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.
The father should be there to take part in every special time of his children's lives! (I have a good relationship with my father, too - it's his farm I'm going to, at our NEXT career move:-) - just not as much as I wish I could have.)
What really diminishes men's importance is to say that if they're home for a few weeks, and an occasional ballgame, they've "fathered." I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here - children need as much of their fathers' time and effort as possible, not the minimum corporate American defines as "equal with women."
A true sacrificial vocation. What a gift to some of the most needy children.
I've enjoyed our discussion! Have a great evening!
You know, believe it or not.. I didn't make myself bigger, stronger, more desirable for a multitude of different occupations and unable to bear children, just so I could preen and lord it over a few nutty, feminist crackpots.
It's not my fault, God did it!
Since that's the case, it looks to me like their gripe is primarily with him..
I share your (unpopular) opinion. I just didn't know it was unpopular. It's hard for me to imagine anyone being able to argue otherwise.
This must be our common denominator, Cathryn. I had a great relationship with my dad, too; some of the most valuable things I've learned in life, I learned from him.
Something that most women never seem to consider ... civiliation is an onion skin over human nature ... very little is required to peel it away ... see LA riots for examples.
1/2 Disagree. They are passive. They are however power-hungry just as much as Feminazi's. They ALWAYS pack down from another guy in a straight up confrontation. They also do not hesitate to stab that person in the back or hit a women. These are the same types of guys that frequent piecenik(Spelling intentional) rallies.
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.
I think where I disagree with the author here is on the definition of wimp. Running to the hills in response of doing what is RIGHT is the epidomy of a wimp. 65% of it in the mind. Oftentimes those that are wimps physically are also wimps in the mind, but that's not always the case. these men are somehow wimps for not reversing the tide of feminism
Some are, some aren't. Those that put their head in the sand sure as hell are though. Giving up is the same as running to the hills.
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
That's backing down. Running to the hills. Head in the sand. Wimps.
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
Why do so many people think of it as an either/or situation? Family is important. Picking the people that are supposed to represent us DIRECTLY affects families. How long does it take to write a letter to the editor? Vote? Tell others to vote for or against someone. An hour a month at a GOP meeting? Putting in even just one hour helping a good candidate. Bring the family.
What does that old saying go. You have to stand for something or you fall for anything.
However i would like to make one point, women need that maternity time to recoperate from giving birth. My wife has done that 7 times and she needs the time off more than I do. Now if there was complications and the wife needs help at home, then yes time off should be given to the husband so he can help.
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.