In defense of anger -- and patrimony

I think columnist Ben Shapiro has hit the nail on the head. Just anger is certainly admirable, as long as it targets the right thing and is used to alleviate injustice. Some would argue that mollycoddling our feelings until anger is pummeled out of the way is a form of "over-femininization" of our culture. Perhaps. Of course, women are capable of just anger as well. What Shapiro is arguing is a typically male (and healthy) response to heinous acts is what will ultimately protect the innocent.

In reference to the brutal slayings recently of two young girls, he writes:

But rage in this sort of situation is perhaps the only proper emotional outlet. Certainly the families should feel rage at the murderer of their children. But as a society, we should feel rage at the brutal slayings of two innocent young girls. We should respond as Zion Police Chief Doug Malcolm did: "It was a crime not only against those kids but against all of us."

Instead, we turn on "Good Morning America" to watch grief counselors tell us how to deal with our anger, how to turn fury into something "healthy." There is nothing healthy about stifling moral condemnation. Moral condemnation isn't only cathartic; it's the only way we can improve our society.

We need more moral condemnation -- esp. by men towards acts of violence and indecency towards women and children. Until we return to men the sense that they are called to protect the vulnerable, they will squander their inherent call to do so on useless activities. It is women's responsibility to hand men theirs (without nagging), done in a way that brings out the best in men.

In the words of Blessed Pier Georgio Frassati, "To live without faith, without a patrimony to defend, without a steady struggle for truth, that is not living, but existing."

Too many men simply exist -- remote in hand, footprints on the scalp from delinquent children, and only lift themselves to whack a few balls at the club. I don't blame them as much as the society which removed from them the ability -- or desire -- to defend their patrimony.  Time to hand it back.

Comments

[Donna S.]

This is just another of the unintended consequences of the cultural acceptance of contraception and abortion! Men's sexuality has been robbed of its creative essence. It is now viewed as something that imposes a burden on women (when conception happens to occur), something used to control women or something that is purely recreational. Why would men bother?? In taking away their responsibility, we've also robbed them of their significance! In the big picture of humanity, men have been made into nothing more than a nuisance women have to figure out how to control in order to bring about the next generation. Men don't see it as their task to protect the vulnerable because they see themselves as the vulnerable ones. A few well preserved vials of sperm would make men entirely obsolete in the world's ethos today!!

[Mark]

Just found you today and so far, love what you have to say. thanks for writing.

take care

[Ellen]

I've just bookmarked you and plan to visit daily.

[Jim]

Very old post but I just saw it and wanted to say good until the point you say "It is women's responsibility to hand men theirs..." Men are quite capable and have demonstrated in the past that we can take responsibility for ourselves. We don't need it handed to us, rather we need respect for taking it and understanding when we mean well but fail.

[gsk]

Point taken, Jim.