October 17, 2006

Robert Jensen and Men Being Men

Robert Jensen, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, says that

Guys should evolve beyond masculinity

The article is a bit long, but the author is also very wrong and way off base in many cases. He starts out with
It's hard to be a man; hard to live up to the demands that come with the dominant conception of masculinity, of the tough guy.

Well, he's right on that part. No one ever promised anyone that life was easy. Life isn't easy. It was never supposed to be easy. The only people who look at life and expect it to be easy are Godless people who are basically lazy. So yeah, life isn't easy. So what? He continues
So, guys, I have an idea -- maybe it's time we stop trying. Maybe this masculinity thing is a bad deal, not just for women, but for us.

Typical of way too many who call America home today. What's the first reaction to anything that's "hard?" Surrender. He complains later on in the article that it's bad to have the reaction that it's not okay to surrender, but this is still his first reaction. What does that tell you about this type of person? The FIRST reaction to "it's hard" is surrender. But there's more:
We need to get rid of the whole idea of masculinity. It's time to abandon the claim that there are certain psychological or social traits that inherently come with being biologically male. If we can get past that, we have a chance to create a better world for men and women.

We need to make everyone the same. Everyone should be androgenous. There should be no difference between males and females except for a few physical sex organs, according to the author. He wants to completely destroy the entire society of America and it's complete history. He doesn't want there to be ANY social differences between men and women. If all of western history were to cease to exist, he would be happy.

And he actually wants to believe there are zero psychological differences between men and women. All the research studies that have shown, time and time again, the various differences between reactions in the brain of males and females should be ignored and thrown out. Zero difference. I think he's going to need an awful lot of powerful, mind-altering drugs to complete that task.

That dominant conception of masculinity in U.S. culture is easily summarized: Men are assumed to be naturally competitive and aggressive, and being a real man is therefore marked by the struggle for control, conquest and domination. A man looks at the world, sees what he wants and takes it. Men who don't measure up are wimps, sissies, girls. The worst insult one man can hurl at another -- whether it's boys on the playground or CEOs in the boardroom -- is the accusation that a man is like a woman.
...
That view of masculinity is dangerous for women. It leads men to seek to control "their" women and define their own pleasure in that control, which leads to epidemic levels of rape and battery. But this view of masculinity is toxic for men as well.

So because men are different from women, they rape women. Perhaps Mr. Jensen has already been partaking of some serious mind-altering drugs. He actually believes that women are raped because of the culture of America. Apparently rape doesn't happen in any other cultures -- after all, if it's America's "macho" culture that causes rape, certainly it won't happen in, for example, Muslim cultures that are almost the opposite of America.

This is just an insane view of men, originally created by radical man-hating feminazis. However, it appears that Mr. Jensen has bought that story.

No one man created this system, and perhaps none of us, if given a choice, would choose it. But we live our lives in that system, and it deforms men, narrowing our emotional range and depth. It keeps us from the rich connections with others -- not just with women and children, but other men -- that make life meaningful but require vulnerability.

None of us would choose this system? So what system would you create and choose, if you had the option, Mr. Jensen? From your insinuations here, it seems that you might choose a world of utopian androgeny -- a place where no one ever was better than anyone else. There would be no losers -- and no winners. There could be no competitive sports, because that might show that some are better than others.

There could be no competition for work, because some might work more than others, and some might get paid more than others -- and that just wouldn't be fair. Everyone would have to work the exact same amount and would get paid the same amount. Of course, be sure you get the entire rest of the world to join you in your utopia at exactly the same time, Mr. Jensen, or they'd roll over the peaceful U.S. in a New York Minute.

But how does this culture "narrow our emotional range?" I don't see that at all. I see plenty of men that have all the emotions they want to have. Perhaps you mean that it narrows Mr. Jensen's definition of emotional range. Perhaps you mean that some men don't have the exact same emotions as Mr. Jensen, therefore those men are "bad."

How does this culture keep us from connecting with others? Again, that's not the world I live in. I see all sorts of men leading their families and making long-lasting, rich emotional connections with their children, both male and female. I see heads of households taking care of their wives and families in ways that could not be done were they not bold men who are willing to work for and defend their families.

Of course there are obvious physical differences between men and women -- average body size, hormones, reproductive organs. There may be other differences rooted in our biology that we don't understand. Yet it's also true that men and women are more similar than we are different, and that given the pernicious effects of centuries of patriarchy and its relentless devaluing of things female, we should be skeptical of the perceived differences.

Follow that one carefully, good reader, if you can. There are differences, but there shouldn't be -- that's what he's trying to say. "There MAY be" other differences? Once again, that's blind denial of all of science since the beginning of time. If Mr. Jensen seriously doesn't realize that there's more differences between men and women than physical characteristics, he indeed lives a very, very sheltered life.
But in the short-term it's hardly a convincing argument to say, "Look at how men and women behave so differently; it must be because men and women are fundamentally different" when a political system has been creating differences between men and women.

In other words, again, Mr. Jensen seems convinced that men and women are NOT different -- instead it's the culture that's created them different. No, Mr. Jensen, you're completely wrong. Men and women not only ARE different, the uniquely American culture that celebrates men and their strengths is also good. It has brought us much of what you see and use to make your complaints about men and America.
From there, the argument that we need to scrap masculinity is fairly simple. To illustrate it, remember back to right after 9/11. A number of commentators argued that criticisms of masculinity should be rethought. Cannot we now see -- recognizing that male firefighters raced into burning buildings, risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives to save others -- that masculinity can encompass a kind of strength that is rooted in caring and sacrifice? Of course men often exhibit such strength, just as do women. So, the obvious question arises: What makes these distinctly masculine characteristics? Are they not simply human characteristics?

They are masculine characteristics because the majority of men have them and the majority of women do not. It really is that simple. There's no scientific study needed here. There's no need for years of research. It really is simple: men tend to do masculine things because they're men -- despite the American culture that Mr. Jensen seems to hate so much. Don't believe me? Watch children play without guidance. The boys ALWAYS play with guns and make car noises. The girls don't. And not because they were told to.
Once we start saying "strength and courage are masculine traits," it leads to the conclusion that woman are not as strong or courageous.

Once again, Mr. Jensen, perhaps you should get out a little more often. Those ARE masculine traits. Women are not as strong or courageous. Now before all the "sexist" hackles get raised (am I too late?), that's a broad generalization, and dammit, it's true. Overall, men ARE stronger and more courageous than women. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that doesn't make it false, no matter how much you don't like it.
I don't think the planet can long survive if the current conception of masculinity endures. We face political and ecological challenges that can't be met with this old model of what it means to be a man. At the more intimate level, the stakes are just as high. For those of us who are biologically male, we have a simple choice: We men can settle for being men, or we can strive to be human beings.

Gee, Mr. Jensen, we've been doing pretty good with this model for thousands of years, haven't we? Heck, the US, up until the last couple decades, was doing absolutely outstanding with our culture. Heck, the population (including illegals) just went over 300 million. That doesn't sound like we're near extinction just yet.

As for your false choice, Mr. Jensen, we have another option. Instead of "settling" on being men, we can celebrate and actually work at being real men, instead of the utopian androgeny that you would ask us to be. I, and anyone else who enjoys and celebrates the uniquely American culture, doesn't want to be an androgenous "human." I prefer to be a man.

No, it's not easy. It's actually quite difficult. However, unlike you, I choose not to surrender. I choose not to give in to the politically correct (morally bankrupt) crowd that would suggest I need to be less agressive and less protective. Instead, I will fight you and others like you until my last dying breath to be free to be a man. I will hold doors open for women -- whether they want me to or not. I will exit the elevator when only a woman is in it -- whether they're insulted or not.

I will continue to change the oil on my car and drink full-bodied beer. I will continue to collect firearms and practice shooting them. And you know what? I will continue to provide for and protect my family from people like you who would destroy them and their culture. Sure, it's difficult, because it takes work, and it involves a whole lot of responsibility. But if you want to be a man, you have to take that responsiblity.

A Man Rejects Passivity

A Man Accepts Responsibility

A Man Leads Courageously

"A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do." - John Wayne.

Addendum: Raven's right there with me.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:17 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 1926 words, total size 12 kb.

1 The writer of the article, Jensen, is obviously every butch feminist's idea of what they would like a man to become -- that would play out just fine for them until the going got suddenly tough and they needed him to display his subdued masculine side, then it would be, "You're the man, DO something!" In Jensen's case I'm afraid he wouldn't be much help -- right in the middle of shaving, in his scramble to remember what a man would do he'd probably cut an artery in his leg and add to the problem...

Posted by: Seth at October 17, 2006 06:15 PM (r1vdM)

2 What an excellent post Ogre. You take Ms. Jensen, oops I meant (not) Mr. Jensen to task in such an effective way. He forgets the very real physiological differences between men and women- the scientific facts that are so obvious to most of....these differences, I believe, are meant to be a part of some bigger picture none of us have much control over. I do know this: Men and women are not equal nor should they be. We are different, thankfully. We compliment one another through our differences though and this is what has kept humnakind alive.

