« mmmm...fish | Main | commenting »

On Kim and Men

See this post below.

I will write more about Kim's post in its entirety when I get back home. I did, in fact, agree with some of his points and I did a great disservice to Kim by quoting only the part that angered me the most.

For those who commented on the previous post of mine, be sure to read all of Kim's rant.

Thank you.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On Kim and Men:

» 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]


I think what probably upset you most, and probably others as well, is the part about rape, and what would appear to be even a tacit acceptance of it, as if it were inevitable.

And to start with, I would agree. But Kim's not talking here about hardcore, serial rapists. I think he's talking more about campus date-rape.

From the woman's point of view, there is no difference, and I would agree, but from a "what causes a man to rape?" question, there is a difference. My first thought was, no, the "wussification" of men is not to blame - rapists are born of serious trauma to the psyche that is way beyond not being allowed to be aggressive as a boy, etc. That is in regards to serial rapists, though, but I think what causes date-rape is less severe, and perhaps, there is some truth to the idea that stifling the natural tendencies of boys may be a big contributor.

I know personally, my affinity for some rap music - specifically Body Count by Ice T - probably comes from exactly what Kim is talking about. It's BAD with a capital B, and that is ok in black culture, but not in white culture. I think it's more than just stifling the natural aggressive tendencies in boys. I think what causes date-rape also involves a lack of discipline or accountability. Perhaps a difference in approach between school and home where sometimes aggressive behavior is ok, but other times it's medicated away. Either way, the departure from holding people accountable for their behavior has as much to do with it as anything, and maybe that's as much a cause of the wussification of men as anything.

Instead of boys being allowed to be aggressive and fight once in a while and then being held accountable for having done so, we try and discourage that behavior altogether.

It comes down to personal responsibility, which, Kim points out is being watered down by the Nanny State. So maybe it's a chicken vs. the egg argument.

There is no excuse for rape, though, and I don't think that's what Kim intended in the first place.

I do not think that Kim was excusing or condoning rape. I have been reading his stuff too long and I do not see him doing anything remotely like that. You have mis-interpreted that part of his remarks. I disagree that all males will have this problem individually but I have to agree with Kim that if you have a locker room full of guys then some of them will lock horns whether they are repressed males or not!

clarification, an opinion, or a differing view is never a disservice.

now bashing and slandering are.

I don't feel that you did the disservice, however there were a few commenters who did, and funny, the slanderers and the slanderees were all in the comments together.

Unfortunately I'm unable to get into Mr. du Toits site at the moment so am basing this on Micheles excerpts and his wifes response in the previous thread.

What bothers me most about this is the assumption that men who are not allowed to express aggression, assertiveness and their 'masculinity' are more prone to commit rape than those who are allowed to behave according Mr. du Toits 18th century adolescent concept of maleness. As a man I find that to be an incredibly facile explanation of a complex behaviour and tend to give my gender a little more credit.

We are not animals driven by uncontrolled floods of testestorone fueled aggression. I don't feel particularly repressed but somehow have managed to control my innate (as Mr. du Toit would have it) tendencies towards aggression, violence and rape.

Okay, I'm a wuss, but I never felt more like a man than while changing the diapers of my children. I'm a single custodial father of three and the decision I made to remain in the home cooking, changing diapers and attending PTA meetings -- I'll leave the brawling and assertiveness to others -- you know, the 'real men' and content myself with raising happy and safe children.

BTW, to put this in context I am raising my children in an exceptionally well armed household and work in law enforcement. However, there is a vast difference between expressing oneself via outmoded models of acceptable behaviour based on gender and securing the personal safety of ones family or community. The former is productive and the later just puts you on the wrong side of the intake desk.

I guess I did not see that Kim was sanctioning any inappropriate behavior. My opinion was that he was pointing to a consequence of said behaviors. Maybe some wrote comments without being able to read the original essay.

What's that saying that I have always loved?
Oh, yes.
"How can you have a strong opinion about something you don't understand?".
It applies quite often to many things.

sigh Kim isn't condoning rape and boorish behavior. He's discussing the societal consequences of removing the saftey checks on boorishness that come from the [strong and sometimes physical] dissaproval of other males.

When I was a teen... We had a hellofalot of parties involving women, booze, fast cars, and all the trimmings. Dangerous fun, eh?

