Friday, November 07, 2003

Kim Du Toit's Manhood

Kim has an essay on manhood entitled The Pacification of the Western Male" that has much of the blogosphere deep in fascinating comments and discussions. If you haven't read it, you must do so now, and then you must immediately forward the link and/or essay to everyone you know. Little Billy Smetlock of Lubbock, Maryland did NOT forward the link and that very night, he was eaten by mutant starfish!! Coincidence? I think not.

It is really a very good essay.. IMnot-so-HO, we need to pay some attention very soon, or we may not be able to recover. At the same time, a lot of it gave me with the creeping heebie-jeebies.

Major point: Aggressive instincts are hard-wired into the male brain. Old-fashioned Western culture effectively channeled male aggression into useful channels; modern Western culture does not. The result is too many men who either harmfully misdirect their natural instincts (Bad Guys), or else have stifled them so completely that they can offer no defense against or deterrent to Bad Guys (Pussies).

BAM. Kim hits the bullseye, hands down, no contest. This society has so thoroughly ripped to shreds the male protective instinct that I (honestly) didn't realize it existed until I hit about 35. Honestly.

So what's my problem? Partly due to some of the things he wrote, partly due to some of the things he didn't, partly due to some of the woman I am and always will be. Here we go:

Things He Wrote
* "Pussification." Och, I can see you cringing right thru your computer. "What's next, Persnickety? Are you going to complain that your kid got a D in penpersonship? Insist that people address you as Manuscript Persnickety instead of Miss or Missus?" Well, phooey on you. I would prefer to see Pacification throughout, for reasons I'll delve into later. For now, just take it as read that I don't care for the way Kim has equated the stifling of the male with transmogrifying into the female.

* "Now, men are taught that violence is bad . . " Only they're not. Not quite. I mean, if they rape or kill somebody, the sentences are often quite low and easily reduced. This is less of a problem now than a few years back, but still worrisome. The social stigma against violence no longer exists -witness not only the unmolested existence, but the actual financial success and attractive hangers-on of Eminem, P Diddy etc. The general message seems to be more like "it's understandable when others commit violent, unprovoked acts, but you personally must not use violence even to stop others' violence." This is something of a nit in a criticism of another's essay, I know, but (a) it's still a valid and worrisome point, even it did take someone else's work for me to think of it and (b) I am Persnickety, doncha know.

* "women are hard-wired to treasure security more than uncertainty and danger. It was therefore inevitable that their feminine influence on politics was going to emphasize (lowercase "s") social security." Eh, kinda maybe sorta. Women may well be hard-wired as Kim says. Seems to be so, anyway. But the "inevitable" chaps my hide. I will say that women as a group may need to be better educated on the risks of individual liberty versus the guarantee of socialist oppression. Still, since schools are co-ed education shouldn't be an issue in - oooo, now we're on public education, which actually is another point of Kim's, so maybe females are simply getting more thoroughly indoctrinated under the public school system which was actually one of Kim's or perhaps a commenter's point so on second thought - the prosecution concedes on this point and respectfully requests that Mr. Du Toit run for school board.

Just for the fun of digressing, here's one reason why women sometimes prefer Bad Guys over nice guys. Because life is boring, and dating a thug is one way to experience danger and excitement. It's not a GOOD reason, but it's a real one.

* "Men are slobs, and that only changes when women try to civilize them by marriage. That's the natural order of things." plus "we're sick of women treating us like children." Make up your mind. Are you a civilized adult to be treated accordingly, or do you require the supervision of a female? Grrrrrrr.

Things He Didn't Write

*"Pacification" BECAUSE it ain't just males. Because females are also losing their protective and defensive instincts. Because femininity does not and should not mean "useless but pretty." Because the pacification of American citizens, male, female or other, is f***ing dangerous. Kim's essay may be nasty, but it's not nearly nasty enough.

*"Separation of the Sexes" darn, this post is getting long. I think men need a place where they can fart, scratch, and belch in peace. Women need a place where they can be free of farting, scratching belchers. Likewise, men need to refrain from certain behaviors in the presence of women. Doubly likewise (you do the math; my head hurts), women need badly to refrain from certain behavior & language in the presence of children. & we all need to be more civilized in general, including without limitation this very blog. & don't even get me started on television.

The woman I am
*"I don't see why I should put up with this bullshit any longer -- hell, I don't see why any man should put up with this bullshit any longer." So stop. HAH HAH HAH! Yeah, we wish it was that easy. By the same token, men wouldn't be such beasts if women didn't let them get away with it. Sometimes life is just annoying. (not a criticism just a comment, hopefully obviously but one never knows)

*"Men are slobs, and that only changes when women try to civilize them by marriage. That's the natural order of things." plus "we're sick of women treating us like children." It's in here again because this is a highly irritating combination. Grow up or don't - your choice - but don't come whining to me about a decision you've made about your own damn behavior. & ya know what? Despite this essay, I bet Kim would really hate my reaction to the proverbial slobby male behavior, because I won' nag, I won't civilize, I won't instruct or discipline. I will, however, out-slob any man on this planet if need be, and cheerfully let him wallow in his dirty socks until kingdom come. I can even burp at will, to the tune of "Mary Had a Little Lamb" & of course I can always find my way to the door. So whaddya want, there, Kim-boy? Would you like to (a) voluntarily refrain from farting contests in church, (b) get nagged continuously, or (c) be burped at in a fine restaurant over the champaign (in a refined and ladylike way, of course)?

Huh. Maybe there's a reason why I'm single.

Naaaah . . .

* Because it got me thinking about my version of a "real man." That would be a cultured, Christian gentleman. Then I realized that, in the event I ever meet a cultured Christian gentleman, he'd turn tail and run away screaming. It's kind of depressing.

*"Donald Rumsfeld, if he wanted to, could f*** 90% of all women over 50 if he wanted to, and a goodly portion of younger ones too." I hate seeing my innermost desires exposed on the Internet like this.

*Because that essay could & should spawn about 15 more essays, & I'm too lazy to actually write them - which means someone else may, and one of them could be an essay on "Real Womanhood," & I don't want to read it, or hear it, yet would be drawn to it like dust up a dirt devil. I have a sinking feeling that, whatever a "real woman"; is, I ain't it, don't wanna be it, ain't gonna be it. I've read some weird posts by women, that other women seem to relate to quite well but that left me saying "huh?" Like some chick that likes to be spanked. Sorry, buddy, you spank me & I punch you right in the snoot. (Speaking of being treated like a child . . .).

Now come on. What is weirder? Getting spanked or burping out "Mary Had a Little Lamb"?


updated for typos and to clarify para 7

No comments: