arm wrestling

Feminism is no longer a prominent issue, not because it has gone away, but rather because it has triumphed to the point of being taken for granted.

Feminist complaints that traditional Western culture oppresses females ring hollow, however, in light of objective data.

Women in the United States exceed males in almost every quality of life indicator; e.g., victimization by crime, participation in crime, physical health, mental health, suicide, longevity, alcoholism, other drug use, and education. Christian women do better in these areas than women in general. (Although this was true before feminism came along, it is threatened by the continued advance of feminist ideas as described below.)

The facts of female advantage go unacknowledged and unappreciated because feminists successfully obscure the broad inequities experienced by men by focusing on the narrow inequities experienced by women. The result is a popular, but false perception of widespread female disadvantage.

The irony of feminism is that it flourishes precisely because its basic claim is false. Western society is more likely to indulge females than oppress them.

The demographic shift in favor of women is so severe that most women have difficulty in finding mates of equal or better status. Lower status men are increasingly the only heterosexual option for many women. The resultant widespread pairing of low-status males with higher status females is a major cause of rising domestic violence. The feminist solution is greater empowerment of women, thereby making the demographic imbalance more skewed, male disinvestment even greater, and associated violence even worse.

The challenge of civilization is investment of males in the welfare of women and children. Stated provocatively, the labor and loyalty of women toward that end can be taken for granted. The labor and loyalty of men cannot.

Gender distinctions are key tools for investing males in society. The fact of gender distinctions is therefore more important than their specific content. The feminist focus on the injustice of particular gender distinctions masks a thoroughgoing ideological hatred toward any distinctions.

Scripture is intentionally gender conscious because it recognizes the ordering of men’s lives takes precedence over the ordering of women’s lives. Attempts to order the lives of women without concern for the lives of men will be overwhelmed by the disordered lives of men. Most women have few problems that are not associated with misbehaving men.

Scripture therefore focuses on men as the primary audience. Thus we have the 144,000 elect gathered with the Lamb on Mt Zion described as “those who have not defiled themselves with women”– Rev 14:6. The issue for the Galatians was whether to be circumcised– Gal 5:3. Paul tells the Corinthians to “be men of courage”– 1 Cor 16:13. In the OT, Lady Wisdom is female because men are encouraged to love her in preference for wayward women. And on and on . . . .

The great “un-equalizer” of men and women is children. Equalizing males and females cannot be done except at the expense of children. A culture that shifts the burden of female inequality to children is a culture in deep trouble.

Males are “hard-wired” to escape dependency on females and to reconnect with them and community in a radically different relationship. Feminism interferes with that developmental dynamic. The result is men who remain perpetually immature and disengaged.

Feminism is a degenerative dynamic within prosperous societies that augurs their decline. It produces societies where men are the weaker sex. Societies that turn men into the weaker sex go against nature and cannot compete with other societies.

Matriarchal societies cannot compete with patriarchal ones. Matriarchal enclaves within Western culture (e.g., public housing projects) require a steady stream of ambulances, police cars, and welfare checks to survive. Take away those props and a brutal partiarchy would quickly emerge. Thus the question is not whether there will be patriarchy, but rather what kind of patriarchy will it be.

Males are the “hard cases.” Socialization to norms is more difficult for males than for females. Unequal resources are therefore required to socialize men to the same norms as women. Additional resources expended on the socialization of males rebound to the benefit of women. Feminism denies society the extra resources needed to socialize men to the same norms as women. Individual women bear the consequences.

Since males are more difficult to socialize to norms, they will typically be in shorter supply and will therefore be perceived as more valuable than females.

Occupations perceived as masculine are usually perceived as higher status than those perceived as feminine. The higher prestige of masculine occupations makes them attractive to females who demand the dismantling of “gender barriers” that obstruct their entry. Moreover, feminists insist that girls be socialized to desire male-dominated occupations. Acquiescence to such demands eventually eliminates the affected occupations as a resource for socializing males. The gradual loss of male-only occupations within a society makes investment of males more and more difficult over time. Society as a whole becomes more and more effeminate and less and less viable.

The high status of women and children cannot be sustained by the reordering of society along feminist lines. THE major achievement of Western civilization has been its success in channeling male sexual energy to the benefit of women and children. The result has been to give both a higher status and a higher standard of living than at any time or place in history of the world. That achievement is especially remarkable considering the nature and intensity of male sexuality.

The mechanism for convincing men to set aside their sexual agenda to accommodate the needs of women and children is a remarkably simple. Women and children are valued highly in Western civilization because male sexual self-control requires high-value rewards. Wives and children have traditionally served that purpose. Society essentially makes a trade with men– “control yourself and you can have a family.” That trade, however, is fragile because the natural male desire for family is so easily distracted by less burdensome options. In a fallen creation, “wife and kids” are not inherently high-value. So the “deal” won’t work without a huge amount of effort at convincing males that women and children are worthy objects of sacrifice. The overlooked effect of that huge persuasive effort is promotion of a widely held belief in the worthiness of women and children across the larger society. It certainly has not been the case in most times and most places.

Feminism undermines the preceding dynamic by mischaracterizing special attention to male socialization as some kind of injustice. Feminism also encourages females to behave in ways that diminish their ability to inspire male sacrifice. The value of women and children as rewards for self-control is decreased on one hand while alternative sexual outlets are promoted on the other. In the first case, feminism denies men “ownership” of wives and children. In the second, it endorses lifestyles that offer the kind of immediate and anonymous sexual gratification males prefer.

Nothing, by the way, threatens the status of women and children more than widespread acceptance of homosexuality. Thus the role of feminism in fostering that acceptance is rich with irony. If the connection seems unclear, then consider that males need not be recruited into a homosexual lifestyle for that lifestyle to have an undermining effect on heterosexual socialization. All that’s needed is for the alternative lifestyle to be seen as socially acceptable, thereby fostering a pluralistic dynamic in which competing understandings of gender operate to undermine each other.

Under those circumstances, gays will see promotion of the traditional family as a threat while “straights” will have the same opinion of gay lifestyles. While such opinions may appear silly or bigoted on the surface, they are profoundly correct on a sociological level

And since the ethics of gay sexuality tend to be either the negation of heterosexual ethics (e.g., taken-for-granted promiscuity) or their caricature (e.g., gay marriage), there can be no happy coexistence. Moral confusion is unavoidable.

So in a culture where gay and straight lifestyles are deemed equal, the investment of heterosexual males in traditional gender roles will be less intense and more fragile than in a culture where heterosexuality is clearly privileged. That disinvestment will thus have negative effects on the status of women and children far beyond those directly affected by the relatively small population of homosexuals.

None of the societal regression implied in the preceding analysis is inevitable– but the way out does require major attention to unique, positive, and compelling definitions of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. How do men and women commend themselves to each other AS men and women? Should they? Feminists says no, and in so saying, recast the most important and personal aspect of human life as meaningless.

— historeo.com

historeo.comhistoreo 2

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment on Some Observations on Feminism

  1. […] ‘Some Observations on Feminism’ […]

Leave a Reply

6 visitors online now
0 guests, 6 bots, 0 members
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: