In which the established conservative commentariat proves itself more and more irrelevant each day as a source for potential allies in solving the problems that befuddle our society, particularly as they relate to the sexes. I’ll highlight two examples in today’s column.
Call it Greenberg’s Law: Women are the innately superior sex. My theory may not be backed by any scientific evidence, but it’s something every man has surely felt. At least if he’s got a lick of sense. You might even call it a prejudice — in the sense of Edmund Burke’s definition of prejudice as the body of judgments passed on as received wisdom from generation to generation, and that need not be proven anew in every age. The word for it in these fecund Southern latitudes is mother wit. Note that nobody ever called that kind of inner knowledge father wit.
Every boy soon learns that women seem to know intuitively what the weaker male sex may grasp only by effort and education. Which is why it requires marriage and family to civilize the male animal. He needs a woman’s tutelage.
Brighter boys learn the lesson of female superiority early; dimmer ones may never catch on.
No male ever goes wrong by seeking the advice of his better five-sixths.
Granted, these are the more inflammatory portions of Greenberg’s missive, but it’s not far from being truly representative of what he wrote. Message? The same one that we’ve been having for going on two generations now: that men are buffoons kept out of trouble by their social and intellectual betters, the vaginized 51% of the human race.
The part that gets me the most about Greenberg’s self-loathing column is his propagation of the old saw that marriage and family “civilize” the “animal” male. Once again we witness this vile slander repeated in the mass media.
Unfortunately, hard-edged reality suggests that the opposite is true. The institution of marriage serves but one purpose: to civilize the savage and wild nature of the human female, for without the social scaffolding of civilization to convince her otherwise, the female urge will run riot and destroy everything. Ancient wisdom informs us that the feminine is a violent and uncontrolled animal that, unless restrained and redirected by the rules and controls of civilization, immediately indulges in the feral behavioral patterns characteristic of the stone age. Today, the strictures of civilization have frayed, and the effects of decaying civilization are plainly observable with the proliferation of choice mommy families, rotating polyandry, coupling with thugs and bad boys, abortion on demand, rising crime, lower educational achievement, lower life expectancies, and poorer health. All are traceable to the decomposition of the civilized patriarchal family into the model of the African savannah, of the hunter-gatherer society, where men and women held egalitarian roles but whose lives were often nasty, brutish, and short.
Were Greenberg not busy drinking the Victorian chick-pedestalizing kool-aid, he may just have grasped that what he is mistaking what he sees as the civilizing influence of marriage upon men is actually the domestication of those men into marriage and the harnessing of their excess labors toward socially productive ends.
The difference between civilizing and domestication is subtle, yet crucial. The technology of marriage bestows a franchise upon men, and in doing so, it converts him into a stakeholder in society as a whole. Permanent marriage guarantees a man access to his children in exchange for a piece of his labors. It causes the man to use his excess energies and labors productively for the benefit of his children and for his wife and not squander them for his own personal selfish amusement.
Returning briefly to the previous discussion regarding civilization and women, what is known more precisely as “patriarchal civilization” is a gift that is bequeathed by the brotherhood of men through the act of husbandry to women who choose to become wives. In agreeing to become a wife, a woman agrees to control her own animal appetites and commit for life to a man. In other words, she becomes civilized because she chooses to act that way. As a result, she reaps the benefits of a man’s excess labors and of civilization for herself and her children: she and her children are happier, healthier, and safer. These benefits continue to accrue so long as she consents to exercise self-control and therefore remain civilized. Civilization is not a natural state…it takes a conscious choice to remain civilized…and when women reject the technology of civilization, trading in the modern for the savage, the difficult for the easy, and indulge their animal appetites rather than control them, well, you get the ghetto or the hellish existence of sub-Saharan matrifocal society.
But enough bloviation about the finer points of “civilizing” vs “domesticating”. I must move on to my other example of knee-jerk reactionary socon bovine ejectus. Thus, while Greenberg is merely self-deprecating in a futile attempt to ingratiate himself into the good graces of the would-be-savage dominatrixes in his life, another OWG socon columnist chooses to overtly poke other, supposedly lesser men in the chest for what he deems as an insufficiently mature reaction to society-wide mass disenfranchisement (HT to my IRL friend Weasel):
…a culture of immaturity among the many young men who are reluctant to grow up. Increasingly, they are defecting from the meritocracy. Women now receive almost 58 percent of bachelor’s degrees. This is why many colleges admit men with qualifications inferior to those of women applicants—which is one reason men have higher dropout rates. The Pew Research Center reports that 28 percent of wives between ages 30 and 44 have more education than their husbands, whereas only 19 percent of husbands in the same age group have more education than their wives. Twenty-three percent of men with some college education earn less than their wives. In law, medical, and doctoral programs, women are majorities or, if trends continue, will be. In 1956, the median age of men marrying was 22.5. But between 1980 and 2004, the percentage of men reaching age 40 without marrying increased from 6 to 16.5. A recent study found that 55 percent of men 18 to 24 are living in their parents’ homes, as are 13 percent of men 25 to 34, compared to 8 percent of women.
We’ve heard this litany before. Women are outpacing men in higher ed, men are slackers, men are marrying later, men are just immature boys, blah blah blah.
First, let’s start with schooling. So boys are not performing as well academically as girls through high school and into college. Big whoop. Putting aside the debatable contention that grades or even graduation certificates are a decent proxy for either learning or future earnings, what else should be expected when the evidence suggests that schools are optimized for girls? And what about college? Is that any better? Doesn’t look like it…from college being a poor investment for guys, to lopsided graduation rates obscuring a glut in female lib-arts grads while tech majors are still overwhelmingly male, I don’t think that there is necessarily a problem in the “education gap”. Particularly among white men. Now black guys, that’s a different story, and the picture doesn’t look so swell for those dudes,* but I personally don’t see much reason to fret about boys in general being left behind by their more-schooled sisters who earn near-useless lib-arts degrees, learn to hate on (white) men in chick ghetto paper mills, and whose college experiences often serve to make them progressively less and less marryable.
This brings me to my next point. It appears that by avoiding both marriage and excess work (labor beyond that necessary to sustain himself), the single man earns the enmity of Will and his fellow socon OWGs. Here Will exposes the double-standard of the socon, the double standard that expects men to sell his labor in the market and to jihad, kampf, struggle against some obstacle or foe so as to become something better than what he presently is. This is called becoming a man. This is “being mature” for a male in our society. Yet nothing whatsoever is expected of women. No trial, no rite of passage, no river to cross, no mountain to climb and retrieve the edelweiss on top. Nothing more is demanded of the female other than consuming precious oxygen and occupying scarce living space. Tellingly, while the old gender role for men remains–work or thou shalt neither eat nor get your man card–the old time gender role for women…get married and have babies…has all but disappeared. It’s blazingly sexist to expect that women evince their maturity by becoming a wife and mother to the next generation. So women can do everything…or nothing at all…and be considered ‘mature’. Even if they blow their whole white-collar service sector salary on partying, vajazzling, Jimmy Choo shoes, clothes that double as dinner napkins, and by repeated auditions for a starring role as an abortionette.** Are they being socially unproductive, socially irresponsible SYFs in the New Girl Order? Or are they propagating society by finding men to have and raise children in a two-parent home? Furthermore, speaking of responsibility and marriage, which sex is it that has had historically the largest change in age of first marriage? If you guessed “women”, you’d be right. If men getting married a year or so later in life is so bad, what are we to think about child-women getting married three or four years later?
But it is men somehow, by not shackling themselves to a woman and being a wage-slave to the family’s material possessions, who are the immature ones. And the women hate these men no matter what the fellas do. They hate them for so willingly accepting the yoke, literally sacrificing themselves to provide them with a roof over their head and food to eat. And they scorn them if they do the opposite and live in their parent’s basement and play WoW all day long. More and more men, I think, are concluding that if they’re going to be hated on anyway, may as well enjoy themselves in the process, and let the women have it all if they want it all. Now where was that remote control again?
More to the point, what does society have to offer men if they buckle down and submit to the yoke of marriage to the Makens of the world? Axe yoself dis question, Willis: What is the more logical choice in this day and age, given all that we know about the current state of society wrt men: choose to live for yourself, enjoy yourself, and have a good time, or marry, live for someone else, punch a clock, be a slave to a house that you don’t spend much time in, be a slave to two cars, one of which is much nicer than yours (and you don’t spend any time in that either), all while running the 50/50 chance of being cashiered into a wage slave by the woman you thought committed to you?
Would there be many that choose the latter over the former? No? Then why should men as a whole do any differently?
I’d like to see OWGs like Will and Greenberg turn those powers of perception onto the SYF. To apply a size 12 boot to her ass and get her to straighten up and fly right. But I’m not holding my breath, because to OWGs, women are pretty, pretty smart, and holy too. Men are just dogs, to be kicked at and snarled at until they knuckle under. Which sounds an awful lot like how fembots act in regards to men. A sad coincidence of ideology, to be sure, the similarities in how traditionalists and feminists view the male. In a way, Greenberg and Will have done us a favor, for they’ve helped us all know who our friends are, and who they aren’t.
Armed with that information, let us move out accordingly and chart our own way.
* Black male academic performance is a testimony to what happens to men as disenfranchisement marches its way through a society. I have a relevant personal anecdote to add here: I saw this very phenomenon (widespread and pervasive male disenfranchisement) with my own eyes while on vacation in Jamaica. By and large, the only employed, well dressed people I saw were Jamaican women. The men were malingering porch dwellers. Don’t think that society is going anywhere anytime soon.
** Not to be too terribly intemperate, but what does the abortion rate say about women’s responsibility for their actions?
About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti.