A Good Essay

Sarah Hoyt writes on a familiar problem. The title of the article sounds like she might be taklig She manages to articulate something that I hadn't quite sorted out until I read it, which is contained here:
And yes, boys can be taught to act weak and much like the sob sisters. The problem is they aren’t. Not even when they’re raised to act that way. The end result is that they don’t know how to express their strength and they’ve never been taught to modulate it. Men who have only been taught to “act sensitive” but have no other discipline, no other moral, no other idea of what it means to be a man, will in fact hoist the pirate flag. Whenever a memoir surfaces from the sixties, the thing that always strikes me is how these men who were considered champions of women were in fact nasty little petulant creatures, taking advantage as much as possible. Say, the story of Ayers raping a girl and then making her sleep with someone she had no interest in, by bullying her with the idea that not to do so would be unenlightened.
This is really the problem, isn't it? Generally I don't have any problem with women I know who self-identify as feminists: in fact, usually I like them, as I usually like tough-minded people who will argue with me.

I may think they are wrong on the facts or wrong in interpretation. Yet in the last few years I've realized that the real feminists are working it out for themselves, and left to it will eventually come around. There's nothing I can say that will convince them, but the feminist historians working in (say) medieval studies are looking hard for examples of tough women making their own way in the world. And looking for them, they're finding them -- everywhere they look. It may take a while to turn over the old orthodoxy of 'the patriarchy,' and they certainly aren't trying to do it, but at some point the weight of the evidence they are producing day by day is going to force them to take a second look at their guiding mythology.

And that's good. It's great, in fact. It's a tremendous service to human understanding of the past, and I'm excited to see it flowering before us. I enjoy reading their articles, lit with the joy of discovering a kindred spirit in yet another one of their ancestors. It fills me with hope that, one day when they're ready, we'll be able to talk anew about the blessed legacy we received who were lucky enough to be descended from the Men and Women of the West.

So far, so good. But the men: or 'men,' more appropriately. They aren't worth spit. The only thing that keeps them from getting smacked in the jaws on a regular basis is the profound sense of pity you can't help but have for them. They are worthless, pathetic creatures -- until, like the Ayers of her example, they work out their sleaze on someone else.

The young women, I think, will work themselves out in time.

The young men need to come back in under the weight of the -- well, 'patriarchy' isn't quite right. The Brotherhood. They need to fall back in under the mastery of better men than they are, so they might become brothers and better men themselves. The best of their nature does not come naturally. It is a product of long and ancient art.

31 comments:

Eric Blair said...

The world wars killed off too many men, and probably more cogently, that culture that Hoyt and others keep talking about.

It isn't coming back, so best be thinking about how to make something new.

Grim said...

The world wars didn't kill off the culture. John Wayne and John Ford were making movies with the productive elements well after the second war. Wayne managed to avoid the war, but others of his comrades didn't. Their stories were moving to men, old and young, well into the seventies.

What killed the culture -- if indeed it is dead, as perhaps it is not -- was something else. Think again about what it was. Why can't we, or don't we, tell stories like that today? They tried, not long ago, using real Navy SEALs as the actors even. Why didn't it work? Well, the acting wasn't extraordinary, but people looked over that when it was Audy Murphy. The story was good, and it was very close to true, even.

What's wrong?

Tom said...

I don't think it wasn't the World Wars that defeated it in America; it was the 60s.

The culture isn't dead, though. A minority live it as well as they can today. It may be doomed to forever after be a minor theme in our culture, but there's no way anyone can know whether that's true or not. It appears to be an open question.

Tom said...

Sorry. That should be "I don't think it was the World Wars ..."

Cass said...

There's a reason for the term "passive-aggressive". It's still aggression - it's just easier.

Texan99 said...

