I’ve raised six boys to manhood and I think I have a pretty solid handle on what would solve the anger of feminists at men. But they won’t like the answer. Really won’t like the answer.
This thinking is spinning off from the political hackery against Brett Kavanaugh that also exposed some really strong emotions from a subset of women against men. Kavanaugh personally may have been innocent of the evidence-less accusations, but he acted as a locum for the generic anger this group of women have for men — for myriad reasons.
For some, there is real cause to be angry at a man, or a few men, who have acted badly. For others, it is a sort of unhinged anger building up through the feeding of a narrative. The latter is mostly represented in an astonishing opinion piece that the Washington Post published from a retired female college professor.
The Post’s screed by a retired Grinnell College history professor who admitted to going off on her husband for a 30-minute screaming tirade after the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation that started with the headline, “Thanks for not raping us, all you ‘good men.’ But it’s not enough” and included gems such as “I hate all men and wish all men were dead.”
Remember, she said this To. Her. Husband.
Now this woman appears to be the typical college professor feminist, but not the typical American or American woman, as we noted last week in a study that identified seven categories of Americans by general worldview. The smallest identified in the study (and by far the loudest, magnified by the media and Hollywood) is the “progressive activist” contingent of 8 percent.
But she is emblematic of the radicalized thought that is the 8 percent tail wagging the Democratic Party dog, that could gain more adherents if such thinking is more mainstreamed on the left as it is on college campuses — from which she hails. So it is critical to push back with reason commentary based on all of history, logic and personal experience, and then get to the solutions that, based on her faulty thinking below, she probably does not want to hear.
We have to go through her tirade, because it embodies the thinking of the radicals driving Democrats and media coverage. She wrote:
“I yelled at my husband last night. Not pick-up-your-socks yell. Not how-could-you-ignore-that-red-light yell. This was real yelling. This was 30 minutes of from-the-gut yelling. Triggered by a small, thoughtless, dismissive, annoyed, patronizing comment. Really small. A micro-wave that triggered a hurricane. I blew. Hard and fast. And it terrified me. I’m still terrified by what I felt and what I said. I am almost 70 years old. I am a grandmother. Yet in that roiling moment, screaming at my husband as if he represented every clueless male on the planet (and I every angry woman of 2018), I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead.”
The hateful illness encompassed in those last words needs no further remarking. But the author, like so many radical feminists who have out-sized voices in the media and culture, really seems to believe that every human with two X chromosomes agree with her, because they all have the same genetic structure and therefore all think alike. This is the same leftist “thinking” that leads too many to call Kanye West a “token negro” and worse because he is breaking from the leftist form that all black people think alike because they are black. It’s a sick ideology.
“My husband of 50 years did not have to stifle a laugh. He took it dead seriously. He did not defend his remark, he did not defend men. He sat, hunched and hurt, and he listened. For a moment, it occurred to me to be grateful that I’m married to a man who will listen to a woman. The winds calmed ever so slightly in that moment. And then the storm surge welled up in me as I realized the pathetic impotence of nice men’s plan to rebuild the wreckage by listening to women.”
So while her cruel and hateful words spewed at her husband, leaving him “hunched and hurt,” she only became more angry and considered his niceness “pathetic impotence.” So is toxic masculinity the problem, or it’s opposite: pathetic impotence? There is simply no rational ideology or thinking process at work in this column the Post actually published.
“Don’t you dare sit there and sympathetically promise to change. Don’t say you will stop yourself before you blurt out some impatient, annoyed, controlling remark. [Note: Exactly what she is doing.] No, I said, you can’t change. You are unable to change. You don’t have the skills and you won’t do it. You, I said, are one of the good men. You respect women, you believe in women, you like women, you don’t hit women or rape women or in any way abuse women. You have applauded and funded feminism for a half-century. You are one of the good men. And you cannot change. You can listen all you want, but that will not create one iota of change.”
Again, to her husband of 50 years. I want to feel sorry for him, married to such a woman. I cannot imagine, because this surely is not the first time she has browbeat him. But perhaps he did deserve it, if he has been applauding and funding the kind of feminism that has led to this level of hate-fueled, vapid insipidness.
“And, for some reason, the most chilling memory of all, the one Christine Blasey Ford called up and that we all recognized: the laughter. The laughter of men who are bonding with each other by mocking us. When Ford testified under oath that the laughter is the sharpest memory of her high school assault, every woman within the sound of her voice could hear that laughter, had heard that laughter, somewhere, somehow.”
I won’t go into the obvious facts that most people see: There was zero corroboration or evidence to support Ford’s claim. None. But there were four witnesses to dispute it. That’s rational and fair-minded thinking. But for this author and those like her, an accusation alone is enough to prove veracity — no evidence required — if the accusation comes from a woman. The evidence here is that of this author living in a small information echo chamber of elite leftists. Just forehead smacking stuff from people who think so much of their own intelligence.
“The gender war that has broken out in this country is flooding all our houses.” No, it’s not. It’s really not. This is only in the fever swamps of feminists in the 8 percent. “It’s rising on the torrent of memories that every woman has.” No, they don’t.
However, there actually is a problem with men in our country, it’s just not the one the radical feminists are screaming about. The highest percentage of young men in our history are growing up without a father in the household, or any real male figure as this has become a generational problem. Ironically, it is feminists that has contributed mightily to this phenomenon in conjunction with the rise of the welfare state.
We have multiple generations of single-mother families, which has worked to impoverish a lot of women but also unleashed millions of young men into society that have no real concept of what it means to be a responsible adult man.
That’s where good fathers are essential. Of course, the most perfect, flawless men would still not placate the most hateful feminists, surely including the author in the Post, but in the end, that is on them and their choices.
I’ve taught my boys to honor, respect and protect women. They are to use their strength to protect women and the weak, never to prey on women or the weak. Never. Boys need to be reigned in from their natural, more base instincts — just as girls do but for different reasons with different results. Boys need to be given purpose that often involves physical labor when young, to channel their energy and strength into productivity, not into destruction.
But with six boys, the imperative to have a father who told them and modeled for them how to treat women is essential. And our boys were fortunate enough to have two sisters, and a mother and so they had plenty of practical opportunities.
Left to their own devices, boys will look for purpose in the pack, sometimes something beneficial such as sports, sometimes something destructive such as gangs. Or they will wander aimlessly and fall in with others operating on their base instincts. This is true in any area where single-parent homes dominate — and it holds true across race and ethnicity.
Conversely, in any area when boys have strong fathers who teach and model honoring attitudes towards women, the violence by young men is considerably less. Again, this is true regardless of race or ethnicity.
And here’s the full point: While I’ve used the first person “I” in this article, the reality is that this is all about the team my wife and I made in raising our children. We each brought our strengths that largely track with our gender. Whether you look at the biblical design for families, or just take history and research, the results are clear: two-parent families, male and female, are the best for raising children.
That is not the answer raging feminists want to hear. But it is the answer.
Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.