Response to the "pussification of the western male"

[bill2 0]

For those of you who read the essay about the pussification of the western male and got rather irate about it, here's a response from the author's wife. her website is: http://www.mrsdutoit.com/pmach/weblog.php
_________________________

Let's Roll
My favorite ad hominem attack about Kim’s rant (The Pussification of the Western Male) has been that he must have gotten permission from me to write the rant, or something like that--that he must have issues with women. Basically, that’s a PC friendly way of accusing him of being pussy whipped. He’s attacked for using female derivations of words as insults, but the insults are derivations themselves. Ummmmm. HELLO??!?

In another twist of irony, the Femi-Nazis have gone nuts and attacked us by making fun of our last name—by pronouncing it “Do Twat.” Ummmmm. That’s a female body part you’re using as a disparaging remark. Kettle, Pot. Pot, Kettle.

Here's a clue for the invective and hyperbole challenged: An argument addresses the facts and conclusions presented. Attacking the messenger is not an argument. If you wish to debate points in the rant Kim wrote, then present counter evidence. Name calling is not an argument. It's childish.

Kim and I have both written about these issues in the past. I wrote about them here and here with a follow up here. Kim’s rant was directed to his readers (mostly men).

Here's a summation of Kim's points (the majority of the rant were supporting or contributory facts):

Women's influence on the body politic has led to an increase in Nanny-State type intrusive legislation such as gun control, laws against children playing with games or toys which are scary, limitations on adult behaviors viewed as unhealthy or non PC (smoking bans, etc.).

Real Men, i.e., men of character, responsibility, etc., (and lovers of liberty) can reverse this trend by rejecting it.

To clarify one of the points that seems to have been missed about the television and cultural references Kim includes, despite that fact that it was prefaced with this sentence, “I'm going to illustrate this by talking about TV, because TV is a reliable barometer of our culture”: In other words, TV is a reflection of the society and we can learn a little bit about what is acceptable and tolerable by looking at the media. Television (and the media, popular culture, in general) is similar to the brake light warning system in your car. Some people interpreted Kim’s focus to be about getting the media to alter their message. That’s backwards. The goal is not to alter the media. That would be the equivalent of smashing the brake light. The rational response is to attempt to warn and educate the society, i.e. fixing the brakes, and change the image that television is reflecting. Then the warning light will go out on its own.

Another observation Kim made was that stereotypical homosexuals are acceptable and laudable, but responsible (not stereotypically Narcissist) gay men, men of principle and character (i.e. Real Men), are not politically correct, because they act too much like straight men. Gay men that act like women=good. Gay men that act like men=bad. Again, this repeats the point that typically female behaviors are socially acceptable and men who demonstrate these behaviors are acceptable, those who do not, are not, unless it is women who demonstrate these behaviors (then it is good).

It has become culturally acceptable to bash masculine men (with terms to that effect, such as “macho,” “machismo,” and “cowboy”) as well as any of the behaviors classified as stereotypically male such as collecting power tools, shooting sports, drag racing, etc. By classifying them in this way, it becomes socially acceptable to delegitimize them with laws and regulations. (Examples of this have also appeared as ad hominem attacks including “Neanderthal,” “cave man,” “knuckle dragging.” Even the term “Real Men” has invoked an avalanche of criticism, equating anything male with some implied type of Barbarianism. The assumptions expressed are that civilized behaviors are things that are stereotypically female. The moment we attach a male connotation to a behavior, there is supposed to be this understanding that they become backwards, uncivilized, and loutish. Anything which uniquely describes behaviors viewed as masculine have been used as ridicule and are further examples of the irony of the personal attacks. The personal attacks against me, for example, are voiced with insults which insinuate that I must “behave like a man” or am the one who “wears the pants in the family.”)

