Posted on 06/02/2003 5:01:08 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford
Feminism, Wimpy Men, and the State
by Brad Edmonds
Feminist men aren’t necessarily wimps. Often, it’s just the opposite – they’re aggressive and power hungry. They’re generally evil, though some are merely ignorant and misled. And their triumph over the last 40 years in no way suggests that non-feminist men are wimps for not having defeated them. Such misconceptions about the feminist movement have survived over the last several decades, and they should be set aright.
By "feminism," I mean something fairly narrow. The dictionary defines it as belief in the equality of men and women, and as the political movement associated with implementing this belief in society. Of course, the "equality" of any two people requires further explanation – we have to distinguish between equality of opportunity, equality of economic outcomes, and equality of talent. It would be absurd to claim men and women are of equal capabilities. Men can’t have children, women can’t get anybody pregnant, and the two sexes are naturally endowed with different balances of strongly psychoactive hormones. Their bodies and personalities are built for different things. If feminists intend that everyone enjoy equal economic outcomes, history teaches that this is impossible. Why totalitarian socialism won’t ever work is a topic for another time.
If feminists meant that men and women should have equal rights, I agree wholeheartedly. There are women out there who are big and strong enough to get into VMI and the local fire station while meeting the same physical standards the men must meet. Female executives are just fine – as long as they win their jobs competitively, and show up for work as much as the men do (rather than taking off 9–12 weeks per year on maternity leave). And certainly, no libertarian would disagree that women should be allowed to own property – chattel, real, and their own persons – just as men. Everyone should have full rights to his body and property, and no rights to expropriate the bodies or property of others, as our government does now.
My use of "feminism" being understood, here are the popular misconceptions: First, that feminist men are wimps. To the contrary, from the outset feminism has been a two-way street. Women wanted something, and they went to Congress, the courts, and the media to get it. They didn’t really want equal rights, of course; they’d had that since they got the right to vote. What they wanted were guarantees that they could compete for jobs they aren’t as good at as men, and as job applicants be given special status and relaxed standards rather than submit to open competition. Power hungry congressmen of the 1960s helped feminists get their way, using their government power in exchange for guaranteed women’s votes to keep them in jobs where they could pass pay raises for themselves, never be held accountable for the quality of their work, and win high-paying private-sector jobs lobbying their own successors later on.
Those men sold out a potentially peaceful, prosperous, moral, superior culture for personal gain. Make no mistake, feminism is a big part of our societal degradation. Others have written already that feminism – particularly government-sponsored abortion and the end of shame over sexual promiscuity – has been an outright fantasy gift to irresponsible, immoral men. The result of feminism’s lifting of moral proscriptions aimed at women has not been greater freedom and dignity for women, but something terrible for them: Millions of single mothers in poverty; women all over the country trying to live the dream of a high-powered career while having children, only to find that the children aren’t so well-adjusted when they grow up without a mommy as the primary care provider; millions of women experiencing intense guilt and shame after having abortions; and millions of men who have little respect for women and who take no responsibility for the support or rearing of the children they sire.
The men in Congress and the judges who helped bring it about weren’t necessarily wimps. They were foolish, scheming, selfish, and short-sighted, yes; but I’m sure there were more opportunists than pushovers among them.
Another misconception about the rise of feminism is that the men with traditional values – men who have the common sense to recognize that men and women are different; who are willing to work the hours, take the responsibility, and give up "playing the field" and buying lots of toys for themselves to support a family – that these men are somehow wimps for not reversing the tide of feminism. Men can’t stop earthquakes or tornados, either. The most well-armed and well-funded government in the history of the planet pushed feminism into the lawbooks, and government judges have supported it. Additionally, the movement was often insidious – an innocuous little new law here, another one there, and you’ve been snuck up on. Finally, many moral men were on the front lines, and remain there, actively trying to prevent what they see as our moral downfall. Such groups as Promise Keepers face continuing ridicule and suspicion from the mass media, as do groups of teenagers who announce they intend to remain chaste until marriage. Those who protest at government-sponsored abortion clinics are now the only group whose political speech is officially restricted by government.
Instead of banding together by the millions and planning an insurrection, strong men have been supporting families, communities, churches, private schools, and home schools. They’ve been spending their lives doing the good they can do, and many (especially in the South) have quietly ignored the moral and philosophical wrecks that are Congress, our institutions of higher learning, and the popular press. Some men choose not to speak out much because they have accepted the grave responsibility of supporting a family, and for their families’ sakes they put job security ahead of ego. They take what time they do have to teach their children to live by the moral values Washington is eroding.
There are wimps everywhere. A man can be a wimp with or without strong convictions, a family, traditional views, or a habit of political activism. It needs to be got straight in the popular media that failing to publicly oppose the government is insufficient to determine whether somebody’s a wimp; that supporting feminism is insufficient to establish whether somebody’s a wimp; and that other things being equal, a man taking responsibility for a family is much less likely to be a wimp than is a man who accepts responsibility for nothing, such as Bill Clinton. How a man lives, and not whether there are other men and women making a shambles of the society around him, is what will tell you whether he’s a wimp.
I assume you're using this as a pejorative, but don't we all agree that men and women are different?
They said the same thing about mixing racses in military units and that was overcome. I'm not saying women should be wholesale in combat units or even at all, but just that this is a suspect argument against it.
Good post, Cathryn.
My initial inclination was to think that that distinction (discrimination) might be reasonable.
But, damn, I really don't want to answer your question affirmatively.
I think you turned me around on this one. LOL. ;-)
This is common assumption, which to an extent I'd have to say is correct. Men can't breastfeed babies. Lots of women don't, but that's their loss, and their children's. Babies need a single consistent presence, and in some ways it doesn't matter who it is - mother, father, grandmother, adoptive parent - but nonetheless, mothering is a unique physical relationship that you just don't appreciate until you've done it.
Fathers are very important to small children. My husband has been out of work most of a year, since our youngest son was 5 months old. We're thrilled that he's been able to participate with the baby all these months, but the whole "maternity/paternity leave" concept misses the boat.
Maternity and paternity are the Real Life, and the job is what pays the rent. There's something deeply wrong with the idea of taking a few weeks of "vacation" to be a parent!
I had not heard that saying before. I'm just a guy..what does that mean?
I'm also getting on in years.....be kind to a middle aged...really good looking gentleman.
Of course I haven't owned a mirror for about fifteen years..so I'm just guessing.
I'm not sure I understand that part. Could you flesh that out for me?
Hear! hear!.... That is what makes me cringe when I see articles like this.
A little bit?
Now I'm bordering on outrage!! ;-)
That's a red herring. We've all agreed that men and women are different; we're not Democrats here. What, then, is so incomprehensible about the idea that mothers and fathers are both essential to their children, but in different ways, and with emphasis on different needs and seasons in their children's lives.
It seems to me that you're trying to create a dichotomy, mother vs. father, where there is none in nature. And based, for heaven's sake, on the question of which parent should give up a few months of their FReepin' "self-actualization" to pay attention to the kiddies! It seems awfully Hillary to me, at the roots ...
True - evidence, as I see it, that mixing men and women in a military situation is not the most efficient way of achieving national security, if national security, efficiently, is your end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.