The P***ification Of Men–Turning James Bond Into A Caring, Loving, New Age Kind Of Guy

In a recent interview (7/22) the comedian Bill Maher lamented the ‘pussification’ of screen’s greatest male hero, James Bond.

This was back in the day when James Bond was allowed to like f*** hot chicks. You know, now they can really, p***ified him,” Maher said. “It’s so pathetic. [Bond] literally takes his girlfriend and her daughter on his mission to save the world. He practically stops off at Target to buy tampons on the way to the underground lair.”

Maher contended Daniel Craig’s portrayal of Bond represents how modern-day Hollywood has become “woke.”

Many of us have heard Bill Maher rant about our feminized society before. One of his first railings was during his stand-up routine on an HBO rerun, and then, coincidentally heard an hour-long interview with Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys, and a critic of modern feminism.

For years men have heard about the so-called ‘war against women’, how it has not yet been won, and how society must cleanse itself once and for all of the scourge of predatory men.  Men are retrograde, illiberal, and irremediable, feminists say.  Men are obsessed with hung, violence, and competition, and are evolutionary throw backs.  Only women have evolved to a higher state of being; and are the only bulwark against male social anarchy.  Their caring, compassionate, collaborative, and participatory ethos has saved us all.

Yet, since time immemorial men have been suspicious of women, acknowledged their cunning, fearful of their command over paternity, and have insistently tried to control them.   Shakespeare’s character Posthumus (Cymbeline) captures male resentment, suspicion, and anger:

For there's no motion
That tends to vice in man but I affirm
It is the woman's part; be it lying, note it, The woman's; flattering, hers; deceiving, hers;
Lust and rank thoughts, hers, hers; revenges, hers;
Ambitions, covetings, change of prides, disdain,
Nice longing, slanders, mutability,
All faults that man may name, nay, that hell knows,
Why, hers, in part, or all; but rather, all;

For even to vice
They are not constant, but are changing still One vice but of a minute old for one
Not half so old as that. I'll write against them,
Detest them, curse them. Yet 'tis greater skill
In a true hate to pray they have their will:
The very devils cannot plague them better

Othello, as influenced by Iago as Posthumus is by Iachimo, and as convinced of female duplicity and dishonor, tells his accusers, “Soft you; a word or two before you go. I have done the state some service, and they know't.”  He has rid the world of yet one more duplicitous, deceiving woman.  He knows the true nature of women and so do his judges.

While Maher is no misogynist, he feels that the sexual wheel has turned too far.  Women, angry at what they perceive as persistent male autocracy, are insistent on presenting women as pure, noble, and without sin or error; and condemning men for their incarcerating views .  The only answer is to make men more like women.

As paraphrased by Dana Antiochus, Maher believes that

“The inversion of nature that we have experienced as a culture, and the subversive aspect of flipping traditional roles, with its subsequent destruction of society, serves as a signal that we live in a dying system.  It has led to a pussified, sissy, pathetic, lovey-dovey/touchy-feely country of wimps, who put emotion over logic, feeling over reason, in our nurture-heavy/nature-deprived, culture” (Renegade Tribune)

While feminism might have changed men’s discourse, at least in public where they nod approvingly at news reports about glass ceilings, rape, abuse, and discrimination.  On the other, men in private share none of these sentiments. They know that biology and human nature have not changed since the Paleolithic.  Men raid, kill, and pillage.  Women cry a lot, like to share their feelings, and want strong men as partners.

One look at Wall Street shows that at least this corner of America has not been feminized.  There is little feel-good, self-esteem ethos in the boardrooms of Goldman Sachs.  It is still male, dog-eat-dog, winner-take-all capitalism at its most brutal. The women who have managed to rise to top executive ranks are just as cut-throat and savage as their male counterparts.

The recent Martin Scorsese film, The Wolf of Wall Street and Oliver Stone’s Wall Street are both hymns to alpha male aggressiveness. While Wolf is a caricature of greed and the American Dream, Wall Street is much closer to home. Gordon Gecko is a smart, driven, savvy, and ruthless capitalist who lives on the margins of morality and ethics, has an animal instinct for sensing weakness, and a wolf’s predatory hunger. Although Stone asks us to criticize Gecko for his ruthlessness and amorality, most savvy viewers know that this is how capitalism operates.  More importantly, this is how men behave.

