Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Men and Women

Men In Power!

This piece from today's Chicago Tribune dovetails nicely with my post the other day about the declining numbers and achievements of men at colleges and universities. In response to this problem, a student at the University of Chicago did exactly what members of his generation have been taught to do in response to any social "problem." He started an advocacy group and became a kind of "community organizer." Unfortunately for him, he is not finding that the action is garnering to himself the kind of kudos other student group leaders have been pleased to accept. His group, "Men in Power" began as a kind of tongue-in-cheek satire but provoked such a response that it now presents itself as a serious operation. The response from women's and minority groups has been exactly what one might expect but, unfortunately for them, they find themselves tongue-tied when asked to present a coherent and logical objection to the group. This is because there isn't one that does not also render the existence of these other identity-based interest groups suspect.

While I certainly sympathize with the problems "Men in Power" was created to address and while the group at least had the good sense to recruit some female members, I agree that there could be problems with a group like this. There would also be a problem with a "White Student Union" . . . but there is no problem with it (other than potential numbers) that is not also true of minority based groups. There are always problems and one ought to be suspicious of any group based on "identity" as a motivation and justification for seeking power. Enough of the victim card, already. If we're all victims, it doesn't mean anything anyway. Start a group called "Individuals Striving to be Worthy of Power" and you'll have me at GO.

Categories > Men and Women

Discussions - 10 Comments

Julie, I hoped you would see that article. Reading it, at first I thought what you say. Then I thought again about "an imbalance in government and private initiatives that advance the interests of women and girls." and decided the guy has a point. Creating "movements" like this, even if they seem silly, may be the only way to correct the imbalance caused by government.

However, if there is a response from government, it will not be to draw back the programs that promote females at the expense of males, but to throw more money into absurd men's programs. My college already has one.

Yes, Kate. I sympathize with the fellow's problem. And he might not be wrong that this is the only practical way to address it. But it does rather beautifully illustrate the larger absurdity that we find ourselves in today where everyone is a victim seeking empowerment. Pardon me, but "Barf to that."

And Kate, since you're one to appreciate the sometimes fitting irony of the captcha words requested for a post, the ones I was asked to type for the above were "heir" and "1964" . . . hmmmm. That's about right, I think.

How does the captcha know? Some days it has such a great sense of humor; I have had some wonderfully pertinent and laughable words to type in. Does Ben Kunkle set it with some virtual thought programming?

Yes, those words you had are quite fitting. We may almost have the world feminists and radicals were looking for back then. Do we like it? No. We don't. We want "change" and ever more of it. Even I want change, because the status quo is appalling, ludicrous. I feel victimized by this. Perhaps I will start a movement.

Regarding men in college, I think men have figured out "You can't lose, if you don't play".

You see that in dating and marriage too.

The colleges don't really want men there anyhow.

If we’re all victims, it doesn’t mean anything anyway.

That is the point. Officially, only some of us are victims at present. This group and the hypothetical "White Student Union" are necessary to highlight the absurdity and hypocrisy of the current "victims rights" fetish. At present only a subset of non-victims is claiming victim status. Everybody needs to get in on the act.

EvilD., that's part of the problem. If men are now risk-averse, then they have lost something of their manliness. They ought to be courageously assaulting the walls of the ivory tower.

Increasingly, I see intelligent young men opting out. They play video games, hang out together, do sports...everything but play the mating game. Some are sexual opportunists, but many I have known are essentially non-sexual.

There is a natural order to things, but women were sold a bill of goods back in the 1970s to the effect that the old order could be overturned. Well, I guess it can be, but only at a cost (check out Japan for an even more extreme version of cultural flux). Boys will be boys, regardless of the social fallout. No amount of female "re-engineering" is going to change that -- all that will be accomplished is the destruction of the "gentleman."

Bristlecone Pine: Your last sentence is very well put. I'd only dispute your suggestion that this re-engineering was initiated by females--it wasn't (nearly all feminist theory is derivative)--but why quibble?

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/13968