Readers of your site who have not been born into traditionalism seem to have come to a traditional framework with (at least with the aid of) dispassionate reason as a means to understand and reject liberalism for what it is. As a college student at a public university, it seems nearly impossible to meet traditional-minded girls. Even the campus churches are corrupted by liberalism. (I should note here that I am not a Christian, but have great respect for “pure” Christianity.) So it’s inevitable that a red-blooded male will face the possibility of meeting a beautiful, kind, feminine woman – with a catch – she is liberal.

 

I have dated liberal girls several times, and it has very often become an issue at some point. I often tried to reason (usually in the vein of Jim Kalb) and attempt to explain to them my position on sexual roles, racial differences, organic local change vs. violent top-down liberal change, etc. But a curious thing has happened. First of all, it is often the case that the girl doesn’t seem to understand why it matters that we are ideologically incompatible, and wishes I would drop it. Or when she does agree that it matters, dispassionate arguments often reinforce her liberalism in some ways and make her more defensive, even if she acknowledges the force of your argument. Women seem to have a tendency to personally identify with their ideas in a way that men don’t. One girl informed me that even though she couldn’t explain what a feminist was (she couldn’t disagree with my logic as to why mainstream feminism was a corrupt ideology), she was a feminist nonetheless and maybe she would one day be able to explain it to me. Her identity as a feminist was largely symbolic, in other words.

 

I have realized something very important, which I believe has been said before: you can’t reason someone out of something they didn’t reason themselves into. Liberalism is the water in which we swim, and women especially are keen defenders of the status quo and its symbolism. For women especially the connection to this ideology is visceral. Ideology comforts and provides an impassioned vision for how to live life, even if it’s ultimately much more radical then they realize. Except for the most exceptional, philosophically honest and capable women the path to traditionalism will not come from mere reason, but from some emotional impetus, like love for a traditionalist man. My previous attempts failed, I believe, because I didn’t take into account that a) the women I dated were not keen on having any discussion that could be perceived as a debate of the deep questions (which has been described as a perceived attack, to me, even when I feel I’m being completely dispassionate), b) women, and most people, need a long time to make a paradigm shift, which will depend on c) the ability to incite a girl’s curiousity about your beliefs and way of looking at life in a way that d) has lasting emotional appeal to her.

 

In other words, the whole world must be painted anew for a liberal woman, and this process will never come from mere reasoned debates, or critical comments about the prevailing cultural sprinkled liberally during day to day life. The vision must be positive and emotionally captivating, and must be shown to her only by way of invitation, at her own inclination.

Thus at present I believe the best thing to do for a man trying to convert a liberal woman is to have a deep conversation about what the other believes in a non-critical manner, and to very carefully and succinctly explain why he is a traditionalist and why it is important to him, and then drop it except when she brings it up, or it forces its way into the relationship. It is better to obtain short term agreement from your woman and focus on loving her within the emotional landscape of traditionalism. If she loves you, and if your traditionalism is good, true and beautiful, conversion may be possible.

 

 

 

                                                                          — Comments —

  

Assuming that Jack W. shows through his manner and actions that he is a traditional man, isn’t it a wonder that liberal women are attracted to him?  Isn’t there something telling in the fact that these young feminists are attracted to a man who presumably takes pride in being a man and asserts his authority?  I suppose you could flip that around, and wonder why he is attracted to them.  But it seems that he is attracted to their femininity, much of which they still retain, though they hold liberal ideas.  I am guessing that they, on the other hand, are attracted to his manliness, even though that is the very thing their liberal ideas hold in disdain.  Regardless, it seems that he is on the right track in hoping that a traditional way of life will win in the end because it is a good way to live.  Similarly, Christians are exhorted to preach often, and use words when necessary.

 

  

Jack is wise in realizing change will not come quickly, if at all. He is also right about the emotional basis of liberalism for most women. It’s just in the air. Most women orient their political beliefs around compassion. The question is, whom will they feel compassion for? Under liberalism, their political compassion is overwhelmingly directed to those who are non-white or female or homosexual. Most women will not move from these prejudices unless their sense of compassion toward others is awakened. Therefore, it is important, when a woman refers to her feminist views and anti-male prejudices, for a man to gently remind her, “When you talk about men, you are talking about me?” Unfortunately, feminist propaganda has also convinced many women that men do not have feelings.

 

A man must not try to make a comrade of his lover. She will resist it, and your efforts may even diminish her attachment to you. In a society segregated by sex, the inadequacy of a female as a close friend would be abundantly apparent. But in contemporary America, for the most part, men and women are everywhere mixed, and out of politeness, we feel obliged to straddle the chasm of sex, and befriend one another.

As for bringing a woman into the traditionalist fold, this is best done socially. As that enfant terrible Roissy writes ” Men win the argument to win the group. Women win the group to win the argument.” Women, in this area, are driven by status: if they see the people you’re talking about, and they are intelligent and articulate, and she can imagine herself as one of them, she will warm to your view. She will at least respect your views, if not agree with them. When a woman hears something as radical as a defense of patriarchy, her immediate thought is not, “Why is patriarchy better?” but “Who thinks like that?”

Introducing her to respectable, tasteful traditional people, culture and events would do more to change her attitude than any conversation. I recall reading that women vote Republican at greater rates once married, and still more after bearing children. If her only image of traditionalists are fat slovenly rednecks, she will feel superior to them, regardless of the merits of what those rednecks say about oh, Bristol Palin’s latest spawn and what have you. Character and taste are far more important than her stated political beliefs. If a woman is kind, feminine, respectful and careful about her appearance, her political opinions ae nigh irrelevant to me.

Some personal context: I recently graduated from a top college chock full of liberals, and attended all-male religious schooling for 12 years, but am not religious. 

 Laura writes:

 

This is an excellent statement.

 

A man must not try to make a comrade of his lover.

 

Similarly, a woman must not make a girlfriend out of a man. The effort to do this has led to many divorces and disappointments.

 

 

Ha! It’s so true.

 

I know that women do not put too much thought into their politics, and being liberal in this age is a reflection of practically nothing. I’d be much more concerned if, say, she were an avid user of Twitter, or ever wears sweatpants. An artful courtier eludes discussion of politics with women.

One girl would affectionately put her hand over my mouth when I’d muse about politics, and tell how she liked me less when I would say, criticize homosexuals. I would smirk, and go on to something else. It’s a little needy to want a woman to agree with you on every point, and frankly unnecessary.

I recommend the book Way of the Superior Man by David Deida. Aside from some coverage of Tantric sex methods, it has a very good discussion of the sexes, and of how a man is to behave in a relationship and in life.

Laura writes:

Still, it is depressing to consider spending one’s life with someone who rejects one’s basic opinions on some of the most important matters. Also, many women are very passionate about their poltiics even if they haven’t thought them through, so discussion is unavoidable.

“It’s a little needy to want a woman to agree with you on every point…”

Jack was not seeking agreement on every point, but was encountering women opposed to most everything he believes in.

George writes:

Jack W. said: “One girl informed me that even though she couldn’t explain what a feminist was (she couldn’t disagree with my logic as to why mainstream feminism was a corrupt ideology), she was a feminist nonetheless and maybe she would one day be able to explain it to me. Her identity as a feminist was largely symbolic, in other words.”

This goes back to what Thomas Sowell talks about in his book “A Conflict of Visions.” People often hold their beliefs about the world on an intuitive level and can’t articulate them because they don’t consciously know them.

David Lee Mundy writes:

Romance a feminist, but don’t marry one. Being unequally yoked in marriage is something I’d not wish on an enemy much less seek out personally. Certainly one should not expect a spouse to be one’s soulmate and fulfilment of all desires. Neither would I give up my cordial marital relationship for the world. Before marriage, I dated girls that I clicked with on a mental level. They were fun and exciting, and I equated that connectivity with love. My wife isn’t like that. Thank God. She is slow and steady and conservative and traditional. It took great time and effort for us to learn to communicate. But I thank God every time I think of who I might have married, including a great friend who’s now a Presbyterian priestess. Finding a helpmeet for you should be the primary objective of any young man considering marriage.

As for Jack W., the non-religious traditionalist who bemoans the shallowness of liberalism while imagining his traditionalism the construct of his own fervent rational endeavor: that’s the saddest
part to the story. Absent a religious basis, his views are no more defensible than hers. Pot marries kettle.

Laura writes:

I think the story of Julian’s daughter was instructive. Here was a cultured woman who read Jane Austen and Shakespeare. She left her husband when she was bored. I agree with David. It’s a mistake to choose a spouse on the basis of how exciting she or he is. Character matters most. This is a difficult truth when you are young and want everything.