« guess who's back in town? | Main | mmmm...fish »

what makes a man a man?

[Please see also the newer post here, in regards to this one]

Kim writes about what it means to be a man.

I was composing a rebuttal in my mind a I read his rant. And then I got to this part:

You know why rape is such a problem on college campuses? Why binge drinking is a problem among college freshmen?

It's a reaction: a reaction against being pussified. And I understand it, completely. Young males are aggressive, they do fight amongst themselves, they are destructive, and all this does happen for a purpose.

Because only the strong men propagate.

And my mind exploded.

I promised myself I would never Blog While Enraged.

Thoughts?

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference what makes a man a man?:

» Real men... from One Fine Jay
First of all I was able to breeze through his text before the traffic went through the roof and made Kim's rant inaccessible. Next, to take accountability for the off-hand comment I left at Michele's when she commented on his entry, mine, to w... [Read More]

» Hot or Cold? from Ilyka Damen
Why do people always say that? "You should understand it in context." But if someone writes the following: "You know why lynching is such a problem in the South? It's a reaction against being negrofied." don't I already have all the context I need? [Read More]

» Controversy from Primal Purge
Kim du Toit's latest thoughts, The Pussification of the Western Male has some people in an uproar. This isn't open for discussion. Not here anyway. Go on over to a small victory, follow the trackbacks and say your bit there.... [Read More]

» Who the Fuck is Kim du Toit?* from Tiger: Raggin' & Rantin'
It seems some guy named Kim du Toit twisted all the gals panties in a wad sayin' somethin' about all men who ain't warrin', pillagin' and rapin' women is a bunch of pussies. It caused so much hullabaloo that all... [Read More]

» Real Men ... from Freedom Lives
Kim has caused quite a stir with his essay The Pussification Of The Western Male . I suspect he is mostly enjoying the controversy. Go over to Michele's and read the comments on this post and on this one. I... [Read More]

» Metrosexual = sissy? from Dodgeblogium
A metrosexual is a straight man that acts like a gay man. It basically means that a guy is into sissy crap like facials, tanning and hair care products. Posted by exile at October 30, 2003 11:56 AM This comes... [Read More]

» Real Men from The Waterglass
Kim Du Toit talks about what it means to be a man in his rant, The Pussification of the Western Male. (I won't quote it here, as it's too good and long to give it justice in short form.) He... [Read More]

» I Lied from insignificant thoughts
I said I wouldn't comment more about this, but I really can't resist ripping into it one more time. It would appear that Mrs. Du Toit believes she needs to play the Tammy Wynette role here, and defend her husband's... [Read More]

» Grab your 10 foot pole and wade on in from Snooze Button Dreams
Actually, it's not so bad as that. Kim du Toit posted/ranted about being a manly man and Venomous Kate called him on it. Turns out they're positions are a lot closer than they thought at first. Good essay, good response, good commenting. This is what t... [Read More]

» The Two-Minute Hate from Catch Me If You Can
There's been a big shitstorm over a risible essay written by noted jackass Kim du Toit which I'm not going to link to, because fuck him. I'm not going to get into a major-league fisking or anything -- whether you... [Read More]

» WHAT IS A "REAL" MAN? (UPDATED) from Heretical Ideas
Well, since a lot of the blogosphere has gotten fired up over Kim du Toit's essay on what it means to be a "real man", I figured I might as well comment, too, since I wrote a similar rant a... [Read More]

» The Pussification of the Western Male from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
This is the title of an essay by the Imperial Firearms Advisor. I'd love to provide a link to it,... [Read More]

» She describes a very good policy from Uppity-Negro.com: ˇNalgonas Unidas Jamas Serán Vencidas!
Tori Amos performs Raspberry Swirl and Kim du Toit gives more reasons to hope for that homeschool shooting at his place. [Read More]

» The measure of a man from darkness.network
I've been considering a post about what maleness means to me. I've had a couple of good conversations about it [Read More]

» She describes a very good policy from Uppity-Negro.com: ˇNalgonas Unidas Jamas Serán Vencidas!
Tori Amos performs Raspberry Swirl and Kim du Toit gives more reasons to hope for that homeschool shooting at his place. [Read More]

» She describes a very good policy from Uppity-Negro.com: ˇNalgonas Unidas Jamas Serán Vencidas!
Tori Amos performs Raspberry Swirl and Kim du Toit gives more reasons to hope for that homeschool shooting at his place. [Read More]

» She describes a very good policy from Uppity-Negro.com: ˇNalgonas Unidas Jamas Serán Vencidas!
Tori Amos performs Raspberry Swirl and Kim du Toit gives more reasons to hope for that homeschool shooting at his place. [Read More]

» She describes a very good policy from Uppity-Negro.com: ˇNalgonas Unidas Jamas Serán Vencidas!
Tori Amos performs Raspberry Swirl and Kim du Toit gives more reasons to hope for that homeschool shooting at his place. [Read More]

Comments

in the spirit of johnny cash, perhaps this is what a "boy named kim" thinks like?

Uhm -- does he know it's 2003 and not 1803?

I just hope to God that my daughter never comes in contact with him - or his sons, cousins, uncles, future cell-mates, . . .

Honey, there's no point to rebuttal, calm or not. He's made it clear in his language.

he's talking about men being pussified? and his name is kim du twat?

Shorter Kim du Toit:

"Goddammit, I want to fart in public and cheat on my wife and shoot anyone who looks at me funny, but those damn broads won't let me."

Enough with the name calling, people. Please.

THLAYLI,
He states that he doesn't think cheating on a wife is what real men do.

Heck, he even talks about real men opening doors for women, I can't imagine why anyone would find anything wrong with that. I love my girlfriend and do much more for her than open the doors for her, and she knows it, and appreciates it.

Only that I feel a rage rising, and I know just what little boy named Kim it's directed against...

"You know why rape is such a problem on college campuses? Why binge drinking is a problem among college freshmen?..

...Because only the strong men propagate."

Looking at his site, it’s nice to see that he approves of women carrying weapons. Of course, if a ‘strong man’ tries to rape one of these women, and if her aim is good enough, it’s a guarantee that he will never propagate for the rest of his life.

Men who rape are weak, not strong. That misconception negates his whole argument, which was sort of primitive but otherwise consistent.

Can't get to the article, so I can't really comment on it.

Except for one thing, and I know this is going to piss people off: The aggressive ones DO get the pick of the crop.

Everyone I've ever met has more stories about women going out with bad boys and then getting hurt than they do of people meeting, falling in love and living happily ever after.

How many time have you seen your friend get dumped, and it's a shame cuz he's "such a nice guy."

It's the norm, rather than the exception, and I by no means think that makes it right.

What's ironic is that this observation, in a lot of circles, will get called the whining of a loser. Which serves to strengthen the point.

C'mon, guys, it's his opinion on the modern man. So what's yours? Obviously you see things differently than Kim does, so how would respond to some of his assertions?

Interestingly enough, he mentioned rape and binge drinking on college campuses in the section Michele quoted, but he didn't tackle the topic of domestic abuse, which is propagated by both males and females.

Oops. That last "anonymous" comment was made by me.

I agree, Michele, the name calling is a bit much. I read Kim's stuff, as well as his wife's, and I don't think any of the above commenters do. It's one thing to consider something in a vacuum, something else to consider it in context.

I also question how many of them read the whole thing, and how many are commenting on the binge drinking and rape part you quoted. That part is over the top, I would agree, but there is a quite a bit of truth contained in what he wrote (on his blog, by the way, intended for a specific audience).

Is there such a thing as the "wussification" of men and the US ? Yes, I would agree with that, basically it is nothing more than a subset of Political Correctness.

Is it all bad ? No, I don't think so. A lot of what he says that is bad, happens to be true. What about the Cheerios commercial scenario is not true ? In my case, nothing, except that my wife would be joking and I would know it, but that it's still true. If men didn't get married they would continue to do some pretty stupid stuff that ultimately would make them pretty unhappy, and prematurely dead. If that's what floats your boat, great, knock yourself out.

What Kim says is very similar to what Dean Esmay says a lot, although much more forcefully and with more expletives. Maybe those already suffering from such wussification would feel less threatened if they visited www.deanesmay.com and searched through his archives and found the same thing without some of the over the top rhetoric.

I don't necessarily agree with Kim's approach to women in his post, but Dean has posted similarly, but in a less offensive way. Essentially his take was, a century ago, the household voted as one and the woman of the house - who was still "really" in charge even 100 years ago - had as much influence on that vote as the man of the house.

Talk about reaction, Kim's post is a reaction to the wussification of men and america. He's got some points, but falls short in other areas. It's his opinion, though.

That’s true – it’s sort of a primal scream kind of thing, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I like Kim’ blog in general. Those few sentences quoted are the only problem

OK, wife stepping in here for a moment and Michele this isn't directed at you.

To those that have insulted my husband and my married name with "Du Twat" insults: Grow up and FUCK YOU!

If you'd get your women's studies fucking blinders off for two godamn seconds, you'd realize that the perversity of rape, binge drinking and ganster behavior is because it is a REACTION to being unable to express maleness, machoness, and natural protective instincts in NORMAL ways. That instinct, the desire to fight, the bulls locking horns is GOING TO HAPPEN. If you ingore it, if you try to subvert it or stifle it, or deny it because of some 21st century political correctness bullshit you've swallowed, it is going to come out ANYWAY in the unchanneled and uncivilized actions of rape, binge drinking and the glorification of the criminal.

Raise your boys to be girls and their maleness is going to become anti-social.

Oh for godsakes, watch Fight Club. It was a metaphor of this entire argument.

Get a fucking clue.

I was wondering what Mrs. Du Toit thought about all this. I no longer wonder!!!

No, no no... not 1803. Lotta bad shit happened back then.

But 1903 would be better. Before income taxes, before Social Security, before Hillary Clinton, and before "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy."

And to the people who think that a counter to my argument is to play games with my last name: you're a bunch of fucking pussies.

And before anyone else offends my husband or assumes that because he values what is male he therefore denies or discounts the wonder and beauty of all that is female, and this makes women less instead of more, you will have to get past me to say it. And I fucking mean it.

I am not LESS because I am married to a Real Man. I am not chastized or put down or told to "stifle." But I know that my husband is not a pussy or a pushover and I better give him the respect he deserves as a adult, not a child. He's not my boy toy to "improve" or alter. He speaks for himself and I am PROUD of him. I am PROUD to be his wife.

The article wasn't written for women. It was written for men. And there are millions of men who get that and think that way. And if you don't know that, you better start paying attention, so the backlash doesn't leave you broad-sided.

Kim's rant echoes a short story written years ago by Garrison Keillor, about a Modern Man, a husband and father who offers nothing but enthusiastic support and encouragement to his unfaithful and callous wife, his promiscuous and callous daughter, and his mean-spirited, stupid, and callous son, because society demands that he not be angry about being cheated on, and etc. In his home he gets absolutely no respect and yet is obliged to offer nothing but respect in return. Unable to express his feelings about being taken for granted to the people who most need to know it, he becomes a schizophrenic, the perfect husband and fater by day, a letter-writing bigot and chauvinist by night. The man must go crazy in order to insure that his horrible, horrible family is spared the emotional unpleasantness in even once having to consider the feelings of the husband/father, who's just a guy, after all, so fuck him.

Worth a read, even if it is Keillor.

Hmm. Either Kim meant to slam those who are trying to change the assertiveness and leadership tendencies in people and turn all of us into average mush, or he is advocating rape and binge drinking. I think I can disect the language and arrive at my own conclusion. Complex thoughts do not fit well in sound bites.

As to those, including Mrs. Du Toit, that assume all of us men who are not testoterone pumping machismo are the product of repression and that we are going to be rapists because of this repression, to quote you, "Get a fucking clue."

Amazingly enough some of the worlds greatest male leaders were/are not wildly competitive aggressive bucks in rut. Disagree? Sorry Ghandi, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, Thoreau, etc... your peaceful protest doesn't make the cut. You are all repressed rapists.

Not all of us fit neatly into your narrow minded categories.

"As to those, including Mrs. Du Toit, that assume all of us men who are not testoterone pumping machismo are the product of repression and that we are going to be rapists because of this repression..."

Yeah, right, because that's what she meant. (?) In one breath you say that complex thoughts don't fit into sound bites, and that you were able to dissect everything and come to your own conclusion, and in the next breath, you make the very mistake that you're accusing the Du Toits of making. Way to go.

Hey Geoff:

"If you'd get your women's studies fucking blinders off for two godamn seconds, you'd realize that the perversity of rape, binge drinking and ganster behavior is because it is a REACTION to being unable to express maleness, machoness, and natural protective instincts in NORMAL ways. That instinct, the desire to fight, the bulls locking horns is GOING TO HAPPEN. If you ingore it, if you try to subvert it or stifle it, or deny it because of some 21st century political correctness bullshit you've swallowed, it is going to come out ANYWAY in the unchanneled and uncivilized actions of rape, binge drinking and the glorification of the criminal."

Maybe you can reduce this into something besides what it says ehh?

this whole "mrs. du toit" thing has that "brenda warner" vibe to it. should your husband get his job back when his broken thumb heals, mrs. du toit?

whoa, that's all I got to say, to the article and to the comments... way to get a good rant going.
WHOA... OHHHHH MY....

For generations, those who understood Freud poorly (or who understood him perfectly, perhaps) lamented the vile consequences of repression of natural urges.
Except when the natural urges are not PC, I guess.
Repressing maleness, not even allowing civilized men to raise boys into civilized men instead of Alan Alda wannabes, is repressing a natural urge.
Is this the only time repression is not going to have vile consequences?
As to "not allow": Civilized men are being manipulated by their civilized tendencies, by people who have no scruples in that area.
You can't manipulate a barbarian because he is not trained to be polite, to offer respect, to not commit violence against women.
So the feminists' program is actually directed against civilized men--it wouldn't work with barbarians--by, in effect, saying "you wouldn't hit a woman, would you?"
When that gets old, it could get ugly.

It says that if you do not appreciate aggressiveness, assertiveness, and attempt to suppress (or criticise it as evil or bad), it will come out in unwieldly ways. If you do not accept (rather than deny) that men have an innate instinct to conquer, protect, and reproduce you cannot help them channel that those feelings (when they DO occur) into productive, constructive, and civilized ways.

The few examples of maniless that females see is out of control, aggressive, mock rape scenes, of gang bangers, and drunken hooligans--as you see in Ganster Rap style MTV videos. And rather than being repelled by it, these girls are attracted to it, and dress like the sluts in the videos, bearing their skin and their dignity, trying to ATTRACT the out of control, aggressive male.

That anti-social, anti-rules male is their hero.

It's about accepting reality and channeling reality--not living in denial that men are no different from women, except they have dicks.

Real Men don't rape women, but stifled, suppressed boys who are unafraid of consequences, because far too many take no action against these types of behaviors. Real Men shoot rapists like the dogs that they are. Real Men are repelled by men who rape or treat women as inferior creatures to be treated like breeding cows and sex objects, and they don't send those men to anger management classes, or look to their childhoods as excuses for the behavior.

Gotta get me one of these here blogs...

I hope Kim is not getting slammed for his rant but his site is almost inaccessible right now. His traffic must be outrageous. Seems he has touched a nerve...

This discussion reminds me of a famous story from the auto industry. Back in the mid-1950's, Ford Motor Co. launched a massive survey of consumer sentiment. They took the data from that project and used it to help design a brand new car, hoping to achieve record sales.

The car they designed based on what consumers said they wanted was the Edsel - one of the most spectacular flops in automotive history. Ford decided to do another survey, but this time they asked people what they thought their neighbor wanted in a car. The end result of that project was the Mustang - one of the most spectacular successes of the 20th Century. In the very beginning of its life the Mustang was not a very good car in terms of its mechanical qualities, but people didn't care because it was gorgeous, fun and very accessible.

Modern women generally say they favor traits that could be placed in the wussified realm, and some actually do. In the heat of the night though, most still want their Mustangs - even if the suspension is outdated and the transmission is weak.

That extreme disconnect does make life kinda difficult for guys. I don't agree that all men left to their own devices are naturally aggressive, but I think they would be less wussy than modern PC standards dictate.

Ratherworried - Gandhi and Martin Luther King had natural protective instincts and the guts to stand up for what they believed in. They also had a few 'macho' incidents in their pasts.

If modern day pacifists were following their example, they’d be in the tribal areas of Pakistan and the streets of Riyadh, confronting the real warmongers, the terrorists and their supporters.

Modern pacifists possess no protective instinct at all. When faced by a violent enemy, they don't stand up for anyone, family or country. They peacefully watch as the enemy continues to slaughter. They try to 'understand' his motivations. This type of pacifism has nothing to do with strength. Yet another sign that we're not learning the right lessons.

I find myself agreeing with much of what Kim says. Men in this country are taught to act in ways completely antithetical to their natures. Young boys are naturally aggressive and prone to roughhousing. This is completely normal, and if I had boys of my own, I would be seriously concerned if my they didn't act this way. And if I did have male children, I tell 'em the following:

We live in a society that punishes maleness. Boys are suspended from school for pointing sticks at each other and shouting, "Bang!" Children are not allowed to attend school Halloween functions in "scary" costumes. Colleges have orientation seminars in which it is made clear that any male is a potential rapist, and a penis is a loaded weapon. I know, I've sat through them.

College is particularly bad. Young men can be summoned to college administration star chambers, with no legal counsel, because the co-ed they had sex with after the DKE party last weekend woke up the next morning and suddenly decided she really didn't want to have sex after all. Never mind that she seemed to consent at the time.

Have you ever tried to have sex with someone while constantly asking, "Is this ok? Can I take your bra off now? Would you please sign this consent form and initial this release? Of crap, do you know where we can get this thing notarized?" It takes all the magic right out of the moment, let me tell you, Jack.

And God help you in class. My collegeiate courses, those I actually attended, were a blur of postmodern, subjective, leftist BS. I should sue Hamilton College for $120,000. They owe me. What I learned in college courses can be boiled down to, "Feeling = Good, Judging = Bad. Subjectivity = Good, Objectivity = Bad. Vulva = Good, Phallus = Bad. All sex is rape. Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. Everything is the fault of white males." At least my fraternity taught me to strip, clean and reassemble a keg tap. In under a minute. While blindfolded.

Of course, fraternities will cease to exist before too long anyway. An anachronism, those nasty societies that are for just one gender or another. Well, fraternities anyway. Sororities are somehow considered enlightened, given that they're run entirely by women. I spent the better part of three years as a fraternity officer, dresperately begging the college admins not to kick my msyoginist, reactionary, throwback society off campus for not having accepted women yet.

Wanna join ROTC? No such luck, pal. Chances are that the enlightened admins at your school have decided that since gay people aren't allowed to openly serve in the armed forces, and since women aren't allowed in the infantry, you cannot learn how to do such traditionally manly things as defending your nation and serving your country at their school. No siree. You can commute to Southern Neanderthal University twice a week to take your military science classes there. The trip is 150 miles each way? Too bad. Of, and those classes will NOT count towards graduation, just so you know.

Oh, and don't bother trying to play sports in college. They won't exist in another decade, thanks to title IX. Can't find enough women in your school who want to join the wrestling team? Too freaking bad, the club has to fold. Gender equality, and all that. God forbid women be shut out of the experience of being tortured by sadistic phys-ed grads while wearing rediculous uniforms.

Things don't get much better after college, either. You can get canned from your workplace for doing things that women find offensive and intimidating, such as asking them out on dates, talking to them too much, or even looking at them.

But the real kick in the groin is saved for last. After having every ounce of maleness sapped from you by an educational system run amok, some woman, somewhere, will say to you, "Why can't I find a real man?"

