How bizarre is the idea that chivalry is the othering of women?  So bizarre that when metrofexual soccer players at Harvard start down the path to emulating the entitled gladiators of the SEC, the best Margaret "University Diaries" Soltan can do is toss off some puns and move on.  But there's substance among the puns.  "[T]he eyes of the nation must as one swivel to Cambridge, and everyone must feign astonishment that a country whose incoming president compulsively grabs pussy also contains high-SAT men who consider women animated vaggies."  Astonishment?  Not here.  Create a culture with no norms, don't be surprised when you get rating schemes, perhaps as a prelude to compulsive grabbing.

Friday afternoon, Rush Limbaugh devoted a segment to the Harvard "on a scale of one to ten" story.  His focus is on the more recent developments in education, wherein the "toxic masculinity" has to be cast out of the boys.  Thus in Mr Limbaugh's take, the lads' rating scheme is simply an upraised middle finger to the Powers that Be.
Boys have been raised to believe that in their natural state, they're unacceptable. They are predators; they are potential rapists; they are rough, insensitive, selfish, all of these things, as defined by women.  So the chickfication of the education system -- and there's no other word for it. All it means is that women now dominate positions of power in education, and they have done their best to redefine masculinity.
Those women, whether they hold such positions or not, are dealing with the consequences of an earlier effort to redefine masculinity.  Yeah, I'm still fighting the culture wars of the early 1970s, when bourgeois was a dirty word, but that, ultimately, is the ground to be taken.

National Review's David French gets it.
I’m one of those crazy, dangerous, religious nutjobs who believes that sexual activity should be reserved for a lifelong covenant marriage between husband and wife. Moreover, my clearly insane and oppressive beliefs are grounded within a cohesive worldview that asks its adherents to flee from temptation, treat each and every person as a child of God created in His image, and refrain from actions such as drunkenness that impair moral judgment.

Harvard and its morally bankrupt secular peers encourage the polar-opposite worldview. From the moment their young, hormonal students set foot on campus, they’re encouraged to obsess about sex. Free condoms are available by the armload. From Thursday to Sunday, thousands of students drink themselves into literal stupors. And all the while they seek hookups and one-night-stands by, yes, rating appearance on apps such as Tinder, Bumble, and Grindr. Students are encouraged to question and defy virtually every element of traditional, religious moral teaching. Indeed, they’re taught that such teachings are oppressive and malicious.

In other words, these colleges intentionally replace Judeo-Christian morality with a bizarre form of quasi-puritanical libertinism that defies everything we know about human nature. The libertinism is obvious. You see it all around you on campus. The puritanism comes later, dropping like a hammer on those people who transgress the shifting, arbitrary moral codes that purport to place boundaries around the bacchanal. These schools beg students to play with fire, then come flying in with fire extinguishers only after someone gets thoroughly burned.
Borrowing again from an old New York Times editorial, "We want and deserve trashy relationships in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."  Also at National Review, Mene Ukueberuwa concurs in part with Mr Limbaugh while suggesting that deconstructing chivalry is a bad idea.  Main message: "The problems emerging from today’s stripped-down sense of masculinity are grave."  The outlines of the old evolutionary stable strategy are still there.
An alternative approach to this one has managed to endure — at least through its continuing practice in millions of American households (if not in the words of gender-studies professors and magazine think pieces). In this approach, it is presumed that most attitudes that we associate with maleness emerge from the essence of the men who possess them, and as such, should be nurtured and trimmed to grow into habits that are deeply decent . . . and yet still distinctly male.
Dissident feminist Christina Hoff-Sommers extends.  Because it's a Vox interview, the presidency intrudes, but focus, dear reader, on the structure.
I don’t think he conforms to conventional masculinity. Trump is a reminder of what masculinity can be like outside of conventions. He exhibits what might be called amoral masculinity.

He lacks a moral compass. He ridicules, bullies, and threatens anyone who crosses him. He insults war heroes and disparages entire ethnic groups. He preys on women. All of this without any apparent remorse.

This is very different from the honorable style of manliness shown by say, Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, or Barack Obama. These were and are highly assertive men, and aggressive when circumstances warranted, but who were also decorous and honorable; in a word, gentlemen. History teaches us that masculinity constrained by morality is powerful and constructive, and that masculinity without ethics is dangerous.
Put another way, Messrs. Roosevelt, Reagan, and Obama understood what being a gentleman entailed.  It's precisely the absence of convention that lets the lechers redefine what a male leader looks like.

No comments: