993 words
In a column for National Review, conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently identified four legacies of feminism. His legacies are:
- The belief that women should have sex like men do, even though it seems to lead to depression and sexual disinterest over the long term.
- The belief that women should postpone marriage until they have developed careers.
- The belief that women should work outside the home.
- The demasculinization of men.
Prager offered a few reasons for why these legacies were negative, but his assertions were vague and could be expanded substantially.
The postponement of marriage and family is obviously at odds with biological reality. By the time women are financially successful, they have only a short, desperate window to sort through potential mates, build a relationship and have a healthy baby—let alone the two or three children necessary to maintain replacement level population growth.
Feminism valorized careers, but the reality in this global economy is that most jobs suck. For every woman enjoying sex in the city as she pursues an exciting and fulfilling career, there are a bunch of women working the checkout line at Wal Mart or poring over financial records in some accounting office. Feminism was pushed by a lot of women with designer educations and high career expectations. Betty Sue who stocks shelves at Target would probably rather spend more time at home with her kids, and her kids would probably be better off if she did.
Like Bill Bennett and Kay Hymowitz, Prager was also concerned that men were “demasculinized” because they were no longer interested in working to become husbands. He wrote:
“For all of higher civilization’s recorded history, becoming a man was defined overwhelmingly as taking responsibility for a family. That notion — indeed the notion of masculinity itself — is regarded by feminism as the worst of sins: patriarchy.”
His qualifier “higher” there is interesting, and I wonder what exactly he meant and where the delineation is between higher and lower civilizations. His assertion that masculinity is defined most conspicuously by becoming the head of a household is both Judeo-Christian and bourgeois.
Manliness — as a way of being and behaving — has very little to do with whether or not one has married and produced children.
Prager associates “demasculinization” with the loss of the male sex role in the context of family, and believes that men “want to be honored in some way.” This is a misuse of the word honor. A better word would have been “valued.” Saying that men want to be honored implies that they want some kind of special treatment, that they are by testicular possession entitled to some sort of special treatment or high esteem.
It would be more accurate and less ridiculous to say that men want to be valued. So do women. Women want to be treated as if they are special and irreplaceable in some way. Basically all recognizable romantic gestures involve a man showing a woman that she is special and irreplaceable to him. Romance is telling a woman “of all the vaginas in the world, yours is most magic.”
(Though, as a direct statement, I doubt that would go over.)
From an evolutionary standpoint, romance is making a woman feel secure in your commitment to help her through the vulnerable periods of pregnancy and child-rearing. Women needed men, and men wanted women.
Now, women don’t need men — at least on paper — because women can work to generate income, because they are protected from other men by police, and because when they fail to generate enough income, the State will invest in their reproductive endeavor. Anthropologist Lionel Tiger refers to State investment in reproduction as “bureaugamy.”
Men know that they are replaceable. An “equal partner” is little more than a co-applicant, a business partner — a domestic partner. And when women decide to change partners, men can expect to go through the kind of experience W. F. Price recently wrote about, especially if they don’t have a lot of money.
I was talking to a guy the other day who was dating an older, financially successful woman. This young man has been to Africa several times working for humanitarian organizations, he spent seven seasons working on fishing boats, he’s been a newspaper photographer, and is searching for an experience to write his first book about. After several dates, the woman told him he was “unambitious.” He was completely flabbergasted as to how anyone could say he was unambitious.
I said, “Dude, she means money.”
A woman in her late thirties is eyeing up a house in the suburbs and she wants an additional income. She’s not a lesbian, so she can’t very well shack up with a woman. She has to find a man to buy the house and have the kids with her. Sure, it would be nice if the guy was handsome and interesting and good in bed, but if he’s going to be a successful co-applicant, he’d better bring some chips to the table.
It’s a persistent theme in this fretting about the decline of the male role. Hymowitz and Bennett and Prager are all worried that fewer and fewer men will have enough money to become suitable husbands for the women of tomorrow. They’re concerned that men are too busy hanging out with other men and doing what makes them happy, and too lackadaisical about building careers that will generate sufficient income.
For so many “end of men” writers, masculinity seems to be all about money. For them, “manning up” is about giving up what is best in life to chase dollars and invest in some woman’s dream. They are concerned that men are “emasculated.” The failure of manhood that concerns them, though, is not a loss of virility. It is not a loss of strength or courage. Their “emasculated” men merely suffer from low net worth.
Is masculinity just a matter of money?
Source: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/11/04/is-masculinity-a-matter-of-money/
9 Comments
when women decide to change partners, men can expect to go through the kind of experience W. F. Price recently wrote about, especially if they don’t have a lot of money.
That was a sad and infuriating story. The American family court system will eventually spawn an Anders Breivik, and when it happens I sure as hell won’t lose any sleep over it.
I am not crazy about this article, the subject is deep in material, yet the result just expresses itself with a lack of “masculinity”.
Women look for status, and in the current hyper-capitalist, “free-market” lies, multi-cultural garbage, jewish supremacist environment “Cash is Status”.
If you are alpha male, even with zero IQ, this system may give you status, otherwise you are part of the beta crowd to be emasculated from the age of 5 years old by lesbian pedophile teachers that will feed you prozac and other goodies, will force you into homosexuality before you know what sex is, etc…Because women can compete but with diminished men, and yet need alpha males for direction, sense of security, etc.
I like this piece, but I think that Prager has a point as well, which fits into the White Nationalist project. As I see it, WN is about preserving the biological integrity of our race: ensuring it a living space, protecting it from miscegenation, and ensuring it of a future. That necessitates addressing the breakdown of the family. To stop that, we need to restore traditional sex-roles: men as protectors and providers, women as mothers and nurturers. These roles are not just Judeo-Christian or bourgeois. They are biologically based. Sure, some people will want to opt out of these roles for whatever reason. But that does not alter the fact that they are the only sex-role norms consistent with a people that has a future.
But we cannot reasonably expect men to resume the protector and provider role without asking women to resume the mother and nurturer role. Women, of course, want to have it both ways. They want to preserve the supposed gains of feminism, but they also want to find a man who will take care of them. Furthermore, the ease of divorce and the nightmares of child-custody law make mean understandably uneasy about tying the knot. Without addressing these problems, there is not going to be a rush to the altar no matter how much women (and conservatives) castigate men as unmanly. Before men “man up,” women are going to have to “woman up” (and feminists are just going to have to shut up).
In a materialistic society, perfectly normal, the female psychological trait of hypergamy–desiring to marry up, desiring a superior man–inevitably takes the form of looking for men who make a lot of money. And, no matter how much a career woman makes, the tendency is to want to find a man who makes more than her.
There is obviously more to manliness than the ability to make money. But by the same token, the ability to provide for a wife and a family is certainly part of the traditional/biological role that we need to reestablish.
What do feminists really want? They clamor for “equality” with men in terms of employment and income, and yet they still desire to “marry up,” i.e. marry men who make more money than they do. But how can they marry up with men who make the same amount of money as they do? Equality and hypergamy don’t mix.
The fact that feminists can’t have it both ways doesn’t force them to reconsider what they want, it simply reinforces their ressentiment towards men. They prefer to think that they are being wronged than to recognize their folly. Practical failure often intensifies ressentiment.
Ressentiment is a ratchet, used by egalitarian cranks, that only turns in one direction.
Feminism teaches women to demand power in relationships, but their nature teaches women to despise men who give them power in relationships. Feminism must, therefore, make women miserable.
Long before Betty Friedan came out with her “Feminine Mystique” manifesto, divorce lawyers were feverishly working all over the country to take the stigma out of divorce by eliminating fault. Indeed, Oklahoma was the first state to eliminate the concept of fault as grounds for divorce in 1953. That meant that men had no reason to expect a divorce to ruin their careers if they decided to turn the old wife in for a younger trophy and shortly after all the states in the union followed suit, the term, Displaced Homemaker for abandoned, middle-aged women become ubiquitous in the eighties.
IMO, the problem is that White men have been too affected by the consumer culture and they want a woman with a higher paycheck to supplement their own incomes. Thus, they marry a fellow professional with equal income or even income parity. This results in power struggles at home, because she is not only bringing home half of the bacon, but is expected to cook and clean as well.
Before Whites do anything else, we must examine and eliminate our own character defects which make us susceptible to corruption, self-defeating and even suicidal stupidity when it comes to pursuing hedonistic lifestyles rather than scapegoating the Jews who function as nothing more than enablers. After all, White men are not locked in their rooms and forced to watch pornography nor are White women marched at gunpoint into abortion clinics. White couples are not forcibly separated and divorced. These are all choices we make.
The ideal solution would be for White families to live in less expensive small towns with few amenities in smaller, more basic homes on larger, self-sustaining plots and raise chickens and gardens with the wife staying home to tend to the garden and the house and even home-schooling the children, if necessary. To stave off the potential problems in the future, companies should enable working men to invest in IRAs not only in their own names but in their wives. When the children are grown, women have their own retirement income to rely on. This would be a lot easier and less disruptive to implement than permanent alimony.
I believe if you gentlemen would examine the early feminists, like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, etc., you will see that early feminism had more to do with preventing women from being exploited (paid less for the same amount of work) by greedy corporations and other bread and butter issues than the anti-male nightmare that it is today. Early American feminists were pro-marriage and pro-life.
Unless Jewish hatred of Gentiles is so pathological that most Jews don’t give a damn if their efforts to take Gentiles down take themselves down as well, one cannot say for sure that modern feminism is yet another Anti-Gentile plot, because the Jewish community is undergoing even more devastation by feminism (abortions, late marriage) which is resulting in better than half of the Jews (mostly men) marrying “out.” After all, if one takes into account their higher IQ and success drive, not to mention their amazing ethnic network, Jewesses are more likely to be high-powered, high-paid professionals who are more demanding towards and more discriminating against men than lower-paid White Gentile women.
American feminism was taken over, appropriated and then subverted by man-hating Jewesses whose supremacist culture regarded them as not much better than the despised goyim, thus the prayer where the Jew thanks “G-d” that he was not made a woman OR a Gentile. Jewesses have routinely been pimped out to Gentiles in power (Sarah, Esther) by their men and they have been regarded as nothing more than the proverbial “hole in the sheet.”
Women initiate most divorces, but somehow a divorce is always a matter of an evil man turning in his old nag for a young trophy model. That crap might work at Chronicles, but it does not fly around here.
I don’t know much about the women’s suffrage movement, but certainly the post 1960s women’s lib movement has been spearheaded by Jews. Just because this golem has turned on them, like Communism did before, does not absolve them of the primary guilt for an overwhelmingly harmful assault on our people.
In the end, I really do believe that Jews hate us more than they love themselves, which is why their anti-white schemes end up harming them as well.
I wish we were in a position to defeat Jews, rather than always having them wait to defeat themselves.
Women initiate most divorces, but somehow a divorce is always a matter of an evil man turning in his old nag for a young trophy model. That crap might work at Chronicles, but it does not fly around here.
That was indeed the case in the past.
Just because this golem has turned on them, like Communism did before, does not absolve them of the primary guilt for an overwhelmingly harmful assault on our people.
No, maybe not; but if the sinned-against don’t think that any absolution is even needed ( because of “inherent character defects”) then we have a vicious circle, don’t we.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Jack Donovan in blockquote:
Somehow, this “concern” does not rise to the level of questioning who did the emasculation, how they did it, and why they did it.
Why is this not surprising?
Classic double-bind, using Bateson’s definition: the System rewards emasculation, and punishes Masculine Individuation, which would lead to Patriarchy. Now you know what all of the attacks on “Patriarchy” and the “Patriarchal System” are attacking. After all, what is “Patriarchy” another word for?
Fatherhood.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!