feminine-genius

Male apprehension

Finally an honest column about the reason why men are reticent to show the usual kindness towards women:

Offering a seat to a pregnant woman on the Tube (or elsewhere in life) is too often confused with "sexism" – as equalities minister Jo Swinson unhelpfully reminded us earlier this year when she said it would have been sexist for her male colleagues in Parliament to offer her a seat, heavily pregnant, because they thought she 'needed' it. Equally, holding a door open for a woman can be wrongfully seen by some sexist behaviour: 'how dare the man think I'm the weaker sex and do this for me; as if I need it, I'm independent ... blah blah'.

We've forgotten the art of manners in this country. It's got nothing to do with sexism; it's often just the right thing to do to hold a door or offer a seat to someone who may need it more than you. Or forget *need* and admit it's just a nice, polite, lovely thing to do, to be kind to your fellow citizens whom you otherwise will probably never see again.

Men are so afraid of being accused of being sexist pigs they give up. Plenty of my male friends have openly admitted they don't even sit down in an empty seat on the Tube anymore for fear of a pregnant woman getting on at the next stop and having the awkward 'do you want my seat/ No, I don't/ I really don't mind/ I don't need it' tussle where both parties end up feeling silly. They'd rather leave it vacant for another man to deal with the inevitable.

The reason men are no longer as polite as they used to be? They're scared of getting it wrong, on the whole. There's also the argument that traditional acts of chivalry are frowned upon as "suspicious". Men are nervous their acts of kindness will be taken the wrong way – or send the wrong signal (either that he thinks he's better than her, or that he wants to date her, or both).

At my age, there is no cause for confusion on the last point, so I can just offer a motherly smile and hearty thank you for every chivalrous action. (I can also give the hairy eyeball to those who neglect me -- I've even just stood there to allow them a second chance!) Perhaps this would make a good new year's resolution -- the next generation of women will benefit tremendously from thoughtful men.

Let brothers be brothers

While the military has seen politically-driven encroachment of women into myriad all-male enclaves, Stephen Kilcullen makes and excellent case for keeping them out of the Rangers.

It is this culture of excellence and selflessness that attracts young men to the Ranger brotherhood. The Ranger ethos is designed to be deadly serious yet self-deprecating, focused entirely on teamwork and mission accomplishment. Rangers put the mission first, their unit and fellow soldiers next, and themselves last. The selfishness so rampant elsewhere in our society has never existed in the Ranger brotherhood.

And that is the secret of the brotherhood's success. Some call it "unit cohesiveness" but what they are really describing is a transition from self-interest to selfless service. The notion of allowing women into Ranger School because denying them the experience would harm their careers makes Ranger graduates cringe. Such politically correct thinking is the ultimate expression of the "me" culture, and it jeopardizes core Ranger ideals.

In his piece, he uses the key arguments that have the most weight:

• there is a warrior cult (a brotherhood) that is hard to define;
• this brotherhood is key to the cohesion of the unit;
• the cohesion of the unit is critical to the success of the mission;
• the military mission cannot defer to the private interests of any individual.

This has been the problem with political tinkering for many decades: individual "rights" (that have little/nothing to do with the military mission) have undermined the ability of our armed forces to do their job. Just as the politicians in Washington DC who tried to fight the Vietnam war (by imbibing the daily news and gauging public opinion) proved disastrous to the mission, so has using the armed forces as a social networking guild and means of advancing the sexual revolution.

The military has changed many policies in recent years, based on individual self-interest masquerading as fairness and antidiscrimination. As we debate new policies, decision makers need to ask two simple questions: Is a proposed move good for the majority of service members? And does it improve or hinder our ability to execute our mission?

After all, the military does not exist to provide careers. It is a responsibility, a way of life and a higher calling that only 1% of our citizens choose to follow. A top-notch fighting force composed of dedicated and strong men who are the very best at what they do is what defines our armed forces—and the Rangers as among their best. Let's not destroy this small but incredibly important culture under the banner of "me."

Either the US has enemies or it doesn't. Either its mission is to prevail or it isn't. If women (and persons with same-sex attraction) distract a unit from performing its tasks, then the mission should take precedence over these games. Perhaps the Rangers will succeed where other groups haven't, but there's no guarantee.

This may be prove another confused battle where political correctness invites women into situations where their very presence (no matter how sincere and well-qualified) weakens the team in incalculable ways. And it undermines the core feminine vocation: which is to give life, to nurture it, and sustain through their physical and spiritual motherhood. Anytime that we forget that truth -- and the man's call to protect it to the extent of laying down his own life for it -- we've poisoned our very culture and reason for living.

"You'll have to ask a woman"

Talk about a major dodge. Timothy Geitner was either 1. aware of the predatory atmosphere around DSK and the IMF and did nothing; or 2. unaware of it, being incredibly obtuse. But remember? When he was nominated as Treasury Secretary, Obama insisted that he was so smart that we had to overlook his delinquent tax record. Here is that brilliance on display:

 

Simple courtesy. One learns manners as a form of charity, to be kind to others. Treating women with respect has historically been intrinsic to being a gentleman, but now knowing what women like and don't like is as mysterious to men as whether or not there's been life on Mars.

Is this the fault of women who send scrambled messages about what's appropriate, or is there a higher code, still embedded in the Good Ol' Boy network, that says randy men get a pass when they're successful--either at slaying woolly mammoths or dragging wimmen back to the cave. 

