MARK RICHARDSON, of the outstanding website Oz Conservative, also takes issue with the words of a reader here who wrote a thank you letter to traditional women.

Mark writes:

When men do self-deprecate, when we do defer, it is a sign that the culture of relationships has become unbalanced, that the romantic instincts are not balanced by an awareness of what is required from men to maintain a successful system of marriage and family life.

While I agree that an over-emphasis on romance can destroy traditional morality and that masculine objectivity is the cement of family stability, I disagree that the words of this reader in this particular context represent male submission. After all, they were expressed at a website advocating feminine deference to men in all realms of life, a site which has never seriously put forth the idea that women do more of the essential work of life. In fact, the opposite has been strenuously argued and the reader who expressed this gratitude has written at length here on the destructive consequences of the women’s vote. If such words are objectionable here, if they are a sinful submission to women, they cannot be spoken anywhere. Certainly they should not be spoken often anywhere nor should they be mistaken for fact. But it seems the reaction to these words portends a further drying-up of social courtesies and of male expressions of affection. I realize many men say to this: Tough luck. Every woman must now hang on the gallows of feminism, even one who has devoted her life to husband and family.

I wrote at Mark’s site:

I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of this man’s words and of the sort of expressions of tenderness exhibited by Arthur Mitchell. You are mistaking social graces, the verbal ornamentation that keeps marriage and relations between the sexes pleasant, for serious argument.

The words of my reader were not meant to seriously claim that women do 95 percent of the work. I took it as a love letter to his wife and the type of woman she is. The Victorians were unusually good at this sort of thing and thus their relatively happy home lives. A culture which encourages men to verbally express tenderness to their wives is assured of family stability. Women tend to be more verbal and, well, romantic. Many mistake the silence of their husbands for indifference. It is not indifference, of course, but it confuses women.

Winston Churchill was a typical product of this Victorian sensibility. Reading his letters to his wife, one is struck by how he went out of his way to eloquently express words of gratitude and appreciation. Certainly these were exaggerations. He said he could not keep all in place, he could not run the world, if it were not for her. Was he ceding moral authority to her? Of course not. In fact, as I recall, he did not favor the female suffrage, at least early in his career. There was a dividing line between the public and the private. Men and women understood that.

If men see it as a sign of weakness to speak with exaggerated deference to women, what will women have for their romantic longings? Power and independence are poor compensations for tenderness.

Randy B., author of the original post, writes:

It seems that some men and women are not able to take or have multiple positions depending on the situation. When a compliment is due, I am right there willing to offer it, and it does not diminish my rights and responsibilities as a man. If I choose to hold a door open for a woman, as a standard of tradition, it does not mean I must hold a door open for all women. Hell, I hold doors open for men if the situation calls for it. 

Any man who is not willing to deprecate himself is either completely delusional and so enamored with themselves that they are not willing to admit their flaws, or they are so frail that they are afraid of having to stand up to public scrutiny. When I make a mistake, I joke about it so that I can frame the observer’s comments or arguments, and it diminishes the potential weight of the criticism. I personally see it as a statement of strength, and a public declaration of the ability to admit imperfection. When I admit I’m wrong (deprecated or not), the vocal observer looks and sounds like an idiot when they say, “Yea, but you screwed up.”

John E. writes:

I have to agree with some of the commenters on Oz who seem to raise objections to Randy B.’s type of praise because of the day that we live in. I am 32, and I wonder if I would be more inclined to let such praise stand without mental reservation if I had been born earlier. As it is, I have been used my whole life to seeing serious news reports that celebrate the scientific knowledge that men will not be necessary to continue the human race in the not-too-distant future. Often times these reports are also fodder for editorials and commentary asserting that the problems that men pose (as that is generally all that they do) will soon be resolved, as men will soon have no choice but to grovel at women’s feet begging for the mercy to be kept around in spite of their superfluousness. In this context, it is difficult to read a post such as Randy’s, no matter where he expresses it, without a lump of defensiveness coming to the throat.

