I'm honored to introduce the indispensable classics historian and political analyst Victor Davis Hanson at the Horowitz Freedom Center's upcoming Wednesday Morning Club luncheon. The event takes place this Wednesday, December 7th, at the Four Seasons in Beverly Hills. Details here. Hanson's resume is too long to post here or anywhere without breaking the internet. Suffice it to say that if you aren't reading him regularly, you're missing out on a wise and unique perspective on politics informed by a deep understanding of history and literature.
Imagine the howls
of social justice outrage if a major university’s Men’s Studies Department (if
that were even a thing) created a program for
women to re-examine and deconstruct their toxic femininity, or if a White
Studies Department (bear with me here) launched a program for blacks to rethink
and dismantle their toxic blackness, or if the campus straight community hosted
an event for LGBTs to reject their toxic sexuality, and so on. The architects
of such offensive programs would be tarred and feathered.
A culturally
acceptable version of these scenarios, however, is precisely what is beginning
to spread on campuses across the country now. The Duke Men’s Project, launched
this month and hosted by the Duke University Women’s Center, offers
a nine-week program for “male-identified” students to address such “toxic”
masculine issues as male privilege, patriarchy, the language of dominance, rape
culture, pornography, and machismo.
One member of the Men’s
Project leadership team said
the goal is to create a safe space for male students in which to “critique and
analyze their own masculinity and toxic masculinities to create healthier
ones.” Another member of the leadership team said the program would help men
“proactively deconstruct our masculinity.”
The Duke program is
patterned after a similar one at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill –
co-sponsored and supported by the Carolina Women's Center – in which
participants are asked to consider how masculinity plays a harmful influence in
their lives. The goal of that program is “to shift the culture of masculinity
toward more non-violent norms,” suggesting that violence is the norm among men.
On the other side
of the country, at Claremont College last week, a group called 5Cs Thrive hosted
a “Masculinity + Mental Health” event. “Masculinity can be extremely toxic to
our mental health, both to the people who are pressured to perform it and the
people who are inevitably influenced by it,” say the workshop’s organizers, stating
outright that masculinity is some sort of mental illness.
Over this tragic
past weekend, the sports world lost two giant figures who, in different ways,
represent extraordinary success stories of the American Dream.
The legendary
Arnold Palmer passed away at 87 after an impossibly full life as one of the
greatest icons in any sport, not only golf. In addition to being one of golf’s
most accomplished champions, he earned a reputation as a class act, as admired
and well-liked for his down-to-earth, gentlemanly demeanor as for his golfing
skill. Palmer was noted, for example, for never refusing a fan his autograph nor
asking to be paid for it.
I’m not a golfer
but my late father was on the course nearly every weekend. He was an enormous
fan of “Arnie,” as he and countless others called him – as if they were buddies,
because Arnie was so personable and accessible that his millions of followers –
“Arnie’s Army” – viewed him as a friend.
Two stories serve
to capture Arnie’s kindness and humility, qualities too often overlooked and
underappreciated in our era of oftentimes narcissistic and self-aggrandizing
superstars.
In 2014 an avid, 18-year-old
golfer and local tournament winner named Nate Marcoulier received a graduation
gift from his older brother Adam. It was a letter
from Arnold Palmer, whom Adam had written in the hope that the golfing icon
would have some life advice for Nate. Both brothers were stunned when Palmer
replied, congratulating Nate on his golf victories and telling him he would
find life “enjoyable and fulfilling” if he followed this advice:
Last week a proud feminist single mom posted a piece in TheWashington
Post in which she shamed her 16- and 18-year-old sons for not taking a more
proactive stand to combat rape and misogyny. For anyone who needs a guide on How
Not to Turn Your Children Into the Social Justice Warriors You Desperately Want
Them to Be, “My Teen Boys Are Blind to Rape Culture” is it.
Jody Allard is a Seattle-based writer on issues related to feminism,
parenting, and social justice, who describes herself as a happily single mother
of seven. In previous articles she has had no compunction about sharing very
personal experiences such as surviving rape, her self-loathing over a malformed
hand, three failed marriages, a son’s suicidal depression, and a husband’s emotionally
lacerating infidelity. She also has no compunction about publicly embarrassing
her sons by declaring them “part of the problem” of rape culture and by labeling at least one of them a “rape apologist” over his reasonable belief
that accused rapists should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
In her most recent WaPo confessional,
Ms. Allard is disturbed and frustrated that her two teen sons aren’t more
active allies with her against what she insists is our rape culture. As I’ve
written elsewhere, America doesn’t have a rape culture; we have a culture in
which rape is considered a heinous crime and those convicted of it – and
sometimes those merely accused of it – are viewed as monsters. Does this mean
that rape is uncommon or that our legal system’s handling of such cases isn’t
sometimes problematic? Not at all. Does this mean that our pop culture isn’t
hyper-sexualized or that it doesn’t objectify women? Not at all. But if you
want to see a rape culture, travel to rural areas in Afghanistan or Iran or
India. There is no such equivalent here.
Jody Allard’s sons agree. They roll their eyes when she raises issues of
rape, consent, and sexism at the dinner table. “There’s no such thing as rape
culture,” one tells her. “You say everything is about rape culture or sexism.” Their
mother’s sense of betrayal is palpable:
Just when you think the intellectual class has run out of ways to
disparage and diminish masculinity, The
Washington Post sank to a new nadir this week with a blog post rather comically
titled, “Your manliness could be hurting the planet.” It reports on a study which concludes that
men might be avoiding environmentally beneficial behavior because they
associate it with femininity, which makes them insecure about their “gender
identity.” So men who are reluctant to change their macho ways and embrace
their feminine side are putting humankind and the planet at greater risk.
WaPo begins by pointing out that women generally are more environmentally
conscious than men. They use less fuel and energy, eat less meat, and
are more concerned about climate change. In fact, a 2011 survey found that 82 percent of adults, both men and women, believe “going
green” is more ladylike than manly. Now University of Notre Dame business
professor James Wilkie and his team have published a study which asserts that the male resistance to being more environmentally
gung-ho may stem from this widely-held impression that green consciousness is a
feminine thing. “As a result of this stereotype,” Wilkie concludes, “men may be
motivated to avoid or even oppose green behaviors in order to safeguard their
gender identity.”
The study shows, for example, that items designed to protect the planet, like
reusable bags or “green” batteries, are perceived to be less manly than the
alternatives. When presented with two versions of the same “green” car, men preferred
the model called “Protection” to the “Eco-friendly” one. They even responded
more favorably to environmental nonprofits with “masculine” logos – i.e., with darker colors and bold fonts —than
to logos that displayed brighter tones and “frilly” letters.
“Stereotypical feminine behavior and attitudes are more in parallel with
taking care of the environment,” Wilkie wrote. “Male traits tend to conflict
with this idea of maintaining a nice environment for other people.” He blames
the stereotype of environmentalists as tree-hugging hippies, scorned by more
rugged men. He also noted that men face greater peer pressure for stepping
outside gender norms. “If a man at a bar were to order a girlie drink, he
might get some looks,” Wilkie said. “He might get some snickers. He might even
get into a fight.” (He neglects to mention that a man who orders a girlie drink
is more likely to get those looks and snickers from the women at the bar) On the other hand, if a woman orders a whiskey on
the rocks, “some people might even be impressed.”
Controversy has forced comedienne Amy Schumer to distance herself from a writer on
her Comedy Central show Inside Amy Schumer who defended a fellow
comedian against allegations of sexual misconduct. The writer criticized
“internet vigilantes” for condemning the accused without any evidence, and now
is himself being slammed as a “rape apologist.” The whole sordid affair is
emblematic of the dangers of the social media mob mentality, particularly in a
time of hyper-sensitivity to the pervasive conception that we inhabit a rape
culture.
The controversy began when comedian Aaron Glaser apparently was banned recently
from the famed improv theater Upright Citizens Brigade after an
internal UCB investigation into allegations that he had raped one or more
women. He spoke out about the incident, which he referred to as a “witch hunt,”
in a now-deleted Facebook post: “I know these are serious accusations, and
I know they are untrue.”
Glaser went on to write that UCB banned him based solely on the word of the
women without providing him any details of the accusers or accusations or any
opportunity to defend himself. UCB is “asking me to prove to them that I’m not
a rapist,” he complained, and said he has now been banned from other comedy
clubs, “not one of which contacted me to ask whether the allegations were
untrue.” “I am being deemed a sexual predator,” he wrote, “and my life is being
ruined by accusations, not findings.”
Amy Schumer got dragged into the issue when, in a subsequent series of hyperbolically
sarcastic and angry Facebook and Twitter rants, her writer Kurt Metzger defended
Glaser’s right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. The social media
mob immediately swarmed, labeling him a “rape apologist” and urging Schumer to
fire him. She washed her hands of it by declaring that though she was “saddened
and disappointed” by his comments, he is not her writer anymore because her
show is ending and “there are no writers.”
It is doubtful that Metzger’s profane ranting won any converts to his
side; neither did his apparent history of misogynistic social media volleys,
which The
Daily Beast detailed. In a Facebook post, he later apologized for using inflammatory
language and stressed that he was not being dismissive of actual victims of
sexual assault. “I was talking to the perennial social media mob who, without
knowing victim or accused, GLEEFULLY want to be part of social mob justice.”
Love him or hate him – and he refuses to give us any other option –
presidential candidate Donald Trump has become the embodiment of whatever extreme
we feel we need to impose on him: deliverance or damnation, freedom or fascism,
truth or, well, trumpery. The media, confounded by his political popularity, are
obsessed with coming to grips with The Meaning of Trump. He is the culmination
of reality TV culture, goes one interpretation, or the harbinger of the end of democracy,
or the apotheosis of America’s supposedly racist underbelly. In the latest unflattering analysis, The
Atlantic’s James Hamblin declares that what The Donald really represents is
the apex of American masculinity – only not in a good way.
“Trump is both a product of a masculine culture and a beneficiary of its
musky tenets,” states Hamblin. He doesn’t feel the need to define the notion of
a “masculine culture” (or a “musky tenet,” for that matter); he simply considers
it a given that we live in one, that it is a problem, that Donald Trump is the “climax”
of it, and that we need to “stop valuing it, stop accepting it.”
Hamblin continues:
Masculine culture is both a reason that Trump
does what he does and a reason that people accept and trust it. His classical
brand of masculinity becomes toxic and feeds tribalism and violence and
entitlement among his followers—those who prefer fighting to talking, walls to
bridges, grimaces to smiles.
Of course, it is anti-Trump protesters – not his supporters – who are
guilty of a disturbing degree of tribalism, violence, and entitlement at Trump
rallies throughout the country. But that is an inconvenient truth for Hamblin,
who displays a racist, sexist, elitist contempt for the “white men without a
degree” whose “classical brand of masculinity” he declares “toxic.”
Screenrant recently declared that this year “is shaping up to be a
breakout year for female heroes (and villains) of every sort.” The online magazine
profiled “15 Characters Who Will Make 2016 the Year of
the Female Superhero,” including such popular
figures from the comics as Harley Quinn, Scarlet Witch, and Supergirl. That’s fifteen this year alone – superheroines who
are taking the cinematic wheel and forcing the male Old Guard like Batman and
Superman to take a back seat. What does such a role reversal mean? Is it just a
temporary trend or are we witnessing a cultural shift in our perception of
heroism? And why does it matter?
In recent decades Hollywood has increasingly presented strong female
characters who can hold their own in action flicks, thrillers, and sci-fi epics.
The dramatic difference now, though, is that Hollywood feels the time is right
to give such characters their own movies,
bucking the traditional wisdom that female leads can’t put enough people in
cinema seats. Whether that risk will pay off financially remains to be seen,
but in any case, the sense is that the culture is ripe for women to step into butt-kicking
heroic movie roles that once belonged entirely to men.
It’s not that male superheroes are in danger of becoming extinct. There is
no shortage of them already, and Marvel seems to pluck more out of its bottomless
magician’s hat at will. But their female counterparts are now poised for world
domination. Oscar winner Brie Larson, for example, will play Captain Marvel, the first superheroine to headline a Marvel
Studios film, in a flick that may actually be directed by the first woman to direct a superhero
movie. Wonder Woman is finally set to break out on her own next year in a
highly-anticipated film. The President of Marvel Studios has revealed that, of
all the previously minor Marvel characters who are likely to get their own
films in the coming decade, the studio is “most emotionally and creatively
committed” to one starring Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow. And
although The Rocketeer
was not technically a superhero, Disney is planning a sequel to the 1991 film which starred Billy
Campbell; but in the follow-up, to be called The Rocketeers, the jet
pack-wearing pilot this time will be an African-American female.
Meanwhile the more traditional superheroes don’t seem to know what to do
with themselves anymore. They’ve been reduced to battling each other, as in Captain America: Civil War and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, as
often as they fight their evil nemeses. Many consider Wonder Woman’s debut in that
latter film to be the movie’s high point. And in the upcoming Thor: Ragnarok, Chris Hemsworth’s Norse
god has even shorn his long locks; is it too much of a stretch to suggest that
this is symbolic of how the rise of superheroines is draining him and his
cohorts of their power, a là Samson
at the hands of Delilah?
At the beginning of the Republican National Convention last week, NBC Today co-host Matt Lauer confronted
presidential nominee Donald Trump about dialing down the intensity of the
passions percolating at the event. “Would you be willing to make a pledge to
speak to everyone involved in this convention and say, ‘Please tone down the
rhetoric’?” Lauer urged. “Can you say to the people who are going to take to
that podium this week, ‘No personal attacks, no vitriol, keep it civil’?”
The irony there is that political journalists themselves, Lauer included,
have become as inflammatory as the politicians they lecture about incivility.
In the aftermath of last month’s Orlando terrorist massacre at a gay nightclub,
for example, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper badgered the increasingly offended Attorney
General of Florida interminably about her stance on gay marriage. More
recently, Fox News’ Shepherd Smith berated Gov. Bobby Jindal for using the “divisive”
phrase “All lives matter.” CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, who wears her biases as
openly as her keffiyeh, hammered away
contentiously at British MP Daniel Hannan for nine minutes over the recent Brexit
vote.
Then there are the battles royal among the ubiquitous panels of TV
pundits. Geraldo Rivera, who is as responsible for creating this toxic
atmosphere as anyone, nearly came to blows on-camera last year with The Five co-host Eric Bolling. Don’t
forget the mean-spirited partisan commentary from purported political comedians
like Joy Behar, Jon Stewart, and Bill Maher. Some of it may entertain, but none
of it enlightens and all of it divides.
This is not a new development. Already by 1996, twenty years ago,
Rockefeller Foundation President Judith Rodin pointed out in a keynote address that
across America and the world, “no one questions the premise that political
debate has become too extreme, too confrontational, too coarse.” In 1999 law
professor Stephen Carter complained in his book Civility that Americans were losing the ability to debate
respectfully.
Exactly 28 years ago last Friday, Die Hard premiered in theaters
and set the standard for action films thereafter. Part of its success derived
from Bruce Willis’ brash, wise-cracking, quintessentially American character –
the perfect foil to the late Alan Rickman’s suave Eurovillain – and partly for
that reason, Die Hard is still my favorite action film. That’s why I was
so disappointed to read that its director John McTiernan recently spewed some
anti-American nonsense about another quintessentially American film hero in an interview for the French film magazine Premiere.
In response to a question about the recent decline in quality of “action
cinema,” McTiernan derided Hollywood comic book adaptations like the Marvel and
DC Comics franchises as mere “corporate products… made by fascists.” They’re
populated by cartoon characters, not real people, he complained. “There is
action but not of human beings,” he said dismissively (in translation). “Comic
book heroes are for businesses.”
“You find that the big studios poison action cinema with ideology?” the
interviewer asked, and McTiernan went off. “I hate most movies for political
reasons,” he responded. “I cannot really see them. I'm pissed off the minute it
starts.” He cannot watch a movie like Captain America, he says, “without
laughing,” because
the cult of American hyper-masculinity is one
of the worst things that has happened in the world during the last fifty years.
Hundreds of thousands of people died because of this stupid illusion. So how is
it possible to watch a movie called Captain
America?
“I’m incapable of watching [such movies] calmly,” he concluded, and the politically
like-minded interviewer reluctantly moved on.
