How society defends itself; and is women’s political equality a good thing?
(Note: In my reply to Ben below, I launch a discussion on whether it is good for society for women to have political rights. Obviously this is not a topic commonly discussed on the right, yet just as obviously it is one in which VFR readers take an intense interest.)
Ben W. writes:
Two weeks ago I saw a program on the Discovery Channel called “The Man-eating Tigers of India.” Fascinating! There are two regions in India in which these man-eating tigers have operated over the past few centuries. The first region, these days, has almost no deaths due to these man-eaters. The second region averages 800 deaths per year. What is the difference since the population of these identical tigers is almost the same in both regions?
In the first region, the British colonialists in the 19th century noticed this problem—that tigers were mauling and eating the locals without inhibition. The tigers in fact were bold enough to rove the very same paths in the open that villagers used. The British proclaimed a hunt to kill these man-eaters. This did not happen in the second region.
Here is the conclusion by the narrator of this program. In region one, the mother tigers who passed on the skill of stalking humans and killing them to the cubs, met resistance. They soon learned not to satisfy their meat lust at the expense of humans.
In region two, the mother tigers who passed on the skill of stalking humans and killing them to the cubs, did not meet resistance. They learned that passive villagers could readily satisfy their meat lust and learned to wait hidden on river banks to attack and kill defenseless fishermen trapped in the waters.
Not my conclusions but those of the Discovery channel.
Of course what nature teaches is not what human beings learn (thank you Al Gore)… As I recall in my college days, colonialism was taught to be one of Western society’s gravest sins. But the colonialists knew what to do. Those were the days when men were men, had confidence and authority, and believed in their civilization (man) and religion (god).
Today we have the Melanie Phillipses who don’t know what to do…too bad. When one day men come to their senses and stop resembling John Lennon in granny glasses, becoming what God has ordained them to be—MEN (not long haired shrimps), then we won’t need the Melanies as voices.
And we will know what to do with man-eating tigers once again…
“… then we won’t need the Melanies as voices.”
- end of initial entry -
Ben is indirectly touching on a larger issue beyond ordinary politics, immigration, and the question of what to do about Islam: the question of what should be the political role of women in Western society. In accordance with the mission statement of this website which is to discuss the modern world as “viewed from the traditionalist politically incorrect right,” let me put the matter plainly: Is it a sign of strength in the West that women can vote, hold political office, and be shapers of public opinion on political issues including matters of national security? Or is it a sign—and a cause—of a profound, perhaps fatal weakness?
There is much to be said for the view that affording women political rights (as distinct from the protection of their human rights, property rights, and civil rights) inevitably leads society in the direction of the Nanny State that we see in full bloom in today’s Britain and Europe, leading ultimately to the end of national sovereignty and the onset of global governance. Women’s primary external concern is safety and security. That is how it should be. Women are the natural care-givers and are naturally focused on the home and the family and its protection. But those same priorities, when expressed through the political sphere as distinct from the private sphere, inevitably lead a society in the direction of socialism. Once women have the vote, there is, over time, a growing tendency for women to stop seeing their fathers and husbands as the primary providers of security, and to see the state in that role instead. This tendency encourages—and in turn is greatly exacerbated by—the increase in unmarried motherhood. Single women, both with children and not, overwhelmingly see the state as their principal provider and accordingly vote overwhelmingly for the left. If women’s vote leads a society in the direction of socialist statism, the weakening of marriage and the family, the loss of male responsibility, the loss of basic freedoms (which only men are physically and temperamentally suited to defend), and the loss of national vigor, does that not suggest that giving women the vote was a mistake?
Then there is the direct effect on society of having women in high leadership positions. I believe that with rare exceptions such as a Margaret Thatcher or a Golda Meir, women are not well suited for upholding the basic external structure of society. That is preeminently a male, not a female task. To me, the female-dominated politics of the Scandinavian countries do not represent a positive and uplifting direction for the human race. The huge number of women in the British Parliament do not represent a growth of British national strength but its decline.
I do not have an agenda to take away women’s political rights, as my views on the subject are not completely formed, and also we obviously have much more pressing issues facing us at this time. However, among the other aspects of modern culture and politics that traditionalists freely question, we need to question whether women’s political equality is on balance a good thing for society. There are reasonable grounds for concluding that it is not.
Maureen C. writes:
There is a certain blind grandeur in the Neanderthal reductionism of blaming women for all of Western society’s ills—a paleocon-ithic version of the Liberals’ simplistic mindset of “Blame America First” for all the Third World’s ills.
Yes, why don’t you macho men go home, kick the dog, punch the wife, ban alimony and child support, and all will be right with the Western world—and you won’t have to deal with: the Fifth Column of Jihadis, the massive illegal alien invasion, the economic decimation of America’s Middle Class by U.S. Global Businessmen, the Government by Male Trial Lawyers and Justices that has replaced the vote.
Yes, if only you hadn’t been so lax as to give women the vote, Reagan wouldn’t have been stupid enough to arm Osama and the Muslims against the Russians during the Afghan war; Bushes Sr and Jr wouldn’t have been stupid enough to invade Iraq; the Oil Barons wouldn’t have been stupid enough to be hostage to the Saudis; Al Gore wouldn’t be, well, wouldn’t be Al Gore.
It’s not women who are running the world anywhere—not even in America—despite the handful of female political activists. America is dominated by: male-dominated Global Big Business, Majority Male Congress, majority male state legislatures, and the male-dominated FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and Pentagon Brass. And if America is going down the tubes, it’s because they aren’t doing their jobs for the benefit of the country.
Collect and redirect all that mean-spirited, irrelevant aggression concerning women, children, and childcare payments towards defending U.S. borders and stopping the alien invasion. Don’t disgrace yourselves by growling and beating your chests at the easy kills.
Brava. You are a worthy adversary. I’ll try to reply later.
Also, when I was writing this, I was actually thinking about you and how you would react, and even hesitated writing it, but I feel it’s a legitimate issue that needs to be discussed.
James M. writes:
“I do not have an agenda to take away women’s political rights, as my views on the subject are not completely formed, and also we obviously have much more pressing issues facing us at this time.”
Thanks for your piece! Part of the reason that I am so certain that the wheels will soon come off this country is women’s suffrage. None of the socialist schemes of the left in the 20th century would have passed without it. None of the issues that face the West will be solved politically as long as security-conscious women have the right to vote. The source of the pressing issues we face is, in large part, women’s suffrage. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, abortion and the resultant lack of American population increases—all of the things that are bankrupting the country would not be an issue if women of both sexes didn’t vote for them. The feminization of the American male began with the feminization of the Triune God, which was set in motion by women (and pastors) who had too much time on their hands as a result of the Industrial Revolution (see book by Ann Douglass—The Feminization of American Culture).
The question posed to Adam by the transgression of Eve is the same as it is today to the American male—and males everywhere: Who do I love and desire more—the woman and her (seemingly inherent) lawlessness, or God and His law? As long as the majority of males in the West answer as Adam did, lawlessness will increase—until it destroys all things—as it has in Mexico, for instance. The U.S. is becoming a Banana Republic because men are feckless cowards who love lawlessness and women (or men) more than they love God, IMHO.
I think yours is the first piece I have read on any site concerning this issue—good job! You’re gonna have the whole world hating you in no time—
Rachael S. writes:
I have said on more than one occasion that I would happily give up the vote to return to “what we had,” a more traditional society with gender roles, single-income families, women in the home, etc.
And you do make a good point about female concerns warping a country’s politics if given too much sway, or any sway at all, depending on how far you take it.
I have gotten the impression from a couple of readers posted on your site that they resent women as vocal public figures, regardless of political affiliation, just on a kind of “Paulist” principle. If women naturally infuse any subject with femininity, then even traditionalist women should withdraw from areas where a masculine voice is required.
I don’t relish the idea of being told to shut up just because I am a woman, but I suppose when the social pendulum swings back the repercussions will be unavoidable.
Regarding your note on feminism, female franchise and the effects on culture and society (not least of which is birthrate) Mary Eberstadt has an interesting take: it is not that we stopped having babies because we were more secular, rather we became more secular because we stopped having babies.
From Mary’s perspective, for a more Christian, less Marxist and less secular culture, we should be encouraging Sailer’s “affordable family formation.”
Mark P. writes:
“There is much to be said for the view that affording women political rights (as distinct from the protection of their human rights, property rights, and civil rights) inevitably leads society in the direction of the Nanny State that we see in full bloom in today’s Britain and Europe, leading ultimately to the end of national sovereignty and the onset of global governance. Women’s primary external concern is safety and security. That is how it should be. Women are the natural care-givers and are naturally focused on the home and the family and its protection.”
This is fascinating. John Lott Jr. came out with a new book where he concludes that something like one-third of the growth of government can be attributed to allowing women the right to vote. He is interviewed in frontpagemag. Excerpt:
BC: You mention in your book that women’s suffrage led to a massive increase in the size of government, why is this the case?
Dr. John Lott: When I originally started working on this my wife begged me not to do the research.
Two reasons. I think that women are generally more risk averse then men are and they see government as one way of providing insurance against life’s vagaries. I also think that divorced women with kids particularly turn towards government for protection. Simply giving women the right to vote explained at least a third of the growth in government for about 45 years.
The effect on state governments was pretty dramatic, and I think that it not only explains a lot of the government’s growth in the U.S. but also the rest of the world over the last century. When states gave women the right to vote, government spending and tax revenue, even after adjusting for inflation and population, went from not growing at all to more than doubling in ten years. As women gradually made up a greater and greater share of the electorate, the size of government kept on increasing. This continued for 45 years as a lot of older women who hadn’t been used to voting when suffrage first passed were gradually replaced by younger women.
After you get to the 1960s, the continued growth in government is driven by higher divorce rates. Divorce causes women with children to turn much more to government programs. Of course, changes in the divorce laws from “at fault” to “no fault” helped cause some of this change. As I discuss in the book, the liberalization of abortion also led to more single parent families.
Ben W. replies to Maureen:
M: There is a certain blind grandeur in the Neanderthal reductionism of blaming women for all of Western society’s ills.No one was blaming women for all of Western society’s ills. I blamed men for being whimpish and abdicating their God-given roles of authority. The lack of confidence in Western values and civilization has come about as males have lost their identities and roles. That is not accidental.
M: Yes, why don’t you macho men go home, kick the dog, punch the wife, ban alimony and child support, and all will be right with the Western world.Talk about stereotyping a debate and pulling out all the cliches. Why kick man’s best friend?
M: And you won’t have to deal with: the Fifth Column of Jihadis, the massive illegal alien invasion, the economic decimation of America’s Middle Class by U.S. Global Businessmen, the Government by Male Trial Lawyers and Justices that has replaced the vote.A reminder—that it is the male in America that has been dealing with these problems over the past thirty years preceding Ann Coulter by decades. I don’t hear that many women dealing substantively with these issues.
M: Yes, if only you hadn’t been so lax as to give women the vote, Reagan wouldn’t have been stupid enough to arm Osama and the Muslims against the Russians during the Afghan war; Bushes Sr and Jr wouldn’t have been stupid enough to invade Iraq; the Oil Barons wouldn’t have been stupid enough to be hostage to the Saudis; Al Gore wouldn’t be, well, wouldn’t be Al Gore.Yes and these are all problems caused by males—it is a problem to be solved by males because females when they show interest in those issues do it along liberal lines.
M: It’s not women who are running the world anywhere—not even in America—despite the handful of female political activists. America is dominated by: male-dominated Global Big Business, Majority Male Congress, majority male state legislatures, and the male-dominated FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and Pentagon Brass. And if America is going down the tubes, it’s because they aren’t doing their jobs for the benefit of the country.These male-dominated organizations are being run by political and cultural transvestites—formerly known as men. John Lennon has-beens and Harry Potter wannabes.
M: Collect and redirect all that mean-spirited, irrelevant aggression concerning women, children, and childcare payments towards defending U.S. borders and stopping the alien invasion. Don’t disgrace yourselves by growling and beating your chests at the easy kills.Easy kills? You’ve merely identified issues that have been on the table since the late 50’s. A man named John Stormer wrote a book entitled “None Dare Call It Treason” in 1964 that enumerates most of what you identify as problems. I don’t recall any females in the forefront of the fight in those years.
Female knowledge is derivative; females tread where males have gone before. This is a known fact in science. Show me any originality from a female (and please don’t drag out that Madame Curie bit in the light of Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, etc). Or Emily Bronte in the light of Homer, Shakespeare, Milton, Aristophanes, Tolstoy, Dostoievsky, etc.
I haven’t been able to reply in substance to Maureen yet, but I want to compliment her on her writing: “There is a certain blind grandeur in the Neanderthal reductionism of blaming women for all of Western society’s ills.” That is good.
Let’s leave aside Maureen’s humorous paleo-feminist notion of men as paleolithic oppressors dragging women by the hair into their caves and instead focus on the substance of what she’s saying.