I don’t mean this as a pity party. I recognize my defensiveness as a weakness that ought to be overcome. The trick is how to do it while remaining consistent in conscience. 

Laura writes:

You do realize that our culture despises traditional women, do you not? Or has that escaped your notice? Perhaps you have not seen the voluminous articles, the pseudo-scientific pieces, saying that motherhood is a thing of the past, that human beings don’t really need to be nurtured and cared for by a relative for many years. Children and adolescents are just fine when they’re turned over to benevolent institutions. Marriage is great when a couple hardly ever sees each other. That stuff is all antiquated. A woman who cares for marriage and home first is hopelessly locked in a bygone era, a loser, a schlep, a drudge.

You may get a lump of defensiveness in your throat when you read words like Randy’s. I would guess there are at least some women out there, hopelessly sentimental beings in their need for affirmation from men, who get a similar lump. They are ostracized and lonely in a culture that every day extols female aggressiveness and that says the spiritual contributions of domestic women are nothing. I have offered them a few words of exaggerated praise, a sentimental greeting card that was never intended as a serious argument for the superiority of women. No traditional woman, given the humility typically imposed on her, would venture to read it any other way.

Feminism is not only an assault on men. It is an assault on women qua women.

Randy writes:

Hindsight and all, I would have stated that my 95% reference was specific to the time leading up to birth. The man has a part in the physical union that passes some of the necessary components that create an embryo, but beyond that he is little more than a sympathetic shoulder to his wife’s suffering until the birth of the child.

Laura writes:

So you meant 95 percent of the work of creating a child? I see. I should have asked you to clarify that figure. I thought it so absurd, I didn’t take it seriously. But, in hindsight, I should have asked for clarification. I am not an infallible editor obviously and there is sometimes a volume of e-mails that I do not scrutinize everything as much as I should. Don’t worry about it. I probably will be flogged mercilessly at certain men’s sites for a few years (I am not referring to Mark Richardson), but that will be overshadowed by the flogging from feminists.

Jesse (not to be confused with a commenter named “Jesse 7” at Mark Richardson’s site) writes:

On the subject of defensiveness, I did not get defensive when I read Randy B.’s original post in praise of women. I did however get defensive when I read the first attacks against what Randy B. had to say. 

It doesn’t bother me when a man goes over the top in praise of women, especially when the praise is directed towards women the man has a family relationship with, such as his wife and daughters. In general, praise of women and a self-deprecating appreciation of one’s own weaknesses are traits I find honorable in a man. 

I get the sense there is a hyper-sensitivity among many men to praise of women and criticism of men. It makes many men feel beaten over the head and attacked and insulted gratuitously when the man did nothing wrong. This is an understandable reaction given the male bashing that goes on in the wider culture, promoted and glorified by feminism. 

However, I believe the over-all culture of male bashing should be ignored, one should not allow it to infect how one views women or how one treats women. Men should not feel a need to be on guard and to over-react to any criticism a man receives. Men should be confident in their own strength and virtue as men and therefore not feel a need to leap to their own defense when a criticism is directed towards them or when a flattery is directed towards women. 

I worry that men who advocate for traditional family relationships and patriarchy are taking on a “men’s rights mentality” of hyper-sensitivity and defensiveness against any criticism of men or praise of women. Men should be able to acknowledge the strengths of women and the weaknesses of men without it undermining the man’s understanding of his need to take charge and play the leadership role in his family. 

I fear if men adopt a hyper-sensitivity to any criticism directed towards men and any praise directed towards women that will lead to a destructive bias against women that will only serve to undermine the good that pro-family pro-patriarchy men seek to achieve.

Laura writes:

I don’t think the man-bashing should be ignored. No, I don’t think so.

Men need to educate women. Who else will? Many women don’t realize all this offends men. Men need to be firm, calm and outspoken in their insistence that women publicly – in words and deeds – disavow the deprecation and bullying of men. Women need to do this because it is the right thing to do.

Women cannot see through the propaganda on their own. Men must let them know without venom and hostility. Anger will only confuse and inflame women.

Please follow and like us: