Showing posts with label current events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label current events. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

New Short Story Published!

Revised, expanded, updated, and more relevant than ever, my short story How to Fix a Broken World has been published by Liberty Island!



A blackly humorous tale of creeping insanity, of social media and obsession with current events, it's a short, punchy read.  And, best of all in these harsh economic times, it's absolutely free!  What are you waiting for?  Click over and get reading!

Monday, July 27, 2015

The New Masculinity

Much has been made of some recent stories regarding masculinity, so I will connect the dots to reveal the picture beneath.  It's not pretty.

This story about a man and his open marriage is very likely satire, but it's been treated seriously by most commentators, so I'll do the same.  The most important paragraph is this:

"She knew how deep our love was, and knew that her wanting a variety of sexual experiences as we traveled through life together would not diminish or disrupt that love. It took me about six months — many long, intense conversations, and an ocean of red wine — before I knew it, too."

This man isn't a capon because he's raising the children at home while his wife brings home the bacon; many households have embraced this traditional role-reversal.  He's a capon because he embraces his wife's serial infidelity, calls it feminism, and happily confesses this disgusting state of affairs in a public forum.  Note, however, that he knows on some level how wrong this arrangement is: the requirement of alcohol to accept it, the admission of resentment and insecurity, the rationalization that he loves himself so much that he can live with this.  Note also the boundary-pushing of his wife when she fell asleep at her lover-du-jour's residence after an assignation: she wants no part of her husband, and he refuses to accept it.  He is a man in biology only, and his wife keeps him around to watch the children.

Slate, not to be outdone, published a different piece from a different capon.  Money graf:

"I hate how much I love to grill. It’s not that I’m inclined to vegetarianism or that I otherwise object to the practice itself. But I’m uncomfortable with the pleasure I take in something so conventionally masculine. Looming over the coals, tongs in hand, I feel estranged from myself, recast in the role of suburban dad. At such moments, I get the sense that I’ve fallen into a societal trap, one that reaffirms gender roles I’ve spent years trying to undo."

Here is a person of the male gender uncomfortable with masculinity.  Guilty, even.  Simply because he cooks food outdoors.  Lewis's quote regarding "men without chests" applies here, in spades.  This is someone who spends his days in a self-conscious effort to eradicate masculinity, by his own admission (undoing gender roles).  Men like this don't storm the beaches at Normandy.  They don't pull children out of burning buildings.  And they won't help you fight a man with a knife.  Civilization is not defended by such people.

This final story's a bit more complex: a transgender reporter named Zoey Tur got angry at pundit Ben Shapiro during a news program, grabbed him by the neck, and threatened to put him in the hospital.  Later, Tur advised Shapiro that they would meet in the parking lot (presumably to fight), and subsequently suggested on social media that he would like to "curb stomp" Shapiro.

One of the traditional masculine virtues is having a comfort level with violence, a comfort level that women typically don't have.  Transsexual Tur obviously retains that comfort level, despite his transitioning therapy.  Shapiro isn't as comfortable with physical violence, as you can see in the video.  There are a few mitigating factors: the significant weight/size disparity between Tur and Shapiro, and Shapiro's reasonable concern over the legal consequences of producing violence.

Nevertheless, those of us who accept and embrace traditional masculine virtues, even those virtues society attempts to "undo," know what we would have done in Shapiro's situation: thrown Tur's arm off, possibly with a choice obscenity and warning, and made ready for fisticuffs should Tur's arm lift again.  Nobody has a right to put a hand on you.

Instead, Shapiro initiated legal proceedings, which is a perfectly acceptable way to handle such an assault.

What's fascinating is this piece that celebrates Tur's assault and, in an incredible feat of rhetorical gymnastics, calls Shapiro a bully for expressing a point of view that is shared by millions and millions of people.  To people like Robin Abcarian, Tur's a hero.  A bully-smasher.  This is the kind of man we should be celebrating: a transsexual who threatens physical violence and commits assault over a disagreement.  Masculine virtues are to be despised except when evidenced by someone attempting to eradicate his own masculinity.  Of special interest is Abcarian's ludicrous attempt to minimize Tur's assault by saying that Tur "gently put her hand on his shoulder".  That wasn't gentle, it wasn't a caress, and this deliberate mischaracterization of what actually happened tells us very clearly that Abcarian knows in the small, shriveled place in her heart that's still capable of honesty that Tur's actions were unacceptable.

You can't have it both ways.  Holding up capons like Cuckold Man and Ashamed to Grill as the new men in one hand and expressing admiration for transsexual Zoey Tur's assault in the other cancel each other out.  This ambivalence from our intellectual and moral betters in the news and entertainment media reflects the very real conflict of masculinity in today's culture: we want men to be this way and not that.  Except that if men are this way, then they're not men any longer.  If they're that way, they're bullies and, most importantly, not feminists.

And we can't have that.  Better to castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

Thought of the day for men: would you rather be admired as a feminist or shunned as a brute by the likes of Robin Abcarian?

Monday, November 17, 2014

Shirtgate: Four Things to Consider

Everybody knows the story by now: Matt Taylor, a British scientist, was part of the team who landed a probe on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.  In a recent interview, he wore a shirt that made some people very upset, subsequently apologized for it, and is now more famous for the shirt than the remarkable scientific achievement for which he is responsible.  Here are some takeaways from the story.  If they offend you, ask yourself why:

  • The shirt was designed by Elly PriZeMaN [sic] and it depicts women in skimpy outfits holding guns.  If you click the link, you'll see that Ms. PriZeMaN is a woman.  Also note that the shirt itself doesn't show violence against women; indeed, if holding a firearm is an implicitly violent act, then the women depicted are themselves engaging in violence.  The shirt is in poor taste.  But Dr. Taylor obviously wore it because he very much liked it and wanted to show off his female friend's work.
  • There's very little difference between radical feminists and small children. One thing you learn early on with small children is that you get the behavior you reward most frequently.  Small children act out.  They can't help it.  But you don't reward them for acting out: you use the appropriate tools available, including ignoring the bad behavior, removing the child from the situation if he or she becomes destructive, or distracting the child with something else.  To a radical feminist, the best thing that can happen is getting attention, even negative attention.
  • Dr.Taylor wasn't forced to apologize.  He didn't have to apologize for wearing a shirt that a tiny group of very loud people found offensive.  The only reason why this became such a big deal is because he apologized.  He rewarded bad behavior, and as a result, not only failed to mollify an extremely angry subgroup of individuals whose very existence is predicated on anger, but also brought scorn on himself from people who would otherwise have supported him.  Had he stood up for himself, or, better yet, ignored the screeching, he would have been known for his achievement, not his sartorial choices.
  • This story hits the bullseye on two important issues: a misplaced sense of proportion and political correctness.  If this guy's shirt elicited so much anger and tears, it's clear that radical feminism no longer has any major issues to address, and should be relegated to the dustbin of history the way John Birchers have.  Also, everybody hates political correctness, but nobody wants to take responsibility for it.  Apologizing to the eternally offended increases political correctness.  
Some questions remain.  I added the leavening adjective "radical" to feminist in this piece, but are the people so offended by this shirt actually radical feminists, or do they represent the mainstream of feminism?  If not, why not?  Will Dr. Taylor have a career after this?  Does an attention-seeking subgroup of a subgroup have a right to tear the spotlight away from people with actual accomplishment to further an agenda supported only by them?  How many times will this have to happen until someone gathers up the courage to fight back?