American “Feminism” = Masculinism

America, is it just me, or are the people who call themselves “feminists” out to lunch? I am not sure why they call themselves feminists, either, since they are not particularly . . . uhhh . . .feminine.

There was a time when American women who fought for women’s rights were actually interested in obtaining those rights as women, distinct from men. But somewhere along the line, the movement went haywire, and “feminists” decided that women are not really women, after all.

It is as if the political rights of men and women were once on the opposite sides of a teeter totter, with the rights of women sitting on the ground. But as the political weight started to shift to a state of equilibrium, some of the women just kept on going—and slid down the teeter totter onto the men’s side. They left all the remaining women high and dry. The movement took on a life of its own. Rather than pat themselves on the back for its accomplishments, “feminists” tried to justify the movement by pushing all sorts of moronic ideas.

The irony is that these ideas have created a social framework that the most chauvinistic of men probably never dared hope for. Ideas like: advancing the notion of sexual “liberation” as an element of political equality; promoting “choice,” with the grim and bleak assertion that women, alone, are entitled to decide whether or not to bear a child; encouraging the myth that marriage “enslaves” women, and that therefore women should shun the institution; and pretending that women with children are not only willing but perfectly capable of competing in the job market with men.

All of these ideas, carried into public policy, have been disastrous for women, socially and financially, and men have been perfectly happy to go along. And why not? Sexual freedom meant that men no longer had to wait for marriage to find a willing partner, nor find a girl whose scruples were not particularly rigorous. Abortion freed them from any social responsibility for children; living together freed them from commitment or fidelity; and treating women with children as economically competitive allowed men to walk away from their families with no financial burdens.  In fact, the issue of “choice” makes me wonder why some enterprising child custody lawyer hasn’t advanced the argument that fathers should be free, entirely, from the burden of child support in cases of divorce.

The women’s movement began by legitimately objecting to the legal status of women. But modern feminism has “thrown the baby out with the bathwater,” and now rejects everything associated with tradition.

Feminist ideas have been particularly destructive of the institution of marriage. Yet, despite years of rhetoric, it is still women who usually seek the commitment of marriage. Men generally bear the burden of “popping the question,” because it is important, socially, for men to arrive at the decision to “settle down,” and to declare that intent by making the offer of engagement. Although it is somewhat of a cliché, soon-to-be grooms are given bachelor parties in which their companions mourn their loss of freedom, and soon-to-be brides have showers in which their companions gush at the joy of setting up a home.

Do feminists really believe these customs are the result of oppressive social conditioning, or do they have the humility to recognize that these clichés exist precisely because they signify some fundamental truth about the nature of men and women?

Certainly, fertility influences these respective positions; after all, women who want children have a limited time in which to bear them. But the fact of fertility simply reinforces the social structure. Women—at least, women with any sense—seek marriage before having children because marriage provides the most—the only—suitable social framework in which to raise children. And if it is a biological drive that partly governs a woman’s desire to marry, then it is pretty silly, isn’t it, to try to deny it? Especially through unnatural constructs like contraception and abortion. No amount of rhetoric can change biological reality.

Yet the “feminist” mindset begins from a position that disparages the traditional role of women as wives and mothers, and exalts the role of men as breadwinners. This is strange, as a rational matter, because there is nothing particularly glorious about breaking your back to make a living. Sure, men recognize each other’s professional achievements—after all, you need some kind of motivation to go to work every day—but why should that public recognition be so sought-after by feminists, as though it constitutes a validation of one’s life? For that matter, why should money be a validation?

The fact is, having a wife and children provides men—not with the only reason, but with the only important and good reason for succeeding as breadwinners. Had the feminists any sense or imagination, they would have understood marriage, instead of being an institution designed to “keep women down,” as an institution designed to civilize men—to give direction and purpose to their competitive and aggressive drives.

Which brings me to the problems feminists have in understanding motherhood: is motherhood, too, a form of enslavement to them? If so, they are more than out to lunch, they are certifiably insane. It is the single most important responsibility any woman can have. It is not that all women have to be mothers, but it is unassailable that nothing is as important, personally, socially, or politically, as raising children well, and instilling in them the values, habits, and qualities of character that make them good children, good citizens, good people, and, ultimately, good parents themselves.

In America today, nothing is needed more than good mothers. America can get by with other doctors, other lawyers, other executives, other teachers, other data-entry clerks, other bus drivers, and other plumbers, but children have only one mother. And no village in the world can take her place.

Women have traditionally wielded enormous power both morally and socially as wives and mothers. But the feminists have now yielded it up for . . . what? The vote and a paycheck. In America today, the women who call themselves “feminists” have little to offer women besides the promise of being treated as though they are the same as men. But I, and the millions of women like me, have no interest in being men. Women are not “wasting” good minds and a good education by deciding to make their families a priority. And often they have not “given up” their careers—they have simply decided that it is foolish to sacrifice their families in favor of one. At one time, the feminists’ cry was “Liberation!” Well, America’s women should truly liberate themselves from the shackling orthodoxy of something that calls itself “feminism,” and reestablish, proudly, the importance of women in their critical role as the cornerstone of the American family, and, correspondingly, of American society as a whole.

Building a decent society is not someone else’s responsibility. It is yours. Be an American.

No related posts.