Posted by: Raven at October 17, 2006 06:57 PM (3hcL2)

3 I agree, Raven. We simply are different and will always be. If men and women cease being different, I think that will be the point at which humankind ceases to exist.

Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2006 08:01 PM (oifEm)

4 I don't want to be like men. LOL...big hairy things that you all are lol!!! Being a woman is not a bad thing and being a real man is not bad either! People need to stop trying to change what Mother Nature gave us. I linked to your post here too.

Posted by: Raven at October 17, 2006 09:34 PM (3hcL2)

5 Well, I hate to say it, but the *spit* fwench *spit* do have a saying for this that is actually ***GASP!!*** correct: VIVE LA DIFFE'RANCE!!! (Yeh, OK, so I had to add the accent there, sorta) Frankly, any "man" who capitulated to Jensen's vision for modern masculinity isn't worth a plugged nickel. Real women like REAL guys! -- Kat www.CatHouseChat.com

Posted by: Kat at October 17, 2006 09:37 PM (Bdli+)

6 Real women are not threatened by real men either. They respect their guy, they love him and honor him...they worship the ground they walk on. Same with real men- in their feelings towards gals! Kat it would be interesting to read something about the religious view on this topic...***hint hint*** LOL

Posted by: Raven at October 17, 2006 10:24 PM (3hcL2)

7 Oh, hell, Raven... You just *HAD* to suggest that, didn't you? [banging head against the wall] You realize I'm TRYING to memorize Romans, chapters 5-8, right? *sigh* OK, hon, I'll see what I can do... It won't be up until tomorrow, though (assuming I can gather all my scattered thoughts to post something coherent...) -- Kat

Posted by: Kat at October 17, 2006 11:21 PM (Bdli+)

8 Well I don't expect a masterpice to be written just like that Kat!! LOL...besides with all the beer were gonna guzzle down tonight...our little slumer party of sorts... and I will feed you apple pie to help get your thoughts in order. LOL!!!

Posted by: Raven at October 17, 2006 11:28 PM (3hcL2)

9 I think the last part of the post (not the John Wayne part) does hit the religious view quite squarely on the head, if you ask me.

Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2006 01:17 AM (/KVPD)

10 Jensen gives us journalists a bad name. I think we might have a great spot in Gitmo for him.

Posted by: Brian Dear at October 18, 2006 09:14 AM (sdUfe)

11 *sigh* OK, I'm awake. Let me get the Munchkin to school, and I'll see what I can contribute to this conversation... ... Actually, I think I have the beginnings of a framework. God does that to me sometimes; I think it's one of the methods He uses to kick my butt! ;-) OK, I'll TB to ARS and here (Oh, wait, munu still isn't doing TBs is it?), but keep your eye on CHC about midday. --Kat (and yes, I double commented at ARS)

Posted by: Kat at October 18, 2006 11:15 AM (Bdli+)

12 And just think, Brian, he TEACHES journalism. I'll be watching, Kat!

Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2006 11:19 AM (oifEm)

13 I wonder what women would say when they see a man without… masculinity.

Posted by: Bouquets at October 18, 2006 04:36 PM (vcUSw)

14 The ones I know laugh. And point.

Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2006 05:55 PM (oifEm)

15 I had sooo many strong reactions to this post I delayed doing work to respond to this. My first reaction was "Boy, he's trying to go further than feminists in emasculating men." The more I read the more I reacted and the angrier I got. He wants everyone to forget centuries of biological evolution, social acculturation, and biological realities. In essence he wants men to become feminized metrosexuals. The next thought was "oh, he's from SF, where everyone tries to top the other person on how far to the left they can go." Finally, he wants men to become more feminized, then he should just submit to a transgender operation and get his particulars cut off so he can be a little closer to me. Lets see how enlighted he will truly be as a result of walking in my shoes!

Posted by: michele at October 19, 2006 05:23 AM (chOjH)

16 Worse, he's not from SF, he was just writing for them. Instead, he's in Texas TEACHING journalism. That should be the scariest part. And yes, he doesn't like thousands of years of history, so he wants to completely rewrite the world and all of society according to him. And there's a lot of people who agree with him...but there's lots, like me, that will tell him where he can stuff his rewriting of culture.

Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2006 01:03 PM (oifEm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
33kb generated in CPU 0.0133, elapsed 0.0802 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.0723 seconds, 205 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.