You’ll Be Glad to Hear That ‘Gentlemen’ Still Exist – This Definition Is What Society Needs

Kind, humble, courageous, loving: These are some of the words that women used to describe a true “gentleman” after Glenn did a survey at TheBlaze.

“I asked the women to tell me what a ‘real man’ was,” Glenn explained. “Do you notice that every single one of them talked about humility?”

Do you agree with these definitions of a good man? Listen to the full clip (above) for more.

“The most important quality of being a man is integrity,” one respondent wrote.

“Someone who protects the helpless,” another added.

“A gentleman puts his family first and himself second,” a third described.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I was working on something about five weeks ago. And I asked the women who were on my staff on the radio and TV show, I asked them, please define a real man. A gentleman. What is that? Does that even exist anymore?

I had each of them write a couple of paragraphs. Listen to what they wrote.

When we describe as men as gentlemen or real men, I think of the following qualities, kind, honest, loyal, humble, selfless, and courageous. Strong characteristics and high expectations. They are -- they are -- they are difficult to ask of a person, but they're a quality that every man, woman, and child should strive for. Our society values these decencies because they restore faith in humankind and make our world a better place.

You know, I was really Sadat my friend's funeral this weekend. And I wondered what it was that really set him apart. And it was that he was kind and he was honest and he was loyal and he was humble and he was selfless.

He was a -- he was a man. News anchors, coaches, doctors, comedians, and producers who have appeared to be a gentleman or real men have disappointed our society for not living out the projected personas they portray in public life.

They harm. And the harm they cause their victims was made all the greater by the double lives they were living. The most important quality of being a man is integrity. Living out your core principles in both public and in private.

Another staff member wrote. A true gentleman is someone who opens the door for someone, someone who stops when he sees a person broken down on the side of the road, someone who jumps over his girlfriend during a shooting at a concert, someone who protects the helpless. Most importantly, he does these things without wanting recognition. A gentleman puts his family first and himself second. He understands there's a difference between a man and a woman, but doesn't look down on women. He treats them with respect and kindness. He's a God-fearing man who knows his weakness and surrounds himself with others to hold himself accountable for his shortcomings. He's humble and he values every human being, and he loves as God loves.

This one, no better time to catch up on the Bachelor than a lazy Friday night. I sat on my couch watching 29 women simultaneously throw themselves at the latest bachelor, Arie, in hopes of catching his eye. One of them gushed to the other, that he's the perfect man.

I sat there and thought, why? Is it because he rides a motorcycle? Is it because he apparently is a great kisser? Or is it because he buys his dates diamond necklaces?

The truth is that perfect men don't exist, but great ones, gentlemen do. And you're not going to find them on reality TV. Real men demonstrate the kind of selfless qualities seen in the savior who came before them. They have a genuine love for others, a deep humility, despite success. They show integrity with unwavering honesty, despite making mistakes. They're respectful with those with power, but they're more respectful to those without. When they mess up, they work hard to fix it.

These are the qualities I want in my future husband, just as these are the qualities I strive to develop in myself. The qualities I will teach my sons, but also my daughters. They are the non-gender -- they are the gender nonspecific qualities of a good person.

And they're getting harder to find. Maybe it's because our selfie culture teaches us to focus more on ourselves, rather than on others. Maybe it's because leadership is often more preoccupied with scores than solidarity. Or maybe it's because one of the top rated shows on TV is teaching us that perfect guys are the ones who simultaneously date you and your roommate.

Last one: There's no secret to being a good man or a gentleman. Every man can transform himself into that, simply by following the golden rule, do unto others what you would have them do to you.

A true gentleman makes every person they feel -- every person they meet feel important and respected. He is a person who raises others up, instead of tearing them down. He's not cruel or critical to people.

He's a leader, not by force, but by example. Men and women want to emulate a gentleman because he challenges them to be better versions of themselves. He stands up for principles, when it's hard and unpopular to do so. He's a leader. He's not swayed away from his morals by the majority of opinion. Most importantly, a gentleman is not without fault.

But he takes responsibility for his actions, especially in the cases where he is wrong. He's not afraid to admit failures, except consequences and try again. To be a gentle -- to be a gentleman is to be human. Because we all make mistakes. But the difference, a gentleman picks himself back up and constantly strives to be better for himself and the people around him.

I didn't ask the guys to write what a gentleman -- I asked the women to tell me what a real man was.

This is why Jordan Peterson is so popular. Who says this anymore?

What outlet talks about this anymore? What outlet?

What group insists on this anymore? Did you notice that every single one of them talked about humility? I would expect if I said, you know, what's a real man? Well, he's got courage.

But our society is not teaching humility. How could our society teach humility? How could it? We don't allow for failure anymore.

Failure is something that you don't have to go through. So if you're not going through failure, you don't know what it feels like to be truly humbled.

I -- I -- how do you know what's you and what's God, if you haven't failed?

Because I know I failed horribly and have continued to fail, just not on that grand of a scale. But I knew my failures came from me. And I knew what I had left had come from God.

Because I didn't have anything else left. I had nothing left. I didn't even have my name that I was given.

Nobody believed my word. I'm a better man because of that humbling. We're all upside down. I'm -- I don't think I'm alone. I don't think I'm alone in the, yeah, I don't think I'm going to fight that. No.

Because that really just leads to more and more anger. I -- I think I'm going to pick my battles a little more carefully. Because we're not going to be able to fix any of this. We can't fix this politically.

We have to fix ourselves. Our -- our representatives, you know why they're still there. They're still there because we want them there.

We're electing them. Look who we're -- look who we're electing. Look who we're giving a pass to say, it's okay to run. I think now is my time. I'm a Nazi, and I think now is my time.

I think there's a lot of people out there that think like me.

Holy cow. I hope to God not.

Because, boy, the Nazis sure didn't know how to be a man. Mike Pence was ridiculed -- was ridiculed for his stance on women, that he won't be left alone with a woman. He just thinks that it is a good safety tip. And remember how they -- oh, I won't go out for dinner with a woman unless my wife is with me.

Oh, my gosh. Oh, he can't have dinner without his wife. Yeah. Have you noticed what's happening in our society?

He's a pretty smart guy. Society doesn't want strong men. The culture doesn't. The culture doesn't.

The people do. So what do you say you pick a target and we set off to be truly great men, the men we were born to be, not the boys we've allowed ourselves to become?

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?