But dag-- these men who appear in your post are not typical of men. Not many men teach feminism and women in politics at any level.
Nor is Mr Newell. And he speaks his own language. The approved one. Look at the names he gives. Look at the values he mentions; wisdom, chivalry and nobility, and associates himself to. Nothing at all typical.
He has obviously never noticed with what care Shakespeare painted his tosspots, wankers and assholes nor is he aware with what affection those characters are held in by the root and branch whose members can only titter when they read such things as--
From Aristotle on courage to Sir Thomas Malory on love, honor, and chastity; from Shakespeare on leadership to John Cheever on adolescence; from Jane Austen on pride to Theodore Roosevelt on family life " each new voice contributes perspective and authority to this multifaceted exploration of virtue and masculinity.
What does this farrago of nonsense mean dag? That the reader feels a little better for having read it is all I can suggest it might mean.
Not many men work in Media and the ones who do are sold out to feminism, some I imagine quite cynically, just like the tiny number of women who work there are.
When one takes one's cues from Media rather than from the street and industrial workplace it is easy to start discussing men in a somewhat particularised fashion relating to how a family income is dispensed and the priorities involved.
I am subjected to much abuse for going to the pub for the last hour of every day. But really it is pubs, in general, as an institution, that is being targeted. Pubs are where men gather and talk and spend money which could be spent on other things. Prettier things. Smoking-out. Pubs-out. Hunting-out. Football hooligans-out. Strikes-out. Goosing-out. Swearing-in (a sort of sop to ease injured pride). Soft furnishings-in. On the Ovarian Trolley Henry Miller called it when the wave was hardly moving.
There's a whole subtext going on stemming from Media and its feminists which is seeking to change the nature of men. The fact of this thread and TK's blog is sufficient proof that its signals are vaguely percieved if not yet well understood or articulated. It is a matter of concern. Why are we here otherwise? To anyone familiar with the subject the signal sounds like an air-raid warning siren and smells like a car interior after driving past fields recently manured.
It is perfecly natural I think. A lesson of history is that prosperity and luxury lead inevitably to ennervation and softening and hence to degeneration and that prosperity is irresistable. The cyclical view of history is based on such considerations.
But the degeneration has not so far led to extinction. The manly monastic disciplines carried the torch of knowledge through the darkest of times to emerge into prosperity again and a new Refeminisation.
It is beginning to look as if the threat of meltdown has receded and normal service is soon to be resumed. I wish you all well and hope everything turns out fine.