Wednesday, January 23, 2013

40 years of waywardness

To celebrate the 40th anniversary of our national right to murder, Jill Filipovic penned a piece for the UK Guardian (wonder if she trades notes with Jessica Valenti?) that pierces the dark heart of feminism (aka gender Marxism). The subtitle alone confirms everything I’ve written about modern man’s hubristic drive for liberation from history and nature; from the earthly experiences that have come before him; from all the factors, inherited and otherwise, that define his life in place and time: “The 1973 supreme court ruling means much more than a medical procedure. It is about a historic struggle for female emancipation.” Emancipation from what, exactly? Biology, of course! God was a misogynist.

Even with [Roe v. Wade] on the books, the promise of bodily autonomy remains out of reach for many women. And the central opposition to abortion rights isn’t about saving babies, promoting family or protecting women; it’s about controlling female sexuality and trying to return to a time when women were forced or coerced into subservience.

Filipovic’s intellectual dishonesty runs deep as she ignores the realities of the sexual marketplace. It is man who craves sex for pleasure, validation, and a place in society. It is he who must appeal to her for her to receive him, not the other way around. It is her sexual personality, not his, that dictates access to her womb and the possibility of a settled life.

In the old days, woman’s “subservience” was the obligation to choose a suitor, lest she wither in old age, dependent on the state if not her family. In exchange for his care and affection, for surrendering his insatiable wanton impulses to provide her comfort and stability, she satisfied his craving for her body and gave him children.

Marriage was the perfect arrangement to satisfy men’s and women’s needs, but it required “subservience”—or, better, sacrifices—from both: in him, his roaming, untethered nature; in her, exclusive access to her body (i.e., childbearing and -rearing). The sexual revolution changed that, and we’ve been wandering the sexual wilderness ever since. These are the facts of life, but there’s no reckoning of them here by Filipovic.

To anyone who has taken even a cursory look at reproductive rights activism, it’s obvious that decreasing the abortion rate isn’t nearly as much a concern for the pro-life movement as controlling women is. We know what leads to a low abortion rate: comprehensive sex education, affordable and available contraception, rights for women, and a progressive sexual culture. The countries with the lowest abortion rates in the world have that mix – plus legal (and often state-funded) abortion.

A kernel of truth! Indeed, as I wrote last October: “For pro-lifers, fewer abortions is not an end in and of itself. If it were, you would hear some pro-lifers propose abolishing consensual sex sex entirely and reproducing via the test tube method. But no pro-lifer wants this. Why not? Because pro-lifers’ end game is to restore to America’s sexually retrograde culture the sublimity of the sex act.”

Filipovic writes on:

Despite knowing the key to a lower abortion rate, the so-called “pro-life” movement refuses to use it. Instead, they feign concern for babies while doing absolutely nothing to help children and everything in their power to make women’s lives harder and more dangerous if those women dare to believe that they’re entitled to a fulfilling sex life.

I suppose you’re entitled to a “fulfilling” whatever, as long as you don’t run away from the consequences. What are the consequences of the women’s rutting movement? First of all, it let’s men off the hook. When women cooperate in men’s pursuit of pleasure without orientation to the future, men lose incentive to grow out of adolescence. And even if they recognize their primal desire for love and family, intense but assuredly brief flings almost always win out against the challenges of long-term courtship.

Secondly, it burdens women with a shrinking pool of eligible men to marry. For marriage is what virtually every woman wants, if not from her instinct for making the deepest of connections to another human being, then from the fear of dying alone. But why should he consider marriage with her when he can enjoy fleeting sex for a fraction of the commitment?

The apparently talented author of this piece is pictured left. When I look at her, a string tugs hard at my insides. I am hyperconscious of what I must do. I feel the man’s burden of “making it,” of acquiring the sexual capital—a function of social standing, income, and strength—necessary to compete for a woman so beautiful. My only chance with her is if I join and excel in productive society. When I learn all she wants is to screw, I lose motivation. She falls in my eyes to a means to an end, an object to be mounted and conquered, an interactive, three-dimensional version of a pornographic image.

But as she approaches middle age, when the bloom wears off, she will not even be that. She will be alone and bitter, for the men she wants will be after younger, more virile versions of herself.

For now, she has “the ability to control the number and spacing of [her] children.” Didn’t she already, with the power of consent?

It’s no coincidence that the dual rights to abortion and birth control ushered in some of the most profound cultural shifts in human history.

I don’t know what view of 40 years of waywardness Filipovic’s perch offers, but it doesn’t resemble reality. A shift towards emasculated men, fatherless children, and welfare-dependent mothers is profound, truly, but not a legacy to be proud of.

The positive cultural shift, the one that steered Western Civilization on its proper heading, was the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism. Dennis Prager writes:

This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.

It is probably impossible for us, who live thousands of years after Judaism began this process, to perceive the extent to which undisciplined sex can dominate man’s life and the life of society. Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society.

Roe v. Wade was just one step in our civilization’s undoing. The celebration of drugs and procedures to counteract the human reproductive cycle fosters an environment of sexual libertinism, in which actions are dissociated from their equal and opposite reactions. Yet despite this “emancipation,” women are still getting pregnant and having babies. “Life finds a way,” as Ian Malcolm put it in Jurassic Park. The desire to procreate can be stifled, but it cannot be squelched entirely, not even by a misguided culture tilting towards extinction.

One last excerpt from Filopovic:

The most common reason women say they’re terminating a pregnancy is economic, and poor women make up a disproportionate number of women terminating pregnancies. They also have more trouble paying for them, and roadblocks to funding mean that these women are stuck between having an abortion they can’t afford and having a child that they can’t support. Women are trying to make the most responsible decisions given their own often perilous financial situations, and they’re being blocked at every turn.

Here’s a responsible decision: “Just say ‘no.’”

No comments:

Post a Comment