June 22, 2004
In an MND column on Politically Correct Psychosis (November 17, 2003), I described an incident in the college town of Charlottesville, Virginia, where a group of young black thugs brutally attacked and injured several white college students. The community responded by designating the black thugs as the real victims, and local women held several bake sales to raise money for their legal defense. Little was said about the injured students. Only in the unreal, upside-down world of fem-think could such monumental contradictions exist where a victim class bakes cookies for its victimizers. Recall from Part I (MND, June 21, 2004) that the natural inclination of women- when faced with dangerous and threatening males- is to on rely the three "A"s of fem-think: appease, adjust, and adapt. That is, bake them cookies and hope they will go away.
Let me summarize a personal example. The Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 was enacted to prohibit discrimination in housing transactions based on religion, national origin, gender, disability, and especially race. That is all well and good. However, the Fair Housing Act was extended in 1988 to allow for the establishment of transitional homes for the mentally and emotionally disabled in residential neighborhoods. This means that the government can buy a home in any neighborhood, and then transform it into an "institution" without consulting local authorities, neighborhood civic associations, or homeowners in the immediate vicinity.
A local youth services company recently acquired a large home in my very quiet and established neighborhood with the intention of housing a maximum of eight emotionally disturbed young men in the 18-21 age range. The company's website describes various admissions criteria based on diagnostic categories listed in the official manual of the American Psychiatric Association. Some of the diagnoses included psychoses, sociopathy, ADHD, and the like. At the company's discretion, it could place a young man with virtually any kind of psychiatric disorder in the home, and the only option of homeowners was to "trust" that placements would be prudent and safe.
The community civic association held a meeting to "allay fears" that included county and state representatives, youth services personnel, and neighborhood homeowners. The youth services personnel included a married couple and a young man, all with master's degrees in social work. The meeting began with the government representatives and the social workers firmly informing everyone "that the law is behind us and the community will have to adjust to these laudable and desirable social changes." Moreover, the homeowners were exhorted to "be prepared to do your part to help hurting people out there."
The two male social workers initially provoked anger with their social preachiness, but right on cue, the female took over and it was a veritable extravaganza of fem-think from then on. She assured one and all that her company would put the needs of the community first and foremost in staffing the facility and selecting residents, and all we had to do was to "trust her." Of the 40 or so people there, only one gray-haired man put up any fight at all, and he was quickly shouted down by the women. In a few brief moments of appeasement, adjustment, and adaptation, the women had given the farm away and PC had won the day. And you guessed it...one woman passionately intoned that we should welcome these "hurting young boys and bake them a nice batch of cookies."
Please note that what I call fem-think is feminine thinking in the extreme without any semblance of balance by man-think. I suggest that the healthiest and most effective women and men are those who incorporate a goodly portion of the other gender into their self identities in a context of mutual love, respect, and empathic understanding. This occurs through good mother-son and father-daughter relations, good brother-sister relations, marriage between a man and a woman, effective teacher-student relationships and mentorships, and a host of other avenues.
Man-think in its purest and rawest form gave us Vlad the Impaler, Attila the Hun, the Marquis de Sade, Adolph Hitler, and, more recently, Osama Bin Laden, and beheading as a means of expressing displeasure. Indeed, testosterone is the fuel that literally drives the Islamic Jihadists and al Qaeda. Any society of men bereft of feminine influence is apt to be brutal, violent, and uncentered, as in prisons, among soldiers away from home, and among men who simply lack the complex and refined skills necessary for cross-gender interaction. An excellent book on this topic is historian David Courtwright's Violent Land: Single Men and Social Disorder from the Frontier to the Inner City.
A preponderance of my most admired people are feminine women who are skilled in man-think and comfortable in the world of men. Among my favorites are the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher in the realm of politics, Kathleen Parker and Michelle Malkin in column writing, Camille Paglia in social criticism, Christine Hoff Sommers in philosophy, Ann Coulter in the culture wars, Annika Sorenstam, Marion Jones, and Justine Henin-Hardenne in sports, and I have a grudging respect for Martha Stewart in the business arena. Moreover, I consider Jane Goodall- hands down- to be the greatest social scientist of this century by virtue of her nurturant approach to chimps, on the one hand, and her capacity for creative discovery, objective analysis and thoughtful theory on the other.
In sum, my approach is premised on three fundamental assumptions: first, that civilization was invented, refined, maintained, and defended by man-thinking males of the species; second, that excesses in man-think typically lead to brutality, violence, and social emptiness; and third, that excesses in fem-think typically lead to the rapid degradation and loss of the traditional social structures and institutions that men originally put in place. The rapidly degrading institution of marriage is a perfect example. To quote Camille Paglia from her famous book Sexual Personae, "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."
Kent Bailey [kbailey(at)vcu.org]
