New York Times: Men are brutes!

The New York Times Sunday edition just joined the running mob against Harvey Weinstein and all those other male brutes.  Its headline reads, "The unexamined brutality of the male libido," straight out of the handbook of enraged feminism.

Apparently, the NYT Ed Board has forgotten how it and the rest of the left fanatically promoted (and probably practiced) Free Love (meaning Free Sex) ever since the glorious sixties of the last century.

But then the Ed Board has never been good at connecting the dots between cause and effect, and all progressive nostrums – without exception – turn out to be dismal failures in the face of reality.  (See Soviet Union, Mao's China, Ceaușescu's Romania, and Kim's North Korea.)

Nothing in the NYT these days can withstand reasoned examination, so let's deconstruct that nasty Sunday headline, word by word.

1. "Unexamined."  If the NYT really thinks male sexual desire ("libido") has never been examined, its collective head is buried even deeper in the ideological tar pit than any of us thought.  But I guess its reading these days doesn't cover Shakespeare, the Bible, Plutarch, and all the wisdom traditions in the world, including Africa and China.  They all have a great deal of insight into that "brutal male libido," including a fabulous tradition of love poetry. 

But this is the New York Times, and its current fantasy life is filled with metrosexuality and rage.

Obviously, the scribblers of the Times need a compulsory re-education in world literature.  I wish I could march them to the indoctrination center, which we don't have in America, except on the college campuses.

2. "Brutality" (that means you, men!).  I've wondered for years whether too many liberals missed having a loving father.  I was lucky to have had a wonderful father and a powerful, no-nonsense mother, and for that double-blessing I give thanks in my heart every day.

With half of U.S. marriages breaking up and therefore tens of millions of mothers raising kids alone, I imagine there are too many lonely children who yearn for an absent father and too many mothers who are secretly enraged at their ex-husbands.

Feminist rage on campus is the natural consequence, along with a male metrosexual display of femininity.

I do understand and sympathize with the innocent victims of liberalism, but I also remember the Free Love malarkey from the progressive media and how they drove the airheads of America to demand no-fault divorce, women's liberation from the oppressive yoke of the invisible patriarchy, and gender relations scripted by teenage male fantasies.  Girls were supposed to be just like boys so that girls were duly indoctrinated to try to imitate "brutal male libido."  Remember when the liberal press celebrated sluts and the pickup culture?  Well, what happened? 

In liberal fantasy life, adolescence was supposed to last forever, riding the biological wave of puberty, the time of life when both boys and girls go out of their minds.  Nobody on the left ever talked about growing up.  It wasn't in the curriculum.

3. "Male libido."  This is a term meaning "sexual desire" in men and boys, and it is what the Times would call an "alienating" word.  It medicalizes masculine sexuality and declares it pathological, just like the latest campus hate label: "toxic masculinity."

Ronald Reagan must have been a toxic male, along with JFK, John Wayne, Beethoven, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln.  Not to mention George Patton and Harry S. Truman.

Sexuality is a biological fact, another piece of real science the left has chosen to deny, and next thing you know, manhood is toxic. 

Oh, well. 

Let's see if that works the other way. How does "toxic femininity" sound to your ears?  Something wrong with that, I think.  Femininity has been celebrated in recent Western culture since the rise of Romanticism, about 1800.  Johann Wolfgang Goethe famously wrote, "[T]he eternal feminine draws us ever onward," an idea about human beings that is so basic that it influenced Freud and Jung a century later.

I don't think Freud and Jung would have liked the phrase "toxic femininity."  It's sort of nasty, and "toxic masculinity" is no better.  But all men are beasts, as we have all heard.

Half of the great songs in the world are love songs, and probably the greatest ones are duets, blending male and female voices.  Love duets used to be the musical climax of Broadway plays celebrating the "boy loves girl" motif that most of us dream about.

Love and peace, dudes!

The New York Times Sunday edition just joined the running mob against Harvey Weinstein and all those other male brutes.  Its headline reads, "The unexamined brutality of the male libido," straight out of the handbook of enraged feminism.

Apparently, the NYT Ed Board has forgotten how it and the rest of the left fanatically promoted (and probably practiced) Free Love (meaning Free Sex) ever since the glorious sixties of the last century.

But then the Ed Board has never been good at connecting the dots between cause and effect, and all progressive nostrums – without exception – turn out to be dismal failures in the face of reality.  (See Soviet Union, Mao's China, Ceaușescu's Romania, and Kim's North Korea.)

Nothing in the NYT these days can withstand reasoned examination, so let's deconstruct that nasty Sunday headline, word by word.

1. "Unexamined."  If the NYT really thinks male sexual desire ("libido") has never been examined, its collective head is buried even deeper in the ideological tar pit than any of us thought.  But I guess its reading these days doesn't cover Shakespeare, the Bible, Plutarch, and all the wisdom traditions in the world, including Africa and China.  They all have a great deal of insight into that "brutal male libido," including a fabulous tradition of love poetry. 

But this is the New York Times, and its current fantasy life is filled with metrosexuality and rage.

Obviously, the scribblers of the Times need a compulsory re-education in world literature.  I wish I could march them to the indoctrination center, which we don't have in America, except on the college campuses.

2. "Brutality" (that means you, men!).  I've wondered for years whether too many liberals missed having a loving father.  I was lucky to have had a wonderful father and a powerful, no-nonsense mother, and for that double-blessing I give thanks in my heart every day.

With half of U.S. marriages breaking up and therefore tens of millions of mothers raising kids alone, I imagine there are too many lonely children who yearn for an absent father and too many mothers who are secretly enraged at their ex-husbands.

Feminist rage on campus is the natural consequence, along with a male metrosexual display of femininity.

I do understand and sympathize with the innocent victims of liberalism, but I also remember the Free Love malarkey from the progressive media and how they drove the airheads of America to demand no-fault divorce, women's liberation from the oppressive yoke of the invisible patriarchy, and gender relations scripted by teenage male fantasies.  Girls were supposed to be just like boys so that girls were duly indoctrinated to try to imitate "brutal male libido."  Remember when the liberal press celebrated sluts and the pickup culture?  Well, what happened? 

In liberal fantasy life, adolescence was supposed to last forever, riding the biological wave of puberty, the time of life when both boys and girls go out of their minds.  Nobody on the left ever talked about growing up.  It wasn't in the curriculum.

3. "Male libido."  This is a term meaning "sexual desire" in men and boys, and it is what the Times would call an "alienating" word.  It medicalizes masculine sexuality and declares it pathological, just like the latest campus hate label: "toxic masculinity."

Ronald Reagan must have been a toxic male, along with JFK, John Wayne, Beethoven, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln.  Not to mention George Patton and Harry S. Truman.

Sexuality is a biological fact, another piece of real science the left has chosen to deny, and next thing you know, manhood is toxic. 

Oh, well. 

Let's see if that works the other way. How does "toxic femininity" sound to your ears?  Something wrong with that, I think.  Femininity has been celebrated in recent Western culture since the rise of Romanticism, about 1800.  Johann Wolfgang Goethe famously wrote, "[T]he eternal feminine draws us ever onward," an idea about human beings that is so basic that it influenced Freud and Jung a century later.

I don't think Freud and Jung would have liked the phrase "toxic femininity."  It's sort of nasty, and "toxic masculinity" is no better.  But all men are beasts, as we have all heard.

Half of the great songs in the world are love songs, and probably the greatest ones are duets, blending male and female voices.  Love duets used to be the musical climax of Broadway plays celebrating the "boy loves girl" motif that most of us dream about.

Love and peace, dudes!