Son's response A certain kind of music would soften the souls of young men.
Young males, of course, have always been rough around the edges. But in the past, their edges were smoothed, in part, by being introduced into female company. Boys learned to behave properly first from their mothers and later around other women and girls. They held open doors, pulled out chairs, stood up when a woman entered a room, stood up in public places to offer their seats, took off their hats in the presence of women, and carefully guarded their language so as not to offend the fair sex. All that is gone. In no other aspect of their conduct is barbarism more apparent among a large number of young men these days than in their treatment of women.
It used to be that women were relied upon to be a civilizing force around men. No longer, thanks to feminist movement women can be just as crass as men, and then women bemoan the fact they get treated "just like the guys." It resides wholly with women to choose who the next generation of fathers will be (and by extension what the next generation of men will be like) as no one forces them into marriage, at least not in our culture, and they still have the final word on accepting or rejecting a proposal. Thus if they want men to be upright, responsible and brave they should marry someone upright responsible and brave. Basic breeding principles alone would dictate that in a couple of generations the brigands would be bred out, but the very problem is that women don't marry men who are "upright, responsible and brave".
Rather, ever the fans of projects, many women marry with the goal of changing men. A foolish thought, for which the Arapaho have a parable regarding a snake and a fox (You knew I was a snake when you carried me on your back. Why are you surprised then when I behaved like a snake and bit you?) Who do we have to blame for this? One of the very people Moore holds up, namely Jane Austin and all the other foolish "Romantics" of their time, like the Bronte sisters, who encouraged women through stories of changing deeply flawed men and thereby proving ..what I am not sure. That sometimes you get lucky in the roll of the dice? That maybe so, but I would never want to make my living on my earnings from Roulette.
Wimps make worthless watchdogs. But their failure as watchdogs or guardians has nothing to do with size or physique. My father used to tell me when I was growing up, "It is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog" that matters. Many of today's young men seem to have no fight in them at all. Not for them to rescue damsels in distress from the barbarians. Furthermore, wimps vote. As Aristotle pointed out, to the cowardly, bravery will seem more like rashness and foolhardiness than what it really is. Hence political and social issues that require bravery for their solution elicit only hand-wringing and half-measures from the wimps. Wimps are always looking for the easy way out.
This requires and obligatory potshot at the French for they, more than any other, charge Americans with being "cowboys" when in truth they are the hand-wringing cowards. And yet, our American women pine for the French (or Euro) male despite the abysmal track record that many have in the bravery department (excepting the British). Can you say "cognitive dissonance?" Truth is both sexes could do with a healthy shot of rationality as it isn't just men that are led by passions. In fact, dare I say it, I would think of the two in American society, men, far more than women, can at least muster something of a rational explanation for what we do or what we think. For far too long "feelings and intuitions" have sufficed as an answer from women.
By way of illustration, I was on a recent ski trip and in the car ride up to the slopes the talk inevitably turned to politics and war (inevitable for me). One of the partners in the conversation was a female and she said that she thought the war was "wrong" but she couldn't muster a reasonable rationale for why, she just said in her heart she knew it was wrong. But the surprising thing is she acted like that settled the matter. To be sure this isn't true of all women, just as it isn't true that all men are led by their passions (even on the issue of the war itself I have known many women to marshal a coherent argument for and against it) but it does typify what has been allowed to pass in society as an answer. Men are condemned when we put such thinking to the test, we are told that we aren't being very "sensitive" or "cooperative." And who do we have to thank for this jargon that passes for an argument? Moore hit it on the head, the most recent iteration of the feminist movement and all the other post-modern critiques that deal in "dialogue" rather than "competition"(unless your ideas be of Judeo-Christian or Anglo-American origin in which case they are de facto wrong or oppressive).
So on the whole I agree with Moore's assessment I just disagree where the culpability resides. Only manly fathers teach the next generation of men to be manly and you only get manly fathers if women marry manly men. As it turns out basic breeding principles may prove the death knell of the manly man, as far more nebulous criteria like "personality" or "he makes me laugh" seem to weigh more for women than he is "upright, responsible and brave"
This sentence really stood out to me. It is taking me years of hard work to move my boys into manhood. I cannot imagine how boys without a father manage it. I know it happens - through other avenues of support (coaches, surrogate fathers, pastors, teachers).
Abdicated fatherhood is a blight upon this nation.
These 'wimps and barbarians' are the same group of kids who just overthrew two brutal regimes in the Middle-East. A society that creates men (and women) like that has got to be doing something right.
These 'wimps and barbarians' are the same group of kids who just overthrew two brutal regimes in the Middle-East. A society that creates men (and women) like that has got to be doing something right.