Bernard Chapin

Mutilating Masculinity



by Bernard Chapin

“The academic Left is so eager to get their hooks into our kids that they start before classes even begin. Colleges across the country assign books to be read by incoming freshmen who should be ready to discuss the important socialist messages in the selected tomes. The stated goal is to encourage critical thinking and spark debate, yet the choice of books reflects little in way of debate and much in the manner of indoctrination.”
-Kimberly Schuld.
I read that quote this morning and realized that my obligation to the outside world concerning the practices of today’s universities has not yet been fulfilled. Last week I addressed the fact that college textbooks are often contaminated with radical feminist ideology. From the numerous responses I received, it seems likely that much of the general population is in need of further illumination regarding the fabrications that are being passed off as scholarship today. Therefore, I will return to my source from last week and display even more repugnant material.
As stated previously, I teach a course on development and use John Santrock’s Adolescence [2003] as a resource. The average person would not suppose a topic like child development would be political, but they’d be very wrong. Unfortunately, it provides the (soon-to-be) teachers I instruct with a political “teach in” every time they open its pages.
I realized that our readers would be interested in a couple of the informational sections within the textbook’s chapter on gender, and it would be short-sighted of me not to make more contents of the chapter public. The theme of the chapter can be summed up succinctly. It is, “women are goddesses and men need to improve or get back into the brush.”
Allow me to justify my statement by examining it’s treatment of masculinity. Basically, the book is against it. Indeed, Santrock makes a devout attempt to dissuade his captive audience from ever embracing it. Masculinity is depicted as a pathogen that must be eradicated and the author is pleased to refer to another academic to show you how:
“To reconstruct their masculinity in more positive ways, Ron Levant (1995) believes, every man should (1) reexamine his beliefs about manhood, (2) separate out the valuable aspects of the male roles, and (3) get rid of those parts of the masculine role that are destructive. All of this involves becoming more ‘emotionally intelligent’–that is, becoming more emotionally self-aware, managing emotions more effectively, reading emotions better (one’s own emotions and others’), and being motivated to improve those relationships. The hope is that if adult males can make these changes, they will serve as better role models for adolescent males.” [p.335]
In the spirit of the text, I’m going to reexamine my beliefs about manhood for the reader at present…Ah, now I’m finished and ready to bare my soul. Here it is: “I’m proud to be a man and I’d have it no other way.” Thank you, Mr. Levant, I’m glad you asked me to reflect. I would also like to thank the colleges and universities for encouraging students to perform this act of self-reflection when they should be trying to learn something (rather than practice scenes from “The Donohue Show”).
As for separating out the valuable male roles…Well, I’ve missed twelve days of work in nine years so I’ll keep that role. Hmm, I like reading better than talking so I’ll keep that one. Oh here’s a keeper, I find women who are physically repulsive and mentally stimulating worthy of friendship. I’d never have any romantic interest in them because they’re– that’s right– physically repulsive. That’s actually quite deep of me because physical fitness is indicative of health and youth is indicative of fertility; which means if I didn’t have that outlook I’d never reproduce. Let’s see, what role should I eliminate? None.
Actually, in my mind, this passage is an example of hate speech and it no more belongs in a university than in a Department of Necrophilia. When I read it, I was reminded of Andrea Dworkin’s housemate who once instructed his male brothers to join him in becoming “sissies.”
I guess the obvious question I have is, if men took their advice seriously and spent our time self-obsessing and gabbing, then who would do all of the work? I’m not, of course, referring to conferencing, consensus building, petition signing or syllabus writing. I am referring to the individuals who actually tend to the infrastructure of civilization. These tenders of the earth are mostly found in male dominated professions. What would happen to society if plumbers, brick layers, welders, pipe fitters, iron workers, coal miners, mill workers, teamsters, exterminators, and carpenters disappeared or tried to get jobs in the social services or hung out with Dr. Phil? We’d be in big trouble to be sure. Ironically, I’m sure the corpulent “obesity is beautiful” feministas would be the first to protest over the disappearance of electricity and sub-zero freezers.
I suppose that my analysis concerning who provides us with food and shelter is far too realistic for any academic to acknowledge. They can’t be bothered to show any respect for the diversity of those who actually make a positive contribution to their existence (rather than those who get paid 80 grand a year to strike an adolescent pose of rebellion).
I recall my old academic advisor in college once complaining to me that autoworkers made more than he did. My answer, if I could go back in time with the knowledge I’ve acquired since, would be, “the autoworker does a whole lot more good for our nation than you ever will.”
Furthermore, the author of Adolescence would be greatly pleased with my effective management of my own emotions after I read his slander of men. I calmly wrote “F---
Y--” in the margin which, in retrospect, was a most peaceful thing to do. I did not to attack or threaten anyone. Yet, I fear he may not be pleased with the way my keyboard is presently elaborating on this curse.
Next, the book wants to make clear, just in case any graduate students avoided their undergraduate indoctrinations, that men are not just to blame for any problems women experience but also for whatever setbacks men experience (gymnastics worthy of Mary Lou Retton). It seems that, “the male role has included the view that women should not be considered equal to men in work, earnings, and many other aspects of life…And the male role emphasizes competition rather than cooperation. All of these aspects of the male role have left men with inadequate positive connections with other males.” [p. 335]
Well, it’s not easy where to begin with such a passage. I have to say that the only area of radical feminism that continues to astound me is their practice of maintaining that men do not have close friendships. I have news for these gender elitists: we do. One of my favorite sayings is from Rich Zupaty, “Women have emotions; men have deeper feelings.” Deep feelings are not readily expressed in shallow, hyper-verbal sentences. How could they be?
Honestly, I’ll defer to the readers on this one if you disagree with me, but throughout my entire life, I’ve always had strong and rewarding relationships with my fellow men. Few gifts last longer or give more than Platonic friendship. Just because my friends and I don’t sit on the phone and chat all night does not mean that we don’t have “positive connections.” In fact, I’d say the fact that we don’t call each other or talk as if powered by crystal meth is one of the reasons why we have positive connections in the first place.
Even from this website, I’ve had positive interactions with men who live continents away and with whom I’ll probably never meet in person. From these pages, a powerful brotherhood has been scrolled, and, based on the preponderance of the evidence, I’ll vouch that Mike LaSalle, Angry Harry, Gus Owens, Darren Blacksmith, Steve Deluca, Mark Sobolewski, and Eric Ericson are all rock solid guys. Our internet example is quite telling as positive regard was formed without chatter, fluff, or eye contact. It is a testament to how much good will can exist among men.
I am certain that the last heavy-handed maneuver sited will flabbergast the reader. As a prelude to a scandalous argument of New York Times proportions, our author first tries some major distortion as a means to soften us up for the fable that will follow: “In the 1970s, as both males and females became dissatisfied with the burdens imposed by their stereotyped roles, alternatives to ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ were explored.” [p.331]
Did you see those scare quotes? They suggest that masculinity and femininity are not real concepts. The implication is that ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ are slang accidentally spoken too much. We are to assume that they are just “social constructs” as opposed to flesh and blood reality.
The book’s, not so hidden, agenda is to encourage men to become metrosexuals and to encourage women to become butch. Observe the way the author defines androgyny: “the presence of a high degree of desirable [italics and emphasis mine] masculine and feminine characteristics in the same individual.” [p.331-332] This definition could not be more biased. Webster’s defines androgyny as “having the characteristics or nature of both male and female.” Assuming this is desirable and sticking it into a definition is an act worthy of Goebbels. What’s especially unfortunate is that even though I personally jumped and down like someone on ecstasy at a rave party over this passage, I guarantee you that no one else teaching the course did.
The book won’t stop there with only mis-definition though. It has to give androgyny a plug of which Pravda would have approved: “Androgynous individuals are described as more flexible and more mentally healthy than either masculine or feminine individuals.” Therefore, if you act like a man or act like a women, you are more likely to be mentally unhealthy. Somebody ought to forward this to Natan Sharansky because the GULAG is once again singing its evil song.
Yet, what is most offensive is that there is no validity to such a statement. Success in love, regardless of whether you’re a man or woman, is one of the most important things in our lives. The book advocates androgyny for males but are androgynous males attractive to most women? Certainly not.
Oh, they may befriend feminine males, they get their nails done with them, and they might secretly envy their Saks Fifth Avenue wardrobes; but I am certain that they rarely sleep with them. Although, they may just ask one of them to chaperone when they go on dates with real men.
Honestly, I’ve met quite a few of these androgynous guys. From what I’ve seen they’re a deluded lot. I even knew one who used to brag about how he had an immediate “in” with women because he liked soap operas. I told him, “Not only does that suggest you’re a
p-ssy, but it also suggests that you’re unemployed as well.” He thought I had it all wrong. In the three years I knew him he’d occasionally get a few bases on balls, but his batting average was zero.
If the reader, like this writer, accepts that there is a biological and genetic basis behind sexual desire, then it becomes perplexing what an “expressive” and emotion-driveling male could ever offer a woman. For 200,000 years in the wild the answer was zero. Males like that offered only death and decay. An androgynous man would have been of little help in the case of rape or abduction (other than to commiserate with the woman and cry by her side while she was being violated). Perhaps he could have endlessly discussed with her that he liked weaving better than hunting, so it was to be expected that there’d be no food on the fire that night or any other. Then he could observe that hiding in a grassy blind waiting for game would have a unsightly effect on his recently cut bangs so it wouldn’t be worth his time to even attempt it.
Certainly, the textbook writers needn’t have even included this passage because androgyny is spreading faster than microbials in a bathhouse. We know it from the increased sightings of metrosexuals in our cities, and we also know it from the amount of dominant, aggressive females that prowl our restaurants, stores, and places of employment.
The biggest of the big lies is in reference to these dominant women. It is preposterous that women who give androgynous or butch signals are even remotely attractive to heterosexual men. Such a belief is grounded in hallucination and has no relationship with actual desire. Yes, it’s true that women rate dominance as being a desirable trait in men, but most men are alienated by dominant women [yes, I’ll concede there are men who pay for a dominatrix but they’re freaks and outside of normal considerations]. The feminist take, and also the take of most domineering women, is that we as males are too insecure to handle them and that’s why we avoid them. This is just plain ridiculous. Most of these women are far too self-absorbed to ever ask basic questions about male motivations.
Throughout our history, what on earth did a dominant, bossy woman ever offer a man? Absolutely nothing. Was she going to fight the bear for you? Hell no. At best she’d criticize the way you were fighting the bear before the two of you got eaten. Even more likely, her personality would have got you into the fight with the bear in the first place. Not to mention all the altercations she would have managed to get you into within your own tribe.
God enjoys challenging us and for this reason I’ve always been cursed with dealing with dominant women. I remember telling one, “Look, I’m the wrong guy for you. You need a sycophant.” She responded by telling me that she could never respect a man she could boss around. Here we see how some pathological relationships are formed. She enjoyed the constant arguments she started; whereas, I just wanted to lose her phone number.
The mistake that so many people make today is to confuse “dominance” with “independence.” The independent person is never dominant. They have lives of their own. They have independent interests and hobbies. Independent people are self-stimulated and not chronically bored. The dominant person, on the other hand, cannot mind their own business because they have no business with which to attend. They exist to dominate and control others. If they don’t influence their associates’ decisions and opinions each day, it’s like a day spent in prison. I’ve met some really manipulative and dominating women in my life and they all described themselves as being independent. Nonsense. When you hear this, it’s always best to break out that beautiful old Scottish saying: “It’s better to have a lazy bossy than a bossy lassie.” Hurrah!
It could have been a textbook like this one that prompted Grover Norquist to say our universities were no longer serious places. What must be added is that even if we see our colleges as being infested with games theorists and oppression mongers, most of the students that go there still see it as a place to learn. And, if during this most sensitive of periods, they internalize the message of this author then it would have been better for their futures not to have gone to school at all.