireman or a businessman who says, "Let's roll."

But perhaps it wasn't just me. I was there in America, as a child, when John Wayne was a hero, and a symbol of American manliness. He was strong, and silent. And I was there in America when they killed John Wayne by a thousand cuts. A lot of people killed him--not only feminists but peaceniks, leftists, intellectuals, others. You could even say it was Woody Allen who did it, through laughter and an endearing admission of his own nervousness and fear. He made nervousness and fearfulness the admired style. He made not being able to deck the shark, but doing the funniest commentary on not decking the shark, seem . . . cool.

But when we killed John Wayne, you know who we were left with. We were left with John Wayne's friendly-antagonist sidekick in the old John Ford movies, Barry Fitzgerald. The small, nervous, gossiping neighborhood commentator Barry Fitzgerald, who wanted to talk about everything and do nothing.

This was not progress. It was not improvement.

I missed John Wayne.

But now I think . . . he's back. I think he returned on Sept. 11. I think he ran up the stairs, threw the kid over his back like a sack of potatoes, came back down and shoveled rubble. I think he's in Afghanistan now, saying, with his slow swagger and simmering silence, "Yer in a whole lotta trouble now, Osama-boy."

I think he's back in style. And none too soon.

Welcome back, Duke.

And once again: Thank you, men of Sept. 11.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Her new book, "When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan," will be published by Viking Penguin this fall. Her column appears Fridays. ][/quote
 
I loved the "manbag" question. I have carried a purse -- yes, I call it a purse -- for years. It makes a great holster. :neener:
 
I got a 3/50 on the test. Two of them I could figure out -- I go to the gym, and despite it being just Supercuts, and them spending no more than 10 minutes to buzz me, they like to refer to themselves as stylists. :)
I'm lost on the third one though. Was I supposed to know who the guy they named was?
 
Four out of 50, which puts me squarely into the realm of "stud."

Until a society learns to respect and teach the tenets of manhood, I'm rather afraid that we will continue to produce wimps and barbarians.
 
How I was raised, and how I raised mine children, would likely get me thrown in jail today. I remember when I moved from Houston to Va. and my kids (5th and 7th grade, at the time) went looking for a place to ride horses and go shooting with Dad. Talking with "other" children, mine informed me this was not the "everyday" culturally accepted outlets for a Father. My children are raised a gone now, but they both thank me for teaching them the "true" skills that will see them through life no matter what. I went shooting with my "oldest" son last weekend. How enjoyable, when your son as a man, out on his own, calls you up and asks if you'd like to go shooting. What can these "shells of a men" ever hope to look forward to as they age. Maybe, God can help them, Lord knows, they cannot help themselves.
 
Several years worth of articles from the Independent Women's Forum ( http://www.iwf.org ) under the title "The War Against Boys"

http://www.iwf.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleID=222

The War Against Boys

3/1/2003

How Women Beat Men at College Sports

Jessica Gavora reveals why schools must abolishmen's teams to comply with Title IX.

College sports are required-by Title IX of the 1972 education amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964-to provide equal opportunities for men and women. Although enacted as an anti-discrimination statute, Title IX has quietly become a quota system that has decreased sports opportunities for men while demanding endlessly expanding opportunities for women. What's more, the losers from Title IX are not limited to the now familiar angry white male. Pursuit of "gender equity" in college athletics is alienating key parts of the affirmative action constituency-black males and liberal college administrators-while minority women see little benefit. The only clear winners, for the time being, are middle- and upper-class white women.

Because men tend to participate in sports at higher rates than women, university administrators-under pressure both to comply with Title IX and balance their budgets-resort to simply cutting men's athletic slots to avoid the charge that women are "under-represented" in sports. But when men's opportunities are cut in sports such as basketball and football-which have high concentrations of minority athletes-"gender equity" often supplants racial equity, spelling trouble in the world of race and sex bean-counting. Last year the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) voted to cut men's basketball scholarships while leaving women's untouched, raising howls of protest from black coaches. At many universities, non-scholarship slots on large men's basketball, football, and track squads are being trimmed-taking opportunities for black male athletes with them. At some schools, these sports are being eliminated altogether.

