TERRIBLY OLD FASHIONED (?)
By: Bill Schoettler
November 11, 2021
Missouri Senator Joseph Hawley is under fire for asserting what has been a human tradition for thousands of years, what the Left calls “assertive masculinity”. Men should be “husbands, fathers, responsible” people, said the Senator and thus o?ended the members of that segment of society who consider themselves the arbiters of culture.
Let us contemplate the significance of human traditions that have existed for thousands of years, since Adam and Eve, since every history book, mythological tale, every folk tale, every traditional pattern followed consistently throughout the entire world. This would be the idea that it is the male who is the hunter, the protector, the manager of people and it is the female who is responsible for child rearing, educating children, caring for the emotional welfare of and comfort to the “family”.
But wait a minute! Hold your horses there, Bucko. Females are fully equal with men, just as smart, just as competent, just as capable (with only a few, obvious exceptions) as any male. Today we have women doctors, women lawyers, women business executives, women functioning on the same level as men in virtually every aspect of human life. To suggest returning to the pre-historic, antediluvian notion that somehow women should be relegated to lesser type jobs than men is not only anti-social, certainly not “woke”, but is antithetical to the very structures of society.
Okay…but let’s examine the facts. There is no question but what some women have, throughout history, demonstrated exceptional characteristics generally considered exclusively masculine. Women have led countries and nations (Queen of Sheba, Cleopatra, Elizabeth I (queen of England), Queen Isabella of Spain, Prime Ministers of India (Ghandi), England (Thatcher) Germany (Merkel), and even Vice President of the USA (Harris). Women have led armies (Joan of Arc), been astronauts and have served in virtually every level of government, the military and almost every occupation imaginable…all with success and outstanding accomplishment.
True. No argument that women have demonstrated the ability, talent, skill and temperament to compete with men in any field and on any level.
Having said that, let us continue with the analysis of history and ask why it is that up to roughly the past 100 years the social and cultural attitude toward women has been consistent. Yes, some women have demonstrated full equality with men. How many, in what percentages have these demonstrators been noted? The truth is that women have followed what can only be called a “traditional role”. They have functioned quite well as helpmates, housewives, caregivers, comforters, mothers, educators of children…all the roles now denigrated as somehow of lesser import, lesser significance, lesser in every way as actions which contribute to the cultural realities of today.
The mistake being made today is to evaluate the so-called traditional role of women as somehow being of lesser social/ cultural value than the traditional role (there is that toxic masculinity again) of men. Men could not have functioned at the level of competence or ability that they regularly demonstrated without the equally valuable support and contribution of women. The roles of both sexes (yes, there are really only two sexes) have regularly supported and complemented each other. To describe women’s historic role as being in some way less significant than the historic role played by men is unrealistic and grossly unfair. The equality of the two genders, the two sexes has always been the same, equal in every respect. Because the definition of these roles has been di?erent does not denigrate either category.
How did we raise children a hundred years ago? Boys were given toys that were thought to prepare them for what is now called “toxic masculinity” while girls played with dolls, were taught domestic skills and were prepared to be wives and mothers. It worked!
Ask what was the result of such centuries-old traditions of child-raising? There was an emphasis on the importance of the family, children had loving supervision, received good educations, somehow civilization struggled along to the position it enjoys (?) today and everything worked pretty well. Because some would change historical validity does not deny historical accuracy.
This is not to suggest that women should be restricted in any way, that they should somehow be relegated to any position. But it is to suggest that to condemn thousands of years of historical custom in the interests of the misguided and capricious cultural revolution that is currently taking place in this country is as absurd as opening our borders, attacking such fictional characteristics as toxic masculinity, believing that banning the production of fossil fuels in this country when urging other countries to produce excess fossil fuels for us to purchase somehow makes sense. Believing that sacrificing the e?ciency and abilities of our manufacturing ability, military ability and even our traditional cultural ability will somehow alter the changing world climate by one-half-a-degree.
What have been the consequences in this country of pushing children out of the family and giving them to baby-sitters, schools that refuse the participation of parents, gender-confusing programs, historical attacks that deny the reality of ever-changing cultural concepts and destroying and denying the true significance and contributions of historical figures?
Today we have rising crime, lowering education standards, a disintegrating social structure that continues to look for relevance in the real world and a social culture that is unable to deal honestly with reality.
No, the answer is not to bar women from anything but to simply recognize that long ago [say roughly a million or so years ago] mankind [yes, Mabel, we have always called it “mankind”] adopted roles for both male and female and somehow through the many centuries of humanity’s existence we have survived, thrived, and progressed. Is it time to change? No. Is it time to evolve? Evolution will continue, both social and physical…but it takes time and time seeks its own pace.