When "masculinity" becomes misogyny

Women’s role in society has come under the microscope lately with established, successful women like Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg pushing women to “lean in.” Ultimately, as CBS News paraphrased of Sandberg, women “worry too much about being liked and turn down opportunities in anticipation of having a family.” But when I came across the opinion of Matt Forney, who in his case against female self-esteem, believes that women don’t deserve self-esteem, I could barely speak.

I’m not sure something as blasphemous as that post even deserves recognition as legitimate, but sadly there is a select group of misogynistic men who find women to verify these egomaniac personalities. This opinion needs to be thoroughly dismantled for the good of women...and men.

1. Nobody “deserves” self-esteem. It is an inherent human right.

I’m not sure where Forney earned the right to claim the authority to delegate the right to self-esteem, but everybody has the right to self-esteem. How one decides to exercise that right is of their own volition. People on either extreme end of the spectrum (arrogance or cowardice) are often ridiculed but everyone has the right to find their own place in that spectrum.

MattLogic^TM applied to another situation sounds something like this: “blacks have done nothing to deserve self-esteem in a country driven by hardworking White America. After all, the only thing that African-Americans did was perform slave labor for their noble, worthy masters."

Hopefully he’ll snap back into the 21^st century sometime soon. And maybe he’ll head back to the dictionary and realize that respect and self-esteem are significantly different terms. It’s clear, Matt, that you don’t respect women—as evidenced by this first point where you refer to women as “girls” in the title and then refer to the opposite gender as “men” only ten words later. But that doesn't mean they can't still have self-esteem.

Despite roadblocks, women have proven to be quite capable in previously male-dominated fields, too. Experts say that by 2017 we will see female doctors outnumber males. In the past 40 years, the number of men entering medicine has doubled. Women in medicine has increased 10-fold. Newsflash: life would not “go on as usual” without women in the workforce.

2. Physiological differences do not make women inherently insecure.

Fact: men have a lot more testosterone than women. (Maybe it comes to a surprise to MattLogic^TM but testosterone is actually a precursor to the “female hormone” estrogen, so they are quite intimately related.) As a result, men are physiologically built with more absolute and relative muscle mass. And since you’re so into “natural state” of women, Matt, let’s continue the science discussion. Evolution is centered around the concept of natural selection, so what makes more sense for the survival of a human population: a female who sacrifices the ability to bring a child to term for physical strength equal to men, or a female body that naturally has more adipose tissue for energy storage and usage for feeding two bodies during pregnancy?

Physiological differences in reproductive capacities say nothing about the psychological capabilities of women. They say nothing about the psychological security/insecurity of women. (Now whether you project there to be a correlation between the two is a different story…)

Humans have changed Earth in a way that no other species has ever done. So the connection between physiology and current sociology are poorly correlated at best in a species that, in many ways, defies the "laws of nature." Sorry, we are not a pack of wolves looking for an alpha-male in a freezing winter. We have houses, heaters, and a capacity to alter the environment in “unnatural” ways.

Just yesterday, Google paid homage to a woman whose intellectual capacity exponentially far exceeds your (or my) own, Matt.

You are attracted by vulnerability. You believe that female insecurity “unlock[s] our inner masculine instincts.” What you don’t realize is that you can still be the center of a girl’s world without needing these extreme characteristics. What you are looking for is less than what we even expect of children. You want a doll—and not the kind you’re thinking of, but rather the kind that has packaged stuffing inside her.

3. Women want to have self-esteem. The problem is men have taken it away from them.

Change is not pretty. Men with your mentality have persecuted women for hundreds of years. So when a few bold women come forward (like the Rosa Parks and Susan B. Anthonys of the world) to provoke change it isn’t easy and it sure will not come in one fell swoop. It takes time just like the equal rights movements to follow. There are still cultures today that are patriarchal—maybe that’s where MattLogic^TM is derived from?—but that does not validate anything more than the fact that historically men have confused muscle mass with mental capabilities. And a few girl bands today does not accurately represent the entirety of women.

A fourteen-year-old child was shot by Taliban militants as a result of activism to encourage girls to go to school in Pakistan. That girl, Malala Yousafzai, was nominated for the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize. This bears repeating: full-grown, adult men with guns thought they were tough and wanted to assert their masculinity by nearly killing a girl.

Maybe that girl doesn’t earn the “respect” of MattLogic^TM but it did impress a committee that is executes the will of the chemisty, engineer, and innovator, Alfred Nobel (who, by the way, is a male—shocker, right?).

Your opinion denigrates women…but also men. I don’t ever want to be associated with a delusional opinion that you try to pass as fact. Women have every equal right of opportunity that men have.

That includes self-esteem.

Tweet

An opinion on gun control in America

I’m a baseball guy—and as such, I love numbers. But in the context of the gun control conversation, numbers tend to hurt the debate more than they help it. For every statistic that a pro-gun person throws out that says guns prevent crime, the opposition will find an equally legitimate one saying quite the opposite. And so on. So, here is my opinion on a prospective assault weapons ban and a general view on guns in America…with no stats for like-minded people to laud and others to discount or seek prove irrelevant or insufficient.

Not too long ago, I defiantly argued that we should get rid of all guns in the hands of citizens. Now, after some research and discourse, I support the right to bear arms. A case like this one is one very good reason. However, the blind acceptance that most guns are okay is wrong. The Constitution is not perfect and neither were our Founding Fathers. The right to bear arms was a change (amendment) to the original document itself.

We need an assault weapons ban. But before delving any further, let's define assault weapons as semi-automatic firearms with features of military weapons (pistol grip, etc.). There is no place for Americans to handle AR-15 type guns. With that in mind, people who already own such guns will not be forced to return them. (By this point, it is a given that we keep automatic weapons illegal and implement significantly stricter background checks on gun owners and their families—common sense things.)

Assault weapons...and schools?

First, let’s go to the face of guns rights himself. Wayne LaPierre suggested in the NRA’s post-Sandy Hook shooting conference that an armed guard may have spared innocent children and that Americans would “rather continue to risk the alternative.” For one, “continue to risk?” I don’t want to continue to risk the opportunity of school shootings. I want legislation that prevents people from acquiring semiautomatic weapons that can riddle 20 children and six adults with unfathomable amounts of bullets. Armed security, as LaPierre suggested, is a reasonable measure. The high school that I graduated from had a police officer on campus, as do many others.

But we need to give those police officers and security a fighting chance. Would a lone police officer stand a chance against multiple semi-automatic weapons? One officer against a crazed gunman(s) who has the element of surprise on his side and more firepower? Come on, we’re talking to the gun experts here, this just is not a fair fight.

I agree with you, Wayne, gun-free zones are places where killers can “inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.” But a citizen owning a weapon that has the capability itself to maximize mayhem only hurts the cause. A relevant popular notion among the gun rights community is the prospect of arming our teachers. I see multiple problems with this idea: 1) most teachers don’t want guns in their classroom. In fact, the American Federation of Teachers wrote that guns have “absolutely no place in our schools” and they want to “keep all guns off school property.” 2) A middle aged teacher could easily be overpowered by a teenage male student who, for whatever reason, wanted his/her gun and 3) the teacher him-/herself is a potential danger.

More importantly, assault-type guns are unnecessary. Would a teacher really want an assault weapon? I would confidently assert that the answer to that question is a resounding ‘no.’ If you somehow get a teacher to bring a gun to school, a handgun would be more than enough.

Debunking some cliches

The argument that “America is a violent society” is irrelevant. The merits of this point itself are debatable (…our society is violent so let’s keep it that way?) but they don’t provide any relevant reason why citizens need assault-type weapons. Or how about this one: well, this prospective legislation is a “knee-jerk reaction.” That is simply fallacious to its core. Sandy Hook is a month ago, the Aurora shooting is half a year ago, and the Virginia Tech massacre was years ago.

Don’t say this is a knee-jerk reaction; it’s legislation that is years overdue. And in the meantime, more shootings (with semiautomatic, assault-type weapons) have taken place.

A stronger stereotypical pro-gun argument is that criminals will get guns anyway. It’s true, you cannot dispute that either through the black market or foreign countries, guns will make their way onto American soil. And in fact, what if the government itself becomes tyrannical? This was the major and final point of Ben Shapiro in his interview with Piers Morgan. Maybe it will help protect citizens from a government but even that is very questionable. In this feared American government takeover, would citizens really stand a chance? The American military is the strongest in the world. They have drones, automatic weapons, explosives, and things that we probably couldn’t even dream up. Yet those who are gun enthusiasts think a man with a gun will stop that.

The heart of the issue

Alex Jones proclaimed that Piers Morgan’s desire to ban assault weapons would take us back to 1776. No, Alex, today's American government could annihilate the 1776 British army in minutes or days. Our military has combated terror groups and killed Osama bin Laden and you really believe this fantasy of a tyrannical American government couldn’t take care of a man with a gun? I hope not. In fact, you and like-minded people tend to advocate for more military power.

LaPierre also said in that NRA news conference: “The truth is, that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters. People that are so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons, that no sane person can every possibly comprehend them. They walk among us every single day.” An example of this point: the author of an open letter to Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock believed that a gun protected her from a dangerous ex.

To LaPierre: you are completely correct. Now how is a gun going to help a citizen from a truly evil person? If, for example, this person stalks and plans a murder for weeks or months and plans to kill the victim in their sleep, would a gun locked up safely in a cabinet or even under his/her bed help? To the author of the letter to Costas: okay, let’s give Jovan Belcher’s girlfriend a gun. Put them back in the scene of that heated argument in the living room. Now, when the girl feels her life is being threatened, she turns to get the gun that she has, for example, under her bed. You really think she stands a chance getting there before an NFL linebacker? He would jump on her before she could open the door to her room. 

Now remove Belcher’s gun from the scene. Two lives may have been saved.

There is no need for assault-type weapons. They do more harm than good so why not try to slow people who may become (or are) killers? Why should we be satisfied with the status quo? Relevant analogy: a thief wants to get a bike and he sees one that’s locked up; sadly, it does not matter because he brought the tools to remove the lock. Bike is stolen. Now take someone who has a desire for a nice bike but is not hardcore enough to spend the time to research breaking locks or wants to risk being caught. A bike lock is enough to prevent him from stealing it.

An assault weapons ban can help prevent the people on the fence like Jovan Belcher or even the Sandy Hook murderer. Take high powered guns out of their hands and there is an extra step that has to be taken to commit such crimes. This is not a left vs. right issue; Reagan wanted this exact ban. So then is it really a fear of a tyrannical government that Ben Shapiro presumes the second amendment addresses?

Ben, our government has zero history of tyranny. We elect our officials. We have a police force. Yet you still fear something happening that has not happened since our Founding Fathers fought for their freedom almost three centuries ago?

Assault weapons are a tangible problem that we have today. Not hypothetically, generations from now. It’s a problem right now. Innocent children were murdered in an elementary school, college students slaughtered on their own campus, and firefighters were shot down trying to put out a fire. High-powered guns were a common thread in all cases.

So now we finally get to the heart of the gun enthusiast, who says “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Or as Alex Jones said in his Piers Morgan interview “If you punched me right now it’d be not (sic) your fist but your brain that did it.”

Yes, Alex, one’s brain is involved in such a move but would you rather have a trained boxer’s hand hit you or a television hosts’ hand? You can keep your guns—even the assault weapons that you are hastily buying right now—but let’s stop it, and future massacres, with an AWB. Enough with these nearly weekly shootings.

LaPierre made one telling remark that perfectly represented the NRA: “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” This does have some truth to it, no doubt. But the logic that it is the only way is the problem; a case in point was the recent school shooting in California. An unarmed teacher convinced the shooter to put his gun down simply by talking to him.

Tweet