NORA writes:

Emily D.’s story is indeed very sad. In my experience, however, hardcore feminists are pretty outspoken about it, or they express opinions and attitudes that give away their position quite clearly to those around them. Didn’t her husband observe any of these characteristics when they were dating? I find it hard to believe that her attitude was a total surprise to him. Either she had certain extraordinary qualities (great physical beauty, perhaps) or, more likely, offered certain “benefits” that he valued so much at the time that he was willing to overlook her extreme feminism.

When I was at university (mid-to-late 1990’s), I remember that the girls with the most active social lives were the liberal feminist types. My more conservative friends and I rarely ever got asked out on dates even though we were average-to-pretty in terms of looks. There were times when I was tempted to turn liberal feminist too. They had all the fun and the male attention.

This is a truism, but maybe it needs to be said: Men who are serious about marrying women who will make good wives and mothers need to look for and date women with those qualities and practice the self-restraint that such women require of them. My experience at university has given me little sympathy for men who take advantage of the sexual license feminists offer and who then later complain about how they ended up with a feminist wife. Ever wondered what becomes of those men who love to repeat that illogical proverb, “Date bad girls but marry nice ones?” My guess is that a good many of them find themselves in Emily D.’s brother’s shoes. Or not married at all.

                                                                                                              — Comments —

Ilion T. writes:

Nora is right that men who think they can “date bad girls but marry nice ones” will almost always end up married to the bad ones. (And, of those few who do manage to marry a nice one, they’re not much of a catch, are they?) 

They (that mysterious they) have been trying to indoctrinate our culture for at least a century in the belief that men are naturally promiscuous and non-romantic, such that men can freely engage in sexual activity and experience little-to-no spiritual or psychic impact. This is quite false — men are actually far more romantic than women, men are far more likely than women to get “caught up” in their sexual liaisons. 

Unless a man deliberately chooses to be a cad, when he engages in a sexual relationship of much duration with a woman, his nature will compel him bind himself more tightly to her … and, eventually, inertia will lead him to formally marry her. Men get into these loveless and respect-free marriages precisely because they have fallen for the lie that men, as men, can have a sexual relationship without strings. 

Men want the respect of a woman whom they love. 

Woman want the love of a man whom they respect. 

The modern-day “dating culture” (and moreso the present-day “hook-up culture”) pits both sexes not only against one another, but also against themselves.

Laura writes:

I’m not sure that men are “far more likely” to get caught up in their love lives, but I agree with your point that the romantic inclinations of men are downplayed and underestimated. Society focuses on the behavior of high status men, who have a greater tendency to be womanizers, and ignores the tendencies and experiences of the ordinary man.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

Nora’s comment on men who marry feminist wives is very good, particularly her thesis that, “Men who are serious about marrying women who will make good wives and mothers need to look for and date women with those qualities and practice the self-restraint that such women require of them.” Just so, and I have little sympathy for men who do not follow those places this rather obvious advice, just as I have little sympathy for women who declare that “A good man is so hard to find!” while restricting their search to the kinds of men who hang out in nightclubs looking for casual sex.

What this always makes me think of, though, is the fact that most young people these days are engaged in a search for romance without any serious input from their parents. To actually ask a woman’s hand in marriage is considered a quaint formality–a young man does not ask, he informs his lady’s father of his intent to marry her. This is an unwise policy in the extreme, and is symptomatic of an acute decadence in society. The unfortunate irony is that a couple seeking to marry is often less qualified to make the decision than practically anybody else walking the planet. I would sooner trust a 9-year-old girl to identify and heed obvious warning signs of danger in a man than I would a 22-year-old woman (at east they will recoil from hideous tattoos, deafening music, and violence). People of marrying age are notoriously poor judges of character, which is one reason families and religious communities have always exercised such influence in the options available to young people seeking a betrothal.

In the older, wiser tales, the young couple who spurns the will of the father and the larger community usually comes to a tragic end–and they usually do so while behaving in the most silly and self-destructive ways. Only in very recent times have people come to see Romeo and Juliet as sympathetic, rather than stupid and reckless. (By the way, I am forever grateful to my 8th-grade English teacher for pointing out the absurdity of their behavior, particularly Romeo, who really ought to have known better than to weep and swoon so unmanfuly over a girl from a rival house.) It is a matter of common experience that left to their own devices, young men and women will make reliably awful decisions about whom to marry, and that most of them require a firm guiding hand from people who understand the opposite sex, and of course the implications of marriage itself, from many years of experience which they necessarily lack.

In this as in everything else, relying entirely upon one’s own will to settle the matter is a short route to destitution of various kinds Of course, someone will always be able to summon the exceptional circumstance of the absent father, the tyrannical grandmother, the irrational tradition unjustly applied. But customs are about what work best for most of the people involved most of the time–indeed, they cannot become customs at all without meeting this basic standard–and there is no helping the fact that some people will be denied what they would have in a perfect world. The prevailing conditions of rampant divorce, child abandonment, familial anarchy, and general dissatisfaction on the part of both men and women with their marriages all weigh against the current approach, to which they can be directly linked.

I can honestly say that had my mother really exercised some control over whom I might marry, my odds of being married to, and divorced from, a shrieking feminist harpy who despised me would be practically zero. If the “supermarket system” enjoyed by young people today can’t even guarantee that much, of what use is it?

Laura writes:

What was Mrs. Benet’s purpose in life when her daughters came of age? To marry them well. Jane Austen’s character in Pride and Prejudice now seems quaint and risible, but this is the obligation of mothers and fathers in any normal and healthy society. Everything Sage says about the absurdity of young people searching for mates on their own is true. Match-making is now left to college admissions offices and the job market; parents rely on these to bring their children in contact with suitable mates. This laissez-faire approach leaves parents free to do their own thing and without the burden of responsibility. It is shocking to hear parents describe situations in which a child becomes involved with someone who is clearly unsuitable. They seem to think it is not their place to interfere. This is as heartless as parents in former times who disregarded the need for love and made children marry for money only. The liberal philosophy of non-judgmentalism destroys everything it touches.

Helping adult children find spouses needn’t be an intrusive, take-charge type of thing. In the past, it usually meant that parents arranged social events for young adults so they could meet the right people. It meant that they took the time to talk to their children about their choices, to actively discourage them from bad ones, and, only occasionally, to shun them if they chose disastrously. Parents generally love their children and want them to be happy. They are not always the best advisors for their children, but a tradition in which they are involved in the marriage process, without acting as autocrats, leads to social stability and personal well-being.

Ilion writes:.”

Laura writes, “I’m not sure that men are “far more likely” to get caught up in their love lives …” 

Did you not scoff at the very idea that in some circumstances (and especially linked to his being a youth) a woman may rape a man? What was your main reason, and that of some of your correspondents, for disbelieving in the very possibility? It was that a woman is (or may be) “passive” or “receptive,” but that a man must be “active” or “instigative.” Or, to put it another way (and disregarding those rare cases in which a woman may force herself on a man), unless a man chooses to be a total cad, unless he deliberately chooses to divorce himself from his psyche, he must, on some level, desire the woman herself. It’s almost impossible for a man to engage in sexual activity with a woman he loathes; this is not true of women. 

Therefore, as I said, “men are far more likely than women to get “caught up” in their sexual liaisons.”

Laura writes:

You have not proven your premise that men are more romantic than women. I have no aversion to believing that is true, but you have not proven this generalization. In fact, it is not possible to prove it and I’m not sure why it would be necessary to prove it. Isn’t it enough to say that the romantic inclinations of men are underestimated?

While it is impossible for a man to engage in sexual activity with a woman he “loathes,” it is very possible for a man to engage in sexual activity with a woman who only appeals to him physically, as is seen in the case of prostitution and rape. Sex purely motivated by physical attraction is much less common in women. That is not to say that most men are motivated by physical features only or that women are necessarily more romantic when choosing partners than men.

I don’t intend to re-open up discussion on that issue in this thread, but my reason for disapproving of the use of the word “rape” to describe seduction of a man by a woman was commonsensical. A man must be sexually aroused in order to be successfully seduced by a woman. A woman does not have to be either sexually or emotionally aroused in order to be raped. It is important to distinguish between the two phenomenon. Men are physically stronger than women and most men can easily overpower a woman. That is another reason why rape is not considered a woman-on-man act.

Laura adds:

Ilion wrote, “It’s is almost impossible for a man to engage in sexual activity with a woman he loathes; this is not true of women.”

This is an obtuse statement that shows very little understanding of female psychology. It is very difficult for a woman to receive a man in sexual intercourse if she loathes him. A woman will resist tooth-and-nail a man she loathes. Ilion seems to be saying that for men, sex is always an exalted spiritual act while for women it may be merely crude physicality. This is preposterous. Sex may be a degraded experience for both men and women, but there is no reason to believe that for men it is a more personal act than for women.

