Tuesday, September 25, 2012

War on men

For all the nonsense spewed in our sick, post-feminist society about women’s “reproductive rights,” you never hear a peep about the trappings of men’s limited sexuality; how men’s attractiveness is correlated to achievement, competitiveness, earnings potential, etc.; how we’ve abandoned the project of accommodating and channeling male sexual nature towards the good and civilization; how our newfangled institutions of “equal pay,” abortion on demand, and the welfare state have usurped the roles of men.

We exhort boys to “be a man,” and “act like a man,” having little idea ourselves what that really means, beyond a general call to action. George Gilder writes in the seminal work Men and Marriage: “A man’s body is full only of undefined energies—and all these energies need the guidance of culture. He is therefore deeply dependent on the structure of the society to define his role. In all its specific expressions, manhood is made, not born.”

“Be a woman” does not carry with it the same urgency because women naturally embody their femininity. No one ever says a boy blossoms into a man. But people do say a girl blossoms into a woman. It takes no conscious act on her part for this to happen. It just happens.

The failure to make men from boys threatens America’s social fabric. Observe the ongoing failures in certain enclaves, such as the lower class generally (see Charles Murray’s Coming Apart), and the black population in particular, in which three-quarters of children are born out of wedlock, a cultural disaster.

To understand the collapse of masculinity in America, you have to understand feminism. Feminism, as an extension of Marxism, proposes to “liberate” women from an imagined patriarchy that in fact recognizes the immutable truth of male and female natures. Intuitively, then, the two simplest methods to create “equality” between the sexes is to encourage masculinity in women and squelch it in men.

Teach girls they don’t need a man to be happy. Teach them they will get just as much, if not more, satisfaction from their careers as from being a wife and mother. “Beginning in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, young women’s expectations of their future labor force participation changed radically. Rather than follow in their mothers’ footsteps, they aimed to have careers, not just jobs,” David R. Francis surmises.

Further “adding to the possibility of a greater investment in professional careers was the availability of the contraceptive ‘pill.’ Women could better plan their futures.” In other words, they wouldn’t necessarily be “punished with a baby” if they got pregnant.

“They had greater guarantees by the government that job discrimination by employers against women would not be tolerated. They anticipated a more even playing field with respect to men in terms of access to high-paying careers for college graduates and to professional and graduate college programs.” So-called job discrimination by employers was actually the correct assumption that, no matter their credentials, women, especially women in their peak years of fertility, are less devoted to their careers because they can “fall back” on their natural roles of mother and wife. (Note how the vaunted “wage gap” has shrunk as women have fewer and fewer children.)

Men have no such fall-back option. In contrast to women, men’s social and sexual value relies entirely on what Susan Faludi calls their “utility in a society” (i.e., their economic productivity). That value plummets as increasing numbers of men can offer nothing to women that they don’t have already or can’t get on their own. There is a measure of truth to vindictive feminists’ declaration that a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle. Turns out falling male earnings track closely to declining marriage rates: “At the bottom 25th percentile of earnings...half of men are married, compared with 86 percent in 1970,” Greenstone and Looney write.

On the other hand, teach boys they are too competitive, too aggressive, too individualistic, too noisy, too disruptive. Stifle those male tendencies. Turn the public school into a nursery. Subject the boys to a feminine regimen. Sit still. Be quiet. Play nice. Raise your hand. Wash your hands. Keep your hands to yourself. Show your work. Work as a team. No wonder women outnumber men in college.

If all goes according to plan, what you get in the end is the “new American man.” It’s model is woman. Of course, if employers want women, they will employ women, which they do, in alarming preference over men.

Supplementing the feminist agenda is the tyranny of the divorce/welfare state, the great enabler of single motherhood in America. And if that wasn’t enough, add the destruction of male-oriented manufacturing careers by labor and environmental regulations.

UPDATE (11/29):

An improved version of this article appears at the Red Pill Report.


  1. I agree that women hold a double standard on all sorts of male behavior. I work in an office of 90% women. I've been asked when I plan to have a baby, and I point out that I'm not married. These women give me a look clearly questioning what having a father figure has to do with having a child.

    Women are talking about 50 Shades of Grey openly in the office. If men were talking about a popular pornography openly in the office, women would be coming apart at the seams with how demeaning it was to women. Yet we're allowed to demean men into nothing but sexual objects? Double standards.

  2. You are what is wrong with this world.
    You are terrified that your elevated place in society is being challenged by empowered women. Everyone is EQUAL. Everyone is made of the same things. We are ONE. And even if we do differ--not just men and women, but all individuals--suggesting that change to make us all understand each other and uplift each other are creating a "war on men" is PITIFUL.