Romancing a Feminist
August 30, 2010
JACK W. writes:
I am young and in the position of trying to change a liberal, but naturally feminine woman. This can be very difficult, especially with a woman who is attached to liberalism for non-rational reasons (for example if her family or social identity involves allegiance to feminist ideals) and resists purely dispassionate discussions of feminism and the nature of a good marriage, almost as if with a chip on her shoulder. The only readily available appeal to her emotional side is to plainly declare what I would offer as a husband and what I would expect from a wife. This buys time and further discussion, but fear of loss cannot normally by itself catalyze a change in worldview – I wonder to what extent true change is possible for most.
A liberal woman is a corrupted woman – usually corrupted at a young age to view the world through a distorted lens. This process usually occurs on a mostly unconscious level, and it’s a rare woman who has attempted to rigorously place her liberalism on a theoretical framework. At best, many such women read, or read about, such books as The Feminine Mystique or The Second Sex,or perhaps some other readings handed out in women’s studies classes or in highschool, providing them with a mythology for their world, and themselves, that some women call on more than others in their lives.
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.
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.