No matter though: there were some things it was understood that you didn't do. If a girl made it clear that she didn't want the attention of a male, and he didn't stop at "No!"... suddenly a half a dozen guys were standing up and asking him pointedly: "What part of No didn't you get, asshole?" The British version used to be "That sort of thing simply isn't done, old chap."

And in school, we'd take the girls aside and warn them about the guys not to go out with because they were dangerous in that sense.

That's the "Male Culture" I saw Kim decrying the loss of in that paragraph. And yes, daterape and other forms of boorishness are a part of the symptoms you get when you remove those aspects of male society and maleness: you get thugs who know they won't suffer any penalty from their peers or their betters.

Men who are brought up culturally that "men don't fight for any reason" won't get their knuckles bruised defending your little sister from the 8 armed guy who doesn't understand "No." They'll look the other way, uncomfortably. And it removes a societal check on boorishness performed traditionally by other males.

If men don't fight for any reason, they won't fight for the right reasons. But some men won't ever get the message - and there's no one to stand up and ask "What part of No didn't you get, old chap?"


I think you hit that one on the head that many didn't read Kim's ENTIRE essay, rather, went off what they saw cut and pasted here.

If you can't get in, like I can't right now, then wait till you can and read the whole thing!

Obviously Mr. du Toit puts thought and time into his essays, as anyone who has ever read them knows, so why can't people put thought and time into reading them before they go spouting off?

It's like taking one paragraph out of a news story and running with it. You can't grasp the full picture unless you SEE the full picture.

Man! Has everyone got this issue confused, or what? I just have to throw my two cents worth into this. I promise this will be brief (as it were). I am short for time today.

Firstly, Mr. Du Toit is not completely off his rocker. He is definately going off half-cocked.

Rape is not a reaction to emasculation. It is an extension of machismo, a behavior that existed long before the current trend of emasculation started.

The male machismo behavior, and the many victims that it left behind, probably is the cause for the current trend of emasculation, not visa-versa.

However, emasculation is as wrong as the machismo behavior that caused it. This cure is, in some ways, worse than the disease.

That being said, machismo is also wrong.

Men have a feminine side. Women are made up of XX, and men are made up of XY.

Women do not have a masculine side. When was the last time a woman was told that she had to get in touch with the man inside of her. She does not possess a Y chomosone (thank you God).

Men have an X chromosone. We need one. It is what helps us nurture and love our spouse and children. We have a Y chromosone. It is what causes us to defend and protect our spouse and children.

That Y chromosone also can cause us trouble. How many times has a woman asked a man:

Why do you act like that? (Y)

Why do you like violence? (Y)

Why do you get so angry? (Y)

Men are composed of X and Y. They are the origin of man's love of sex(X) and violence(Y). Women, typically, love just sex(X) and sex(X) (and MORE SEX!) (Thank you God)

Men may love lots of sex, but it is that Y in them that makes into a conquest and more than mere sex.

Women can ask, but they may never understand the true depths that Y can drive us to (Again, thank you God). That Y was meant to help us protect, not to devestate. Unfortunately, that Y is expressed incorrectly in so many forms.

It comes down to this; Masculinity is what a man does to show a woman that he is a man. Machismo is what a man does to show other men (including himself) that he is a man.

I am a man. I have no need to prove to other men that I am a man. There is one woman in my life, that I need to be sure, understands that I am a man.

Date rape, lecherous conquest of secretaries, college drinking parties, ect... ad nauseum, are all rites of passage designed by men to prove their machismo to other men (even if it's only to themselves).

Being a strong leader and protector of a family, opening a door for a lady; these things are the rites of passage that proves a man's masculinity to a woman.

Machismo is not a reaction to emasculation. Emasculation is a reaction to machismo. He has it exactly backwards.

Masculinity may have become an innocent, wounded grievously in this conflict. But only on TV commercials, not in my household.

You know, as I read this little piece I was struck by the paradoxical nature of it. Here is a fellow telling us what men should be, all the while bitching like some ninety-year-old grandmother about the way men are treated.

Who let themselves become pussified? Men. Did they do it because it was easier? Who the fuck cares? If they didn't have the balls to stand up to it, then fuck um. Men do not need some sort of Jesus-like rallier of the people. In fact, any real man who supports this kind of article is in fact further perpetuating the very thing that got men where they are today if indeed it be the case they be pussified; not thinking for your own damn selves and letting someone else define who you are by a few persuasive words. Fuck you guys for being spineless wimps, and fuck the author for being on some PMS tirade of righteousness.

OK, I have to take offence right here. This is what Kim was talking about.

"Rape is not a reaction to emasculation. It is an extension of machismo, a behavior that existed long before the current trend of emasculation started.

The male machismo behavior, and the many victims that it left behind, probably is the cause for the current trend of emasculation, not visa-versa.

However, emasculation is as wrong as the machismo behavior that caused it. This cure is, in some ways, worse than the disease.

That being said, machismo is also wrong."

Rape is not an extention of machismo, it's best translated as a power grab. Many rapists don't get turned on by the woman, they get turned on at the thought of CONTROLLING the woman! If it were just about sex, they'd go whack off in the bathroom. But it's not sex, it's power and control. NOT MACHISMO. But as Kim pointed out, men have been told for so long that showing any kind of aggressiveness is wrong, that they no longer have any idea how to control a basic urge! And when a small segment of the population goes off on a destructive tangent, no one has been taught to stand up to that person!

And then we get to this: "Date rape, lecherous conquest of secretaries, college drinking parties, ect... ad nauseum, are all rites of passage designed by men to prove their machismo to other men (even if it's only to themselves)."

But WHY did it turn into that, eh? Because the PC culture of today has shut down most of the outlets that men would normally use to engage in what you deride as "machismo". And quite honestly, the fact that you mistake date rape as a "right of passage" shows me all I need to know about you.

Ahh... Now that I've vented on the other post, it's time to chill out a bit. Not to mention that this thread of comments lends itself a heck of a lot easier to reasoned debate.

Survivor Type: You bring up a number of good points, but you miss a few too. You're right that machismo has always existed and it always will, no matter how much we try to medicate male children out of it and try to turn them into girls.

The problem is, as Ironbear points out, that the wussification of males has led to the point where men are taught that ALL "male behavior", such as beating the snot out of somebody, is BAAAAAD, no matter what the reason. This removes the checks and balances on males acting out. Back when men were men, a rapist wouldn't be ignored or sent to counseling, he'd be strung up from the nearest tree in seconds flat, no questions asked, or, at the very least, beat to a gibbering pulp of bloodied meat.

That's just one example. There are thousands more. A boor would be told to take it outside and have his ass whupped in public would be another one. This put a curb on the natural male urge to conquer and vanquish, because nobody likes to be beaten to mush.

But not anymore. Now, if a boy stands up to a school bully and kicks him in the nads, he's suspended from school, put on Ritalin and sent to counseling, because standing up for anything is BAAAAAD. The result is more bullies and bullies who get away with shit that would get them sent to the ER in better days.

And Al: You've just proven once again that you didn't understand the first word of Kim's post. Congratulations. I challenge you to point out (once the server is back up) exactly WHERE Kim states that it's "wussified" for a man to change a diaper. I challenge you to point out exactly where it is that Kim states that it's "wussified" for a single male provider to take care of his children.

Try it. I'll eat my hat if you can find such a passage.

I originally posted this on the old thread, but I think it fits better on this one...

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" and 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.

Oh, and to this asshole...
"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."
You're treading on dangerous ground here, friend. I won't bother to bring up Mr. du Toit's past, but he IS an authentic Real Man.
You, on the other hand, are a coward.

ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS! Some just haven't been caught.

Looking around the blogosphere I'm surprised that no one has mentioned how similar the current piece is to Philip Wylie's assault on Momism in what to the current piece might be credited as the good old days almost the golden age for the television examples say. Kids today have been going to the dogs for lo these many years.

On the appeal of bad boys - John T. Malloy of Dress for Success fame actually reports doing research (remember his work was research based) on what we might call picking up women and says in one book he is stopping short in describing it because of disturbing implications - there is some data (almost facts) out there.

I'm not sure what the current global situation is but I suspect some of what I don't see is better than what I do see and some of what I don't see is worse than what I do see and I'm not sure what to do about it. Mr. du Toit does seriously undervalue the Steyr Scout - a remarkably fine tool for the whole family - the long eye relief makes it intuitive - and a useful response to violence against women that ought to get more encouragement.