Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Ray Rice and Being a "Real Man"

First of all, let me state up front that the video of NFL all-pro Ray Rice hitting his then-girlfriend in the face, which was just released yesterday, is disgusting, gross, and should be punished to the full extent of the law.

What has me puzzled about this incident is the fact that the White House and other social commentators are saying things like "a real man doesn't do this!"


But here's the point - we can't talk about "what it means to be a real man" in cases like this, but then turn around and spend most of our days TALKING AS IF THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MANHOOD ANYMORE!!!

Which is it liberals?  Are there now 59 genders, or is there actually such a thing as manhood?

The surest way to cut down on the horrendous and heinous crime of domestic abuse is to talk to boys about what it means to be a real man, but now the only time we can is when it helps us when writing articles and making social commentary in the midst of a media frenzy.

Either "real manhood" is real, or it's a social construct. So I ask the White House and leftist commentators - "which is it?"

Here's a talk I gave on Catholic masculinity if you're interested. Click here to watch http://youtu.be/eC3-7Mkd18s


  1. Shoot. "But now the only time we can is when it helps us when writing articles and making social commentary in the midst of a media frenzy." I think you should re-read that sentence (your sentence), delete this post and take a deep breath. I swear you live and die by the ability to make comments on sensationalist media coverage. I have to stop reading your blog, it doesn't provoke any sort of compassionate dialogue. It's very upsetting and clearly written from a reactionary perspective, not one of careful consideration.... which I can only guess is the hypocracy you are attempting to shine a light on...Now by comparison, it is very clear that your homilies are well thought out and intentionally composed. I fee like a Taylor Swift quote could be inserted here, "Why ya gotta be so mean?"

    1. reactionary? I haven't been talking about masculinity or the feminine genius before? I haven't talked about the insanity of gender theory before? You clearly haven't been reading this blog because this story highlights some key topics of importance to Catholics everywhere.

      And God forbid we try and talk about what is going on in the world today. So you're saying don't talk about the stories going on in the world, and the liberals are telling the Church to get with the times. Which is it?

  2. I have no idea what topics of importance are covered by this story that are specific to Catholics. I understand this is a big story, but using this idea of 59 genders is absurd. It's an attempt to illicit a reaction and it detracts from the real headline: Ray Rice beating the crap out of his wife. And the 59 genders thing is mean, so why ya gotta be so mean? Talk about all the issues going on in the world, lose the snark.

    1. Well then I failed to explain it because this story gets right to the heart of KEY teachings of the Catholic Church. Namely - what does it mean to be human, what does it mean to be a man and what does it mean to be a female. The Church has a LOT to say about these questions, while at the same time society is saying it doesn't mean anything to be human, it doesn't mean anything to be a man, and it doesn't mean anything to be a woman.

      The 59 gender thing comes right out of a recent story where apparently Facebook allows you to pick one of 59 different genders (it may be a few more or a few less), and this stuff is all right in line with the sort of insane liberal nonsense that is being taught at "universities" and so forth.

      Thus the point of the post - you can't say "It doesn't mean anything to be a man" and then turn around and say, like the White House and others are saying today - "be a man"!

      You can't say masculinity is meaningless and is a social construct, but then, on certain occasions, say "men need to be more masculine". If you can't see what I'm saying here, then you should probably stop reading the blog because that's my best attempt and breaking it down for you.

    2. I think where the confusion comes in is with the conflation of gender theory with trans people -- two related, but definitely distinct, things. One is an ideology, the other is a group of people. I think Anon is suggesting that in the name of questioning the ideology, you're being mean to the people. Also, it's not actually logically problematic to say "there are men, and there are women, and also there are transwomen and boidykes -- and the men should behave like real men." We can value masculinity even while questioning whether it's a category that aptly applies to all XY individuals, in the same way that we can value motherhood as an aspect of femininity without deriding or excluding women who are completely infertile.

    3. Strange times when pointing out doublespeak is characterized as mean.

    4. Melinda - so, if one ascribes to gender theory, wouldn't it be wrong to accuse Mr. Rice of not being a "real man" without checking with him first to see if he in fact thinks of himself as a "real man"?