~15 years ago, Garrison Keillor noted on-air that once upon a time, the attainment of manhood was reason to celebrate - and now, it is a problem to be overcome. We are supposed to engage in "recreational weeping".

It's a fine way to doom a society: keep your children indoors in the "bonus room", away from the dangers of... your neighborhood. I suppose such people are counting on a "deplorable" to take care of the nasty, brutish and short life awaiting them if they actually go outside.

At one time, not that long ago, it was asserted that black men couldn’t restrain their “nature” and couldn’t be trusted around “good” (white) women. The same accusation has been made of other groups in other times and places. When the object is to demonize a group and so exercise power over them, not much has changed. It’s just a variation on the theme of blood libel.

Part of a bigger shift from a culture of responsibility to a culture of blame.

The Keillor thing is a right-on remark.

Same with the observation of the anti-individualistic nature of the way we're approaching boys. It comes straight out of women's studies departments, seeing people not as individuals but as members of groups and either as oppressor groups or victim groups.

Meanwhile, you have control only over (and are only responsible for) your own behavior. Turning you into a group member turns you into a criminal or a victim through nothing you can do anything about. Of course, the answer (the "answer," via academic feminist ideology) is bowing to academic feminism's authoritarian demands -- like demonizing boys...innocent children...right out of the gate.

Ugly. I feel terribly sorry for any child whose mother buys into this ugliness.

When the object is to demonize a group and so exercise power over them, not much has changed. It’s just a variation on the theme of blood libel. ~ Wfjag at December 3, 2018 2:41 AM

Turning you into a group member turns you into a criminal or a victim through nothing you can do anything about. Of course, the answer (the "answer," via academic feminist ideology) is bowing to academic feminism's authoritarian demands -- like demonizing boys...innocent children...right out of the gate. ~ Amy Alkon at December 3, 2018 5:12 AM

More of the collectivist mind-set. It's easier to hate a group than it is an individual; and more productive.

In such thinking, the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of the collective. So, the innocent male is sacrificed for the "greater good" of implementing feminist-oriented societal engineering, or whatever collectivist program is currently in vogue.

The old code of honor for men, which boys were taught was: don't ever hit a girl, hold the door for girls, help those in need, fight if you need to defend someone, be strong for those who are hurt in life, give to charity, support your family. All of this is in recognition of men's greater strength and endurance (mentally and physically). The counter to this was a code for girls, but we have thrown that out, teaching girls to be aggressive, rude, to get black-out drunk, to wear skimpy clothing, etc etc. Women still expect the husband to support the family, but aren't grateful for it. They act like they will never need a man but do in fact at times (when there are spiders, floods, barking dogs, muggers, the IRS). The calls for men to change are in fact asking men to become emasculated. No thanks. This ask is bad for men, bad for families, and bad for children.

"Part of a bigger shift from a culture of responsibility to a culture of blame."

And from a population of citizens to one of consumers.

No one will repeat JFK's "Ask not" speech, either, because for politicians there is personal gain to be had by encouraging people to be helpless.

Rad, I'm pretty sure politicians quote that speech in a positive manner, often, if only in such a way that suggests that certain "changes" need to made to that speech today. (Of course, they don't want to insult JFK's image, so they're vague about what the changes would be.)

And Snoopy, it's one thing for, say, black people to blame all their problems on whites. (I can't remember any individual, outside of the entertainment world, maybe, who does that; even "Boondocks" creator Aaron MacGruder clearly doesn't believe in doing that. Anyone can tell Huey would rather have had a brother who reads newspapers and is completely different from hoodlum Riley - and there are plenty of other hints that MacGruder thinks black people could be behaving a lot better for their own good.) It's another thing when black people simply keep pointing out that discrimination and racist violence - and threats of it - are still here and are being used to keep black people down. And yes, that analogy applies elsewhere too.

Somewhat related, but not really...

I note that the problem isn't white privilege, male privilege or even white male privilege; it's victim privilege that's the problem.

I recently shared a video about Edith Macias, the University of California at Riverside student who was sentenced to community service for taking it upon herself to confiscate the MAGA hat off another student and turned it in to Student Life, then had the nerve to be shocked when the campus police showed up.

Obviously, I cannot read minds, but her inner monologue seems to be, "I am oppressed. I am a victim; therefore I have the right to confiscate things that offend me, even though taking things that don't belong to me is typically regarded as illegal."

Or Bonita Tindle, the prize-winning bully who harassed and assaulted a student for wearing dreadlocks, insisting that they were her culture. (They are not.)

Her inner monologue is undoubtedly similar to Macias's.

Victims complain about the so-called privilege of whites and/or males, let claim privilege for themselves.

I see how our society is marginalizing boys and denigrating any sense that masculinity is a) a real thing, and/or b) is normal and even beneficial. My husband is probably the best human being on the planet; he is so kind and so true. He would cut his own arm off before hitting a woman and has zero misogynism. He is my biggest fan and thinks our daughter hung the moon. And "yet," he has a core masculinity that is very different than my feminine (albeit tomboy) side. He considers it a sacred duty to provide for and to protect his family. We argue about whether or not I should run if he were ever to become involved in a physical battle; I want to stay and help subdue the intruder and he insists that I have to run because it's his duty to fight and give me a chance to run away. And this is supposed to be a BAD thing??

Very sweet of your husband, but there's a big difference between "running" and "running for help." Even if it's just hiding behind a pole and dialing 911. Also, if the attacker has a weapon, the people you call might not arrive in time, AND if your husband gets killed as a result, the attacker just might catch up with you. So, trying to hold down the attacker's arm, at least, might be a good idea.

So, trying to hold down the attacker's arm, at least, might be a good idea}}} Lenona

I completely agree with you, Lenona---that's why we "argue" the hypotheticals, lol. I want to imagine saving my husband and also want to do my part to get the bad guy. The difference in his eyes is, all other aspects being accounted for, it would be his job to die for me and not my job to die for him. At least we both agree that it's both of our jobs to save the kids.

The current trend of denigrating and disadvantaging men and boys in order to "benefit" women and girls is not sustainable. The end cannot be good for anyone -- meaning the consequences being borne up to now by men and children will finally catch up to women. In spades.

Then what?

RigelDog: "We argue about whether or not I should run if he were ever to become involved in a physical battle... he insists that I have to run because it's his duty to fight and give me a chance to run away."

That's true. And he needs for you to get away because if the enemy is too strong for him to defeat he can't retreat from the battle and survive himself until he knows you're away and safe. This drive to protect you is not as much because of duty as it is because of love. Also he needs to know that you'll survive and protect his (your) children if he dies. He needs for you to survive because he trusts you more than anyone else to protect them, not because it's your duty, but because he knows you're the only one who loves them as much as he does.

I've met a lot of women and children who have no idea how much their husbands and fathers love them. And I've met others who do know and show it - God bless their precious hearts.

Note: the mother is the article below is a licensed pediatrician:

http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/26/mom-dresses-six-year-old-son-girl-threatens-dad-losing-son-disagreeing/

https://fee.org/articles/alexis-de-tocqueville-15-quotes-on-democracy-and-liberty/

Alexis de Tocqueville

He saw how democracy can subvert liberty:

"The Revolution... was the result of a mature and reflecting preference for freedom, and not of a vague or ill-defined craving for independence."

"The Federal Constitution... disavowed beforehand the habitual use of compulsion in enforcing the decisions of the majority."

"It profits me but little, after all, that a vigilant authority... averts all dangers from my path... if this same authority is the absolute master of my liberty and my life."

"I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns... as at the inadequate securities which one finds there against tyranny."

"No sooner does a government attempt to go beyond its political sphere... than it exercises... insupportable tyranny."

"The despotism of faction is not less to be dreaded than the despotism of an individual."

"Americans believe their freedom to be the best instrument and surest safeguard... to secure for themselves a government which will allow them to acquire the things they covet and which will not debar them from the peaceful enjoyment of those possessions."

"[People] think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience."

"The democratic tendency... leads men unceasingly to multiply the privileges of the state and to circumscribe the rights of private persons... often sacrificed without regret and almost always violated without remorse... men become less and less attached to private rights just when it is most necessary to retain and defend what little remains of them."

"True friends of liberty... ought constantly to be on the alert to prevent the power of government from lightly sacrificing the private rights of individuals to the general execution of its designs. At such times no citizen is so obscure that it is not very dangerous to allow him to be oppressed; no private rights are so unimportant that they can be surrendered with impunity to the caprices of a government... [because] men accustom themselves to sacrifice private interest without scruple and to trample on the rights of individuals in order more speedily to accomplish any public purpose."

"I hold it to be... a detestable maxim that, politically speaking, the people have a right to do anything."

"When…the people are invested with the supreme authority…they discover a multitude of wants... to satisfy these exigencies recourse must be had to the coffers of the state."

"Popularity may be united with hostility to the rights of the people, and the secret slave of tyranny may be the professed lover of freedom."

"Defending rights against the encroachments of the government saves the common liberties of the country."

"To lay down... limits to the action of the government; to confer certain rights on private persons, and to secure to them the undisputed enjoyment of those rights... [are] the main objects."

This drive to protect you is not as much because of duty as it is because of love. Also he needs to know that you'll survive and protect his (your) children if he dies. He needs for you to survive because he trusts you more than anyone else to protect them, not because it's your duty, but because he knows you're the only one who loves them as much as he does."---Jay R

That's very eloquent; I think you're spot-on and that my husband would agree 100%. Thank you for the thoughtful reply!

Thanks, RigelDog, but the credit goes to Ken R, and most deservedly so!