Wednesday, 24 September 2008

Is feminism the root cause of America's (and the rest of the West's) problems?

Continued from the previous entry Are Some Conservative Targets More Important than Others?: A (too outlandish?) theory of mine discussed at "Webster's":
Terry Morris said...
[...]
Is feminism the root cause of America's problems? I don't know. I do tend to believe that feminism and leftism, multiculturalism and all the other isms that are destroying America are all closely connected. Did feminism (the empowerment of women) kick it all off? Quite possibly.

Your theories are very interesting. Thanks again for the great comments.

-Terry
September 2, 2008 4:06 AM

Terry Morris said...
Nora's comment is so lengthy and wide ranging that I may have to address her points separately in separate posts. For the time being let me address this,

Nora writes:

(And don't you dare telling me that the husbands-to-be want anything like that as well!) Or the obscene prom-cult, or the even more obscene beauty pageant cult, where teenagers look like seasoned expensive hookers and little girls just grown out of their nappies like cheap hookers. Anybody who says that fathers want anything like that for their daughters needs his head examined.

I can't speak for other "husbands-to-be", but when I was one I definately didn't want all of that. Nor can I speak for other fathers, but again, I certainly don't want that for any of my daughters, nor does my wife.

But more than anyone who says that fathers want this for their daughters needing their heads examined, fathers who actually do want this for their daughters most definately need their heads examined. They probably oughta be institutionalized.

Everytime I see one of those commercials late at night advertising the "Girls gone wild" videos, or even think about them, I simply get sick to my stomach as I'm always reminded that these girls have dads and brothers and uncles and grandfathers, none of which, if he's halfway in his right mind, could ever approve of such.
September 2, 2008 4:33 AM

The_Editrix said...
Did feminism (the empowerment of women) kick it all off? Quite possibly.
Definitely!

Discussing feminism is akin to opening Pandora's Box.
September 2, 2008 5:04 AM

Terry Morris said...
Nora, I've said many many times that women can be the most ruthless people on the face of the earth. They can also be the most loving, caring people on the face of the earth. But your comments about women seeking to regain their ancient power over life seems to indicate that you believe with me that women have a ruthless base nature about them - a nature men have nothing on, incidentally - that, unless men exercise a restraining power over, will eventually be let loose in all its ugliness and fury.

I personally think it's more radical to say what I just said above about the ruthlessness of women, than it is to say that feminism is primarily responsible for our current levels of hedonism.

When I trace America's history back, I can't not notice that the ratification of the fourteenth amendment paved the road to woman's suffrage in America, and that America has been in a steadily increasing state of decline ever since.

But is it your opinion that feminism was responsible for the fourteenth amendment?...
September 2, 2008 6:23 AM

Call Me Mom said...
Well, don't I feel special now, as a woman who had no engagement ring, borrowed a blue dress from her mother in which to get married and got married at the local courthouse, followed by dinner with close family at a restaurant. I have to agree with the_editrix that the wedding culture is way out of hand in our nation.

However, getting back to the point of this post, I have always held that the only point at which a woman has a choice in whether or not to give birth, is when she chooses to engage in those activities whose natural result, given the Lord's blessing, is conception. (This opens up the whole rape/incest can of worms, but to my way of thinking, the lack of "choice" in those instances is not the baby's fault. He/She is just as much a victim of the rapist/incestuous party as the mother and perhaps more so. The mother, after giving birth, can choose to give the child up and put it all behind her, but the child can never forget that they are the product of a violent act.)

I am wondering how you view the latest announcement that Mrs. Palin's unmarried daughter is pregnant. Of course, this news was only released to quell the rumors that her youngest child is actually her daughters. This gets me thinking. The rumor was that the daughter of the VP candidate had a child out of wedlock and that affects the VP's credibility in character issues. So the solution is to release news that the VP's child is currently pregnant with a child out of wedlock. Mrs. Palin's baby couldn't have been the result of an out of wedlock pregnancy for her daughter because her daughter is currently pregnant out of wedlock. This makes Mrs. Palin look better than the rumor, how?
September 2, 2008 1:04 PM

The_Editrix said...
CMM, you say that, different from its mother, a child conceived through rape can never forget that it is "the product of a violent act". That is true. But only because there will always be some grown-up heartless moron who is unable to keep his (or her) trap shut.
September 2, 2008 1:46 PM

Call Me Mom said...
Editrix,
You are right in that.
However, I tend to believe that the truth is better in all circumstances than a lie. Which would be ultimately more harmful to such a child/person - to tell them the truth right off with the reassurance that God wanted them here so much He went to extraordinary lengths to get them born, or to cover it up and let "some grown-up heartless moron" use it against them later?
September 2, 2008 1:54 PM

The_Editrix said...
...you believe with me that women have a ruthless base nature about them...

I do indeed. I used to work semi-professionally with horses when I was younger, now with gundogs, and they are living with me in the house. Everybody who has closely watched animals will have lost any delusion about female frailty and submission. Different from human females, they just can't put on an act, act coquettish or coy. They are sheer and undiluted ruthlessness.

I personally think it's more radical to say what I just said above about the ruthlessness of women, than it is to say that feminism is primarily responsible for our current levels of hedonism.

It is indeed. I, personally, find the word "hedonism" much too weak for the current state of society anyway.

When I trace America's history back, I can't not notice that the ratification of the fourteenth amendment paved the road to woman's suffrage in America, and that America has been in a steadily increasing state of decline ever since.

But is it your opinion that feminism was responsible for the fourteenth amendment?...

Terry, I am not knowledgeable enough about American history to have an informed opinion here, so all I can do is to speculate. On one hand, women, with their mixture of ruthlessness and sentimentality have always been at the forefront of any "progressive" cause. Harriet Beecher Stowe and "Uncle Tom's Cabin" certainly boosted the abolitionist movement considerably.

On the other hand, I don't see how due process could be denied to the former slaves for any prolonged period of time after the decision was made not to deport them to Africa.

But, to quote Obama, the question is really above my pay grade.

It would be interesting to speculate whether woman's suffrage (helped by fourteenth amendment) INEVITABLY led to gender feminism of the destructive sort we are now suffering.
September 2, 2008 2:45 PM

The_Editrix said...
CMM, I do not have any children and I may be wrong. But I seriously think that a child should have already reached a certain level of maturity before it is told. But whatever, I like the concept of reassuring them "that God wanted them here so much He went to extraordinary lengths to get them born" very much indeed. If a child is mature enough to understand that, it is mature enough to be told about his origin.
September 2, 2008 2:57 PM

Call Me Mom said...
Editrix,
I concur with the required level of maturity. I am also in agreement with you about the ruthlessness of women.
September 2, 2008 3:20 PM
Make sure that you don't skip the interesting side-issue about children conceived by rape and the excellent point Call Me Mom makes.

1 comment:

fpb said...

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
The Female of the Species

WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.