The Castration of the Western Male

Mike Royko was a newspaper columnist from Chicago. His father was a milkman in that city in the 1930s.  As Royko tells it, someone attempted to rob his father, and here was his response:

“One morning, before dawn, a guy with a knife started to climb into his truck. The old man kicked him in the face. The guy got up and ran. The old man slammed his truck into gear, drove on the sidewalk, floored the gas pedal, and — bump, bump — the world had one less stickup man.”
“In my father’s day, people fought back with ferocity,” Royko said. “In my day, we pay the victim tax and wonder what sociological forces brought the poor lad to a life of crime.
All things considered, running them over is a much better idea.”

In contrast to that, compare the following video from the much more modern and sophisticated Ellen DeGeneres Show:

I fail to see the entertainment value or benefit of effeminate men.

Now switch back to July 1940, when Nazi Germany was rapidly conquering France. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was afraid that the notoriously fickle French would surrender their navy to the Germans, thus giving a formidable weapon to an enemy that was intent on killing the British nation. Churchill was made of stern stuff, and gave clear and unhesitating orders to the British navy. The French fleet was sunk in the Port of Oran, killing 1,297 French sailors. Speaking the next day in the House of Commons, Churchill said “We shall prosecute the war with the utmost vigour by all the means that are open to us.” He received a standing ovation.

A handful of months later, General George Patton gave an inspirational speech to the US Third Army, telling them what he expected them to do to the German soldiers: “We are not just going to shoot the bastards, we’re going to rip out their living goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks.”

Switch back to modern United States, where this week President Trump revoked Barak Husain Obama’s order to allow men with a cross-dressing fetish to have equal standing in the military. Somehow the military is now held to be a place for correcting social problems. The media barbequed Trump, reminding us why this is not being fair.

Rather, Patton was right. The task for our nation’s military is to disembowel the enemy before they disembowel us. A military, if it does its job, is to vigorously kill enemy soldiers as quickly and efficiently as possible. There is no such thing as equal opportunity war. There is only live winners and dead losers.

My parents told of a time when they were young, and a thief stole one of the ladies’ purses and ran away. My father’s brothers chased down the bad guy and retrieved the purse. How often would this happen today, with the fun, cool guys on the Ellen show?

I fail to grasp the benefit of castrated, effeminate men. Why is our modern culture holding this up as a value? Why have we lost the respect of men, and redefined their role as being weak? Rather, we need men like Patton, Churchill, and Mike Royko, Sr. We need dangerous men, strong men with backbone, men willing to take risks, men willing to step up and kick bad guys in the face with “utmost vigor.” If we do not have such men, some enemy surely will, as it has in every war ever fought.




About humblesmith

Christian Apologist & Philosopher
This entry was posted in Culture, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Castration of the Western Male

  1. John says:

    I understand that too much effeminacy in males is certainly a bad thing, but seriously, KILLING the person back who wanted to kill you with a knife? Isn’t that a illegitimate form of the death penalty? I seriously can’t understand that.

    • humblesmith says:

      When studying morality, there is a way to determine the answer to such problems. Moral conflicts are determined by the concept of greater good vs. lesser good, and by justice. It is wrong to lie, but yet Rahab is commended for lying to the soldiers who wanted to kill the Hebrew men. So in this case, lying to a murderer to protect innocent life is acceptable. In the case presented here, we have a murderer presumably trying to kill and rob someone. It is acceptable to kick him in the face to defend yourself, and it would have been morally just to shoot a murderer to protect innocent life. In this case, after he ran away, one could make the case that it would not have been just to run the guilty man down.

      The point int this post, however, was just that our sense of what is expected of a strong male has diminished. In the past, running down a murderer would have been perfectly expected, while today we laugh at men hiding behind women.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s