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.
So what's your Real Life? Is it your job? If so, the concept of "paternity leave" makes sense - a little break to play Daddy, just like you'd take a little break to go skiing. But if you define yourself first as a husband (you married her, after all!) and then as a father (you were there, too ...) then it's almost like you're taking "leave" from fatherhood to go be a (doctor, lawyer, engineer, Indian chief).
Did that clarify, or muddle further? The point is what you, I, anybody, think their life is really ABOUT.
You missed my point, and it comes back to the whole question of what "equal" means. We all agree men and women are equal in value, but it doesn't mean they are intended to do exactly the same things in life. For example, it's obvious that women have babies, and men don't, so far.
In exactly the same way, mothers and fathers are equally vital to children, but do not meet the children's needs in exactly the same way, or at the same times. An interesting book on the subject is "Fatherneed," by I forget whom. Moms and Dads are just different!
What factors did you weigh in coming to that conclusion?
Did not intend to, and sorry if I offended. Nonetheless, the "economic circumstances" that lead both mothers and fathers to hold paying jobs, not to mention the circumstances of single parents, are part and parcel of the devaluation of traditional family roles.
Pretty much.
"Equality" Abortion on demand and "sexual freedom" were desired..
The Feminists got what they wanted, but it came at a heavy price and it's not over yet either.. There's still a whole generation on the way with even less respect for motherhood, marriage and women in general.
Right now you can find them putting condoms on banannas in (ahem) "health" class. But they will be the leaders of tomorrow soon enough.
No, not really. What I'm really saying (or wish I had) is that I feel the whole discussion is framed in a way that devalues both fatherhood and motherhood in favor of paid work.
Maternity and paternity leave will not make a significant difference in the life of a baby, if after a few weeks he's relocated to nonparental care. It might even be worse, for the child, because he'll grieve the loss of his parents before accepting the new "caregiver," and the next, and the next. The research on attachment disorder caused by serial caregivers has been out for some years. One book that comes to mind is "Being There," author I dont' remember, but there are plenty of other sources.
My ideal is pre-industrial revolution, pre-modern American economy. Family business, family farm, family craftwork. Husbands, wives, and children working together for their own support, producing a readily discernible value for the community. We had it in this country once! I don't get my "homestead" this time, my husband has another corporate job, and I'm already (unproductively, I know) anticipating the separations, daily and longer term, disrupting our family life.
Well, I do appreciate that. And I don't think you're alone in looking back fondly on the pre-industrial world.
Maybe I should have been more clear. When I stated my position, I was really only talking about the world in which we are living now.
And I suppose I was discussing the "ideology," risky as that is. If we accept the status quo - "employment as the center of the universe" - as normative, we begin to lose our ability to envision any other situation
discriminatory towards men
and at risk of being redundant, I think we need to guard against using "discriminatory" to mean "bad bad bad." We "discriminate" among things that are different. There is useful discrimination, and pernicious discrimination, but recognizing and evaluating differences is essential.
Nonetheless, in the case of babies, my personal feeling is that a mother is more (feeling for words ...) immediately essential. Not that babies aren't mad about their fathers, not that fathers don't derive great and lasting benefits from caring for their babies ... I never feel better about my husband, than when he's with our babies.
But men don't experience pregnancy, childbirth, or the care of an infant quite the way women to. For example, I had a miscarriage last month, at 5 weeks. Having guessed I was pregnant for only three weeks, I'd already "discerned" the baby's sex, named him, planned what he would wear home from the hospital, posed for pictures, imagined the early weeks of nursing him ... my husband, although he was saddened that we wouldn't be having the baby we expected, had not experienced the "relationship" I had.
There's a physical sense of motherhood, particularly of a young infant, that is not as typical of fatherhood. Now I'm not nearly as cool a parent when the kids get older ... "Oh no, we're stuck with Mama? Clean the house and take naps!"
As always, opinions are significantly conditioned by experience. My father was a Navy officer, and was gone up to a year at a time when I was a child. My husband's work has often involved considerable travel. (We all hate it - I really wanted to move to the farm and raise goats!) I may incorrectly diminish the necessity of fathers because of the periodic absence of fathers in my life, and my children's lives.
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.