Tags
divorce, feminine imperative, feminism, marriage, sexism, sexual realism, sociological speculations, sociology, women
There are numerous observations, codified in biological, psychological, sociological, and economic studies that demonstrate overwhelmingly that men and women are different by nature. These observations are borne out consistently in people’s experience, and they have real world implications concerning the distribution of labor and production. Feminism, predicated as it is on the notion that these differences (when they favor men in some way) are merely the result of cultural conditioning, becomes a kind of pseudo-scientific creationism when it is so blatantly contradicted by all existing science. Yet referencing these facts in order to provide explanation for observed differences routinely gets one put through the ringer of public shame and disavowal. If you defend sexual realism, you will be called a sexist. Why is truth taboo?
The reason for this is probably related to why Richwine is being called a racist for being a racial realist.
The facts don’t fit the imperative of feminism, and we know what will happen if people start not only believing the facts, but acting on them. Society would gradually return to a more traditional form, with its well-defined gender roles and life paths. This cannot be allowed to happen. There are too many vested interests in the breakdown of civil society. Wherever the family fails, the government rises. When power is no longer more evenly distributed through a wider array of structures, it can be captured centrally.
I’m not suggesting this course was embarked upon consciously by any individual or group. Government isn’t that smart. However, now that we are on this course, the problems will continue to be exploited and exacerbated for all they’re worth.
This is where the motivation to push memetic falsities arises. To a certain degree, it’s self-perpetuating, if only because every social structure includes in itself an element that seeks to preserve itself. It would be impossible to point to any one event or time at which this course was chosen, as it is the confluence of a variety of ideas and events, yet there is a clear trend one may note.
As individuals are increasingly atomized in the lack of family structures, it is only inevitable that they should look for help from the hills. And so the government, like any opportunistic sugar daddy, offered his help to the vulnerable women, whose votes are bought so cheaply and whose feelings are so easy to manipulate. As the advantages government attempts to give to women increasingly fall outside the natural scope of social structures, these gifts must themselves increasingly be made a burden on men. This social structure will not survive only as a matter of legal definitions and benefits, but requires an underlying ideology to deter anyone bringing this up.
Before I go on to provide some documentation of this trend, it is worth pointing out that not all these “advantages” are truly so. In many instances, women are actually made worse off in the long run as they form delusions about what they will be able to do with their life. So, for instance, they don’t marry until (or get divorced) past the age of 30, despite that this is well after they’ve peaked in value. Or, more women go to college, but then they accrue tens of thousands in debt in a major that won’t help them earn any more.
Birth control must be covered by health insurance without copay or affecting deductible. And discrimination by sex is illegal. This means men will pay for it. And oh yeah, men will be paying a lot more for health insurance anyway, but that’s okay, because women will pay less.
Women initiate divorce 2/3 of the time. Yet they are most frequently awarded custody, child support, and alimony by the courts.
Rates of premarital sex are way up. Cohabitation rates are way up. Both correlative positively with likelihood of getting divorce later on.
That is just to point out the legal structure, without exploring the underlying ideological commitments that act to justify these things. These social phenomena are at odds with the maintenance of a cohesive civil society, in that they are contrary to the interests of all parties involved and produce a social structure that punishes excellence and rewards vice. To see this requires looking at the facts, which are that individuals prefer community and family over the reigning atomization, to have a spouse and children, to perceive a continuity of the family’s legacy and its works.
What is there to be done? Hardly anything, as the decline will occur in the natural course of events. The only question is when, how, and who the biggest losers will be.
Children.
Pingback: The Grey Territory of Consent | Anarcho Papist
Pingback: The Progressivist Purpose of Taking Offense | Anarcho Papist
“…whose feelings are so easy to manipulate.” If that were true, I would have started sympathizing with your article by now. I haven’t. Case in point.
“These gifts must themselves increasingly be made a burden on men.” Point being?
“So, for instance, they don’t marry until (or get divorced) past the age of 30, despite that this is well after they’ve peaked in value.” Peaked in value? Are you aware of the level of internalized sense of commodification of humans (and this is NOT EVEN about gender) that you are betraying through your vocabulary?
“Or, more women go to college, but then they accrue tens of thousands in debt in a major that won’t help them earn any more.” So you are saying- men don’t? Or are you saying the “more” women who go to college invariably end up in a course of “theology”? (Not that it is much of your business). Also, though I don’t generally take things up personally, how about your own college degree? Do you see the sheer irony and contradictory nature of what you write? Unless of course you meant that the same degree is by far more wasted and less useful on a woman than it is on you.
“maintenance of a cohesive civil society…the interests of all parties involved”.
Civil society- all parties? Hah. Go read Gramsci. (I would think you should already have, given your academic inclinations).
There is indeed something called sexual realism- GENDER realism, actually. “Sexual” is not synonymous to “gender”- two very different things in fact. However, what you are saying is far from it.
>Case in point.
No idea what you mean.
>Point being?
I don’t believe in the justice of forcing others to bear the costs of others.
>Are you saying the “more” women who go to college invariably end up in a course of “theology”?
I wouldn’t know about theology, but they certainly do receive more liberal arts majors than STEM majors.
>(Not that it is much of your business).
Since I ostensibly pay taxes, what that money funds is my business.
>How about your own college degree?
What about it, exactly?
>Civil society – all parties? Hah. Go read Gramsci.
Gramsci’s one of those writers I’m yet planning on reading. I’m already presently attending to at least a dozen books, so you will have to either explicate the point you intend yourself or grant that I won’t be able to respond to it specifically now until much later.
>There is indeed something called sexual realism- GENDER realism, actually. “Sexual” is not synonymous to “gender”- two very different things in fact.
Could you clarify?