Thursday 14 November 2019

I was wrong to talk of 'feminisation' - it's worse than that

Jeremy Clarkson
Jeremy Clarkson
Ian O'Doherty

Ian O'Doherty

Talk about putting your foot in it.

Last Friday, I appeared on Newstalk to discuss a column I had written about the Jeremy Clarkson micro-scandal. Of course, any conversation about Clarkson is never really about the man himself, but what he represents.

And, to a large number of people, he represents a particularly toxic strain of masculinity which has become increasingly demonised in recent years as the source of all the world's ills.

During the course of the conversation, I railed against the increased feminisation of society and how everyone seems more obsessed with emotions over logic. In other words, I dropped the 'F' bomb.

Cue the usual outrage from the usual people who stalk cyberspace in a state of permanent angst: I was obviously terrified by the thought of women in positions of authority. I was apparently freaked out by the idea of women getting equal pay. Sure if it was up to me, I'd keep all women in the kitchen where they knew their place - an assertion which provoked a particular snort of derision from the wife.

But, in fairness, some of the critics made some good points and I accept that I misspoke.

Because the problem goes far, far deeper than the mere 'feminisation' of society.

That's because many men are now complicit in their own emasculation, and you can't blame women for that. No, this is a problem all of our own making and we're becoming a gender which now views our own traits with a suspicion that verges on self-loathing.

When Bret Easton Ellis wrote of 'Generation Wuss' last year, he was castigated for being 'mean' and 'unhelpful' - and that was just by the blokes.

The reason why the jackals rip into the likes of Easton Ellis and Clarkson with such unseemly alacrity is because they represent the antithesis of Generation Wuss.

Indeed, any man who isn't prepared to apologise for being a man is now seen as some sort of misogynistic dinosaur who only judges a woman on the basis of her sexual availability.

That has become the popular wisdom, spread with equal vigour by commentators of both genders who seem determined to propagate the pathetic fallacy known as 'the war on women'.


Anyone who extols the virtues of a degree of stoicism, a healthy disregard for the pieties of the politically correct and a reluctance to take shit lying down is now seen as part of the oppressive, phallocentric problem who is genetically predetermined to be a violent potential rapist.

Despite the current debate, there is no such thing as a 'war on women'. Nor is there a 'war on men'.

But there undoubtedly is a war on maleness. We see it in the way boys are told from an early age that being a boy is a problem to be rectified - hence the trend for gender-neutral toys and the way a competitive, lively spirit is now something to be wary of.

The moronic chattering classes have actually reached a degree of peak arrogance which looks on basic biology as a mere construct which can be reshaped, and it will be reshaped to turn young men into socially acceptable wusses who are made to feel guilty for their own instincts.

Study after study has proved that even primates show marked gender differences from an early age - young male chimps simply prefer more boisterous toys and games to their sisters.

Such inconvenient truths fly in the face of the current, Year Zero orthodoxy and that's why people like Clarkson are so vociferously shouted down as bigots.

Despite these attempts to socially engineer maleness out of existence, most men don't want to cry or endlessly witter on about their 'feelings'.

That doesn't mean they are unevolved, it simply means that they're not prepared to swallow the current trendy BS that the only good man is a New Man.

So, apologies for offending the feminists out there, because, for once, you're not actually the problem. It's the men who agree with you.

Irish Independent

Today's news headlines, directly to your inbox every morning.

Don't Miss