Then you realize that, yes indeed, every women you know is currently seeing a complete loser. You know the type. They probably have little in the way of jobs, have criminal records, or are simply a raging assholes. And yet women swoon over them. A woman would drop an emasculated, spineless wimp such as myself for one of these neanderthals in a heartbeat.

Why?

Because they're the only men left. You, son, are not a real man. You, and the rest of the 49% of this country that has a penis, have all be re-engineered into Metrosexuals.

I know I'm one, and not by choice. I have no manly attributes whatsoever. I can't fix a car. Hell, as far as I know, cars are powered by magic elves who live in elaborate miniature villages under the hood. I can't fix my house. When someone told me there were "studs" in my wall, I thought they were implying I was gay. I have about as much contact with my father as I do single women, and that ain't much. I find solace in shopping. I talk to my mother more than anyone else I have on autodial. I buy all my pants at Banana Republic.

I clearly am not a "real man", and I have no idea what such a man acts like. Presumably, they are all off sleeping with the various women who I've dated, and been dumped by, over the years.

Because God forbid my male children wind up being the quiet, introspective, nice-guy type like myself. Let me tell you, Datarat is 100% correct when he says that nice guys will inevitably get the short end of the stick, and be labeled as "whiners" for recognizing this fact. It's true, it's happens to me, and I am extremely pissed off. We are taught not to act in "patriarchial" ways, and then ignored by single women because we aren't manly enough.

Again, I know from experience. I've had more action in the last two months than I've had in the rest of my life, largely because I stopped being nice to anyone. I'm a complete and total bastard now. I cannot open my mouth without something cruel and sarcastic coming out. I never call women back. I get drunk on my front porch on Sundays and heckle churchgoers. I have a sneer permanently etched into my face. The last time a guy bumped into me in a bar, instead of saying, "Pardon me," I threatened to sever his manhood and use it to sexually stimulate his girlfriend.

And women seem to love me for it.

I feel the urge to be violently ill just thinking about it.

The truly sad part of this tale is that women are also suffering for it. Read this story in Salon about how women are tired of wimpy guys who are conditioned not to be aggressive, it's pretty funny. http://archive.salon.com/sex/feature/2003/10/01/marlowe/

If you can't get it through the address, search for "No intercourse please -- were enlightened."

Whoops. The really long post was from me.

Also, sorry for the length of my rant. These things tend to set me off. Like Ms. du Toit said, if you can understand metaphor, and find this topic interesting, then go rent "Fight Club."

If you'd get your women's studies fucking blinders off for two godamn seconds, you'd realize that the perversity of rape, binge drinking and ganster behavior is because it is a REACTION to being unable to express maleness, machoness, and natural protective instincts in NORMAL ways.

What a load of utter horseshit. ALL men in modern America are discouraged from expressing "maleness". It's never made me want to rape a woman or get constantly blitzed on vodka. So why the fuck should I assume that's what makes OTHER men want to rape women? Maybe they rape women because they're sick assholes -- how's that for a theory?

There is exactly zero evidence that real rape (as opposed to defined-down "I had sex with him and then regretted it" "rape) is more common on co-ed college campuses today than it was twenty, or fifty, or a hundred years ago. There is no evidence that misogyny is a bigger problem in the black community today than it has been historically. As for "binge drinking" ("binge" meaning "five drinks") -- this has always been common on campus. College students get wasted because they're young and irresponsible, and getting drunk is a lot of fun. "Binge" drinking is also common among women, which pretty much puts a bullet in the Dipshit Du Toit "it's the feminazis!" theory.

Saying "mistreatment of men makes us rape" is insulting to sane men. The only thing Mrs. Du Toit proves with her post is that idiotarians marry their own.

1903 would be better. Before income taxes, ...

Nice try, but the income tax was first passed during the Lincoln administration -- which makes it a Republican idea.

Grr, I did not say that, nor did Kim. I said (and he inferred), one more time before I retreat to the real world of duties and obligations:

That the failure to recognize that civilized men are raised to be so, and are different from women in the tools they bring to the party, is DENIAL.

Women are attracted to powerful men, in whatever form that power takes. Not all women. Not all men. But Barbarians don't have trouble getting dates. That is a fact. Deny all you want. Twist the reality to fit a world view that differs from that, but it is STILL denial.

When young men see that women respond to power, and they do not fear consequences from other more powerful, civilized men as damper on that misbehavior, or have learned no other way (or see no role models) to demonstrate that power other than boorish, bullies, and thugs, you will get more of it. If, however, we recognize that women are attracted to power and men will do almost anything to gain their attention, then we are accepting a reality (that doesn't fit our utopian fantasy) and can direct it, and teach them how they can be powerful, but remain peaceful and civilized.

To Mrs. Du Toit, I can merely say, "Hear, Hear!"

Modern "pacifism" is old-fashioned cowardice and Gandhi would have none of it.

Man, and they say gay couples have issues.

Sick, sick, sick.

D

His rant is a bit over the top and he says quite a few stuped things (as Michelle duly noted)...however, he does make some points on the pc culture.

His age is showing....the rant is about some golden media past remembered without any of the bad bits. "Pussification" is about as sexist a word as I can think of, and it's his choice to use. But I don't have to take it seriously, and I didn't.

"Man, and they say gay couples have issues."

Who do David?

Funny... so far, of the emails I've received on this topic today, 100% have been in agreement. And I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE has said "I agree", "hell yes" or similar.

In other blogs, however, I see many disagreements (especially in the Comments sections, like this one).

Non-confrontation / behind-the-back sniping: another girly-man characteristic.

I actually found Kim's essay quite appropriate considering my current service in the military. The lack of gonads is evident in the current "rules of engagement" in Iraq. Using an unarmed Chinook(basically about as tactical as a bus) to haul soldiers to R and R from an unsecured AO is insane and yet the Army did it because of complaints about length of tours and the need for R and R?

Gee, since when does the media and family members back home dictate policy in a war zone. This is evolution in action people, so wake up.

Kim is correct and so is his wife. If men are to be denigrated just for being men and made to stand comparison with gang-bangers, rapists and those who consider all women to be "life support systems for their vaginas", we are well on our way to being a bunch of pink-weiners and Euro-socialists.

Yeah, the nice guys finish last but since we refuse to kiss the asses of those who prey on women, we still win. Not much chance of meeting the right girl when you end up being their "uncles" "mentors" and "big brothers".

Stick to your guns, Kim, ignore the trolls and emasculators waiting to attack you "out of principle".

You know, I understand Mr. du Toit's anger. It's not just a matter of letting men be men in terms of aggression and violence. I think it has to do with the death of honor -- chivalry was a powerful force for making civilization actually civilized.

I'm sure some people remember the recent situation where a guy tried to do the right thing by getting an ID back to some woman, and the chick called the police on the guy, being suspicious that he was stalking her. There are plenty of men who tell stories of being called pigs for trying to be gentlemen. The result? When I was pregnant recently, the only people who gave up their seats to me were other women. The men =were= pigs.

But all is not lost. At my work, almost all the men let women get onto the elevators first. There is still the idea of honor in the South (and I don't mean the whole "cappin' a guy for dissing me").

And of course, there's my own husband. On one of our first dates, the axle fell off his van, and he had it back on within the half-hour (while I held the flashlight). He's tourniquetted a guy run over by a garbage truck (I wasn't there, but my stepdaughter was); another time he held in the brains of a guy in a car accident. My man is a =man=, taking responsibility for his actions, protecting his family, and in charge of our household.

For all the bitching about the pussification of America, there are plenty of real men and real women out there. Worried about the public school warping your kids minds? Homeschool. And not all universities are turning people's minds to mush -- sure, one should stay clear of the "liberal arts" colleges, but schools with real majors (say engineering schools like MIT, Clemson, Ga. Tech, NCSU (Go Wolfpack!)) provide real education. Then there are the people without benefit of higher education who have made their way in the world, like my cousin who runs his own mobile home business, like my aunt who went from secretary to division head at IBM before she died at age 43.

Real men and real women out there are role models for those who pay attention. Like the firemen Michele has written about.

Funny... so far, of the emails I've received on this topic today, 100% have been in agreement. And I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE has said "I agree", "hell yes" or similar. In other blogs, however, I see many disagreements (especially in the Comments sections, like this one). Non-confrontation / behind-the-back sniping: another girly-man characteristic.

Sucking up to the neighborhood bully, whether in person or via email, is another common charateristic of losers. So is bragging all about how popular are in unverifiable forums. It's the net equivalent of bragging that you had sex at summer camp -- your friends can't prove you didn't, and it's easier that admitting the closest you came to getting any action was a mosquito bite on the balls.

Sgt. Stryker pretty much hit the nail on the head where Kim Du Toit's concerned. He's a geek with a gun; lots of bluster, no backup. If he met any of the "real men" he's so fond of discussing, he'd shit his pants.

Kim, people tend not to send letters of disagreement to male bloggers. It also seems that a lot of people only like to pick on girls. Ask Jane, or Michele, or Kate, or any other female blogger who has raised a controversial issue, particularly something that deals with sexism. Nasty letters? Yeah, we've got that.

That being said, the overwhelming majority of mail that I get over controversial issues is from people who agree with me. All that proves is that people tend to read weblogs they agree with. It doesn't prove you're right.

And by the way, blaming the "pussification" of men for rape is about the most pathetic excuse I've seen this side of "She was wearing sexy clothes! I couldn't help myself!"

Most crime is committed by young men in their teens and twenties. Is that because they're all "pussified," too? Or is it only rape we get to put on that cart?

Most rapes are committed by someone who knows the victim. Stranger rape is a tiny minority of the rape statistics. Are all those men lashing out at the Alan Alda backlash of the seventies? Wow, whoda thunk it? Are rape stats up or down over the last twenty or so years since the "women's studies" PC police got their hands on college curricula? Yes? No? Facts, anyone? Or are we just working on gut feelings and news releases from the Men's Rights movement?

Find me a study that proves your point, and I will begin to give it a bit of credence. Until then, you're blowing smoke out your manly ass, m'dear.

MWAH! Big kiss!

Let's see. An anonymous post and Meryl publicly harranging Kim on Michele's site. And these are from people who understand accountability and responsible behavior that Kim was describing? Uh. I think not.

Women claim to want to play in the big leagues, but they never quite manage to step up to the plate. Always the backstab from afar--never the direct confrontation, right Meryl?

And you have gone totally whacko on the rape thing Meryl.

Kim's exact words were, "I understand it." Now, unlike politically correct bloggers like yourself, he doesn't feel obligated to add the "but of course I don't condone rape" because that should be understood. Understanding the root of an issue is not the same as advocating it.

50% of rapes occur in FRAT HOUSES, Meryl or aren't you up on the latest statistics? And why would that be? Could it be that we have generations of boys who don't have strong fathers who they fear MORE than police? And why do you think girls hang around potentially violent men and rapists, who, when counseled will very often admit they had funny feelings and had second thoughts about being around him? Is it because, women are seeking out the alpha male, but there aren't any real alpha males out there, except the ones who invoke those characteristics in misguided and anti-social ways?

What are the consequences for their behavior? COUNSELING! Another on the list of female solutions to a male problem. How's that working out?

I was reading your rant, Kim, and I kept seeing my dad and my grandfather leaning over my shoulders reading along with me and nodding to every few sentances and going "Yup".

That's a high accolade, Kim. Both of them would have appreciated you.

Sorry, Michelle, you're off a bit in the interpretation: most of us understand perfectly where Kim was coming from on that passage - not that rape and brutality is "Ok", but that when you remove normal agressiveness and punish it, you remove the societal penalty for boorishness. Danger from other men who belief those things are wrong and won't tolerate it from churls. You leave the barbarians unapposed by gentlemen.

Why are you people jumping on him for an honest analysis? He is dead on.

Mrs. Koit seems a little over the top in defending her nitwit husband. to even suggest that he represents most men in his attitudes about human male identity is absurd. orangutans in borneo maybe. but not modern men of my generation. where was Kim raised? Maybe that has something to do with his marginal identity.

Mrs. K says 50% of rape is committed in fraternity houses.

May I have a citation for this statistic please? I can't verify that anywhere in a half-hour of searching. It seems preposterous on its face.

Here are some interesting statistic I did find--for what it's worth

28.3% (estimated) of rape/sexual assault victimizations are reported to law enforcement officials.

One of every seven victims of sexual assault reported to the participating law enforcement agencies were under age 6.

Sixty-seven percent of all victims of sexual assault reported to the participating law enforcement agencies were juveniles (under the age of 18); 34% of all victims were under age 12.

Of surveyed college women, about 90% of rape and sexual assault victims knew their attack prior to the assault.

7 in 10 rape and sexual assault victims know their attacker prior to the assault.

Of female Americans who are raped, 54% experience their first rape before age 18.

1.8 million United States adolescents have been sexually assaulted.

"50% of rapes occur in FRAT HOUSES, Meryl or aren't you up on the latest statistics?"

This is an interesting statistic... would you happen to have a source for it? It contradicts federal crime statistics rather dramatically.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics [ http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm ] reports that of the 83,620 reported rapes in 2001 roughly 13,000 took place in the 18-22 year old demographic. This is a far cry from fify percent.

Also, it's worth noting that despite the ongoing 'pussification' of our youth, these numbers have consistently declined over the last decade.

As a parent of two boys their fear of me is not something I have ever particularly desired. I'm not particularly afraid of my father nor do I ever recall being so, nonetheless, I also haven't comitted any violent crimes. The aggression and assertiveness you seek to 'nurture' in our boys leads to the sense of entitlement and confidence in ones omnipotence that is the primary cause (well, that and a shitload of booze) of acquaintence rape on college campuses.

This is something I have a fair amount of first expierience in and you, and your husband, would do well to marshall a few facts rather than parroting the babble of a discredited and misogynist 'mens movemen'.

Good going there, Rodrigo. FYI, My husband is from Africa.

And the rape stats you're looking for can be found by looking at the source/citations of the other stats you look at. But, you'll actually have to READ the entire study--not just cut and paste stats from rape support sites.

Hint: It's the Koss study.

Oh, and Meryl's claim that "women know their victims" is actually quite misleading--careful there, Rodrigo, you used the same PC anti-male language. It perpetuates the myth that the guy you're on a date with is a potential rapist. The wording is intentionally vague and misleading. In studies and crime reports you'll find a slightly different wording, "known to the victim." Meaning, she recognized the guy, say from the car wash that morning, the newspaper stand, or someone she's seen at the bus stop or in the neighborhood. She "recognized him" is what those statistics are based on.

It presents a totally different picture when you point that out to people: "Know" is not the same as "were best buddies, dating, or related."

Let me address the all men are potential rapists bit in one of the comments, since I was once accused of saying precisely that for taking the stance that I wouldn't be alone with a man I wasn't willing to sleep with unless that man was a member of my family or a very good friend whom I knew and trusted implicitly. From my standpoint, that was only good sense, because I'd heard numerous times of women who had been raped in that situation "Well, what did she think he wanted, going up to his apartment and all." So what is my choice? I go up to his apartment, and if I get raped than I'm to blame, because I should have known that's what he wanted. Maybe I'm not even blamed, but still, I've been raped, which basically sucks. Or I protect myself by not putting myself in a position to be date-raped. But if I do that, apparently I'm saying all men are potential rapists. It would be nice if the rapists would in fact wear a big old scarlet "R" on their foreheads. But they don't. I know full well that most men aren't rapists, but I don't know how to tell the difference when I don't know them. So if protecting myself from being in a position to be date-raped is accusing all men of being potential rapists, so be it. At least I'm lessening my chances of being raped, which is kind of more important to me. Call me whacky.

Once upon a time, I went to several discussion threads on the subject of men and women and planted the question, "Why do so many women go for jerks?"
The amount of discussion, indeed, rather intense emotion, that resulted was surprising. Much of it got to duToit's area.
What is the appeal of the heel, as one put it.
I don't want to start that discussion here, but I mention it to point out that the issue has widespread applicability, however you want to look at it.
I would like to recommend a book which has a good deal to say about the issue of men being men.
It's "Men, Women; Enjoying the Difference" by Crabb.
While his idea of the proper manifestation of men being men couldn't be more dissimilar to duToit's, fundamentally they have common ground.
Being a book, it discusses in detail the presumed consequences of not letting men be men. Not nice.
Among other things, Crabb is a counselor.
I expect the book will make a reader's teeth hurt. Crabb might get the compliment of being right for the wrong reasons.
But it would be an interesting exercise, if you disagree with any of his conclusions, to address them in a scholarly fashion rather than the more usual method of ripping the book to pieces and jumping up and down on the scraps. Or, no, wait. That is scholarship, these days.
Where was I?
Right. There does happen to be some work by practitioners on the subject. "The Hazards of Being Male" (author's name escapes) hits the issue a few times.

Lesley, you are not whacky, although you probably invite a few awkward moments, since most men wouldn't anticipate such a habit, possibly never have heard of it.
If men were more careful this way, there might be fewer false accusations of assault.

Meryl and others are doing the same old schtick.
If a person says thus and such is a logical consequence of a certain action, they accuse the writer of condoning it.
I don't know if they are unable to read English, or perhaps they simply don't want to recognize an inevitability and so seek to silence the writer by accusing him of something he has not done/said.
It is surprisingly common in discussions of this type, which means it probably works a fair amount of the time. Unfortunately

Your misinterpreting the Koss study.

I don't have a eighty something copy of whatever journal it was published in handy but as I recall from school the Koss study is generally cited as highlighting the prevalence of acquaintence rape on college campuses.

The big number is the 1 in 6 figure, though her methodology has been questioned we'll accept that figure. The second stat usually brought up in this discussion is the report that 28% of college age women had been subject to rape. That 28% is over the course of thier lives not just while they were in college and does not come close to 50% of rapes occurring in frat houses.

I'm unable to find the text of this study online, however will be in the library later this week and will gladly provide clearer citations if there is an interest. In the meantime, your persistent harping on an unsound statistical figure does little to further your case.

Lesley, I wanted to respond to your post, but I do not want to impose too much more on Michele's bandwidth. Suffice to say, you and I are in agreement with how to handle that situation. Until you know a person, really know them, they shouldn't come into your home. While a rape may be unlikely, you have no idea what his intentions are (to hurt you, rob you, etc.). While rape is the worst outcome (besides killing you, of course) there are other minor and menacing outcomes of allowing near-strangers into your home.

One difference perhaps is that I also extend these cautions to women. A woman may not rape you, but those diamond stud earrings on the bathroom counter may not be there next time you look either.

And just in case there are a few people who are too horried to read Kim's whole rant on the subject, the paragraph and few sentences that preceeded the clip on this original post are:
Because that's all that being a Real Man involves. You don't have to become a fucking cartoon male, either: I'm not going back to stoning women for adultery like those Muslim assholes do, nor am I suggesting we support that perversion of being a Real Man, gangsta rap artists (those fucking pussies -- they wouldn't last thirty seconds against a couple of genuine tough guys that I know).
Speaking of rap music, do you want to know why more White boys buy that crap than Black boys do?
...

Michele trusted, I'm certain, that others would read the entire post to gain that context. But many, obviously, have not done so.

This is my last comment on this subject. If you want to discuss any of this further, you can e-mail Kim, comment on his site, or e-mail me directly.

Er, sorry, Meryl, but it's hard to take the rest of your argument seriously when your first sentence is this reality-free statement: "Kim, people tend not to send letters of disagreement to male bloggers."

Excuse me, but, um -- what? Are we on the same internet? Just a random clickthrough and use of the "search" function found me lots of examples of "disagreement" aimed at male bloggers. Or are Roger Simon, Charles Johnson, Glenn Reynolds, etc. etc. etc., really women?

cocks an eyebrow Andrea, I'm beginning to like you a lot. ;]

Those aren't the letters I'm talking about, Andrea. But you're right, it was a flimsy generalization. I'll redact it, but I still stand by the fact that people saying they agree with your stand doesn't mean that your stand is correct.

