Archive for June, 2009

Bridezillas

June 30, 2009

Not long ago, the Editrix asked my opinion on why American weddings have become so extravagant. My guess is that it’s a combination of our bad modern habit of indulging women and our prosperity. Those absurd weddings will stop now that we’re in a recession which may yet turn into a depression.

I think there’s one more reason that I just thought of today: it’s because people are getting married when they’re older. Back when girls got engaged when they were still living with their parents and their parents paid for the weddings, the purse strings were held by people with years of experience in saying “no” to the bride. Not to mention the prudence of mature years. Nowadays, the bride and groom themselves are likely to be paying for the wedding. This means that if he protests at any expenditure, his betrothed is likely to make it an issue: “Are you saying that money is more important to you than I am?” or some such. Since the poor guy is in love with her, else he wouldn’t have proposed, he has to cave in. Your parents are still your parents even if they won’t fork over $15,000 for wedding flowers. Unless they were very bad parents, they’ve proven over years that they love her and will do a lot for her, including saying “no” when it’s necessary. Unlike a fiance’s, a parent’s position in her life and heart don’t depend on giving in to this extravagance.

Seems like there’s a lot to be said for restoring the custom of girls passing from their parents’ to their husband’s care.

I hasten to add that the outrageously expensive weddings you read about are not the norm over here. They are pretty common, though. Here’s a fun “six degrees of separation” factoid: my father worked with a woman who got to go to the wedding of Demi Moore and Bruce Willis because the woman’s cousin was Demi’s hairdresser. Even then I thought it was silly to invite the entire extended family of your hairdresser to your wedding.

I’m thinking about this because Roissy linked to one of his old posts today, which cites an article about a couple who sued their wedding florist for $400,000 for delivering the wrong shade of hydrangeas. The florist says that they sent about 300 emails changing their order.

I decided to see if I could find any better insights on the excessive price of weddings via google. The main thing I discovered is that the words “overpriced weddings” bring up nearly one million hits.

I also found some “letters to the editor” on a Salon.com article, one of which I thought was worth quoting:

I can hear the thoughts forming. “More brides need to buck this stupid custom of having a big wedding.”

Oh, like that works. I know women who tried to fight this custom.

They wanted simple white dresses and got dubbed bridezillas because they went to 12 dress shops looking for one without a cathedral train that they could pee in with the assistance of no more than two bridesmaids.

They wanted fun, outdoor, informal venues and found them. Then got dubbed bridezillas when they first wept over the cost of transporting food, tables and chairs to these venues and then later snarled at others because for the premium prices they were paying they wanted perfection.

They wanted small intimate bridal parties and got called bridezillas for not inviting their first cousins once removed, because it was surely pure selfishness keeping those girls out of the wedding party when they had been flower girls in their first cousins’ wedding 20 years ago.

They tried to limit the family and friends to 50 and after screaming matches from both sets of families in which the term “bridezilla” was tossed around freely, they wound up with seating charts for 300.

They try desination weddings, only to be hit with the spector of an expected Reception.

There’s more, but I did think it deserved mention that there’s a lot of pressure on engaged couples to do things on a grand scale, and that because of all the (true) stories one hears, it doesn’t take much to be labeled a bridezilla.

You know, I remember my parents watching the royal wedding (of Prince Charles and Diana) on TV, but I was uninterested and was baffled that everyone else was making such a big deal over it. Come to think of it, I remember that a couple of months earlier, in math class I was doodling a picture of a woman in a hoop skirt, and the girl next to me asked, “Is that Lady Di?” “Who?” I asked.

I wonder if part of the reason for today’s decadent excessive weddings is that a lot of girls saw the royal wedding while they were in the midst of puberty and imprinted on it?

Considering that the mass of marriages are going about the way Charles and Diana’s did, maybe it’s time to stop using them as a model.

A couple of blog posts

June 30, 2009

The Fatherless Civilization

The question, which was indirectly raised by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s in his book Democracy in America, is this: If democracy of universal suffrage means that everybody’s opinion is as good as everybody else’s, will this sooner or later turn into a society where everybody’s choices are also as good as everybody else’s, which leads to cultural relativism? Tocqueville wrote at a time when only men had the vote. Will universal suffrage also lead to a situation where women vote themselves into possession of men’s finances while reducing their authority and creating powerful state regulation of everything?

Yes.

Men’s Liberation

Bound by a sense of duty and responsibility to family, employer and country, men demanded certain guarantees in return. All these guarantees can be summed up in one word: fidelity. We expected not to be cheated, lied to or abandoned. Sadly, all these things have come to pass. Perhaps our own complacency is as much to blame for this as anything else, but our betrayal is a fait accompli. There was the inevitable denial, rage, and despair, but finally we find ourselves at the point of acceptance.

Just from reading a couple of posts, I think that this blogger probably disagrees with me and most of my readers on several key points, but the post is still worth reading.

Misogynist short story

June 30, 2009

Women are from Venus. Or somewhere.

The Misogynist by James Gunn

I have a good record of the way the story was created. First came the idea: I wrote the story in 1951, but the idea itself occurred to me in the fall of 1950. My first son was a year old and still not sleeping at night, and the tensions of attending graduate school, writing a thesis, and rocking a child had brought out certain differences of opinion between my wife and me. Like many a man without sisters, I had always thought women were sort of soft men, arranged in a delightfully different way. But one day I thought: men and women don’t think alike; they are so different, in fact, that they might as well be different species. And then I thought: Women are aliens. I wrote that down on a note card so I wouldn’t forget it, a card I still have and show to my classes: Women are aliens.

This is on a site called Fathers For Life:

The website of Fathers for Life is in defence of men and fathers. It promotes fathers within, not without families.
Deadbeat fathers are a very small, minuscule minority and not representative of all men, just as deadbeat mothers are not representative of all mothers or women. However, we hear incessantly about deadbeat or violent fathers and men, while feminist activists and the feminist-dominated media sweep the issue of deadbeat mothers and far greater numbers of violent women in all cases of domestic violence (esp. when it comes to violence against children) under the carpet.
Our website illustrates how the all-pervasive vilification of men, of fathers and of the traditional nuclear family grew out of the systematic implementation of the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family.

Feministing demonstrates the "stopped clock" principle

June 30, 2009

I’ve heard a lot about the website “Feministing” but never bothered to look at it. From what I hear, they spend most of their time doing things like denouncing stores for locking up popular theft targets in high-crime neighborhoods. (Seriously. The point of that article seems to be that because nonwhite people have a higher HIV rate, stores ought to make it easy for them to shoplift condoms. Because condoms, as we all know, will solve everything.)

But I just came across an article on their site (I was looking for something completely different) that I have to approve of.

When Men are Sexually Assualted, Let’s Call It What It Is: Rape.

There’s a clip of an interview with a rapper called Jimmy Kimmel revealing that a woman raped him when he was 11, and a great deal of text denouncing this.

I know a man – he was the boyfriend of a close female friend of mine – who was molested by a female cousin a few years older than himself for years. I don’t recall how old he was when it started, but he was definitely too young to be having sex. It impaired his ability to sustain relationships even though he wanted to well into his adulthood. (The Feministing article, by the way, claims that the rape of this rapper is treated cavalierly not only because he is male but also because he is black. This acquaintance of mine is also black.)

Of course, Feministing doesn’t acknowledge that feminism is responsible for most of the boy-rapes of recent decades. Feminism has encouraged women to have sex outside of marriage, put women in charge of schools where they have access to helpless boys, and told women that their lovers should be their equals, meaning that to find a sex partner who is not their superior women have to mate with children.

Nonetheless, they deserve credit for denouncing the rape of boys by women and the prevalent attitude that these victims are “lucky”.

The Art of Manliness

June 29, 2009

The Art of Manliness

The top post on this blog right now is about adventure stories. If you’re wishing there were real men’s magazines being published today, as opposed to mangina rags, this blog looks like a good substitute.

Statistics on Fatherless Families

June 29, 2009

The effects of fatherlessness

These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:

* 5 times more likely to commit suicide.
* 32 times more likely to run away.
* 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
* 14 times more likely to commit rape
* 9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
* 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
* 9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.
* 20 times more likely to end up in prison.

The site is a fathers’ rights site. Well worth exploring.

Men better at math, water wet

June 29, 2009

SAT Math Scores Reveal HUGE Gender Differences

A couple of interesting comments:

Isn’t it possible that the teachers are inflating the grades of the females more than the males? Therefore, they look equally prepared according to the teachers grades but fall short in the standardized test.

Very possibly. This is yet another reason women shouldn’t be allowed to be teachers.

I usually struggled at math, but on the rare occasion that I had a good teacher, I did well at it. (I never had a male math teacher.) Also, from childhood till I was fifteen, I thought that science was a crock, because the bimbos who taught me were never able to explain anything that was at all counterintuitive (and in science, a lot of things are counterintuitive, such as that air is full of solid particles) or answer my questions about anything. They were irritated at my asking questions, trying to understand mathematical or scientific concepts; they wanted us to just memorize everything by rote and regurgitate it back, not try to understand it. What I didn’t realize then was that they were too stupid to understand even the degree of math or science that nine-year-olds are being taught. This is one of the many reasons I oppose female teachers. There aren’t enough women who can comprehend basic math or science.

It would be all right if, as in Japan, less than 20% of teachers were women, but we can’t rely on that continuing, so they need to simply be barred from the profession.

I didn’t warm up to science until I was fifteen and on my own read a science book from the library. It was about evolution. It was an actual revelation to me that science was logical. That is the kind of “education” we are inflicting on high-IQ children these days.

I am not sure whether to cry or be ill. It seems as if males ON THE WHOLE have higher mathematical skills. These skills/ ability are critical for engineering and technology advancement that will move society forward. Yet couple this with the fact that females outnumber males in higher education/ college, and ask yourself about the implications. Those very things that are necessary are being systematically devalued (best spin)/ squashed.

Full disclosure – I am a female who (thirty plus years ago) won a state wide math/ calculus prize in high school. That does not change the fact that males ON THE WHOLE have higher math ability than females. I was the only girl in the class.

Exactly the point I’ve been trying to make. We’ve been sacrificing the important matters to make women feel good.

The Red Queen

June 28, 2009

I’m reading The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. It’s an evolutionary psychology book, but flawed by the author’s left-wing politics. He tries very hard to deny the social implications of the biologically based qualities he discusses. For example, after 15 pages about the innate differences between the male and female mind, he suddenly declares,

Therefore, there is absolutely no justification from evolutionary biology for the view that men should earn and women should darn their socks….

Indeed, in a curious way, an evolutionary perspective justifies affirmative action more than a more egalitarian philosophy would, for it implies that women have different ambitions and even more than different abilities…. Since the bane of all organizations, whether they are companies, charities, or governments, is that they reward cunning ambition rather than ability (the people who are good at getting to the top are not necessarily the people who are best at doing the job,) and since men are more endowed with such ambition than women, it is absolutely right that promotion should be biased in favor of women – not to redress prejudice but to redress human nature.

Do I even need to comment on this?

Or here:

Laws against racism do have an effect because one of the more appealing aspects of human nature is that people calculate the consequences of their actions. But I am saying that even after a thousand years of strictly enforced laws against racism, we will not one day suddenly able to declare the problem of racism solved and abolish the laws secure in the knowledge that racial prejudice is a thing of the past.

I expect that most readers of this blog are familiar with the ways that “anti-racism laws” have been abused. Besides which, the libertarian in me cannot stomach limiting personal, individual freedom in favor of what whoever controls the government has decided would be best for all of us to be forced to do. Right now it’s getting rid of racism, so sacred a principle that individual rights must be scrapped if it conflicts with it. What will it be tomorrow? There’s a reason certain individual rights are sacrosanct, not to be scrapped with political fashions. But Ridley sees absolutely no problem with repressive, easily broken, ill-defined laws for the rest of humanity’s existence.

Anyway, here’s the passage I wanted to share:

Our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, live in promiscuous societies in which females seek as many sexual partners as possible and a male will kill the infants of strange females with whom he has not mated. There is no human society that remotely resembles this particular pattern. Why not? Because human nature is different from chimp nature.

That kind of naivete is downright touching.

More F. Roger Devlin

June 27, 2009

Mr. Devlin may be one of the most brilliant men alive. He is definitely one of the most important MRA thinkers.

There’s a new essay of his now, a long multi-part work.

Home economics

One of the hallmarks of Western civilization is the unusually high status it has accorded women. That has often been attributed to the influence of Christianity, which prizes certain typically feminine virtues (mercy, humility) more than pagan society had. But Tacitus had already noted the respect paid to women’s opinions as being typical of the pagan Germanic tribes of his time. Some believe the regard paid to women to be a reflection of conditions in ancient Northern Europe, where the nuclear rather than the extended family was the more important economic unit. But however it may have originated, women’s position in our civilization has recently been eroded by economic developments and by the feminist movement. The present essay aims to explain how this has happened and argue the need to reverse the process.

Exactly the point I keep making.

In fact, the high standing of women in our civilization not only long predates feminist ideology but is logically incompatible with it. To understand why, one needs to keep two points in mind: 1) women’s traditional status was linked to behavioral expectations — fulfilling the duties of their station; and 2) it assumed qualitative differences and complementarity (rather than “fair” competition) between the sexes.

As to the first point: strictly speaking, it was never women as such who enjoyed high status but rather the social roles proper to them — those of wife and mother, chiefly. Being born female (or male) is merely a natural fact of no intrinsic moral significance, but the filling of a social role involves effort and often sacrifice. Accordingly, the respect paid to women was not an unconditional birthright; it was reserved for women who fulfilled their feminine obligations.

Feminists are basically women who want the respect and honor given to good women, without fulfilling the obligations necessary to be considered a good woman.

Devlin shares my conviction that liberals, including feminists, envy their superiors:

A feminist in the strict and proper sense may be defined as a woman who envies the male role.

By the male role I mean, in the first place, providing, protecting, and guiding rather than nurturing and assisting. This in turn involves relative independence, action, and competition in the larger impersonal society outside the family, the use of language for communication and analysis (rather than expressiveness or emotional manipulation), and deliberate behavior aiming at objective achievement (rather than the attainment of pleasant subjective states) and guided by practical reasoning (rather than emotional impulse).

Both feminist and nonfeminist women sense that these characteristically male attributes have a natural primacy over their own. I prefer to speak of “primacy” rather than superiority in this context since both sets of traits are necessary to propagate the race. One sign of male primacy is that envy of the female role by men is virtually nonexistent — even, so far as I know, among homosexuals.

Actually, quite a few gay men envy the female role. Perhaps they would be more properly classed as transsexuals. However, I can’t really speculate as to what percentage of gay men feel this way, just that it’s not a tiny percentage. On the other hand, I think most lesbians do envy the male role, because most of us are biologically unsuited to the female one. Homosexuals tend to have varrying mixes of masculine and feminine qualities, including in our neural structure and hormonal balance. This is part of why so many seminal feminists were lesbians; it’s hard for us to understand that 98% of women have no desire or aptitude for the kind of life we want.

But all feminists really want is the pleasant subjective states. They just want different toppings.

And perhaps even more than she envies the male role itself, the feminist covets the external rewards attached to its successful performance: social status, recognition, power, wealth, and the chance to control wealth directly (rather than be supported). She tends not to give much thought to the great mass of men who struggle to fulfill the demands of their role without ever attaining the rewards of superior performance.

This is one point on which I believe the great Mr. Devlin is slightly confused. Only lesbians actually envy the male role. Straight feminists have no interest in it, only in its rewards. In fact, a few lines later he shows that he understands this:

Let us consider next what envy is. First, it involves a painful awareness of something good or desirable in another person. This much it has in common with emulation. The emulator, however, is primarily concerned with self-improvement. Envy has a fundamentally negative character; it wants to bring the other down rather than raise itself up. The envier usually does not admit that explicitly but rather claims to have been cheated, whether by the envied party or by the surrounding society: he disguises his envy as a zeal for justice. Often he claims to want to compete on a level playing field, but maintains that competition has been “fixed.”

What the appeasers actually do is grant women some of the external appearances and rewards of such achievement. That is the meaning of corporate hiring and promotional preferences. But a little reflection will reveal why such concessions can never satisfy the feminist. She is humiliated precisely by the awareness that her advancement is an unearned act of charity on the part of the hated “patriarchy.”

Yep.

In practice, since the feminist can never be the equal of men at the male role, she concentrates her efforts upon sabotaging that role. In other words, because she cannot level up, she contents herself as best she can with leveling down. So the practical consequence of feminist political power is to make it impossible for men to “do their thing” (fulfill their role). For example, women may not be able to have careers as glamorous and successful as they imagined, but one accusation of “harassment” is all it takes to destroy the career of a man whose accomplishments she could never equal.

The gullible women who entered the workforce at the urging of feminists quickly discovered that they did not like it very much (despite their feminine advantages enumerated above). Work turned out to be … well, a lot of work. Their response to the broken promises of feminism, however, was not to blame the ideologues for having made them or themselves for having believed them; it was to blame men. Men simply had to re-engineer the world of work until women found it “fulfilling.” And feminism would lead the way again. (One of the movement’s greatest strengths has been this ability to profit politically from its own failures.)

That’s a point I’ve made before. I pointed out that feminism is a going concern, because impossible goals can never be reached, so feminism will always have a racket.

In the final section, he discusses the fact that men are not as good at looking after children, and denounces the feminist demand that men do half of the housework.

That may not sound particularly alarming to those still unaware that Spain has already passed a law providing for the arrest of men who fail to do half the housework. Similar moves are afoot in Germany. One wonders what action the international sisterhood will suggest against the men now opting for bachelorhood: conscripting them to serve as butlers for lesbians, perhaps?

My own home is usually a mess. Maybe I can use the masculine aspect of my homosexual nature as an excuse for that. In any case, in a sane era, it’s generous of husbands to help around the house. In this era, I think men should adamantly refuse to do any housework.

Second, and in connection with the subject of the present essay, men must reestablish their rightful position in the world of work: I propose the slogan “Take Back the Day.” This will require an end to antidiscrimination law as it relates to the sexes.

In part, the purpose of men’s reestablishing themselves as breadwinners is simply to enable them to support children, of course. But it may also be necessary to make them attractive enough to women that they can start a family. We need to reestablish a “masculine mystique” in the mind of young women, teaching them once again that they are insufficient unto themselves and stand in need of a man. That is rarely obvious to a modern young woman with a well-paying job and no children. But plenty of evidence concerning fatherless homes indicates that men are as necessary to women as ever over the course of a lifetime. Men, too, need to understand that they have an essential role to play in the home — that the purposes of the family cannot be properly carried out in their absence.

A return to freedom of association, including the legalization of “discrimination,” would benefit the world of work itself as well as home life. Men share thought and behavior patterns that permit more effective cooperation in an all-male setting than in mixed groups. And feminism has created a “hostile working environment” for men in most industries. Plenty of men would be eager to work for firms that formally barred women, far more than would presently be willing to say so out loud. Under a regime of free competition, all-male companies might quickly rout their “gender-equitable” competitors from the field. I suspect a lot of feminists are perfectly aware of this.

This made me all happy inside. Oh, if only!

Those are the highlights. The entire thing is well worth reading. Especially where he runs down romance novels, which I hate.

Mr. Devlin also has an essay about Wendy Shalit here. I admire her work, but his criticism is apt and insightful, as always. A teaser:

A highly successful women’s magazine editor has written a book of advice for young wives stating: “Giving, devoting, sacrificing … these are the actions of a good wife, no? No. These are the actions of a drudge, a sucker, a sap.” Instead, women are urged to emulate a wife who threw her husband’s clothes into the garden to teach him not to leave socks on the floor: “He understood I meant it.” Or another who wanted her husband to help with the laundry, and hollered at him: “Are you a f***ing retard that you don’t see me running up and down stairs? Listen to me and stop your bulls**t.” Or another who discovered this interpersonal skill: “Just stand there and start screaming. If you stand there and scream long enough, someone is going to realize that you’re standing in the middle of the room screaming [and ask] ‘Why are you screaming?'” (pp. 245-47)

What could be wrong with men these days that they refuse to commit?

I am opposed to spanking children, but I think spanking wives is sometimes called for.

More F. Roger Devlin

June 27, 2009

Mr. Devlin may be one of the most brilliant men alive. He is definitely one of the most important MRA thinkers.

There’s a new essay of his now, a long multi-part work.

Home economics

One of the hallmarks of Western civilization is the unusually high status it has accorded women. That has often been attributed to the influence of Christianity, which prizes certain typically feminine virtues (mercy, humility) more than pagan society had. But Tacitus had already noted the respect paid to women’s opinions as being typical of the pagan Germanic tribes of his time. Some believe the regard paid to women to be a reflection of conditions in ancient Northern Europe, where the nuclear rather than the extended family was the more important economic unit. But however it may have originated, women’s position in our civilization has recently been eroded by economic developments and by the feminist movement. The present essay aims to explain how this has happened and argue the need to reverse the process.

Exactly the point I keep making.

In fact, the high standing of women in our civilization not only long predates feminist ideology but is logically incompatible with it. To understand why, one needs to keep two points in mind: 1) women’s traditional status was linked to behavioral expectations — fulfilling the duties of their station; and 2) it assumed qualitative differences and complementarity (rather than “fair” competition) between the sexes.

As to the first point: strictly speaking, it was never women as such who enjoyed high status but rather the social roles proper to them — those of wife and mother, chiefly. Being born female (or male) is merely a natural fact of no intrinsic moral significance, but the filling of a social role involves effort and often sacrifice. Accordingly, the respect paid to women was not an unconditional birthright; it was reserved for women who fulfilled their feminine obligations.

Feminists are basically women who want the respect and honor given to good women, without fulfilling the obligations necessary to be considered a good woman.

Devlin shares my conviction that liberals, including feminists, envy their superiors:

A feminist in the strict and proper sense may be defined as a woman who envies the male role.

By the male role I mean, in the first place, providing, protecting, and guiding rather than nurturing and assisting. This in turn involves relative independence, action, and competition in the larger impersonal society outside the family, the use of language for communication and analysis (rather than expressiveness or emotional manipulation), and deliberate behavior aiming at objective achievement (rather than the attainment of pleasant subjective states) and guided by practical reasoning (rather than emotional impulse).

Both feminist and nonfeminist women sense that these characteristically male attributes have a natural primacy over their own. I prefer to speak of “primacy” rather than superiority in this context since both sets of traits are necessary to propagate the race. One sign of male primacy is that envy of the female role by men is virtually nonexistent — even, so far as I know, among homosexuals.

Actually, quite a few gay men envy the female role. Perhaps they would be more properly classed as transsexuals. However, I can’t really speculate as to what percentage of gay men feel this way, just that it’s not a tiny percentage. On the other hand, I think most lesbians do envy the male role, because most of us are biologically unsuited to the female one. Homosexuals tend to have varrying mixes of masculine and feminine qualities, including in our neural structure and hormonal balance. This is part of why so many seminal feminists were lesbians; it’s hard for us to understand that 98% of women have no desire or aptitude for the kind of life we want.

But all feminists really want is the pleasant subjective states. They just want different toppings.

And perhaps even more than she envies the male role itself, the feminist covets the external rewards attached to its successful performance: social status, recognition, power, wealth, and the chance to control wealth directly (rather than be supported). She tends not to give much thought to the great mass of men who struggle to fulfill the demands of their role without ever attaining the rewards of superior performance.

This is one point on which I believe the great Mr. Devlin is slightly confused. Only lesbians actually envy the male role. Straight feminists have no interest in it, only in its rewards. In fact, a few lines later he shows that he understands this:

Let us consider next what envy is. First, it involves a painful awareness of something good or desirable in another person. This much it has in common with emulation. The emulator, however, is primarily concerned with self-improvement. Envy has a fundamentally negative character; it wants to bring the other down rather than raise itself up. The envier usually does not admit that explicitly but rather claims to have been cheated, whether by the envied party or by the surrounding society: he disguises his envy as a zeal for justice. Often he claims to want to compete on a level playing field, but maintains that competition has been “fixed.”

What the appeasers actually do is grant women some of the external appearances and rewards of such achievement. That is the meaning of corporate hiring and promotional preferences. But a little reflection will reveal why such concessions can never satisfy the feminist. She is humiliated precisely by the awareness that her advancement is an unearned act of charity on the part of the hated “patriarchy.”

Yep.

In practice, since the feminist can never be the equal of men at the male role, she concentrates her efforts upon sabotaging that role. In other words, because she cannot level up, she contents herself as best she can with leveling down. So the practical consequence of feminist political power is to make it impossible for men to “do their thing” (fulfill their role). For example, women may not be able to have careers as glamorous and successful as they imagined, but one accusation of “harassment” is all it takes to destroy the career of a man whose accomplishments she could never equal.

The gullible women who entered the workforce at the urging of feminists quickly discovered that they did not like it very much (despite their feminine advantages enumerated above). Work turned out to be … well, a lot of work. Their response to the broken promises of feminism, however, was not to blame the ideologues for having made them or themselves for having believed them; it was to blame men. Men simply had to re-engineer the world of work until women found it “fulfilling.” And feminism would lead the way again. (One of the movement’s greatest strengths has been this ability to profit politically from its own failures.)

That’s a point I’ve made before. I pointed out that feminism is a going concern, because impossible goals can never be reached, so feminism will always have a racket.

In the final section, he discusses the fact that men are not as good at looking after children, and denounces the feminist demand that men do half of the housework.

That may not sound particularly alarming to those still unaware that Spain has already passed a law providing for the arrest of men who fail to do half the housework. Similar moves are afoot in Germany. One wonders what action the international sisterhood will suggest against the men now opting for bachelorhood: conscripting them to serve as butlers for lesbians, perhaps?

My own home is usually a mess. Maybe I can use the masculine aspect of my homosexual nature as an excuse for that. In any case, in a sane era, it’s generous of husbands to help around the house. In this era, I think men should adamantly refuse to do any housework.

Second, and in connection with the subject of the present essay, men must reestablish their rightful position in the world of work: I propose the slogan “Take Back the Day.” This will require an end to antidiscrimination law as it relates to the sexes.

In part, the purpose of men’s reestablishing themselves as breadwinners is simply to enable them to support children, of course. But it may also be necessary to make them attractive enough to women that they can start a family. We need to reestablish a “masculine mystique” in the mind of young women, teaching them once again that they are insufficient unto themselves and stand in need of a man. That is rarely obvious to a modern young woman with a well-paying job and no children. But plenty of evidence concerning fatherless homes indicates that men are as necessary to women as ever over the course of a lifetime. Men, too, need to understand that they have an essential role to play in the home — that the purposes of the family cannot be properly carried out in their absence.

A return to freedom of association, including the legalization of “discrimination,” would benefit the world of work itself as well as home life. Men share thought and behavior patterns that permit more effective cooperation in an all-male setting than in mixed groups. And feminism has created a “hostile working environment” for men in most industries. Plenty of men would be eager to work for firms that formally barred women, far more than would presently be willing to say so out loud. Under a regime of free competition, all-male companies might quickly rout their “gender-equitable” competitors from the field. I suspect a lot of feminists are perfectly aware of this.

This made me all happy inside. Oh, if only!

Those are the highlights. The entire thing is well worth reading. Especially where he runs down romance novels, which I hate.

Mr. Devlin also has an essay about Wendy Shalit here. I admire her work, but his criticism is apt and insightful, as always. A teaser:

A highly successful women’s magazine editor has written a book of advice for young wives stating: “Giving, devoting, sacrificing … these are the actions of a good wife, no? No. These are the actions of a drudge, a sucker, a sap.” Instead, women are urged to emulate a wife who threw her husband’s clothes into the garden to teach him not to leave socks on the floor: “He understood I meant it.” Or another who wanted her husband to help with the laundry, and hollered at him: “Are you a f***ing retard that you don’t see me running up and down stairs? Listen to me and stop your bulls**t.” Or another who discovered this interpersonal skill: “Just stand there and start screaming. If you stand there and scream long enough, someone is going to realize that you’re standing in the middle of the room screaming [and ask] ‘Why are you screaming?'” (pp. 245-47)

What could be wrong with men these days that they refuse to commit?

I am opposed to spanking children, but I think spanking wives is sometimes called for.