“There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper,” pointed out feminist professor and cultural critic Camille Paglia, demonstrating a grasp of sex differences. Men do get plenty of “credit” for their Jack the Rippers, too. And their Mozarts (and heroes)? Not so much.
A prime example was brought to light in a recent article titled “Toxic’ masculinity can save women’s lives.” It opens with the following quotation from columnist Mark Steyn:
December 6th marked the thirty-fifth anniversary of the ‘Montreal Massacre’ — a grim day in 1989 when fourteen female students at the École Polytechnique were murdered by a man known to posterity as ‘Marc Lépine.’
This is now commemorated in Canada every December 6, with the country lowering its flags. As to what happened that fateful day, the aforementioned article’s author, Eric Utter, writes:
The most relevant — and tragic — aspect of the tragedy is that every one of the men in the classroom where the slaughter occurred, professors and students alike, obediently left the room when ordered to do so. They simply abandoned their female classmates and fellow humans to their fate, without objection or push back.
Steyn, in his own article, elaborated on the above this past December 6, writing:
These ‘men’ stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and [Lépine]… walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.
Many wouldn’t disagree, considering Canada’s current prime minister, Justin Trudeau. (Trudeau has vowed to continue the low-t pattern, too — by raising “feminist sons.”) But there’s more to the story.
No Facts, Wrong Lesson
A generation ago, Steyn reminds us, he wrote, “I loathe the annual commemorations of the Montreal Massacre.” His reasons? First, “Marc Lépine” sounds like a quite violent French Canadian. That’s half right, too.
You see, Steyn reveals that Lépine “was born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, whose brutalized spouse told the court at their divorce hearing that her husband ‘had a total disdain for women.’”
This information, however, has been memory-holed by Canadian media. In fact, were you to emphasize it and dare express doubleplusungood sentiments about Algerian or Muslim men, hate-speech charges could be nigh. This hasn’t stopped, though, the demonization of men generally. As Steyn also writes:
For women’s groups, the Montreal Massacre is an atrocity that taints all men, and for which all men must acknowledge their guilt. Marc Lépine symbolizes the murderous misogyny that lurks within us all.
Of course, Steyn and Utter insist this is the wrong lesson. Never mind that male intellectual endeavor — in science, medicine, etc. — has saved billions of female (and male) lives. As Utter also points out:
Real men, marinating in their ‘toxic masculinity,’ will stand up for women and say “enough!” as regards ‘trans women’ in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. And real men, of the toxically masculine variety, would not ignore the gang rapes of innocent young girls that are being committed by ‘immigrants.’
“Heroic masculinity” men do still exist, too. An example is the intrepid Daniel Penny, who helped subdue an unstable man threatening people on a NYC subway car. So testosterone — whose levels in men have, interestingly, dropped 30 percent the last 30 years — does still flow.
The Broken Contract
Now, it’s understandable why Steyn essentially indicts the men present at the Montreal Massacre for cowardice. Most if not all those fellows, now in their 50s or 60s, surely don’t fancy that incident their finest hour, either. They may not even like telling people they were there. Yet there’s another side here.
Gharbi had a gun he was ready to use. This means that today’s critics are saying that those male students should’ve risked their lives for the women. They should’ve perhaps taken a bullet for women.
Even though women/feminists have demanded equality, ostensibly in all things, for 60 years.
Oh, the demand that men be chivalrous protectors had been made of Western males for generations. And, yes, they generally lived up to it. The difference is that the chivalric code prevailed in its entirety. The message was:
“Yes, ladies, I as a man will put you on a pedestal. I’ll protect you and, if necessary, maybe even die for you.” Then there was the balance:
“In return, I’ll have more authority in society — because with greater responsibility comes greater authority. And you’ll then accept it when, for example, we men are the leaders and earn more money. (We do have families to support, after all.)”
All this, of course, has gone bye-bye. In Canada some years back, in fact, they even removed the words “True patriot love, in all thy sons command” from their national anthem. Trudeau called it at the time, “another positive step towards gender equality.” (Is the equal taking of bullets another?)
Yo-Yo Men
Approximately 25 years ago, when I worked with kids, I light-heartedly mentioned an imperative of chivalry to a 13-year-old boy. Without missing a beat he replied, referencing girls, “They don’t want that anymore.”
Lads have for many decades now been raised hearing, “A woman can do anything a man can — and maybe better!”
“Anything that redounds to the benefit of boys and men is patriarchal tyranny.”
“Females must be allowed in your institutions (e.g., military academies) — and even on your wrestling teams, boys.”
“And dare you complain, you’re a sexist, a misogynist, an impediment to a more equal world.”
Younger generations do now, too, consider equality the greatest of values. So is it any surprise that with one half of the chivalric code having been dismissed with venom, the other half is also going by the wayside?
Yet, again, many still demand the responsibility-half of that code — under certain circumstances. This reality is comically portrayed in the following meme.
In the same vein is the video below.
So should men stand up and be men? It depends on whom you ask (and when). More than a generation ago, feminists in Sweden, Germany, and Australia adopted the cause of trying to compel men and boys to sit down while urinating. Seriously. They claimed that the typical way men tend to a nature call is symbolic of their “triumphing in their masculinity.”
Of course, it’s hard thinking of any greater effort at subjugation than attempting to control how people use the toilet. (Only toddlers, who require potty training.)
But men should stand up for women. Men should sit down for women. It’s all a bit contradictory and confusing. It’s also perhaps why at the École Polytechnique in 1989, the last thing feminists had to worry about was the men “triumphing in their masculinity.”
