Monday, May 05, 2008

REPRESSED AGGRESSION IN THE LEFT WING MALE

One of the topics that I have always found fascinating is the notion of the feminization of the modern male. I actually used to buy into it wholeheartedly. That a generation of men, weaned on feminist theory in academia and role models who skew more Leo Dicaprio than John Wayne were far more passive than their right wing counterparts.

Now, I am not so sure.

One of the things I have noticed lately - say in the past couple of years - is how aggressive my left-wing male friends have become with me. Even if I do not bring up the topic of politics or religion, they seem to always have an edge on. When challenged casually on a subject of progressive othodoxy they will most often resort to vicious snark and sarcasm for long periods of time, not wanting to talk it out more rationally. This is not true of them all of course. But many of them.

Two weeks ago, a very left-wing actor friend and I were working at a private school for the day. He came in all edgy and snarky from the get go (it was a private school in a small town- he thought it was beneath him) and started making asinine remarks.

Finally, I made a comment about how most of these rich kids were probably Che Guevara lovers. He went silent and then acted like a petulant, spoiled brat all day. Snark, sarcasm, verbal bullying behaviour. He wouldn't even sit for longer than 5 minutes at lunch to eat with the staff. On a break when we went into the small town he mocked me and a cafe clerk when he couldn't get an espresso. Total cliche stuff, here.

The relation between science, Darwinism and feminism has always been tenuous at best as is evidenced by this over a decade old article in the NY Times.

"Many feminists have eyed certain aspects of Darwinian thought with deep suspicion, particularly when evolutionary explanations have been marshaled to explain human characteristics like the inequality of the sexes in most cultures around the world, or boys' supposed superiority over girls in mathematics. To many feminists, the relentless search for an innate basis to complex human behaviors smacks of a quest for easy answers -- and handy excuses for the status quo. "

Darwin took a view of human evolution and sexuality that was very much in line with natural law; that aggression in males is a natural trait. Feminist theory of course says this is not true and it has only been indoctrinated into males by a "patriarchal, right-wing Judeo-Christian power culture".

This is a flawed theory, not the least is the fact that there are aggressive males in cultures that are not Judeo-Christian and are matriarchal.

So, if we take the scientific approach that Darwin is correct and aggression in the human male is natural, it would make sense that left wing males who adhere to a doctrine of modern progressive feminism which tells them to repress their aggression would be the ones most likely to have that rage simmering under the surface. That is not to say that every left wing male is on the verge of walking into a post office with a rifle. That would be silly.

But think of the past 30 or so years in our culture since feminism really became an influential ideology.

Did "war mongers" George Bush or Ronald Reagan ever have the bursting anger moment that feminist Bill Clinton did on Fox news a year or so ago?

Who brutally thrashed that protester a few years ago, Jean Chretien or "neanderthal" Stockwell Day?

Where do you think you would be more prone to find violence: at a weekend gathering of Hells Angels or at an anti -American "peace" rally? If you're honest, I think the answer to this one is up in the air.

Think of all the violent protests from the 60's? University protests in general? Are they ever peaceful?

Think of blogging culture; which ones use the most violent language and are the most extreme? Right or left? I do not know of any mainstream conservative blogs that even approach the level of anger and vitriol that even a casual glance at rabble will show. I realize there are extremes on both sides but you have to go to some very dark corners of the internet to find extreme right-wing blogs. Left wing blogs that routinely call for the "rape" of Ann Coulter as a "joke" are commonplace.

When I was in university, I long maintained that the worst and most aggressive students and profs that were opposed to free speech and dissent were the left -wing men...not the women.

The men I know who are the most sexually aggressive, least likely to use condoms and leave women lying in the lurch are also the most die-hard feminists.

Even in my current life, I find most of my left-wing female friends will disagree with me, but listen and find what I say fascinating. I rarely feel disrespected by them. Many of the males, usually respond with anger, sarcasm and childish aggression.

Who are modern pop cultural left-wing male role models for the Gen-X and Y'ers? Saying "pretty boys" like DiCaprio is too easy. No, their role models are passive-aggressive aging man-boys like Bill Maher, David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Sean Penn etc.

All right, Sean Penn is just aggressive.

I realize all of this evidence is anecdotal, but I believe there is something to it. The reason I had to choose an article from 1994 is because we are not allowed to ask these questions anymore; feminist theory being the orthodoxy of our culture.

It would also account for why women still have problems on the corporate ladder when the wealthiest corporate men in Canada and America claim to be Liberals and Democrats. Bay Street has overwhlemingly went Liberal since Chretien and Obama is the current big corporate face in the States.