ADDENDUM: I just saw Matt Archbold's excellent comments --

It seems to me that this faux feminism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Here's the thing Timmy boy -a real man stands up for women when they need standing up for. I'm not saying a woman can't stand up for herself but a man turning a blind eye to a predator isn't a man. He's a coward.

Is this the face of chivalry?

The reporter above (centre) noted that Muhammed's world view isn't very nice to women. For that he was originally given the death penalty. That sentence has been commuted to 20 years in jail. This is the government we fought to install? This is where women are left -- still defenceless?

Reporters Without Borders said, "Afghan justice has again failed to protect Afghan law and guarantee free expression." In a statement on its Web site, it continued: "The appeal proceedings were marred by ideological distortion, a glaring lack of evidence and incomprehensible delays." Kambakhsh's brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, said the sentence was issued under pressure from local militia and political leaders he had criticized in his articles, according to The Associated Press.

The court in Mazar-i-Sharif sentenced Kambakhsh to death in January, after a five-minute trial in which he was not allowed to offer any defense. The appeal was held in a Kabul court before a panel of three judges and involved several hearings over a number of months.

John Dempsey, an American lawyer observing the trial in Kabul, said Kambakhsh was not accorded fair treatment. "He was detained far longer that he should have been legally held," he said, according to The AP. "The defense lawyer was not even allowed to meet the witnesses until a night before the trial."

Perhaps he did say that the Prophet was an adulterer. Perhaps he thinks that Islam is unfair to women. The point is that no one may say such things, and women have to endure. How can justice ever emerge in such an environment?

Descent of the harpies

Thank you, Father Finigan, for bringing this sad video to our attention. There seem to be more, but the ten minutes of hysteria by vicious women was enough to focus my morning prayer. The irony of women insisting on the right to be used while men stood stalwartly for their dignity was profound. Women spitting on men, to secure the right to kill their children -- because men are, what, irresponsible? Everything was twisted, including the marching lesbians who wouldn't otherwise need abortion, given their proclivities.

We should give thanks that Holy Mother Church would so inspire her chivalrous sons to stand in persona Christi to fend off misguided women -- though it should give us pause to consider how such blindness takes root. Oremus, for truth, and for the victims in the middle of this battle.

A chivalrous man

I was saddened to read of the death of Jesse Helms, who--fittingly-- passed on to His Maker early this morning.

"We'll never forget how he battled, especially during those first lonely years, to protect our liberties, preserve our family values and keep America strong. There he was, standing day after day to a government Goliath, crying out like a voice in the wilderness," former President Ronald Reagan said in a 1983 speech. "Bit by bit, he became more than a lonely crusader. He grew into a lionhearted leader of a great and growing army."

Many political observers credit Helms' support for catapulting Reagan to the presidency in 1980 and accelerating the conservative agenda – cutting taxes at home, fighting communism abroad and opposing many government social programs – at the national level. He also served as Reagan's right flank for years, allowing the president to make political compromises as needed. "(I decided to) stay to the right of the president's right and make it easier for Reagan to be Reagan," Helms wrote in his memoir.

We all owe him a debt of gratitude. It will take courage for someone to take up this mantle--and yet in the time since his retirement in 2002, there has been no singular replacement. RIP, from an appreciative bystander.

Belgium, 2008

A 21 year old woman was raped in a major Belgian train station with passers-by ignoring her plight. Two North African immigrants accosted her as left her train and said she should be wearing a head-scarf. (She was not a Muslim.) Thus they held her at knife point and assaulted her.

Is this the way of the New Europe? Is this what women can expect? Rogue immigrants and detached local men? Is this the accumulation of years of post-Christian malaise, the banality of sexual prurience, outright rejection of a chivalric code and waves of Muslims?

Her father, of course, is outraged. She is hospitalised. Police are mulling about looking for clues. No bystanders have come forward to help. Not during, not after. Without God, moral duty withers. (Duty to Allah, evidently, is a thing apart.)

No chivalry here

Chivalry is the code that says that the stronger have an obligation to protect the weaker. This can apply to fathers protecting their families, policemen protecting citizens, soldiers protecting a nation and governments legislating for the benefit of their constituents. The Netherlands see it differently:

The National Anti-terrorism Coordinator (NCTb) has decided to withdraw personal protection from MP Rita Verdonk. She is baffled, she said on TV programme Knevel&Van de Brink.

According to Verdonk, Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin informed her by letter last Tuesday that her bodyguards would be withdrawn on 4 June. She is only still being 'escorted.' This means that instead of permanent bodyguards, she will only have a car behind her following at a distance.

Verdonk is the leader and founder of Proud of the Netherlands (TON). The party, currently running second in the polls, was set up in April. Verdonk is critical of Islam.

Now bodyguards might sound like overkill for the equivalent of a congressman in this country, but in her situation, she is a definite target:

Verdonk, when she was still Integration Minister, came to be closely guarded because there was a realistic threat of an attempt being made on her life. As MP as well, the threat remained of such a nature that bodyguards were considered necessary. But NCTb sees no need for bodyguards any more, despite the recent political murders of Islam critics Pim Fortuyn (2002) and Theo van Gogh (2004).

Verdonk said yesterday in De Telegraaf newspaper: "Muslim radicals and leftwing extremists know one thing: If I come to power, then I will tackle them." (...) "I do not feel safe." (...) "You do not have to google for long to come across very ugly things about me!"

The alignment of events--in which all paternal authority has been eliminated--begs a deeper question. Why withdraw protection so that those who abuse paternal authority have a subtle invitation to act? (I don't mean to sound cryptic--but a whole new project has begun for me. Prayers appreciated.)