JOE LONG writes:

A nation with a sense of honor would be raging to avenge Lara Logan. None of the supposed mitigating factors would matter – no, not if she did a striptease for the crowd while chanting “I love Mubarak.” 

In 1898, reports that Spanish authorities subjected women to procedures perhaps comparable to a standard TSA “patdown” today, enraged the American public and contributed considerably to our willingness to go to war with Spain – over someone ELSE’s women, no less. Rumors of the rape of Belgian women during Germany’s WWI attacks on that nation had a similar effect. Logan, on the other hand, was not only assaulted, but assaulted AS a representative of our civilization: the visceral response of a properly socialized man ought to be unbridled wrath. Of course, before it became actual policy, we should bridle it. But, if there is no deep longing for vengeance, if there is no rage to be restrained, then there is no sense of nation, no sense of people, no sense of honor at all. 

Some British soldiers in the Great Mutiny in India carried locks of hair from English women violated by the enemy. Their oath was to kill an enemy fighter for each hair in the lock. Again, not something we should be doing as policy, but the proper impulse of a Western man.

Laura writes:

This visceral reaction makes no sense for a nation that encourages women to become soldiers, prison guards in maximum security men’s prisons and foreign correspondents sent into clearly dangerous situations. Women would be holding none of these positions if this protectiveness you describe had not been all but destroyed. Think of Jayme Biendl, the woman recently murdered in a Washington State prison by a man convicted of brutal rapes. What an outrage, and her position was adamantly defended by the male spokesman of the prison. 

                                                      —  Comments —

Rex writes:

The reaction by men is entirely logical given the current state of relations between the sexes in the West. The difference between those older periods and our own is quite obvious: in those societies women were expected to perform certain responsibilities, and if they failed to do so then they faced severe consequences. Today, by contrast, women’s whole ’empowered existence’ is based on rejecting these responsibilities. Hence, the tit-for-tat relationship has been broken. Men shouldn’t be eagerly lining up to defend people who openly state that they have no intention of reciprocating such selflessness. Why would anyone do that?

Logan isn’t a representative of ‘our civilization’ at all; normal civilizations don’t allow their women to behave in such a way. Logan is a representative of feminist society; as we can see, any society that continues to live under such a fantasy worldview won’t last for long.

Laura writes:

While I agree with your point that feminism has destroyed chivalry, the idea that women no longer fulfill their responsibilities needs clarification. In truth, women fulfill many of the responsibilities formerly performed by men. They do the overwhelming amount of hands-on care of children and home and yet they also support or help support the family financially. Women work harder than they ever have in the history of the West. Nevertheless, they do not perform one major task. They do not provide moral support for men as they once did or uphold marriage vows as they once did. The terms have changed for both men and women. Self-centeredness is common.

Please follow and like us: