Men tend to focus more on quietly enduring suffering, and they rarely speak up when they have been hurt. That’s why we get excited when women speak up for us. But it’s rare for a woman to see what men’s plans and motivations are. Rarer still to see who is standing in opposition to those plans and motivations. And rarest of all is to speak up to defend men from their opponents.
So, this post is about a woman doing all three. And not just any woman, but famous conservative woman Miranda Devine, who recently wrote the book “Laptop from Hell: Hunter Biden, Big Tech, and the Dirty Secrets the President Tried to Hide“, which is all about Hunter Biden’s laptop, and how Big Tech and the Biden administration tried to cover it all up.
Anyway, here is her article in the New York Post:
We pathologize manly virtues and bow to the tyranny of identity politics that seeks power by overthrowing a make-believe patriarchy. We raise boys in a soup of reproach and negativity that tells them their intrinsic nature is diseased.
“Traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful,” the American Psychological Association declared in 2019. These were the masculine attributes it listed as diseased: “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, aggression, anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk and violence.”
The only acceptable man now is a man who wants to be a woman. We celebrate “pregnant men” and “chestfeeding” men.
[…]We ignore the crisis that sees men commit suicide at ever increasing rates or succumb to drug abuse and porn addiction while savvy young women graduate from college in disproportionate numbers. Trained from childhood to be entitled and unrealistic about relationships, their fertility and the sacrifices and joys of motherhood, many become bitter and blame men for their confusion.
I’ll be writing an article for Friday about the unrealistic expectations of young feminist women.
But for now, here’s more Miranda, and quoting C.S. Lewis:
Along the way, we emasculate the institutions that were necessarily masculine for our protection, notably the military. As an example, on Wednesday, the US Marines celebrated Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Pride Month by tweeting a picture of a combat helmet adorned with rainbow-colored bullets.
So, what do men do? They recoil and retreat. They leave the stage for hysterical epsilon men like Beto O’Rourke who whine and posture but can’t protect a thing.
Then when we need a strong, quick-thinking Gary Cooper to save us from outlaws, he’s nowhere to be found.
“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise,” C.S. Lewis foretold in his dystopian 1943 book “The Abolition of Man.”
“We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”
Maybe men have had it with being screeched at, so no more protecting and providing? (or leading, but nobody wants the leading anymore) Society can’t spend all of their time attacking masculinity, then demand men perform male roles just when it suits them.
You would expect to see men retreating from traditional masculinity precisely in the states that attack traditional masculinity as “toxic”.
The American Thinker notes:
On May 28, Sky News Australia posted a video titled “New York bearing signs of ‘societal decay.'” The video shows a man (who seems as if he is on drugs) entering a train car and sitting next to a young woman. He then touches her without consent, grabs her, drags her around a bit, and generally is an extremely unpleasant nuisance.
[…]During the video, the young woman is seen looking at other passengers, with obvious worry in her eyes, begging somebody to please “help me.” Nobody tries to help her.
Where were the men? The author speculates:
If I had to guess, they were standing in their place, checking their male privilege, toning down their toxic masculinity, and coping with how their Time’s Up.
[…]My guess is that none of the men watching wanted to become the next George Zimmerman. We all saw the emotional toll Kyle Rittenhouse suffered for defending himself.
The article notes New York’s laws against self-defense:
New York has a duty to retreat, after all. Besides, New York has been in the habit of arresting those who defend themselves.
New York is a very feminized state. Male nature is suspicious – something for the government to outlaw and restrain by force. But when videos like this emerge, they reverse themselves and ask “where are all the good men?”
Matt Walsh has been talking about how the effeminate, weak Prime Minister of Canada just recently announced that there is no right to self-defense in Canada. No castle doctrine. No stand your ground. No use of force at all is allowed to defend yourself (or your family) from criminals.
Daily Wire reported:
Guns are for hunting and target practice, but never for self defense, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said this week, continuing his crusade against firearms.
Trudeau, who is pushing a sweeping measure aimed at freezing the sale, purchase, or transfer of handguns in Canada, told the Pod Save America podcast his country takes a completely different view of firearms than its southern neighbor. No one in Canada has a right to defend themselves, their family or their property with a firearm, Trudeau declared.
“We have a culture where the difference is: Guns can be used for hunting or for sport shooting in Canada – and there are lots of gun owners, and they’re mostly law-respecting and law-abiding – but you can’t use a gun for self-protection in Canada,” Trudeau said. “That’s not a right that you have in the Constitution or anywhere else.”
Matt noted on his show that this doesn’t just apply to guns. It applies to every form of self-defense, e.g. – pepper spray. The victim of a criminal is more likely to run afoul of the “law enforcement” in Canada than the actual criminal. For Trudeau, to lift up evil, and to stamp down good, is “compassionate”. He’s very compassionate.
It makes you wonder why anyone would live there, doesn’t it? I mean, especially men. Why would a man live there, and pay taxes there, knowing that the clown in charge makes it illegal for him to defend himself, or defend others? But Trudeau won re-election, so they must believe he is a good Prime Minister, and that his view of male nature is accurate and good.
11 thoughts on “Miranda Devine asks: where are the men of courage?”
“But Trudeau won re-election, so they must believe he is a good Prime Minister, and that his view of male nature is accurate and good.”
Trudeau won with less than 1/3 of the popular vote. In some of the provinces (states) he won no seats. He is a minority government propped up by the far left. We in western Canada have no say. Look into the trucker convoy.
We need prayer not blanket statements
I know all this. And i wrote about 6 posts about the trucker convoys, including posting all the videos. I got re-tweeted by Ezra Levant.
I was just trying to make the point that you were incorrect in making your final statement that we, as Canadians, believe that Trudeau is in anyway good or believe in his views. That would be the same as stating that Biden represents you and all Americans views. Trudeau got in with 1-3 of the vote. Biden supposedly got in with over 1/2..
I used the truckers as an example of how angry a lot of Canadians are.
There is no way out if you farm in western Canada. We tried, got our bank accounts frozen, assets frozen,etc. Now they are coming after our guns hard.
We have nowhere to go… and no right to any form of self defence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right. And that is assuming that your elections in Canada are not even cooked, like they are, to some degree, here in the US.
That’s the first thing that I thought of: when totalitarians get into power, they strangely receive 99.9% of the vote every election.
I don’t believe for one second that Biden received 81 million votes, yet could not get a dozen people to voluntarily attend his “rallies.” I think that it was Stalin who said something to the effect that “It’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes.”
When evil cheats and good plays fair, it’s tough to win. No doubt most Canadians are not perverts and pro-aborts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, understood! Yes, I agree. Things will be different with Pierre at the helm of the CPC.
But you didn’t cover the best parts.
Devine told us: The men of courage are gone or were never created, thanks to shrieks of complaints about “toxic masculinity” (i.e. “masculinity is toxic”).
The American Thinker also told us. “Where are the men?”
–knowing their places
–“checking their privilege”
–toning down their “toxic masculinity”
–coping with how “time’s up”
–they didn’t act because they didn’t know this woman and didn’t care about her
–it wasn’t worth it to risk injury or death for someone they don’t know or care about
–they don’t want to become the next George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse
–avoiding possible criminal liability for using force to come to the defense of others. It’s noted that people tend to get arrested now for defending themselves; how much more would they be prosecuted for trying to defend someone else
I would note: This was a nonlethal attack. Most state laws allow one to use force to repel an attack only roughly equal to the force being used in the attack. In other words, you can’t shoot a school yard bully threatening a kid. You can use force and size; but you cannot pull out a gun and start shooting. You can use lethal force only when lethal force is being used on you. Fist for fist. Knife for knife. Gun for gun. (Who in the world is going to do that kind of legal analysis before deciding to act?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK I can fix that! I added some of the things you mentioned to the OP.
I think that people outside the USA don’t realize that self-defense here is only justified if there is “immediate risk of death or serious bodily injury”. Its not the Wild West. This was drummed into us over and over at our concealed carry course. And the police officer teaching it said the best thing to do was to live somewhere safe, and stay alert to avoid anyone acting erratically.
Naturally, it’s best to live in a castle doctrine and stand your ground state. But they don’t exactly encourage men to look out for others. My instructor made a point of telling us NOT to use our weapons in defense of someone else, because of the legal risks involved. He even had examples to scare us away from doing it, featuring Good Samaritans who were punished for trying to help other people. Clearly, America has decided to side with “compassion” and prevent men from looking out for others. Oh well, that’s what people vote for. I am glad I live somewhere safe where crime isn’t a problem.
In Canada guns are only for sports and hunting correct? So let’s say I was hunting in the woods and all of a sudden a half ton moose charges at me, would I be able to defense myself? Also what is toxic masculinity? I keep on hearing those 2 words but I’m never able to figure out what the actual definition is.
Yes, moose are ok to shoot if you comply with 12 trillion regulations.
Toxic masculinity is what feminists call the bad boy behaviors that they are attracted to. Those bad boy traits cause them to have tingles, and they must choose to follow the tingles. The tingles are the Universe telling them that this particular bad boy will commit. However, thebad boy does not commit. That’s called “toxic masculinity”.
You dont expect women to choose a good man, do you? And built up the tingles by working at the relationship? That’s stupid. Morality and religion are bad. Tallness, tattoos and piercings are good.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am the King of Kanada! I want to thank all the Canadiots who voted for me.