Changing Times, Part 4

Roy Hanu Hart, M.D., aka Doctor Faith, July 25, 2017

Rush Limbaugh hurled a flurry of words at freelance writer Jody Allard on his July 17 broadcast. Allard, an outspoken West Coast feminist, focuses on “women’s issues, health, and parenting.”  Commenting on her writings, Limbaugh quoted her as to what she had to say about her two adolescent sons: she considers them “not safe because they have penises, and because they have penises they are prone to rape women…All men are barbarians, all men are rapists, all men are predators….” You get the drift.

Rush went on to introduce his audience to two more feminatics, C. Mott, a Rutgers professor, and D. Cockayne from the University of Waterloo, Canada. These two have it in for straight white men, who they label as perpetrating “white heteromasculinism,” which they define as a “system of oppression” designed by those who are “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered” (males whose gender identity matches their birth sex, the opposite of transgendered).      

If you think I made up this cockamamie stuff, check my source: “This Is the Kind of Crap That’s Ripping Our Culture to Shreds,” from The Rush Limbaugh Show, July 17, 2017.

Sixty years ago this sort of moronic nonsense and pseudo-psychological garbage from the three authors mentioned would never have made it into print, and if it did, the trio would have been considered psychopathological. For me, it is still the case, and all three meet the criteria for a psychiatric diagnosis of andrismophobia, fear or hatred of masculinity, a term I introduced in my previous blog in this series. It is not a trivial diagnostic label but rather one of rapidly growing importance in this new period of human experience called the postmodern era.      

Buried deep beneath Jody Allard’s hysterical hyperbole and vitriol lies a kernel of truth: the most difficult task facing society is the socialization of its adolescent male population. Child Junior may be the apple of his mother’s eye, but when he arrives at puberty, he turns into a sex machine. That’s the power of testosterone. Pubescent Junior now belongs to Dad (if there is a dad in the house), whose task it is to help guide his son into channeling his sexual energy into socially acceptable outlets. Freud referred to this process as sublimation (borrowing a term from chemistry).

Going back a bit to 1973, I recall reading City College of New York sociology professor Steven Goldberg’s The Inevitability of Patriarchy, in which the author attempted “to discover why patriarchy, male attainment, and male dominance are universal….” He added that “whether we are referring to woman’s response to male aggression or to the emotions underlying woman’s universal role as life creator and life sustainer, feminine behavior and the institutions that are related to this behavior are as inevitable as patriarchy….”

Goldberg stressed that “the hormonal system that renders the man more aggressive…alone would explain patriarchy, male dominance, and male attainment of high-status roles; for the male hormonal system gives men an insuperable ‘head start’ toward attaining those roles which any society associates with leadership.”

One other quote from The Inevitability of Patriarchy before I add my own comments: “Societies conform their institutions and socialization to the sexual directions set by physiological differentiation, first because they must and second in order to function more efficiently.”

There is an Achilles heel in Goldberg’s argument. As pointed out previously, democracy trumps Mother Nature. Patriarchy has been the natural state of social organization for the last three to four thousand years, but matters are different in today’s highly developed democracies, where legislation neutralizes the male advantage – in the name of enforcing equality. Enforced equality is not the natural state for Man the species. Such a social policy has, as they say, unintended consequences: the decline of manhood and womanhood…and the rise of creeping androgyny.

During the primeval stage of human development, men stood in awe of the female’s capacity to create life. The power was with women, and kinship grouping was matrilineal, traced through maternal, not paternal, lines. In the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian epic of creation (written between 1900-1500 BCE), the storm-god Marduk slays Tiamat, a creation goddess, and forms heaven and earth from her body. The masculine principle had subdued its feminine counterpart and, according to Amaury de Riencourt (Sex and Power in History), led to the beginning of history as we define it and to the male-dominant societies of Greece and Rome.

We are now at a new phase in the history of human development. Goldberg’s statement, “Societies conform their institutions and socialization to the sexual directions set by physiological differentiation… in order to function more efficiently,” is no longer characteristic of the Western world’s modus operandi; and with patriarchy vanquished by fiat, inefficiency and indifference have replaced efficiency and order.

There are some 20-million students enrolled in higher education, the crème de la crème, some might say, of the 75.4-million millennials constituting a little more than a quarter of the country’s population.   Hearing and observing them on radio and television and reading about them in various outlets, they are not exactly an inspiring group. This is especially true for that fraction of millennials, in or outside of school, who are part of the Snowflake Generation.

Writer Claire Fox called our homeothermic, bipedal snowflakes “censorious cry-babies” in a 2016 Spectator article, describing them as “genuinely distressed by ideas that run contrary to their worldview.”  Various descriptive terms, comments, and labels applied to them include: culturally oversensitive, emotional fragility, exaggerated self-esteem, overprotective childhood, “a new kind of Victorianism” (by Chuck Palahniuk, who was among the first – there are several claimants -- to coin this particular usage of “snowflake” in his 1996 novel Fight Club), and so forth.

Then there are the linguo-poetic snowflake creations: micro-aggressions, safe spaces, no-platforming…. The latter term refers to their intolerance of those with differing political views, who they bar – resorting to uncharacteristic histrionics and violence -- from speaking at their college or university. Reports of their overuse of mental health services came as no surprise to me, a psychiatrist, nor the high incidence of fear of failure amongst this group. I don’t wish to burden my readers with technical jargon – I have already jolted them with andrismophobia – but, and hold your breath, we refer to a morbid fear of failure by the tongue-twister kakorrhaphiophobia. Perhaps its synonym, atychiphobia, will prove easier to articulate.

The snowflakes will soon inherit the earth, along with all the andrismophobics. God help us! After all, it’s His universe, and we’re all His creations.

Roy Hanu Hart, M.D.
InfoFaith Communications,
Web Address:

Order Now!