Over at National Review Carrie Gress writes about "Why Don’t We Tell Women What’s Making Them Miserable?" It's time to take a look at the mess of women's lives after feminism's "long march through American culture"as in:
Item: Women's mental health: "women are struggling: suicides, depression, substance abuse, and sexually transmitted infections have all increased dramatically over the last five decades."
Item: women at crisis-pregnancy centers live a life where they are "being trafficked, pimped, addicted, incarcerated, abused, and on and on."
Item: "Rarely is the suggestion made that women have been sold a poisonous lifestyle and the behaviors implied in that lifestyle are what actually need to be changed." For college freshmen "Heavy doses of gender exploration and safe-sex practices, and heaps of contraceptives, are all part of the welcome at most U.S. college campuses."
Hey, writes Gress, whatabout the basics:
Don’t sleep around, don’t do drugs, don’t have abortions, stop blaming the patriarchy, find a purpose outside of yourself, cover up some of that skin, don’t overspend, and figure out what is truly good, not just what celebrities say.
But, of course, you are not allowed to say that. Thanks to feminism, "a carefully constructed closed system has been created so that anything outside its boundaries is almost unthinkable. "
But more-satisfying ways to live do exist, ways where dignity is honored, health is truly valued, body parts aren’t ignored or rendered useless, and relationships — which are at the true heart of most women — aren’t fleeting or shallow, useful or convenient, but deep, abiding, and life-giving. If only we could find a way to tell this to every woman.
Yes, well. But this amounts to a few flabby suggestions. How about something a little stronger.
Where do we start?
First, I think we need to recognize that feminism is an unjust system imposed on all women -- and men -- by ruling-class women. Feminism is a fantasy of life imagined by ruling-class Gentry women who have no right to impose their religion and culture on lower-class women, both ordinary Commoner women and lower-class Client women. See my disquisition on Three Layers, etc.
Let me amplify this: the feminist culture that has been forced on all women is one of the great crimes of the age. Personally, I don't think feminism works for ruling-class Gentry women, but if ruling-class women want to screw up their lives: hey, that's their business. But when they impose their culture on lower-class women, that is unjust; it is domination and hegemony, and it is wrong.
But, I think that even feminists get miserable when they practice feminism. Case in point is Ms. Feminist herself, Simone de Beauvoir, author of The Second Sex, in which she advertised the notion of the "independent woman." Never had kids with her beau Jean-Paul Sartre. But she hated that he cycled through each of his mistresses every week. And when they died, both the childless Sartre and childless Beauvoir had sorta "adopted" younger people to be their heirs. So, maybe they shoulda had kids together, instead of strutting around as liberated twerps.
And there is no such thing as the "independent woman." Why is that?
I capture this truth is my notion that starts with Sigmund Freud's question "What do women want?"
No Siggie, I say. It's not what women want, it's what they expect, and what women expect is:
Women expect to be protected.
The proof of this is that whores need pimps to protect them. Even though whores are "trafficked, pimped, addicted, incarcerated, abused, and on and on" by their pimps it is still better to have a pimp to keep all that stuff down to a dull roar.
Feminists to do not need pimps to protect them because they are upper-class Gentry and nobody would dare lay a hand on a Gentry woman. In other words, Gentry women expect to be protected and they are protected. Because privilege.
The next step in understanding the problem is my disquisition on Women in the Public Square. I say that women do not relate to the public square which is a male thing where you engage in verbal fisticuffs with the other guys, and which women Do Not Like, Not At All. Women do not do public verbal fisticuffs; they have a one-on-one chat with a woman friend and say: "I can't believe she said that." And determine never to talk to the third woman again. But you can't do that in the public square.
So Gentry women are trying to destroy the public square, with "safetyism" and the war on "microaggressions." What they are really saying is that they don't want nuttin' to do with the public square.
So, even for Gentry women, the public square doesn't work.
Never mind about Gentry women. Whatabout Commoner women? Guess how Commoner women get to be protected? Oh yeah: by marriage!
I would say that Commoner women are not interested in strutting and fretting their hour upon the stage of a public life like Gentry women. They just want marriage and family and children. That means that they would like a safe world where sex and marriage is bound by fairly strict rules, so that they can be courted by potential husbands instead of being subjected to "relationships." And they are naturally "chaste." Apart from anything else, there is a practical reason why honor for women is "chastity." You get too many sex partners and you are likely to get your reproductive system wrecked by STDs. But Commoner women don't get that protection in the world run by feminists.
I say that the feminist domination and hegemony of Commoner women is a crime. And upper-class Gentry women have No Idea about this.
Whatabout lower-class women, the Subordinates, the Clients? Let us start by reciting the words of Charles Murray in his Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. He writes that in the lower class of whites the men don't work much and the women don't marry much. I think it is fair to say that this is true for BIPOCs, only more so.
Do you see what is glaring out of the "the men don't work much and the women don't marry much?" It is telling us that unless you yoke lower-class men to the children they sire, by marriage, then they aren't going to work to support the wife and the children. Not much. And, of course, if the woman ain't gonna get a man to marry the mother of his children well, there's always welfare. George Gilder wrote Visible Man about this back in 1995.
I don't think that feminists are the sole guilty party here. The whole welfare state is to blame, liberals. It's another crime of the age, that lower-class women can't expect the fathers of their children to marry them.
Do you see what is precipitating out of this, so that women can get their mental health back together?
For upper-class Gentry women they need a male protector to keep them safe from mental distress in the public square.
For middle-class Commoner women they need rules to govern courting and marriage. So that they are protected.
For lower-class Client women they need a real simple societal rule. Men have to marry the mother of their children.
And then everyone would live happily ever after.
Because I am a kindly sort of chap, I say that we wouldn't jail the feminists that have wrecked the life of women. But we would take them down a peg or two.
No comments:
Post a Comment