The Feminisation of the Male

Let's Express Posted on by

The Feminisation of the Male

It is true to say that boys who play sport will rarely get into trouble and I have a theory about that. Sport for boys in Ireland means hurling & football, rugby and soccer in the main. Those four games cover about 95% of all sporting activity for boys and young men.

These are contact sports and are, in reality, damned rough too. There is kicking, punching, head-butting and wrestling and what may come as news to some people, is the fact that boys love it. I believe that it is in the DNA of all boys to get physically violent. It is hard wired in and no amount of denying it will make it go away. Boys like fighting and competitive physical force where there are clear winners and losers. As a boy myself, I loved the rough and tumble of it and friendships were made that lasted a lifetime back then in the heat of battle. And a battle was what it was. The friendships emerged through the shared experience of battle scars, simple as that.

Today, society now views these natural tendencies as inappropriate and it frowns on 'dirty play' on the pitch. In one notable period, we had sight of Paul O'Connell kicking the head off Dave Kearney, (Munster V Leinster), and Luis Suarez biting the Chelsea centre-back. The former didn't mean it and the latter most certainly did, but that doesn't matter. Women in general and little men in particular, are appalled at the sight of a six foot six Limerick man stampeding around kicking the little fellow on the ground. O'Connell appeared to be trying to move Kearney out of his way without politely asking the flying winger to move. 

In rugby, the little guys learn early to stay out of the way of the trundling forwards or else. Training sessions can leave as many marks as an actual game and boys instinctively know that it is the price to be paid for the pleasure of partaking in the first place. Soccer is a team sport as well and Luis's little bite will be remembered long after his incredible pass that led to Liverpool's equalizer in that match. Both Paul and Luis went on to better things but both still have that" edge" to them and we love them for it.

It is my theory now though, that boys are being feminized and their natural hardy natures are under threat of being watered down or swept under the carpet. The young male finds a natural outlet for his aggression among his immediate peer group on the field of play. But, with rules and a referee, it becomes "controlled" aggression, and that is the vital distinction. You see, contact sports allow the young male to express himself in an orderly fashion, giving as good as he gets. He has the narrow window of opportunity during the period of any game to push himself to his limits and by the final whistle, he is exhausted and placid as well. He can shake hands with a guy he was trying to beat the head off only minutes earlier. He will have pitched his skill and strength against the other guy in the fight and win or lose, he will have given his all.

Hours after such a game, there is a gentle glow of satisfaction that precludes the need to fight or cause trouble. Boys who play sports do not end up in street gangs that terrorise neighbourhoods in a cowardly fashion. In fact, the sporting boy is the enemy of the street bullies. The sporting boy is trained and fit and he is, by definition, strong to survive on the field. The neighborhood bully is a physical and mental weakling and he understands the inherent danger of taking on the team player. One punch could leave the bully marked for life.

The feminisation of boys seeks to see this behavior on the field as barbaric and sees the street gangs as a matter for the Gardai. Feminists are appalled by the antics on the field and fear the dangers on their own streets due to wild young boys roaming about. The feminine nature would like to see boys playing happily with no physical contact and in the end, everyone wins and everyone gets a prize. That is pure and unadulterated horseshit. What the feminist fails to see when she looks at the big powerful young male, is that he is the gentle protector, not a threat.

The young male needs the outlet for his natural aggression and when you deny it in a controlled environment, it will come out instead in an uncontrolled environment. A young GAA player will not drag you down the street by your handbag. A young boxer will not punch you in the face on the street. A young rugby player will not pick you up and throw you across the room either. They neither need to nor want to. 

I fear for a society that it is seeking to make the natural urge for rough physical contact in the young male appear to be something 'abnormal.' For a growing lad, it is as natural as having his dinner. And weirdly for young boys and men, the very society that frowns on them now for their rough play will have a high expectation in war that they will go in their droves to kill the enemies who threaten our society. Boys who have had their natural aggression trained out of them will hear those very trainers refer to them then as cowards.

I wonder will that make those sporting boys angry?

Cars have personality

Let's Express Posted on by

Cars often evoke happy memories in me. I started driving back in 1974 and like all of you, I was and am a great driver! (arf, arf.)

My brother was ten years older than me and he had a love/hate relationship with cars – he loved driving them and just hated crashing them all the time. You see, Michael was a very fast driver and a pretty heavy drinker too. One morning he gave me the thrill-seeker ride into school and, at one point, we had to stop at traffic lights. Facing us on the far side was a Jaguar XJ12, a growling steel beast straight from a young boy’s wet dreams. I was goggle-eyed.

Spotting this my brother said casually, “See the Jag?” and I mumbled awe-struck that I did. “See the guy in it?” and I shifted my gaze to the fat balding man in pinstripe peeping up from behind the steering wheel. I mumbled that I did. Then Michael delivered one of life’s great lessons to me. “He doesn’t see you.”
It says a lot that I understood perfectly what he meant when he said that at fifteen years of age. The great and the good just don’t see us and there is an inherent snobbery in car ownership.

I started with a Mini, moved to an Escort, onto a Renault 6 and from there to a Renault 16. A series of new vans came along courtesy of self-employment and a Rover 3500 was bought from the profits of same. Business closure saw me back in van in gainful employment and then the GTI showed up outside my door. There were Toyotas and Cortinas in the mix as well before a family sized Opel Omega Estate parked its brown bulk outside the new home. A new job then brought another Omega with it and then some big Saabs before the brutish 5-series BMW.

Going right back to the mini, each and every single motor has memories, mostly good. I had one crash when I was twenty-one and didn’t have another until well into my fifties and that was when I reversed into a parked car. For many years I was clocking up 1,000 – 1,200 miles a week so I reckon I did damned well to avoid the claim forms for so long. But those two accidents aside, all of the cherished memories are good. When I think of happy memories now going back over thirty years, some car took me there and got me back. Some of the happy memories even took place inside the car up dark country lanes at night too.

Over time I will write about some of these because many are hilarious and some even thought-provoking. For now though when I think back to those cars I owned I visualize the personalities of each one of them because to me, they all had a personality.

Did you ever have a car with a personality?

Should we be in the EU?

Let's Express Posted on by

While the UK are at least debating this, we in Ireland are not even thinking about it.

Back in 1974/75 I met an old German on holiday here. He asked me if I supported joining the then EEC and he took the time to explain to this Irish teenager what it was about. “We rich Germans will give you Irish money so that you can buy yourselves a Mercedes Benz,” was how he summarized it.

Our price to join though was high. We had to give away our fertile under-used fishing grounds all around the coastline to factory ships from France, Spain and Portugal. In return, our agricultural industry, (our biggest indigenous exporter), was subsidized not to produce foods. We had butter mountains and wine lakes to falsely inflate the price of produce.

Money did flow from Europe for key projects like motorways and light rail. Even then though, we had recessions in the seventies, eighties and into the nineties. But our saving grace was that we had our own currency, the Irish Punt. When times got tough we always devalued the punt and this had the duel effect that Irish citizens didn’t buy too many foreign goods but on the flip side, our exports soared because they seemed cheap and we got much needed foreign currency in return.

The switch from a trading block of sovereign nations to a United States of Europe, (the E.U.) was where it went pear-shaped. That move required a common currency and we lost our Punt. To make that move, all that was required was for our snake-oil politicians to pass it in the Dail and they had every intention of so doing. But a teacher up country took a court action against them stating that as it changed our constitution, it required a vote of the people to make the change. There were two EU treaties therefore we got to vote on, the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty, and we voted NO to both of them, (in case you have forgotten). Guess what? We were sent back to vote again with dire threats ringing in our ears.

That was the time I believe that we ceased to be a democracy. We became instead, a plutocracy where all of us became slaves to our political masters. The Irish electorate had spoken but were overruled by the Irish Government. Dress it up any way you like but that’s what happened. At the time of the subsequent bank crash I wrote a letter to the three main broadsheets with my theory about all of this. I had a deep suspicion about the motives of our politicians.

Sir/Madam,

In light of the actions and activities of the Government and their banking buddies, many people are calling for investigations, resignations and punishments for those responsible for the mess we find ourselves in. These calls appear to be rebuffed or just ignored by those in authority. They continue to attack the poor and the middle-classes while still looking after themselves and their friends. Short of a bloody revolution, it’s hard to see anything changing soon.

It’s also hard to understand their lack of remorse, their refusal to account for it all and take responsibility, and worst of all, to see them strut around like peacocks, bloated by their own self importance. Then I discovered what a “sociopath” is.

A sociopath will normally have a conventional appearance, so they do not stand out visually. But then the definition becomes interesting. They are glib and superficial, are manipulative and cunning, have a grandiose sense of self, are pathological liars, they lack remorse, shame and guilt and they suffer from shallow emotions. But it gets better. They are callous and lack empathy, they are irresponsible and unreliable, they lead a parasitic lifestyle, they do not perceive that there is anything wrong with them, they are secretive, paranoid and authoritarian and they have an over riding need to find victims. They have an emotional need to justify their disgraceful deeds so they actually need the victim’s affirmation, respect, gratitude and love. How sick is all that ? Does any of it ring any bells for you ? Are they alarm bells by any chance?

The first 166 names you come up with will probably be the same as mine. It would be an ironic laugh if it wasn’t for the fact that sociopathy is a mental illness that needs treatment. You would not let sociopaths take control of their own cars, much less a bank or a country. Perhaps instead of calling for convictions and imprisonment for our betters, we might show them a little sympathy and instead have them all consigned to a mental home, for their own good and ours,

John Mallon
Cork.

For the benefit of foreign readers, we have 166 elected representatives in our Parliament. That letter was written over seven years ago and it is as valid today as it was then. So maybe the question should be changed from ‘Should we be in the EU’ to ‘Did sociopaths take us into it in the first place?’

And where does that leave the European Parliament as regards sociopaths?

WHOSE LIABLE?

Let's Express Posted on by

I spoke to a man a while ago who was worried that his house was going to be repossessed by the bank. In an attempt to see a silver lining on that cloud his friend suggested that at least he wouldn’t have to worry about the property tax if it happened.

That got me thinking though. You must pay the property tax on any property you own, right? But when you take out a mortgage you do not technically own the property until the money is paid back to the bank, right? I mean look at the guy under threat of losing his if you don’t believe me. Until the day you have the deeds of the property in your hot little mitts and not a penny is owed on it, it isn’t yours. Until then, the bank retains the deeds as their own.

So who owns the place in reality and therefore who is liable for the property tax? If the bank re-possesses yer man’s house, will they, (the bank), have to pay the property tax on it until they dispose of it? By extension then, should the bank be paying your property tax until the mortgage is cleared?

I’m just saying ……….