Again, I am not talking about aggression in a "who supports the war or owns a gun" sort of way. I mean aggression in a latent, repressed, passive- aggressive, ready to boil over kind of way.

I think that in a generation or two, this might be a topic well worthy of study.

9 Comments:

At 12:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blogs truly are the last repository of simplistic sociopsychological bullsh*t.

Take out the references to Darwin. You don't know what you're talking about in general, but including him and references to evolutionary theory really makes your ignorance manifest. If you take him out, at least you'll have a proper opinion piece, worthy of the respect of any Sun editorial.

 
At 1:27 PM, Blogger Angryflower said...

"I realize all of this evidence is anecdotal"

That means it isn't, in fact, evidence at all.

What it is, is a clownish attempt at demonizing the huge liberal straw man you built.

 
At 2:31 PM, Blogger Nicol DuMoulin said...

Anonymous,

Just saying that I do not know what I am talking about does not make it so. Virtually all evolutionary and Darwinian theory directly contradicts and disproves the feminist theory we use to raise children in our culture.

Without the scientific references I do not have a Sun editorial...I have a university PHD lecture.

Angryflower,

You sound very angry. Are you a progressive male dealing with repressed anger issues?

 
At 3:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, the fact that you call it 'Darwinian' or 'Darwinism' is the first indication that you don't have any real understanding of evolution beyond religion or politics. Sadly, this is the reason that you then go on to draw facile parallels between evolutionary theory and 'feminist theory', as if you can compare a scientific theory with a philosophical or sociological 'theory'. They are not the same.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a 'university PhD lecture'. The PhD is a degree; the lectures are part of a course. Maybe you're referring to graduate courses? Or more likely, it makes no sense at all, just like the entire writeup and its ludicrous conclusions.

 
At 3:45 PM, Blogger Nicol DuMoulin said...

Anonymous,

"First, the fact that you call it 'Darwinian' or 'Darwinism'..."

Uhh, no. Both terms are used to discuss the theories, cultures and science around Darwin. If you do not know this...

"Sadly, this is the reason that you then go on to draw facile parallels between evolutionary theory and 'feminist theory',... "

I draw no parallels at all. I say one is true, the other is bunk, hooey, hogwash. Scientific proofs are reality, feminist theory is a wish fulfillment list from the 60's that is what we currently use to teach and rear children. It has confused a generation or two and shows no sign of letting up...at least in Ontario. Other parts of the world are slowly moving on from this facile tripe.

"I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a 'university PhD lecture'. The PhD is a degree; the lectures are part of a course."

Of course you know what I mean.

I remember again why the left cannot debate ideas. All they can do is parse language in the legalistic sense and take people out of context. Leftists twist and parse and twist until the original meaning is lost. This seems to be SOP for the left. It is a way of obfuscation from the original idea which they cannot deal with.

Kind of like when Bill Clinton was asked if he had a relationship with that woman and he said "There - is - no relationship."

He parsed the language to the present tense while the interviewer in good faith meant the past tense. The moment I heard that I knew he was lying.

Much in the same way Obama is trying to parse out his "bitter" remarks.

You know exactly what I mean by University PHD lecture and not only that, there is no linguistic issue at all with the way I phrased it. You would rather switch the debate to the issue of my language than the idea at hand, which is the banal state of our educational system and anti-science feminist theory's iron clad grip on it and by extension our legal system.

 
At 4:15 PM, Anonymous May said...

I think you may be on to something here. That's a pretty good point.

However I've know left wing females to act disrespectful and dismissive (although not truly aggressive) Still, I think your point has merit.

 
At 5:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you're on to something. Another thing I suspect about the lefties is the reason they are so quick to ban guns is because they project their own values and lack of emotional control onto everyone. In other words they don't want you to have a gun because they know if they had one they would use it when they were angry. They can't understand that not everyone is emotionally driven like themselves.
That and all that suppressed rage makes them, rightly so, think that they shouldn't have a gun.
But it doesn't mean people who have some measure of self discipline and emotional stability shouldn't have one.

 
At 8:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Such BS - were you aware the John Wayne believed in the feminist movement - he was very much for the feminists.

LOL - you used the wrong symbol that's for sure.

 
At 11:29 AM, Anonymous Susan said...

John Wayne was a mans' man as most women would suggest. He was an equal opportunity sexual conquistidor, a joyful frolic partner. Ideology was seldom as relevent as simply wanting a good shaggin'. Now if you care to shag for poverty...go right ahead.

Susan

 

Post a Comment

<< Home