The Nazification Of The Western Male
Atrios points to this post on Lawyers, Guns and Money with the comment, Tiny Penis Syndrome…sadly, it does explain a lot. Yes, but not everything…
I just finished teaching an upper-division US history course in which my students read — and I swear I’m not making this up — Kim Du Toit’s repellant 2003 essay on "The Pussification of the Western Male". The class had just finished Gail Bederman’s Manliness and Civilization (1995), a marvelous examination of the cultural transformations of gender between the 1880s and World War I. We used du Toit as a companion piece to the chapters on Teddy Roosevelt and the psychologist G. Stanley Hall — each of whom were, in their own ways, as anxious as du Toit about what they perceived to be the devaluation of masculinity.
…
Hall, for his part, was preoccupied not with adult masculinity but rather with the incipient manhood of youth. Believing that developing children rehearsed the cultural evolution of the human race, he insisted that young boys should not be deterred from expressing "the instinct of the savage."
Boys are naturally robbers; they are bandits and fighters by nature. A scientific study has been made of boys’ societies . . . . In every instance these societies have been predatory. All of the members thirsted for blood, and all of their plans were for thievery and murder
Allow the young boy to beat the shit out of his companions, Hall suggested, and his mental and physical development will proceed in a smooth and healthy fashion. Divert him from his natural course Hall warned, and you will produce "a milk-sop, a lady-boy, or a sneak." Such a child "lacks virility, [and] his masculinity does not ring true." Perhaps he will — as Hall himself did — grow up to be a chronic masturbator, a helpless slave to "the lonely vice."
That passage of Hall’s rang familiar in my ear. Not so much for the words, as the sensibility that male youth is by its nature savage and brutal and that cultivating that savage, brutal nature is the task of every great civilization. I’d heard all that somewhere before. So I did a little digging and it wasn’t long before I found it…
"My teaching is hard. Weakness has to be knocked out of them. In my [elite schools] a youth will grow up before which the world will shrink back. A violently active dominating, intrepid, brutal youth – that is what I am after". Youth must be all those things. It must be indifferent to pain. There must be no weakness or tenderness in it. I want to see once more in its eyes the gleam of pride and independence of the beast of prey. Strong and handsome must my young men be. I will have them fully trained in all physical exercises. I intend to have an athletic youth – that is the first and the chief thing. In this way I shall eradicate the thousands of years of human domestication. Then I shall have in front of me the pure and noble natural material. With that I can create the new order.
"I will have no intellectual training. Knowledge is ruin to my young men. I would have them learn only what takes their fancy. But one thing they must learn – self-command! They shall learn to overcome the fear of death, under the severest tests. That is the intrepid and heroic stage of youth. Out of it comes the stage of the free man, the man who is the substance and essence of the world, the creative man, the god-man. In my [elite schools] there will stand as a statue for worship the figure of the magnificent, self-ordaining god-man; it will prepare the young men for their coming period of ripe manhood."
-Herman Rauschning, Hitler Speaks (1939)
Emphasis mine. I’d heard these words of Hitler’s first in my own youth, sitting in a junior high school history class watching a documentary produced in 1956 titled, The Twisted Cross. I was a bookish little kid even back then, and when the scenes of Nazi mobs burning books came on screen I was completely horrified. When the scenes of the concentraton camps came on screen later I felt that, yes, the one led right to the other. Where books are burned, people are soon after. But the scenes of Htiler and Himmler inspecting the ranks of young soldiers, while the narrator intoned those words from Hitler Speaks, chilled me to the bone. My junior high school years were when I experienced the worst bullying of my life, and I didn’t have to think hard about what living in Hitler’s Third Reich was like when I heard that. Great if you were part of the ruling thug caste…not so much if you were everyone else. I remembered that documentary so vividly that decades later when I saw a videotape of the if for sale and took it home to watch, I was amazed at how detailed my memory of it actually was after all those years.
Maybe it really is all about penis envy. But I don’t recall any of my childhood bullies feeling their threatened manhood by me. What I saw in their faces was contempt. Contempt for anyone they could beat the crap out of, whether by themselves or with the help of their gang. When you have no brains to speak of, when even a cinderblock could add 2 plus 2 more accurately then you, all you have left is brute force to live by, and for some that is the only standard of value they know for taking their measure, and everyone else’s too. The contempt for effete intellectuals is no envy. It really is contempt. So what if you can grow food. So what if you can turn dirt into steel. So what if you can cure disease. If I can beat the crap out of you, then I’m the better man. Because then I can simply take everything you have. That really is the thinking going on there.
