I often listen to talk radio on my way to and from work and one of the topics today got me thinking about what the men in this country are becoming. The subject of this show was on the rights/wrongs of women in combat positions with the military. Now I'm not going to talk about women in the military today, but I reserve the right to address that at a later date. The part that really got me thinking was a comment from a caller who serves as a military recruiter for the Army. He commented "It's not that we prefer to recruit women in the military, it's just that there aren't many men out there now days willing to join."
These comments just floored me and got me thinking, are American men in such a state that they shy away from the call to duty? I hate to admit it, but I'm leaning towards Yes. I'm starting to believe, against my every being, that America has taken to pussify its male population and that we are no longer raising men to be the warriors that they once were.
I don't think it was a sudden change that cause this, but more of an erosion of Maleness over the years. I think it all started with the prevalence of divorce in this country and the lack of a male influence in many of our young men’s lives. Parents would separate and our young men were left to be raised solely by their mothers. Don't take that the wrong way, as I'm not knocking the job that single mothers have to deal with, but men need a male influence in their lives. By nature, women are more emotional and in touch with their feelings than are men. Women have a caring and nurturing nature that we, as men, love, but this is not a trait that we want handed down to the male youth. Men should be able to show emotion and be caring individuals, but this should come secondary to what it is to be a man, and that is a rough and tumble, protect your loved ones, never back down from a fight when it’s needed, beer drinking, swearing, and lack of social grace addition to the human race.
Men are hunters and gathers. They provide protection and food for their families. They need to have that warrior spirit just to fill the role that they are genetically predisposed to do. When young men have no role models in which to show and expand this trait, it begins to get lost as we see today. Think of what state this country would be in if World War II were to happen today. Do we have men of the same caliber that protected our country then living with us today? There are some, but I think they are a lot rarer than they used to be.
A secondary cause of this feminization phenomenon is the whole "metro sexual" fad that is now endangering the male population. I firmly believe that "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is largely responsible for the pussification of America's men. This show turns men into the very thing that men hate the most. However, this show glorifies the idea that women want a man that spends time and resources to better his appearance. It implants the thought that women are more attracted to a man that is "in touch" with his feminine side and more like them. Let's be honest, there isn't much a guy wouldn't do to attract someone of the opposite sex and I know, everyone is more attracted to someone that is easy on the eyes. For some of us, that takes more work than others, but is that something that we really want our men of today concentrating on? Ladies, and I need you to be honest with me here, which would you really prefer more: A man who is a bit rough around the edges, but steps in front of a thug on the street to protect you, or a man that cries over the fact that you used the last of his moisturizing cream when you showered that morning? Wouldn't you be more turned on by a man with a five o'clock shadow than a man with a seaweed facial mask and cucumbers on his eyes?
So there really shouldn't be a debate on whether women should be allowed on the front lines of the military. If America's men were still men, our military would be fully staffed with more than enough tough SOBs who are willing to place themselves in harm's way to protect this country, that there would be no need for women to be placed there. If our young men had the male influences to teach them how to be the warriors that their fathers and grandfathers were, this topic would have never come up.
Somehow I fear that it may be to0 late, as the "metro sexual" of today will be having boys of his own to perpetuate this "demasculinized" version of the male species that is alive today. The only way that we can change what, I fear will soon be an epidemic, is for the men that are left to take a stand. Throw away the idea of potpourri in your living rooms and go back to leaving your dirty underwear on the bedroom floor. Forego the frou-frou shampoos and go back to washing your hair with good, old fashioned soap! If you respond to that comment, "But that will give me split ends", then you are exactly the type of man that I'm ranting about. Quit ordering cosmopolitans at the bar and start knocking back whiskey and beer. Above all, wrestle with your sons. Teach them what it means to be a man and not to be afraid to act like one. Sure, the women of this country will protest for a short time, but I believe that they really want to have the strong male image back. What women wants a man who they feel they could more than likely take in a fight? Our families deserve the right to feel protected by the head of the household, and the only way they will have that feeling is for America to de-pussify the male gender.
That being said, I'm off to the bar for some Jack Daniels on the rocks and to watch Ultimate Fighting Championship on TV. ARGH ARGH ARGH!
2005-05-26
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
So what I got out of that is that you want to wrestle guys. Do you have something you want to tell us?
Why am I not suprised that this is the only thing you pulled from this Japher? Btw, how was your cosmos at the bar last night? :)
They were good. Thanks for asking..
He's got it wrong. Pussification started way before Queer Eye. It was that the women's rights movement that started pussification.
I respectfully disagree. It was not the sufferage movement that started the trend. While I have alot of disagreements with the women's right movement, it should have no consequence on the behavior of the male gender. Certain things were good about women's rights, such as the right to vote, the ability to break the corporate glass ceiling, etc, but as in all things, they can be taken too far. The harrassment laws have gone too far, thought that abortion can serve as legal birth control, etc are prime examples. However, to be a strong society, we must also have a strong female population. Look at WWII to see a prime example of that. While the men were off to war, the women had to step up and fill the needs of the country, and in my opinion, they did a wonderful job and the country wouldn't have succeeded without them. Same goes today. As our young men typically spend more time with their mothers, it's good for them to see a strong female influence and to see them as a partner, or one to be trusted. However, we must not forget the duty and impact of the father in raising process. While I see the point you are trying to make, to say that women's rights is responsible for men becoming feminized, is akin to say that introduction of the color blue is responsible for proliferation of inner city gangs.
Dude, I think you've unknowingly been infected with pussification. I did say that pussification is real subtle didn't I? Women drafted out of necessity to take care of a vital part of the country's needs in WWII is a far cry from women enlisting as soldiers and going off to Iraq and fighting a war. The end result unquestionably being the pussification of the military. Just look up the Army's physical fitness requirements for women vs men if you think I'm lying. The vast regulation changes and accompanying negative impact on the male soldier psyche has created a pussified Army and soldier. And before you go jumping on me for what you might consider unpatriotic bashing of the military just keep in mind you are a talking to a retired servicemember who gave 20 years. I recognized the pussification as it was occurring and witnessed that pussification first hand. The generals are all thoroughly pussified. The role that women play in the military today is the result of direct inroads made by the women's rights movement. So your analogies are inaccurate. The same holds true in the corporate world and its pussification.
First off, let me thank you for two things: As a fellow service member, thank you for your 20 years of service. 2nd, since you are commenting on such an old post, thank you for reading the whole blog. :)
Now, I don't disagree with a thing that you say, however, you need to notice that we are talking about two different things here. I am talking about the pussification of a gender, you are talking about an institution.
While women's rights were a contributing cause, it's not the problem with the military today. The real issue is political correctness and the fact that it should hold no position in military structure. However, due to leftist judges, lawyers, and various "rights" movements (not just womens), the military has grown scared to do anything that might bring them negative attention or light. A prime example of this PC-ness is the current Ft. Hood terrorism by Nidal Hasan, in which PC allowed the service of a fundamental islamist that led to the deaths of 12 of our servicemen/women. So I agree with you there, however, your arguement is lacking substance in what my original post was about.
The post was created on the grounds of a talk show comment in which a recruiter stated that the miliatry was having to open and recruit more women due to a lack of interest from males. If the military (or any institution) has a lack of prospective staff, it will lower it's standards to fill it's ranks. Now, that in and of itself is very bad, but I ask, what does that have to do with the decline of the male gender?
So women have a lower standard than men do to join. While I don't think this is what you're saying (I hope not anyways), this is giving merit to the fact that men are allowed to lower their personal standards, just because the females are lower. If this is what you are saying, then you are exactly what I'm talking about. Just because things are easier for one group, should mean that another has the obligation to lower themselves. The fact that women have an easier physical test for entry bears no consquence on the male side. True men would uphold a higher standard and prepare themselves. In addition, as the original post stated, the starting issue was that there were less men willing to even attempt to reach the standard.
I believe women should be allowed in the military and I believe they have many great purposes. Nurses, analysation, doctors, adminstration, even commanding in the right units. These are positions, while possible, are very unlikely to see combat, so if their standards are lower, I don't care. However, should they wish to serve in combat positions, then they should be held to the same standard as other combat entries. Do I think a woman could make a great fighter pilot? Absolutely! However, to make that jump, then the standards, the inherent risks, etc should be maintained at an equal standard. If able to pass, then they should be allowed to serve. However, as I stated, political correctness is the brick wall standing in the way of this equality.
Next time you see a gay rights/lesbian rally, take a look at some of these women. There are some of the flannel shirt, logger boot wearing tights that I think might excel in a combat position. LOL Okay, so a bit of a stereo type there, but I stand firm on the comment.
As for my analogies, they are correct. If you base them off the decline of the gender, as I intended, then they are completely correct. However, if you apply them to the decline of institutions, then you are correct, no correlation. Recognize that you have taken my post out of context and indirectly drawn a false comparison. I stand by my assertion that men, as a gender, have been pussified. The women's movement has no bearing on this other than many women believe that they can raise a male child without proper male influence. However, men are at fault here as well, by not standing up to thier obligations and being a party to the direct influence of the raising of their children.
Rules, Roles, & Boundaries
Rules: You don't get to alter the DATA or DNA. Men are usually bigger & stronger. Men usually override their emotional thoughts with rational logical reasoning.
Roles: These evolved over the history of humankind. Roles can be flexible & are highly influenced by the current culture.
Boundaries: The recognition & self-regulation of physical & emotional interaction with others (non-self) regardless of gender.
The "pussification" you speak about in all domains is a result of men going along with women who have completely discounted rules, roles, & boundaries. The women mix arguments presented as rational logic which confuse the vaporous concept of "woman's rights" with what they are actually usually arguing.. "histrionic entitlement".
Rules are not determined by gender. The rules come from nature / biology / physics. Accept that because the DATA cannot be changed.
Roles are influenced by culture. Feminists not only reject the current roles (which is fine), they have reversed the roles or created roles independent of men (not very good in the long run for humankind).
The women who have adjusted their own roles to exclude men will not limit their own views to themselves. They have no boundaries.
What's a guy to do (if he wants to get laid).
Men have allowed themselves to be "pussified" on so many fronts rather than simply saying NO to such extreme disregard to this trend of ignoring rules, roles, & boundaries. They fail to attack the emotional arguments with rational logic & simply say NO to histrionic entitlement.
I am 50. I have sisters & a mom. I am all for "women's liberation".. equal pay for equal work. Women in the military is fine too (they would likely be better fighter pilots then men because of size / reaction times, etc). Women have risen to greater heights in the business world WHEN they respect the rules, roles, & boundaries.
And yet here we are in 2010 still putting up with whining (histrionic entitlement), not saying NO to irrational emotional garbage being presented as logic. The "glass ceiling" is still being whined about. How about "NO, shut up, stop whining, Because if you want to be a CEO you will have to behave like a CEO".
What's a guy to do?
How about "un-pussifying" ourselves & saying NO. Avoid these women who refuse to accept rules, roles, & boundaries.. they will be eliminated from the gene pool eventually. Teach our daughters that they can accomplish anything with merit. Teach our sons that some of the roles will always need to be customized.
If the adjustment back to reality concerning gender issues in society does not happen fast enough then we might look at the precedents of history.. burning witches at the stake in Salem had nothing to do with magic or metaphysics. It was more likely an extreme adjustment taken by communities to purge themselves of Borderline Personality Disordered women. Too extreme.. Simply start saying NO to the whining. Whatever you do as a man, do not join in.
So stop being such pussies guys. The extremes of these arguments need to be put to rest. Bitches are usually muzzled in public.
Post a Comment