more on International Mens Day

And the best thing I’ve read on this (very new to me) subject by David Lindsay, on International Men’s Day: “It is not without its absurd side. That could be said of all of them, though of few to a greater extent than this.

Yet it can and ought to be defined as a day against the erosion of the stockades of male employment, and in favour of their restoration.

As a day against the foreign policies that send men, especially young men, to be harvested to no good purpose.

As a day, therefore, in defence of the family, which is devastated both by such anti-male economics and by such anti-male geopolitics.

Feminists tell us that women can be misogynists. Not that that comes as news to any of us. Why, then, cannot anti-male policies, as such, be devised and implemented by men?

And while women are far more prevalently victims of domestic violence, that does not mean that men never are.

The sexual abuse of teenage boys by women, often in positions of authority, is still treated as a joke rather than as a very serious problem, the scale of which, although anecdotally large and growing, remains unknown because almost entirely unresearched.

Internet pornography, and the pornogrification of culture generally, is also the systematic abuse of adolescent male sexuality, and thus of teenage boys themselves.

In Afghanistan, we have spent a dozen years fighting for perhaps the most pederastic culture on earth, as well as for the heroin trade, against the sworn enemies of both. One side there does not let girls go to school. The other rapes boys morning, noon and night. We used to aid one. We now fight actively for the other. We must be mad. Quite, quite mad. And very, very, very bad.

The genital mutilation of boys is endemic the world over. As with sexual abuse of boys by women, we insist that there is no problem. This is neither an anti-Jewish nor an anti-Muslim point. Most of those involved in the horrific practices associated with the itself-horrific practice of circumcision as an adolescent rite of passage in Africa would identify very strongly as Christians, as would many, and perhaps still most, of those involved in the near-universal circumcision of male infants in the United States. But that latter remains as popular as ever as America secularises rapidly and dramatically, just as it does among even the most ardently secular ethnic Jews throughout the West and in Israel.

And so on, around the world. Even to something as localised as the Lost Boys of Utah, one among thousands of possible examples.

But the main points remain the first three, from which all others follow, one way or another: the stand against the erosion of the stockades of male employment, and in favour of their restoration; the stand against the foreign policies that send men, especially young men, to be harvested to no good purpose; and the stand, therefore, in defence of the family, which is devastated both by such anti-male economics and by such anti-male geopolitics. (http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/international-mens-day.html)

and interestingly from the comments:

Anonymous said…

There is little that could be more unmanly than an “International Mens Day”.

What remains of our chivalry forbids us to begrudge women their “Women’s Days” but we, by our nature, are not meant to whine and whinge and demand special recognition in the calendar, like some feeble, self-pitying endangered species.

It seems to me that societies that have fathers and working husbands don’t have “Mens Days”.

In the same way that, (as Ed West once said of modern left-wing Britain)-“cohesive societies don’t tend to employ “Community Cohesion Officers””.

20 November 2013 00:21
Anonymous Anonymous said…
Further to my last comment.On Afghanistan, you are dead right. Brilliantly put.20 November 2013 00:23
David Lindsay said…

But our society is not like that. For which its most powerful woman at least since Queen Victoria, and possibly ever, is to blame.

20 November 2013 00:23
Anonymous said…

“our society is not like that”.

That’s what I meant.

There is no one person who is solely to blame-the architects of the 1975 Child Benefit Bill (that replaced fathers with state welfare cheques) and the architects of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act, after which divorce sky-rocketed all bear their share of the blame.

As do those who’ve undermined the Christian religion for over 50 years in this country.

20 November 2013 00:28
David Lindsay said…

It was John Major who made divorce legally easier than release from a car hire contract.

And anyone who wants to abolish Child Benefit is simply not pro-family at all.

This wretched Government’s withdrawal of it from some families, initially, illustrates how extremely anti-family it is.

(See link for rest of full discussion)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.