The Virtues of Masculinity

 John Daniel Davidson, at The Federalist has an article yesterday entitled If Conservatives Want to Defend Manliness, The Better Know What It Means. I have contemplated this issue over the years, but truthfully, Davidson defines manliness pretty well. It is not "toughness" per se, though being tough is part of it, but it is in the nature of manliness to sacrifice for the weaker individual. To come to the rescue of the weak, to defend women and children, at the expense of your own interests.

For some conservatives, the conversation about masculinity has gone completely off the rails. It has devolved into a mere tough-guy pose. You see it in the tendency of certain high-profile conservative thinkers to deride all classical liberals and libertarians as effete and unmasculine. You see it in the growing penchant among some very-online conservatives to mock the physical appearances of their ideological opponents, and especially in the compulsive tweeting about “physiognomy,” mostly from anonymous trolls on the right but sometimes from young conservatives who ought to know better.

All of this is profoundly unmanly, and it gives ammunition to those on the left who would brand traditional masculinity as toxic and dangerous. If we’re going to defend manliness as good and virtuous and necessary for a healthy republic, then we need to be clear about what it is and what it is not.

Yes, men should be physically strong. They should also exemplify traditional masculine virtues like courage, independence, and assertiveness. But why? Not so they can sh-tpost about how ripped or good-looking they are compared to libs, but so they can protect and defend those who are weak.

That is the organizing principle behind the entire concept of manliness: it is not a style or a pose or an adornment. It is a way of being, of living according to the principle that you are responsible for the welfare of others, and should sacrifice yourself for their sake.

It sounds a lot like some of the old idea of chivalry. Now, realistically, women are, in general, weaker than men in general in terms of upper body strength. As is shown by the so called "transgender women" competing against females, the larger size and strength of the "transgender women" cause them to overwhelm their female competion. It is clearly unfair, unmanly of these so called "transgender women." But in the real world, women are not helpless creatures, and I would never suggest that they were. But women deserve defending because they, more than men, are involved in making a home and raising the children. It is men who should defend not just women, but the homeland itself.

I will take just one example of manliness. The media often portray gun owners, and in particular, those who carry as somehow not quite legitimate, maybe even somehow evil. Gun carriers who carry for self defense and the defense of others are conflated with actual criminals, who carry guns to intimidate the innocent. But the truth is that guns are themselves neutral. They are neither good nor bad. Rather the reason for carrying is what may either be good or evil. If you are carrying as a means of defending yourself and your family, that is precisely what the manly virtues are about. 

I suspect that some conservatives are over reacting and making perfect targets for the "toxic masulinity" charge.  But the traditional masculine virtues remain necessary to a free society.  The drag queens doing story hour for kids will not defend us.  And why should they?  They don't have families.  Oh, and the ancient idea of the island of Amazons?  That was a myth.  Gentle readers who are interested in this topic should check out the whole article.