I'd love to see a culture in which no group had to exaggerate its weakness in order for another group to see its strength in full flower. Whatever is the explanation for some "feminist" men becoming snivelers, I don't think it's women's insistence on being taken for what they are rather than for the way idealizing men see them. I think it's more that there are men who, when their stereotyped roles are undermined, lack the imagination, generosity, and strength of character to build new and appropriate roles for themselves.

It's like certain aristocrats who functioned pretty well as long as all the folderol and tomfoolery was culturally enforced, but who, once the peasants were allowed to leave the land, became eccentric, mentally deficient shut-in drunks under the stress of finding a new role. That's not to say that there were not excellent reasons for the aristocracy for healthy individuals in a healthy culture--only that some people crawl into rigid roles like a shell and don't do well when the shell is damaged.

A true John Wayne type wouldn't fall to pieces if he discovered strength in his wife. But there is a thriving genre of stories about silly men who turn to drink and destroy their marriages just because their careers are collapsing while their wives become famous. It's not the roles that are at fault--whether traditional or revolutionary--so much as the shallowness of their interpretation of the roles.

Not that I disagree at all that it's dumb to try to raise a boy as if he were Tiny Tim. He should be raised in such a way as to acknowledge what he truly is, which means, as Sarah says, he needs to be taught both to express and to modulate his strength and aggression, not to pretend he doesn't have it. For that matter, you can make a mess of a girl by pretending she simply doesn't have the characteristics that don't fit your conception of how she should be.

Cass said...

Whatever is the explanation for some "feminist" men becoming snivelers, I don't think it's women's insistence on being taken for what they are rather than for the way idealizing men see them. I think it's more that there are men who, when their stereotyped roles are undermined, lack the imagination, generosity, and strength of character to build new and appropriate roles for themselves.

I have to say that I've always thought that the stereotypical masculine rather encourages that way of seeing things, though. I think it's a perversion of what I see as genuine masculinity (strength/independence of mind), but the aesthetic is so prevalent that I think it's a bit of a problem. I hear men conflate weakness (both physical and mental) with femininity all the time, and it is really pretty insulting.

It's as though they can only consider themselves strong/smart/successful if they're "stronger than/smarter than/more successful than" the women in their lives. Which is really kind of dumb, and perversely makes it harder for then to be any of those things. I'm a better person for having married my husband. I admire him and he gives me a high bar to try to live up to. He says he feels the same about me - that I inspire him to try harder, and be a better person.

That's kind of what it's all about.

I know there will always be people smarter than I am. I have a general idea of how smart I am relative to other people (male and female). It gives me no particular pleasure to realize I'm smarter than some man, and conversely it doesn't bother me any more to realize I'm dumber than a man than I would feel if he were female.

So I find the competitiveness off putting and unnatural.

Cass said...

*sigh*

"stereotypical view of masculinity...

Cass said...

Tragically, I'm not sure I'm a better *typist* for having married my husband, though :p

Sorry - worked all night and I'm a bit groggy.

Cass said...

OK, having read her essay, there are parts of it I really don't agree with at all, but other parts I do agree with.

Will respond when I have time.

Elise said...

I applaud T99's comment and, like Cassandra, have always thought that a "strength" which demanded the weakness of others didn't make sense.

Perhaps the problem here is blame. To blame men for women's unhappiness and/or bad behavior and to blame women for men's unhappiness and/or bad behavior are equally unhelpful.

If there are aspects of society we think need to be changed, we should certainly work to change them. But we also need to take responsibility for how we live in the society we inhabit.

That seems to me to be the message of the feminist Medieval scholars Grim applauds: there were always women who found a way, despite the vast institutional and societal barriers, to take as much control of their own lives as possible. It doesn't mean it's okay that society put up the barriers; it means that being true to our own natures to the greatest extent possible is always an option.

E Hines said...

The culture isn't dead, though. ... It may be doomed to forever after be a minor theme....

Not doomed at all. We started out a minority and grew from that pretty well; we'll do it again--and are.

The existence of folks like Grim and Tom and Eric Blair is proof of that.

Eric Hines

Cass said...

And you, Mr. Hines :)

Grim, I apologize for getting the author wrong when I linked to this. It's funny, when I read it, it sounded like you (especially the last part) but for some reason I got it in my head that Tex wrote it.

I'm really losing my mind... anyway, very good, thought provoking stuff.

Cass said...

Why can't we, or don't we, tell stories like that today? They tried, not long ago, using real Navy SEALs as the actors even. Why didn't it work? Well, the acting wasn't extraordinary, but people looked over that when it was Audy Murphy. The story was good, and it was very close to true, even. What's wrong?

I'm not all that sure anything's wrong. We're not the mono culture we once were - we're more like stereo in a room with a gazillion speakers, all playing different radio stations.

I see stories like this all the time. It's just that there are a lot of other, less inspiring ones too, and sometimes you can't see the trees you prefer in a forest of other kinds of trees.

There's so much competition for attention, and that ends up being a bit of a race to the bottom.

Tom said...

Whatever is the explanation for some "feminist" men becoming snivelers, I don't think it's women's insistence on being taken for what they are rather than for the way idealizing men see them.

I agree, and I don't think anyone at the Hall is trying to say that it is. Sarah Hoyt certainly doesn't.

That said, there are environments where when boys & men insist on being taken for who they are instead of pretending to be what some idealizing feminists say they should be they are attacked.

Not all, and not everywhere, but I do believe a lot of Ritalin & similar medical prescriptions are simply to treat boys for acting like boys. I believe a lot of changes in discipline and the changes in playground rules in our public schools are attempts to stop boys from acting like boys.

I think it's more that there are men who, when their stereotyped roles are undermined, lack the imagination, generosity, and strength of character to build new and appropriate roles for themselves.

But those aren't characteristics we are born with. They are ones we get taught, and we're doing a poor job of teaching boys.

Cass said...

...those aren't characteristics we are born with. They are ones we get taught, and we're doing a poor job of teaching boys.

I agree, Tom, and I've been very concerned about how boys and young men were doing for years.

Where I start to have a problem is with the complete disconnect in a lot of the rhetoric on the right. When feminists demanded "girl friendly" schools, conservatives were up in arms. And I agreed with them that schools didn't need to be made more girl friendly. Girls might need to be taught better skills, or they might need encouragement. But they didn't need to be catered to or offered special/lower standards.

Now I see conservatives endorsing every bad argument they opposed from feminists, and I don't get it. Now, all of a sudden, we need boy friendly schools? DISPARATE IMPACT!!!!11! is suddenly a valid argument? Boys can't succeed unless everything revolves around what's perceived as their special needs?

I paid out the nose for private school for my sons precisely because they needed to learn to pay attention, sit still, behave, turn in their work. I don't want to hire employees who think they should be catered to. We have deadlines and they need to be organized and disciplined enough to meet them with work of acceptable quality.

I oppose the whole Ritalin thing, but as I've said before the parents have some responsibility there. No one forces someone else's child to take Ritalin.

Finally, I don't think I could possibly disagree more about what constitutes "acting like a boy". My sons are polar opposites. One had to work harder to complete assignments and pay attention than the other, but in the end they both had to learn. I oppose grading on behavior, but I've seen far more unfounded allegations about that than I have seen actual evidence.

Turning in assignments or not disrupting the class are pretty basic skills. Clowning is one thing, but a lot of kids these days come to school not ever having learned to do what they're told. That's not fair to the rest of the class.

Whatever happened to, "If your teacher calls me to report you're acting up in school, don't worry about the principal. Worry about what Mom and Dad will say and do?"

That's a BIG part of the problem with boys these days, I think. They aren't learning basic skills at home, and then at school no one makes them toe the line either. Boys are better than that - yes, they're different, but sometimes people make them sound like they're some sort of primitive race of subhumans who can't/won't learn or control themselves.

Boys take patience, and I believe many are hurt by single parent homes or negligent parenting - perhaps more than girls (jury's still out on that one for me). But that's not the problem of the public schools. They don't raise our sons - we do.

And the slacker/lowbrow culture we both tolerate and encourage does boys no favors either.

/sorry for the heat

Grim said...

Cass:

There's so much competition for attention, and that ends up being a bit of a race to the bottom.

That might be what's wrong! :) But I think we can reasonably argue that it is wrong -- that the stuff on television or in the movies today is not virtue-building, but something other than that.

Some of it is still good art, by many measures. I've told you that the only television show I watch -- via Amazon, since we don't have TV -- is Sons of Anarchy. The producer has deep influence from Shakespeare, and the writing has surprising complexity.

They just began a new season, the premier of which ended with a school shooting. I thought it was unusually discrete for the show (since the shooting and any resulting gore was all offstage, with just shots and screaming heard), which is normally about as violent as Shakespeare himself.

But when I read an article about it that also included a recap of all the violence in the show, I realized there was a lot more that just passed over me largely unnoticed. There were two forcible rapes, a scene of torture, a forcible drowning, the aforementioned school shooting, numerous beatings....

I don't even watch TV anymore, but I'm so immune to the culture's products that it just washed over me unnoticed. A lot of that stuff wouldn't have been allowed on screen at all even twenty years ago or ten (or, if it were, like the school shooting would have been offscreen).

That much violence just to keep the viewer interested for an hour or so is astonishing. But in context, it's barely noticeable.

Grim said...

But they didn't need to be catered to or offered special/lower standards.

I actually think single-sex education is the way to go in many cases. It would also solve other problems for both boys and girls, especially from (say) 12-18.

Cass said...

there are environments where when boys & men insist on being taken for who they are instead of pretending to be what some idealizing feminists say they should be they are attacked.

Physically attacked? Or merely not approved of? Do you seriously think women and girls haven't had to deal with the same thing for.... well, centuries? Two wrongs don't make a right - that's not my point. My point is, adapt and overcome. We can't command other people's approval or endorsement. And we can't expect to tell others what/how they should think. A strong person learns mental independence and resilience.

One more thing. Ironically, I fit the conservative notion of "how boys are" far more than "how girls are". I was a tomboy. I was athletic and often rowdy. Still am. I grew up hearing, "Women don't do X. Women are no good at Y. Women can't do Z." It didn't kill me, and it didn't stop me.

I was the kid who hated to sit still, who lost her homework or just didn't do it. Who aced tests but blew off pointless, makework assignments. Who didn't want to read stories she didn't find interesting.

But we all have to learn that we're not the center of the universe. I learned, so did my boys. And they seem successful/happy/healthy enough. The ones struggling are the ones who have no capacity for self mastery.

That's one of the most elementary traits required of civilized peoples. And we seem to think boys aren't capable of it?

Why?

Cass said...

I actually think single-sex education is the way to go in many cases. It would also solve other problems for both boys and girls, especially from (say) 12-18.

I don't have a strong opinion on that, Grim, either for or against. It wasn't what I wanted for my sons, but if people think their kids can't learn in a room with people of the opposite sex.... well, I'm not convinced but I certainly won't stand in anyone's way.

The evidence really doesn't seem all that strong either way, though, from what I've seen. If it genuinely causes boys to aspire to more than they are now, I'd support it. But every study I've ever seen indicates that children get their aspirations and expectations from their parents first. Schools come a distant second.

It's probably worth a try.

Cass said...

I think we can reasonably argue that it is wrong -- that the stuff on television or in the movies today is not virtue-building, but something other than that.

Amen :)

I'm surprised you can watch Sons of Anarchy. To me, it seems more the problem than the solution - as you say, there's a LOT of very destructive/dysfunctional behavior on that show.

I should compile a list of positive male role models on TV. It would be an interesting exercise.

Grim said...

To me, it seems more the problem than the solution - as you say, there's a LOT of very destructive/dysfunctional behavior on that show.

I think we talked not long ago about the role of the gangster movie in American culture -- how it was (or at least during the Cold War, was) the main outlet for tragedy, because normally heroic or virtuous characters in American movies have happy endings. The gangster could be a tragic hero in the Greek mold because he had enough of virtue that you would feel sympathy for the character, but it was mingled with enough viciousness that you could feel morally satisfied by his destruction.

In Greek tragedy, usually you show the characters as virtuous and heroic first so as to win the loyalty and sympathy of your audience... and then you introduce the tragic flaw or conflict that inevitably (and tragically) destroys them. SoA did that very well (though, as I said, I think they're following Shakespeare rather than Sophocles). The second season in particular made you respect and love the characters for their heroic qualities. Subsequent seasons have been about their tragic flaws, and consequent fall. But you care about the characters because you have seen the positive and heroic side of them too.

I think it's strongly written, though it's subject to the problems that Plato criticizes in Book II of the Republic (when he talks about the poets and myths that show the gods doing despicable things). But these aren't gods: they're criminals. It's less of a problem if they do despicable things -- or at least, it would be if we still had the John Wayne movies to go alongside the gangster films.

Eric Blair said...

What John Ford and John Wayne were doing wasn't really culture--More of an 'entertainment' and that, evoking places and times that were already gone when they made those Westerns. And by the time Wayne and Hawks made 'Rio Bravo' that was just a response to Cooper and Zinnemann's "High Noon". (or so I've read). It was essentially a rear-guard action (much like Cass' nuns measuring skirt lengths) against something that had already won. Or changed---I'm not sure the conflict metaphor works entirely.

Tom said...

First, nothing I've said reflects on the experiences of girls or women who've been discriminated against. BUT, just because bad things happened / happen to girls & women does not mean we should ignore bad things when they happen to boys & men. That's the argument I suspect I might be hearing: "We had to go through it; now it's your turn; deal with it."

When women have discussed with me the problems with how girls & women have been / are treated in this society, I've never thrown it back in their faces with something like, "Well, women in Muslim countries have it far worse, so boo-hoo. Grow up." Should I? Maybe I've become too fem- er, full of empathy and caring. Ahem.

So, no matter how badly females have been treated, it doesn't make the mistreatment of males okay, and saying that some males are being mistreated is not an attempt in any way to deny that females have been mistreated / are being mistreated. There's not some defined, limited amount of mistreatment out there that we have to compete for.

Tom said...

I oppose the whole Ritalin thing, but as I've said before the parents have some responsibility there. No one forces someone else's child to take Ritalin.

No, the principal just tells the parents that the kid can't come back to school until he is taking it. So take the meds or figure out how to home school or pay for private school.

Finally, I don't think I could possibly disagree more about what constitutes "acting like a boy". My sons are polar opposites. One had to work harder to complete assignments and pay attention than the other, but in the end they both had to learn.

Sure, every boy is an individual. But there are general behaviors that are more associated with boys than girls. E.g., playing violent games on the playground. I'm talking in broad generalities here.

Whatever happened to, "If your teacher calls me to report you're acting up in school, don't worry about the principal. Worry about what Mom and Dad will say and do?"

That's a BIG part of the problem with boys these days, I think. They aren't learning basic skills at home, and then at school no one makes them toe the line either. Boys are better than that - yes, they're different, but sometimes people make them sound like they're some sort of primitive race of subhumans who can't/won't learn or control themselves.

Boys take patience, and I believe many are hurt by single parent homes or negligent parenting - perhaps more than girls (jury's still out on that one for me). But that's not the problem of the public schools. They don't raise our sons - we do.

And the slacker/lowbrow culture we both tolerate and encourage does boys no favors either.

So we're almost in complete agreement, then. Once we got past all the things I WASN'T talking abou, our opinions seem to be quite close. I happen to think that, in addition to everything you just described as the problem (all of which I agree with), education schools, current social science theories, teachers unions, no-tolerance policies, etc., etc., all share some of the blame.

Since I respect your intellect and intuition a great deal, it's always a pleasure to find we mostly agree about something.

/sorry for the heat

It's mutual. No need to apologize. ;-)

Tom said...

Me: there are environments where when boys & men insist on being taken for who they are instead of pretending to be what some idealizing feminists say they should be they are attacked.

Cass: Physically attacked? Or merely not approved of?

Ridiculed in class, treated in passive-aggressive ways by teachers, put in detention, suspended, told they need to be on medication for acting that way (& sometimes not allowed back to school until they're taking it), that sort of thing.

My point is, adapt and overcome.

Sure, I do. A 6-year-old might have a little difficulty with that when the system is stacked against him.

But we all have to learn that we're not the center of the universe. I learned, so did my boys. And they seem successful/happy/healthy enough. The ones struggling are the ones who have no capacity for self mastery.

That's one of the most elementary traits required of civilized peoples. And we seem to think boys aren't capable of it?

Who's this 'we'? I really have no idea; no one here is making any argument that remotely resembles that.

I've said this before here, but let me say it again now: boys are not only capable of it, but must learn it, need to learn it; it's a key part of what turns boys into men. However, our society (parents, schools, entertainment, law, government, academia, media, etc.) is refusing to teach them. That's a problem.

Oh, wait, you just said that. Dang, looks like we agree again.

douglas said...

"...but I do believe a lot of Ritalin & similar medical prescriptions are simply to treat boys for acting like boys. I believe a lot of changes in discipline and the changes in playground rules in our public schools are attempts to stop boys from acting like boys."

I think it probably exacerbates the problem, because it merely conceals it, subdues it for the moment. I see there new-agey parents all around me, and so many of their boys are so badly behaved- not because they are boys, per se, but because no one ever taught them to control themselves. The ritalin in a substitute for good parenting. Parent's that avoid the word 'NO' with their children (positive reinforcement works better!), and think they'll just grow out of it are dooming their kids to terrible problems later in life. The Ritalin just delays when things will get bad as this kid spins out of control further and further.

Cass said...

I see there new-agey parents all around me, and so many of their boys are so badly behaved- not because they are boys, per se, but because no one ever taught them to control themselves. The ritalin in a substitute for good parenting. Parent's that avoid the word 'NO' with their children (positive reinforcement works better!), and think they'll just grow out of it are dooming their kids to terrible problems later in life. The Ritalin just delays when things will get bad as this kid spins out of control further and further.

Yes, yes, yes! This will probably shock you, because I think many of the arguments I made somehow get conflated with feminism, but I really believe a BIG part of the problem here is the lack of FT parents (or even parents who have a firm grasp of how to parent effectively).

I'm constantly amazed how many parents don't think they have the right to put limits on their children, or punish them. It worries me immensely.

All of this could easily be construed as, "Women need to stay home", but I think children need TWO parents. I did the lion's share of raising our boys, but there comes a time when boys look to their fathers. A lot of the sexual misbehavior we're seeing is, I firmly believe, partly attributable to men's choices about what they condone or even enthusiastically support in the public arena, and how active a role they play in teaching their sons to become men.

I don't see more blame legitimately resting on either sex. We're both culpable.

Cass said...

Oh, wait, you just said that. Dang, looks like we agree again.

I'm always happy to find myself in agreement with you :)

Tom said...

Just thinking about this on the way to work. I was tired last night & mixed my comments w/ jokes (or, at least, I thought they were jokes), so I want to make sure of something. When I wrote:

Since I respect your intellect and intuition a great deal, it's always a pleasure to find we mostly agree about something.

That wasn't a joke. I meant that.

Cass said...

Well, thank you for the kind words (however undeserved). My regard and respect for you is likewise genuine :)

I always assume good will from you.

That's why I like discussing things with you so much! I don't always agree, but rarely fail to learn something from the exercise!