top of page
  • Writer's pictureJulie Nicole

The War Against Boys and Men

Amidst all the #MeToo Movement it's easy to miss the fact that boys and men have been casualties of a silent sniper for years in the making.

A perfect example of this is in the recent report released by the American Psychiatric Association, which suggests that "traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly." It goes on to say that "traditional masculinity - marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression - is, on the whole, harmful. Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors."

Now, before I begin let me give my disclaimer to those who may say I am ignoring the blights of women. Well, first off, I am a woman. And as a woman, I understand the anger and push back from some females. Trust me, I really do. I've been lied to, cheated on, played, objectified, disvalued, and dated men that I later found out were married. So, I can certainly sympathize with women who are fed up with sexual harassment, the objectification of women and some of the cultural undertones that suggest we are less valuable then men. So, let's get the debris out of the way.

Sexual harassment is never okay, however, when you go to a man's hotel room at 2 a.m., sleep with him to get a job and then call it sexual harassment we have a different definition of what we call sexual harassment. We are more than our bodies and shouldn't be objectified, however, when you have women wearing sheer, see through dresses with nothing more than nipple covers to the Grammy's and half-naked women gyrating in music videos and then turn around complain of being objectified I'm confused. And so are men. So, let's just agree that all the problems with men they aren't solely to blame. They are casualties too.

How so?

Well, let's talk. Anytime a people wanted to enslave another group of people one of the first things they did was to strip them of their identity. When we look at the great Atlantic slave trade, one of the first things they would do was to separate the husbands from their wives and children by auctioning them off separately. Then they would change their name and begin the psychological warfare. They would call them n**ger and other berating names. They would devalue them. They would beat them and instill fear in them that if they didn't follow protocol they would be punished.

The same identity theft was inflicted upon the Jews during the Holocaust. They separated families and placed them in different concentration camps. They used derogatory terms, name-calling and labeling, such as "greedy Jews".

The same is often done to victims of sex trafficking. The same type of berating, devaluing and isolation occurs in order to secure the slaves bondage and entrapment to the enslaver.

If we pay attention the same type of identify theft is taking place with our men. There is this new movement to somehow suggest that there are no gender differences between men and women. Well, I am here to say this is a blatant lie. Men and women have had distinct differences for centuries and those differences have served their purposes well. But now suddenly, a small group of people want us to believe that a select few have become so enlightened to educate the masses in realizing that there really are no differences.

Really? Cause I see quite a few. For starters, there's the obvious genetic differences. But even with that people want to convince us that you can change your gender. Sure, you can cut off your penis and get breast implants, but it will only make you a castrated man with implants. The same for the woman. She can get surgery to create an attached "penis", but it's not going to make you a man. There are innate differences that no surgery will ever eradicate. And there are those who have undergone sex changes who regret it and are testifying to this undeniable fact.

By nature women are more emotional and sympathetic. They are more likely to have a need to discuss how they feel and describe a situation with more details. Whereas men are less likely to show emotions and if there is a problem they want to fix it, rather than talk about how it feels. A woman wants a man to make her feel secure and protected and a man wants to know that he is needed and respected.

And while these differences at times might frustrate men with women and vice versa they were created in order to balance one another out. Despite what some radical feminists would suggest, we do need men. Just because you've been hurt or mistreated by a man or multiple men in your life it doesn't mean all men are bad. We don't throw the baby out with the bath water, but this is exactly what some in our culture are attempting to do.

Right now there is an attack on everything male. The very nature of a what makes a man a man is under attack, and this latest report from the APA proves that. Not only are they undermining their identity by saying that their genetic make up makes them "harmful", but now their report went on to say that masculinity is now somehow a sign of bullying and homophobic.

This is an outrageous claim that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, for this is where the stripping of the identity of manhood begins. When you begin to tell someone that their very being, their identity and nature is a threat to someone else you are devaluing their worth, and this is one of the first things that one does to control someone. Once you have stripped them of their identity, you indoctrinate them with your own ideas and then you can enslave another human being.

Next, you instill the fear factor. If a man dares to display any sort of masculinity or competitiveness we now are deeming him a threat to others, and that of course will be punished by name-calling (i.e. bully, bigot, homophobe, chauvinist, sexual harasser, woman hater), which then results in character assassination. This then initiates a witch hunt into his past to find jokes he made from 10 years ago deemed "hate speech", in an attempt to ruin the man's career in order to force him into submission.

Personally, as a woman, I don't want a feminine and passive man. I want a strong, masculine, competitive and aggressive man. This is what is attractive about males. I want a man that can complement my femininity, not compete with it. But first, let me address this word aggressive. The APA wants to suggest that aggressiveness is bad. Aggressive doesn't equate domineering nor does it mean a man is a chauvinistic pig towards women. Aggression used properly can be a great asset.

Aggressive is defined in the Webster dictionary as:

  • strong in emphatic or intent

  • growing, developing, or spreading rapidly

  • more severe, intensive, or comprehensive than usual especially in dosage or extent

  • marked by driving forceful energy or initiative

  • marked by combative readiness

  • marked by obtrusive energy or self-assertiveness

The opposite of aggressive is passive. Here's how Webster defines passive:

  • accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance

Here are some synonyms of passive:

  • submissive

  • unresisting

  • compliant

  • meek

  • subdued

  • docile

  • unassertive

If you were an employer do you want an employee that is unassertive or without active response or do you want an employee or sales rep that is growing, developing and spreading rapidly? Women, if someone was trying to attack you and your kids, do you want a man who is submissive and unresisting, or do you want a man marked by combative readiness? I know which one I want. I want a man who is going to fight and protect me and his family at all costs!

Any military person understands that when you are at war, strategically your goal is to take out the strongest forces first and then you can conquer the remaining people. Even the word tells us this, "In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man's house." - Mark 3:27

This leads back to a question that's been asked for decades. If the government is truly desiring to help families out of poverty by offering assistance, then why is it that a family gets less assistance if the father is in the home? If the father is in the home, that's another mouth to feed. Why should you get less assistance with one more mouth to feed? If you dismantle the family by removing the "strong man", the father, you can then plunder and control the house.

Let's take a look at some historical facts.

A study conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that 25.8 percent of American children are raised by a single parent, a number high above the 14.9 percent average seen in the other 26 countries surveyed. Among African-Americans the rate nearly tripled, with 72 percent of black children being raised by a single parent.

However, if we go back before the 1950's these statistics are very different, particularly in the African-American community. Before 1950 marital rates were higher for African-American females than Caucasian females, but after the 1950's there began to be a rapid increase in single-parent families in the black community. So what changed?

At this time there was a shift in increased urbanization in the black community. Prior to this, many black families lived in more rural areas and worked in agriculture. However, after WWII there was a great migration of blacks to the inner cities. As the fathers went looking for work many of them were denied jobs due to racist hiring practices, which increased unemployment rates within the African-American community.

Around the same time President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced the "War on Poverty" at his State of the Union address in 1964, which expanded the governmental welfare system. Consequentially, many in the black community were targeted for these programs. However, if the father was in the home they were disqualified from receiving assistance, therefore, driving the fathers out of the home and increasing single parent headed households.

In the early 1960’s only 20 percent of African-American homes were headed by single parent women. By 1985 that number had grown to 43 percent, compared with 8 percent to 12 percent for whites in the same time span.

Research has proven that once you take a father out of the home every social ill increases.

  •  Kids with absent fathers are twice as likely to commit suicide.

  •  85% of youth in prison come from homes without fathers.

  •  71% of high school drop-outs didn't have their dads involved in their lives.

  •  Adolescents without fathers are 10 times as likely to suffer substance abuse.

  •  Children who grow up without fathers are 4 times as likely to live in poverty.

  •  Those who have no father in the home are 11 times more likely to be violent.

  •  9 out of 10 homeless and runaway children come from fatherless homes.

  •  70% of teen pregnancies come from homes where the father isn't present

Some years ago, officials at the Kruger National Park and game reserve in South Africa were faced with a growing elephant problem. To solve this they decided to transport some of the older male elephants to another area. However, due to the enormity of these elephants they were unable to harness them In helicopters. So, instead they decided to leave the older male elephants and take the female and juvenile elephants to another park.

Years later the park rangers began finding dead rhinos that had been violently killed in this park. At first they suspected poachers, but there were no gun shot wounds and their horns were still intact. So, they put up cameras to find out what was killing the rhinos.

To their amazement, the young males were caught on camera chasing down the rhinos, knocking them over, and stomping and goring them to death with their tusks. This behavior was rare among elephants.

The park rangers suspected the violent behavior was the result of the absence of the dominant, older male elephants. Juvenile male elephants experience “musth,” a state of frenzy triggered by mating season and increases in testosterone. The rangers believed without the older male elephants there to guide them these levels of testosterone, which is meant to be used to protect the herd from predators was being misguided. So, to test the theory they constructed stronger harnesses and transported some of them to the park. Within weeks all the violent behavior had stopped.

Men's testosterone, aggression and competitiveness is there for a purpose, and by design it is a good thing when used properly. However, without the guidance of father's and male role models it gets misaligned. So, when we see spikes of violence in men in our society or increased cases of sexual harassment taking place, it's not the innate qualities of men that should be demonized and attacked. This will not bring about the solutions they are looking for, in fact, it will make them worse.

To suggest that there are no differences between the genders and that by men suppressing their innate male traits will somehow bring about this utopia that these "experts" are purporting, is not only a gross misconception, it is a dangerous lie.

Just as the dominant traits of the male elephants brought peace to the herd, the dominant male traits of our men bring peace to our homes and communities when used properly. The key word is properly. I'll save that one for our next discussion.

And by the way, stoic means, "a person who can endure pain or hardship without showing their feelings or complaining." In this political culture of hyper-sensitive, touchy-feely offended by everything, I think we could certainly stand to have a few more stoic leaders in our communities and nation.

So, to all my "stoic, competitive, dominant and aggressive men," here's one woman who appreciates you and doesn't think your male traits are harmful, but instead offer an intrinsic value to our culture and are necessary for the very existence of our nation. Until next time, don't let the snipers take you out of the war.

36 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page