Summary: The list of rules men are supposed to follow grow longer while those for women grow shorter. Many of them are quite asymmetric — and obviously unfair. How will this work for society?
“The world revolves around the creators of new ideas, revolves silently.”
— Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
.
Dalrock describes the following article as an illustration that modern conservatism is feminism with a chivalrous cherry on top. I believe he understates the situation. The author unknowingly describes a pre-revolutionary society. People are playing by a rulebook that no longer corresponds to our society as it is. Their children eventually realize this and as adults create new rules. See this little morality tale…
We Must Still Keep Teaching Our Boys They Must Never Hit Girls
By David Marcus at The Federalist.
“In an age where gender roles are in question,
the prohibition against boys hitting girls is more important than ever.”
“Several years ago while at a barbecue, an old friend who is a liberal feminist and I were watching my 4-year-old son play with her 4-year-old daughter. Eventually there was some dispute over a water gun that led to shoving. Almost simultaneously my friend cried out ‘No shrinking violets’ to her daughter as I yelled ‘We don’t hit girls’ to my son.
“It was an interesting moment, because I realized that my friend was absolutely right to teach her daughter not to back down from confrontations with boys. But I also knew that I was right to tell my son not to push or hit girls. These two ideas are both correct, but feel in some sense at odds with each other.”
It does not take Nostradamus to know what comes next.
“Several years later, my son, in second grade at the time, told me that a girl in his class hit him at school. I asked if he hit her back, he said ‘No, because you told me not to.’ I told him that was good, but then he said that it wasn’t fair, why shouldn’t he get to hit her back just because she’s a girl? I had to concede the point that it wasn’t fair, but I told him that fairness is not always how we should measure our actions.
“He didn’t seem very convinced. So I asked my wife to come over. I told my son and my wife to make a fist and hold them out, then I did, and we all held our fists side by side. Even though he’s only 8, his fist was closer in size to his mother’s than hers was to mine. I asked him which he thought would hurt more, mom’s or mine? He answered, ‘Yours, by a lot.’ He got the point.”
Here we see modern values, showing the overlap between conservative and liberal ideologies. There is a discussion of this at Dalrock’s. The best of that thread…
Marcus: “These two ideas are both correct, but feel in some sense at odds with each other.”
Comment about this by The Question: “Apparently we have uncovered the secret identity of Captain Obvious.”
Old values fail in a new world
Traditional western values imposed restrictions on both men and women, enforced in the usual sloppy fashion by social sanctions of varying effectiveness. Let’s look at their post-WWII version, the version that conservatives wish to preserve and Feminists to radical reform.
An example: men couldn’t hit women and women couldn’t hit men.
“If you hit somebody, you cannot be sure you are not going to get hit back. You have to teach women, do not live with this idea that men have the chivalry thing still with them. Don’t assume that that’s still in place. Don’t be surprised if you hit a man and he hits you back. If you make the choice as a woman, who is 4′ 3″ and you decide to hit a guy who’s 6′ tall and you’re the last thing he wants to deal with that day, and he hits you back, you cannot be surprised.”
— Whoopi Goldberg on “The View”, ABC, 28 July 2014 — See the video.
These rules were taught by parents, schools, and the powerful entertainment industry. Now the rules change. Weak men can hit strong men, but the strong men cannot hit back because they are stronger. Does it make more sense substituting women for weak men?
Whatever the illogic, films and TV routinely show women hitting men, both boyfriends and strangers, usually for trivial reasons (or fun) — with the men cowering before their grr-power. See some examples here. Plus two of many such scenes from the Deeks and Kensi romance on “NCIS Los Angeles.” Deeks, this will not stop after you are married. Get counseling now! But the fans love it!
Such an asymmetric rule cannot work for long. How will a generation of young men react who are raised with such instruction and such stories? Will they accept that women can hit men, but not vice versa?
This set of beliefs leads to oddities. Such as UFC fighter Ronda Rousey boasting that she could beat ‘100 percent’ of men In her weight class — but that it won’t happen because “There’s no setting in which we should condone a man hitting a woman.” Having your cake and eating it too! (Hat tip to Dalrock.)
It has taken centuries to weave the original rule into the fabric of society. Might the next generation unweave it? For a peak at our future, see the videos on YouTube of men hitting women in self-defense (there are hundreds of them).
Note: Although estimates vary, some studies show that men and women are victims of domestic violence at roughly similar rates, although women suffer more serious injuries. But the low rate of autopsies might make skillful poisoning an effective resort for women.
This post describes the evolution of women hitting men in the media, beginning with the first appearance in 1963 of a kick-ass woman: Dr. Cathy Gale (actress Honor Blackman) in “The Avengers”.
A second example: women dressed modestly and men should not look at them.
Many traditional rules had a rough justice or balance to them. Like this one (often broken by both men and women). Now women get to visually push men’s buttons — but men are not supposed to look. This is part of the increasing regulation of how men should look at women, speak to women, and deal with women.