Connie, I'm not getting how responding to Kim in these comments is a backstab from afar. I don't have comments on my blog; I thought Kim would appreciate the direct response to my words here and respond back. If you really have a problem with my posting my thoughts here, I'll be happy to reproduce my comments on my blog, verbatim. But I'm really scratching my head over your accusations. I honestly don't get what you mean.

I couldn't access your husband's blog when I wrote those comments, and so could not remark on anything but the excerpt I read here. Which is what I did.

But back to the topic: I'm noticing that those who are quoting statistics are punching holes in your previous claims (and Kim's) large enough to drive a truck through.

You, however, are doing an excellent job slinging mud. That part, I am getting. But it's not really getting your point across any better.

Just an FYI, Connie, perhaps you want to reread my post. Nowhere did I say Kim condones rape.

By the way, what are the stats on female binge drinking on campuses, and do you think they affect the rape statistics? It's a lot easier to rape a drunken woman than a sober one, don't you think?

I'm still not seeing any facts behind these claims. Only suppositions. Looking forward to seeing some cold, hard statistics.

Well then, what are you talking about? Letters via snail mail? And if your point was that getting agreed with does not automatically validate one's viewpoint (the argumentum ad populem, I think it's called), then what does that have to do with "people don't send letters of disagreement to male bloggers"? They are two completely separate issues.

Sorry to keep harping on this, but logical black holes like this bug me. And, by the way, I agree that the fact that all the commenters (as of this writing) that have emailed Kim directly (his comment system emails the comments to him; he posts them later on a separate "reader mail" page) agree with him while more people here don't is not necessarily relevent except, perhaps, as an indicator that there is a significant portion of Michele's audience that is not also Kim's audience.

"the perversity of rape, binge drinking and ganster behavior is because it is a REACTION to being unable to express maleness, machoness, and natural protective instincts in NORMAL ways."

The du Toits need to study some history and classical literature, unless they think checking their facts is too wussified for a Real Man. I would suggest they start with Chaucer and work their way forward.

Historically rape and violence toward women have been very common all over the world, and especially in societies where which have very macho roles for men - Arab societies are a good example of that in our present day.

And binge drinking isn't new either.

Okay, it took me a while, but I figured it out.

If you don't email Kim or Connie directly, or respond on HIS site, that's "backstabbing from afar."

Puh-leeze. The nature of the blogosphere is to talk about events on your own blog, and comment in others. Direct confrontation? There's no such thing. It's a weblog, Connie. Nobody's going to come to your house to argue this over the dinner table.

On the other hand, you did manage to score another cheap shot with that false characterization.

And why do you think girls hang around potentially violent men and rapists, who, when counseled will very often admit they had funny feelings and had second thoughts about being around him? Is it because, women are seeking out the alpha male, but there aren't any real alpha males out there, except the ones who invoke those characteristics in misguided and anti-social ways?

No self-respecting woman would seek out an alpha male-type among deviants who need to control/abuse a woman to prove their manliness.

Girls - and women - who are attracted to controlling males very often have self-esteem issues stemming from childhood molestations. The damage inflicted by abusers has far-reaching implications, the least of which lies in the victim's distorted perception of their self worth.

The violation goes beyond the physical. The child is unable to develop a normal sense of self-esteem, and seeks approval from others in order to feel good about themself. In this way, the cycle of attraction to controlling and/or physically abusive males is set into action.

Meryl, that's exactly why I didn't go to the trouble of composing a response to Kim's 'pussification' rant. After taking a quick look at the letters he chose to post at his site, I felt it wouldn't be worth my trouble - it's not going to do anything to change his mind, and it's likely that my words would never see the light of day. Plus, he's got that built-in "anyone who disagrees with me is trying to change me and turn me into a pussy" with his wife chiming in "and cast aspersions on my marriage, and my husband, who I will defend to the death" circular argument that allows for no rebuttal, anyway. Because who are we to critique their marriage?

Trish has made some good points, backed up by depersonalized research instead of gut feelings. To add the personal touch, I've seen it myself, and it is ugly and uncomfortable to be around.

It's amusing to me that people keep bringing up Fight Club as a proof of the "pussified" hypothesis. If you didn't catch it before, Palahniuk was selling us an alternative to our current paradigm that is just as empty and inauthentic as the one we have now.

Watch it again. Here's the central message: as fun as unbridled aggression sounds, it is, in the end, demoralizing, dehumanizing, and plain old wrong.

Sweet Jeebus.

I can only say one thing: The content of most of the whiners' posts in this comment thread only serves to prove Kim's point.

Seriously, I already knew he was right, you didn't have to convince me. Now go back to knitting your sweaters, guys, and whatever you do, make sure not to scare yourselves shitless by catching a glimpse of your penises in the bathroom mirror, you might be traumatized for life by such a blatant display of sexist machismo. Perhaps you should just cut it off, just in case?

Now that that is out of the way, perhaps you'd care to read the entire post instead of just one paragraph? Perhaps you'd care to address the issues? Or not, obviously. You'd rather scream "twat" and "nitwit" at a man whose boots you aren't worthy of licking. Well, not even "at" him, you don't even have the guts to shoot off a mail, it would seem.

Yup, you've been pussified, alright.

Pansy-assed cowards.

Ms. Lauren,

Ever tried it? I practice a lot of 'unbridled agression' and it's a lot of fun. A long way from dehumanizing - in fact, it's something of a bonding agent for men.

We can beat each other silly in the dojo or on the pitch or in the alley, and then go drink together and become friends from it.

Orion

I'm torn on this one. I respect Kim enormously and I agree with most of Kim's essay, but blaming male pussification for rape and binge-drinking is basically saying that these young men are not responsible for their actions and that it's society's fault. I think he fumbled on that one.
I think the point he was reaching for is that there aren't many Real Men around anymore to drop these rapists and blustering idiots in their tracks, because those of us that have a sense of decency have been tricked into thinking that Real Men = barbarian louts, so we turn into effete pushovers in an attempt to "be nice" gain some respect. Which backfires, of course, since women are attracted to bravery and strength. So, our "pussification" isn't really to blame for the act of rape, but it is to blame for the lack of justice for the victim who doesn't have Real Men around to protect her honor and doesn't want to get her male loved ones in trouble for beating or killing a rapist (because only The Authorities have the right to dispense justice anymore), and for the sense of invulnerability these kids have since the only aggressive males around are moral-cowards like them.
And Kim is right that Western males get no respect. What do we have to do, go to the moon to prove that we aren't bumbling fools? Oh, wait. We already did that.

"No self-respecting woman would seek out an alpha male-type among deviants who need to control/abuse a woman to prove their manliness."

