The last couple of posts (here and here) have been about
women’s issues. I think I’ll make this a third in the series.
Feminism is an ideology at odds with the feminine. Feminism,
in a misguided scree, declares that women can be men as well or better than men
can be men.
There are many ways in which men and women are equal.
Intelligence, according to IQ data, is essentially equal. Individuals differ.
And interests differ. Women who enjoy math, engineering, and other
left-brain-labeled fields do as well (sometimes better) in those fields as men
who enjoy those things. And men who enjoy arts, humanities, social sciences, and
other right-brain-labeled fields do as well (sometimes better) in those fields
as women do. Nevertheless, a larger number of women gravitate toward the “right-brain”
side, and a larger number of men gravitate toward the “left-brain” side.
But it’s a rare woman who makes a better physical laborer
than a man. If you can’t carry a fire victim over your shoulder to rescue them,
maybe firefighter isn’t the best career choice for you. Same for construction
fields, heavy equipment operations, oil rig worker, or a lot of other physically
tough jobs.
 |
| Some women flourish in STEM fields. image from here |
If you’re 5’4” and 120 lbs., you probably can’t lift a
100-lb. sack of grain as easily as a 6’ tall 190 lb. man. Fact of nature, like
gravity, not worth fighting.
Should qualifying women be prevented? No. And in my lifetime
(I’m upper 50s) they haven’t been. And during my lifetime, when they do equal
work, they get equal pay.
Women are not lesser women, or less feminine, for pursuing
something different from most women, nor are men lesser men, or less masculine,
for pursuing something different from most men.
But women who pursue something to prove that women can do it
too are not doing it to help women; they are doing it with the attitude that
women’s choices are less valuable. This is what feminism does; it shames the
feminine.
Women are biologically made to bear children, and most women
naturally bond with those children and care deeply about their welfare,
sacrificing time, energy, and resources for the good of her children.
But, consider the feminist attitude toward women who choose
to stay home to raise their children—they’ve sold out their sisters. Consider
the derisive feminist sneers against women who choose to have a large family.
Feminism has resulted in a cultural shift, from women who
expected to spend some years, or adjust a career around, raising young children—to
women expecting to work, and possibly limiting the number of children, and time
for them, in favor of the career. The result is that economic adjustments
practically require women to work in
order to maintain the socioeconomic level of the previous generation. There are
more amenities at that socioeconomic level than before—bigger homes, multiple
cars, smart phones, multiple television, etc. Still, the expectation for women to work, even while children are young, adds
considerable pressure to women’s lives.
The result is less
choice and more pressure on women to do both what they feel the urge to do
and what they feel the necessity to do—or to do just way too much, almost all
of which is pressure more than pleasure.
As Jordan Peterson said in the interview we reviewed the
other day, if you require
equality of outcome—such as certain quotas of women in every field, or at every
level—then you do that by taking away the choices women would make if left to
choose for themselves. In other words, to get the outcomes feminism claims are
for the good of society, that requires tyranny—more against women than men,
although they’re plenty willing to tyrannize men as well.
There’s another cultural shift resulting from feminism that
is not helping women. It is a biological fact that pregnancy results from
heterosexual sex. Not every encounter, not every time. But pregnancy doesn’t
come any other way (including in vitro fertilization, which puts together the
sperm and egg, just not during a sexual encounter). And it’s always the woman
who gets pregnant, never the man. That’s not a social construct; that’s not an
invention of society. That is biological fact.
What is social is the support and partnering a husband
provides to a wife when she is bearing his child. In a civilized world, sex outside of marriage is always
wrong—because it puts the pregnant mother and her child at risk, both
economically and physically. But in an uncivilized, savage world, men engage in
casual sex, sometimes leaving a woman pregnant, and then failing to provide for
her and the child, leaving them economically and physically vulnerable.
The man in this uncivilized situation could get away with
casual sex without apparent consequence, leaving individuals and society as a
whole to pay the price. The appropriate response would be for women individually
and society as a whole to hold men accountable. Do not allow or participate in
casual sex. Hold men socially and economically responsible when they act in
this savage way.
Feminism looked at this savagery and said, “That’s not fair.
We need to be allowed to have casual sex without consequence too.” Put another
way: God is wrong to burden women with a baby. What can we do to overrule God?
Birth control, to prevent consequences—or abortion, if the consequences start
to show up.
Women are still biologically going to face pregnancy following
sex. Encouraging women to engage in frequent, casual, promiscuous sex—because a
man can—means there will be more frequent vulnerable situations for women and
children. Meanwhile irresponsible men get more casual sex that they are not
held accountable for.
Expectations change, so it is actually harder for a woman to
enforce the expectation on a man that sex with her must only follow commitment.
By giving in to feminist pressure to pretend to be a man—and not a good man,
but an irresponsible man—she loses the expectation of respect for her body and
soul that she had before feminism stepped in to “help.”
 |
| 4D ultrasound at 12 weeks image from here |
And how does abortion help a woman? She is pressured to kill
her child in order to maintain the façade that casual sex is what she does
willingly, since she’s just as much of a man as any irresponsible male. She
denies biology. And she denies the naturally feminine part of herself. And, if
you believe in good and evil, right and wrong, she sacrifices her soul to kill
her child, gaining nothing but fake masculinity in exchange.
Sex only after marriage has always worked better for
families than sex outside of marriage. But there used to be serious social
pressure on a man to step up and do his duty by marrying a woman he caused to
be pregnant. Now the pressure is on the woman to do away with the child so it
doesn’t look like she was entrapping a man into responsibilities he didn’t
want.
There’s a piece from National Review that I came upon week (from 2016) on the damage legalizing—and mainstreaming—abortion has
done. Here’s an image to grasp the numbers:
In the 43 years since Roe v. Wade, there have been 59 million
abortions. It’s hard even to grasp a number that big. Twenty years ago, someone
told me that, if the names of all those lost babies were inscribed on a wall,
like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the wall would have to stretch for 50
miles. It’s 20 years later now, and that wall would have to stretch twice as
far. But no names could be written on it; those babies had no names.
Author of the piece, Frederica Mathewes-Green, says this
about the pressure to abort:
We had somehow bought the idea that abortion was necessary if
women were going to rise in their professions and compete in the marketplace
with men. But how had we come to agree that we will sacrifice our children, as
the price of getting ahead? When does a man ever have to choose between his
career and the life of his child?
We can use a rule of thumb, to tell whether something is
anti-woman—or anti-feminine: If you have to deny who you really are and portray
yourself as more man-like, that’s anti-woman.
If you’re a competitive person, go ahead and compete. But
don’t force yourself to be hyper-competitive because some feminist says you
ought to for the sake of women everywhere.
If you’re a high-energy force to be reckoned with (as a lot
of women are), go ahead and be that. But if you’re gentle and nurturing, don’t
force yourself to be someone you’re not just because some feminist says you
ought to for the sake of women everywhere.
If you like STEM studies better than soft sciences or
humanities, pursue those interests. But don’t force yourself to become an
engineer because some feminist says you ought to for the sake of women
everywhere.
If you love children—especially your own—and you’d rather
give them a well-run family with a nurturing mother than push yourself to work
overtime and get the next promotion, do what’s right for you and your family,
rather than what some feminist says you ought to do for the sake of women
everywhere.
If you want to have a committed, permanent relationship with
a man who will support you and your children, growing with you to become a
strong, loving family together (which offers a greater sense of joy than any career
position), don’t give that up in favor of casual, irresponsible sex—the results
of which you may end up feeling pressured to get rid of with an abortion—just because
some feminist says you need to prove women can be like irresponsible men. That’s
not doing anything good for the sake of women everywhere.
If you’re a woman, be yourself, and be a good woman. That is
the best thing you can do for women everywhere.
If you’re a man, be yourself, and be a good man. That is the
best thing you can do for both men and women everywhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment