For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
“What Do You Have To Offer Them If They Do Man Up?”
Written By : Morgan Freeberg

Dr. Helen, who is Mrs. Instapundit, makes an interesting point about incentives with regard to that Kay Hymowitz book everyone’s been talking about lately:

What would happen if a regular Joe, not an alpha male, came into class and gave his true opinion about the topics at hand, say in a psychology or sociology class? What if that opinion was non-PC, such as: “I think that men should not have to pay child support if women can have abortions,” etc.? How far would that man get in school? Would he graduate? Would he even pass the class? Even if men won’t admit it to themselves and women like Hymowitz overlook the problem, it exists.

After 45 years of being told they are pigs, sexist, and good for nothing, men have quit trying to please others, so they slap on a baseball cap and don’t talk much. And with good reason.

According to Hymowitz, these child-men are all used to a freewheeling life of going from girl to girl and video game to video game. Hymowitz mistakenly believes that men are suffering from the limits of American individualism.

Though she reluctantly admits that the “materials available to young men are meager, and what is available contradicts itself,” she comes up with this ridiculous conclusion: “At bottom, they are too free, a fact epitomized by their undefined, open-ended, and profoundly autonomous pre-adulthood.” She ends the book suggesting that young women will have to get a better understanding of the limitations imposed by their bodies (Huh?) and young men need to man up.

My question to her: Why should they?

What do you have to offer these men you call child-men if they do man up? Are you going to ensure that they have fair access to their children should they divorce? Will you make sure that they aren’t hauled off to jail if the wife makes false accusations of domestic violence? Will you let them keep the earnings and property that they worked for over years rather than have them turned over to their wife, even if she cheated and was abusive? Will you shield the millions of men who live in fear of their significant other but have nowhere to turn for help? Will you make marriage, in other words, as valuable to men as you think it is for women?

A is to B as C is to D, Reagan is to the democrat party as men are to society. We haven’t abandoned it; it abandoned us.

The male brain is a beautifully designed thing for processing unlimited varieties and permutations of motivated behavior, and only a finite selection of unmotivated, protocol-driven behavior. In other words, two or three hundred things you need to do to keep your arm from getting caught in a corn harvester, or to keep a boar hog from trampling you when you’re hunting it, the male consciousness can handle just fine. That other stuff you do just because, because you’re “s’posda,” because of tradition, because someone said so…we can follow about maybe half a dozen of those. Cover your mouth when you sneeze. Open the door and let her go first. Take your damn hat off.

Dr. Helen’s complaint comes from something ugly feminism did in the last half century. The activist movement realized that we men, quite different from being the oppressors they were painting us as, actually behaved deferentially to our mothers and wives because of a short list of “no-nos” that had been passed down from father to son. And so they took the easy way out, returning some of that imagined oppression by adding some items to the list.

At first this seemed reasonable. Don’t smack a female co-worker in the ass. And then it got less reasonable…don’t treat her as just one of the guys unless she gives her consent to being treated like one of the guys. And less reasonable…once she says she wants to be treated like one of the guys, you’d better do it, or we’ll end your career. And less reasonable…don’t put a calendar on the wall of your cubicle with women in swimsuits that look better than her, although she can put up whatever she wants.

And less reasonable than that: Don’t say or do anything that might make her feel uncomfortable. And she is the ultimate authority on whether you have succeeded at this. Even though she might be a nut.

Until it came down to the ultimate: The intent of the offender does not matter legally! The perception of the person offended decides everything! These rules are put in place to help ensure a comfortable, safe and non-threatening work environment for everyone! All in the same breath, unbelievably enough.

I live in California where we have “Furlough Fridays,” meaning every so many weeks it’s been pre-determined there isn’t enough money in the kitty to keep our state workers employed. Campgrounds up in the foothills have become much, much harder to reserve since this came about. I get to watch it happen; from my balcony, I have a splendid view of the ribbon of Highway 50 as it winds up a hill, from downtown Sacramento up into the El Dorado National Forest. It’s the only way to get there.

I know exactly what a Friday night used to look like. And I can assure you, that this is what a Thursday night looks like in more recent years. Tail lights upon tail lights upon tail lights. State “workers,” voting with their feet, showing us exactly how anxious and eager they are to live in this world they have helped to create for the rest of us with all of its modern rules. I wonder how many of them are male state workers. Doesn’t this speak volumes? Well, I’ve got about as much of that fat state paycheck as I’m gonna get, might as well start the weekend early…and so what do they do? They get the hell out. The people who live closest to the heart of our “evolving” civilization want no part of it, once Thursday afternoon comes and they’re given a choice.

