Saturday, August 25, 2007
The Other Side
I’ve always wanted to try to write a post about Kim’s Pussification of the Western Male post, attempting to put it into a woman’s language or something not a rant. I’ve tried to do it a number of times, always putting it away for another day.
Warning: The post below the fold contains profanity and politically incorrect speech. If you are offended or bothered by that, do not read it.
When I’ve asked Kim if any of it has changed over the years, or if he’s thought of writing the rant-free version, he’s responded along the lines of, “Oh fuck ‘em if they can’t take a joke.” (I can’t help but laugh and agree when he says things like that.)
First a little background…
One of my jobs in the household is, “Tech Support.” I monitor and manage all our various websites and keep all the computers working. (I do not think this is something that goes on the list of housewife duties, by default, I just happen to be the geek in the family.) This requires that I do all sorts of mundane things when it comes to managing our sites. One of them is monitoring our referral logs. (Kim never looks at the referral logs.)
If you have never looked at a referral log (or don’t know what I’m talking about), basically it is a list of urls that point to another url. The from is the “referrer” and the to is a page on your domain.
There is an animal known as “referrer spam” which abuses referrer logs as a means to bump up someone’s Google rankings (which is why I pore over these logs, to blacklist offending URLs, so they can’t abuse it through my ignoring it).
I will follow links I don’t recognize to see if they are coming from a commercial site, and aren’t really referrals. I also check to see if folks are getting it, on Kim’s posts or mine. I don’t often comment when I find a discussion of something we wrote discussed on someone else’s site. If I comment about it at all (which is rare), I will comment on my site, not theirs. I generally assume that if they wanted to discuss it with one of us, they’d have commented on our sites, or sent an email. But I find it interesting to follow some of these links, to see how people interpret our meaning.
[As an aside, one of the things that astonishes me is when people will copy an entire post, instead of excerpting it. That is a huge no no (without express permission) since our sites contain copyrighted material.]
Kim’s Pussification post caused a bit of a buzz on the Internet, when he first posted it about five years ago. (It also brought our then host down.) The entry ID for the essay is “41.” I remember that number (it is an easy number to remember) because of the joke that among the White House crew that President Bush, president number 43, refers to his father as 41. That connection made it stick in my mind.
It is interesting where the 41 link shows up. It continues to show up and is the most linked post of all of Kim’s writings. I’ve glanced at hundreds and hundreds of comments about it, in the five years since it was first posted.
It shows up all over the place, in places where you would expect, but it also shows up in strange places where folks continue to critique it or attempt to Fisk it.
There are a few constants, people who TRY to argue against it, in the silliest of ways:
- Kim has a strong wife (me!) so that must mean he’s pussy whipped. (The reverse assumption is also made—that I must be a beaten and/or abused doormat. This comes, obviously, from people who don’t know me.)
- He has a girl’s first name so he must have male issues (it is a common girl’s first name in the U.S., but not commonly a girl’s name in other parts of the world, so it demonstrates their parochialism).
- His last name rhymes with a derogatory name for a female body part, if his name is mispronounced (more parochialism because they can’t pronounce the name).
- He’s originally from South Africa and he’s white, so that proves he’s a racist. (The irony of that one is just too funny for words.)
It is astonishing to me how often one of the above comes up as proof that the post is crap and Kim is not someone whose opinion should be given any merit. (For reasons other than that fact that they are simple playground insults, see “Appeal to Authority” and “Strawman” in any argument manual.) But even that is overreaching. It was just Kim ranting. He doesn’t hold public office. Nothing he says on his blog means anything, unless someone decides it does. Take it or leave it. Listen or keep walking.
There are a lot of examples of the above (in the hundreds and hundreds) that I’ve seen over the years, as I follow the bread crumbs to 41 in the referral logs.
There are people who bring it up as an example of something or other, for which it isn’t. They read what they want to read into it, and use it as back up to support their position.
Some people got it right away. Many of these folks, to be fair, had been friends on the Internet and knew Kim’s blustering style. They heard him speaking when they read the post, and laughed out loud (they reported to us). They understood and recognized his use of hyperbole and read through that to get his point.
Some folks took his point to be something other than it was. An example of that is that Kim wants the vote to be taken from women, because he listed suffrage as one of the underlying causes of the ever-increasing encroachment of the nanny state.
That is, in itself, one of the most troubling things about blogging. If you include in your evaluation of the source/cause of a problem or condition, people leap to a conclusion that you want to undo it, as if the mere articulation of a fact is proof that you want there to be “some law” to solve it. That’s nonsense.
The fact is, women did get the vote, and there is nothing weird or strange about looking at how that has affected our nation. For every action there is a reaction, and the size and power of the nanny state is in direct relationship to women voting. But women voting is the reality. We can’t undo that, nor would most of us want to. But it had consequences, good and bad. Denying that there are and were consequences is childish. Assuming or reading into an evaluation of it, an intent or desire to undo it, is ridiculous.
There is another sub group who seemed to read only the first half of the essay, the part that detailed the problem and examples. They seemed not to have gotten to the end, where Kim described what a real man is.
As a point of clarification, however, it is important that I immediately dismiss the fact that we’ve come to call this an “essay” over the years. It isn’t and certainly wasn’t when he wrote it. It was a spur of the moment outpouring of rage, after he’d read something that caused him to reach a boiling point. He typed the thing in a whirlwind of keystrokes. (We can always tell when the other is on a rant about something because there is the pounding of keystrokes. This was one of these occasions.)
After he’d finished, he read it to me, as is our common practice before we post anything on our sites.
When he got to the end of it was I enraged, fueled to anger, or ready to bite the head off a rattlesnake? No. My reaction couldn’t have been further from that. In fact, there were tears running down my cheeks. It wasn’t the tears of anything other than hearing something brutal and from the gut. It was an uncensored view into the heart and soul of a man… the heart and soul of a real man.
Women often complain that their husbands don’t talk to them—that they don’t share their thoughts and ideas. Often those complaints are valid.
Men don’t tend to analyze their feelings the way women do. Often, however, when men are speaking, women aren’t listening. Men do tell you their innermost thoughts. They express them all the time. If you criticize their thoughts or the way they are expressing them, however, they’ll stop talking. So I never do that (or try not to).
When Kim talks, either directly to me or through posts on his site, I do what any adult should do when someone is speaking, I listen. I don’t go into pseudo-therapist mode and starting questioning someone with Oprah Winfrey/chick analysis phrases, such as “Was there something in your childhood that made you feel that way?” or “Do you think you might be overreacting?” That is such bullshit. They’re expressing a thought. Period.
Sometimes, most times, there is nothing under the surface and no analysis is required, especially when real men are talking. They don’t use words as a way to manipulate others. There is no hidden agenda. They’re just telling you what they are thinking, right at that moment. It wasn’t because they had a run in with a coworker, or something you said three months ago, or they watched a Hallmark Movie of the Week that caused them to reflect on their lives and relationships.
[Gag]
They tell you what they like and dislike and what irks and irritates them, but you have to listen. You have to listen really hard. It isn’t spoken in the way that women speak of these things, prefaced with “I felt…” or “I get so upset when…”
Men curse. They rant. They are louder than women. When they’re on one of these tirades after seeing or hearing something that appalls them, often women shut off. They stop listening, when this is exactly when they should be listening (if they really do want to know what the men around them think and want to hear about their innermost thoughts). They’ll think he’s just angry (and in a sort of condescending way) will decide that she won’t worry her pretty little head about his pretty little tantrum. When a woman rolls her eyes at her husband I want to slap her!
Noooooooooooo!
That is when you have to listen the hardest.
Listen to this from the last of part of the Pussification post:
And women know it. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because powerful men still attract women. Women, even liberal women, swooned over George Bush in a naval aviator’s uniform. Donald Trump still gets access to some of the most beautiful pussy available, despite looking like a medieval gargoyle. Donald Rumsfeld, if he wanted to, could fuck 90% of all women over 50 if he wanted to, and a goodly portion of younger ones too.
And he won’t. Because Rummy’s been married to the same woman for fifty years, and he wouldn’t toss that away for a quickie. He’s a Real Man. No wonder the Euros hate and fear him.
We’d better get more like him, we’d better become more like him, because if we don’t, men will become a footnote to history.
Did you HEAR it? I don’t mean did you read the words. I mean did you HEAR it? Yes, it was infused with cursing and hyperbole, but there were also direct statements.
It was all the advice about what being a good husband is, right there in those three ranting paragraphs.
A real man, despite having access to all the women he might want, doesn’t do it. Because a real man wouldn’t toss away all that is important in the world for a quickie, in other words, for fast and temporary physical gratification. He has control of his emotions and most importantly, his physical reactions to his emotions.
Real men love and respect their wives. They don’t cheat on them. What they don’t want is for us to try to be their mothers or nannies. All they want is respect and love from us.
Listen again, please:
I want our literature to become more male, less female. Men shouldn’t buy “self-help” books unless the subject matter is car maintenance, golf swing improvement or how to disassemble a fucking Browning BAR. We don’t improve ourselves, we improve our stuff.
And finally, I want men everywhere to going back to being Real Men. To open doors for women, to drive fast cars, to smoke cigars after a meal, to get drunk occasionally and, in the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the last of the Real Men: “to ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.”
In every sense of the word. We know what the word “is” means.
Because that’s all that being a Real Man involves. You don’t have to become a fucking cartoon male, either: I’m not going back to stoning women for adultery like those Muslim assholes do, nor am I suggesting we support that perversion of being a Real Man, gangsta rap artists (those fucking pussies—they wouldn’t last thirty seconds against a couple of genuine tough guys that I know).
To open doors for women is right along side many of the tough guy things. That means you behave like a gentleman. When making a decision to do something risky, a real man accepts all the responsibility and consequences, and to be honest and straightforward about that and all things.
He said it all, but some didn’t (or refused to) hear it. Kim said something politically incorrect about gay people, so they had to act all offended about it. The people who laughed the most were our gay friends, especially gay men (because gay men are MEN, too, and many are equally appalled at the pussification of men).
Others heard something that made them think he was wanting some cave man stereotype, despite the fact that he said just the opposite of that, “no cartoons males,” no stereotypes of the real man. Genuine tough guys don’t have to act tough and wear their toughness on the outside in gangster attire, because toughness is inside, not an external manifestation of chest beating and leaf throwing.