Obviously I was not blaming women for all of Western society’s ills. I was suggesting that women’s vote tends to move modern society in a leftist direction. Is that true or not? There is impressionistic evidence that it is true, and there seems to be hard evidence that it is true as well. The influence of women on national politics is to feminize them, which means to feminize the men.
This brings us to Maureen’s main argument, which is that men are still in charge of all major political and business institutions, and therefore it’s silly to blame women for modern liberal policies. But that misses the point that the effect of women’s political influence has been to feminize the men who still remain in charge.
Remember the 2000 GOP convention, the first three days of which were devoted to a minority dog and pony show? People said at the time, what is the point of all this? No matter how hard they try, the GOP can’t win THAT many black and Hispanic votes. And then the answer came that made sense of it all: they weren’t doing the minority routine for the sake of winning minorities voters; they were doing it for the sake of winning the white soccer moms, the “swing vote.” For soccer moms to feel comfortable with the GOP, they had to be persuaded that the GOP was not nasty, that it was nice and welcoming to minorities.
Men may have been largely running the GOP, but they were running it in response to the concerns of female voters.
Or consider how since the 1990s the political conventions have been personalized, with the candidate’s wife and children having to make speeches, most of the time of a rather embarrassing nature that is entirely inappropriate to a political event. Clearly this degradation of politics to personal revelation has happened in response to women’s concerns and desires, to appeal to women, who want to be assured that the candidate is nice and his family is nice, and who vote for a candidate largely on the basis of how she feels about him.
Besides, we all know that women on average base their voting decisions on emotion more than men do. That’s just a fact, and probably even Maureen would agree. But if that’s the case, is it good for society that half the electorate bases their votes on emotion so much more than the other half?
As I remember, Maureen is not a supporter of women’s integration in the military. But once women have equal political rights with men, there is inevitably going to be a demand that women be equalized in the military sphere as well. As long as we accept the liberal idea of individual equality transcending sexual differences as the ruling paradigm of society, then society will simply not have a firm basis for opposing the ever increasing demands for more and more equality.
I’ve never thought about this before, but without the women’s vote in place, which established the idea of society as a collection of equal individuals rather than of men and women, would there have been the demand for the total integration of all racial groups, as in the ruinous school desegregation movement and in the 1965 Immigration Act?
So, what I’m talking about here is not just the influence of women voters as women voters. What I’m talking about is the political impact of defining society in purely liberal terms as a collection of equal persons, rather than as an organic society in which different parts of the population are seen as naturally different from each other and so specializing in different spheres.
Traditionalism means that there is a moral/cultural hierarchy above us and natural distinctions between us which transcend us as individuals and which matter politically. Just as traditionalists say that cultural differences must trump pure individualism in the formation and maintenance of society, which would, for example, result in stopping immigration of people from incompatible cultures (i.e., cultural compatibility trumps pure individual rights), in the same way, sexual differences transcend pure individual equality—not totally or systematically, not oppressively, but to a certain degree and in certain areas of life. For example, men’s natural suitability as police officers or soldiers transcends the demand that all individuals regardless of their sex should have a chance to be soldiers or policemen. Similarly, man’s naturally greater aggression make him more suited to defending the society and its liberty from those who would take it away; thus men are better suited for political leadership in a free society than women. Women’s natural risk-averseness and desire for safety and comity would suggest that a society in which women’s influence was predominant could not maintain its freedom. Maintaining liberty requires an “umph,” an “eff you” attitude, a jealous suspicion of those seductive voices that would take away liberty in exchange for security; and men naturally possess these qualities more than women.
Rachael S. writes:
“I have gotten the impression from a couple of readers posted on your site that they resent women as vocal public figures, regardless of political affiliation, just on a kind of Paulist principle. If women naturally infuse any subject with femininity, then even traditionalist women should withdraw from areas where a masculine voice is required. Modern liberal society reduces society to a single paradigm, i.e., diversity and equality, to which all institutions must rigidly conform. By contrast, a traditionalist society allows for a genuine diversity of institutions and settings. Thus we could imagine a traditionalist society in which some settings would be all-male, some all female, and others having both men and women, all depending on what is appropriate to the nature and function of that institution.
“I don’t relish the idea of being told to shut up just because I am a woman, but I suppose when the social pendulum swings back the repercussions will be unavoidable.”
Women were not excluded from participation in political discussion prior to the 19th amendment which gave women the vote; obviously, since it was women’s activism that led to the 19th amendment. But now, assuming for the sake of discussion that we agree that it is better for society that women not have political rights (which is not yet a position I am fully committed to, though I am lean in that direction), if such a re-traditionalized society were to maintain itself, everyone, men and women, would need to understand the importance of the differentiation of women’s and men’s roles in society.
Tim W. writes:
A lot of good points have already been made about this subject, but I’d like to add a couple of observations.
A very large number of women get their information on politics from Oprah, Rosie, or other daytime TV hosts. For years they got it from Phil Donahue, a feminized male. It’s even expected that major presidential candidates make an appearance on Oprah’s show, where they’ll be grilled about their commitment to children’s programs, women’s programs, world peace, and other “dainty” topics. In no way can this be beneficial to the future survival of our civilization.
I would also note that women tend to be more selfish than men vis-a-vis the opposite sex. There may be a biological reason for this. Since women give birth to children, their individual survival is more important for reproduction. For example, ten women and one man can produce more offspring than ten men and one woman. Thus, men show concern for women and children while women…. well, they show concern for themselves and children. I’m not saying that individual women don’t show concern for husbands or brothers, but as a group (or voting bloc) they have no particular interest in men’s well-being.
Women’s problems are always a major concern but men’s problems aren’t. Every political candidate is expected to address women’s concerns, but a candidate even acknowledging that men might have concerns worth addressing would be ostracized. When polls indicate that male voters carried the day, as in the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, the election is discredited as being due to “angry white men.” If women’s votes predominate, it’s hailed as “the year of the woman”
Think of it this way. Women on average live a few years longer than men. That’s one of those facts of life that we’re all aware of. And we all take it in stride. I know I do. I’m an old fashioned guy who believes in chivalry and if the ladies outlive me, that’s fine. But imagine if the opposite were true. What if men lived, let’s say, an average of five years and eight months longer than women?
Well, if that were the case, we’d never hear the end of it. The media would be filled to overflowing with stories bemoaning the life expectancy gap. Congress would stay pregnant (pun intended) with bills to fund studies, finance research, and implement programs at the cost of billions to find ways to close the gap. Everything imaginable would be blamed for it. Little boys roughhousing in grade school. Husbands going bowling instead of staying home. Women earning less money than men and thus suffering depression. Etcetera, etcetera. There would be marches on Washington to demand that government do something to equalize life expectancy.
And feminists and women candidates would walk around wearing buttons with “five years, eight months” written on them constantly to remind themselves and the world about this horrendous inequity.
That this would happen, and surely it would, says something about the differing natures of male and female voters.
Zachary W. writes:
Re your response to Maureen, of course men are perfectly capable of screwing things up themselves.
But I sense a whiff of nihilism in her argument, not unlike: “The institution of marriage is in shambles, let’s let men marry each other!” Or else: “America is lagging behind the world in the sciences, we need more women and minorities in these fields.” (In her defense, perhaps it’s just frustration. Men have bungled things big-time.)
I hope everyone can agree on at least one point, though, that political equality for women is a massive world-historical experiment. And a risky one at that, because (to paraphrase a previous email) if it’s suicidal to give political power to races that are incapable of building higher civilizations themselves, then a similar argument must be made with respect to women, who have historically (and pre-historically) never played an active role in the running, organizing, or defending thereof, and are not designed to do so.
Jeanne A. writes:
I would ask this question: is there any society that has granted its women the right to vote and subsequently seen that society move more toward freedom and individual liberty or more toward socialism, fascism and reduction of liberty? The overwheleming answer is the latter. I have yet to see an example of the former.
I am convinced that the historical record, small as it is being this is a recent phenomenon in history (women in the political sphere), supports the contention that granting women the right to vote is anathema to freedom and individual liberty.
I am not a proponent of universal sufferage in general. There are plenty of men who shouldn’t be voting either. Nevertheless, your argument regarding women and their reflexive need for security is spot on and this, in and of itself, renders universal female sufferage a losing proposition and a disaster for a free society.
And yes, I agree, it’s not just a female-male thing. I also don’t believe in universal sufferage There are many men who shouldn’t have the vote. But this is the sort of issue that can only be dealt with adequately under a truly federal system that does not insist on a single egalitarian uniformity of principle operating throughout the whole. In the early days of the United States, towns had one law governing the franchise, states had another and more restrictive law, federal elections had another and yet more restrictive (though qualifications for voting in federal elections were determined by the states, not the federal government).
Note how Maureen C, in response to some different thinking about the woman’s franchise, immediately presents a false dilemma:
“Yes, why don’t you macho men go home, kick the dog, punch the wife, ban alimony and child support, and all will be right with the Western world…”
After all, it would be regress to change things.
But then, Adam blamed Eve and God…and both Adam and Eve got banished together.
That last line is awfully obscure.
Laura W. writes:
You seem afraid of women and their reaction to this idea. Why not drop it until you are more confident in the proposal? Personally, I think it is more realistic to talk not about the women’s vote, but a withdrawal of women from public office. The increasing numbers of women in office has unquestionably made government softer and more maternal. There are obviously other traditionalist arguments for why women should not be senators and mayors.
If women have led to the leftward drift of politics, it has been to their own detriment. Abortion, single parenthood, the whole gamut of socialist programs have hurt women more than they have hurt men. So it is not only women per se who have affected this leftward drift, but a set of ideas that women in this particular moment of history have embraced. I am confident that women can be convinced of their true interests and that they are capable of voting for their interests. However, the idea of an end to women’s suffrage does not frighten me. I see women as inherently powerful. (Women who are afraid of this idea see women as inherently weak.) The right to own property and the liberty to pursue an education: these two are the true essence of women’s political freedom in the West. The suffrage? Frankly, it seems relatively minor. Take it away. Women will still rule enough.
If I were afraid, would I say the things I’ve said?
I’ve been open about the fact that I am working out my view of this and am not ready to say, “I support such and such measure.” Yet look at all I’ve said, in my “non-confident” state.
Laura W. replies:
Reading your latest comments again, I agree you’ve given a strong and confident argument. It’s brave even to bring it up.
I approach the issue differently. Rather than arguing that “men are better suited to defending the society and its liberty,” I would tend to argue that women simply have other concerns (and I don’t mean housework!). The job of focusing on these concerns, which are largely transcendent, is all-consuming. (To say they are just concerned with safety and security makes women seem essentially materialistic.) I don’t think it’s necessary to even delve into their possible lack of political judgment, which naturally would tend to make women angry and defensive. Women are ripe for arguments that recognize their true merits and dispel their inferiority complex. Besides, women’s suffrage will never end unless women agree to it. You’d be surprised how quickly they might agree if they could embrace it on the basis of their own strengths. If it would given them the chance to be women again, they just might agree.
Jeremy G. writes:
This is a very interesting topic. A number of posters have noted the feminization of men that has occured over the past several generations that has increased the power of the left and reduced our will to defend ourselves. What hasn’t been discussed is the harmful effects of the massive masculinization of women that will have to take place, so long as women desire the right to vote, in order to restore our willingness to defend ourselves. The traditionalist Christians who live around me have resolved this problem. The women simply follow the direction of their husbands when they cast their votes.
Laura W. writes:
By the way, why are Oprah and slick emotional commercials repeatedly brought up as somehow representative of women? C’mon! Do you think NFL games with their endless beer commercials sum up masculinity? Hey, they’re enormously popular so they must be exactly what men want! Baloney! I think men want a good game and instead they get an endless advertisement. Likewise, Oprah is there. It ain’t necessarily exactly what women want.
My point was that the problem our culture is facing has nothing, nothing to do with voting rights for women. Women’s role in Western society is a minor issue that distracts thinkers from the real issue.
The problem we are facing is caused by the clash between advanced and primitive cultures—in this case, between the 21st century culture of the West and the 12th century culture of the Mideast. These two immensely disparate cultures have been brought into perilously close proximity by the ease and cheapness of modern travel and communications, as well as by the 12th century culture’s acquisition of immense, unearned and undeserved oil wealth over the past fifty years.
The Mideast’s 12th century camel-dung-culture is seeking to partake of the good life created in the West without, however, subordinating itself to the type of Western logic and values which created it. Instead, the camel-dung culture is reeling under the challenge to its former insular sense of its own narcissistic superiority, which its sudden exposure to the superior Western culture stripped away. Its illiterate millions, watching 12th century imams and al-Jazeera on TV, in cement block homes in sweltering 120 degree heat, are primed to react in their 12th century way—with dagger and jihad—to the affront that more contact with the bigger world has delivered to their narcissistic delusions of grandeur, illustrated by the deranged babblings of Mohammed Atta.
Our Western males’ confusion occurs because barbarian societies, based on pure dominance and aggression (like those in the Mideast), appear to be more “male.” Civilized societies, based on law and reciprocity (like those in the West)—which are actually a form of “ritualized” male dominance and aggression, give the appearance of being less “male.” But the greater leeway for female activities in sophisticated and evolved male societies is not at all related to the challenge facing today’s Western males from more primitive male cultures.
Life is good in the advanced civilizations—that’s why all these barbarians want to come here. Neither Western men nor women bleed as lethally or as often in everyday life as they do in the primitive cultures. Western men create structures to sublimate and channel their aggression into business, the courts and sports. These sophisticated, male cultures (more female-appearing because the violence is regulated) are at an initial disadvantage—ONLY when attacked by other, less evolved “male” cultures. Civilized Western males find it difficult to murder people to solve a problem—unlike male barbarians. Civilized males seek legalistically to “understand the problem and solve it” instead of decisively “repel it.” Conversely, the primitive male structures neither “reason” nor “seek to understand”—they “attack.”
Therefore, as these barbarians continue to invade, Western civilized males need to set aside their civilized, legalized ways just long enough to save the integrity their own culture—and not divert their energies into fulminating about the completely irrelevant role of women’s mobility in Western culture. Western men should thoroughly decimate the “12th century” male culture—by outright warfare or, preferably, by using guile, such as removing the barbarians’ source of funding from oil profits and denying the barbarians easy entrance as immigrants.
Civilized males shouldn’t be distracted from repelling the alien invasion by attacking the premises of their superior, rule-of-law, civilization, which includes traditional, chilvaric respect for women.
Gintas explains his comment which I said was obscure:
When Adam and Eve first sinned, Adam said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” Then Eve says, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” It appears that blaming others is as old as the fall. In the end both Adam and Eve were banished together: we are too connected to stand alone. Maureen quickly took up the weapons of a standard feminist “blame war,” and I didn’t see you blaming women. There’s enough blame to go around, and we suffer together, as Adam and Eve did as they were banished together from the Garden of Eden.
Jeanne A. writes:
Laura W.”s attempt at deflecting the “Oprah” criticism aimed at women falls flat. First, she tries to qualify her statement with the word “necessarily.” That doesn’t work; either women want Oprah or they don’t. And, considering her immense popularity on TV, with her book club that singlehandedly puts authors on the bestseller list, and her magazine, it is fact that people are watching and supporting her in huge numbers. Does Laura think that her popularity stems from 18-49 year old men? Of course not. She derives virtually ALL of her support from women. Women obviously want Oprah.
Second, the assertion that female sufferage will not end unless women allow it is fundamentally and historically flawed. So called “democracies” often descend into tryanny. Does Laura think such a thing cannot happen in the U.S.? Also, with the threat that Western civilization faces from Islam and the huge demographic crisis that it simultaneously suffers from (due to women putting off marriage, focusing on careers, and not having children), coupled with the increasing backlash against feminism that is becoming more and more observable, it takes no stretch of the imagination to look 35-50 years in the future and envision laws that restrict whether or not women are allowed to work, vote, etc. I can think of a few different scenarios whereby such proposals could be put in place without requiring approval from women voters. Look at some of our own Supreme Court decisions and then look across the Pond at Brussels and see what the EU plans and already has in some cases put into place. Consent is a minor obstacle easily overcome, not a requirement for imposition of laws and regulations, in our pseudo-democracies in the West.
Laura W. writes:
I object to the frequent references to Oprah’s show as the emblematic expression of femininity. It is true Oprah is popular among women as are NFL televised games popular among men. But, this is junk food that represents the very worst side of women. Why refer to it so often? Indeed, women are often foolish, illogical and overly emotional. But, if I derived my view of femininity in general from Oprah, I would be inclined to view the average American male from his TV schedule as well and conclude that neither deserves the vote.
Why not consider real life too? Walk into a nursing home, say, and observe that most of the people who offer relief are the women visitors and here women appear not as offensively illogical and emotional. If sweeping conclusions on the essence of feminine nature are to be drawn, Oprah isn’t the only place to look and the emotions of women aren’t so easily dismissed as something in the way of the real business of life. This is not to say, again, that I think women make great political leaders or have better political judgment.
Finally, Jeanne says women’s suffrage could be repealed by force in the West. Then the West as we know it would no longer exist. I referred to a situation in which Western values were retained.
This has been a great discussion but I think it’s time to draw it to a close..
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 09, 2007 05:00 PM | Send