Perhaps Jack London’s most seminal work – The Call of the Wild -  has very modern dimension – maleness and virility - often attacked today as retrograde and anti-historical but understood correctly by London as real and irreducible. There is something even more compelling about the story of Buck – his aggressiveness, and male dominance.  There is a completeness and perfection in the male character of Buck – he has no feminine side – and his will is male, one unmistakably virile, potent, and forceful.

His transformation complete, Buck heeds the call of the wild and returns to the forest. There is something even more compelling about the story of Buck – his aggressiveness, and male dominance.  There is a completeness and perfection in the male character of Buck – he has no feminine side – and his will is male, one unmistakably virile, potent, and forceful. 

While there is no doubt that the male wolf is not always an aggressive killer, that is what most rightly characterizes him.  He is a strong, determined, willful, and unstoppable predator.  What he does after the kill is irrelevant to his native essence.

There is an insidious side to taming the wolf.  Elementary schools, the presumed crucible of socialization as well as a place of instruction, are biased against boys. What in past years was considered normal, aggressive male behavior is now off-limits.  Boys should become more like girls – or in the wolf analogy, more like the animal after the kill.

Christina Hoff Sommers writes about the feminist hijacking of primary education and thus comes closer to Maher in his allegation that feminism’s reach is extensive and pernicious. Sommers argues that the zero tolerance policy – i.e. stifling any suggestion of male aggression in schools – is a wrongheaded attempt to subjugate boys and deny their natural male exuberance.

Across the country, schools are policing and punishing the distinctive, assertive sociability of boys. Many much-loved games have vanished from school playgrounds. At some schools, tug of war has been replaced with “tug of peace.” Since the 1990s, elimination games like dodge ball, red rover and tag have been under a cloud — too damaging to self-esteem and too violent, say certain experts. Young boys, with few exceptions, love action narratives. These usually involve heroes, bad guys, rescues and shoot-ups. As boys’ play proceeds, plots become more elaborate and the boys more transfixed. When researchers ask boys why they do it, the standard reply is, “Because it’s fun.” (Time Magazine, 9.19.13)

Why is this? First, public education has long been in the hands of the liberal establishment. School boards and teachers’ unions alike have been committed to ‘progressive’ ideas of learning; and they have persistently defeated attempts to modernize the curriculum and the classroom.  ‘Participatory’ or ‘collaborative’ learning is still the rule according to which smarter students are obliged to help those less able, thus slowing their own academic progress. Learning levels have been abolished, and there are no longer different math and reading groups for children of differing abilities. More conservative themes of independence, individuality, competition, and innovation are seldom found.

Second, most primary school teachers are women, and happily buy into any educational program which will make the classroom more feminine and less disruptive.  If teachers were to allow boys more leeway and more opportunity for typically male behavior, their job would be far more difficult.  Better have a more feminine, orderly, and cooperative workplace.

Progressive educators and biological revisionists attempting to stifle male aggressiveness and transform male into female are wrongheaded and falsely idealistic. Human nature is a given; and history offers ample evidence to the persistent combative if not bellicose character of men. It is no surprise that men still rule the military and Wall Street.

Aggressiveness, however, has only recently become a negative characteristic as liberal critics have focused on the excesses of hawkish behavior. Not so long ago it was a trait to be admired and cultivated, an essential part of personal, social, and national strength. It was the attribute that was responsible for a militant defense of family and community; the securing of new and valuable territory and resources; and the expansion of civilization.

Since it is hardwired, male aggressiveness cannot be tamed by interventionist educational programs, scientific revisionism, or progressive blandishments.  All that can be expected is a stand-off between competing armies.  Just as animals fight when they can win, but retreat when they sense they cannot, men exhibit the same instincts for victory and survival.   The product of such behavior is no less than Darwinian survival of the fittest.  In other words, there is neither an upside nor a downside to male aggressiveness.  It simply the genetic code of XY animals.

Shakespeare, perhaps more than any other artist, has written extensively about the competition between men and women, a struggle most often won by women, although not without consequences.  Tamora, Dionyza, Goneril, Regan, Lady Macbeth, and Cleopatra are women who have no use for the men that rule; and the ladies of the Comedies – Rosalind, Viola, and Portia run rings around their suitors.   There is no question in Shakespeare about men becoming more like women or vice versa; the fight between them is equal despite social convention, and it will continue in perpetuity.