About men

I've asked my two dearest and truest friends to jump in and discuss the subject of the society of men with me. It's a subject I've pondered off and on ever since my college psychology professor introduced me to it some 21 years ago. There are no doubt many books written on the subject, and I'll try to find them. But sifting out the good from the politically correct might prove a challenge.

Why is this such an important topic?

I mentioned in my post "Men's Rights??" that men have superior might and can revert to oppressing women anytime we please. We can, but we must not. Manliness entails restraint, and therefore oppression of the weak is unmanly. The Muslim savages who yank out the fingernails of women who dare to paint them are not men. Forcing women to have clitorectomies and smacking them on the ankles doesn't make you a man, it makes you a bully, cultural diversity be damned.

All the (valid) ranting about "feminazis" notwithstanding, we men need to give some attention to our own sex. (Not "gender", mind you. Gender is for grammar class.) We need to reclaim the society of men. Y'know, boys clubs, boys schools, men's clubs (not the innapropriately named "gentlemen's clubs" either), hunting trips, cigar clubs, camping trips where we sit around the fire and talk guy stuff. (I'm not talking about men's support groups either. The very fact that we have men's support groups tells us we've got a problem!)

We need to develop a respect for one another as members of male society, and in order to do so we must exclude women from this society. Since women can't fit in, they need to be told to quit trying to. They don't have to be a part of every single facet of male life. They're not like us. They never will be like us. And we better tell them to stop trying to make us be like them.

Women have castrated us. They have stolen our pants and handed us aprons. They have feminized our schools and turned our sons into "emo kids" who're obsessed with their hair and want to wear their sisters' clothes.

In one ancient society, the kids (both boys and girls) were raised almost solely by their mothers. But when a boy reached a certain age, his mother had to give him up to the male society. This loss endured by the mother is understandably traumatic, and an entire ritual developed around it: The men of the community play the part of savages and vicious beasts. They dress up in their savage costumes and, beating their drums and doing their savage dance, come and "kidnap" the boy from among the assembly of women. The women, playing their part in the drama, cower in mock terror, and then howl in grief and despair as the boy is taken away from them, comforting the grieving mother.

What is necessary is also often painful. Such rituals "validate" the mother's pain at the loss of her son. Surely that's the least we can do to make endurable what is necessary.

After all, what's the alternative? If we don't reduce the influence of mothers over their sons and increase the influence of their fathers, we'll create a society filled with "mama's boy" sissies. And nations and tribes crumble when their men go soft. Mothers can give their sons only so much of what is required in the transition of boys to men. Beyond that, they must get it from men.

Dr. Thaxter Dickey, my psych professor, has done some study of rites of passage to manhood, and notes the glaring lack of such rituals in modern Western civilization. (He used to have an essay on this subject posted on his website, but that site is down at the moment.) We've all seen the PBS documentaries on these rites of passage in primitive cultures: A young man goes off into the wilderness with only a spear, and is expected to bring back a kill for the tribe to eat. Or he is expected to face down a charging lion armed only with his spear. Or he build a tower out of trees, climbs up to the top, attached a vine rope to his ankles, and jumps off headfirst bungee-like. Or he goes off alone into the desert with no food or water and endures the elements and his hunger and thirst for days.

Whatever the particular task, its accomplishment initiates the boy into manhood, into the society of men. The task might be a test of his endurance, or his self-discipline, or his courage, or his ability to provide for the community. These are important qualities of manliness, and vital to a society. These are characteristics of a man which merit the respect of both men and women. Is there any man, real or fictional, whom we respect and admire who doesn't possess these qualities?

Without a rite of passage, we're left to determine manhood based on what? age? A fellow reaches age 18 and now he's a man? He doesn't have to demonstrate manliness, but just has to wait long enough and then he's a man? Now he's worthy of our respect because of some arbitrary chronological measurement? Now he deserves a place in our society whether he's an asset or a liability? I say let him prove himself before asking us for our stamp of approval.

Waller E. Newell said,

There is an unbroken pedigree in the Western conception of what it means to be a man. Honor tempered by prudence, ambition tempered by compassion for the suffering and the oppressed, love restrained by delicacy and honor toward the beloved.

Seen any young men around lately fitting that description?

I sure wasn't one of them at age 18 - or anytime soon thereafter either! Nobody demanded it of me. Nobody said, "Prove yourself to us, young man, before asking a place in our society. Prove yourself before you ask for a marriage license. We want to see whether you can handle a man's responsibilities."