Trish: Are you sure? I observe this behavior constantly. Various commentators have speculated that women - even otherwise self-respecting women - do this because they are unattracted to the men Kim describes in his essay. I have heard otherwise sane women say "yes we do this and even we don't know why sometimes, but we are just compelled".

I would submit that the feminization phenomenon has so distorted American women's perspective on the opposite sex that they cannot recognize true, healthy, desirable machismo of the type that Kim describes, so they go for the unhealthy, abusive types who represent caricatures of the actual traits they subconsciously desire.

I would submit that the feminization phenomenon has so distorted American women's perspective on the opposite sex that they cannot recognize true, healthy, desirable machismo of the type that Kim describes, so they go for the unhealthy, abusive types who represent caricatures of the actual traits they subconsciously desire.

Possibly, CW...but there are women who don't go for the caricatures. They can tell the difference. And I think it works both ways....the unhealthy, abusive types are attracted to those who are able to be dominated and controlled.

I stand by what I said earlier - women who are self-fulfilled and happy with who they are inside do not need to seek out someone to fill the blanks for them....molestation and abuse are, in my opinion, are the most evil act of all the harms that can befall us, because the damage goes beyond the physical. The emotional wounds go deep and sometimes are never healed....they are only scarred over. Getting past those hurts isn't impossible, but it's damn hard.

I think, as in every other aspect of modern American life, we've lost our ability to travel in the middle ground.

Real men should dress well, open doors, pull out chairs, say please and thank you, give up their seats on the bus to pregnant women, &c. Real men should also be willing to knock someone down when they're insulted, know how to shoot and clean a gun, be able to maintain their car, be able to do fixit jobs around the house, &c.

The problem is that we've lost the ability to synthesize the two sides of man. You've either got the 'metrosexual' type or you've got the barbarian. There are precious few left who are both and I think Kim's right in blaming that inability on the prevailing culture. How can a man be polite when you're as likely to be lambasted for denigrating womens' equality for opening the door for her as congratulated for being a gentleman? You could be a barbarian, get laid but ultimately end up alone or you could try to be enlightened and never be alone but never 'close the deal' so to speak.

Ours is a culture of extremes right now. There doesn't seem to be a third way anymore, we're groping toward it but haven't found our way there yet. I can't claim to be a real man just yet but I am constantly working on improving myself - mainly by attempting to pattern my knowledge and abilities after the real men of the past: Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, &c. Read the classics, study manners but also know how to skin an animal, how to survive in the wilderness. You don't have to be at ease either in the parlor or in the backcountry. You ought to be able to be at ease in both.

Scott

Try reading "Less Than Zero" for an excellent literature example of the modern males Kim describes. When confronted with the vilest behavior by members of his cohort, and a chance to help a child being grossly and horribly abused, the protagonist, a thoroughly modern male, can do no more than slowly and laboriously come to the conclusion, "That's not right." He doesn't do anything to help the suffering child, or stop the abusive morons he knows; he can't conceive doing anything, and doesn't. Yet he is the "hero" of the story for recognizing there are actions that are wrong.

Kim's blogs vary from informally technical descriptions to often wonderful rants. His rants are written hyperbolically, starting from a real or rational premise and taking it to an extreme of rational/emotional response or abssurdly reductionist/expansionist conclusion: see for example his Goblin Count, where actual defensive uses of firearms are used as starting points to argue against those who see self-defense as illegitimate, and verbally smite the foolishness of prosecuting self-defense.

This screed, rant, essay, what-have-you about maleness falls into the rant category somewhat, and the excerpt chosen for discussion here was well chosen by the blogsite author to excite differences of opinion through commentary.

I enjoy reading thoughtful comments, and these were among the best I've found for some time. New ideas thoughtfully presented are hard to find; those of you reading and writing here should recognize you're onto something good. Only a glib few spout slogans, without thought; the majority present whole thoughts well written; and the participants include the author of the topic and his wife, who provide direct feedback to comments.

Here's my thought: I got and keep the woman I've been married to for 17 years by persevering in recognizing in her those qualities I value, and encouraging her in being wonderful. She accepted and returned my love when she saw real qualities in me which she admired and appreciated, and keeps me by showing her love and likewise encouraging the best in me. What a joy it is to know that the things we love most can be encouraged, successfully, to continue and grow.

Lots of comments here, both pro and con, seem to be missing the thrust of what Kim actually said in his post. He was presenting an opinion, folks, not claiming to speak for God. His idea that rape in college is due in large part to repressed agressiveness makes sense to me; I doubt this is the only reason for campus rape, but then nowhere did Kim make that claim. There has been a lot of name-calling back and forth here, some by people who admit they haven't even read the post ! Suggestions by some here that Kim and Connie are uneducated are laughable if you've ever bothered to visit their sites; they are both intelligent and well-read. I would agree they have not helped this biased image by their posts here, but ask yourselves: if your site went down in the middle of this controversy, if you felt under attack and unable to defend yourself as you are accustomed to doing, would you be at your best ? If you are unfamiliar with the du Toits', I urge you to visit their sites and see for yourself. Passionate ? Yes. Over-the-top ? Definitely, especially Kim. But if you don't come away with a new perspective on at least some of the issues they discuss, if you don't enjoy the real give-and-take of ideas they present, then come back here and grumble all you wish.

Kimberly's a liar.

I sent him a highly insulting email the other day. And will continue to do so. Otherwise I'd be part of the problem, you know, being a pussy. And Lord, I want to help teach boys to be MANLY.

100% positive, my ass.

Here's my thought: I got and keep the woman I've been married to for 17 years by persevering in recognizing in her those qualities I value, and encouraging her in being wonderful. She accepted and returned my love when she saw real qualities in me which she admired and appreciated, and keeps me by showing her love and likewise encouraging the best in me. What a joy it is to know that the things we love most can be encouraged, successfully, to continue and grow.

Posted by: geometry 20 years ago at November 6, 2003 01:27 PM

Wonderful, Geo! Just the way I feel about my relationship with my wife too. More folks should just try the kind of mutually supportive valuation and encouragement of which both you and Kim have written so eloquently. It would be so much more rewarding than trying to manipulate men, and women too, into some unrealistic PC caricature.

As I wrote elsewhere, you don't change a million years of genetic evolution and social adaptation by forcing some overintellectualized utopian PC notions down people's throats. Not without unforeseen negative consequences, you don't.

Oh, and now he's banned me from emailing him. Check it:

"Sorry, Wrist-Ram, you're on the Shit List.

Wave bye bye to the girly-man, kids..."

Way to bring it, Kimberly. Sooo tough.

What's the matter, Tristram? Your little pussy ass not getting enough attention? Ooooo, your really tough. You sure told him. I bet Kim's properly chastized now! We're impressed, now go back to your sensitivity training.