Friday, January 07, 2011
The home of the scared
The cancellation of an NFL game because of snow, and what it says about the reluctance of today's Americans to embrace any sort of risk or even discomfort. Read the whole thing, especially the part about Americans under 40.
I blame the lawyers, the decline of religion, and the rising power of women. Lawyers, because they have effectively persuaded courts that the average person is incompetent to assume risk and that, in any case, assumption of the risk or one's own negligence should not bar recovery against a deep pocket. The decline of religion, because now people want to live forever. The rising power of women, because the source of male social influence, in the end, is that male strength and courage is only necessary to defend against danger. Eliminate the danger, and men become a lot less important.
I expect a lot of comments.
22 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Jan 07, 09:49:00 AM:
I think you are spot on, TH.
No time to add anything.
By 
Carolyn, at
Fri Jan 07, 10:59:00 AM:
You sound exactly like Dennis Prager on this particular issue. He also notes that the feminization of religion has led to therapeutic, comforting aspects of religion being given much more prominence than concepts of personal responsibilities toward God, which sometimes entail discomfort.
There has also been a strong anti-male thread in the development of feminism, though anti-male theories and sentiments have sometimes been illogical and inconsistent. I think this is turning around to some extent.
But the risk-aversion facilitated by lawyers is getting worse. Sometimes this backfires, increasing other risks and discomforts.
My husband has a business connection with a management company. There is a large, muscular black male employee who has been threatening and intimidating other employees at one of the enterprises they manage. He also works very little. But they are afraid to fire him partly because he has filed an EEO complaint - ascribing his own behavior to others.
The management company was just "fired" from the location where he works partly because the corporate office was afraid to deal decisively with this risky employee for legal reasons, preferring to assign him to "make-work" projects away from others.
By , at
Fri Jan 07, 11:22:00 AM:
I support your larger point but delaying this football game isn't a good example in support thereof.
If the game was played as scheduled there was a real risk that any fans who came might never get home, given the timing of the storm. That's just common sense prudence.
As a lifelong Giants fan, I'd never describe Eagles fans as whimpy. A lot of other adjectives come to mind.
By , at
Fri Jan 07, 12:01:00 PM:
MISOGYNIST!!!!
(Which seems to be the way "I don't like what you said, even if the argument is impossible to refute" is communicated). You're probably a racist too.
Joking aside, I think the three symptoms you describe are inter-related.
By Carolyn, at
Fri Jan 07, 01:01:00 PM:
Oh. Dennis Prager WROTE the article you linked. Should have clicked through before commenting. Oops.
On the other hand, Dennis did not clearly specify in the linked article the reasons for the risk-averse approach to life which you identified here. Fascinating that you would identify the same three contributing factors which he has identified at various times on the radio.
Dennis is concerned about risk-aversion in terms of the survival of our culture and civilization. Risk-averse cultures are the kind "The Barbarians" like to invade.
By Elise, at
Fri Jan 07, 01:05:00 PM:
Postponing the game was a public safety issue. Not so much for the fans - who were free to choose whether or not to drive in the blizzard - but for stadium employees who were not and for non-fans whose safety would be affected by having snow-covered roads clogged by stadium traffic. Both plows and emergency vehicles would be unable to get through roads snarled by fans stuck in snow drifts and sliding on ice. (See stories about Route 280 in New Jersey during the blizzard.) If the article's author's 92-year-old father is willing to risk dying in an accident to see a game, that's fine. I'm not willing to risk an ambulance being unable to get through to me or my family because he and 50,000 of his fellows fans are stuck blocking the roads for 12 hours. This is not because I want or expect to live forever; it’s because I don’t thinks someone else’s ability to attend a football game is worth risking my life for.
As for lawyers, yeah, but we’ve let them do it. And I’m fairly certain that many of the same people who are sneering at how “wussie” cancelling the game is would be expressing outrage - and calling for legal remedies and/or hearings - if the game had gone on and someone had died as a result of either traveling to the game or being unable to receive emergency care due to traffic snarls. Especially if that someone was a child. Instead of hearing how “feminized” we’d become, we’d be hearing about how “childish” or “spoiled” or “self-centered” we’d become to let a game trump public safety, common welfare, common sense, yadda, yadda, yadda.
And I'm a wee bit tired of this whole "feminization" thing. Leaving aside whether feminization is even taking place, let's consider what the claim that it is implies: women are charging ahead, running things their way while men stand on the sidelines, ineffectually wringing their hand. If men are truly so weak they can exert no significant influence on society, then it's time for them to accept their day is past.
But don't worry, guys. To quote Nora Roberts: we'll always need you for large-insect removal.
By Cassandra, at
Fri Jan 07, 02:30:00 PM:
I blame the lawyers, the decline of religion, and the rising power of women. Lawyers, because they have effectively persuaded courts that the average person is incompetent to assume risk and that, in any case, assumption of the risk or one's own negligence should not bar recovery against a deep pocket. The decline of religion, because now people want to live forever. The rising power of women, because the source of male social influence, in the end, is that male strength and courage is only necessary to defend against danger. Eliminate the danger, and men become a lot less important.
Dear God: let this be a particularly subtle form of parody. Because otherwise I plan to climb into the liquor cabinet for the next decade or so.
By Cassandra, at
Fri Jan 07, 02:31:00 PM:
Leaving aside whether feminization is even taking place, let's consider what the claim that it is implies: women are charging ahead, running things their way while men stand on the sidelines, ineffectually wringing their hand. If men are truly so weak they can exert no significant influence on society, then it's time for them to accept their day is past.
Bull's eye.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Jan 07, 03:46:00 PM:
Not quite.
It's not men who are really victimized by feminization. I mean, besides falling out of the work force, almost never obtaining custody of children in contentious divorces, and being perpetual suspects of domestic abuse and rape, that is.
The chief perpetrators are schools, and the real victims are boys. And, increasingly, young women who look around to find men and can't.
Boys' natural inclinations toward competition, aggression, and ambition are indoctrinated out of them. They are instead forced to emulate girls. Violence is bad. Physical sports are barbaric, and if you do play them then you shouldn't keep score because it might make the losers feel bad. Cooperation replaces competition. Feelings and perceptions are more important than virtue and conviction, and surrender to authority or threat is preferable to resistance ("nothing... nothing is worth your life" we were told).
I got some of this when I was a kid. Playing rough was banned. If you fought, you were suspended or expelled, even in self defense... the idea being that you should just take your blows and 'tell a teacher.' Challenging the status quo was a punishable offense; I remember getting detention for pointing out errors made by the teacher. The boys who shut their mouths and did only what they were told did fine; and they were told to behave like the girls.
When boldness and competitive behavior are not just discouraged, but punished, is it any wonder that there is less of it?
It's worse now. When my son was a two year old toddler, he got in trouble at daycare (and at least one teacher wanted him removed) for pointing his finger at his friend and saying 'bang.' You should see the horrified looks I get when I tell people that I'm teaching him to fight. When I play rough with him at playgrounds and such, other kids come up to me to play because 'their moms and dads won't play like that with them.' Legions of boys (including my youngest cousins) live in stupors, plied with Adderall and other drugs to try to curb their 'anti-social' behavior; recommended to the parents by schools.
Masculinity is being criminalized. And the effects are readily apparent, if you just open your eyes and look. Many young men today (17-20) are pathetic weaklings. Not just physically, but mentally. They can't handle adversity. When things go wrong, they don't buckle down, adapt, and overcome. They cry, quit, and find something else to do. It's pathetic, and it's a generational problem.
"If men are truly so weak they can exert no significant influence on society, then it's time for them to accept their day is past."
For one thing, this is a complete misunderstanding of the issue. "Men" are not some sort of unified group that acts (or doesn't act) to influence 'society.' They are part of society. And our society increasingly discourages or punishes, and has for a long time, natural masculine behavior. Collaborationist men are just as much a part of this crime against boys as women.
Asides, I'd like to point out that you seem to be saying that it's ok to hurt or oppress the weak, so long as they're men. What a shock.
"But don't worry, guys. To quote Nora Roberts: we'll always need you for large-insect removal."
And fuck your patronizing tone.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Jan 07, 04:02:00 PM:
Elise and Cass,
Regarding "If men are truly so weak they can exert no significant influence on society, then it's time for them to accept their day is past":
First, I think that statement is generally true in a long-range historical sense. The Age of Men in the still-unwritten history of homo sapiens may well be over, at least in post-industrial economies.
Second, it is not obvious that is bad. It may well be that the post-industrial society with its social density and complexity is more suited to women, on average, than men, at least in the sense that physical strength and conflict is substantially depreciated as a means for social and economic advancement.
Third, it is not entirely clear the extent to which the social and economic shape of our post-industrial society is determined by technology, on the one hand, or the success of transforming political philosophy (such as feminism) on the other. Is the success of the women's movement a function of the decline in conflict, or a cause, or are both derivative of technology?
Anyway, I think that the rise of women in various spheres is not merely the consequence of our declining acceptance of physical risk, but a cause of it. But your results may vary.
By , at
Fri Jan 07, 04:31:00 PM:
This is what happens when you hang around the likes of Ezra Klein.
By Cassandra, at
Fri Jan 07, 05:05:00 PM:
OK, that wins comment of the day. I have spoken :p
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Jan 07, 05:21:00 PM:
By Cassandra, at
Fri Jan 07, 05:25:00 PM:
I think that statement is generally true in a long-range historical sense. The Age of Men in the still-unwritten history of homo sapiens may well be over, at least in post-industrial economies.
Only if you all give up. Last time I checked, that's a choice. Jeez TH - this isn't aimed at you personally but fight back! If you really think evil womyns and their deathly mind control rays are destroying the universe along with all that's good and holy, stand up and fight back!
I'm amazed to hear Dawnfire (who I agree with more often than not) going on about how all these oppressive forces just make it too hard for men/boys. Sheesh - do you seriously think women have never had to deal with social pressure/disapproval or authority figures that put you down all the time? Do you seriously think ALL (or even the majority) of women fought for access to vote or the courts? Wow. Really?
Do I sympathize with *some* of your complaints? Sure. Have I written about them myself? Yep. So you have women (and I'd like to think intelligent women) on your side.
Do I think "you're not making it easy for me" is a good excuse? Not really - no more than I did when feminists whined that Teh Patriarchy and their phallo-centric, estrogen harshing ways were responsible for every bad thing since Eve gave Adam that apple. Dang- another women out to ruin it all :p
Second, it is not obvious that is bad. It may well be that the post-industrial society with its social density and complexity is more suited to women, on average, than men, at least in the sense that physical strength and conflict is substantially depreciated as a means for social and economic advancement.
And I think you're selling men short. It wasn't just muscles/aggression that designed the Parthenon or conquered the Roman Empire - it also took brains to build a civilization and hold on to what was gained by force and strength.
Dear God - you all already have the vote and full access to the courts. Men run pretty much everything - you still dominate the upper echelons of politics and business. If you can't compete with that kind of head start then there really is something tragically wrong.
*That* was Elise's point. Neither of us want men to give up, or for your time to be over, but your arguments imply that you all have no other choice. Is it really so hard to co-exist?
By Cassandra, at
Fri Jan 07, 05:29:00 PM:
Seriously guys, sorry for the rant but we love you. We do.
We can no sooner exist without you than you can without us. Just think what we could do if we worked together instead of blaming each other.
By Elise, at
Fri Jan 07, 06:44:00 PM:
It sounds, TH, like you believe all men have to offer is “physical strength and conflict”. I’ve never been in the military but from what I know modern warfare requires little physical strength (apart from ground combat) , is incredibly complex, and requires remarkable cooperation. Submarines, air groups, carrier groups: men excel at this. There are a fair number of major corporations that managed to do quite well for themselves when run as men-only (except for coffee, typing, and exceptionals) organizations, despite requiring far more than physical strength and conflict to succeed. The idea that men are somehow unsuited for a world they largely designed just seems weird to me.
I don’t think our society is becoming “feminized”; I think it’s become rich and is now much like a wealthy man whose greatest fear is that his wealth will be stolen. Most of us don’t have to worry about survival; many of us are doing very well with little effort relative to our ancestors. So we start protecting what we have rather than going after more. We’re playing a prevent defense.
I don’t think that’s good in the long run: the only thing a prevent defense prevents is victory. But it’s *human* nature, not feminine or masculine. There are plenty of men who prefer safety and security to the possiblity of gain through risk now that they’re doing well (see “crony capitalism”) - just as there were plenty of women who were willing to gamble when they needed a better life. Women sailed to the American colonies, too. They traveled west with the Conestogas; they worked beside their husbands building businesses on a shoestring. The women who come here today as immigrants from poor countries are taking risks right along with the men; they’re not risk averse.
What’s important to me is not claiming that certain virtues are tied to certain chromosome configurations; it’s figuring out which virtues we want our society as a whole to possess and figuring out how we can all contribute to it doing so. Or is it, in fact, too hard to co-exist?
By Bomber Girl, at
Fri Jan 07, 07:28:00 PM:
Sheesh. You guys should man up, for goodness' sake.
By Cassandra, at
Fri Jan 07, 07:54:00 PM:
Elise: I believe now would be a good time for me to confess that I love you in an uber intellectual, scrupulously non-sexual way that absolutely does not involve either of us engaging in scantily clad pillow fights on a feather bed.
*cough*
re: The idea that men are somehow unsuited for a world they largely designed just seems weird to me.
Me too. The intricate infrastructure of Western Civilization is organized around the realization that it's a lot easier for most of us to create and hold onto wealth when we suppress our baser instincts and resolve our differences peacefully (as opposed to raping, plundering and pillaging, fun though those activities undoubtedly are for the Gaia raping-and-pillaging set).
That doesn't mean violence is out of the question. With two wars going on, it's hard to argue that war has gone out of style. What it does mean is that violence is no longer the tool of first resort. It also means that most of us live lives that are pleasant, congenial and long as opposed to nasty, brutish and short (to quote a man).
Life will never be free of struggle, but as the world changes so will the nature of that struggle and the weapons we use to wage it. The good news is that we humans evolve by adapting to adversity - by being stressed. Challenges force us to be flexible and become stronger.
I have great faith in the ability of men to adapt and overcome. After all, y'all have thousands of years of experience. We women, on the other hand, have little experience of sharing power.
I have faith in our abilities, too but there's a pretty significant learning curve for us. Be patient.
By , at
Sat Jan 08, 02:33:00 PM:
"Sheesh. You guys should man up, for goodness' sake."
The current issue of Time reports on a new scientific study which concludes that women's crying dramatically reduces men's levels of testosterone.
... So for all the women here, it's all your fault!
This thread has taken on a "He Said / She Said" gender tack. But when it started I amused myself with a vision of 50,000 loutish Eagles fans caught snowbound in Lincoln Financial Field. When the beer ran out, it'd have made the post-Katrina New Orleans Superdome look like a kid's birthday party. Would have served them right for hiring a puppy-murdering QB.
Seriously, I'm not whining (that much) but it is true that our laws and government and schools have gotten unbalanced in ways that adversely affect traditional bread-winning American males.
I could go on ... but won't ... as I've been told to man up by She Who Must Be Obeyed.
... starting to take out the garbage ....
By Bomber Girl, at
Sat Jan 08, 04:14:00 PM:
By Cassandra, at
Sun Jan 09, 12:45:00 AM:
I guess I'm still trying to figure out what the standard is. I don't believe there is one.
I've only ever known one way to get ahead in life: show up, work hard, don't expect the world to accommodate you because most people are interested in themselves and not you. If you can provide value, someone will be willing to hire you. No one owes you anything: an education, a job, a roof over your head, support for your self esteem or validation of your maleness or femaleness.
It's tempting to cherry pick the news every day for outrage inducing anecdotes that assure us our current problems are the fault of women, man hating feminists, or whatever politically acceptable scapegoat du jour floats our boats this week.
All I know is that men have run the world since I was born, and yet it has never occurred to me to blame men for every injustice, half assed idea, or social policy that comes down the pike. I have to say that I like the idea of men as helpless victims about as much as I like the idea of men as evil oppressors, which is to say "not much".
Obviously, I have much to learn.
By , at
Sat Jul 30, 06:53:00 AM:
"What it does mean is that violence is no longer the tool of first resort. "
Neither is reason. In the name of equality, feminists have advocated women only advantages and the populace is so feminized that they can't see this stupidity which is right in front of their eyes.
" We women, on the other hand, have little experience of sharing power."
You are clueless and don't know about history other than the feminist cant.
http://www.angryharry.com/esDidWomenReallyWantToGoOutToWork.htm?main
"All I know is that men have run the world since I was born, and yet it has never occurred to me to blame men for every injustice, half assed idea, or social policy that comes down the pike. I have to say that I like the idea of men as helpless victims about as much as I like the idea of men as evil oppressors, which is to say "not much"."
Again, clueless. Have you ever thought of thanking men?
"Obviously, I have much to learn."
Hopefully you won't have to go looking for it in your lifetime.
"I've only ever known one way to get ahead in life: show up, work hard,"
Cry discrimination, get affirmative action laws, change school curriculum so that one "gender" gets ahead at the expense of other, change college requirements that discriminate against one gender like standardized tests, make quotas for women when diversity and maternity leaves don't do enough...
"If men are truly so weak they can exert no significant influence on society, then it's time for them to accept their day is past."
Reality has a nasty habit of forcing its way to the front when you're living in a fantasy, and then you can't look away.
If women were truly so weak, why didn't they accept their day is past?
" To quote Nora Roberts: we'll always need you for large-insect removal. "
Indeed, what else does a woman have a need for?
"Is it really so hard to co-exist? "
See that's the modus operandi. Men have already built their institutions, now women have to enter them in the name of co-existence, and then suit it to themselves.
So yeah, it's that hard to co-exist.
More by Dennis Prager:
http://aleknovy.com/2011/07/29/dennis-prager-on-anti-male-university-guidelines-concerning-rape-allegations/
"We can no sooner exist without you than you can without us."
Artificial wombs, the end of women.
"Just think what we could do if we worked together instead of blaming each other. "
Look at the last 50 years, you have come a long way baby.
"Neither of us want men to give up, or for your time to be over, but your arguments imply that you all have no other choice. "
Better to have an intelligent enemy than a dumb friend. Or a friend in name.
