Posted by Tina
Are men less masculine today than they were in grandpa’s time?
Or, put another way, are men being shamed, encouraged to be soft, excluded and derided just for being masculine?
Are little boys being restrained, drugged, and trained toward softness and weakness?
I ask because of a quote I stumbled upon today in an article by Alicia Colon – Jewish World Review:
“And that’s why traditional masculinity has to die. The association of male value with aggression, dominance, and power is one of the most destructive forces in the world, and so it has to be destroyed. Traditional masculinity has to die in just the same way that sexism and racism and homophobia have to die.” – Fredrik De Boer
Read more De Boer here.
Are aggression, dominance and power always wrong or bad; are they destructive forces by definition? Should traditional masculinity be “destroyed”?
What is it we’re talking about. Certainly power and aggression that becomes tyrannical is undesirable. Nobody in his right mind would set out to raise a boy to be a tyrant. On the other hand power and aggression can be part of a handy skill set when faced with a bully or killer. When a rapist breaks into my house I’m glad I have a powerful, aggressive, dominating male pumped with adrenalin and at the ready. Everything has a purpose.
Mr. Boer is full of beans, that is to say, he has constructed a caricature of traditional manliness based on a Hollywood image rather than the traditional (Yes, I’ll say it, “Biblical”) values that have guided traditional manliness for generations and which includes an upbringing that teaches a man how to behave well and appropriately in all situations. Mr. Boer is simply suffering a crisis of values, not to mention being void of all awareness of the balance in nature.
On the other hand, our nation has been greatly influenced by a slew of aggressive women whose imprint is obvious, from our feminized military to emotional fears about rough and tumble sports. These women aggressively seek the power and dominance that has both cowed Mr. Boer and demanded a “nicer” world which they are certain they can deliver once in charge.
Are these freaks confused or what!
Alicia Colon’s piece points to the narcissist currently stumbling through his leadership of the nation and the feminizing of our military under his watch. She notes too, the flagrant narcissism that marks so many in leadership who seem to be energized not by achievement and competence but by style, pleasure, and applause. The pretense of passion without the pop!
You can imagine, I’m sure, my great relief when reminded:
In the world of the realists, it is important to have large numbers of hard, armed, people who will devote themselves to watching over the weak while they sleep lest the wolves come to feast. In pursuit of the goal of having such guardians. it has been necessary to create bodies of soldiers who will accept the task and will give themselves up for the task. – RHT447
Now there’s a man who knows what men have known forever. Reality bites! And manliness will always trump the girly-man musings of those male “folks” in dire need of adoration and applause…it must, it is the way of the world.
Well…these are a few thoughts on the subject but I’m curious! Does this circumstance of the attempted feminizing of the American male mark the end of a very destructive fifty year assault on traditional male values or does it represent the beginning of a feminized standard for American males? Are we headed for an invigorated America where men are allowed to be men or are we doomed to continue down the path toward a decadent, soulless, un-brave new world of girley-men who cower under the screeching manipulation of feminazi’s and feminazi girlymen?
Ugh, I couldn’t resist.
“Are aggression, dominance and power always wrong or bad; are they destructive forces by definition?”
No, but that’s not what De Boer said. Read carefully:
“And that’s why traditional masculinity has to die. The association of male value with aggression, dominance, and power is one of the most destructive forces in the world, and so it has to be destroyed. Traditional masculinity has to die in just the same way that sexism and racism and homophobia have to die.”
Note that he didn’t say those qualities are bad. He said the association of male value with these traits are bad. He is saying that men who do not define themselves by these qualities should not be judged as weak or less of a man for who they are.
Do you disagree with this? Or do you believe that men’s value should be based on how masculine they are?
Because by calling De Boer and his ilk “girly men” you are proving his point for him. You are demonstrating the bigotry behind the cult of masculinity, which upholds male dominance as an ideal and considers femininity an inherently lesser status. A “girly man,” by such logic, is the worst thing a man can possibly be.
There is room for men with traditional masculine qualities in the Feminist Utopia (TM), they just won’t necessarily be considered superior than the other men (or every woman). When De Boer argues for the end of traditional masculinity, he is talking about ending the idea that all men MUST be masculine at all times or face social punishment. He’s not suggesting that we add estrogen to the drinking water.
You talk about children being “feminized,” but if you honestly think that little boys are pressured not to be masculine, you are tripping balls. I am a seventh grade teacher and almost nothing has changed since I was a kid. Little boys are still expected to conform to a rigid notion of masculinity lest they be mercilessly mocked and shamed. They even still call each other girls and pussies and homos and faggots.
Is that…I don’t know, reassuring to you?
One thing has changed: while boys still commonly use sexist and homophobic slurs against one an another whenever one of them steps outside the designated lines of gender expression, it’s becoming much more common to hear other children stand up and say, “Hey, don’t use those words. I have friends and family members who are gay. Stop using that an insult.”
And you can thank the feminist/gay agenda for that.
But I guess according to the rules of Post Scripts, it is the kids who are trying to stop this type of bullying who are the real bullies, brownshirt thought police for Obama who are trying to tyrannically quash the free speech rights of good, patriotic conservative Americans. Right?
Chris: “…but that’s not what De Boer said.”
So the English Lit graduate avoids verbs…the action in sentences to decide what is meant. How about YOU read carefully:
Tina, you’re seriously going to sit there and critique my reading comprehension abilities?
Wigga, please.
Again, this was his full statement:
“The association of male value with aggression, dominance, and power is is one of the most destructive forces in the world, and so it has to be destroyed.”
He did not say aggression, dominance, and power were destructive forces. He clearly said the association of male value with aggression, dominance, and power was a destructive force.
I’ll ask again (but I’ve given up expecting an answer): Do you believe that male value should be based on these qualities?
Your assertions that calling kids “faggots” merely amounts to a “testing of mettle,” and your invocation of “morality” while ignoring the immoral treatment of children who do not conform to traditional gender roles are so absurd as to be utterly without merit. As is this oblivious statement:
“The traditional standard was to accept people as they were and train/instruct a moral underpinning. We didn’t dictate traits or try to dictate them out of existence”
I mean, you can’t possibly believe this, can you? Are you seriously arguing that effeminate men or masculine women were traditionally accepted, and that these individuals were not socially pressured to conform? Are you seriously arguing that homosexuals were accepted under your “traditional standard?”
If you’re going to lie at least make a convincing lie. I will never understand the tacit agreement that exists here, where you say things that no one could possibly believe, even yourself, and the sheep just say baaah.
Texas Republicans are, to this very day, trying to “dictate traits out of existence:”
http://www.newsweek.com/texas-republican-party-adopts-discredited-reparative-therapy-gays-254168
Your party’s understanding of science is as bad as its understanding of history. They claim to be attempting to protect children even as they support abusive quack psychiatric practices that have been proven as causing great harm to children.
If “traditionalists” have no interest in dictating traits out of existence, why on earth are they attempting to control people’s sexual orientations?
Oh, Tina, you gotta read “The Women’s Room”. You’d love it. One of the best bits is where the protagonist decides to marry the soon-to-be doctor, not because she loves him, but because he will protect her (did, in fact) from the gang rapists which would seem to constitute the rest of her peer group on campus.
P.S.: George Will is a jackass.
Me: “There is room for men with traditional masculine qualities in the Feminist Utopia (TM), they just won’t necessarily be considered superior”
Tina: “Thanks for sharing but that’s not what Boer wrote.”
That’s EXACTLY what he wrote, you lazy partisan hack. You don’t know that because you didn’t read his entire piece, despite linking to it. You’ve accused him of making a “caricature” of masculinity, but you’ve been making a caricature of his argument this whole time!
Here’s an excerpt where he explicitly says what you claim he didn’t say:
“The masculinity that replaces it will not be “anti-male,” whatever that could possibly mean. It won’t be anti-strength. It won’t be anti-confidence or anti-leadership or anti-toughness. It won’t be anti-sex. (What could be more anti-sex, really, than this person’s determination to destroy other people for the explicit reason that they had consensual sex and he didn’t?) But it will reject utterly the strangled, stupid, pathetic association between male strength and the capacity for violence. It will stop associating a man’s value with the number of women he has sex with. It will recognize traditional masculinity for what it is: a broken, impossible fantasy that even its most enthusiastic proponents can’t achieve, a straightjacket that constrains men like Elliot Rodger, crushing them, and calls it empowerment. Time for it to die.”
I really don’t know how his argument could possibly be made more clear. Now I get that his definition of “traditional masculinity” is different than yours, but he is clearly not calling for all men with so-called “masculine” qualities are bad people with bad qualities. He is saying that we need to stop ASSOCIATING those qualities with what it means to be a “real man.” At the extreme end, such an association creates men like Elliot Rodger. At best, it creates millions of non-violent men who still possess serious insecurity issues and a sense of entitlement to women’s bodies.
Libby: “P.S.: George Will is a jackass.”
So you’ve read his newest piece on how being a sexual assault victim is a “coveted status” too, Libby?
I have no idea how that privileged wangjangler continues to appear in reputable publications. The idea that he represents the “respectable” face of conservatism is, to quote the non-respectable face of conservatism, “lipstick on a pig.” Rod Dreher has more integrity in his pinky than George Will has in his entire body.
Here’s a statement on Homosexuality from the 2012 Texas Republican platform:
“We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of
society and contributes to
the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that
have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.
Homosexuality mu
st not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in
public policy, nor should
“family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal
entitlements or creation of special status for homosex
ual behavior, regardless of state of origin.”
http://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/themes/rpt/images/2012Platform_Final.pdf
You’re right, Tina! Traditionalists always “accepted people as they were” until the mean ol’ gays and feminists came to town and tried to force everyone to be like them! Now traditionalists have no choice but to condemn gays and girly men, because the only alternative is to be forced into re-education camps where manly men are turned effeminate and gay.
You can keep pretending that it is you and your ilk who are in danger of being forcibly “changed,” but that is not the case now and never has been. No one is trying to force all people to be gay or effeminate. But there is a large group of people attempting to change gay people and those who do not conform to traditional gender roles. There are a large group of people trying to dictate them out of existence. And nearly all of those people, in this country, are Republicans.
And from the 2014 platform:
“The draft then goes on to endorse reparative therapy:
“We recognize the legitimacy and value of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment to patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.”
In May, the Log Cabin Republicans and Metroplex Republicans—two conservative groups that support gay marriage—were denied exhibitor space at the Texas GOP convention. The two groups held a joint press conference, where they admonished the party for including extremely anti-gay language in the party’s platform.
“[We] issued a warning to the Texas GOP that if they continued to pursue ex-gay language in the party’s platform, it would be doing no one in the Republican Party any favors,” says Gregory T. Angelo, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans.
The changes to the party platform never even went up for debate, because a motion to approve the full platform was called first. “It seems that parliamentary maneuvers were used to make sure the debate on this issue never happened in the first place,” Angelo says.
Reparative therapy—more often called “conversion therapy” in the scientific literature—has been declared invalid by nearly all the relevant medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the World Health Organization and the National Association of Social Workers. In 2009, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a report that looked at all of the peer-reviewed literature on conversion therapy and concluded that the evidence unequivocally showed that attempts to change sexual orientation is ineffective. The APA also urged practitioners to avoid any form of conversion therapy.
The initiative to include support of conversion therapy on the GOP’s platform was led by the Texas Eagle Forum, an influential pro-family, Tea Party–affiliated organization. The group’s president, Cathie Adams, has stressed that this is an issue of personal rights.
“If a person chooses counseling, then it should be made available,” Adams told CNN via e-mail. “California and New Jersey have passed bills OUTLAWING it altogether, which is under litigation. It’s a freedom issue.”
In actuality, the laws in California and New Jersey have not banned conversion therapy in entirety. What they have done, however, is prohibited it for minors. At the time of publication, Adams and the Texas Eagle Forum have not responded to Newsweek’s request for comment.
California and New Jersey, meanwhile, have followed a professional trend in recent years, where advocates have become outspoken about the risk of long-term psychological damages that can be wrought on minors forced to undergo conversion therapy by their parents or communities. On study, for example, found that conversion therapy patients are six times more likely than their homosexual peers to report depression and eight times more likely to attempt suicide.
“It’s malice disguised as medicine,” Wayne Besen, who runs the nonprofit organization Truth Wins Out, told Newsweek this past May.
Many former members of the “ex-gay” community that rose to prominence in the mid-to-late 1990s agree. “I have met over 1,000 people who have been harmed and damaged by this kind of therapy,” John Paulk told Newsweek. Paulk is a former leader of one of the most influential ex-gay groups, Exodus International who has since divorced his wife and not lives as an openly gay man.
The Log Cabin Republicans, for their part, run a think tank called the Liberty Education Forum, which seeks to educate the public on the dangers of reparative therapy.
http://www.newsweek.com/texas-republican-party-adopts-discredited-reparative-therapy-gays-254168
Sorry Chris he clearly said, “…traditional masculinity has to die.” He associated the traits of aggression, dominance and power with traditional masculinity and claimed tht because of that, traditional masculinity was “one of the most destructive forces in the world.” He further instructed it had to die just like “sexism and racism and homophobia have to die.”
If that’s not an aggressive, dominating edict suggesting a power trip I don’t know what is! And yes, I am questioning your ability to comprehend…generally! Your filter is firmly in place and your own determination to aggressively dominate and control is also obvious in your responses.
I have no need or desire to dictate how people live or what they should think.
I do have the freedom to express my opinion and to defend traditional male traits and values when I think they are being maligned irresponsibly for a cult-ish social/political agenda!
“But it will reject utterly the strangled, stupid, pathetic association between male strength and the capacity for violence.”
And there is the traditional male smear. Traditional males do not associate male strength and the capacity for violence! That is a cartoon, a caricature, that isn’t at all related to traditional notions of strength and masculinity…it is meant to dehumanize and marginalize those who support traditional values.
“It will stop associating a man’s value with the number of women he has sex with.”
Ha! The propensity to act out the “value” of conquest is greater today, and more aggressive and visible, because of the loose standards of leftist radicals who teach and live “anything goes” and “there is no right and wrong”.
“It will recognize traditional masculinity for what it is: a broken, impossible fantasy that even its most enthusiastic proponents can’t achieve, a straightjacket that constrains men”
Which is it? Are traditional men aggressive, dominating and therefore dangerously violent or are they straightjacketed and constrained? Boer again creates an inaccurate and stupid caricature, then rails against it, then complains it’s too confining…he continues, ” crushing them, and calls it empowerment.”
Absurd and silly! Empowerment is owning the trait rather than having the trait own you. That way the trait can be called upon when necessary (Self defense/war) and tempered to confidence and strength when nonviolent assertiveness is needed…as in ones work or when disciplining and teaching children.
“He is saying that we need to stop ASSOCIATING those qualities with what it means to be a “real man.”
Perhaps since his definition is different it is he who needs to “stop” associating.
There is a disconnect going on that confuses not only the narrative but also the children and future genrations. That too should stop.
“You’re right, Tina! Traditionalists always “accepted people as they were” until the mean ol’ gays and feminists came to town and tried to force everyone to be like them!”
Who came to town? Who is forcing not just tolerance and acceptance of “alternative” values and lifestyles” and not just for those who practice but for EVERYONE?
Who makes up the activists groups changing the definitions and meaning of words like marriage, family, mother, father, husband, and wife?
Radicals and gays came to town and pushed and pushed. It wasn’t enough that we were accepting and tolerant of their different choices. THEY now seek to destroy fundamental definitions and meanings and to fundamentally transform future generations to their notions of “normal” and “acceptable”…conform or be marginalized, shunned, and destroyed.
Sounds like aggressive, power hungry, dominating behavior to me…they might even induce violence before they’re through. What they see is what they are!
What is it with you lefties that you think you are invisible. This very aggressive, radical political movement that pretends to beseems so benign, tolerant, inclusive, caring, and kind is anything but tolerant, inclusive, caring and kind…and it certainly is not benign. Anyone who suggests the total destruction or elimination (death) of traits of traditional men is not benign.
Communist belief is that the destruction of religious and traditional values is a means to power and control..WAKE UP!
Please show me evidence of groups of traditional values people organizing a movement and becoming constant activists whose goal has been to marginalize, harm, discredit and shun gays and feminists and reeducate children. There are none. Traditional values people live and let live. They mind their own business. Forty years of left fem-gay activists pushing the envelope has created the need to push back. They pushed to hard and went too far. They aren’t content to live the alternative lifestyle in peace. Tolerance and acceptance was not enough. They decided they had the right to indoctrinate our children, take authority away from parents, change the definition and meaning of words, change the meaning of masculine and feminine, change the way l;ittle children use bathrooms…push people around socially, legally, and morally. We said if they didn’t want to live as we did fine, we can live with that…they said it was not enough, instead we will make sure your kids learn to think as we do…we will do this to destroy all remnants of traditional values. That is who came to town…an aggressive, dominating, power ,machine that needs to control how people think!
Too bad if taking a stand against that kind of covert and overt aggression and dominance bothers you. Back off is the message and its a good one.
“In the world of the realists, it is important to have large numbers of hard, armed, people who will devote themselves to watching over the weak while they sleep lest the wolves come to feast. In pursuit of the goal of having such guardians. it has been necessary to create bodies of soldiers who will accept the task and will give themselves up for the task.”
Actually, I think this smacks strongly of that “personal gratification dressing up as a sacred trust” that I mentioned previously.
If a fellow can curbed his base nature in furtherance of the public good, that’s splendid. If he can’t, he goes to prison … because it is real base … that nature.
Libby you’re one nutty lady with not one ounce of empathy or compassion for the difficult task men are called upon to do. How easy to sit on the sidelines and judge. The above, large numbers of hard, armed, people who will devote themselves to watching over the weak is an honorable commitment of love, disciplined rather than out of control. “Base” is grabbing a journalist and slowly cutting his head off on camera and then posting it to the internet to frighten and shock people.
Your sense of proportion and respect is way off.
Tina, concentrate.
One poor, sad, victim of testosterone poisoning masters his biology to the point where he can turn his “energies” (we’ll call them) toward a sterling career in the U. S. military.
Another poor, sad, victim of testorsterone poisoning grabs “a journalist and slowly cutting his head off on camera and then posting it to the internet to frighten and shock people.” (You watch that stuff?)
Each fellow acts according to his own will, but the ailment is identical in both fellas. Both fellas suffer.
This guy, De Boer, apparently proposes a cure for the ailment, a modification of the male condition.
Luck to him, I say. But you won’t even consider that it might be worth persuing, even for the sufferers’ sake?
Tina: “He associated the traits of aggression, dominance and power with traditional masculinity”
No, he did not make that association. Elliot Rodger made that association. Every misogynistic mass murderer made that association. Every man who’s ever hit his wife made that association. Every man who’s ever refused to back down from a fight, no matter how stupid or how much he didn’t want to do it, made that association. Every man who’s ever argued that a man should be head of the household has made that association. Every man who’s ever been afraid to cry has made that association.
Every man has made that association.
And probably every woman has, too.
It is simply a fact that aggression, dominance and power are traits most commonly associated with masculinity. It is ABSURD to argue against that fact. I won’t even entertain any further attempts to deny it. I don’t believe for a second you believe yourself when you pretend this association does not exist in our culture, and I doubt any of your readers do either, so there is no point in trying.
“If that’s not an aggressive, dominating edict suggesting a power trip I don’t know what is!”
So asking for an end to masculinity being defined by aggression, dominance and power…is itself an act of aggression, dominance, and the need for power?
That doesn’t make any sense.
“I have no need or desire to dictate how people live or what they should think.”
Bullshit. You voted in 2008 to forcibly annul the legal marriages of complete strangers. You stand by that illegal, unconstitutional vote to this day. If you can’t own up to the fact that this was an attempt to dictate how people live, then you are lying to yourself.
“I do have the freedom to express my opinion and to defend traditional male traits and values when I think they are being maligned irresponsibly for a cult-ish social/political agenda!”
Well, are aggression, dominance and power “traditional male traits and values,” or aren’t they?
“And there is the traditional male smear.”
He did not smear males. He smeared the idea that males MUST be a certain way to be considered masculine.
“Traditional males do not associate male strength and the capacity for violence!”
Yes, sorry, but they do. This is a historical fact. You are making yourself look very stupid by pretending otherwise.
“it is meant to dehumanize and marginalize those who support traditional values.”
No. You do not know what those words actually mean. You use them, as well as words like “prejudice” and “tolerance,” because you know these words are effective tools and nothing more. You don’t care what they actually mean. You use them to cast the bullies in a civil rights struggle as the victims. You use them to give yourself moral weight and to take it away from those who face actual bigotry, every day, of the like you never have experienced and never will because of your privilege. It is a cynical, dishonest strategy, and one I have always seen right through, so I’m not sure why you believe I won’t call you out on it this time.
Criticism of a position is not dehumanization or marginalization. You have engaged in those very things in this article, by drawing a line between “real men” and “girly men,” as if men who do not conform to your vision of masculinity are less than. You have also used the word “feminization” to imply a weakening, which posits females as a lesser form of human than men. You’ve defended real dehumanization of gays–accusations that they are a danger to children, comparing them to people who have sex with animals, and blaming them for the Holocaust–more times than I can remember.
You are trying to re-appropriate the words used by the truly oppressed to uphold the privilege of the dominant. That is disgusting, repellent behavior.
“Ha! The propensity to act out the “value” of conquest is greater today, and more aggressive and visible, because of the loose standards of leftist radicals who teach and live “anything goes” and “there is no right and wrong”.”
Sure it’s more aggressive and visible, but it’s always been around. Men’s sexual indiscretions have always been tolerated more so than women’s. Men have always bragged about their conquests while women were expected to hide theirs. The fact that it is less “hidden” now does not make today any worse than yesterday. It simply means that we now have more of an ability to change this double standard.
“Which is it? Are traditional men aggressive, dominating and therefore dangerously violent or are they straightjacketed and constrained?”
Again, the writer is not critiquing “traditional men,” but “traditional masculinity,” so your question is framed wrong. But yes, he is arguing that traditional masculinity is aggressive, dominating and dangerously violent as well as constraining to men. There is absolutely no contradiction there. Men certainly feel pressure to be aggressive and dominating–have you talked to any single dads about the crap they get? Traditional masculinity is a straightjacket to many males who feel that they always have to be strong, and cannot show any weakness.
Men are oppressed by masculinity. Feminism does not ask men to change their inherent traits. It recognizes that not all men have the same traits, and says that’s OK.
Gender traditionalists are the ones who argue that all men are a certain way and all women are a different way, using a definition of biology that has more to do with Natural Law Theory and all its attendant fallacies than any real understanding of science. Feminism acknowledges individuality; gender traditionalists demand conformity.
“Radicals and gays came to town and pushed and pushed. It wasn’t enough that we were accepting and tolerant of their different choices. THEY now seek to destroy fundamental definitions and meanings and to fundamentally transform future generations to their notions of “normal” and “acceptable”…conform or be marginalized, shunned, and destroyed.”
You act as if gays and feminists just woke up one day and decided to make life hard for white males for no reason! These people “pushed” all right. They pushed for basic rights. They pushed for equality. They pushed for tolerance and acceptance, which they obviously have not yet achieved, despite your pretend fantasy that everyone’s cool with them as long as they keep to themselves. One of your party’s presidential candidates was all for states passing laws criminalizing gay sex as recently as two years ago, and Texas Republicans still refuse to take sodomy laws off the books; when in the hell did this magical period of tolerance and live-and-let-live begin and end in your mind?
“Sounds like aggressive, power hungry, dominating behavior to me…they might even induce violence before they’re through.”
Gays are much more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. You know this. You are an awful person.
“Anyone who suggests the total destruction or elimination (death) of traits of traditional men is not benign.”
He did not suggest the total destruction of TRAITS, you illiterate twit. He suggested the total destruction of judging individuals based on whether they conform to those traits. If you were half the rugged individualist you pretend to be, you’d support that. But despite your affectations, you are an authoritarian and a collectivist at heart, which is why you insist that the human race can easily be divided into two complementary halves, and anyone who doesn’t meet the expectations of their respective half is failing at their gender.
“Please show me evidence of groups of traditional values people organizing a movement and becoming constant activists whose goal has been to marginalize, harm, discredit and shun gays and feminists and reeducate children.”
I just showed you this. The Texas Republican party is doing that right now. And they’re not the only ones. There are actually camps that parents can send their children to that seek to “reeducate” them out of homosexuality. I’ve shown you examples of hate groups like the Family Research Council and American Family Association attempting to “harm, marginalize, discredit and shun gays” by linking them with bestiality, child molestation, Nazism, the fall of the Roman Empire, and virtually every other bad thing you can think of.
Not only have you defended all of this, you’ve taken issue with those who have called them out, accusing the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as myself of being “bigoted” and “intolerant” for…not tolerating bigotry?
And you wonder why I asked you earlier if you would consider kids standing up to anti-gay bullies to be the real bullies? If you applied the same standard to them as you do to adults, of course you would. You always defend bullies who attack minorities and then accuse those who fight back of being the attackers. Some example for the children you set!
“There are none. Traditional values people live and let live.”
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Prop 8. “Pray Away the Gay” camps. Amendments to state constitutions banning not only same-sex marriage, but domestic partnerships. Reparative therapy. You can pretend these things don’t exist, but that won’t change reality.
When the idea of annulling your marriage is put on the ballot, then you can talk about how mean and controlling feminists and gays are.
When you face the threat of arrest for having consensual sex with someone of the opposite gender, then you can complain.
When terms like “breeder” contain the same sting as “faggot,” “dyke,” “queer” or “homo,” then you can play the victim.
When states pass laws forbidding schools from even mentioning the existence of opposite-sex couples, then you can draw an equivalence between the treatment of traditionalists and the treatment you wish on others.
When organizations devoted to smearing heterosexuals, accusing them of being a danger to children, barring them from military service and private clubs, and blaming them for the destruction of civil society are given a platform in the Democratic Party, then I’ll be open to hearing about how gays are the real bigots.
Until any of these things happen, you have no reason to pretend that gays are somehow the bullies and traditionalists are the victims. Any suggestions that this is so in the meantime are nothing but privileged, persecution-complex whining.
Libby, I don’t think it is helpful to condemn soldiers like this. Yes, some join to find an outlet for violence. Many others join just because they’re not sure what they want to do with their lives. But many join for the most noble possible reasons.
Aggression is a human trait and it can never be weeded out of the population, but that’s not what De Boer or most feminists are suggesting. They suggest only that all individuals should be respected as individuals, and not be pressured to “perform” the traits of their assigned gender roles in order to be considered normal.
Interestingly the same people who praise our soldiers for their nobility also want to keep certain types of people OUT of the armed forces. Their logic for doing so is the same tired gender absolutist BS that’s been thrown around here all thread. They long for the days when men were men, women were women, and gays were not mentioned in polite company. The idea that women and gay men might have some of the same traits as “real” men are beyond them, because despite constantly saying they “see people as individuals,” the idea of not defining someone by their gender or sexual orientation is really hard for them to wrap their brains around.
Wow, there is a lot of lengthy noise on this (non) issue. Well, at least for me.
Frankly I have never seen women as being less or more superior to men in the areas of “aggression, dominance and power”. Perhaps only different in expression and guile. In combat there is a real physical strength and endurance factor, but I know of no woman who could not, with the strength of will and desire, was no equal to a man combat or politics.
That some Texas Republicans sold space to a fringe group does not mean Republicans own it, as much as the left desires to make it so.
Contrast that to “Occupy.” Democrats and the left own that.
Re #11 Tina :
Tina nails it. But I could not care less that Chris is a girly-man trying to boost his sense of self worth by trying to define himself and boast his silly Feminazi politics.
Re #11 Tina:
There are plenty of “traditional” values from the Democrat controlled south I could have done without —
Slavery, peonage, and the burning executions of people that Chris subscribes to.
Missed this one Chris: “Are you seriously arguing that effeminate men or masculine women were traditionally accepted”
In my classes they were, yes. I had several friends, several boys and three or four girls in seventh grade who were.
All kids experienced teasing and name calling for one reason or another…kids do that with each other. It was not unusual for boys to have a fight and then become the best of friends. Some kids handled this stuff better than others. Teachers and principles didn’t put up with what we called “bad behavior” or “bad manners”…and for the most part kids complied because they knew it was wrong and they would be held accountable.
I can’t believe what’s going on today. Teachers using the F word in class and teachers and coaches acting no better than the kids. That “health” film…should be called a “filth” film” was totally inappropriate. No wonder kids are out of control there are so few role models. I feel for them (you) because socially our nation is lost…teachers have a tough job.
“It is simply a fact that aggression, dominance and power are traits most commonly associated with masculinity. It is ABSURD to argue against that fact.”
It isn’t absurd to argue against an assertion that the traits have to die! Men and women need those traits. You cannot alter basic human nature. You can develop social and civic values and standards. People will fail to meet the mark at times but that is better than eliminating standards, the progressive response, and then attempting to control and manipulate people and traits. We are witnessing the chaos that ensues when standards are dropped and anything goes becomes the context.
There was a time when even if a person didn’t agree with every tradition he could at least appreciate the civility that comes with the standards. I find it absurd that everyone, including people on the right, have come to associate masculinity with criminal behavior and these basic traits. Its absurd. The remedy these people have come up with is making the traits wrong while teaching that whatever we feel is acceptable…gang members aren’t wrong just misunderstood. Same with criminals. And because law abiding, nonviolent men enjoy owning guns and appreciate their self-defense value, guns are given human quality…they kill..and men who like them have to be reeducated because they must have those traditional masculine traits.
“asking for an end to masculinity being defined by aggression, dominance and power…”
He wasn’t asking…he was a demanding, one might even say he was aggressively commanding (power): “traditional masculinity has to die. The association of male value with aggression, dominance, and power is one of the most destructive forces in the world, and so it has to be destroyed
I don’t care how you slice it that is not a request!
“You voted in 2008 to forcibly annul the legal marriages of complete strangers.”
I joined the majority of Californians at the time in voting to keep the definition of marriage as it has been for thousands of years as between a man and a woman. I don’t recognize marriage as a right. Marriage is a contract and a responsibility. As a citizen I have the right to express my opinion through a vote just the same as anyone else. That’s how its supposed to be done in America. You might have a case against me if I had organized to, say, overturn the will of the people through activist courts.
” If you can’t own up to the fact that this was an attempt to dictate how people live”
I didn’t say I don’t stand up for the meaning of words, how children come into the world, or what defines husband and wife or mother and father. I also didn’t say that I would try to end alternative lifestyles, alter the traits of those who engage in alternative lifestyles, or disrespect those who choose something different…and I resent the implication that I do. So no, my position on marriage, children and lifestyles is not controlling, as you suggest, or even mean spirited.
And frankly, the subject of this post is whether it’s acceptable for men to possess traits like aggression, dominance and power or if we should attempt to wipe them out. Gay rights is not the issue and from my perspective has nothing to do with it.
” are aggression, dominance and power “traditional male traits and values,” or aren’t they?
They are traits that humans have. They are not the “most destructive forces in the world”
Traits cannot by themselves be a force for destruction. That is stinkin’ thinkin’. There is no personal responsibility in that statement. Men are, he imagines, automatically at the effect of these traits…slaves to them.
If we refuse to hold individuals responsible we can’t expect civility.
“Yes, sorry, but they do. This is a historical fact. You are making yourself look very stupid by pretending otherwise.”
Are we talking standards or behaviors. I say the tradition, the standard in Western culture has been to high morality. The code in our military, the rule of law, courtroom decorum, our religions all have a high moral standards for men. To the degree that we hold to those standards our society was for the most part civil…at least compared to today when anything goes but special groups have special rights and men should be turned into softies.
“Criticism of a position is not dehumanization or marginalization.”
So it was okay for me to vote as I did on prop 8, right?
“You have engaged in those very things in this article, by drawing a line between “real men” and “girly men,” as if men who do not conform to your vision of masculinity are less than.”
I used girlyman because Arnold used it and people understand it. I have no ideas for conformity. People should be themselves. As a society we should have standards that men (everyone) try to live up to. But it’s absurd to say that traits like aggression define traditional maleness or that these traits are destructive forces in the world.
“You’ve defended real dehumanization of gays–accusations that they are a danger to children, comparing them to people who have sex with animals, and blaming them for the Holocaust–more times than I can remember.
That’s a damn lie.
And because you are willing to say such a thing I’m done.
RE #19 Pie, I couldn’t agree more!
But then those men were not behaving or living by the traditional standards that the men I appreciate at least try to live by. These include service, respect, leadership, honesty…in fact, from the site Air University Ghandi describes what should be avoided as means of teaching:
And from Foundations Magazine, “George Washington’s Rules of Civility and Decent behavior”:
The caricature, that dominance, aggression, and power (lust for power? power over) are main the traits by which we define traditional men is ridiculous. t isn’t that we haven’t admired those traits; it is that we have admired them when used to liberate, to defeat evil, to protect and defend those who are defenseless or innocent.
I love traditional men and resent the caricature substitute lefties try to pin on them.
Re #21 Tina : “The caricature, that dominance, aggression, and power (lust for power? power over) are main the traits by which we define traditional men is ridiculous.”
I could not agree more, The device of the left is to try and portray it so. Just more left wing bull defecation. Women’s suffrage was a true and rightly cause, but the left does not own it, they only claim too.
What truly is absurd is that women were once treated as chattel in European traditions. No longer in the west, certainly not in the US except by criminals, but also certainly still a core principle in Islam that leftists, like Chris, for some bizarre reason, continue to defend. In the name of “tolerance.”
By the way Tina, I long ago stopped giving notice to the caricatures that the extreme left tries to hang on men. A few months of doing volunteer work at Pacifica’s anchor station, KPFA, back in the 70’s cured me of that insanity. Three competing lesbian/feminist groups who would not even talk to each other.
I have been following KPFA’s latest war between themselves. No, I am not going to bother with any links. Figure it out for yourselves if you are so inclined.
KZFR, here in Chico, is a Pacifica entity. They have some outstanding music programmers, but the politics is the same old extreme left wing bullshit.
Tina: “It isn’t absurd to argue against an assertion that the traits have to die!”
Again, he did not say that any traits have to die. He said the association between certain traits and male value has to die. I don’t know why I need to keep explaining this; do you need me to diagram that sentence for you?
“Men and women need those traits.”
Yes, men AND women.
“You cannot alter basic human nature.”
No one has suggested we should. De Boer was talking about altering culture.
Your dismissal of gender policing as just mild teasing shows that you are oblivious to this issue, as does your assertion that your more effeminate male friends never suffered any bigotry from their peers. Just because you are blind to the suffering of others doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
You have an embarrassingly nostalgic and dewey-eyed view of the past, which is why you believe you come from a magical era of tolerance and respect, when in fact minorities and people who did not conform were treated as social pariahs.
“I joined the majority of Californians at the time in voting to keep the definition of marriage as it has been for thousands of years as between a man and a woman.”
The definition of marriage has not been between a man and a woman for thousands of years. For much of that time period, polygamy was included in that definition of marriage. So this is disingenuous.
But note that in your response, you are framing the debate as a matter of definitions of words. My comment framed it in terms of people–real human beings. I am not sure why you think it’s OK to prioritize definitions of institutions over individuals. You claim to be an individualist. Yet you are so willing to erase the lives of real people who suffered as a result of your vote to justify your defense of an institution. That is not individualism, Tina. You are saying it is more important to ensure that people conform to YOUR definition of marriage–one that is not nearly as old or as timeless as you claim–then it is to allow people to practice marriage in the way they see fit. And you claim that your position is “live and let live?” That is absurd.
The moderate, civil position is to allow both same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. You get to define marriage for yourself and your partner, and so do opposite-sex couples. No one is trying to take that right away from you; you are trying to take that right away from others. And you call the other side controlling and tyrannical while you’re doing it.
“I don’t recognize marriage as a right.”
As I’ve explained before, it doesn’t matter whether you recognize this or not. Legal precedent, set by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, says that marriage is a civil right. That makes Prop 8 an illegal vote. It never should have been on the ballot. The will of the majority cannot override the rights of a minority; that is unconstitutional. So is arbitrary gender discrimination, and not recognizing same-sex marriage certainly fits that bill.
“Marriage is a contract and a responsibility.”
And one that same-sex couples can enter into and uphold just as well as opposite-sex couples. There is no coherent justification for limiting marriage to only an opposite-sex couple. The procreation argument has been tried and it has failed.
“You might have a case against me if I had organized to, say, overturn the will of the people through activist courts.”
Oh please. Take that up with Mildred and Richard Loving. Take it up with half the civil rights movement. The courts have played an instrumental role in our country in overturning unjust, unconstitutional laws. That is their job as set in the Constitution. You don’t like it, take it up with the founders themselves!
But it’s interesting that you’re arguing the will of the people should decide everything. Isn’t that *gasp* democracy? Isn’t that “mob rule,” according to what you said yesterday?
Thanks for proving once again that you have no consistent standards, you just say whatever you think will help you win an argument at any given moment, even if it directly contradicts an argument you made the day before.
“And frankly, the subject of this post is whether it’s acceptable for men to possess traits like aggression, dominance and power or if we should attempt to wipe them out.”
No, that’s not the subject of this post, because that has nothing to do with what De Boer said. The argument is not whether it’s “acceptable” for men to have those traits. The argument is over whether they should be defined by those traits.
“Gay rights is not the issue and from my perspective has nothing to do with it.”
You are the one who made the absurd claim that traditionalists have always been tolerant of all other lifestyles. If you didn’t want anti-gay discrimination brought into it, you shouldn’t have said such a stupid thing.
“Men are, he imagines, automatically at the effect of these traits…slaves to them.”
No. He never said anything remotely like that. You are simply inventing things he never said or implied.
“So it was okay for me to vote as I did on prop 8, right?”
As long as you think it’s OK for people to put your marriage on the ballot, then sure.
“I used girlyman because Arnold used it and people understand it.”
…OK? And? It’s still a sexist, bigoted term.
“I have no ideas for conformity. People should be themselves.”
The term “girly man” is used as a verbal weapon to get men to conform to a standard of masculinity. If you don’t get that, you never will.
“As a society we should have standards that men (everyone) try to live up to.”
MORAL standards, sure. But gender roles aren’t typically about moral standards. There is no moral distinction between a man who is athletic and traditionally manly, and a man who gets manicures every other weekend. There is a societal standard there, but it’s not a moral one.
Me: “You’ve defended real dehumanization of gays–accusations that they are a danger to children, comparing them to people who have sex with animals, and blaming them for the Holocaust–more times than I can remember.”
Tina: “That’s a damn lie.
And because you are willing to say such a thing I’m done.”
You’re done because you know it’s true. The FRC and AFA have done all these things. I’ve shown you their direct quotes. You’ve still continued to defend them from accusations of bigotry and hatred from organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, and you’ve even tried to turn those accusations back on the SPLC in a very “I’m rubber, you’re glue” fashion. I can show you proof that you’ve done this. You are the one lying here.
Pie,
Please show me an example of where I have defended the abuse or lesser status of women under Islam. I have been very clear in my support of reforms within the Islamic religion, and I have never once supported unequal treatment of men and women in any religious tradition.
More dehumanizing Nazi comparisons from the “traditionalist” Family Research Council:
http://equalitymatters.org/emtv/201404090001
The Anti-Defamation League, which is made up of people who know a little something about the Holocaust, was not pleased:
“Tony Perkins’ invocation of the Holocaust in his statement referring to a judge’s finding that a baker unlawfully discriminated against gay customers is offensive and inappropriate.
There is no comparison between contemporary American political issues and the actions of Hitler’s regime during the Holocaust. Such inappropriate analogies only serve to trivialize the Holocaust and are deeply offensive to Jews and other survivors, as well as those Americans who fought valiantly against the Nazis in World War II.
