Lisa Hickey, publisher of The Good Men Project and CEO of Good Men Media, Inc., recently published the article “The Patterns in Mass Shootings and a Conversation about Men.” The Dayton Daily News reprinted the article on June 1 as a full page editorial. In Hickey’s viewpoint, because mass murderers are mostly men, to stop mass shootings we must change the nature of men.
Evidently, the “progressive” Left’s abhorrence of gender stereotypes doesn’t apply to its own doctrine that the male is inherently dim, aggressive, and selfish, whereas the female is inherently enlightened, cooperative, and nurturing. If you accept these assertions, as the American liberal intelligentsia have, only one conclusion can be drawn: the remedy to all our social problems is to create a brave new world where “good men” are built in the image of the feminist woman.
[RELATED on OCR: “How Republicans Should Talk about Women’s Issues”]
Hickey’s call to change the nature of men is a standard in feminist ideology. It starts in grade school, where nearly three times as many boys are treated for ADHD than girls. Their biggest crime is being a boy and thinking that they could be doing something better than sitting at a desk being bored for six hours. And who is the first to bring attention to these disruptive boys? Their teachers, who happen to be nearly 80% female. If ADHD diagnoses had been in vogue in the 60s, I would have gone through school in a Ritalin-induced stupor. Today, feminists would never accept such a lopsided assault on “girl” behavior by men.
Although the move for men to “get in touch with their feminine side” is often made in jest, the real push in the feminizing of men has far-reaching roots — and repercussions. Feminists also want to change women, and you can’t change the yin without changing the yang. They seek especially drastic changes in their relationships with men. From calling all male/female sex rape and all men rapists [link contains explicit language], to telling women that they need a man like a fish needs a bicycle, feminists are laying the ground work to redefine men, women, and all male/female relationships according to their own twisted misandry, every bit as twisted as the misogyny they often cite.
[RELATED on OCR: “The Family is in Trouble”]
But for men to change on this scale, you must selectively apply, as Hickey does, bad science and believe that masculinity is mostly due to upbringing and not to the XY chromosome. In other words, in the nature versus nurture argument, she is betting 5 to 1 on nurture. However, our current knowledge of psychosocial and sociobiological theories on human behavior is too fuzzy to really allow making definite conclusions in this dispute. Even the Human Genome Project approaches this topic very carefully. (Note how in the second paragraph the author selectively mixes the nurture versus nature argument to support his thesis.)
But fuzzy science is exploitable science. And a key liberal/feminist tool is the seemingly benign notion of gender. To most people, gender is just a nouveau chic convention in what used to be referred to as someone’s sex. But now we are told that is not correct. Someone’s sex refers to whether they have mommy or daddy parts. Someone’s gender is determined by their psychosocial and even political status. This definition is behind the recent laws allowing people with mommy/daddy parts but daddy/mommy brains to use bathrooms and locker rooms based not on body parts, but how they view themselves, i.e., brain gender. A recent incident highlights the complexities of this practice.
But what difference does brain gender make to opposite gender locker room observers if it is the body parts that are on display? Therefore, one can envision, given the feminist obsession with destroying the male/female sexual relationship, even these new standards will not legally stand, and eventually there can only be unigender facilities. These can only exist under a comprehensive legal suppression in traditional sexuality, something akin to Orwell’s Anti-Sex League.
So what is manhood? What is the purpose of men? Manhood is no longer linked to defense; we are told women can be members of the warrior class. Manhood is no longer linked to leadership; we are told women can be CEOs. Manhood is no longer even associated with doing math; we are told women can differentiate a function as well as the next guy. Is 49% of the population just becoming a bunch of Captain Dunsels?
One could argue fatherhood might be the last unique measure of manhood. By fatherhood, I’m not talking about baby daddies or clinical sperm donors. I mean “fathers,” as in “dads; a male who accepts the responsibility of helping raise his children physically and emotionally … but different than a mother.
[OCR covers GOP candidates’ careful vs. careless handling of a quotation on fatherhood from former Senator Barack Obama]
But fatherhood has become nothing more than a joke. We’ve gone from Ward Clever to Homer Simpson; from Father Knows Best to Family Guy; and from “Wait till your father gets home,” to “I don’t know who your father is?” Observe the male role in television ads and you will find the father/male character is nearly always portrayed as a buffoon.
The evolution of fatherhood to its current state has been pushed by a progressive agenda. Many women fell hook, line, and sinker for the feminist fish-without-a-bicycle dystopia. Prodded on by an indifferent society, they decided it would be hip to be a single parent. That same society gave men an excuse to be absent. Unfortunately, moral and religious issues aside, except for a few wealthy women, most women discovered that they were left doing the heavy lifting in child-rearing, while men were having a good time being boys.
Something had to change. What changed was the role of the government. In effect, Uncle Sam became Big Daddy, Sugar Daddy, and Baby Daddy. Bye, bye, Ward Cleaver.
In 50-75 years, will there be any need for real fathers? It seems the role of men is evolving to a role of socialized fatherhood, where men pay taxes to support a socialized family. Technology will replace the physical act and the government will provide the upkeep. According to feminists, that would be a good thing.
Happy Father’s Day.
Tony Corvo is a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with a Ph.D. in physics. He is active in local Beavercreek, Ohio politics and is the author of All Politics is Loco: Musings from the Conservative Next Door. He and his wife have two grown daughters. He writes extensively on local issues. Many of his recent articles can be found at taxbusters.wordpress.com/author/phdmc2.
All opinions expressed belong solely to their authors and may not be construed as the opinions of other writers or of OCR staff.
Image: Sam Kirchhoff