Wednesday, October 21, 2009


If you have not seen this article, much less, checked out this book, it might be of interest to take a quick peak at it . Basically, McAllister, an Australian anthropologists says that modern men are physically a bunch of wimps and that we could not hold a candle to pre-industrial revolution men, much less prehistoric men. Some of the proof used to back up this assertion is as follows:

German men just a little over a century ago were jumping heights of 2.5 meters (world high jump record today is 2.45 meters)

men have lost 40% of the shafts of our long bones because we have much less of a muscular load placed upon them these days.

Roman legions completed more than one-and-a-half marathons a day carrying more than half their body weight in equipment.

Athens employed 30,000 rowers who could all exceed the achievements of modern oarsmen.

Surely this is all very ironic in a day when more men than ever worship at the shrine of ESPN and the sports arena, are instantly in touch with the "whose who" and "what's what" in the sports world through the steady flow of twitter updates, walk around sporting the jersey of their "favorite" ballplayer, yet are not even physically strong enough or athletic enough to be the team waterboy. Beyond that don't even get me started on the emotional effeminacy, lack of intellectual vitality and curiosity, and the widespread lack of ambition to even move out of mom and dads basement until at least 30 years old, which are all dominant trends of males under the age of 29 today. McAllister blames all of this on the industrial revolution, and no doubt that plays a role, but there are other forces at work. I guess the question that I would like a better answer to is whether the wimpiness of modern man is a self-inflicted wound which is directly linked to the institutionalizing of political correctness or is it attributable to a macro-economic shift from an agricultural and industrial economy to a technological and service oriented economy?

The whole concept of sex roles based upon biological gender types is systematically being erased in the public education system today as well as by those who take the lead in shaping social constructions of gender affecting everything from the kinds of toys children play with, to insisting on "participation ribbons" for everyone on youth sports teams, to banning such harmless things as dodgeball in P.E.. In other words, young men are being set up to be unwitting participants in a culture of male underachievement. What I am saying in response to McAllister is that although I can accept that some of the problem is rooted in macroeconomic shifts, I cannot help but believe we are beginning to reap the fruit of the very intentional attempt made by elitist thinkers and social programmers to systematically destroy biological masculinity in the interest of creating a more "level playing field" for all.

Men, I need you to know that this atrophy in physical strength McAllister documents indicates that we are suffering from an identity crisis due to constantly receiving extra helpings of false guilt for being culturally dominant as far back as history has kept records. We need to wake up and realize that we are being duped by a subversive ideological attack that is simultaneously puritanically self-righteous as well as utterly blind to the dangerous cultural consequences of its agenda. I don't mean to sound like Chicken Little, but I don't at all mind using anecdotal evidence from Manthropology to spark a vigorous discussion about the disturbing post-modern phenomenon of the male identity crisis which is in part characterized by physical weakness. Pushing back against this feminist, pc agenda is not just about re-asserting your manhood, it is also essential for the long-term vitality of our culture for men to possess a combination of physical strength, mental agility, and verbal skill. Its high time that post-industrial men understand the real cultural forces that are working against them (as well as making them weak) and in turn rise above our pre-industrial predecessors.


Vic said...

I think the "wimpiness" of man is due in large part to "invasive parenting" and I believe this is caused by the abdication of the father to raise men and the intrusion of the mother to take up that role. I submit mothers are inherently incapable of raising men.

Kids have it way too easy nowadays. In school, sports and at home they are being taught that everyone's number one. They no longer have an incentive to surpass each other. That is why it is such a shock to them when they grow up and actually have to attain these traits themselves, often little too late.

Check out this site. I found it informing.

Vic said...

You know, lest I be deemed a male chauvinist, I also believe men are inherently deficient at raising women. I am living proof. :)

John Sawtelle said...

Point well take on both accounts. We all fail in many ways, but our aim is to strive to meet an objective standard. What is so irritating as well as dangerous with the pc, feminist movement is that it is working to destroy objective standards for men. This may help feminists achieve a political end, but in the long run its a very dangerous proposition.

danielj said...

I also believe men are inherently deficient at raising women.

So girls should be raised by single mothers? Or, fathers are simply inessential dressing?

Girls need their fathers and men are fully capable of raising them.

Vic said...

"So girls should be raised by single mothers? Or, fathers are simply inessential dressing?

Girls need their fathers and men are fully capable of raising them."

Perhaps, I was deficient in clearly explaining what I meant. What I meant to say was that men on their own are inherently unable to raise up woman. I may be wrong or I may be right. There are things I can teach my daughter, but whatever I teach my daughter is only after all an image of what I think a woman should be from a man's perspective. My wife has a better idea of what women deal with and must go through. I myself wouldn't be able to teach her that without the aid of my wife.

I fully agree that girls need their fathers. They need to have an idea of what kind of man they ought to marry. They need that leadership their own husband ought to possess and as fathers we have the opportunity and obligation to provide that for them.

Thanks for your reply. I hope my explanation helps.