Nathan writes:

In regards to Sage McLaughlin’s comment: “The prevailing conditions of rampant divorce, child abandonment, familial anarchy, and general dissatisfaction on the part of both men and women with their marriages all weigh against the current approach, to which they can be directly linked.”

Let’s call that sentence what it is: the understatement of the year. As a single young man who would love to find a good girl to marry, I truly resent the underwhelming nature of his comment. Certainly, the influence that family and culture once provided to guide the young into marriage is enviable. But, when one’s culture consists primarily of slutty 17 year-old pop stars and parents who may or may not be married (and rarely happily so), where is one to turn for guidance in selecting a mate?

The matter is further compounded by our economy which encourages a transient lifestyle. I don’t think I’ve lived in a single place longer than 9 months since college. And even if I had, every other young person I know is here, there, and everywhere pursuing further education and gainful employment.

But perhaps the most heart-breaking aspect of this sorry state is that even institutions such as the Catholic Church (and she is far better than most), fail to take marriage seriously and feminize the few men left in the pews. Our culture has decimated nearly every aspect of authentic religion and tradition. We ought to weep at what has been lost.

P.S. Flannery O’Connor said that, “If you live today, you breath in nihilism.” I thank you for creating a place that lightens the darkness of the age.

Laura writes:

We all have wept. No one has been spared. The modern world has crushed nearly every aspect of community.

Sage responds:

If Nathan thinks that was an understatement, what does he think an overstatement would look like? In fairness, one may say I put too much emphasis on the role of parents and too little on the roles of the other institutions Nathan mentions. But I did think I was clear that young people need the supporting (and necessarily constraining) influence of larger institutions and a larger community that will limit and shape their decisions about whom to marry. He is right that the problem is a general and a systemic one, but young men aren’t the only ones who suffer from it-young women are having their psyches rent to pieces by the pop culture he describes, and most of them, by the time they begin to realize there is something wrong, have already rendered themselves quite undesirable as young brides from a traditional point of view. The tendency in those situations is to despair, and to accommodate oneself to the unpleasant reality by actively inveighing against traditional standards. 

But let’s be fair: none too many men are fighting against this trend, rather, they encourage it by taking advantage of casual sex in their youth. They then find themselves in the position of having to lower their standards dramatically when it comes time to “find a good girl to settle down with.” There are simply no winners in all of this, and Nathan’s eagerness to find someone to resent-someone on his own side of the argument, no less-isn’t going to get him very far. I’ve known the frustration he’s dealing with first-hand and I can say with confidence that resentment, by itself, won’t solve his dilemma. I don’t know what will, exactly, at least not in any individual case. But if he’s still young, then he can probably still find a suitable mate if he’s willing to look in the right places. I sincerely hope he does, for all our sakes.

Nathan writes:

Perhaps my words were misdirected. I believe Sage and I agree in the assessment that the modern world has created a morass of marriage and family. My wrath ought to be directed at improving the situation, not quibbling over nuance.

Our present situation is disheartening; you have experienced it firsthand, too. For that I offer my sympathy. My parents marriage ended in a particularly nasty way, but the experience has increased my resolve to become the best husband and father of my humble potential. Though, I must admit that my endeavor is often weakened by the spirit of the age.

If an apology is in order, I do offer it freely. I did not mean any offense.

Sage writes:

Nathan is very gracious to apologize, but I am not personally offended by anything that he wrote. He speaks with the grace and humility of a true man of the West and I’m grateful for that. 

The circumstances under which we live are quite difficult. My own parents were married a total of seven times between them before I was 16, and obviously I’ve experienced the frustrations and regrets that come from living in such a debased environment. I’m sorry that Nathan is suffering the same way, and of course a flagging spirit is natural under the circumstances. 

It is very encouraging, though, that there are people who continue to struggle, even though we’re hounded and hated for it. In Tolkien’s mythology, the Men who were loyal to the gods of their fathers were called the Faithful, and they were despised by the King’s Men, who hated the old gods, most especially for their refusal to allow mortal Men into paradise. Eventually the wrath of the gods destroyed their civilization, but some few of the Faithful survived to rise again (Aragorn of the Rings story was of that line). I believe that was Tolkien’s hope for the West. If there was an abiding theme in his work, it was that we are obliged to go forward even in the absence of hope, because none of us knows who bears the seeds of a new beginning, and none of us can see to the end of all things. 

This is all we have, in the end, unless we want to become complicit in the doom of Christendom. So I’m happy that men like Nathan trudge ahead, bearing some ember of the light of Truth with them along the way.

Please follow and like us: