TEXANNE writes:

This theme of anti-feminism is popping up all over with increasing frequency — and you are out there ahead of the curve!

Note that this writer, in conflating the words “equal” and “identical,” demonstrates just how feminist ideology gained traction in the first place. Without the Judeo-Christian notion of all humans being created in the image and likeness of God, we are left with the literal, materialist concept of equality, resulting in the relentless effort to “unsex” us and make us identical. This subtlety and nuance seems to escape progressivist thinking.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

It would be nice to see more anti-feminism in the mainstream press and it’s true there are glimmers of it here and there. The problem is, it usually amounts to so much hand-wringing, the endless acknowledgement that there is a problem but an unwillingness to even consider practical steps to address it.

What practical steps can be taken? For one, the removal of all laws and regulations that favor women in hiring would help to restore a culture that acknowledges sex differences. Businesses, as well as educational institutions, should be allowed to admit, hire, fire and promote anyone they want regardless of sex

Second, no-fault divorce should be repealed and the presumption of maternal custody in cases of divorce should be ended. The presumption of paternal custody in divorce and in cases of out-of-wedlock birth would restore the institution of fatherhood.  This step, which would be painful for both men and women, would likely never be accomplished as long as there is government authority over marriage .

Third, all public welfare benefits for unwed mothers should be ended.

Fourth, boys and girls should be educated separately as much as possible. A culture of sexual differentiation in childhood is essential. Public schooling will always exist and should exist, but there needs to be a robust market of private options to accomplish this. The federal monopoly on schooling is damaging to society.

Fifth, although this may not fit into the category of practical steps, society should openly recognize that the careers and worldly accomplishments of men are more important than those of women. Our cultural institutions should affirm the role of the mother and wife as shaper and builder of culture, morality, the arts and learning.

Sixth, our churches should reject egalitarianism. Individuals do not pursue traditional sexual morality just because they are told promiscuity is bad or abortion is wrong. They choose chastity and restraint not because they deny them something but because they grant them something. This good cannot be grasped outside the psychological realities of male and female. Our churches have embraced egalitarianism, denying basic psychological reality. They must work their way back to differentiation, particularly male authority and feminine love. They should denounce feminism openly.

Seventh, again not a very practical step, but something that can be taught and learned: women should defer to the judgment of men in politics. The reason for this, again, lies not in ideals, but in reality. Men and women are different by nature. Men are better at looking at government and leadership with impersonal and practical judgment.

Many of these steps seem impossible to accomplish. Whether they are possible or not is secondary to the issue of whether they are right. 

Laura adds;

Also, our military should be male. There should be no women in combat or leadership roles. 

                                                                — Comments —

David C. writes:

I love your suggestions for repairing and strengthening our ailing society. As you say, it is not enough to acknowledge that a problem exists. We must also identify and implement the proper solutions. Unless we take these further steps, our complaints will never become more than useless historical commentaries. At some point we must step forward and make the effort to write history ourselves, no matter how impossible it seems to effect any real change. Surely the feminists of the 1960s sometimes felt overwhelmed in the face of the monolithic patriarchy they ardently desired to overturn — but these long odds did not stop them from trying. We should learn from their success — and then defeat them.

All this said, I would like to propose an addition to your list of suggestions, one that I believe is more fundamental than everything you mentioned. That “something” is prayer and penance. In God there is more than enough power to overhaul this country from head to toe. Each time I find myself confronted with this evil or that evil, whether I am looking at the face of a man who has lost his family or the face of a college girl who appears lonely and confused, I must throw the doors of my heart open wide to admit the full strength of my desire for truth, justice, and beauty, and from the depths of this desire call upon my God for salvation, for only God can save what is truly human. So it is that we must implore Christ every day for the restoration of the United States of America. Certainly we must not fail to participate in this restoration, but without God, we can accomplish nothing.

For those of us who lack the certainty to step forward as you do to propose solutions, I would point out that we can all do at least this much: beg, with all the simplicity and strength of our desire, that Christ undertake the revolution we all wish to see.

Laura writes:

And, prayer.

Surely the feminists of the 1960s sometimes felt overwhelmed in the face of the monolithic patriarchy they ardently desired to overturn — but these long odds did not stop them from trying. We should learn from their success — and then defeat them.

Excellent point. The feminists of the 1960s and before didn’t get bogged down in wondering whether they could accomplish their goals, they sought what they believed was right.

Just thirty years ago, those who believed society should embrace homosexuality would never have dreamed they would be so successful. Today, our cultural institutions not only accept homosexuality, they actively promote it. See this about the new exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery, called “Hide/Seek,” a mad, enraged, freakish glorification of sexual dissolution. That is clear proof that those who dream can achieve the impossible. CNS News gives a fuller account of this horrifying exhibit in a national institution  here.

Stephanie Murgas writes:

I agree with you on most aspects regarding this “anti-feminism” thing. However, I do not believe that boys and girls should be segregated in their education. I do believe being segregated in extra-curricular activities, like scouting or arts and sports, but to me (as a homeschooling mother of one boy and one girl currently) children should be “raised” in a home-like environment for as long as possible, so they will understand boundaries and acceptable behavior when it comes to the opposite sex. I believe in the return of the one-room “schoolhouse” pattern, with children being segregated on the basis of interest in activities, NOT on the basis of age or sex. The children should all study the same subjects at the same time, and the older students would act as aides to the teacher, and be responsible for more detailed work, of course. The younger children then would be able to witness the older children’s accomplishments and have better role models than merely age-peers. I raise my son and my daughter to be equally responsible in the home, with no differentiation at this point between “female” and “male” activities. To me, the differentiation between men and women is the man himself, and men should be responsible for turning boys into men, not women.

Laura writes:

Homeschooling, which has many advantages, is naturally coeducational.

As far as schools, I still think it generally best to segregate by sex, with different ages combined to make it more practical and economical. For instance, first-, second- and third-grade boys could learn together. The interests and style of learning is so different in boys and girls. Obviously, coeducation can work better if it is attuned to the sexes and if classes are not too large. But it is very difficult for a teacher to enforce different standards for boys and girls in the same classroom. In any event, schools that do not recognize that the ultimate goal is different for boys and girls, and that their whole mode of being is different, are misguided.

Ilion T. writes:

Seventh, again not a very practical step, but something that can be taught and learned: women should defer to the judgment of men in politics. The reason for this, again, lies not in ideals, but in reality. Men and women are different by nature. Men are better at looking at government and leadership with impersonal and practical judgment.
 
A man, when he seriously (and maturely) contemplates marrying and forming a new “nuclear family,” is already thinking on one level about his grandchildren … and thinking about them in the context of his duty to his own father and grandfather, to his lineage.  For a man, his “nuclear family” exists and has meaning in the context of his lineage.
 
Women, on the other hand, don’t have lineages.  Sure, in biological terms, women can be grouped into lineages; but socially their attachmant to lineages is tenuous, and sociology is what trumps.  For a woman, her “nuclear family” exists in near-isolation — frequently (and more so in this pop-culture age, in which human beings are raised so as never to become mature human beings), it’s all about her!  Generally, it’s only when she starts hungering for grandchildren that the average woman begins to view family in terms of multi-generational obligations, as men have tended to do all along. 
 
“Women should defer to the judgment of men in politics” for a multiplicity of reasons; non-exhaustively:

1) most women aren’t really that interested in politics in the first place,
1a) thus, the political opinions of most (not all!) women tend to be ill-conceived and essentially worthless — at best;
2) men tend to focus on justice, whereas women tend to focus on minimalization of conflict,
2a) when minimalization of conflict is the guiding principle, that guarantees the increase of injustice — and, in the end, the increase of conflict;
3) it is men who must (and, in the end, only men who can!) fight the wars when diplomacy fails;
4) the current regime of social deference to the desires of “organized womanhood” rewards feminized men and penalizes masculine men,
4a) a society will always get more of what it rewards,
4b) feminized men are worthless when trouble hits.  And, sooner or later, trouble always hits.

Jane R. writes:

Laura said, “Excellent point. The feminists of the 1960s and before didn’t get bogged down in wondering whether they could accomplish their goals, they sought what they believed was right.”

It is a fact that Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA in the 50’s and that Ms. magazine was indirectly funded by the CIA.

In 1993, the Ms. Foundation for Women accepted the following three grants from the Ford Foundation: a $4.5 million grant for an “endowment campaign;” a $500,000 grant for “enhancing operational capacity” and a $45,000 grant for an “endowment feasibility study.” And by the early 1990s one of the daughters of the now-deceased Texas oil billionaire H.L. Hunt was sitting next to Gloria Steinem and a Rockefeller Family & Associates associate named Elizabeth McCormack on the Ms. Foundation for Women’s board of directors.

I could go on and on…..but my point is; the feminist movement was not, is not, a grass roots operation.

David C. said, “We should learn from their success — and then defeat them.” Really? I think it would take a lot more than learning to defeat them.

Laura writes:

All of our major institutions support and fund feminism. That includes government, the media, business, academic and many of our churches. It will take a lot more than learning to defeat them.

David C. writes:

Feminism today is quite clearly not a grassroots movement. As for the feminism of the 1960s, however, the fact that Ms. Steinem was involved with the CIA in some capacity during her early years is not sufficient to show that the CIA backed (or originated, if that is your view) the feminist movement.

Jane R. writes, “Really? I think it would take a lot more than learning to defeat them.” Yes, I agree with you – in fact, this was precisely the point I made in my first comment. The early feminists did not manage to overhaul society by sitting around. They acted. This is what I am saying we can learn from them: they succeeded because they acted. You do not believe, as I do, that feminism began as a small movement facing a very large patriarchy, so let me draw from a different example: the early Christians. Christianity was once a small, persecuted sect in ancient Rome. It rose to become the greatest cultural force in Western history. We here are a small movement facing a very large feminism, but the long odds should not deter us. We can succeed, but we will have to act.

Please follow and like us: