Weak Dick

Tibet - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman

My friend, classmate at the Air Force Academy, and former roommate Pete Jones died at age 33 when his G-suit malfunctioned while flying F-16s.  A better man is hard to find.  He was a master of sarcasm–just enough to be comical but not so much to be branded a cynic.  He was particularly fond of the expression “weak dick,” when describing people or conduct, which did not meet a fighter pilot’s level of expectation.  He honored me with this appellation on more than one occasion, notably at the 22nd Street Bar in Tucson.  The term provoked great amusement in this setting, but during serious discussions it was intended as a grievous insult.  It’s been thirty years since I heard the term, but after the latest debacle in Washington, D.C., the words emerged from long past memories as a suitable way to describe many of our leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Weak dick is not a gender specific term, nor meant to be used exclusively in the military context.  It applies to anyone who exhibits the following characteristics:

Power based primarily on position rather than talent, intelligence, or integrity and a decent into obscurity once the person no longer holds that position

Self absorbed ambition and the willingness to say or do anything to achieve personal goals 

Sycophancy

Moral defect which rationalizes hypocritical conduct

Inclination to exhibit absolute control and base judgments on hypothetical situations

Reliance on rules as a substitute for personal responsibility

The belief others should mirror their view of the world

Is there any limit to weak dicks’ perpetual meddling?  Apparently not, and an example can be found in this month’s Imprimis newsletter featuring an article, “Football and the American Character” by John J. Miller, where the author compares the current football head injury controversy to the efforts to ban the sport in its nascence in the 1870s.  Both cases typify a cause célèbre of the progressive left, whose solution demands an outright ban or dilution of the sport that it is no longer recognizable as football, rather than leave participation up to the judgment of those who play the game.  The effort is consistent with the elitists’ goal to construct a perfect, risk free society and deprive the individual of the right to make personal decisions. 

The article also describes the consummate non weak dick, Theodore Roosevelt, and his efforts to save the sport from the onslaught of the Left.  He did so by encouraging rule changes to make the sport safer and fending off the critics who would ban the sport altogether.  Roosevelt had been a sickly child and attributed his energy and tenaciousness in adulthood to physical activity.  He believed in the benefits of manly activities, and statistics seem to bear him out:  Intense competition teaches valuable lessons beyond the athletic field.  Children who play sports stay in school longer, and as adults are more likely to vote and make more money.

Weak dicks have spent $16 trillion since the inception of the War on Poverty.  Poverty levels have not significantly changed, but the fabric of minority families have been shattered.  High crime and drug abuse, poor educational achievement, and most children born to single mothers haunt the legacy.  Like an alcoholic who insists there is not a problem, the Left suffers from the same affliction, refusing to confess the unintended consequences.  It is ironic that football, an avenue to success for males from rough backgrounds, has been thrust into the crosshairs of another liberal crusade.  It is a violent game, but the sport emphasizes the importance of teamwork, and coaches serve as male role models their players never know.  Without football, players would not have the opportunity to attend college or find wealth and fame in the professional ranks.  The sport, despite its entertainment value and benefit to participants, is deemed too brutal for effete society, who under estimate its benefits and exaggerate its flaws.

Personal injury lawyers, the ultimate profession of weak dicks, are licking their chops at the prospect of zillion dollar settlements, and with the support of like minded cronies in Washington, they will destroy another American institution and leave nothing in its place.  If next generation’s Super Bowl features pastel leotards with pink flags and sportscasters extolling the virtues of non contact sports and denigrating the barbarity of the “old game,” it will signal another victory of the weak dicks and their vision for a sanitized but horribly boring society.