Today's topic is about gentlemen, which presumably nice young Catholic Single men and other Single men of good will wish to be. Of course, this is presuming a lot, as maybe they would rather slay the men and steal the horses and have the women flee before them, as was reputedly Genghis Khan's life goal. I don't see how this is compatible with Christian civilization, however.
I know a number of men who act as though they would love to be Genghis Khan but have been robbed of the privilege by feminism. However, I think it is the fifty year old blame of feminism that has inspired their inner Genghisism. One extreme--trying to demasculinize men--has set up another extreme--Inner Genghis. The female broach of all men-only spaces has led to the creation of spaces on the internet that no woman who cares for her sanity would care to go.
And this is too bad. There were some serious twentieth century bars to female flourishing that needed to come down, but this was not really supposed to happen at the expense of male flourishing. Better education for girls was not supposed to mean reading problems for boys, or boys being expected to act like girls. However, this has happened, and I think it is unfair. I feel particularly sad for men who were raised almost entirely by women and never had organized all-boy time or places, e.g. boys' schools, boys' clubs, boys' choirs, boys' sports. No wonder there's a manosphere.
Happily, instead of writing misogynist screeds, many men are fighting back against the feminization of men by adopting an interest in the traditional pursuits, dress and habits of the men who flourished before 1963. And one of the better websites about reclaiming manliness is, of course, The Art of Manliness, which should be as much fun for women to read as Seraphic Singles is for men. All kinds of mysteries are explained and new ones crop up, e.g. why do men get so excited about the weirdest things?
This is wonderful, but what would not be wonderful would be a return to the masculine pleasures of the past without taking on the masculine responsibilities towards women and children. I think there is a particular danger of this in the United Kingdom where there was a tradition of whole classes of men, e.g. intellectuals and the clergy, not really liking women all that much in the first place, or pretending that they didn't to foster masculine bonhomie. How sad if that gets resurrected instead of the traditional sense that men are called to protect women and children.
A man who makes women and children feel respected and cherished is to my mind a true gentleman. It's not clothing, though of course a man's clothing can show respect both for himself and for those who have to look at him. It's certainly not tobacco although tobacco, which many women find very unpleasant, provides men with the opportunity to say, "Do you mind if I smoke?"--a signal that he thinks of others.
I had a conversation the other day in which I made the mistake of using the phrase "male social privilege." Saying "male social privilege" can be like waving one's lacy handkerchief at a bull, and at once I was challenged to give an example.
"Men are stronger than women," I said flatly.
"That's not social," said my critic, but subsided.
But it is social. Because men are stronger than women, men can stroll home from a party after dark, semi-alert for ruffians, but secure in the knowledge that ruffians attack but rarely. But because women are weaker than men, women cannot stroll home from a party after dark secure in the knowledge that ruffians attack but rarely, because if a ruffian did attack, she would be toast. When it comes to matters of life and death, physical strength and personal safety, women are still at a disadvantage.
This is why a true gentleman is the man who sees that a female friend gets home safely. By his mere presence, he provides safety and also rights an glaring injustice: that women must be afraid where men are not.*
This is why a true gentleman is the man who sees that a female friend gets home safely. By his mere presence, he provides safety and also rights an glaring injustice: that women must be afraid where men are not.*
Additional thoughts: God makes men bigger than women so that men will feel protective of women, and God makes children grow taller than their mothers so the mothers can relax and let go. It's not strength and size that make men manly, but how they use that strength and size in service to others. The same goes for women. It's not our softness and size that make us womanly, but how we use our softness and size in service to others.
I wish I could run these thoughts past Saint Edith Stein. (Sigh!)
*Exonerating circumstance: Obviously a man on crutches or a man who is otherwise impaired is exempt from any seeing-female-friends-home duty.