We urge Perkins to apologize and to refrain from using Holocaust imagery to make his point.”
http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/holocaust-nazis/adl-denounces-offensive-holocaust-comparison-tony-perkins.html
Boer wrote “traditional masculinity has to die”…”The association of male value with aggression, dominance, and power is one of the most destructive forces in the world”…Traditional masculinity has to die”
A. Those statements indicate Boer views “traditional masculinity” dominantly as an aggressive, dominating and destructive force. (The John Wayne, Harry Callahan model has to die)
B. This narrow view ignores and dismisses the actual traditional males who honorable used those traits to defend against murderous hordes, terrorists, tyrants and criminals.
C. The notion that we can put these traits to death, or that we should, rather than making them valuable support structures to defeat evil forces is absurd. Boer suggests social engineering, socially and training boys into a submissive, weak, blunted and managed men rather than grounded, moral, self-aware, responsible adult human beings.
D. Agreement with a single statement made by radical does not signal support for the radicals motives and goals. I don’t agree with most of what Louis Farrakhan has to say but I do agree with a few things he has said.
E. The belief that holding or agreeing with an opposing position equals “hate and bigotry” is game playing and, I might add, an example of trying to use aggression, power, and domination as a means of winning an argument. Assertions that your opinion about my comments is “proof” is arrogant and rude.
That is my take. I prefer that men be allowed to be themselves and that parents teach and train boys to use the traits in question for good purpose and against what Boer should focus on as needing to “die”…the anything goes mentality that has failed to give children the support they need to become healthy, productive, honorable citizens and has destroyed civility in our nation.
“Gun” violence, gangs, high abortion and divorce rates, prisons filled to the brim, cities like Chicago looking like war zones, and yes bullying, flash mobs, and the knock out game are all symptoms of a nation that has lost its moral underpinnings. Contentious activism for special rights fits in here too. The radical lefts war on traditional values is responsible for all of this dysfunction and I will call it out every time the opportunity arises.
I am not lying. I will not call you a liar, Chris, I will only assert that you are a victim of a radical dominating force bent on the destruction of America and the American values that made this nation civil, honorable ans strong!
Pie at #22: ” Women’s suffrage was a true and rightly cause, but the left does not own it, they only claim too.”
Agree. I also think the women’s movement of the sixties perverted the good intentions of women’s suffrage, amazingly, by abandoning traditional morality and grounding and turning to aggression and dominance as a force to demean and supplant men for power.
At #24…interesting!
This radical force is such a low percentage of our citizenry. /they are dysfunctional and contentious and they hold sway politically and legislatively to an insane degree….and they believe they are the majority. I think that is a result of our tolerance, our desire to live and let live, and of course, ignorance of the goals and intentions of radical extremists behind these movements.
“A. Those statements indicate Boer views “traditional masculinity” dominantly as an aggressive, dominating and destructive force.”
Yes.
“B. This narrow view ignores and dismisses the actual traditional males who honorable used those traits to defend against murderous hordes, terrorists, tyrants and criminals.”
I disagree. Such men are represented very well in our society. For the most part, soldiers are admired and verbally praised by both parties. Action movies featuring tough male protagonists still make the top of the box office. I don’t believe the writer is dismissing any males who fit the masculine paradigm. He is arguing that men should not be PRESSURED to fit that paradigm.
“C. The notion that we can put these traits to death, or that we should, rather than making them valuable support structures to defeat evil forces is absurd.”
Again, he never said we should put any TRAITS to death. He argued that we should put the ASSOCIATION of those traits with male value to death.
”The association of male value with aggression, dominance, and power is one of the most destructive forces in the world”
In this sentence, the verb “is” clearly refers to the noun “association.”
“Boer suggests social engineering,”
Social engineering is what we have now, Tina. Boys are socially engineered to be macho and to prove their masculinity as if it is a performance. Advertising, the media, schoolyard taunts, expectations regarding athleticism…gender is monitored from all directions and conformity usually comes with certain social rewards. Some of this is natural–testosterone does prompt aggression–but a lot of it is an act, one that society asks we put on at all times.
De Boer is arguing that male value should NOT be based on whether any individual man has certain traits we associate with masculinity. He is arguing for less social engineering, not more. It just feels like he is to you because he is demanding a change from the social engineering you’ve grown up with your entire life, and never noticed. You’re the proverbial fish in the fishbowl.
“socially and training boys into a submissive, weak, blunted and managed men”
Excuse me? Where on EARTH did you get this from his article? Show me a direct quote. De Boer never says that boys should be trained to be submissive or weak. He is arguing that people should be allowed to be themselves without the gender police making judgments about them every five minutes. You are drawing a false dichotomy; not teaching boys that they MUST be strong at all times is not the same as teaching them that they MUST be weak.
“rather than grounded, moral, self-aware, responsible adult human beings.”
Who on earth is arguing that men should be less moral, less self-aware and less responsible? How could you possibly take that from what De Boer wrote?
“D. Agreement with a single statement made by radical does not signal support for the radicals motives and goals.”
I’m not sure where this is coming from, since I never said anything like this.
“E. The belief that holding or agreeing with an opposing position equals “hate and bigotry” is game playing and,”
This also has no connection to anything I’ve written. I have not accused anyone of hate and bigotry simply for having a different opinion. I’ve accused people of hate and bigotry for holding people to separate standards based on race, religion, or gender. If the shoe fits, where it.
“That is my take. I prefer that men be allowed to be themselves”
Well then you agree with De Boer, you just don’t know it. That’s exactly his argument–less social pressure to conform to an ideal of masculinity that not everyone can reach.
“I am not lying.”
Sorry, but you did lie when you claimed you have not defended people and organizations for making dehumanizing statements about gays such as accusing them of molesting children in higher numbers, comparing homosexuality with bestiality, and blaming them for the Holocaust. The FRC and AFA have done all of these things, but when I’ve pointed them out you have acted as if these comments are just expressions of traditional Christianity rather than bigotry. Is it your position that traditional Christianity requires such hateful expressions? Because I would certainly disagree with you there.
As a Christian, I agree with conservative Republican ideals.
The Democratic Party was the party of slavery. The abolitionist political party was the party of Lincoln — the Republican Party. History shows the Democratic Party could not have passed the Civil/Voting Rights Acts without the help and votes of the majority of the Republican minority party.
The Democrats supported welfare programs that increased single-parent households. In the African-American community, single-parent households are now 70 percent.
The majority of the money collected by government designated for welfare programs goes to administrative costs.
The reverse is true for most ministries.
Jesus was neither liberal or conservative.
You will find in Proverbs, spoken twice — “Do not be a surety for your neighbor.”
I do not want to support the lifestyles of individuals who continue in risky behavior. I also do not want to pay for the killing of unborn children, since they are made in the image of God. These actions are supported in the Affordable Care Act. Jesus forgave the prostitute, but said to not continue in risky behavior (sin) — and he certainly never condoned infanticide.
Conservatives do not like governmental waste — Jesus was definitely not wasteful. He even collected the scraps left behind by the multitude.
Jesus received financial benefit from the wives of the rich. Rich or poor, conservative or liberal; Jesus is the savior of whosoever accepts his sacrifice on the cross — and him into their hearts.
http://amarillo.com/opinion/letters-editor/2013-10-19/letter-jesus-was-not-liberal-or-conservative
Dexter thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and the letter from the Amarillo paper with us. We appreciate hearing from new friends who support conservative values. Have a great day and come on back.
Boer clearly and emphatically wrote that those traits had to “die”.
And Chris you make a lot of assumptions based on what you think I have said rather than what I have said. I could go on and on about you defending the biggest liar in the nation right now but as I have explained ad nauseum it is a total waste of time.
Never mind Tina. Look at the Pie comments!?! Pie is actually submitting actual comments … of substance … with no abuse in them. I’m floored.
Re #26 Chris : Find them for yourself. On how many occasions have you attempted to chastise or sneered at Post Scripts for their supposed “intolerance” of Islam because they have written about what Islam does and is?
As for Libby, if you are so impressed with the lack of “abuse” in some of my recent comments, you just might want to try that for yourself, you ridiculous hypocrite.
Sometimes one just has to laugh at the left and let it go.
Re #31 Dewey : “Hate has no place in America”
Then why has it a place for you, next to Chris and Libby, one of the most hate filled people on earth?
Ooops, that should have read *some* of the most hate filled people on earth?
Phew … that’s more like what we’re all used to.
Apparently Jack thought my comment was appropriate
I want my men to associate dominance, aggression and power with being a man when and where it’s necessary and appropriate.
In this thread there has been a great deal of semantic niggling over —
“And that’s why traditional masculinity has to die. The association of male value with aggression, dominance, and power is one of the most destructive forces in the world, and so it has to be destroyed. Traditional masculinity has to die in just the same way that sexism and racism and homophobia have to die.” – Fredrik De Boer
The message is pretty clear. It presumes one of the more pernicious darlings of left-think, that men are defined by aggression, dominance, and power, or by such “association.”
Yes, the left is trying to redefine humans beings to be shaped in their own image. Particularly male human beings.
Tina: “Boer clearly and emphatically wrote that those traits had to “die”.”
Nope. Sorry. Your reading comprehension sucks. I’ve shown you over and over exactly where you are making this comprehension error, and you refuse to acknowledge it, as usual, because you don’t want to.
As for the rest of your comment, are you denying that you have defended the FRC and AFA from the “hate group” label? You are being deliberately vague, perhaps because you know you have no substantive rebuttal to my arguments.
Dewey, I like many of the points you bring to the table here but I have to agree that taunting people for remaining anonymous on the Internet is pretty inappropriate (and the same goes for Pie, who has been doing the same lately). I am pretty open about myself here, but I don’t expect or require anyone else to be.
Here’s a link to my Facebook page if anyone wants to know more about me:
https://www.facebook.com/christopher.souza?fref=nf
Pie, thank you for admitting that you can find no examples of me defending sexism under Islam. I have defended Muslim people from bigotry, but I have not defended the sexist and dehumanizing customs that exist in many more traditional Islamic communities. If you can’t see the difference between those two positions, then you’re showing exactly why defense against anti-Muslim bigotry is so necessary.
I taught an entire unit this trimester on Malala Yousafzi, the young Muslim girl who almost died fighting the Taliban’s attempts to keep girls from going to school. The notion that I would defend unequal treatment of women under Islam simply because I have chastised other Post Scripts commenters for making generalizations about Muslims is so absurd as to be not worth responding to.
Gee whiz, I am accused making a “comprehension error” by the always condescending Chris. The language is pretty plain, although it attempts to be clever, perhaps in a weak attempt to be able to disavow the central message. It is a little more than another example of weasel wording from the left, at best.
I do not misunderstand it. Tina makes a valid point, you are compelled to attack her it because you are, at best, a some sort of weird demagogue.
I have not admitted to not being able to find any examples of you defending Islam, as much as you would like to make it so seem, I have only indicated I would not waste my time with it. Anyone who has ever bothered to read your writ on that score can make up their own minds. Do you really think that your cause has been to defend Islam from bigotry? Oh, puhleeese. Your cause has always been to attack Post Scripts based on your own bigotry.
Who is here is making generalizations about Islam? Please name them.
Regarding Islam, how many times have I cited that there are many Muslims, Americans, who came to this country to escape the barbaric, sexist totalitarian, rule of Islam? A dozen? Meanwhile Chris prances and dances trying to smear Post Scripts and others with “Islamophobia” and empty accusations of making “generalizations.” Oh brother. Just another tiresome tactic of the left.
OK, I’ll post this encouraging worthwhile link again …
http://aifdemocracy.org/about/
… and this …
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
… and this …
http://www.cspipublishing.com/
Regarding Islam, how many times have I cited that there are many Muslims, Americans, who came to this country to escape the barbaric, sexist totalitarian, rule of Islam? A dozen? Meanwhile Chris prances and dances trying to smear Post Scripts and others with “Islamophobia” and empty accusations of making “generalizations.” Oh brother. Just another tiresome tactic of the left.
OK, I’ll post this encouraging worthwhile link again …
http://aifdemocracy.org/about/
… and this …
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
… and this …
http://www.cspipublishing.com/
… and this …
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
Pie your comments to this thread are most appreciated.
Dr. Jasser is a wonderful man. We have posted his writings before on PS. His work is important and he is tireless in his commitment and efforts.
The drift I pick up on from left posters is that criticism of terrorists is not allowed; any breach of that rules labels one immediately as bigoted and racist…typical left lunacy.
Pie, you are moving the goalposts. First you claimed that I defended the treatment of women as “chattle” under Islam, but now you realize you have no evidence to back up this claim, so you’re changing it to the more general argument that I have “defended Islam.” You see the difference, don’t you?
I’ve defended Muslim people, but then so have you with your links to moderate/reformist Muslim websites. It seems we have the same goal of supporting reformers within Islam, so I’m not sure why you’re picking this fight.
As for your question, who here has been generalizing about Islam? Jack did that just last week by calling Bergdhal’s father a “Taliban wannabe” simply because the guy learned Pashto and praised Allah. This name-calling only makes sense if one equates all Pashto-speaking Muslims with the Taliban. I asked Jack for an explanation for this many times, and he ignored my request. And that’s not the first time Jack has done this.
Jack has also made the point that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it’s hard to take that as anything more than lip service when someone talks out of both sides of their mouth like this. If one is really against making generalizations about all Muslims, then they should avoid making generalizations about all Muslims.
Tina: “The drift I pick up on from left posters is that criticism of terrorists is not allowed;”
Then you can’t read.