Societies can be disrupted, just like businesses
Marcus’ son went to the heart of the matter when saying that his dad’s rules were not fair. In our system where each individual has agency — making his or her own moral choices — the system must appear fair. If it requires a philosopher or professor of women’s studies to explain the logic of the society’s rules, the rules will not stand for long.
We will see how societies in Europe respond to the flood of migrants from lands where such rule are considered quite mad. Migrants bring to Europe their concepts of masculinity, and many mock the sheep-like men of Western Europe. Will they learn to play by the new rules? Or will their example lead the men of Europe to return to the old standards?
What lies ahead?
Change. We have broken the old gender regime. It can no more be restored than toothpaste put back into the tube. But the emerging feminist regime seems irrational, unfair, and unstable. There is no obvious alternative to it now, but …
“Mankind sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.”
— Karl Marx in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
About the author of The Federalist article
David Marcus is co-founder and artistic director of blueboxworld, a NYC theatre project presenting art for non-fascist living. See their website. He also writes articles about culture and politics. See his articles at The Federalist, City Journal, and National Review.
For More Information
These trends do not just happen: A new hot trend from Hollywood: women hitting men.
Important: Dalrock gives a deeper examination of these issues: What can’t continue, won’t. Definitely worth a look!
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women and gender, about feminism, about romance, about marriage, about ways to reform America, and especially these…
- The revolution in gender roles reshapes society in ways too disturbing to see — Bloom on relationships.
- The rise of the “kick-ass” heroine in media — It started in 1963.
- Love in the new world, after the gender wars — Allan Bloom on the ‘fall of Eros.’
- Mark Regnerus’s essay: Cheap Sex is the Inconvenient Truth in the end of marriage.
- About Mark Regnerus’ book: Misadventures of a young woman in modern America.
- A look at America’s future after marriage becomes rare.
- The disastrous results of trying to “have it all”.
- The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
- “Celebs Go Dating” shows young women in action.
Two books by Professor Regnerus about the revolution.
Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying
Strongly recommended: Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy
Arthur Wagner, formerly a politician in the AfD, the German anti-immigration party, converted to Islam. For a few years now, I have seen feminists mock the “Islamophobia” of alt-right by pointing out that Islam and the (extremist wing) of the alt-right have the same values so why don’t the alt-right just convert.
What if they do? How will the feminists, who have fought from Muslims’ right to gender segregate in British universities react? You can’t shame the Muslims.
Tony,
That’s an interesting idea — pointing to a larger issue. Feminists have given Islam — even fundamentalist Islam — a pass on its misogyny. That will become more problematic in Europe as Islam grows in numbers and political and social power. At some point people will notice feminists hypocrisy — or cowardliness.
Beyond that, eventually Islam seems like to push against feminism in not just social customs, but law. They recognize Islam as the highest source of values, not the western “human rights” that is the foundation of the law today. Which side to bet on?
Women will submit to us, and mate with us, and politicians/media/academia will prostrate themselves before us, if we just convert to Islam. So what’s the downside? Jim Donald addresses that question well:
https://blog.jim.com/war/the-solution-we-do-not-want/
Here’s a recent example from our local paper {Modesto, CA).
The headline – “Video shows cop punching a woman in the face as she is ejected from Hard Rock Stadium”
The reality – “Woman being ejected from Hard Rock Stadium hits cop in the face. Cop responds appropriately.”
Stick,
Wow. That’s a great example of this dynamic at work. Thanks for posting it.
Larry, I know you have grown sons, so we’re probably not that far apart in age. By the time most guys our age were 21, we’d been in a fight. It probably wasn’t anything really serious, maybe just a schoolyard scuffle. But guys tended to learn a certain inherent caution in dealing with other guys. You really shouldn’t write a check with your mouth that you can’t cash with some other part of your anatomy.
I’m not going to argue that an armed society is polite society because it really isn’t, but the knowledge that you just might have to eat a knuckle sandwich can have as sobering effect. Women mostly don’t have that experience, and they just don’t know what it’s like. (Judging by some younger guys I’ve seen a lot of young men don’t have that experience anymore either, but that’s neither here nor there)
Disputes between women tend to be a bit different than disputes between men because the parties are usually pretty sure that no one’s going to be invited to step outside and settle it. Women in the West have had the immunity totem for a long time with regards to physical violence at the hands of men. Violence in real life ain’t like violence on NCIS.For one thing, in real life it hurts. For another, in real life, you can’t enforce a one sided set of rules, at least not long term. Casting aside your immunity means learning about real violence, and that kind of education can be painful. At least it was for a lot of us.
The Man,
You are, I believe, right on all points with regard to ancient history. But times are changing. Look at the first generation raised in a feminist-dominated system (school, home norms): generation Z, the oldest now about 24.
(1) How will rates of domestic violence change? Estimates vary, but women are the aggressors in roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of domestic violence incidents (although men tend to inflict more serious damage, if we ignore murder by poison). Will women be emboldened to be more violent — as they have adopted smoking, drinking, swearing, and aggressive driving? Willmen raised watching women kick the ass of men on TV and in films be more likely to do domestic violence?
(2) In social matters, unexpected consequences rule. This is why social engineering — no matter how confidently begun — seldom succeeds (with the USSR and China as extreme examples). Might seeing women routinely hitting men change how men see (conceptualize) women?
(3) Comments here the second point in this post, also a development after you and I left the dating game. I discusses women hitting men as a fault line — because that is the most dramatic and obvious example of feminist wanting men to act unreasonably. I briefly mention one that is much more common: women dressing provocatively but demanding that men not look at them. The now commonplace taunt of women displaying lavish cleavage demanding that a man “look up here.” Our sheep-like response shows who is running society. The “don’t look” rule was paired with the “nice girls dress modestly” rule.
My guess is that the first sign of the social revolution will be when men reply “Honey, I’ll look at what I want to look at.” Women talk about the right to control their own bodies. Eventually men will demand the same right. Freedom and all that.
Revolutions begin with small changes. William Tell refused to bow to the governor’s hat, and so began the Swiss war of independence in the early 14th Century. They are still independent 700 years later.
Might seeing women routinely hitting men change how men see (conceptualize) women?
Of course they will, and already are starting to. Hence, the rise of the “manosphere.”
I would quibble here only on the details of how many generations of men have grown up with this stuff. Generation X were little boys when it kicked off. I remember a TIME (Or Newsweek, maybe) cover with a picture of a face-painted female soldier on and the article was basically arguing that this is coming and we should embrace it fully. My elementary school teacher had it proudly displayed in our classroom and she made regular references to it. That was in the mid-70s.
Remember kickass, interstellar marine, “Vasquez” from the movie Aliens:
Hudson: “Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?”
Vasquez: “No, have you?”
That was 1986. I was 15. And everybody loved that line. I remember looking around silently at everyone in the theater thinking I had gone crazy. In a male locker room, guys talking like that to each other (questioning each others masculinity) is the precursor to a physical fight. In the film, Hudson just demures, knowing he has been put in his place.
Its been an onslaught my entire life. I am 46 now and about to leave the army and retire. I have never known another portrayal of women. I have to go looking in old movies to find something else. My wife and I (both generation X) are having to reinvent the wheel (the old set of rules) with no real legible blue print.
Scott,
“I would quibble here only on the details of how many generations of men have grown up with this stuff”
That’s a great point. My theory (guess) is that these feminist trends appeared circa 1960 — but went to a an extreme in the 1990s. So Gen Z is the first generation raised from the cradle with extreme feminism. My guess is that they will be the first generation at which the effects will be sufficient to seriously damage major institutions — such as marriage. Time will tell.
Look at women hitting men. Women fighting men as equals became common in the 1960s (Cathy Gale on the “Avengers” was the first, in 1963). See the history. But women just casually hitting men — and the men cowering before them — appeared around 2009. All these dates are just rough estimates, of course.
Yup, old days it was “don’t hit girls” and “don’t provoke boys” as advice given to the oposing sexes. I was watching a yuotube video with Karen Straughan on some sort of panel. I didn’t watch the whole thing and can’t even remember what it was about except the entire panel was women. Karen was the only ‘traditionalist’ on it. Anyhow when it came to domestic violence, Karen brought up that women have long hit men, That in the middle ages this was a trope that was satirized. Evidently Judy hit Punch as much as Punch hit Judy.
In the same clip she mentions that it isn’t a modern concern of men hitting their wives. TR wanted the whiping post brought back to punish men who did domestic violence under the idea that any punishment of jail or money ultimately hurt the wife and children of the man who was violent.
Physical altercations between men and women always end up with the man losing the peace in western countries (at least English speaking ones). He either gets beat up, or thrown in jail, – or both.
ACThinker,
“Physical altercations between men and women always end up with the man losing the peace in western countries (at least English speaking ones)”
That’s a 20th century phenomenon, mostly a late 20thc. A moderate degree of physical force (e.g., slaps, spanking, rape) was considered acceptable by husbands until (guessing) the 1970s.
In the Lucille Ball comedy “Next Time I Marry” (1938) the husband carries off his new wife, locks her in a trailer, and drives across America. A crowd of journalists watch this, as the judge says “It’s a husband’s rights.” See this video clip of Lucille throwing a tantrum in the trailer.
In England, wife-selling was a big thing from mid-19th C thru the 18th (with some appearances in the 19th C). See Wikipedia.
Males of all ages are naturally more skeptical about rules than females, and there’s a perfectly natural reason for this. If I were Supreme Overlord, the rules would say that all other men must be castrated and all women must join my harem and serve me. So obedient females get sex with the Supreme Overlord while obedient men do all the dirty work.
Unless I had supernatural powers, I’d need a decent number of intact male minions to enforce my rules, and one or two wives for each one. But those men would still wonder if they’re getting a fair deal, or if they’d get a better deal by killing me and putting someone else on the throne.
Dave,
“Males of all ages are naturally more skeptical about rules than females”
That’s an interesting thought! It seems right, imo. More men are caught as criminals, which is evidence. I wonder if that can be generalized to skepticism about rules. That would be a great subject for research!
Pingback: Fake Knights and Phony Princesses | Σ Frame