Real Men and Intrusive Pat-downs

A caller on the Rush Limbaugh Show asked a couple of questions, “Why aren’t real men doing anything about the pat-downs at airports” (implicit in the question was the idea that a real man would violently protect his family from an intrusive pat-down) and “When do we take up arms to protect ourselves from Obama?” (The questions given here are paraphrases of the caller’s questions simply because I could not remember them word for word.)

These sorts of questions bother me and they make me mad when they are asked in an air of condescension (as this caller did). The reason is because even though they are given in an air of authority, these questions are born of ignorance. Take the first question. The answer to the question is: real men don’t LET their families go through intrusive pat-downs. True, that may not be the aggressive, masculine man’s way of dealing with problems. But what good will aggression do? So a father gets mad as his child is being patted down, punches the TSA agent, and then promptly gets arrested for assault and carried off to jail. Yes, that took care of the problem, didn’t it? Miss your flight and get arrested all at once. While that may be the “masculine” man’s way of dealing with problems, the wise man would know that there is no way to get onto an airplane without going through some kind of intrusive screening, and simply stop flying. “But that doesn’t take care of the problem,” one might object. First of all, it might. If airlines have a severe drop in customers because of people avoiding the screening process, they might get rid of the intrusive screening so as to remain in business. Otherwise, they’ll lose customers to buses and trains, not to mention gas stains as people drive around the country rather than fly. Second, there are other ways to take care of the problem. The biggest is simply to have a general outcry over the procedures, something which is going on right now. The more people who are aware of the problem, the more people who will protest the problem, and unless the TSA and airports are completely tone deaf, they will change their rules. There might even be legal action that can be taken. So avoiding airports to avoid intrusive screening procedures is not wimpy, that is what wise men do. Wrathful men who feel they need to hurt someone to get their point across are those who go into the lion’s den (airport terminals, in this case) raring for a fight with no hope of victory.

And speaking of people who have a desire to do harm to others to get their point across, what about the idea that we are being complacent by not taking up arms against intrusive government? Our country has a built in function for removing corrupt officials who pass freedom-killing legislation: it’s called elections! “When do we take up arms to protect ourselves from Obama?” How about: we DID rebel against Obama on November 2nd and we did it WITHOUT guns. And the rebellion will be completed with the 2012 elections. It would be foolish to resort to violence just because we want an immediate, vengeful fix.

Now, I want to make it clear that I am not against violence. I think there is a place for a man to protect his family and loved ones with physical violence, and I also think that there are times when people should rebel against their government. However, like everything else in life, there is a time for violence and a time for non-violence. In the case of intrusive pat-downs at airports and a freedom-grabbing government, that time is not now: there are still other options available. And like the founders of this country, who only rebelled against Great Britain when all appeals to the king and parliament failed, we should exhaust all legal means of change before we begin an open rebellion. Real men don’t put their families as risk by inciting unnecessary wars and fights.