By Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
On Sunday, as images from Hurricane Harvey stunned the
nation, one particular image stuck out for many Americans as indicative of the
heroism of Texans in the face of disaster: a picture of a man
in a baseball cap carefully carrying a woman through the water; the woman,
in turn, holds close a baby curled up on her chest.
The picture struck a chord with many people because it
seems so instinctively right: the
woman protecting her child, the man protecting the woman, carrying them all
through danger.
This is the vision of humanity that carries us through
our darkest trials: men as protectors, women as guardians, children as
innocents.
And yet our society has devoted itself wholesale to the
destruction of this image.
First, men.
The men we look up to are protectors. As Lieutenant
Colonel David Grossman writes in On
Combat, in a paragraph later paraphrased in American Sniper:
If you have no capacity for
violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a
capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have
defined an aggressive sociopath — a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for
violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a
warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path.
But all men must strive to be sheepdogs — and that
doesn’t always require violence. The sheepdog must be willing to do violence
but must also ensure protection of the flock against all manner of horror.
That’s the role of men in the social fabric. That doesn’t mean that women can’t
participate in that task — but a society of men who refuse to protect will be a
society that collapses in short order.
And yet this vision of what it means to be a man has been
shattered over the course of the last several decades. Now we’re told that
manhood no longer has a meaning, or that it has so many different meanings that
it’s indistinguishable from other, more malleable concepts. We’ve been informed
by the feminist movement that the vision of man as protector is degrading to
women — that women don’t need protection, that women can be protectors just as
men can. We’ve been informed by the transgender movement that women can be men, and that men can be women, that
gender is entirely malleable. We’ve been told by the social Left that men’s
protective nature is inextricably intertwined with toxic masculinity — that the
aggressive instinct that undergirds man’s defense of family also undergirds his
violence against others.
The result has been manhood in retreat. Men feel unmanned
— they feel that their innate value has been tossed aside. Too many men revert
to the posturing of wolves, refusing the responsibility of protecting the herd.
Some men cower in the face of protection, feeling that to overstep their
boundaries would be to bolster the patriarchy.
But when disaster strikes, men are there.
Then there is the woman in the picture, holding her
child. The traditional role of women has been the guarding of children. That
doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t work — far from it. It doesn’t mean that
female value lies only in guarding kids — of course not. But a vision of
societal femininity that doesn’t include guarding the innocence of children
isn’t a vision of femininity at all. All of humanity relies on motherhood, and
the mother’s role doesn’t end at birth.
Yet the social Left has targeted even this innocuous
standard, too. Women have been told that abortion is mark of virtue. They’ve
been told that a career is inherently more important than child-rearing.
They’ve been informed that children can take care of themselves, that
self-fulfillment should take priority over care for children. Stay-at-home moms
have been scoffed at; women who believe in the sanctity of the unborn have been
castigated as sell-outs.
But when disaster strikes, women are there.
Finally, the sleeping child. The role of the child in
society isn’t that of decision-maker, as Senator Kamala Harris seemed to
suggest this week; children should be able to sleep through crises. The adults
are in charge.
Yet even this simple notion has been tossed aside by the
social Left, which insists that children are sophisticated enough to decide
their own sex, their own standards of education, and their own standards of
morality.
But when disaster strikes, men and women will protect
children.
Many Americans have spent decades at war with manhood,
womanhood, and childhood. We’ve tried to demean the glorious diversity of sex
and age into the box of perfect sameness, and we’ve failed. When horror
strikes, however, those differences rise to the surface once again — and if
we’re lucky, we’re reminded why a society that cherishes those differences
survives.
No comments:
Post a Comment