It has become socially acceptable for women to bash their husbands and boyfriends in public, and to “fix” them, as if they were broken, or raw material for something better. Hence the Queer Eye references in Kim’s original post, where men are encouraged to become clean and tidy to appeal to a woman, rather than advising him to seek the company of a woman who is herself unclean and untidy and more compatible. These attacks have also appeared as criticism—If I defend Kim or in anyway support what he has written, I must be a doormat, unable to speak for myself or incapable of having opinions of my own. If I do not support him and didn’t take action to stop him from publishing that rant, then I must be meek and stifled. Either way, the insinuations are that Kim is somehow my responsibility, as if he is a pet, either to fix or to keep locked up.

The last area that seems to have been completely misunderstood were the references to gang type behavior and college rapes. From the comments expressed, it appears it was interpreted that Kim somehow condoned rape, was expressing that women are to blame for being raped, or that men were reacting (by raping women) to something women were doing to them. This couldn’t be further from the mark (often these sections were quoted out of context). The point here was that men used to handle this type of behavior themselves, before it got to the level of date rape. A young man understood that he had more to fear from his father (and other men) than the law. Now both the father (if he’s in the picture at all) and the law have become impotent. Young males used to be kept “in line” by the presence of stronger men. Not all men needed this threat, of course, but some did, and men took it upon themselves to remove men (who didn’t get with the program) from the gene pool.

Young men were taught how to channel their natural aggressiveness and assertiveness into proper and appropriate avenues (unlike now where they are told that these feelings and reactions are bad and they should suppress them, leaving them without methods of dealing with these emotions when they leave their Mother’s nests). Rules of conduct were strictly enforced. Punishment was swift for stepping out of line, even for small infractions. The increase in these types of behaviors is common when strong male role models and mentors are no longer in the picture, or young men are raised exclusively by women, who wish to raise their young men to behave like young women. (These types of behaviors are common amongst animal populations that have been stripped of adult males. For additional research and reading in this area, refer to “Bull Elephant” studies.)

And finally, the term “Real Man” caused quite an avalanche. The term can mean whatever you think it means, but it is probably a reasonable expectation, when reading someone else’s work, to try to understand their use of the term, and what it means to them. The rant was quite specific about this, despite all the “knucke dragging” and “cave man” insults I’ve seen. I’ll finish with some quotes from the rant which might have illuminated Kim’s definition of the term:



There was a time when men put their signatures to a document, knowing full well that this single act would result in their execution if captured, and in the forfeiture of their property to the State. Their wives and children would be turned out by the soldiers, and their farms and businesses most probably given to someone who didn't sign the document.

There was a time when men went to their certain death, with expressions like “You all can go to hell. I'm going to Texas.” (Davy Crockett, to the House of Representatives, before going to the Alamo.)

There was a time when men went to war, sometimes against their own families, so that other men could be free. And there was a time when men went to war because we recognized evil when we saw it, and knew that it had to be stamped out.



I want our government to be more like Dad -- kind, helpful, but not afraid to punish us when we fuck up, instead of helping us excuse our actions.

I want our government of real men to start rolling back the Nanny State, in all its horrible manifestations of over-protectiveness, intrusiveness and “Mommy Knows Best What's Good For You” regulations.


In other words, gentlemen--kind and generous men who accept the risks and consequences of their actions and …


In every sense of the word. We know what the word “is” means.

[andy2 0]

hehe, he said pussy

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...

[rehmwa 2]

I like it, much clearer.

Still, nothing like a good rant.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[racer42 0]

jeeeeez...way too much free time.

L.A.S.T. #24
Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team
Electric Toaster #3
Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor
Co-Founder Team Happy Sock

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

I want our government of real men

Real men IMO are kind, generous, honest, have nothing to prove and have a spine.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Michele 1]

I read this one as well...and I still say bullshite. But ain't America great?...he gets to express his opinion, she gets to express hers, and then I get to express mine....

As someone who thinks communication is vital, if someone needed to follow me around and clarify - explain or justify, as it were - my position, then I didn't communicate very well in the first place.

IMHO, her "essay" was nothing less than a regurgitation and rant of her own, and, again IMHO, just as stupid and belligerant and peurile as her husband's. I am so glad neither one of them are in my household.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~