In short, one Pankhurst is an exception, but a thousand Pankhursts are a nightmare, a Bacchic orgie, a Witches Sabbath. For in all legends men have thought of women as sublime separately but horrible in a herd. –G. K. Chesterton
Why is the political mobilization of women always in the service of evil? “Women’s issues” nearly all boil down to adult sexual freedom at the expense of children and society (easy divorce, abortion, normalized promiscuity, coercively subsidized contraception) and “women’s organizations” nearly all promote these things. It is easy to say that women are just another wedge minority, dupes of liberals, communists, and capitalist employers who want to use them as a weapon against traditional society. It is even easier to note that, since nature has allotted the consequences of sex more heavily on the female sex, that they would have more incentive to embrace the call of consequence-free sex. However, sexual choices always do have consequences, either in the cost of childcare or the cost of depopulation, and the only real question is who will pay for them. Monogamy redistributed some of the cost from the mother to the father, but it requires sexual restraint and role differentiation to work, while feminism offers sexual anarchy with costs distributed to society as a whole. Patriarchy constrained mothers but also conferred upon them a particular status and socially-validated sense of purpose. And indeed society cannot do one without the other. The funny thing is that so many women publicly support feminism while privately wanting the sort of life a monogamous culture provides.
Both sexes have their temptations, but a priori one would have expected sexual libertinism to appeal more to men. Feminists claim that during patriarchal ages, society was organized for the selfish pleasures of men. However, the men of these times actually enjoined strenuous demands on each other: chastity (especially under Christianity–the most patriarchal of religions), provision for one’s family, courage in combat for one’s home and country. The feminists insinuate that this was all hypocrisy, that male fornicators were secretly accepted and admired, and so forth. But why bother with the pretense when men already controlled everything? Anyway, human nature being what it is, men in patriarchal ages often failed to live up to the standards set by their brothers. However, it is indisputable that when men rule each other, they impose stern expectations on each other. Compare this to the modern age of women who refuse to accept any standards for members of their sex, seen most shockingly in their “slut-walks” and their defense of even the most frivolous female-initiated divorce. Ironically, while loudly demanding that women have a right to self-fulfillment–however anti-socially pursued–without being judged by anyone, many of these same women privately make many sacrifices for their family and friends. In a sort of reverse hypocrisy, they fail to live down to their own lack of standards. In short, the important difference between sexes here is not personal morality, but aggregate morality. Masculine virtue “scales up”, while feminine virtue doesn’t.
All of this is understandable given male and female psychological differences, for which we have strong experimental, neurological, and everyday evidence. Men, having on average a more objective focus, will tend to form groups dedicated to achieving some external task or embodying some external standard. An organization that didn’t do this would seem pointless to a man. He wants clear duties, something to feel proud about achieving or ashamed of failing to achieve. He doesn’t object to clear rules and chains of command; he welcomes them so long as they seem intelligibly connected to the group’s goal. Women, being on average more empathic and relationally focused, will tend to form groups dedicated to affirming their members. Thus, a collective of women will be driven to destroy all standards that might impinge on the self-esteem of any of its members, even if most of the women actually satisfy the standard. Lacking a group-transcending ideal on which to ground hierarchy, female-dominated groups will be ideologically egalitarian.
Groups dominated by feminine psychology can also be quite tyrannical. In such groups, the primary social virtue is compassion rather than commitment to an abstract ideal of justice. However, compassion provides no rational grounds for resolving disputes, because one can always put oneself in the place of either party and empathize with her. Thus, the collective will always support the party that the women find most appealing or can most easily identify with. Thus we have university sexual harassment policies, which have established a two-tier set of regulations for attractive and unattractive men (because the legality of an act depends on whether or not it is “wanted” and, whether accepted or not, sexual advances are always more welcome coming from an attractive person). This is unjustifiable by any standard of justice, but who is ever inclined to empathize with unattractive men? In feminist states we also see the growth of formally neutral laws that are applied with brazen partiality. For example, some European countries make it a crime to “insult” any religion, but this is only applied to protect Muslims–who are seen as exotic and sexy–while the entire Western propaganda machine continues to demonize Catholics without scruple, because after all we are just a bunch of old, ugly white guys. Leftism itself is largely an exercise in mentally dividing the world into innocent victims and dehumanized oppressors. Leftist Manichaeism flows not from the common (and prototypically masculine) tendency to identify non-group members as the enemy; rather, it flows from the intrinsic partiality–the intrinsic injustice–of untethered compassion. Rather than deciding what is right, we just pick certain groups of people to always feel sorry for.
Filed under: Uncategorized |