The thrust of this Chapter is limited. It will not attempt to suggest a conservative position on all aspects of the human sexual drama. It will not suggest that individual women have no grievances against men, or that individual men have no grievances against women. There are, and always will be, problems in adjustment; in understanding each other as we are: The two complementary sides of the human personality--each essential, both to the happiness of the other and to life itself. That does not make us competing interest groups!
The focus here is on the question of sex-roles and those social aspects of our sexuality as inspire our deepest positive personal motivations. This is a suggested answer to concepts implicit in the Feminist assault on those roles and motivations. For a fuller discussion of sexual issues, see The Absurdity Of Feminism, or the novel [linked below], for which such article provides an Appendix. These latter sources also explore how the Left ruthlessly exploits female insecurity in order to poison personal relationships and undermine traditional social values.
For decades, the mainstream media have treated American Feminism as a feminine movement; a movement promoting an Agenda intended to advance the interests of American women. The truth is quite the opposite. Feminism is not just a denial of Western Theology since the time of Genesis; not just a repudiation of historic roles. It is the negation of femininity; a denial of the importance of woman; an assault on all that is truly feminine in the American woman--in all women. This is obvious to anyone who thinks beyond the whim of the moment, to anyone who cares about the nature of life, or reflects on tomorrow and the times beyond. It is nowhere more obvious than in the staccato prattle about equality; the endless demands for an end to all distinctions between the roles of man and woman.
The concept of the equation--of equality--may have great significance in the world of mathematics and the physical sciences. It has little or no value or utility in the life sciences and none at all in the evaluation of human beings, human species, human races, human groups, human sexes or human behavior. It does not help one to better understand any aspect of human interaction. Yet it has been used rhetorically for centuries by those seeking to stir up hatred and confrontation among the various classifications of mankind; among all among us subject to being distinguished one from another by clearly recognizable traits--ie. differences--that intelligent people have always considered to be important.
Fair and reasonable people have used it historically, of course, to signify the absence of an unfair or preordained advantage. The use of the language, We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, which appears in the recital of the American Declaration of Independence, was never intended to suggest an equality of circumstance or an equality of ability or temperament among any body of men or women. Jefferson was detailing the origin and nature of Government, and the relation of man to Government. The "equality" cited was an intended negation of any preordained right to rule, as established in the act of Creation. To justify their revolution, the Founding Fathers had to refute the idea of a "Divine Right of Kings."
Having stated their premise, they went on to define how Governments come to be instituted among men--to secure their innate God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; --and discussed the implied right to revolt whenever a Government clearly betrayed its basic compact with the governed to secure those gifts. It was after stating that second premise, that they listed the specific grievances that compelled their action; then the actual Declaration of Independence.
The idea that people would or ever could be equal in ability or circumstances, was never part of the American creed; never part of the Fathers' vision. The pursuit of the egalitarian delusion, on the other hand, has had very ugly consequences indeed in the Old World. From the French Revolution through the Bolshevik, Nazi and Maoist terrors in the past Century, tens of millions have been slaughtered in the compulsive pursuit of a collectivist uniformity--the frantic search for an equality that is a denial of Nature, a defiance of Reality, whether one believes reality the result of the Creator's plan, or evolutionary chance. It is, after all, in our differences, our inherent inequality, that each of us is unique; that each of us has value.
But as unreasonable as is the concept of levelling human Society via one of the other manifestations of Socialism, it pales before the total idiocy involved in modern Feminism. It is one thing to seek to alter the competitive struggle by eliminating those whose families have succeeded. That may involve class warfare; regicide, aristocide, maybe genocide--atrocities to be sure. It may destroy generations, even centuries of progress. But, however self-defeating for a nation to destroy its own elite, rational interaction between those left after the purge remains possible. The negation of the individual, involved in the general egalitarian compulsion for uniformity, is not a complete negation of species. It is otherwise with modern Feminism and the assault on sex roles and sexuality.
The single most significant trait in every form of advanced life, is surely in its division into two sexes; its sexuality. The biological significance of sexuality lies in the differences between the sexes. The essence of life and the verity of its continuation lies in the profundity of those differences. The purpose of each of us, in the grand Creational sense, reflects the roles, which flow from those differences. We are not in a competition, man vs. woman, as the feminist demand for equality and the abolition of sex determined roles would imply. Rather, each of us needs one of the other--as the truly different creature our Maker intended--to ever be complete in his or her own life--or to conceive healthy new life to follow. The competition is not between but within each sex; the object to be the most effective in a traditional sex role; the prize, a relationship that fulfills instinctive aspirations; aspirations that dominate our perceptions from puberty, and afford the age old essentials for human happiness. All life flows from those aspirations.
The shrill dogma of the modern Feminist is a war cry against our capacity to care more for another than for ourselves; as such it assaults our capacity for contentment and joy. It is also a denial of truth and reason.
If the Feminist goal were to advance the cause of woman--or even if the Feminist honestly respected her sex--the Feminist would celebrate those traditional female arts and attributes that men most value, particularly those that by their very nature are uniquely female--such as motherhood and feminine allure. She (if she were proudly she rather than it) would insist on the use of gender based occupational terms--waitress, actress, stewardess, etc.. The very last thing that the Feminist would advocate would be easy abortion; or ever identifying women with infanticide. A woman's right to choose can seriously undermines the whole mystique.
Instead of celebrating femininity and motherhood, the Feminist, feeling desperately inferior, demands acceptance as a pseudo male; demonstrating the most grossly self-demeaning Freudian "cock envy," imaginable. In doing so, she puts her weakest foot forward.
From former support roles, we now have Amazons in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. Yet this is only possible because of a lowering of standards. The Federal Government insists that Colleges and Universities provide athletic programs for girls that are the equivalent of those for boys. Yet boys and girls, alike, continue to show far greater interest in the male competition. We have absurd laws that attempt to make it a criminal offense for a man to court a woman at a common workplace. Yet the call of our nature remains stronger than the silly statutes. What were once terms of endearment are treated as insults; and much of the fun has been taken out of our interaction. Yet one can still read the misery on the faces of the unattached, even in the habitats of the "politically correct."
We have a public sector and media that honor women for achievement in every area that was traditionally associated with male activity. Most, if not all of our States, have been persuaded to repeal laws which formerly recognized the husband as "head of the family." Without claiming to have repealed Genesis, most American religious bodies have dropped all reference to obedience from the female vows at marriage. Everywhere one turns, there is the pretense of a new egalitarian age, where the lessons from all of human history have been repealed.
Yet one thing that is clearly lacking, is any demonstration of improvement in the level of human happiness--far from it! Nor is there any demonstration of improved morale among those who serve the public weal; certainly not in our armed forces, police forces, etc.. Nor can there be while official policy continues to deny basic human nature.
To understand the real effect of the Feminist Agenda, you need to appreciate one central truth already touched upon: It is in our sex roles that normal men and women find instinctive purpose. What the Feminists attack, then, are the perceptions and images that make the rest of us want to be the best we can be; those perceptions that call us to duty, love and honor. The war is not only against reason; it is also against decency and love.
Countless generations of humans--boys and girls--learned the very concept of love and service from mothers tending their hearths. If the mother was content in the traditional female role--if the little boys and girls saw her taking joy in doing for those she loved--the children grew up looking forward to loving relationships; expecting to find similar joy in doing for their own families later. There is probably no single factor that has contributed so much to human happiness--both male and female--as learning the profoundly motivating joy--especially to the giver--in such giving. There is probably no single factor that has contributed so much to the present divorce rate, as the trashing of that image of joy in service--even before so many wives took work outside the home--by the poison message of envy and resentment that has always been the egalitarian's stock in trade.
While the Feminists, in their delusion, see military service as an opportunity for women; the countless generations of young males who laid down their lives and limbs for their societies over the millennia, saw it as a manly duty--their role to protect women (the hearth keepers) and children, that they might in turn be worthy of a hearth keeper of their own. When you remove the concept of the sex role; you remove the motivation for the "above and beyond"; the call of duty, that has made the difference through the ages between freedom and slavery; between glory and failure. These are not values that we should surrender to a coven of neurotic misfits! NOW does not represent the type of woman for whom any one of us would be willing to lay down his life. Nor does it offer an acceptable role model for our sisters and our daughters; for any girl who would know happiness.
Nor can any amount of Legislation or errant Court decrees equate high school or college sports for boys with high school or college sports for girls. With the girls, the sport itself is the game; with the boys, the game is in their compelling need to find what they can do to attract female attention. Collegiate intellectuals play the same "game." They just use other tools. When one considers how important an awareness of sex roles has always been to both boys and girls at puberty, there can be little doubt but that the effects of the Feminist onslaught can be seen also in the increasing use of drugs, as well as in the increase in senseless violence among teenaged Americans. Proper behavior for both boys and girls, has always been associated with a sense of traditional purpose--with their sexuality--since before history was written.
Caught up in compulsions induced by self-contempt, the Feminists deny all positive normal human motivation. They offer only a prescription for a miserable neurotic world of totally self-centered individuals, each preoccupied with imaginary grievances. They have not made out a case entitled to intellectual respect. They retain respectability only because the main stream media lack the capacity for critical analysis.