I am a man, so my opinion counts [UPDATED]

Lucia Maria did a post a few days ago (True Grown Ups...) that certainly upset an author called "John the other" on the blog/website of "A voice for men": Real Men are Disposable, so says Maria.

Only problem is, I think his interpretation of her post is a little off, and the subsequent extrapolations made by him and others on that thread about what they think she meant are way off the planet. And I'm not talking Earth or Mars. They could be right out by Pluto or coming out of Uranus. Lucia may be from Venus, but they think she's from Planet Man-eater! (I use "they" in the sense I lump most of the commenters in with John's post. Those comments though do not necessarily represent John's opinion. Just read the whole thread and take what you will from it.)

John starts off:

Lucia Maria recently explained in her January 13 article that grown-up men should quit trying to have human rights, and go back to dying for her convenience.

I don't know how John got that interpretation from what she wrote, but she is not making that argument at all. I use the evidence of around 1000 other posts she has done on this blog, and never noticed a single one on that nature. It's a ridiculous thing to say, I think. Do such people seriously think that mothers enjoy losing their husbands in war? Do they think Lucia would want to lose her sons? Generally, do parents, brothers and sisters think their brother/father/son is disposable? We can all imagine how the stereotyped femi-nazi might think of men, but it is dangerous to start extending this belief towards all women, as seemed to be the trend of comments back at the Voice for men site.

John goes on to interpret Lucia's post:

According to Maria, men arguing for the non-disposability of males are the equivalent of children

She does not say this directly in her post, and it's a bit of a long bow to draw that men are disposable. For a start, Lucia talks about the differences between children (not just boys) and adults (not just men) and how you tell that they have "grown up". That definition, in essence: thinking about more than just yourself. That applies to men and women and in the context of men, can be demonstrated (ie ONE example) by those men that go to war to protect their families.

That does not mean that she is arguing that men are disposable. Any regular reader of this blog should understand John's interpretation just doesn't stack up. All she is doing is recognising a great sacrifice, one to be honoured, not spat upon, and not, ever, ever, considered "disposable". On the other hand, any mention of self-sacrifice as a virtue seems to be shunned by many of the commenters on that blog, possibly having decided that is a terrible idea to promote in society. Fine, they are entitled to that opinion, but that still doesn't mean that they can draw the inference that Lucia thinks men are disposable.

A key to their vitriol would have to be in Lucia's definition of "grown-up". Her definition immediately excludes people that act solely in their own self-interest. A quick scan of his site, and I can see why that would get John going, but we need to look deeper before deciding Lucia thinks men are disposable.

Lucia provided this definition:

A grown up is a person who does not put their needs, wants and desires first. They are more interested in looking after those they are responsible for than looking after themselves, even to self-sacrifice. In short, they die to themselves so that others might live.”

and John's response:

I think Lucia Maria has it backwards; an adult is an individual who takes responsibility for themselves.

John's counter-definition has value, but I think he has set up a false choice (it isn't a case of one or the other) in critiquing Lucia's definition. I'd argue that his definition is a good foundation to describe adulthood, but falls short when considering the bigger picture of family. Lucia's posts often focus on the fundamental importance of the family unit, and it is in that context she speaks of fathers that look after their wives and children; of mothers that look after their husbands and children; of children that grow up to look after their aged parents. To Lucia, the commitments and responsibilities created by becoming a family (a joint decision for the man and women) then requires a "step up" by both parties.

I don't know about John's background, but for me, I'd buy his definition of adulthood for when I was single. When I married, I still largely thought that way too, and it wasn't completely wrong (just limiting IMHO). However, when children came along, I think I finally "grew up" as per the definition Lucia provides. My life become much bigger than being just about me. I needed his foundation definition, but I'd be a selfish bastard if I didn't at least put some serious thinking about Lucia's proposition.

The thing is, I don't think these two definitions need to be seen in competition with each other. Some may take that "responsibility of self" John mentions to automatically include concepts like "honouring commitments"; like love being something bigger than a feeling; and to borrow a popular motto, "to protect and serve" as a natural outcome of a morally sound individual who becomes a father.

So John might not get where Lucia is coming from, and people don't necessarily have to buy into the importance placed on the family unit as something bigger than the individual, but it doesn't need to be mocked or attacked either. The responsibilities fathers inherit are seen by the Lucia's of this world as a recognition of the sacrifices a man might make compared to when he was single. Fidelity, faithfulness, committment from the man are actually being appreciated by Lucia. Men that commit to the family are seen as real men. Men who walk out are wimps, or selfish. Equally, you'll find posts from Lucia condemning the types of feminists that demean men, that have the attitude that husbands are optional in a family. There may be a war of the sexes going on, but Lucia isn't part of it. She's part of the war to preserve the family unit, and that takes a husband and a wife.

However, I should note that I am choosing a generous interpretation of John's definition. The danger of focusing on pure self-interest, as argued along the lines of libertarian thought, is that selfishness can become a virtue that then opposes the more traditional virtues. This is the essence of Lucia's criticisms on such definitions - that they lose their gloss when they are not built on a moral foundation, and self-interest can all too quickly give way to selfishness, which in turn diminishes the individual as much as it destroys social cohesion. See the first principle of conservatism.

Lucia did accuse the blog of not being "grown-up", and that led to return fire, but whilst they used shock and awe tactics and a bunker buster or two, they missed the target I think. Being accused of being childish did not logically flow to making the argument that she thinks men are disposable. That's a different species of woman/feminist they want to argue with.

John said:

The author doesn’t leave much room for doubt about who are deemed lesser human beings in her rhetoric, or in the accompanying illustrations. In her article, an included drawing titled “the weaker sex” depicts four women poking a finger-sized man with a knitting needle.

Boy, he really missed the point with that whole part of the post. The author wasn't expressing her opinion, the author was showing that the "war between the sexes", in one form or another was also expressing itself back in the early 1900s, as it is today. She cited an example. That doesn't mean she supports it - she was noting that propaganda was at play even back then, and changed markedly during the war.

Readers need to reconcile phrases Lucia made like below, against John's interpretation of Lucia's post:

Men obviously don't go out to fight in wars because women are poking them with knitting needles, they go out to fight because they love us and their families and will do what it takes to protect us and what they value.

Lucia thinks wives and children are loved by those men. That is not saying they are disposable, it is seeing a noble purpose in that action of violence. John might want to assure her that not all men care enough about their families to fight a war, or that there are other ways of caring for the family than volunteering to fight, but I think we will find she gets that there are not blanket rules for everything, and that this is not a post about the disposability of men.

That is partly why she says later:

Considering that both men and women working together is what makes a strong culture, this cultivation of a war between the sexes seeking to show how one dominates the other from the past was most disturbing.

Let's read that again: "Men and women WORKING TOGETHER is what makes a strong culture." and "This CULTIVATION of a WAR BETWEEN THE SEXES...was most disturbing." [emphasis mine]

From where I stand, I see radical feminism as a swing too far on the pendulum, but John's apparently hasty and over-zealous interpretation of Lucia's comments as being about the disposability of men, and some of the rather virulent and misogynistic comments it has spawned on that thread, looks a bit like the mirror image of those radical feminists they rail against. Radical menists. Well, great, all power to them and their cause. They just don't need to come across as women-haters to win their rights.

One comment on John's thread (from "Stu") kind of sums up my point about a misogynistic sentiment running through the thread. The comment was in response to the sinking yesterday of a cruise ship off Greece:

So orders were given that it was to be women and children first……typical. I would kill anybody without a seconds thought that tried to stop my progress getting off a sinking ship for the sake of protecting some bitch or her womb turds that I don’t even know.

A fine a comment as any of the femi-nazi comments I've ever read.


[Update - Accidentally published my draft copy at 11pm. The version after 12 is hopefully good to go]
[Update 10am - Moved one paragraph.