And who benefits? The women's teams most often added to achieve Title IX compliance are in sports like tennis, rowing, and soccer-not the stuff of heated competition in the inner city. NCAA statistics bear this out: The women who participate in these sports (that is, sports other than women's basketball and track) are eighty-six percent white, five percent black, and two percent Hispanic.
~Autumn 1995

Boys Should Be Boys

Anne Roche Muggeridge defends the little savages.

It's not a good time to be male. Prevailing sociology now thoroughly regards young men as social invalids and blames their parents. The fashion in education for the past three decades has been to try to make boys more like girls: to forbid them their toy guns and rough play, to engage them in exercises of cooperation and sharing, to involve them in dolls and courses in the domestic arts, to denounce any boyish roughness as "aggressive" and "sexist." And boys rebel at their peril.

Yet the educational methods now forced on boys exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of male nature. Modern educators believe that the sexually based distinctions made in the past were arbitrary inflictions by a theologically based culture whose claims have been exploded by modern research. The latest, very cautious (and politically fraught) studies reveal what instinct tells us-that boys show distinct behavioral differences from girls early in infancy, well before they could be socialized otherwise. Yet the governing organs of society still persist in thinking that boys, if caught early enough, can be feminized.

A kind of madness has taken over. My own four boys went through the school system at the zenith of experimentation in the 1970s and early 1980s. The old Home Economics class, designed for girls, was turned into Unified Arts. Boys were supposed to learn to cook and sew, girls to fix cars and weld. My preteen son refused to make a cake or sew a piece of clothing. Under pressure, he asked me, "Mom, could you help >me crochet a hockey net?"

Of course, it's good in a pinch to know how to sew on a button, or make a meal, or change a baby or a tire. Boys are quite willing to babysit their sisters or wash a few dishes. But that isn't what the reformers have in mind-and the boys know it.
~Summer 1995

The Missing Persons of Domestic Violence

Richard J. Gelles shows us how men are victims too.

The most controversial finding [in my research], as it turned out, was that the rate of female-to-male intimate violence was the same as the rate of male-to-female violence. Not only that, but the rate of abusive female-to-male violence was the same as the rate of abusive male-to-female violence. When my colleague Murray Straus presented these findings in 1977 at a conference on the subject of battered women, he was nearly hooted and booed from the stage. When my colleague Suzanne Steinmetz published a scholarly article, "The Battered Husband Syndrome," in 1978, the editor of the professional journal published, in the same issue, a critique of Suzanne's article.

The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to speak. . . .

It is worth repeating, however, that almost all studies of domestic or partner violence agree that women are the most likely to be injured as a result of partner violence. . . .

Given the body of research on domestic violence that finds continued unexpectedly high rates of violence toward men in intimate relations, it is necessary to reframe domestic violence as something other than a "gender crime" or an example of "patriarchal coercive control." Protecting only the female victim and punishing only the male offender will not resolve the tragedy and costs of domestic violence. While this certainly is not a politically correct position, and is a position that will almost certainly ignite more personal attacks against me and my colleagues, it remains clear to me that the problem is violence between intimates, not violence against women. Policy and practice must address the needs of male victims if we are to reduce the extent and toll of violence in the home.
~Autumn 1999

The Write Stuff

Christina Hoff Sommers believes schools should teach the lost art of penmanship.

For the past several decades, schools have been burdened by poorly conceived initiatives from schools of education. Throughout my son's education (he is now in tenth grade), the emphasis has been on creative art projects in English and social studies classes.

For one history assignment, David had to make a relief map of Israel out of pizza dough. His grandmother and I spent an entire Sunday afternoon baking it and indicating rivers with blue thread and forests with parsley. Yes, I suppose I should have let him do it himself. But the idea of David alone in the kitchen, frustrated, angry, and covered with flour was more than I could take. And what was the point? I can't count the number of collages David has thrown together over the years. A recent assignment is typical: "Mom, I need pictures from magazines illustrating 'The American Dream' for my Great Gatsby final project."

But these things are not what he or any other child needs. What they need is more work on grammar, semantics, essay construction, and vocabulary development. All children, but boys especially, need better legibility and neatness in writing. As education professor Kay Huitt warned in the early seventies, "The current tendency toward incidental instruction in handwriting can soon move toward accidental instruction, and handwriting skills are too important to be left to chance."

We have gone from one extreme to the other and now must find our way to a sensible middle. . . . We know that penmanship is a basic and essential skill, that it plays a critical role in a child's basic literacy and overall success in school, and that when schools choose not to teach it, it is boys who pay the highest price. u
~Summer 2001

It's Always His Fault

Sally L. Satel reports that feminist zeal to condemn men may be endangering the lives of battered women.

The feminist theory of domestic abuse, like the feminist theory of rape, holds that all men have the same innate propensity to violence against women: your brother and my boyfriend are deep down every bit as bad as Joel Steinberg. Men who abuse their mates, the theory goes, act violently not because they as individuals can't control their impulses, and not because they are thugs or drunks or particularly troubled people. Domestic abuse, in feminist eyes, is an essential element of the vast male conspiracy to suppress and subordinate women. In other words, the real culprit in a case of domestic violence is not a violent individual man, it is the patriarchy. To stop a man from abusing women, he must be taught to see the errors of the patriarchy and to renounce them. . . .

As well, feminists have stretched the definition of abuse to include acts of lying, humiliation, withholding information, and refusing help with child care or housework, under the term "psychological battery." A checklist from a brochure of the Westchester Coalition of Family Violence agencies tells women if their partner behaves in one or more of the following ways, including "an overprotective manner," "turns minor incidents into major arguments," or "insults you," then "you might be abused."

With money provided by Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), this view has come to pervade the bureaucracies created to combat domestic violence. In at least a dozen states, including Massachusetts, Colorado, Florida, Washington, and Texas, state guidelines effectively preclude any treatment other than feminist therapy for domestic batterers. Another dozen states, among them Maine and Illinois, are now drafting similar guidelines. These guidelines explicitly prohibit social workers and clinicians from offering therapies that attempt to deal with domestic abuse as a problem between a couple unless the man has undergone profeminist treatment first. Profeminists emphatically reject joint counseling, the traditional approach to marital conflict. Joint counseling and other couples-based treatments violate the feminist certainty that it is men who are always and solely responsible for domestic violence: any attempt to involve the batterer's mate in treatment amounts to "blaming the victim."
~Summer 1997
 
Ben and Jim, those are both excellent articles that I have saved for future reference. :)

Thank you so very much for posting them!

That said, it should be obvious that its the left and feminsts that are actively doing away with everything and anything pertaining to masculinity and manhood. They have already done lots of damage. That article by Peggy Noonan (thanks again jimpeel!) is reassuring.

I thought this had already been discussed here.... Regardless, it is always nice to make more aware of it.
 
Trooper,

I think that anymore there are alot of women who are so accustomed to

the "meterosexual", that they aren't sure how to react to an "old

fashoned" kinda guy... I've had a few back off, and one who doesn't

like "nice guys"...

Maybe I need to buy a few more guns, yeah, that'll do it.. :D
 
I wrote one large response to this essay, and deleted it.

Basically what I want to say is that in my study of history, honor and manners, as imagined by this writer, are largely nothing more than the illusions created by "gentlemen" or "nobles" or "samurai" or other such classes who need to feel superior to others in order to maintain their social standing or control.

In fact, historically, it is oftentimes the men who hold honor and manners and civilization in the highest esteem who are themselves the biggest barbarians of all.

Yeah, samurai warriors with their devotion and discipline and culture really displayed all that when slicing off the heads of uppity peasants who refused to bow when they passed.

Yeah, that landed gentry of the antebellum South really displayed manners and civilization by creating a system to uphold both manners and civilization upon the backs of slaves.

Yeah, British gentlemen offiers were the perfect picture of manners and control when they ordered troops to open fire on uppity Indian peasants protesting for the indepdenence of their country.

They were, of course, descendents of the same kind of civilized, mannerly British gentlemen who opened fire on a crowd of civilians in Boston in 1770.

And, I would pay 20 American dollars to watch Terrence O. Moore lecture Ted Nugent to his face about being a long-haired, heavy metal guitar playing, womanizing barbarian. It would be worth the money to watch the Nuge whip Terrence O. Moore's priggish ??? all the way back to Hah-vad, or wherever else Terrence O. Moore came from.

But then again, I suppose my Ozark Mountain barbarian proclivities are showing?

hillbilly, damn it.
 
Moore was a lieutenant in the Marines. I think Ted Nugent might have his hands full.

I don't think Moore was arguing for class superiority but rather for respecting a standard for true manliness.
 
But then again, I suppose my Ozark Mountain barbarian proclivities are showing?
No, you'd probably be included in the gentleman class by the author of the essay. I think you've misread him, and the fact that you crafted a thoughtful response, indeed that you bothered to read the essay, qualifies you as a non-barbarian. Certainly you don't belong to the wimp class judging by the fire in your belly...

Your rather glib historical reductionisms are another matter altogether...
 
Okay, here's a more developed specific historical example:

In the 1820s and 1830s, Davey Crockett was dismissed by the "civilized and mannered" men of his day as a barbarian.

He was judged to be so on the basis of his music, his dress, his vocabulary, and the fact that he had no real fixed address and preferred to spend his time hunting or at shooting competitions.

Terrence O. Moore identifies modern barbarians in his column by their music, their dress, their vocabulary, and their fascination with crude sports.

In fact the quote from Tacitus which Moore offers could be applied almost word-for-word to Crockett by the civilized, mannered gentlemen of Crockett's day.

Of course, the end of Barbarian, uncultured, unmannered Crockett's career as a Congressman from Tennessee resulted from his refusal to vote for Indian removals from several southern states.

It was Crockett, with his lack of civilization and manners who proved to be the real man.

And it was Andrew Jackson and his plantation-owning, civilized cronies who proved to be the real barbarians, waging ethnic cleansing campaigns and practicing slavery on a wide scale.

Of course, I think it is Crockett who is remembered and idolized today.

hillbilly
 
I have read some of Crockett's speeches. He was certainly a well educated man and I would not for a moment class him as the sort of "barbarian" Moore is speaking of. He was most certainly a manly man.
 
As is hillbilly...again, I think he misunderstands what is meant by a gentleman. I think he qualifies as such, given his ability to articulate his outrage. Relax, Hillbilly, you are indeed like Davy Crockett, a man and a gentleman...
 
On the topic of the "metrosexual";

I enjoy the finer things in life, including fine clothes.

I enjoy looking my best, though I don't buy special face creams and whatnot, nor do I get manicures.

I think that another sign of a true man and gentleman is one who looks as good as he can at all times. If that means a $10,000 Armani suit or a $300 Macy's suit, fine, so long as it is your best.

I hardly think that good grooming habits put one into some new sexual category. :rolleyes:
 
The essay by Moore doesn't equate "uncultured, unmannered" men like Davy Crockett with the gangbangers of today. If you try to fit your own definition of "barbarian" on the definition MOore uses for the purpose of his essay, you miss the point of the essay.
 
Basically what I want to say is that in my study of history, honor and manners, as imagined by this writer, are largely nothing more than the illusions created by "gentlemen" or "nobles" or "samurai" or other such classes who need to feel superior to others in order to maintain their social standing or control.

Historians with strong biases tend to find what they are looking for. "Hillbilly." ;)

In fact, historically, it is oftentimes the men who hold honor and manners and civilization in the highest esteem who are themselves the biggest barbarians of all.

Sure. But do their vices make their virtues stop being virtues?

For instnace: Is bravery no longer a good thing because somebody like Hitler was brave in combat during World War One? Are wounded veterans no longer worthy of respect because Hitler got gassed? Should we take up animal cruelty because Hitler was nice to his dog?

I do think his over-emphasis on superficial things like baseball caps and obnoxious music (where did I stick my copy of "Ride the Lightning," anyway? :scrutiny: ) is rather silly, not to say prissy and stuffy. That doesn't necessarily invalidate his overall point, however. It has already been pointed out that since you and the author aren't using the same defnitions, your criticisms of him are rather missing his point.

I hardly think that good grooming habits put one into some new sexual category.

We'll be the judge of that. Post the score! :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top