March 9, 2014
JOHN G. writes:
Thank you for your continued efforts. I also appreciate your growing understanding of the crisis in the Church.
In your item, “The Innate Power of Women,” Pete F. wrote, “Men are naturally barbaric; left to their own devices, many males are perfectly happy to live in relative squalor (Those disinclined to believe this are urged to hang out with a young single guy sometime).”
Paul seconded that comment by writing, “Most men are naturally barbaric. We need our mothers to teach us how to become civilized and how to treat women.”
This is a serious error, and one that is sufficiently fundamental that believing it will undo and destroy the good that may come from any other truths which we may have comprehended.
It is simply a fact of history that all civilization comes from men. All art, all culture, all beauty, all music, all education, all literature, all painting, all sculpture, all philosophy, all abstract thought — they all come from men, and from men alone, not from women. All government, all law, all civilization, all religion — they all come from men, and from men alone, not from women.
What is not so universally recognized that all morality, especially sexual morality, also comes from men. Men are the ones who have a vested interest in monogamy and fidelity. Hillary Clinton expressed the female outlook when she wrote “It takes a village.” All patriarchal societies require sexual purity before marriage and fidelity after marriage. Female-dominated societies simply don’t enforce standards of sexual morality.
To test these facts, simply imagine two dioramas: one we will label “Patriarchal Society” and the other we will label “Matriarchal Society.” The patriarchal society will display hierarchy, authority and order. What will we put in the box labeled “matriarchal society”? Just look around the inner city. The ghetto is a matriarchal society. The men are generally absent, physically as well as morally. A society run by women lacks all beauty, all order, all cleanliness. Everything is broken and filthy — most especially the souls of those living in this environment. There is no education, no culture, no aspiring to noble or lofty goals. And most of all, there is no sexual morality. Everyone sleeps around like dogs.
While some commentators might focus on the racial component of this issue, the reality is undeniable that these are societies run by women. And this is what societies run by women look like. Life is “nasty, poor, brutish and short.” All the same depressing realities are present in the welfare-dependent neighborhoods of countries like England where government subsidies make possible a matriarchal social system. The rap singer, Eminem, for example, is white, but because of his mother’s lifestyle he grew up living with all the same dysfunction as blacks living in the ghetto.
The unfortunate fact is that we have become a female-dominated society ever since the passage of women’s suffrage. Since that time we have seen a decline in civilization, morality and religion. We have seen art and music entirely annihilated. There is no culture, no philosophy. Our universities have become trade schools accompanied by moral depravity. We have sunk to the standards of the jungle. The majority of all the babies born are bastards. This is the inevitable result of a female-dominated society. There is nothing you can do to change it as long as women continue to rule.
To look further into the mistakes of Peter F, and Paul, we must also address the idea that men need women to teach them how to treat women. This is completely and fundamentally false. How are women treated in these matriarchal societies? Like “bitches and hos.” Violence against women is endemic. No woman is treated with true respect. The goal of marriage which many white women unfortunately consider beneath them is out of reach and almost unimaginable for women living in these societies. Those white women grew up with fathers who coached their softball teams and thanks to their fathers they attended schools that still maintained some links to the patriarchal societies of past ages that were founded by “dead white males.”
At first it seems like a paradox, “Why should women be so much worse off and be treated so much worse by men when they themselves are in charge?” Perhaps we can understand this better if we think about children. Children believe that they would be better off without their parents telling them what to do. They imagine life would be a paradise without any to tell them not to eat the ice cream in the refrigerator and not to watch television and not to stay up past midnight. But the reality is that it takes only minutes of parental absence for life among children to descend to the level of “Lord of the Flies.” Life without adults is not a paradise for children, but hell on earth.
So it’s not so surprising that life for women does not turn out better for themselves when they take charge, just like life for children does not turn out better for themselves when they are running their own lives. In both cases, life is infinitely worse in every way.
Until we come to fully appreciate this reality we can never make any progress against the many moral evils which are destroying our society. We will never get our birth rate back up to replacement levels. We will never make any progress against the scourge of abortion. We will never again produce any great art or literature or music. We will continue to sink into barbarity for as long as we believe the lie that men are civilized by women.
Thank you for your thoughts and for your support.
I have to disagree with you, however, on a couple of points. First, on your reading of Pete F.’s comment, and Paul’s too: They were writing about feminine domestic influence. Their basic point was correct, though expressed with some hyperbole. Pete F. wrote:
Men are naturally barbaric; left to their own devices, many males are perfectly happy to live in relative squalor (Those disinclined to believe this are urged to hang out with a young single guy sometime). What prevents this from happening? In the traditional societies of the past, both the father and the mother (as well as other relatives and respected figures in the community) had important roles to play in civilizing boys and turning them into men.
It was the job of a father, an older brother, or perhaps a priest, drill instructor or coach to teach the boy what behavior and conduct was expected of him as a man. The mother’s role was just as vital, but different. Her job was to educate and civilize her son – not only by teaching him how a gentleman conducts himself around a lady, but by providing a comforting home and exposure to the things such as culture, manners, and all of the other habits great and small that comprise civilized behavior. Grace, beauty, decorum, kindness and all of the things that comfort us – these are the things that turn a house into a home, and into a refuge from a sometimes cold world outside that front door. Only a mother or a wife can provide those things. [emphases added]
Women civilize the everyday existence of men a great deal. (Men make that influence possible with their material support and the framework of social order.) These commenters were not saying that all of civilization is created and controlled by women.
There is a serious problem with the rest of your argument. You write:
All government, all law, all civilization, all religion — they all come from men, and from men alone, not from women.
While asserting this overwhelming dominance of men, you then say that it is possible to have a matriarchal society. You write:
The unfortunate fact is that we have become a female-dominated society ever since the passage of women’s suffrage.
Do you see the contradiction in your argument? If “all government, all law, all civilization, all religion” come from men, then how is matriarchy possible? You can’t assert the innate dominance of men selectively. If it’s truly innate, then it is universal.
Let me suggest another way of framing the issue.
The truth is that every society is dominated by men. We do not by any means live in a female-dominated society, even with the growth of feminism. In fact, there is no such thing as a female-dominated society, and never has been. If you look at who commands the wealth and power in every society, including ours, it is always men. The fact of female suffrage does not in itself point to female dominance. Female voters must choose between one of two male-dominated parties. The financial backing for these parties, much of which comes from high finance, is overwhelmingly controlled by men. Even though women have gained positions in government, the most serious decision-making and political strategizing is in the hands of men. The media, which largely controls the outcome of elections, is managed and controlled by the men at the top. The highest echelons of the entertainment industry, despite the greater presence of women, are mostly masculine. The cable companies, the newspapers, the film studios — they are owned by men. The financial industry is the same. Women have cracked the glass ceiling in small numbers. Wherever status and power are, there you will find many more men than women. “Pope” Francis can talk all he wants about including women in decision-making. Their power will be token at best.
You write about black culture:
While some commentators might focus on the racial component of this issue, the reality is undeniable that these are societies run by women….
… How are women treated in these matriarchal societies? Like “bitches and hos.” Violence against women is endemic.
Men dominate black society every bit as much as they dominate white society. Just because women are doing most of the babysitting and housekeeping and child-rearing doesn’t mean they are in charge. Look at how black men and women interact when they are together. The man is the boss. There is no female Al Sharpton. No female Jesse Jackson. If women were in charge, there would be many more men acting as husbands and fathers. Fatherhood brings no status or power in these communities so men are off elsewhere. The violence you mention, the threat of which affects the behavior of women, wouldn’t exist in a true matriarchy. As Steven Goldberg writes in his book Why Men Rule, there has never been a matriarchal society. Men are innately stronger, more aggressive, far more competitive, more prevalent at higher intelligence levels and more focused. Men rule because they want to rule and are suited to rule. Women don’t rule because they don’t want to rule and are not suited to rule.
However to say that men rule is not to say that men are never placed by other men in situations in which the interests or wishes of women control them. Look at divorce. The institution of divorce is despotic. Look at feminist affirmative action. Men lose jobs and promotions because of it. But these instances of feminist power are ultimately manifestations of men divesting other men of power.
The beauty of Catholic patriarchy is that it limits this disempowerment of the ordinary man. By strengthening the authority of the father, it inclines men to pursue the interests of the family, and thus to challenge centralized power. It also provides an anti-feminist hierarchy which protects the interests of the less powerful. (I’m talking about the true Catholic Church, not the feminist Vatican II counterfeit church which uses feminist language.) That’s such an important point. Patriarchy always exists, but it comes in different forms. It’s no accident that as fatherhood as an institution and the authority of the father have declined and as feminism has triumphed, the average family owns less property and is in greater debt. Feminism augments the power of the few.
The feminist believes that all male power is bad. In doing so, she denies reality because male dominance is a fact of human existence. It is rooted in nature. The feminist supports some men over other men, as all women must, but denies that she does. The anti-feminist, on the other hand, acknowledges reality. She knows that men will always rule. This fact is neither good or bad in and of itself. The anti-feminist (at least in this case) seeks the ideal form of male rule.
By the way, you say that all morality, all art, all literature, and all music come from men. I think it is more accurate to say that men dominate these spheres. Women make significant and vital contributions in these areas of life, as they do in government.
— Comments —
Hurricane Betsy writes
At the end of your response to John, you said,
“By the way, you say that all morality, all art, all literature, and all music come from men. I think you mean that men dominate these spheres. Obviously women make significant and vital contributions in these areas of life, as they do in government.”
And what form might these significant and vital contributions take? I hope you are referring to the fact that over the ages, women’s domestic labor, in the background,, is what enabled these various geniuses in art, literature, etc. to do their work. They did not have to be married, they may have lived alone, they may have been homosexual, some of them. But not too far away was a woman cooking and cleaning for them. Might have been a paid employee, might have been a mother or someone else.
While traditionalist men like to boast of their contributions in building and maintaining the infrastructure that gives us women a roof over our heads, it is nevertheless women who otherwise make life livable in a dozen “small” ways that are utterly taken for granted. Can we stop arguing as to whose contribution is “better”?
Your response to John was quite good.
Can we stop arguing as to whose contribution is “better”?
The work of the individual genius is more significant than the work of the woman who helps him. There are evil geniuses too. Stalin could never have been a woman.
Feminists always focus on the men who are at the top. What they don’t acknowledge is that while men are predominant at the highest levels of achievement, they also are much more prevalent at the lowest levels. Geniuses and spectacular failures are overwhelmingly male.
D. Edwards writes:
“Stalin could never have been a woman.”
Sure she could. But she would be called Mrs. Mao.
No women have achieved that kind of power except by their relation to a powerful man.
Posted by Laura Wood in Uncategorized