Five Important Things Women Must Know About Effeminate Men

It's been a while, but I needed to rant. Today, some of my ButtFace Facebook friends posted a link to this blog post, apparently written by a "man" whose man card, in my opinion, has long since expired. It was posted on the terribly misnamed "good men project" website. A quick glance at the testosterone-free titles of the other articles posted on the front page of this utterly effeminate blog confirmed that this is yet another attempt to emasculate what little is left of true manliness in our culture. Here is a small sampling of the kind of articles this site has to offer: 

"Not Failure But Courage: Parenting a Special Child. Steve Edwards wonders why our culture makes it so difficult for parents to ask for help."
"Trading Hope for Action. Let’s live as if we appreciate the others in our lives, human and otherwise."

"To the Man Who Has Refused to Eat Due to Utah Same Sex Marriages: Why Your Behavior Concerns Me. A Gay Dad’s Open Letter to One Protestor"

Imagine my consternation then, to see two men, both Christians, and one a Marine, post this lilly-livered article from a website of this caliber.

The article in question has the following gonad-shrinking title: "Five Important Things Women Don’t Know About Men." This is the kind of headline I would expect to see on the cover of Cosmopolitan magazine when my eyes graze over it in the checkout stand at Fred Meyer. In other words, the title alone is a clear warning that this is the kind of article that insecure feminists write.

I plunged ahead anyway, because one of the guys that posted it is a MARINE, for God's sake, so it can't be that bad, right? Wrong. Apparently, the Marine Corps has a softer side (make sure to lisp the s in both of those words for the proper effect). Note: if you're reading this, and you're the Marine to whom I am referring, sorry for the jab, but finish reading my blog entry and feel free to tell me where I'm wrong about the article.

The article consists of five points. The only good one was Important Thing #5: we men have to adjust our package every once in a while; deal with it. Sadly, this was the only part of the article that wasn't dripping with estrogen.

Important Thing #1 was: "We are starved for compliments." Wow. Right off the bat, I'm left speechless by the egotistical insecurity, but the next paragraph left my jaw on the floor: "...most men have never been told they’re pretty. Or attractive at all."

I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. The author is actually complaining that nobody has ever called him pretty. Honestly, if someone told me I was pretty or attractive, it would be a really awkward situation. I don't mind it if my wife says something to that effect, but I certainly don't give two flying craps if I'm considered attractive or not, because I'm secure in my manhood, and I'm secure in my marriage.

The writer continues his pap: "We’re supposed to derive value from our success and careers, not our looks, and there is an overwhelming cultural narrative that we are the wanter, not the wanted, the pursuer, not the pursued, the desiring, not the desirable."

From Philosophy 101 (Logic): false dichotomy. Look it up. This is not an either-or proposition: a man doesn't have to derive self-value from either a) success/career or b) physical attractiveness. In fact, a real man should derive his self-value from neither. Far more important are his relationship with God and his contribution to his tribe. In my tribe, we value a man by his dedication to his family and his faith; by his consistency, integrity, honesty and longevity. As for the so-called "cultural narrative" of being the wanter, pursuer, and desiring, this is hardly unique to our culture. It is the norm in every long-lived culture in the entire history of the human race. To be masculine is to be the go-getter, the bread-winner, the provider, the protector, the defender. 

Jesus Christ is a perfect example: He didn't sit around whining about how nobody called him pretty. He had a job to do and He did it, with no apologies, no concern for His momentary reputation, and no concern for His own personal welfare. He called the hypocrites on the carpet. He kicked over the tables of the money changers and chased them around with a whip. He taught hard truths to those that would listen, and when it was time to die, He faced His death with courage, grace, and dignity. And in His final moments, as He was in agony on the Cross, He still only cared about those around Him: He was gracious to the good thief, He openly prayed for the forgiveness of those who were crucifying Him, and He made sure His mother was going to be cared for. This is the true essence of masculinity--this is the measure of a real man. He gave up everything, including His own life, for His bride, the Church.

The second Important Thing was not as bad as the rest, but the wording of it certainly made me cringe: "We are not more shallow than women are." The author wants to drive home the point that men really care about women for more than their looks. Fine, but do you have to use the phrase "When actual grown-up men get together and talk girls..." to introduce the subject? Actual grown-up men do not get together to talk about girls. If real men talk about women, it's because a) one of us is having marital troubles and is either venting or seeking advice, b) we're competing with each other over who has the most awesome wife, or c) we have a hilarious anecdote about that time our wife did (fill in the blank).

The third Important Thing left me with the distinct taste of bile in my mouth: "There’s a reason for that emotional repression." Now, by itself, that title is fine: yes, we men repress our emotions because we are hard-wired to be the defender/protector, which over thousands of years often required that we resort to violence. This means we have to repress our violent instincts most of the time, by exercising something called "self-control." This is part and parcel with being masculine. Leave my tribe alone, and we'll get along just fine; do violence to my tribe, and there will be hell to pay.

Unfortunately, this is not where the author took it. Instead, he chose to whine about how puberty sends that "hell of a drug" (testosterone) careening through a poor boy's system and leaves him a scarred mess by the time he matures, incapable of proper emotional attachment. He chooses to underscore this by saying he has shed more tears watching the movie Casablanca than he did at his own mother's funeral. AGAIN, I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. This guy is seriously screwed up if he cries over a frickin' movie, but doesn't when his mom died; he is most certainly not representative of masculine men.

In the course of this detestable section, he put the final nails in the coffin of what little was left of his man card; first, he used as evidence of his thesis the experience of "adults" who took testosterone "as part of a gender transition." Then, he openly admitted to watching Casablanca twenty times.

The number four Important Thing is just a rehash of the first Important Thing, but apparently it's so Important that it warrants two spots in the top five list: "We are sick of being success objects." Once again, the author shows just how shallow and vapid he is by whining that we poor downtrodden "men [are] taught that our worth as human beings comes from our career, our bank balance, our success." 

This guy needs to change tribes, if this is what he is getting from everyone around him. If he doesn't like the culture that is thus informing him, he needs to abandon that culture and seek out a culture that values real masculinity and femininity. This is just another symptom of the feminist blight: male and female roles have been blurred so much that men don't know any more how to be real men, any more than women know how to be real women.

Somehow, I don't think it really matters, because I got the distinct impression that the article was written after the author had a knock-down, drag-out argument with his shack-up girlfriend (or boyfriend).