What traditionalist men must do to end female promiscuity
Laura W. (Laura Wood) writes:
With regard to Ian B.’s remarks, the decline in masculinity described in the Roissy discussion will not be cured by education in character and male strength, as important as these things are. Masculinity has lost one of its most significant functions. It will not recover until men regain economic primacy. In one-fourth of married couples, the woman earns more than the man. In the majority of American homes, the man depends on his wife’s income. It’s only natural to be submissive to someone whom you need to support you, to a woman whom you want to act like a man in the job world. Men have traded their masculinity for their wives’ earnings. For all their lamentations about the sexual depredations and dominant personalities of modern women, I hear very very few men complaining about this reversal of traditionLA replies:
Laura seems to be suggesting that individual men on their own, simply by earning more money than they are doing at present and so becoming better able to support women, could change female behavior, namely reduce female careerism and thus reduce female promiscuity. But today’s female careerism is obviously a function of the entire society—of the entire society’s by-now established customs, expectations, and laws, as Laura herself has written elsewhere. So, does the problem reside in the fact that men as individuals are not earning enough, and therefore women become careerists to provide the income and financial security that men are not providing, and therefore women become promiscuous? Or does the problem reside in the fact that our whole society pushes women into careerism, and therefore women become promiscuous, and, further, because the women are both earning a lot and competing with men for jobs, the men become less successful and/or start working less, thus increasing the need for women to work, thus further increasing female promiscuity?Laura replies:
No, I don’t believe individual men can reverse things by only working harder on their own. They now face immense forces against them. They at the same time have to explain and defend why they were once favored in the workplace. They have to lose their timidity and say, These jobs belong to us. They also have to make do as much as possible without their wives’ earnings in order to create harmony in their relations with women and healthy families, so that eventually men face better financial prospects. The short-term sacrifices will eventually change society. I realize it seems impossible now, but it only took 50 years to destroy the male provider role.
Steven Warshawsky writes:
I have some quibbles with Laura W.’s analysis, which I have shared with her before. She argues that the relations between the sexes will not improve (i.e., will not return to a monogamous, marriage-based culture) “until men regain economic primacy.” Unfortunately, she doesn’t explain what this means. Surely it cannot mean that every man, in every relationship, should earn more than his female partner. She also doesn’t confront how we arrived at the economic situation we have today—where many women earn more than many men—which is due to specific biological (women on average have better communication and social skills, which earn a premium in a service-based economy), educational (American men tend to shun education and waste their youth on sports and entertainment), and technological factors (few jobs require the superior physical abilities of men). Nor does she explain how she proposes to reverse this situation. Finally, she either is not aware of or simply ignores the serious economic consequences of taking steps to reduce female economic participation and productivity. She may prefer a poorer, but more patriarchal, society, but that does not appear to be a widely held view.LA replies:
It seems to me that the sorts of objections Mr. Warshawsky is raising can be raised against any proposal for a change in the order of society, such as when I argue that liberalism must be rejected. The critic assumes that all the particulars of our present society will remain in place, and since those particulars don’t fit with the proposed change, therefore the proposed change is impossible. What the critic misses is that if there were such a large change, the small things would change as well.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 21, 2009 09:30 AM | Send