Compassion vs. Aggression

Charlotte Allen on December 19:

Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza.

Charlotte Allen today:

No, I was not blaming any of the 26 victims or the parents who enrolled their kids at Sandy Hook. I am, however, blaming our culture that denies, dismisses, and denigrates the masculine traits—including size, strength, male aggression and a male facility for strategic thinking–that until recently have been viewed as essential for building a society and protecting its weaker members.

While there are a whole lot of things to say about these posts of pure garbage, I’d like to say this:

My son attends a day care that tries to always have at least 20% of its staff be men. Last year a main teacher of his was a man. This year, he has a male teacher at the end of each day. And beyond that, he comes into regular contact with at least two other men, all of them tasked with the care of children.

Charlotte Allen wants more men in elementary schools because she thinks it will add a necessary element of aggression that will somehow stop all this other male aggression (you know, the guys shooting up public places – apparently she cares not at all that someone was able to murder a whole lot of people on an army base but I digress). Aggression to meet aggression.

My son’s school wants men on their staff for an entirely different reason. They want to show young boys (as well as girls) that men are role models for caregiving, too. In the end, that is a much more noble goal than whatever Ms. Allen is proposing. It is actually something that could change the world for the better: teaching boys compassion.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Compassion vs. Aggression

  1. This whole line of argument is silly. No one is going to take down a shooter with automatic weapons unless they’re out of his sight and within 10-15 feet of him, and catch him by surprise. And it doesn’t matter if it’s a he-man, a wimpy man, a strong woman or a weak woman. If that person has the opportunity to catch the shooter unawares, he or she can distract him long enough for other people to pile on and disarm him.

    But guess what? Rarely is anyone in such a position to catch a shooter before he has time to react. And anyone who’s in his line of sight needs to get the hell away. No uberman is going to win that battle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s