Doesn’t that make sense given the rules in place? “We’re going to make this workplace environment extra extra safe for everyone. And so we’re going to put you in a cubicle next to someone who could be borderline insane. If you say something this person doesn’t like it will end your career. If you do something this person doesn’t like it will end your career. If you don’t say or do anything, and she finds it creepy, it could end your career. Those are the rules, to keep this envi– uh, hey, wait, where are you goin’?”

Captain Capitalism (hat tip again to Kate) adds:

The “man world” is DIRECTLY related to the economic crisis we face today AND IS ALSO THE SOLE SOLUTION to our economic problems today. It is the forefront of the battlefield and is precisely where all economic analysis should be focused (that is assuming we care to solve our little economic problems we face today). You want the recession to end? You want unemployment back to 4%? You want oil back below $2 a gallon? You want the US back on the road to supreme economic and military dominance and security? You want a world where your precious little children actually have a future? Put men back in charge (of course, what is funny, is if things keep going the way they are, men will inevitably end up in charge again, but it won’t be the nice ones who appreciate democracy and the sanctity of women).
:
In the meantime you will forgive us if we just plain opt not to marry, breed, or just in general, participate in society. Because, well frankly, what’s the upshot?

In the meantime, enjoy the decline!

And a decline is what it is. The more machinery we get installed into this ever-self-civilizing civilization, the quicker people — men — want to get the hell away from it once they’re given the option.

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes and Washington Rebel.

0
  • Anonymous

    “Are you going to ensure that they have fair access to their children should they divorce? Will you make sure that they aren’t hauled off to jail if the wife…”

    NB: ALL of the discrimination against men noted in this long list is being done IN THE COURTS BY MENTALLY WARPED JUDGES who continue to follow mindless precedents (judges love “precedents” since, like ideologically warped lunatic-left d-crat socialist politicians, it gives them an excuse to NOT THINK about the current issue – just knee jerk follow the ideology/precedent). So to fix this problem, we must fix the judiciary system and the mindset of judges. Good luck with that!

  • Anonymous

    Agree, agree… the only thing that I note with sadness is…Ronald Reagan is the governor who signed the first-in-the-country “no fault” divorce law in California. I think “no fault” has led to more divorce, and more tweakings in divorce law which hurt the parties and their children. Multiply thousands of times over the years and we have all of what you are talking about here.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah the hatred towards men is starting to come back to bite ‘em in the ass.

    Feminists: you men are useless. Worse than useless, you’re all rapists who hurt women and you should be sterilized at birth.
    Men: ok, to hell with you I’m going to do what I want, not settle down and not give a crap about chivalry.
    Feminists: where have all the decent men gone?

    A funny anecdote on this. We hear during the initial phase of the recession that women were fairing much better than men, and that was ok because it would force men to be more dependent on women and blah blah blah. Now that some areas are starting to recover (slightly) they’re pissed because the majority of jobs gained in male dominated fields so women are being ‘left out of the recovery’.

    So its ok for millions of men to lose their jobs, but if they ever get them back then it’s a travesty unless women get at least as many.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014295590_menjobs22.html?prmid=related_stories_section

  • Martin Hale

    Mr. Freeberg, I’m surprised you got caught in the real femynyst trap as you were stepping through from reasonable to unreasonable. You say: “…don’t treat her as just one of the guys unless she gives her consent to being treated like one of the guys.” But there’s the real trap. If you assume, for even a moment, that she will stick by that consent to treat her like one of the guys, you’re doomed. Doomed. You will eventually cross some invisible line with her, just as you might with a guy. But the guy won’t drag you down to HR to have you raked over the coals. She may. The guy might try to beat the crap out of you, or hose your car in the parking lot. But, if she’s offended she might go for the jugular and get you fired.

    You forgot that at any time she can unilaterally revoke that consent and she doesn’t even have to tell you that she did. Even if she’s given consent to treat her like one of the guys as long as you’ve known her, maybe you never knew her to be any other way, at some time in the future she can claim that something you did or said was “offensive” and the next thing you know, you’re sitting in HR with your supervisor as they mull over the appropriate penalties for you.

    That’s the real femynyst trap – the only rule is that you, as a male, have no control over the rules. You have nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. I would counsel any man to treat every woman in the workplace as though she might be the one who gets your fired. Obviously they aren’t all like that, but you’ll never know if she is until it happens. Too late. Too bad. So sad.

    • Anonymous

      Just as feminists have trained entire generations of women that all males are rapists perhaps it’s time to also train the next generations of men to assume all females are out to destroy their lives for petty reasons and there is nothing they can do about it but avoid women entirely in their professional lives.

  • Anonymous

    I’m sorry but you are mistaken about the legal standard. It has not “come to the ultimate” in the vast majority of jurisdictions. Sexual harassment is measured objectively. The test is usually: would the reasonable person believe they were being sexually harassed. The only time it is measured subjectively is if the harasser has actual knowledge that this woman would be reasonably sensitive to a certain type of harassment then proceeds to do it anyway.

    • Anonymous

      “Sexual harassment is measured objectively. ”

      One persons opinion =! 0bjective

      • Anonymous

        That’s not what measured objectively means, certainly not in the legal sense. For example, in contract law, whether or not a party intended to contract does not usually matter. If it would appear to the reasonable person that the party intended to contract, it doesn’t matter what the parties subjective intentions were. Inventing your own legal standard and putting it into a post makes me seriously question the credibility of the author.

        • Anonymous

          I don’t think you understand.

          Who determines “what a reasonable person” would have thought?

          Yeah, there you go.

          • Anonymous

            A judge or jury does, not the victim as he said. ” The perception of the person offended decides everything” It has absolutely nothing to do with the perception of the person offended. They can perceive whatever the hell they want. The only thing that matters is if the judge and the jury think it was harassment in their opinion only.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

            The judge and jury rely on personal opinions, not objectivity. That is like claiming the Nazis were objective in their opinion that history gave them the right to invade the world.

          • Anonymous

            Nope, false.

            Firing on the grounds of sexual harassment is entirely based on the opinion of the person being ‘harassed’. The company wants to avoid lawsuits so they take every accusation seriously. It’s far better to go to court fighting a wrongful termination suit for an accused harasser than it is to go to court fighting a suit filed by the harassed woman. It simply makes no economic sense to defend them male accused of harassment.

            And what exactly is the judge/jury going to be working from? Her statement more often then not.

            It’s not like you can track down concrete evidence for harassment most of the time. Sure if there are emails or video-tape evidence, but that doesn’t constitute the majority of such claims.

            Are you male? If so, why do you support laws and trends that overwhelmingly harm men and do nothing to help women?

  • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

    Men should be leaders and not care about incentives or what women do or try to make them do. We should stand up and do what is right, be mature gentlemen who will take off the gloves if need be, and shrug off the stupidity of the left and the feminist harpies. Incentives are for buyers, we’re men.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

      Life itself is about incentive, so the point is moot.

    • Anonymous

      What if I said this:

      Businessmen should be leaders and not care about profits or what the govenment tries to make them do. We should stand up and produce, be mature providers for the rest of society who will take off the gloves if need be, and shrug off the stupidity of the left and the self-serving bureaucrats.

      Does it occur to you that the sum consequence of this stance is to put the person in question in the position of a de facto slave? That this stance puts him in the position of only bearing obligations, whether just or unjust, and only accepting the consequence of whatever irrationality is thrown at him by those deemed his masters? Was John Galt the villain of Atlas Shrugged? If not, how is your stance any different from those who would have him produce for the James Taggerts and Orren Boyles of the world?

    • Anonymous

      We should and some will.

      However when talking about masses of people, hundreds of millions, the majority are going to respond to whatever incentives they believe are best for them.

      So there will always be people willing to do the right thing no matter what. However there will be more people willing to do the right thing if there are significant incentives encouraging that behavior.

  • President Friedman

    Risk-to-reward is always going to be a factor in people’s decisions, but the problem is we have much fewer examples of the reward for men to see. The joy I get from my relationship with my wife and raising our daughter is worth the financial and emotional risk, but I also have grown up seeing, in my grandparents, the benefits and potential of a succesfull long term marraige.

    And it’s worth noting that in many ways the propensity for taking on risk is itself a masculine quality, and as we continue to encourage a society of feminized, androgynous, or perpetually adolescent men, it is little wonder they shy away from the risk of marriage. I think this plays into problems with our economy as well.

Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info