In another thread, it was suggested by Wertz that a new thread be opened to discuss the implications of this article by Walter Williams:

"Why America's Become Sissified"

Whether or not you agree with Williams that Americans have become "sissies" in recent years, I found it interesting that he seems to believe that this is the result of inherent emotional differences between women and men. Reading between the lines (and I apologize to Doctor Williams if I am misreading this article) I get the feeling that he would prefer that women have less influence in politics (particularly in matters of national security.)

I consider myself a feminist, and I do not agree that there is a major difference in the emotional makeup of women and men. I also do not agree that women and men should play different roles in politics. The concept of the "feminization" of the United States seems meaningless to me. (I will freely confess that I am myself very much a coward and a "sissy.")

To be debated: Has the United States become a more "feminine" nation in some sense? If so, do you see this as a positive or negative change?

I'd agree they aren't, but none of those traits are exclusive to women, now are they? And have not there been a goodly number of women who were tough-as-nails world leaders? Margaret Thatcher, Corazon Aquino, Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Golda Meir. None of them exactly shrinking violets, were they? None of them seemed to have trouble making tough decisions because their emotions interfered, did they? It's the personal qualities of the leader that matter, not the gender. Those women could be described as "macho" leaders. Jimmy Carter in comparison to any of them, seems feminized and sissified in the way Williams is complaining about.

Yes, Willams is right that as a nation we're become too ruled by emotions and feelings. That isn't because women have too much influence though, it's because of the mushmouthed PC rubbish our kids are being taught in school, instead of being taught logic and critical thinking, which women, when properly educated -- i.e. exposed to Aristotle and Machiavelli and not just Oprah and As the Stomach Turns -- are just as capable of as men.

I'm sorry, I think this is so bogus.

In 1996, Clinton and the congress ended Welfare as we knew it.

Today Bush and his cronies are making war on the world

Clinton committed troops more often than any recent president.

Since Reagan came into office, the gap between the rich and the poor has been steadily widening.

Reagan closed down many public mental institutions, causing a huge leap in the number of homeless.

While "conventional wisdom" as preached by dull-witted fellows like Rush Limbaugh would have us living in an America "sissified" and overrun by "PC" politics, where is it? Where is the evidence of that?

Are any of the things I listed possibly, even remotely, on the Yin side of culture?

This kind of idiocy (a la Williams) is just fodder for conservatives who would like to take this countrie's hard right turn and push it even farther.

This part is ok:


But here:


and here:


this guy really scares me. It's simplistic, gut-level stuff. Indeed, this whole argument could be turned on its head. Reacting at the "lizard" level with blood and vengeance is arguably more steeped in the base emotions than the thoughtful, reasoned, as he puts it, "sissified" reaction.

I've always been skeptical of the proposition that the world would automatically be a kindler and gentler place if it were a matriarchy instead of a patriarchy, but I'm hard pressed to figure out how it could be any worse.

When I look at Condoleeza Rice, gentleness and sensitivity are not the first two traits I'd assign to her. She appears to be every inch as rigid and coldly calculating as Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

Me thinks Dr. Williams protests too much. The problem isn't that America isn't in touch with it's kindler, gentler and more human side. The problem is when America ignores that better side and crashes around the world in a stupid macho haze (after Iraq there's Iran...and North Korea...and Syria...and Saudi Arabia...and the Phillipines...and France...and...)

Back in the days of my enlightened youth, I took Women's Studies classes. It was quite a mind-opening and consciousness raising experience. Foolishly, I deluded myself that merely studying feminism was the same thing as being a feminist. I'm not so arrogant now as to confuse abstract theory with actual life experience. I no longer believe there is such a thing as a male feminist. Instead it occurs to me that at best men can be supportive of feminism, but must constantly try to overcome their sexist indoctrination. Coming out of the stupor of sexism is somewhat like being a recovering alcoholic: you're never completely cured of the disease but you try each day to be a little better than the day before.

I came across a quote recently that I've thought of changing my signature to. It seems to sum up how I feel about this present misery we've been led into.

Men like war: they do not hold much sway over birth, so they make up for it with death. Unlike women, men menstruate by shedding other people's blood.
---- Lucy Ellman


America is not in danger of becoming "a sissy" if it chooses the slower and more gradual approach of mutual respect and humanity over the short-term gratification of unbridled arrogance and brutality. Being a man isn't always about machismo and penis envy.

But who's gonna tell George W. Bush that?

I agree entirely with William’s statement that “we Americans have become sissified and are meekly giving up essential liberties in the name of fighting terrorism in exchange for trivial amounts of security.”

The rest of his article is just weird. It seems he links our hesitance to engage in war (including the use of nukes) as emotionally charged idiocity. Wouldn’t the opposite be true? Mindlessly resorting to brute force is a fairly ‘emotional’ response, I would say. He is awfully critical of emotions for someone who makes his living appealing to them.

Per the Oprah and Springer references…IMO that indicates a clear ‘dumbification’ of our nation’s people, not emotions gone wild. I somehow fail to see the connection between talk shows and our “increased ability” to grieve. I believe they are an indication of our growing indifference (I suppose, the antithesis of Williams’ idea). How have we become too emotional when the visual stimulus around us is increasingly outrageous? We apparently need more and more persuasion to feel ANYTHING.

Finally, I see no connection between Pearl Harbor and the World Trade terror, aside from aero suicide. A year after Pearl Harbor, we were engaged in full scale worldwide war. How can Williams comparing one year anniversaries between the two attacks? If we were currently donning gas masks and living in our basements, we wouldn’t spend much time honoring our 9/11 dead.


Virginiawolf, don’t sell yourself short as a ‘sissy’ BTW. Everyone, unless they are as stupid as a slug, feels fear. Fear is often a motivating factor in combat itself. Fear overcomes fear, in other words. Fear of disgrace, fear of letting down your teammates, fear of cowardice, become stronger than the fear of injury. Perhaps that is how we define courage, but I would think it should be something less base.