|
|
|
MANHOOD IN AMERICA
Kimmel writes in Manhood in America: "Some call for the literal remasculinization of America. For example, current debates over the entry of women and gays into the military are fueled by the presumed relationships between masculinity and military values. Brian Mitchell's Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military claims that women's presence 'inhibits male bonding, corrupts allegiance to the hierarchy, and diminishes the desire of men to compete for anything but the attentions of women.'"
He dismisses Jerry Falwell saying "The man who lived on this earth was a man with muscles .... Christ was a he-man!' Noting a 'chronic absence' of men from church -- only about one-third of American men attend church regularly, while nearly one-half of all American women do -- one minister indicated that the long-term effects of cultural feminization of the church would be marginalization of the church, impoverishment of church life, and a coarsening of the tone of public society." The church is feminized and that is a tragedy not a good thing like Kimmel thinks. Our military is weaker as well as the family.
"Feminist women, it seems to me, are quite justified in their anger at injustice and discrimination and their fears of violence and danger that together circumscribe their lives. But at its core feminism is, it seems to me, an optimistic worldview that sees men as capable of change and, with enough encouragement, even likely to change. The real 'man-haters,' it seems to me, are those right-wing zealots who believe that men cannot change their violent, abusive patterns and who argue that women must remain subordinate if only to keep men in line. Most feminists, by contrast, love men enough to believe in us." Everything is wrong with these words. Some of the discrimination of the past was a good thing. Women should not be so angry at the past. It was half full, not half empty. Kimmel and feminists don't love men. They are left-wing zealots who believe men are innately violent and abusive in the traditional family. And subordinate does not mean inferior like they keep repeating endlessly.
In his evil book Gendered Society he writes, "I intend this book as a corrective to such myths, half-truths, and either inadvertent or deliberate misreadings of the evidence. For the overwhelming preponderance of evidence from the social and behavioral sciences is clear: Women and men are more alike than they are different. Men are not from Mars; women are not from Venus -- we are all from the planet Earth." It is Kimmel who writes myths and misreads evidence. Men and women are very different and thank God for it. Kimmel crusades for unisexism and is currently part of the ruling elite in America who teach sociology of marriage and gender classes, but goodness and truth win out in the long run and he and his colleagues will someday be seen by everyone as ignorant as those who thought the earth was flat.
He writes, "Not only that, I want to argue that the differences we do observe are not the result of some primordial, biological, evolutionary imperative, nor do they stem from some inevitable, universal psychological processes of development. Nor is gender inequality the inevitable social and political result of these differences." Wrong again. To deny that there are some "universal" differences between men and women is the height of stupidity.
FAMILY VALUES
He writes that America has been "arguing about ... 'family values.' Some shouted that the family was 'in crisis' -- falling apart because of high rates of divorce, teen pregnancies, single parenthood, latchkey children being raised by strangers, and gay men and lesbians demanding the right to marry and have or adopt children. To them, the 'traditional' nuclear family of the 1950s, of Leave it to Beaver and other sitcoms of the period --defined by one of its defenders as 'a legal lifelong sexually exclusive, heterosexual monogamous marriage, based on affection and companionship, in which there is a sharp division of labor with the female as full time housewife and the male as primary provider and ultimate authority' -- was fast disappearing under the double-barreled assault of a permissive society and a welfare state." I don't think shows like Ozzie and Harriet show the ideal family. It is certainly better than the families feminists have now, but the real model of families was hundreds of years ago when people lived in communities where they helped each other instead of depending on government. Kimmel sees the definition of family given above as rigid and narrow. He sees it as a box that puts so much stress on the family. His paradigm is for many kinds of relationships and he goes out of his way to glorify the homosexual marriages. Absolute values are seen as too restrictive and hurtful. The truth is that within those boundaries we find order and creativity and harmony. There cannot be true love outside of our creator's rules.
Kimmel criticizes the obvious truth that there are deep biological differences between men and women. "Political attempts to legislate changes in the gender order, or efforts to gain civil rights for women, or for gay men and lesbians, have always been met with biological essentialism: Don't fool with Mother Nature! James Dobson, a former professor of pediatrics and founder of Focus on the Family, a right-wing advocacy group, puts the case starkly: 'I feel it is a mistake to tamper with the time-honored relationship of husband as loving protector and wife as recipient of that protection. ... Because two captains sink the ship and two cooks spoil the broth, I feel that a family must have a leader whose decisions prevail in times of differing opinions. That role has been assigned to the man of the house.'
"Social scientists have also jumped on the biological bandwagon. For example, sociologist Steven Goldberg, in his book, The Inevitability of Patriarchy, argues that since male domination is ubiquitous, eternal, it simply has to be based on biological origins. There is simply too much coincidence for it to be social. Feminism, Goldberg argues, is therefore a war with nature: 'Women follow their own physiological imperatives. ... In this, and every other society men look to women for gentleness, kindness, and love, for refuge from a world of pain and force. ... In every society basic male motivation is the feeling that the women and children must be protected ... The feminist cannot have it both ways: if she wishes to sacrifice all this, all that she will get in return is the right to meet men on male terms. She will lose.' Politically, unequal social arrangements are, in the end, ordained by nature."
Kimmel can't see that Goldberg makes perfect sense. He says that "the evidence -- occasionally impressive, often uneven -- is far from convincing." This is like saying that robbery has always been denounced and is therefore a universal law. Kimmel makes as much sense as saying robbery is not an absolute evil and we must fundamentally change our views and embrace robbery. Robbery is evil and what Kimmel teaches is evil.
