We've all read numerous pieces about the anti-male nature of modern American legal society and education. I think the problem lies not the American culture, which remains strongly masculine, but major organizations and institutions: the law, academia, unions and especially public sector unions, etc. These have become infiltrated by a line of thinking that has been extremely harmful to men's ability to be men without being demonized, sued, fired, or otherwise messed with by officials of one type or another; and which seems to feel that boys need to be either disciplined or drugged into acting as much like girls as possible.
Kim du Toit's famous piece, which I linked to a few days ago, is hardly the only thing to be written. In addition to numerous books and articles, both scholarly and popular, the problem is a regular feature at two of the finest blogs around -- coincidentally, both run by women. I mean of course Dr. Helen and Villanous Company, run by our own Cassidy.
Well, so, where do we start putting things right? I think it's with this bit of wisdom Cassandra captured on today's post about the housing issue and young men. She wrote:
[I]f we tell [boys and young men] that the very qualities which make them essentially masculine are somehow anti-social and need to be suppressed, should we be surprised if they opt out of the race?Indeed, we need to recognize that these qualities are natural, and to be protected and directed rather than suppressed. One of these qualities is aggression.
The military does a very good job with this, but we have a problem in the broader society. If an 18 year old private gets into a fight with another, whether over a girl or a point of honor, it's likely to be dealt with administratively. This gives the young bucks a chance to clash antlers without it ruining their lives, by getting them a permanent record of being antisocial or hostile. Nothing could be more natural to a young man than fighting other young men, not just for people but for anyone: it's featured in every nature documentary ever made.
(There is a famous list called something like 'things to remember now that you're out of the military,' which I can't seem to locate. It has a joke on this point, which as I recall goes, "If you get in a fight, your boss can't deal with you administratively. In fact, if he finds out he'll probably fire you.")
We need a way to expand this concept into the main American society, so that young men will be freer to express themselves naturally. We also need, however, to continue to constrain fighting: like drinking, it can be a good thing that relieves tension and adds to the pleasure of life; but it can also be very destructive to you and others around you.
I propose, then, what I shall call "the Fair Fight Bill." I suggest you write your state representatives and suggest that the laws in all 50 states should come to include it.
The Fair Fight Bill:
1) Any two adult persons, 18 years of age or older, who agree to engage in a fair fight will not be subject to criminal charges.
2) A fair fight will consist only of a fight in which:
a) Both participants declare, in writing and with a signature, their willingness to engage in the fight;
b) No weapons of any kind are used;
c) No additional persons enter the fight;
and,
d) The Marquis of Queensbury rules are observed at all times, as certified by any licensed referee, justice of the peace, notary public, military officer, or peace officer.
3) Violation of any portion of subsection 2 will result in the full range of criminal charges becoming available against the violator.
4) Fighters, though not subject to any criminal penalties, will still be liable in civil court for damages caused by the fight, either to each other or to property.
5) Licenses for referees will be shall-issue, providing that they pass a background check showing they have no criminal history.
The issue of civil damages ought to act as a restraint. The absence of weapons and the rules, plus the presence of a referee to ensure them, means that serious injury or death will be very rare.
As an additional social benefit, allowing this outlet will tend to push a lot of fights that are going to happen anyway into the "fair fight" category. Because it's accepted and without criminal penalty, it serves as a safety valve. Things that might have led to far worse kinds of fighting will be resolved fairly and in the open.
The law will recognize two important truths which have become regulated out of our society: that violence isn't always bad, but like anything can be either good or bad depending on how it is used; and that aggression can be an honorable thing rather than a sign of criminality or mental illness. It recognizes our human nature and trains it, rather than trying to force people to be something they are not born to be.
There might be a great deal of good to be had out of that. So we have been told, at least, in other debates on other topics.
No comments:
Post a Comment