David writes:

As a young man growing up in a culture saturated with the sort of misandry Youngfogey describes — a culture where it is taken for granted that women are superior to men, to the extent that men are sometimes simply considered useless and risible — I want to express my wholehearted support for the things Youngfogey and Samson have stated in response to Randy’s post. Youngfogey, you in particular have done a phenomenal job challenging Randy’s post. Way to go! Since you are obviously intelligent and articulate I hope you continue to speak up whenever the misandrist mentality rises to the surface.

Laura, you asked us to consider the context in which the post was made. The context of your blog is one thing, and you are clearly a true friend of men, but let’s please consider the overall context of contemporary Western culture. You suggested that Randy was engaging in hyperbole. If this is true, it seems to me a variety of hyperbole that is in bad taste. There is certainly nothing wrong with expressing appreciation, love, and respect for one’s wife. Of course there’s nothing wrong with it; this would be an act of love, and any act of love is good and beautiful. But we don’t need to engage in a hyperbolic denigration of men that is uncomfortably similar to the more sincere deprecations we encounter all the time today. The point can be made quite adequately and beautifully without this device.

Perhaps what we men should do is apply to this situation the principles underlying affirmative action. By this I mean the idea that we must exercise a conscious, deliberate, programmatic discrimination against the dominant class until our doing so has restored society to the proper balance. Where this rule has been applied to minorities in the workplace I propose we men now take it up against the misandrist mentality. How can we do this? I’m sure we can think of all sorts of ideas, but I would like to propose that we men refrain from expressing any kind of general praise, appreciation, or gratitude for women, even where it would be reasonable to do so. Certainly we should avoid deprecating ourselves as we are so clearly wont to do. After all, what we are facing is not an equal playing field. In order to restore the proper balance of appreciation between the sexes, we are going to have to change our behavior, and I — without intending any kind of hyperbole whatsoever — advocate this line of action, among others. There could be some exceptions — for example, Laura does not deserve to be included in this group of women. She is one of the very few good ones left.

Laura writes:

Let me ask this. In this climate you create, in this desert of non-affirmation for women, in this boycott of all praise, even for women who want nothing more than to be loving wives and mothers, what will a young woman who wants to do the right thing cling to? After all, she will not receive support from most of her friends. She most likely will not receive support from her mother, her father, her aunts and uncles or even her grandmother. And now she will not receive words of encouragement from conservative men, the sort of words that the fictitious Basil Ransom gave to Verena. A young woman such as this will see large numbers of men heaping praise on Sarah Palin, who trumpets female self-affirmation, and not a word of approval when it comes to her. Your silence, I fear, will be deafening.

I understand that Randy’s praise was over the top. I agree: It is not true that women have a harder row to hoe. But why not a boycott of exaggeration of this kind?

Are women the dominant class, or are feminists? 

Youngfogey writes:

I think David is correct that we men should make withholding praise from women our default mode. Naturally, this does not mean we would never say a kind word to a woman. It especially does not mean we would not praise women who are obviously trying to live rightly. Any man with a lick of sense can tell the difference between a young woman who wants to do the right thing and the average “mature” woman.

The idea isn’t that we should never praise women, but that we should be inclined not to do so unless they demonstrate some conduct or character we want to encourage. This means that complimenting a woman will be a rare thing.

I’d also suggest that withholding praise from women would be good for those who “secretly want nothing more than to be loving wives and mothers.” If your implication, Mrs. Wood, is that there are young women out there pining for marriage and children and yet confused or frightened about attempting to secure these goods, let them work hard for the praise of decent men. In so doing, they will find their path into ways of being that make domestic life possible. It is the tidal wave of feminist praise for their foolishness that encourages them to go wrong. What you characterize as a desert of praise might turn out to be for them only dry land.

Laura writes:

Okay. Then you mean men should not withhold all praise, but should actually mold women, with compliments where they are deserved. They will not participate in the glorification of aggressive femininity that surrounds us. They will actually define what it means to be a good woman. In other words, men will be leaders, not simply react to whatever women do. That seems very reasonable.

Basil Ransom, Henry James’ character, is an interesting model because he openly laughed at Verena, who was an ardent feminist out of  foolishness, a misplaced desire to please. He took her by the hand and he said, “No.” He was no Roissy because he intended to secure her for life and he did not lie and cheat. What most impresses me about him was that he knew Verena was unhappy. He knew that she was a human being faced with ideas that were inimical to her happiness. He also was not afraid of her being dependent on him. That’s an important point. Sometimes, I think men today want to have it both ways in the same way feminists do. They want women to possess the sort of assertive initiative that will make them good money-makers and at the same time they want the deference and modesty that will make them good wives. They must choose. By withholding all praise, they allow themselves to actually refrain from defining femininity or leading women. It’s easy to criticize the abuses of feminism. But what will replace it? What should women do? At every turn, they are told they must be independent or they will not survive.