Some folks took the part about men being slobs to mean that men were supposed to be slobs all the time. For folks that know Kim, and have seen him in his cravat with his perfectly coiffed goatee or knew him from his English-style boarding school days, this misunderstanding was all the funnier. If they’d ever seen him in a tuxedo, acting the perfect gentlemen (both a lady’s man and a man’s man), it was funnier still.
That’s the interesting dichotomy of most men, well, most real men that is, is that they can dress to the nines when the occasion calls for it (and certainly know how to do that, including knowing all the rules of manners/etiquette), but they can be just as comfortable in a pair of old jeans or a favorite old t-shirt, lounging around the house, or tinkering in the garage. The fact that a girlfriend/wife would not allow a man to have a little down time, insist that he never eat cereal from a box, goes beyond reasonable. What control freaks. Again, we’re not their mothers. If they want to do that, it is THEIR business.
I can’t imagine missing out on that… of not jumping under the covers with my husband on a Saturday morning, reading books, and spending the day (unshowered and lazy) sharing handfuls of cereal from the box, with a big glass of cold milk. Do other women not do this? Are they INSANE? There are few things more intimate than these types of days (and oh, so rare to have the time for a luxury like that). You go to the door at 4:00 pm and you’re still in your jammies or robe. Who cares if you’re not keeping up appearances? Real men don’t care about appearances! If people don’t want to see us at the door in our jammies and robes, then CALL first.
The point, I think, of pussification is when men become obsessed with how they look, to the point of insisting on wearing the latest fad from the cover of GQ or start using skin care products to keep that younger fresher look. In other words, grooming becomes something different from grooming (which demonstrates respect for others), and shifts to vanity/preening. Real men aren’t vain.
There is quietness, humility, and an extreme gentleness in a real man. He may have his moments of angst and frustration, but these are certainly never targeted at the women or children in their lives, or in situations that would be inappropriate. They’re mad at things, not people, or they’re angry at injustices.
That’s one of the reasons why men watch and play sports. They need a release for that. They release it, generally among other men, because men get that. They don’t talk out their frustrations in expressions of feelings. They bluster and rant at each other. They rib each other, infused with healthy doses of hyperbole and politically incorrect speech. If women think men behave the way they do in front of women, in the company of men, then they’re just stupid. I consider it a privilege to be allowed inside their secret club. All you have to do to become and remain a member is to not turn into their mothers!
They act out their frustrations in physical activities, such as sports. But the stereotypical screaming and shouting in front of Monday night football isn’t what a real man is either.
[Or the latest trend in pussification, the man cave where men have a little room in the house (generally the basement), all for themselves, where they hang out with their friends and play video games and watch big screen TV. Heaven forbid these child-men should be allowed in the civilized areas of the house where the adult-females rule. I’ve always wondered if they created secret passwords to be allowed into their basement tree-forts, or if they first have to ask their wives if they can go to their man caves and play. And these men wonder why their wives treat them like children?]
It is a quiet, often vicarious pleasure that men get in watching sporting activities or in participating in them. They aren’t afraid of a little pain in physical activities. That’s why they’ll come in from the garage or outside, dripping with blood, totally unaware they are bleeding until you mention it. Often their response when asked what happened will be, “Oh, I don’t know” and they’ll wipe it off on a towel or their work shirt, and go back to whatever they were doing. If they’ve dripped blood into the house, they’ll clean that up before they tend to their injury.
In every sense of the word. We know what the word “is” means.
There are no if’s, and’s, or but’s with real men. There is no small print in their handshakes. There is no concern for image, although their reputation is of critical importance. They know that there is nothing of greater value than their honor and their word.
There is no vacillation or days of pondering when confronted with a crisis. Real men know right from wrong and they act on it without engaging in any moral relativism and without regard to personal risk.
Kim has shared this on his blog, so I can share it here without fear of betraying a confidence…
Back when Kim lived in South Africa his sister was married to a man who beat her up. When Kim heard about it, he said nothing. He took the information his mother gave him and said nothing to her. He did what a real man does. He got into his car, drove the eight hours to where his sister was living, and knocked on the door of his sister’s house. When his sister’s husband opened the door, he punched him in the face. The wife beater fell to the ground, in a simpering, whimpering puddle of the coward that he was.
Kim said to him “Touch my sister again and I’ll kill you.”
Kim got back in his car and drove the eight hours home. He went to bed and got up the next day and went to work, just like any normal day. He boasted of this to no one. He didn’t, in the stereotypical fashion, go to a bar and brag about it to his buddies. He only told me (20+ years after the fact) because it came up in a conversation once about the abuse my sisters and I suffered at the hands of our boyfriends/husbands (and there are no secrets between us).
Kim’s response has always been the same when he hears of women being abused by their husbands or boyfriends. “Where are her brothers?” he will ask. “Is her father dead?” These are always genuine questions from Kim. He assumes the woman must not have brothers or her father must be dead, because no one would allow that type of abuse to continue otherwise.
It would be unconscionable to Kim that a brother or father would hear of their sister and daughter being beaten by her husband and to take no action.
Men police their own. Real men police their own. Cowards and the pussified man whine about the mistreatment women and children suffer. They show compassion and express feelings of angst and empathy as a woman friend details the abuses she has suffered, in a Clintonesque I feel your pain. Real men act. They don’t express their feelings about it. They take care of it.
Despite all the years of evolution and sophistication we think we’ve adorned ourselves with over the years, the primary function of a husband is to protect his family. They do so at great potential risk to themselves. They are always watchful, never letting their guard down for a moment. They are our permanent sentries. They patrol the property both literally and figuratively, always scanning the horizon for danger and keeping us away from it, or putting themselves between us and danger.
They also don’t make a big deal of it. For example, I notice a very subtle change in Kim’s demeanor when he has spotted a potential danger on the street. It might be something as simple as him making direct eye contact with someone who is posing a threat. It could be putting his hand in his pocket where he has a knife or a gun. It could be that his posture becomes more erect and straighter, like a hunting dog that has spotted prey. It is subtle and no one else would notice it. I think it even bothers him that I notice it, because I’ll turn to him and say, “What?” He’d much rather that I go through life in a blissful lalalala state under his nuclear umbrella.
They want no praise for this. In fact, mentioning it generally embarrasses them. “Of course. That’s what we do,” they’ll say.
They love us, despite all our nagging and prodding. They take absolute comfort and satisfaction in our opening our bodies to them. They are faithful to us in all things. And they are our constant guardians. They never raise their voices at us, although they certainly raise their voices at things and concepts they find abhorrent.
Out there, there is a huge number of men who are sick of it. We’re sick of being made figures of fun and ridicule; we’re sick of having girly-men like journalists, advertising agency execs and movie stars decide on “what is a man”; we’re sick of women treating us like children, and we’re really fucking sick of girly-men politicians who pander to women by passing an ever-increasing raft of Nanny laws and regulations (the legal equivalent of public-school Ritalin), which prevent us from hunting, racing our cars and motorcycles, smoking, flirting with women at the office, getting into fistfights over women, shooting criminals and doing all the fine things which being a man entails.
They are gentle and can cuddle and coo at a baby, a kitten, or a puppy and two seconds later wrestle a burglar to the ground, and there is no inconsistency or hypocrisy in that. They aren’t at all concerned that another man will think them weak for displaying their underbelly and being loving and gentle to wives and children. They do not expect to be told what they can or cannot do, because they’re fully aware that any injury or harm they cause to themselves will be borne by themselves.
Kim, for example, talks of taking care of his son when he was born—about the joy of tending to his daily care (bathing, feeding, diapering, etc.). Where people got the idea that real men can’t or won’t change a diaper is beyond me. Not caring for your own children, and not loving every minute of it, IS the cartoon male. That isn’t a real man. That is an irresponsible jerk.
I want our government to be more like Dad—kind, helpful, but not afraid to punish us when we fuck up, instead of helping us excuse our actions.
I can’t define a more perfect, ideal man than that. I know I’m married to one. I know plenty of other women who are also (happily) married to real men, too. I guess everyone has their own interpretation of “Dad.” If you think all fathers are bullies then I guess you’d read that sentence differently. If instead, you think of fathers as caregivers, lovers, protectors, and responsible family men who are honest and faithful, loving and kind, but responsible enough to apply the appropriate amount of discipline to their children when necessary, then your interpretation will be different.
Real men exist and real women love them to death. Real men and real women are a team, not one subordinate to the other… not one telling the other what they may or may not do. They speak in one voice although how they express their thoughts and ideas is going to be different. They also speak for and speak up for each other.
It has always seemed so blatantly obvious to me that all of that was in the Pussification post. I’ve never been able to figure out how someone can read it and come to a different conclusion, unless they are reading it with their own biases or putting words into it that are not there. To be perfectly honest, I’ve always felt sorry for them in a way. It indicates to me that they’ve never been around any real men, and I can’t imagine how horrible that would be. I can’t imagine thinking that men are such horrid creatures and that men should be ashamed of being men. I think that is what the attempts to pussify men has been about—to make them more like women, because some people believe that women are better than men, instead of different, but equal.
Different, but equal. That was the slogan of the feminism I signed on for and I’m just as committed to equality of the sexes as I ever was.
- Fates (10/11/2008)
- Not Smart People (10/02/2008)
- The Ick Factor (09/12/2008)
- When Did That Happen (09/12/2008)
- Fleeting (09/11/2008)
Posted 08/25/2007 1:28 PM CDT • Print Vers.
Comments
-
I’ve had occasion to re-read and re-think Kim’s essay from time to time over the past few years, and it’s usually motivated by issues of fatherhood. There have been many times in my life when I thought, “Ah, NOW I’m an adult,” and they all turned out to be untrue...until I became a father. There is something in Jewish tradition about not being considered a truly adult male until you have children, and it’s so true.
Raising boys (I have two--7 and 3) makes me think often of these “what is a real man” issues--especially when raising boys in a toxic and carnivorous culture. I think back to the fictional role models of male-ness and father-hood that I saw in movies and TV growing up, and compare them to what I see now, and it makes me cringe. And the real-life role models out there aren’t much better.
It’s hard work, raising your boys to be gentlemen, in all the senses of the word. There is virtually no aspect of gentlemanliness that isn’t mocked in popular culture. Which means that I’m raising my boys to be oddballs (as if they weren’t going to be anyway, just genetically). I could see it already when my older boy was only 3, and it only gets more pronounced as the years go on.
My wife and I joke that we’re raising our boys to fight against the Robot Fascist Armies of the Future. But unfortunately it’s an increasingly unfunny joke.
Andrew | 8/25/2007 02:40 PM CDT -
They will appreciate it when they get older.