And never mind that no amount of force, no advantage in weapons, no military superiority ever gave a single penny’s worth of value to a dollar. The criminal mindset, unable to distinguish between creating wealth and stealing it, regards all creation as theft, all theft as creation. All that matters in the end, is can you take it away from someone else. If you can, then it’s rightfully yours. If the other guy can’t hold onto it, then it was never his to begin with. Might makes right. Any other standard of morality is literally incomprehensible to them. When you’re too stupid to know how modern civilization really works, you’re also too stupid to know it.
That is the essential fascist mindset. When you hear some moron babbling on and on about…
- The feminization of males
- Effete Intellectualism
- Military glory
…all rolled together in one tightly packed little ball of bitterness, you can be pretty sure of what you’re dealing with. What dimwits like Du Toit and all the other right wing kultar kampfers think they’re selling America is this…
…but what what you always get is this:
There’s what not deterring young men from expressing "the instinct of the savage" gets you, right there. Look at it. There’s your savage manly man’s promise land.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Any passage taken beyond the author’s intent can fit your criteria. Classic strawman.
What you’ll also find is that not having the means to defend yourself will ALSO get you those same results.
There is a balance, called GENTLEMEN the condition of which was Kim’s point.
<a href="http://www.mrsdutoit.com/index.php/main/single/2969/">The Other Side</a>
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:01 am
On the other hand…some passages speak for themselves, with or without context. vis:
Girly-man. Butt-bandits. Whatever point Kim du Toit was trying to make there, what makes a gentleman wasn’t it. I’ll endure lectures on what makes a gentleman from a lot of people, but not from a bigot. As Frank Lloyd Wright once said, no stream rises higher then its source.
There is nothing wrong with encouraging strength…in boys and girls alike. But strength takes the form of the essential person within, it does not replace it, and a quiet gentle persistent strength can move as many mountains as a loud bellicose one, and usually with far less collateral damage. Strength isn’t the problem, it’s strength with nothing steering it but a sneering contempt for anything other then strength that’s the problem. When you see male strength exalted in the same breath with contempt for women, gentleness and intellect what you’re dealing with isn’t someone with the slightest clue what a gentleman is, let alone what brakes are. Substitute strength for everything inside that you’re not, and what you become isn’t a gentleman, but its exact opposite.
Every animal on earth is strong in its own way. The touch of God, if you will, that separates us from the other critters of this good earth, is our intellect, and our heart. Take those away, treat them with contempt, and you become merely another instinct driven predator, knowing only to kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. That creature never saw steel in a handful of dirt, never raised a city over the empty plains, never touched another’s heart, never looked up at night and saw itself wandering among the stars.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
And you base your assertion that my husband is a bigot based on what? Going to jail to protest against Apartheid in South Africa? Standing up for women? Standing up for the rights of men when they are disparaged?
The funny thing is that our gay friends laughed at that comment, because they KNOW Kim, and they knew the tone in his voice. Not all gay men are "pussified" and disparaging ALL men INCLUDES gay men. Key word: MEN.
You judge a man by his actions and deeds. What great and wonderful things have YOU done to stand up for the rights of others? What risks have YOU taken? Would you swear an oath of Never Again at Nazi attrocities as Kim has after we visited Dachau? Would you protest against apartheid in APARTHEID South Africa and go to jail for it? Would you refuse to comply with apartheid registration laws and go to court and tell the judge you refuse to comply?
THAT is the man you’re calling a bigot, after reading one post.
You’re simply clueless. That is the man who would prevent the attrocities in the images you so callously place on your website. That is the man who has helped HUNDREDS of women learn to shoot so they can defend themselves against bullies. Comparing offensive words said in a fit of rage to the careful and calcuating murder of millions is shameful.
How dare you compare words to those horrid deeds. You’re filled with moral relativism and if you can’t read through Kim’s essay to the intent of "no cartoon males" of "being more like Dad" of "opening doors for women" then you’re a fool.
And you’re knowledge of history is terribly flawed. Hitler came to power by appealing to women–by scaring them with words of safety, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE DONE, and passing an ever increasing series of intrustive laws under the guise of being For The Children.
It is exactly for that reason that the whole subject of pussifying men is horrid–because it keeps men from standing up against the Jack Booted Thug, or from even recognizing the thug when he appears.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
You judge a man by his actions and deeds.
Actions and deeds are no less external that hairstyle or clothing. They are an expression of the inner being, not the inner being itself, and true masculinity should lie in the human heart, not on the surface. To be masculine is to be self-confident, and so to express masculinity is to express lack of self-confidence, because it is caused by a desire to be affirmed as masculine. Those who hold the ultimate in self-confidence have no need to express their masculinity because their self-image does not require the affirmation of others.
So yes I do judge a man by his actions and deeds – those men who flaunt their masculinity with the greatest enthusiasm, like George W. Bush, gain little respect from me. In fact I generally find them humorous.