Feminism started out with the best of intentions to be sure, but has definitely now tipped the scales in good provided vs. evil generated.
Here are 3 good reasons why feminism needs to be dead and buried already.
Enough young men have come forward now with their stories of being raised in single-headed households that those who continue to ignore the statistics are doing so willfully. Sons end up being raised without any consistent male role models around them for their entire youths, considering their schooling years also surround them with women. Blowback comes in the form of such groups as Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) a men’s community that completely rejects women, to more subtle but equally disturbing groups like Pick-up Artist (PUA) culture, teaching men to objectify and conform themselves in order to get more women. How is triggering men’s fight or flight instinct going to be a good thing for women or families?
Economically the family suffers, but also socially. Single mothers simply cannot provide the same level of stability typically, and instability in early childhood has long been linked to addiction later in life. A large factor contributing to this are the stresses of single motherhood that make it harder for her to “attune” to her child, whether or not any outward abuse is present or any neglect perceived.
“Stressed parents have difficulty offering their children a specific quality required for the development of the brain’s self-regulation circuits: the quality of attunement. Attunement is, literally, being “in tune” with someone else’s emotional states. It’s not a question of parental love but of the parent’s ability to be present emotionally in such a way that the infant of child feels understood, accepted, and mirrored. Attunement is the real language of love, the conduit by which a preverbal child can realize that she is loved. Attunement is a subtle process. It is deeply instinctive and is easily subverted when the parent is stressed, depressed, or distracted” (p. 249). In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction by Gabor Maté, MD
Women who are working, stressed emotionally and stretched financially, not to mention herself without love and attachment, are not going to be able to model anything different to their children.
When the State tries to compensate women for their biological vulnerability through means such as welfare, food stamps, childcare, state-mandated education, public-funded birth control, and so on, no matter how well-meaning this may be, it’s going to have negative repercussions across the social spectrum.
Raising children is the job of the parents, not the State. By giving women the false security of a Big Daddy to fall back on they are far more likely to make poor choices–meaning we continue the cycle of the poorest and most vulnerable having the most children. The film Idiocracy is a painfully funny account of what our future will look like if we continue in this trend.
What happens is the State and Corporation merge, as we see happening now, and propaganda supporting this ensures culture cannot evolve in any direction that could be called virtuous or healthy.
Stefan Molyneux provides me with an example of this when he asks in an interview with GirlWritesWhat:
Not only is it not mocked, it’s rarely questioned at all, except among men. It’s a complete double-standard. Everyone knows 80% of the market is devoted to women, but for women to feed their consumerist frenzy it’s considered harmless fun. Men who gamble are considered much higher on the social-damages scale, yet throwing money away is much better for the environment than producing all those diamonds and dyes and fabrics.
Why is it not mocked, but actually promoted? Because conscientious, fiscally responsible women feed neither mouth of the two-headed beast.
Both men and women are unhappy in relationships today and the number of books, therapists, divorces and media attention makes this pretty obvious. When I think about why this might be, I’m reminded of something I read in one of those relationship books on what’s wrong with couples today: Men treat women as if they are guys with boobs and women treat men as if they are girls with penises.
While that may be part of it, I think they get a bit closer in the above interview:
“There is no taboo against hurting men’s feelings.” But even this I think is not quite right.
Because boys learn so effectively from their parents and their culture to stifle their feelings from very young, girls don’t realize they have them and are conditioned to act accordingly. The taboo is not against hurting men’s feelings, it against men having feelings.
The perfect plan for men to counter-act this tendency would be to cry. Easily and often.
And maybe also, to use more explanation points!
The social contract among girlfriends includes the unwritten but well-known law that the most victimized in any context wins. If you are in a group of women or primarily women the one who is most damaged, most sad or depressed, most ill, beside herself, or otherwise uncontained, is the one who gets the attention of the rest of the group, in order to show her support. It’s biological. It doesn’t matter if she’s right or wrong, or even borderline psychotic–no woman ever wants to look like the uncompassionate bitch in a group of women–I don’t care what the soap operas depict.
So clearly, if men approach women and especially conflict with women, in this same way, they would see just how quickly she would back down and automatically express the same level of empathy she would towards her girlfriends.
Give it try guys! Next time you want your way in conflict with a woman, just back down completely in your body language and sniffle a bit. Problem solved.
And if she doesn’t extend this same level of compassion to you, you know she’s a feminist hypocrite and you should make a mad dash for the exit!