A couple months back we were waiting in the parking lot to pick up one of the kids (at the mall) from work.
Son and Heir (Kim’s son) was in the car, next in line to be taken to work (or having just been picked up--can’t remember). He was in his work clothing (proper slacks, clean/tucked in shirt, matching belt/shoes). He has the ability to be active without his shirt coming untucked, or he immediately fixes if it does, because he can feel the difference (takes practice and experience and years of “tuck your shirt in/fix your shirt,” as you know).
I made some comment about how I hated to go to the mall. I often find it depressing to see so many young people out unsupervised or people (adults and children) behaving like such animals (dressed in sloppy/grungy clothing or young girls looking like hookers), shouting, being rude, etc.
S&H;commented, “I don’t mind it. It allows me to size up the competition.”
He has so little competition and, neither will your boys.
Mrs. du Toit | 8/25/2007 02:57 PM CDT -
It sucks the way men who beat the crap out of abusers are treated nowadays. A friend of mine saw what an abusive boyfriend did to his little sister and went go settle things with the asshole. The asshole did not tell anyone about the beating he received, but his sister did. She herself went to the cops to get a restraining order on her brother because she is now scared of him. Sad thing is, a few girls I know sided with the sister.
Bob Jones | 8/25/2007 04:53 PM CDT -
To be honest, I never quite understood the furor over that post. It was simple, straightforward, and very much reflective of a long-standing gripe that may man with more backbone than a worm has had for ages.
Mike of the Duelling Pistols | 8/25/2007 08:01 PM CDT -
Great, influential post. I know I’m in the midst of searching for my own Real Man, and sometimes it’s nice to get a well-versed, strong perspective from someone who gets it.
The Kate | 8/25/2007 09:05 PM CDT -
Loved the post Mrs.
I read Kims’ post today (gasp) after following a link from somewhere and then saw your post about it.
I have a 5 year old daughter (wanted a son, but love my little girl) and she is more manly than most of the guys I know, sad really.
Lord Nazh | 8/26/2007 08:10 AM CDT -
when i first read the original post, it became required reading for my teenage sons. i have two more boys, 10 and 5. they to will have your husband’s words as required reading.
The DAD | 8/26/2007 09:15 AM CDT -
Connie,
My wife and I have been in the childcare business (her for 12 years, me for 10) So I may seem like an oddity to most. The fact of the matter is, that this has enabled us to make a decent living, and build a home. More importantly it has allowed me to stay at home while our children were growing up. Our son was 5 and our daughter was 3 when we started. I get to do things that most dads never get to do because they are away from home for at least half of the day.
A few years ago we became licensed to do foster care. For whatever reason, the county almost exclusively sends us teen aged girls. We presently have two 16 year olds that we are not sure how long will be here.(Could be a couple more months, could be a couple years.) We will be taking in a 17 year old girl tomorrow that will be here through the end of this school year.
I finally realized a while ago that none of the girls we have had here have had a decent relationship with there father. I often hear about how the wish there dad’s were more like me. That still makes me a bit uncomfortable when I hear that. Proud? A little. Sad? that too. But mostly uncomfortable. Maybe that is the way we are all supposed to be I don’t know.
Mike | 8/26/2007 09:16 AM CDT -
I became a home-based consultant (when my kids were little) for similar reasons, Mike.
We decided that Kim was the better teacher at our homeschool. Heaven forbid our kids should learn grammar from me!
I was the better homeschool administrator. Don’t get me wrong, I was still actively involved, but it worked out better for us that Kim was the one here most of the time, and the kid’s primary contact.
I know exactly how those girls feel. I didn’t have a father growing up either. For years and years I did not think it made a difference in my life. “How could you miss what you never had?” I would tell people. I didn’t “miss” it, and being without my sire was better than having him around (abusive SOB), but having a GOOD father? ... I did not know what that meant or that there was such a thing… not until I met Kim.
It explained the abusive first marriage, feeling afraid all the time, suicide attempts as a teenager, treating my body like it was worth nothing, etc. etc.
I was the classic stereotype of a girl raised in a Single Mom household.
Mrs. du Toit | 8/26/2007 09:53 AM CDT -
Why, do you think, so many women become obsessive control freaks/psycho-bitches? Is it insecurity, no sense of shame for treating a loved one that way, or allowing the mothering/nagging “instinct” to go on steroids? I’m really interested to see what people think.
AnnaD | 8/26/2007 09:54 AM CDT -
They say, Anna, that we become our parents when we get married… and marriage is different from living together. People who live together just THINK they are the same as people who are married.
(That, by the way, was why Kim and I didn’t get married for so long… we worried it would ruin a perfectly good relationship!! Stupid us, I know.)
Women are replicating their mother’s behavior (or fixing their childhood issues as adults by repeating them, which you CANNOT do… therein lies unhappiness and insanity).
The second reason, which folks don’t like to hear, is that it is our basic nature to be control freaks (think pecking order of hens), or hamsters who are constantly cleaning and controlling the nest. We have to be TRAINED not to act on that basic nature, in the same way boys have to learn to have their aggression channeled into productive ways (lest they become bullies).
Raising girls requires that we teach them that they are not allowed to behave that way. Unfortunately, all this crap about “grrrl power” reinforces the worst aspect of women’s behavior.
Women manifest controlling in different ways, such as nagging, crying, yelling, withholding their affection, and other means of being manipulative (such as the ‘poor, poor me’ routine).