I recognize that some women are hopeless and not capable of being reformed. But I see many women in this gray area, confused and looking for clarification. The advice of someone like F. Roger Devlin, who tells men to abandon these women and not marry them (while still supposedly having sex with them) strikes me as the ultimate abnegation of male authority and the final assault on the welfare of children. But Devlin does not need to give this advice to men. More than 40 percent of the children born in this country have a mother who is not married. Fatherlessness is the epidemic of our time and Devlin supports it by telling men to walk away from the institution of marriage. He does not tell them to refrain from sex; he tells them to refrain from marriage. He is not an advocate of men in offering this advice, or at least not of all men. He is an advocate of the men who are living now and an enemy of the men who will live in the future. [See Mr. Devlin’s response below.]

Youngfogey writes:

You ask what women caught in the web of a feminist culture should do. Well, they should do what is right. For starters, they could do as you have done and defend men rather than joining in the fatal crusade against us. They could refuse to murder their babies. They could be willing to sacrifice the many comforts and privileges misandrist culture has secured for them. Each of these things seem like a reasonable starting point.

If men today “want it both ways”, they do so because they have believed the promises of feminism. One aspect of masculinity that is obscured by living in a man-hating culture is the urge to be a “hero” or at least a “good guy” that most men feel. When we are living in a culture that tells them that accepting a woman who has the assertiveness to be a money-maker is what a “good guy” does, we will work hard to do that. At the same time, the desire for more wifely qualities persist. When you pick up on men “wanting it both ways,” you are pointing out the discrepancy between most men’s attempt to do what the feminist culture has told him he must, and the natural inclinations of his being.

Perhaps you are right about Devlin and men, like Roissy, who follow his advice. What is important to understand about Roissy’s position is that he views our culture as being already a kind of post-apocalyptic scenario in which there is no alternative but to get what one can for oneself. Both you and Roissy agree that there are women who cannot be changed, and disagree, it seems to me, only about how large that pool is. What Roissy advocates, which I do think is ultimately immoral, is simply allowing these women to suffer the consequences of their choices.

Laura writes:

I agree that this is the starting point for women. They must act honorably. They have to resist what they have been taught, a very difficult thing to do without mothers and fathers to guide them and with the same sort of feminist propaganda that men are unable to resist. For women who don’t do the right thing, it is never too late to change. You seem to be saying that men are unable to counter the cultural climate, while women should easily be capable of doing what is right.

Roissy does not simply believe women should suffer the consequences. He thinks children should too. I suppose it’s exciting to think that we live in a post-apocalyptic world. Does a newborn live in a post-apocalyptic world?

Jesse writes:

First of all, I want to defend what Randy B. wrote in the “Men are Slow to Ripen” thread. I think what he said was honorable for a man to say and was deeply appreciative of the virtues and kindness and caring of women. Yes, he exaggerated and included some self-deprecation in his statements, but so what? If Randy B. wants to express himself in that way then more power to him. Men should certainly not censor themselves in how they express their love and appreciation towards women just to keep those who don’t like hearing praise of women happy. 

Another thing I object to is trying to put women into two opposing categories, the deserving and the undeserving. I agree that Laura has shown her love and respect towards men in many of the posts she has written in this blog but that does not mean that Laura is a category apart from other women. Many women do many good things both on behalf of men and on behalf of their children; Laura is not the only one. More importantly, women are owed a measure of love and protection and support from men simply because they are women, simply because it is the right of women to receive certain benefits and protections and consideration from men. This is not because women necessarily have earned certain rights and protections but because it is beneficial to society to give women certain rights and protections and considerations. Women deserve support and protection from men not as a reward for women’s good deeds but as an expression of men’s virtue. 

This goes to the issue of chivalry, the ethic that men should “provide for and protect” women. Men offer chivalry to women as a principle because of the values the man possesses and wants to uphold, not as a reward for the woman’s good behavior. 

Men do need to put the woman’s interest above their own; men do need to act towards women in an idealistic and self-sacrificing fashion. This is not because women are superior to men; it is simply because that is the honorable way for a man to treat a woman. Men’s actions towards women need to be based on what is right, not on what is “fair”. The man needs to be guided by his own judgment and his own code of ethics. 

Now I know the subject being discussed here is more about praise and compliments than it is about men’s duties towards women but I feel like the two subjects are closely related to each other. If one asserts that women should not be given praise or compliments it seems like the next logical step is to assert that women don’t deserve the benefits of chivalry either unless they first show some lady like virtues that it is claimed that most women don’t possess.

The idea that men should not praise women unless they have done something praiseworthy is completely reasonable. The idea that men should praise women when they act in moral feminine ways and should criticize women when they fail to live up to the standards that men seek to impose upon them I fully support. However, that being said, men need always to be mindful of their duties to women and the love and honor that women deserve not because of the virtues an individual woman may possess but as an expression of the masculine duty and love that men as a group and individually owe towards women both collectively and on an individual basis.

Laura writes:

Jesse says, “Women deserve support and protection from men not as a reward for women’s good deeds but as an expression of men’s virtue.”

That is exactly right. Men choose virtue and honor because these are good in and of themselves, regardless of whether they are appreciated by women. These are their own reward.

Randy B. writes:

Feminists are horrible creatures and make my skin crawl, they have been at the core, and continue to drive at America into the depths of Socialism. The attempt to paint me as a feminist apologist is laughable, and creates a profile of the man who would make such an accusation based wholly upon my initial statement. 

I stand by my initial post, and will not apologize for it or any of its content or further misconceptions of my intentions.  I am not able to hold a grudge against women as I have never been personally damaged by one; it sounds like I might be a man alone amongst my male posting peers. Yes, men in general have been damaged by the feminist movement, but I am not about to go hating or discounting women in general for the actions of the soft-minded man haters; those who cower behind leftist terms like, progressive, liberal or feminist. Life’s too short to carry that much baggage.

Laura writes:

In the previous Roger Devlin statements quoted by Samson, there was mention of the many Internet sites in which women talk about their love of fun and never speak of family or marriage. This seems a very selective picture of what is present on the Internet. There are many sites run by women who praise female modesty and honor.

Hannon writes:

In speaking of feminism and related modern problems in this post, it strikes me that a certain argument is absent. That is, the proposition that to advance to higher social levels and become “truly civilized” we must abandon the cultural and even the conscious expression of both genders. This could be construed as a war on gender itself and it may be the source of the currently deranged take on human sexuality that plagues all media.

It seems that quite a few of your respondents are in the same age class as me (forty-something)– the first wave of generation X. [Laura writes: I believe David and Youngfogey are younger than that.] I was brought up in a liberal environment, but not in the modern ideological, PC sense. Rather than having directly adopted the various tropes now in fashion it was more about questioning traditional institutions, including gender roles; this ‘innocent stage’ has much to do with the ensuing development of modern liberalism.

In my experience the main result of this, on the level of gender, was learning to emote our being human first and treating other aspects of identity, such as masculinity, ethnicity or nationality, as secondary.When one does not *reject* those secondary aspects of being, even embracing and asserting them as appropriate, such a notion of
humanness can be seen at least as non-destructive. But it may still be a risky proposition in a society such as ours since it is notbuttressed by any tradition that can keep us in check. It is a nice-sounding idea but it has no mooring.

The comments here reflect, I think, some of the wider problems that arise when our social evolution is warped by those with a truly destructive and highly effective agenda (feminists) that has only been met– so far– with patchy resistance. I believe there is a complimentary set of unique traits normally exhibited by either sex that is harmonious and productive by design. Under current circumstances these attributes are under a great deal of stress.

Brandon writes:

Mrs. Wood, I’m sure you are aware of this from Proverbs 31: “A virtuous woman, who can find? For far beyond corals is her worth. The heart of her husband trusts her, and gain he shall not lack; She does him good and not evil all the days of her life.”

Laura writes:

There are many good women still. A man need only find one.

John writes:

I know the post is a bit stale but I also felt compelled to comment. I think there is a great deal of variation in how quickly the sexes “ripen.” Everything today and for some decades is focused on keeping people children. And this is particularly true for young men.

That said, a lot depends on what you mean by maturity. Consider this. When I was 18 while the girls were stressing over what colour lip gloss to wear I was considering…

Under what conditions would I accept the risk of death or dismemberment in the service of my country

Under what conditions would I accept the risk of death or dismemberment in the service of my country.
Studying the projected effects of a thermonuclear detonation over a mid-sized city.
Deciding that in the event of a fire I would be the last one out of the building.
Thinking about what kind of employment I would pursue.
Developing a critique of leftism and feminism. 

I don’t think many of the girls of my acquaintance were troubling their pretty little heads about such matters.

Laura writes:

In a traditional culture, men and women were maturing in late adolescence in different ways and for different functions. Even in that context, they both may exhibit their own type of immaturity. The business of finding a man, attracting him and paying attention to him, while simultaneously preparing for motherhood was once a serious preoccupation for women. But of course even then, there were always silly and vain women who did not prepare at all.

F. Roger Devlin writes:

Laura writes:

“The advice of someone like Roger Devlin, who tells men to abandon these women and not marry them (while still supposedly having sex with them) strikes me as the ultimate abnegation of male authority and the final assault on the welfare of children. But Devlin does not need to give this advice to men. More than 40 percent of the children born in this country have a mother who is not married. Fatherlessness is the epidemic of our time and Devlin supports it by telling men to walk away from the institution of marriage. He does not tell them to refrain from sex; he tells them to refrain from marriage. He is not an advocate of men in offering this advice, or at least not of all men. He is an advocate of the men who are living now and an enemy of the men who will live in the future.” 

I have never advocated fornication. I agree with the Apostle: “It is good not to touch a woman.” But, of course, many young men are not that strong, and I don’t like to sound like a scold.

I have written that I could not in good conscience advise a young man today to get married. This advice considers only the well-being of the individual man himself. Obviously, it is not a solution on the societal level. The only solution on the societal level is the abolition of divorce. But this cannot be the responsibility of any individual man.

Please follow and like us: