 |
| The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio meaning a bundle of rods. (Wikipedia) |
I'm a little late on the commentary here, and it really isn't Utah-specific, but I have plenty of unoriginal thoughts that, perhaps, I might put together in an appealing way. More importantly, somebody made the above cartoon for me, and it seemed like it would be a terrible waste to not air it a little. (It has been posted elsewhere, but it was made for me, and I love it.) You're welcome to share the image around if you are so inclined.
My impression of Gi**ette's ad was negative from the start. I was disgusted with the extremely negative view of men in our society (ie. western masculinity), and by use of a clip from the Young Turks (a panel of radical leftist commentators). The message has often been portrayed, by those who like the ad, as a sort of "we can do better, men; look how great you can be" sort of message.
That's an interesting interpretation, but an overly rosy one, in my estimation. When I watch the video, the message I get is: "Most men are horrible, and thanks to the MeToo movement, some very few of them have realized that they should be better. However, it's still only a small minority. Men are still horrible and that's not good enough. Men should call each other out for doing things that women might not like."
I don't see that as a very positive message, and when I dig a little deeper I find other problematic issues with the critique of masculinity.
For one, not all of the "bad" behaviors portrayed are unambiguously bad. They are certainly acted out in the context of creepy-sounding music, and they certainly succeeded in getting me to react with revulsion, but on closer examination, without the biasing context, are these all really bad behaviors? I would think that one of the best examples would be the little boys wrestling and fighting in front of the barbecuing men. What are those boys doing? Are they really fighting or are they play fighting? Make no mistake that it makes a difference. Research has shown that women, generally, can't tell the difference, but boys and men can tell the difference with a high degree of accuracy. Play fighting actually plays an important role in the development of boys. You can take it away, but it can have negative effects of their development, which will cascade into negative effects on society. (Eileen Kennedy-Moore Ph.D., "Do Boys Need Rough and Tumble Play?", Psychology Today Blog, 30 Jun 2015)
We also have the man who tried to approach an attractive female to talk to her only to be stopped by his apparent buddy, being told that it was "not cool". Really? Approaching a woman to talk to her isn't OK? Certainly, among many groups it is now perceived as not OK, but there are many reasons to suggest that such an approach is misguided. Studies have shown that women generally want and expect the men to approach them rather than the reverse, and men, on the other hand, have a greater tendency to want to take the lead in approaching women. I have personally known many women who have bemoaned the declining rate at which men seem to be willing to approach them. Men and women want to meet each other, and it is not enough to artificially limit the opportunity for such meetings to predetermined "free-speech zones", (as it were) as some seem to want to do. ie. I shouldn't have to be in a club, or a bar, or party to be allowed to talk to a stranger. Imposing such restrictive rules on social interaction seems almost like we're trying to restore the parts of society that seem plain Victorian. (Michael Mills, Ph.D., "Why Don't Women Ask Men Out on First Dates?", Psychology Today Blog, 30 Apr 2011)
We further have a couple of examples of a man grabbing a woman's butt. That could be quite inappropriate, except that in both examples it seems clear that we're not being shown two strangers. In both cases, the setting makes them appear as husband and wife. I don't know about you, but my wife and I grab each other's butts under similar circumstances all the time, and if we didn't, we'd think something was wrong. We both consider some sexual playfulness to be an important aspect of keeping our marriage healthy. It seems odd that some progressives would imagine to represent such behavior as toxic. Once again Victorian-era ideals, prudishness in this case, seem to be getting pushed by leftists.
Is this what we are to police then? I'm to tell my married friends to not flirt with their wives, my single friends to not approach women without a proper introduction, and my kids are to be told not to wrestle with each other or their friends? It sounds like something of an extreme set of suggestions, yet I recognize that this is the dystopian world we are moving towards. Gi**ette was not wrong about the direction radical leftist feminists are taking us. The disappointing thing is that it is a direction that Gi**ette embraces.
Of course there were plenty of behaviors portrayed that I can't really rationalize. Some of those come down to basic social ineptitude, and others to bullying, but even in those cases, to lay this at the feet of men, I think, is going too far. Bullies of various flavors come from all kinds of backgrounds, as do the socially inept who make their coworkers out to be idiots or try to impose their social demands on others, and even if we were to imagine that it were all men, to propose that this is MOST men, as the ad seems to is certainly going too far.
The "boys will be boys" issue is also worthy of some discussion. The phrase of course, is so true it is almost a tautology, but we have been conditioned to believe that the phrase is used to mean that boys can abuse women and others; that this is a natural tendency that can't be overcome. I can't ever recall such a phrase being used in this way by an actual person, but, anecdotally, I have seen the spirit of this excuse in action on a few occasions. One relative who is a single mother used to excuse her son for some horrible behavior, from stealing to torturing animals, and nobody could get through to her that anything he did was ever wrong. Another instance comes from a recent headline in the UK late last year. It read, "how mum of blood-covered boy reacted after he 'savaged' girl at soft play centre." In the story we find out about how a 17-month-old girl at a play place was savagely attacked by an older boy, biting her face, leaving her bloody and permanently scarred. The reaction of the boy's mother? "She kept shouting ‘That’s what kids do, that’s what kids do!’ over and over."
Several commentators have noted that the problems of "toxic masculinity", when they hit upon anything real at all, closely parallel the rise of single-parent households. If there's a connection there, it suggests not that men have been raised wrong by their fathers, but they have been raised wrong because they lack the influence of their fathers to teach them the western tradition of manhood that so often encompassed respect for women and others. Children need the influence of both a mother and a father to have the best chance of being healthy, well-adjusted, and successful adults. It will not do to promote bickering between the sexes by blaming everything on the "other". Blaming everything on the other gets you nowhere. Ironically enough, the truth is that we should each strive to take as much responsibility for the problems of the world as we possibly can, because if you can find that you are, in some way, the problem, then you are also the solution. As I like to say, when you make yourself the scapegoat, you set yourself free. (Jerrod Brown, "Father-Absent Homes: Implications for Criminal Justice and Mental Health Professionals", Minnesota Psychological Association)
The attitude of progressives is a little ironic. On the one hand they decry traditional masculinity for its stoicism and champion the sharing of feeling. On the other hand, they regularly mock the feelings of men who disagree with their prescriptions. It does nothing to engender trust or healthy dialog. It supports the hypothesis that these progressives are not interested in any of the understanding or problem solving they often pretend to, but only in the self-promotion and aggrandizement that they accuse everyone else of.
In my view it should go without saying that we should be able to communicate our feelings in healthy ways, and yet we should also strive to not let them drive us into paths that are often destructive. Gi**ette has done men a great disservice in both misdiagnosing the problem and prescribing the wrong solution.
Most men are good descent men, and we need to stop telling them that their masculinity is something to be ashamed of so that they can have the confidence to be the men that we need them to be.
We also have the man who tried to approach an attractive female to talk to her only to be stopped by his apparent buddy, being told that it was "not cool". Really? Approaching a woman to talk to her isn't OK? Certainly, among many groups it is now perceived as not OK, but there are many reasons to suggest that such an approach is misguided. Studies have shown that women generally want and expect the men to approach them rather than the reverse, and men, on the other hand, have a greater tendency to want to take the lead in approaching women. I have personally known many women who have bemoaned the declining rate at which men seem to be willing to approach them. Men and women want to meet each other, and it is not enough to artificially limit the opportunity for such meetings to predetermined "free-speech zones", (as it were) as some seem to want to do. ie. I shouldn't have to be in a club, or a bar, or party to be allowed to talk to a stranger. Imposing such restrictive rules on social interaction seems almost like we're trying to restore the parts of society that seem plain Victorian. (Michael Mills, Ph.D., "Why Don't Women Ask Men Out on First Dates?", Psychology Today Blog, 30 Apr 2011)
We further have a couple of examples of a man grabbing a woman's butt. That could be quite inappropriate, except that in both examples it seems clear that we're not being shown two strangers. In both cases, the setting makes them appear as husband and wife. I don't know about you, but my wife and I grab each other's butts under similar circumstances all the time, and if we didn't, we'd think something was wrong. We both consider some sexual playfulness to be an important aspect of keeping our marriage healthy. It seems odd that some progressives would imagine to represent such behavior as toxic. Once again Victorian-era ideals, prudishness in this case, seem to be getting pushed by leftists.
Is this what we are to police then? I'm to tell my married friends to not flirt with their wives, my single friends to not approach women without a proper introduction, and my kids are to be told not to wrestle with each other or their friends? It sounds like something of an extreme set of suggestions, yet I recognize that this is the dystopian world we are moving towards. Gi**ette was not wrong about the direction radical leftist feminists are taking us. The disappointing thing is that it is a direction that Gi**ette embraces.
Of course there were plenty of behaviors portrayed that I can't really rationalize. Some of those come down to basic social ineptitude, and others to bullying, but even in those cases, to lay this at the feet of men, I think, is going too far. Bullies of various flavors come from all kinds of backgrounds, as do the socially inept who make their coworkers out to be idiots or try to impose their social demands on others, and even if we were to imagine that it were all men, to propose that this is MOST men, as the ad seems to is certainly going too far.
The "boys will be boys" issue is also worthy of some discussion. The phrase of course, is so true it is almost a tautology, but we have been conditioned to believe that the phrase is used to mean that boys can abuse women and others; that this is a natural tendency that can't be overcome. I can't ever recall such a phrase being used in this way by an actual person, but, anecdotally, I have seen the spirit of this excuse in action on a few occasions. One relative who is a single mother used to excuse her son for some horrible behavior, from stealing to torturing animals, and nobody could get through to her that anything he did was ever wrong. Another instance comes from a recent headline in the UK late last year. It read, "how mum of blood-covered boy reacted after he 'savaged' girl at soft play centre." In the story we find out about how a 17-month-old girl at a play place was savagely attacked by an older boy, biting her face, leaving her bloody and permanently scarred. The reaction of the boy's mother? "She kept shouting ‘That’s what kids do, that’s what kids do!’ over and over."
Several commentators have noted that the problems of "toxic masculinity", when they hit upon anything real at all, closely parallel the rise of single-parent households. If there's a connection there, it suggests not that men have been raised wrong by their fathers, but they have been raised wrong because they lack the influence of their fathers to teach them the western tradition of manhood that so often encompassed respect for women and others. Children need the influence of both a mother and a father to have the best chance of being healthy, well-adjusted, and successful adults. It will not do to promote bickering between the sexes by blaming everything on the "other". Blaming everything on the other gets you nowhere. Ironically enough, the truth is that we should each strive to take as much responsibility for the problems of the world as we possibly can, because if you can find that you are, in some way, the problem, then you are also the solution. As I like to say, when you make yourself the scapegoat, you set yourself free. (Jerrod Brown, "Father-Absent Homes: Implications for Criminal Justice and Mental Health Professionals", Minnesota Psychological Association)
The attitude of progressives is a little ironic. On the one hand they decry traditional masculinity for its stoicism and champion the sharing of feeling. On the other hand, they regularly mock the feelings of men who disagree with their prescriptions. It does nothing to engender trust or healthy dialog. It supports the hypothesis that these progressives are not interested in any of the understanding or problem solving they often pretend to, but only in the self-promotion and aggrandizement that they accuse everyone else of.
In my view it should go without saying that we should be able to communicate our feelings in healthy ways, and yet we should also strive to not let them drive us into paths that are often destructive. Gi**ette has done men a great disservice in both misdiagnosing the problem and prescribing the wrong solution.
Most men are good descent men, and we need to stop telling them that their masculinity is something to be ashamed of so that they can have the confidence to be the men that we need them to be.
Some brighter things that came from Gi**ette's folly:
Comedy spoof...
A watch company doing something more positive...
Getting Piers Morgan to recognize leftism gone too far...
Comments
Post a Comment