The Feminization Of America

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
The Feminization Of America
181
Mon, 06-21-2004 - 12:12pm
I don't always agree with his columns (who does) but he is a compelling writer and this column is no different. I think he is right for the most part on this one.


http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

Driving Down Unknown Roads

The Feminization Of America

March 29, 2004

In the United States women are, I think for the first time in history, gaining real power. Often nations have had queens, heiresses, and female aristocrats. These do not amount to much. Today women occupy positions of genuine authority in fields that matter, as for example publishing, journalism, and academia. They control education through high school. Politicians scramble for their votes. They control the divorce courts and usually get their way with things that matter to them.

If this is not unprecedented, I do not know of the precedent. What will be the consequences?

Men have controlled the world through most of history so we know what they do: build things, break things, invent things, compete with each other fiercely and often pointlessly, and fight endless wars that seem to them justifiable at the time but that, seen from afar, are just what males do. The unanswered question is what women would, or will, do. How will their increasing influence reshape the polity?

Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for)them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbors whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness.

I do not suggest that the instinctive behavior of women is necessarily bad, nor that of men necessarily good. I do suggest that that the effects will be profound, probably irreversible, and not necessarily entirely to the liking of either sex. The question may be whether one fears most being conquered or being nicened to death.

Consider what is called the Nanny State by men, who feel smothered by it, but is accepted if not supported by women, who see it as protective and caring. (Yes, I know that there are exceptions and degrees in all of this, and no, I don’t have polling data.) Note that women are much more concerned than are men about health and well-being. Women worry about second-hand smoke, outlawing guns, lowering the allowable blood-alcohol levels for drivers, making little boys wear helmets while riding bicycles, and outlawing such forms of violence as dodge ball or the use of plastic ray guns. Much of this is demonstrably irrational, but that is the nature of instincts. (Neither is the male tendency to form armed bands and attack anyone within reach a pinnacle of reason.)

The implications of female influence for freedom, at least as men understand the word, are not good. Women will accept restrictions on their behavior if in doing so they feel more secure. They have less need of freedom, which is not particularly important in living a secure, orderly, routine, and comfortable life. They tend not to see political correctness as irritating, but as keeping people from saying unpleasant things.

The growing feminizaton accounts for much of the decline in the schools. The hostility to competition of any sort is an expression of the female desire for pleasantness; competition is a mild form of combat, by which men are attracted and women repelled. The emphasis on how children feel about each other instead of on what they learn is profoundly female (as for that matter is the associated fascination with psychotherapy). The drugging of male schoolchildren into passivity is the imposition of pleasantness by chemical means. Little boys are not nice, but fidgety wild men writ small who, bored out of their skulls, tend to rowdiness. They are also hard for the average woman to control and, since male teachers are absent, gelded, or terrified of litigious parents, expulsion and resort to the police fill the void. The oft-repeated suspension of boys for drawing soldiers or playing space war is, methinks, a quietly hysterical attempt to assuage formless insecurity.

The change in marriage and the deterioration of the family are likewise the results of the growth of political power of women. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen, but it is assuredly happening. Divorce became common because women wanted to get out of unsatisfactory marriages. In divorce women usually want the children, and have the clout to get them. But someone has to feed the young. Thus the vindictive pursuit of divorced fathers who won’t or can’t pay child support. And thus the rise of the government as de facto father to provide welfare, tax breaks, daycare, and otherwise behave as a virtual husband.

When women entered a male workplace, they found that they didn’t much like it. Men told off-color jokes, looked at protuberant body parts, engaged in rough verbal sparring as a form of social interaction, and behaved in accord with rules that women didn’t and don’t understand. Women had the influence to change things, and did. Laws grew like kudzu to ban sexual harassment, whether real or imagined. Affirmative action, in addition to being a naked power grab, avoids competition and therefore making the losers feel bad. It degrades the performance of organizations, sometimes seriously, but performance is a preoccupation of males.

Men are capable of malignant government, whether authoritarian or totalitarian, as witness North Korea or the Russia of Stalin. I don’t know whether women would behave as badly if they had the power. (I’d guess not.) But women have their own totalitarian tendencies. They will if allowed impose a seamless tyranny of suffocating safety, social control, and political propriety. Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women.

The United States becomes daily more a woman’s world: comfortable, safe, with few outlets for a man’s desire for risk. The America of wild empty country, of guns and fishing and hunting, of physical labor and hot rods and schoolyard fights, has turned gradually into a land of shopping malls and sensible cars and bureaucracy. Risk is now mostly artificial and not very risky. There is skydiving and scuba and you can still find places to go fast on motorcycles, but it gets harder. Jobs increasingly require the feminine virtues of patience, accommodation to routine, and subordination of performance to civility. Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as “macho,” a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men.

A case can be made that a feminized world would (or will) be preferable to a masculine. Perhaps. It is males who bomb cities and shoot people in Seven-Elevens. Yet the experiment has not been made. I suspect we will have the worst of both worlds: a nation in which men at the top engage in the usual wars and, a step below, women impose inutterable boredom.

Pages

Avatar for jc1202
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 06-24-2004 - 11:35am
<>

It wasn't meant to enflame - I was making a point about the way in which American men, for far too long a time, were able to control women's voting rights, reproductive rights, the right to work vs. the 'responsibility' to stay home...am I missing anything? Do you dispute that? Is it not true that women had very limited freedom in our country until the first wave of feminism, which began only about a century and a half ago? And now they have begun to have more rights, and men clearly feel threatened (sorry, repulsed) by that, which is why there are continued attempts by men to pass laws that will keep women from making their own decisions.

<>

No, it's actually very different. I wasn't asking why anyone should have the right to possess a firearm. I asked why YOU felt YOU should be able to. What's the point? You really feel like you need one? You really think someone's out to get you?

I think gun control works because it makes it harder for teenagers and young children to use them. Simple as that.

<>

What does it mean then? Does it mean you're 'in control'? Your argument makes no sense. Why would you want a gun if you weren't planning to use it? Or is there no danger involved in firing a gun?

<>

What about rape victims? They don't make the choice to have sex. Unless you want to get into the "She shouldn't have been wearing such a short skirt/flirting with him/dancing that way" argument.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Thu, 06-24-2004 - 12:04pm
"And now they have begun to have more rights, and men clearly feel threatened (sorry, repulsed) by that, which is why there are continued attempts by men to pass laws that will keep women from making their own decisions."

I don't think men feel threatened by women gaining rights in our society. Don't know any who do.

"I asked why YOU felt YOU should be able to. What's the point? You really feel like you need one? You really think someone's out to get you? "

I should be able to because I want one. I enjoy shooting. No I dont think someone is out to get me. However, should someone break into my home they will meet the business end of my 45. I'll negotiate with them afterwards.

"I think gun control works because it makes it harder for teenagers and young children to use them. Simple as that. "

How? Gun control controls law abiding citizens. Criminals will always get and carry guns. If children get guns it is because their parents are irresponsible, no law will stop that.

"What does it mean then? Does it mean you're 'in control'? Your argument makes no sense. Why would you want a gun if you weren't planning to use it? Or is there no danger involved in firing a gun? "

Armed does not mean dangerous. I am armed but I pose no threat to anyone. However, I am equiped to defend my life, family, and property. That doesn't make me dangerous. I use my gun but it has only been fired at ranges, etc. There is little danger in firing a gun if you are properly trained and know how to handle the weapon.

"What about rape victims? They don't make the choice to have sex. Unless you want to get into the "She shouldn't have been wearing such a short skirt/flirting with him/dancing that way" argument. "

Well if you are willing to outlaw abortion in all cases except rape, incest, etc then we can have this debate. Yes I think it is still wrong. A rape occured; it is a violent criminal act but does that mean an innocent child should be murdered because of the rape? Again if we are starting from a position that rape is wrong in cases other than rape, etc I'm more than happy to argue from that point. And no, if a woman walked down the street naked with a sign saying that she loves sex, if she was raped it would not be her fault.

Jim

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Thu, 06-24-2004 - 12:07pm
I agree, but was trying very hard not to make my posts an attack on vader.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Thu, 06-24-2004 - 12:20pm
>>...and how typically "female" traits are influencing policies. It hasn't had that affect.<<

OK, back to it!

You don't believe this country... the world... is in serious need of a woman's perspective? I'd venture it is high time for it... we all will be better off, instead of having most of the world under decidedly patriarchal cultures.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Thu, 06-24-2004 - 12:39pm
"OK, back to it! "

Yee haw...

"You don't believe this country... the world... is in serious need of a woman's perspective?"

Well considering patriarchal cultures have built the greatest civilizations in the world it is hard to image why we would change it. Now female influence is vital certainly but Eqypt, Rome, Greece, European countries, and the greatest of all the US were all based on patriarchal systems. Seems to work to me. Could they be improved, certainly but there is no coincidence in the decline of this country's power and stability and the increase of liberal policies which tend to be more touchy feely and attempt to make the world "fair".

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Thu, 06-24-2004 - 12:41pm
>>I don't think men feel threatened by women gaining rights in our society. Don't know any who do.<<

And women are daily called "b*tch" and "feminazi's" for advicating their rights because men are happy about it?

>>A rape occured; it is a violent criminal act but does that mean an innocent child should be murdered because of the rape?<<

I've a friend who was raped at 16, forced by her mom to carry the child and then place it for adoption. To me doing so is child abuse... of her daughter.

We've already gone around this, but I am passionately for choice. You will *never* take this right away, and if you actually manage to get laws changed, there will be hell to pay. Don't expect women to passively accept it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Thu, 06-24-2004 - 12:47pm
>>Well considering patriarchal cultures have built the greatest civilizations in the world it is hard to image why we would change it.<<

Do I hear a tarzan yell in the background? ;-)

It always amazed me that businesses would engage in any form of discrimination, but let's stick with gender discrimination... by doing so, they automatically exclude 50% of possible candidates, and thus have a 50% chance of not picking the best one. If a competitor has no such prejudice, all other things being equal, their staff is likely to be more qualified, placing the discriminating company at a disadvantage.

Following that here... and thinking back on all the women in American history who were brilliant yet had no access to education... how much better would our country be? How much advancement was lost? And looking forward on a worldwide basis... what makes you think having women fully equal won't result in "the greatest civilisation in the world?"

>>Could they be improved, certainly but there is no coincidence in the decline of this country's power and stability and the increase of liberal policies which tend to be more touchy feely and attempt to make the world "fair".<<

As in feminisation produced decline? Rome declined for many reasons... from empire being impossible to maintain, to corruption to lead based pottery used by the ruling classes. I can't believe you equate "touchy feely" approach with "decline." Goddess you are misogynistic.






Edited 6/24/2004 12:51 pm ET ET by rayeellen

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Thu, 06-24-2004 - 12:50pm
"And women are daily called "b*tch" and "feminazi's" for advicating their rights because men are happy about it? "

Some people are without manners and decency. Are some men threatened, sure. I don't think most are.

"I've a friend who was raped at 16, forced by her mom to carry the child and then place it for adoption. To me doing so is child abuse... of her daughter. "

That is horrible thing for them to go through. If I knew them and they decided to have an abortion I wouldn't condemn them for it. I would have offered support and kept my opinions to myself. If they asked my advise I would have advised just what the mother did. Having a daughter I can only imagine the pain and anger they must have felt. However, my belief that life begins at conception is pretty strong. I pray my convictions and faith would allow me to make the correct decision.

"You will *never* take this right away, and if you actually manage to get laws changed, there will be hell to pay. Don't expect women to passively accept it."

I would expect protests. Hopefully someday I will get to see those protests.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Thu, 06-24-2004 - 12:54pm
>>That is horrible thing for them to go through. If I knew them and they decided to have an abortion I wouldn't condemn them for it. I would have offered support and kept my opinions to myself.<<

How you can have any opinion beyond empathy is beyond me.

>>If they asked my advise I would have advised just what the mother did. Having a daughter I can only imagine the pain and anger they must have felt. However, my belief that life begins at conception is pretty strong. I pray my convictions and faith would allow me to make the correct decision.<<

Best to let women decide for themselves what course they wish to follow. Life begins at conception is not provable, and a foetus is a foetus is a foetus.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Thu, 06-24-2004 - 1:05pm
"Do I hear a tarzan yell in the background? ;-) "

Could be. :)

"by doing so, they automatically exclude 50% of possible candidates, and thus have a 50% chance of not picking the best one. "

Agreed.

"If a competitor has no such prejudice, all other things being equal, their staff is likely to be more qualified, placing the discriminating company at a disadvantage. "

Exactly perfect. Let the free market weed out the people who discriminate by letting them fail.

"Following that here... and thinking back on all the women in American history who were brilliant yet had no access to education... how much better would our country be? How much advancement was lost? And looking forward on a worldwide basis... what makes you think having women fully equal won't result in "the greatest civilisation in the world?"

All valid points. And you are correct women equally involved would likely have made a better civilization. Here is where we will likely split. I believe men and women have innate personality traits. Men are driven to explore, to conquer, build, and yes to fight. We are more naturally competitive and aggressive. This isn't bad. Women are more nurturing and communicative. The male tendency to explore, conquer and build are essential in creating the foundation of civilizations. Women would be helpful in avoiding such horrible things as slavery, etc. A team of men and women are stronger than either one on their own. I still believe men would need to take the lead based on our innate "instincts".

Pages