Men who were raised in a household with a dominant female will tend to replicate that in their marriages (becoming subservient to their wives, in the same way they did their mothers).
Which brings me to…
Third, and probably the most important, is that women become control freaks when they are married to weak (ie, pussified) men. It has been my experience that women who nag their husbands (or control him in some way) are doing so because they perceive him not to be the protector of the family. He is “absent” in some respect.
If women are trying to control a husband it is because something in their primordial brain says he is another woman in the house, and therefore, someone with whom to compete with in the pecking order. A real man sends no such signals and the woman feels no need to compete.
I’ve known women who were just awful to one husband and then marry a new one (who IS a real man), and they turn into contented, satisfied, happy women.
It takes two to Tango.
Mrs. du Toit | 8/26/2007 10:14 AM CDT -
That is, in itself, one of the most troubling things about blogging. If you include in your evaluation of the source/cause of a problem or condition, people leap to a conclusion that you want to undo it, as if the mere articulation of a fact is proof that you want there to be “some law” to solve it. That’s nonsense. The fact is, women did get the vote, and there is nothing weird or strange about looking at how that has affected our nation.
This is a common logical short-circuit among idealistic progressives with only an 8th grade understanding of their own causes and ideals (i.e, the ones who would list Rosa Parks if asked who they considered the three most important people of the Civil Rights movement).
There is an assumption that women’s suffrage was almost universally good for the nation, policy-wise. To suggest otherwise is barbaric.
The fact is, women didn’t get the right to vote because it would be good for the nation. There was no public outcry for women’s input in the decision-making process. In fact, women almost immediately proved themselves incompetent electors by pushing through Prohibition. Men were doing just fine for the previous century, and before them Landowning White Men weren’t doing so badly themselves.
Women got the vote because they were human beings and deserve the right to fucking vote, not because the nation needed it to become a better place. An important distinction, that, on several levels.
hitnrun | 8/26/2007 11:06 AM CDT -
Great re-explanation of Kim’s essay, Mrs’
I read it w a y back when Kim first posted it, and loved it, not only because it epitomized the way I strive to behave myself, but because it put into words exactly what I had been trying to explain to my wife for a few years.
What most women don’t realize is that a real man is the most gentle animal there is...that is until they are provoked and something threatens their territory. That is when a real man will do what is necessary to protect his own. Real women will recognize this for what it is and be content knowing they have someone there that will do what is necessary when needed.
I don’t know what it would be like to be one of “those” guys who is a subservient to their wives. What do those wives think about when it comes to dangers? Do they think about calling the cops first, or their husbands? I know the answer in my case
One thing that is not often mentioned is what happens to pussified marriages. The wimped out males in those unions are usually the ones that stray to another partner. You cannot, no matter how much it is brow beaten into you, stray from your instincts to be a real man. Sadly, this means those men that are married to absolute bitches will find a woman who appreciates what a real man is.
THen, those bitches turn into what we now call bull-dykes and code pinker’s. IE: NOTHING a man does is ever right, men should not have any parenting rights, ever...etc etc etc.
Navtechie | 8/26/2007 11:45 AM CDT -
You brought up one of my pet peeves, Hitnrun. Not directed at you, just the underlying meme.
The saying “repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it as truth” is the thing.
I go completely bat-shit nuts (spewing green, coughing up fur balls) when people repeat some of this nonsense, and have accepted it as truth because they have heard it repeated so many times, they ASSUME it is true. In fact, they don’t even know they are believing a lie because it has been parroted for so long.
WOMEN OWNED PROPERTY!
Martha Washington was the RICHEST woman in the Americas when George married her.
I have copies of land deeds, going back to the middle of the 19th century, showing that women in my family owned property.
People pick out isolated examples and extrapolate that to the whole--that there were examples of women being treated unfairly and having the control of their money stolen from them by their husbands.
But those are EXCEPTIONS!
What people fail to grasp is that property was COMMUNITY PROPERTY. Of COURSE when you get married the property becomes jointly owned, because that is what marriage does! Her property AND his property, become jointly owned. It makes no difference if the land deed has her name or his. They were married, so they BOTH owned it. It was cultural practice that men handled these things and made financial decisions for the household. What else were they going to do? They didn’t GO to work! HOME was their work.
Women also voted in LOCAL elections. It was only in National elections where the man voted, FOR THE HOUSEHOLD!
Here’s the point that folks seem to COMPLETELY dismiss: If women had no power and no influence on society, then how in the Hell did they manage to GET the vote?
That is no more and no less the power they had BEFORE they had the vote.
Mrs. du Toit | 8/26/2007 11:50 AM CDT -
Thank you for this essay. I’ll be saving it, and rereading it often, for I get more out of your writing each time I read it.
I am thankful every day for finding a real man who wanted to marry me. When he puts his hand into his pocket for a blade, though, I move e be on his right. He’s left-handed, see, and I’m right-handed. I fight with my right hand, he with his left. And while he’ll fight in front (he has ten years of training more than I), I’ll be prepared to fight with him.
And this is a man who with play tea party with his neice.
I tell people I married the first boyfriend I had who was strong enough and well trained enough to consistently beat me in a friendly sparring contest. I may be a black belt, but I didn’t want to be the defended in the relationship.
And I’m not. When I was assaulted far from home, and I was crying and dealing with the shock, I refused to tell him the name of the monster. I knew what my “real man” would do. And I refused to let him risk jail.
moth
bookmoth | 8/26/2007 12:40 PM CDT -
One of the other silly parlor tricks people try to play is to suggest that I can’t speak about an issue for or on behalf of Kim, lest that prove (again, another silly proof example) that he’s really hiding a weakness within or he wouldn’t write about such things, or allow me to speak for him. ALLOW me to speak!?
Of course we can speak on behalf of the other. Neither of us are threatened by that… real men are not men whose wives hide behind him, fearing to speak or act, or have been bullied into silence for fear that their husbands will appear weak. That’s another of those appearances examples. Real men don’t care about appearances!
On the contrary, real men and women are more powerful as a team--more courageous, not less. They are fearless--both of them are fearless. I don’t have to run home and get Kim when someone says something offensive about him (or me). I can speak to it, just as he can speak on my behalf.
What is wrong with people that they don’t get that? If someone says something untrue/insulting about my husband, you can be damn certain I’m going to speak up. And, as Baldilock’s said recently, “I Pity The Fool” who goes after a strong woman. Real men have ballsy wives because they can. Truly strong women aren’t interested in being with bullies OR being the bully in the relationship. A real man’s masculinity is not threatened by power in men or women, and they certainly aren’t intimidated by powerful women. In fact, they encourage the women in their lives to be powerful and capable. Show me a weak, doormat woman and I’ll show you the bully she is married to. Bullying a woman into silence or inaction is not what real men do.
I am perfectly willing and capable of defending myself, as is my husband, but that doesn’t mean either of us has to get permission from the other first. We trust and support each other, IN ALL THINGS. This is just so OBVIOUS!
One of the common jokes in our house is that if a Goblin should attempt to come through the door to harm anyone of us, what the Goblin would hear is is the whole family arguing about who gets to take him down, and the scuffle of racing each other to go after him…
Kid 1: “No, I want this one. Let me do it!!”
Kid 2: “No! I can do it. You can have the next one.”
Kid 3: “Oh, darn. He ran away.”Our kids are JUST as powerful as we are. Every person in our house is capable of acting and speaking FOR the family.
Mrs. du Toit | 8/26/2007 01:12 PM CDT -
After spending the day wearing chest waders slogging through bullshit zoned out surfing the web I come here and SHIT! Now I have to think. AND ITS GREAT! I really enjoy reading all the du Toits. Maybe you could get the kids blogging and I could spend my time surfing sans chest waders. Ken on Satori
Ken | 8/26/2007 09:20 PM CDT -
Yup, I re-read Kim’s rant every so oftem just to be sure I’m not slipping. I, too, grew up without a father so there was never anyone around to lay it all out so concisely. I still occassionally suffer the ill effects of growing up with a single mom (a saint and the greatest woman in the world) and have to check whether I’m on a legitimate rant or just being a whiny puss. Having a family of my own strengthens the imperative, by orders of magnitude.
There’s some kind of tragic irony in the fact that those who need it most are incapable of grasping it. I always understood it to mean what you’ve written here. Perhaps I’m fortunate to have had some innate sense and objectivity.
Dr. Feelgood | 8/27/2007 08:33 AM CDT -
Excellent!
Loved 41 and this piece as well.
Though I have to say, in the 4 years since I first read it, it seems more toned down since the first time. Very strange. It makes me wish I had a pipe to go smoke and think about it.
Mad William Flint | 8/27/2007 09:14 AM CDT -
God bless you both, Ma’am!
I remember reading Kim’s rant when it first came out and about stood up in the middle of the office and cheered (decorum constrained me to do otherwise). Yours is a fitting tribute and reaffirmation of the principles he espoused in that post, and I thank you for both the pleasure and honor of reading real gems of wisdom.
Would that more were as enlightened!
Semper Fi,
MattskiMattski | 8/27/2007 09:24 AM CDT -
As always, well said.
If character is how you act when nobody is watching, Manhood is defined by the actions of a man of character that nobody discovers.
I watched my father tune up a few people who were acting inappropriately. Those tuneups were NEVER discussed. In fact, I once got my ass handed to ME, for bringing one up. For years I wondered why I was allowed to witness them. Later, I understood.
og | 8/27/2007 09:36 AM CDT -
Though I have to say, in the 4 years since I first read it, it seems more toned down since the first time. Very strange. It makes me wish I had a pipe to go smoke and think about it.
Other folks have said similar things over the years. I think it was more “shocking” when it was first posted. It was a long time ago and a lot fewer rant-type blogs around back then. All the hoopla about it increased that sense of shock, I think.
It was never shocking to me. The reaction to it, THAT was shocking. We were gob-smacked when it created such a fuss.
Mrs. du Toit | 8/27/2007 09:47 AM CDT -
In defense of the “man cave”
There is a special dispensation for those us whose man cave is the focus of manly arts.
It’s not a metrosexualized boy’s clubhouse. Rather,it’s a space that smells of grease and Hoppes #9. A space that is full of tools used to keep the house and vehicles running, workbenches, weapons, and reloading equipment.
But of course, being a manly man, I don’t care if that makes it an approved man cave, because, I don’t need a Mommy to approve of, or define what is manly.
The manliest of man caves lacks the traditional Rigid or Snap-on girl calender. Manly men are not only true to their women but in deed but teach their sons to respect woman and treat them like they’d expect their sisters to be treated.
thanks for the most excellent post,
dwblackeagle603 | 8/27/2007 09:52 AM CDT -
For the record, that’s not a “man cave.” That’s the garage/workshop.
No, these man cave things are about building a separate room for entertainment (big screen TVs, video game systems, etc.).
Garages are different.
Kim has a spot in the garage where he cleans his guns, after he discovered that Hoppes#9 is THE BEST furniture stripper on the market.
But it isn’t like I can’t use the garage. I think that’s the difference. Having a place in the house for working on things, where you can make a mess and throw sawdust and paint all over the place, is different from the room that is supposed to be for “men only.”
I think I tinker in the garage more than anyone!
That drill press… that is so much fun to use.
Mrs. du Toit | 8/27/2007 09:59 AM CDT -
I’m familiar with the spaces and men you’re describing. I live in SoCal after all.
Even metrosexual man has the primal urge for an estrogen free zone. However, he has been pussified and lost touch with what a man cave should be. They still seek a male space, but, instead they turn to their mothers and wives for approval and designer/decorator input. The result is the modern suburban mancave you describe.For those who’ve lost touch with their maleness, the substitute is as you describe.
Even within the family/communal workshop there is often a space this is the man’s special space—designated “participation of children and estrogen by invitation only.” Sort of the private residence analog of the Men’s clubs that rile feminists so much.
This is the special space that has the special off limits toolboxes. It often has a TV, radio, and dartboard. This is the special space that Dad invites you into one day as a participant instead of a observer. Even when one day he grants you use of those special tools, you always remember that it is his special space and special tools. You came into it as a participant on his terms. It was a rite of passage.
Using that space and those tools are a stewardship and by invitation only. Of all of dad’s things that will be passed on to you at his passing, these are the ones you’ll hold in honor alongside his WWII trophies and his favorite firearms.
blackeagle603 | 8/27/2007 10:29 AM CDT -
Thanks for the reinterpretation of Kim’s essay. I have pointed a few folks to it in the past, and I know a few women who I will point to yours to help me articulate the points you both have made so well.
It is difficult being single here in Austin, it seems the majority of Real Women live elsewhere in Texas....
Combat Controller | 8/27/2007 11:27 AM CDT -
I think the best descriptor, even if very over-used, of a proper man is “Warrior Poet” (yes, it’s incredibly cheesy, but it does encapsulate the idea.) That, or Renaissance man. I’d say the skill that they lack the most, would be charm/social grace. Not the junk teenagers need to get laid, but the ability to make a business deal/work a room at a convention, etc.
Did you do a real woman post? I thought I remembered something along those lines, but I’m not sure.
Aglifter | 8/27/2007 12:23 PM CDT -
Did you do a real woman post? I thought I remembered something along those lines, but I’m not sure.
I dunno. I know this might sound weird, but I don’t always remember what I’ve written about. You see, I don’t read my blog. Sometimes I will remember writing about a particular subject, but I don’t remember the details.
Sometimes, when we’re out with folks in the real world, I’ll mention something and they’ll respond, “Yeah, I read that on your blog.” I blogged about that?
Freaks me out. Other people know more about me than I do!
Mrs. du Toit | 8/27/2007 12:47 PM CDT -
Did you do a real woman post? I thought I remembered something along those lines, but I’m not sure.
There’s the “Womanly Arts” pair which is excellent and “Power” which is my personal favorite. Not that I’ll ever understand how women think, but it’s still good to know there’s some method to the madness…
Dr. Feelgood | 8/27/2007 01:38 PM CDT -
Cover me when I run
Cover me through the fire
Something knocked me out’ the trees
Now I’m on my knees
Cover me, darling please
Monkey, monkey, monkey
Don’t you know you’re going to shock the monkeyFox the fox
Rat the rat
You can ape the ape
I know about that
There is one thing you must be sure of
I can’t take any more
Darling, don’t you monkey with the monkey
Monkey, monkey, monkey
Don’t you know you’re going to shock the monkeyWheels keep turning
Something’s burning
Don’t like it but I guess I’m learningShock! - watch the monkey get hurt, monkey
Cover me, when I sleep
Cover me, when I breathe
You throw your pearls before the swine
Make the monkey blind
Cover me, darling please
Monkey, monkey, monkey
Don’t you know you’re going to shock the monkeyToo much at stake
Ground beneath me shake
And the news is breakingShock! - watch the monkey get hurt, monkey
Shock the monkey
Shock the monkey
Shock the monkey to life- Peter Gabriel, Shock the Monkey
Anon | 8/27/2007 11:29 PM CDT -
I have to say, going back and reading it, it does seem less “shocking” than it did the first time I read it. I think the difference is partly me, finally throwing off the shackles of my stupid liberal arts education, and partly that I’m more used to Kim’s manner of expressing himself, now. I think if you aren’t used to him, you’re more likely to mistake the essay for a cartoonish sort of cave man speech, instead of what it actually is.
Also, I think I’m less offended when people put down women now, because I realize I tend to not like to hang out with most of them either. I assume that Kim isn’t referring to folks like Mrs. De Toit or me when they castigate the average woman.
(Nice CAPTCHA, by the way. I can actually read it!)
silvermine | 8/28/2007 02:52 PM CDT
