Trigger warning: I don’t think what I’m about to say will irritate or alienate any of my regular readers, but now that this Commentary is available on the Internet I never know who may be reading it. So herewith I offer a trigger warning to any feminists, liberals, and/or snowflakes who may be reading this. Your head may explode. You’ve been warned.
In the wake of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, when liberals all over the U.S. were desperately trying to find some way to make the tragedy relevant to their particular bias, a “Professor of Religion and African American Studies” (a rather strange combination of academic disciplines, IMO) at Princeton University (oh, okay, that explains it) said in an interview on MSNBC that mass shootings—all of them, not just Parkland—were caused by “toxic masculinity” driving America’s “gun culture.” He said toxic masculinity was rooted in the “myth” (that was his word) that Americans are “rugged individualists who have to protect ourselves because the government isn’t going to protect us.”
His context made it obvious, though, that he considered the word “toxic” to be a redundancy. The real cause for the shootings was simply “masculinity”—the psychological and/or emotional state of being a male. As proof, he offered these statistics. (I’m quoting from a transcript of the interview. I haven’t independently verified these numbers.)
- 93 percent of the inmates in federal prisons are men.
- 92 percent of murders are committed by men.
- Almost all rapists and child molesters are men.
- Three out of every four suicides are men.
His argument was that the state of masculinity is predisposed to violence, up to and including the taking of life.
(Parenthetical Note: these numbers, and his interpretation of them, are prima fascia evidence that the liberal claim that there’s no emotional or psychological difference between boys and girls is false. But I’m saving that discussion for later in this Commentary.)
It’s hard to argue with these numbers, but it’s easy to pinpoint a reason for them—a reason the good professor conveniently didn’t mention in his interview. Let me offer some statistics that I have verified.
- 62 percent of youth suicides (17 and younger) are from fatherless homes.
- 83 percent of young men (24 and younger) in prisons and juvenile detention facilities are from fatherless homes.
- 71 percent of high-school dropouts are from fatherless homes.
- 74 percent of young people (17 and younger) in drug-abuse treatment centers are from fatherless homes.
Yes, some of these numbers include both males and females. I couldn’t find any breakdowns that were gender-specific, but I did find several statements that “the vast majority” of these troubled youths were male.
- The Parkland shooter’s adoptive father died when he was four years old, so he spent his fifteen most formative years in a fatherless home.
Why is that important? Because despite liberal arguments to the contrary, boys and girls are different—and thank God they are. If they weren’t, the Earth might be populated by lions, tigers, and bears, but there wouldn’t be any humans. Our long-ago ancestors would never have survived long enough to get out of the caves.
Please—no evolution vs. intelligent design arguments. Let’s save those for another day.
Boys are risk takers. Adventurous. Even as small boys, their heroes are policemen, firemen, soldiers, fighter pilots, big game hunters, race car drivers. They’re constantly challenging each other to see who can climb highest in the tree, ride their bicycle the fastest, hit a baseball the farthest.
Boys need father figures to teach them how to channel all that energy and ambition into areas that will eventually see them take their places as productive members of society. Mothers can’t do it, because they’ve never traveled that path. Teachers can’t do it, partially because it’s not their job and partially because they have a whole group of kids, boys and girls, to shepherd.
Unfortunately, in our modern society the whole concept of masculinity is under attack. A consortium of liberals and feminists (I know…that’s redundant) has created a concept of a “real man” as a guy who hunts and fishes (i.e., enjoys killing small, defenseless creatures), drinks beer (often to excess), smokes cigars, tells dirty jokes, and openly shows contempt for women as anything other than sexual objects and servants.
Wait, it gets worse. The New Yorker Magazine recently ran an article in which they celebrated the growing number of “metrosexual” men—men who were sensitive and caring, and who cried at chick-flicks. Men who weren’t adverse to wearing makeup, and followed the latest in male fashion.
Can’t get any worse than that, you say? You’d be wrong. The University of Texas at Austin has declared the whole concept of masculinity to be a mental disorder, and has flooded the campus with posters that show feminine-looking males (I’m reluctant to call them “men”) wearing dresses, nail polish, and dangly earrings, with captions that say things like, “Masculinity isn’t something I chose. Nature just imposed it on me. But if I want to wear makeup and do my nails, that’s okay. If I want to wear a dress, that’s okay, too.”
Not possible, you say? See for yourself:
So if a “real man” doesn’t wear a dress, do his nails, drink beer, smoke cigars, or any of that other stuff, what does he do? What does the little boy need to learn about being a man from his father, or lacking a father, from a father-figure?
The answer begins about thirty thousand years ago, in the caves of pre-history. The men were the protectors of the tribe. They were the ones who stood guard at the mouth of the cave at night, protecting the weaker members of the tribe against the saber-toothed tigers and other predators that prowled the night.
They were the ones who fought the roving bands of bandits who wanted to steal the tribe’s food and capture its women and children.
They did what they did knowing that their lives were often at risk. They felt compelled to protect those who were weaker than themselves, even if it cost them their lives–and it sometimes did.
Here in the Twenty-first Century the task of the real man hasn’t changed. It’s described quite well in a book by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, U. S. Army (Ret.), called On Combat.
LTC Grossman says the population of the world can be divided into three groups. The vast majority of people are sheep. Let me hasten to say that there’s nothing wrong with being a sheep. Sheep are kind, gentle, and productive people who can only hurt others by accident. Most people will go thru the entirety of their lives without seriously injuring someone else, or being seriously injured by someone else.
A small number of people are wolves, the equivalent of the saber-toothed tigers that threatened our cave-dwelling ancestors. The wolves are evil people capable of evil deeds. They feed on the sheep without mercy.
Then there are the sheepdogs, the modern equivalent of the men who stood guard at the mouth of the cave and protected the weaker members of the tribe from danger.
The real Twenty-first Century man isn’t a guy who kills deer, smokes cigars, and slaps his wife or girlfriend around. He isn’t a guy who wears a dress and makeup and does his nails. He’s a sheepdog, a guy who stands ready to do violence to the wolves that threaten the flock. He has existed in every generation since those caves, thirty thousand years ago.
Some of our modern sheepdogs are easy to identify because they wear the uniforms of policemen and members of our military services. Many, though, are indistinguishable from the sheep until the wolves attack. They have always existed, and by the grace of God they will always exist, despite the efforts of liberals and feminists to eradicate them.