May 7·edited May 7Liked by L. Jagi Lamplighter Wright
Very good post and very good question.
"What should we do now?"
Since I'm a man, I cannot really answer that for you, but only offer perspective and maybe suggestions.
They would go in this order:
1. Dump the F'ing radical feminists (opportunists) that led you down this path of destruction and never really cared about you - past the numbers you added to their pursuit of power, money and influence at all costs. Contrary to the propaganda they fed you, men were not the ones who told you to loathe yourselves and everything that made you women...that was your destructive radical sisters.
2. Figure out what being a woman is and means - and then teach that to the next generations of females, as fast as you can. The radicals have always fought their wars based on attrition. They infiltrate a group, subvert it and then turn it against itself - knowing the destructive orthodoxy will spread like a cancer, from member to member. So you are fighting a numbers war and you're way behind. If you really want to find your way back to a baseline, then you need to makeup the ground they've taken and then surpass them. Keep in mind they are making converts hourly.
3. Drop the lie of "winner or loser". That was sold to you to keep you on the plantation. It's no longer relevant, if it ever was and it's an unquantifiable goal. Since their definition of "win" was ever moving and changing, you were never meant to achieve it - only be held in a battle that kept you controlled and subjugated, by the radfems for their own purposes. How else could they get women, to kill unborn women - while cheering and chanting "women's rights are human rights"?
4. Understand that as much as you've been told that men see you as chattel, it's the radfems that saw and treated you like fungible tokens. This is evident in their support for the new women - you know...the ones with penises. Matter of fact, you women who refuse to accept your new "sisters", are immediately attacked by those same radfems, that only the day prior stood shoulder to shoulder with you, in the "war of the sexes".
5. Unlearn the lessons you've been taught by the radfems - make it opposites day. Anything they told you is wrong, so the opposite - on the whole - must be right. Prostitution is not sex work; Promiscuity is not empowering and liberating; men are not the enemy; being told you are attractive is not sexual abuse; having a door held open for you by a man is not misogyny; eye contact from a man is not rape; homemakers and stay at home mothers are not stupid, dumb, dupes or handmaids in a tale and abortions are not empowering, healthcare or human rights.
6. Guard against letting radicals back into your groups. Watch the walls well and be wary. They come in all forms and have all manner of subversion to sell.
7. Cut away the dead skin. Some will not be able to be saved. Let them go. War of attrition, remember? You don't have time to waste.
8. Learn to appreciate who you are as a woman, which means setting personal boundaries, norms and morals. This is not a hive mind, group think, or collective dogma. You can't become you, if you're a drone in the collective - which is what they sold you in the first place.
9. Lastly seek out others and form your own liberated (from the radfems) groups to support one another and not tear each other apart.
10. Ok, this is the last one - more a request for all women - do not indulge in the fish lips, fake boobs, airbrush make-up and hooker fashion, that they are trying hard to make the norm. Yup, many of us men will turn our heads to look, but even the guys that do, think the package looks clownish.
All the above really isn't just applicable to escaping the radfem capture, women seem to have fallen victim to, but applies to any group that finds it's been taken over by radicals and is being destroyed from the inside out. These days, that's all of us, on some level.
I try not to make comments, that are posts...but this and other issues are hard to address with a few lines. I appreciate your indulgence of my soapbox.
Kudos to you, for stepping into this dissident space. It's the only way you girls will reclaim your sovereignty from the radicals.
Probably best to reset. Repeal the 19th. See where we go from there. We beat R v W and now we are watching the GOPe throw that away. Put Chesterton's fences back up. See where we get from there.
Well, male professors and female students falling in love has been a problem since the days of Abelard and Héloïse. I don't think society ever found a good solution to that problem.
Indeed. When I was a grad student in the late ‘60s/early ‘70s there were a lot of professor - coed relationships … perfectly legal, assuming the coeds were above the age of consent, but regarded with a bit of a jaundiced eye from an ethical point of view. It was considered thoroughly unethical to have a relationship or just casual sex with a coed in a class one was teaching…and - though it was quite common - thoroughly unethical for a professor to have a relationship with a grad student on whose committee he sat or chaired. The minimum standard was to date only coeds not enrolled in one’s courses, the more generally ethical notion was to stick with coeds outside one’s department….
6That wage /price thing just does not reflect the way children have been born in the past. I think that's a modern theory.
The majority of place in the past, they have had much less wages, much more want, then even the poor do now much less the modern well-to-do who think they're too poor to have children.
This is a cultural issue, not a financial issue.
As an example, a good friend who lives in Africa, lives in a situations so poor that we would not imagine it here in America, but he has four kids, and he took in his nephew.
Money is not stopping people from having children, love of money, greed, wanting to live the "good life" is stopping people from having children.
Part of the problem is that the developed world has turned children into a greater burden. Sure child labor could be abusive but we're at the point now where things like mowing neighbor's lawns on a weekend has been made effectively illegal. Plus (and related) these days if you allow your children any form of unsupervised activity such as walking to school on their own you are in danger of being accused of child abuse and having your kids taken away by the state.
It's a lot harder and more expensive to have children now.
I know a lot of families right now with six or more kids. But you have to make being a family your purpose, not whatever supposedly exciting activities a lot of people would rather do.
I know families like that too (some may even be ones you know) but they are rare because both parents need to want it. I think it is more common for couple and would be parents to want 3 or 4 and then, for all sorts of reasons, to end up with one or two
That's true. The wage/price thing is missing a component. It's the whole modern mindset of Things being more important than People/families. I was a stay at home mom, for the most part, and only worked outside when some special need arose. I still found small ways to bring in extra income, but we were also far less consumed with having every shiny new thing that came along.
Granted, I'm getting old, but there have been many valuable points brought up in the discussions here. Family is far less important to most people these days and they have no idea what they are robbing society of. Thankfully, there are a few youngsters who are firmly in the "Old School" mindset, maybe even more than when I grew up. That remnant may yet be the ones who turn things around.
In my books, I have families and stress the importance of teamwork within couples. Men and women aren't equal in gifts, but work together contributing equally to make a very special whole. When they work together as a team, neither is more important than the other, just different, with different things to bring to the partnership.
Without that, they'd be striving against each other.
I think stories with good families is very important. If they aren't in the stories children and young people read, how will they know about them?
I had a friend say he wanted to put a set of my books in his daughter's elementary school (in an Asian country.) I objected that I didn't think they were fit for elementary school.
He said, "But the girls think and talk about getting married. I don't see that anywhere else."
It seems like In most times and places children have been an asset. To Almanzo Wilder’s father and probably a lot of fathers today around the world a child is one more person to work in the fields.
That's true in some areas, but not in others. There were plenty of places where second and third sons had to go to great effort in order to provide for themselves, but people still tried to have them.
Coming from a family where work ethic was important and valued. I did all kinds of chores and helped my dad (my brothers are far younger than I) even to the point of helping him lay brick when I was 10. That was the Best thing he could have done! We worked together, I learned how to Do things. He was not considering me unpaid help, but a part of the family that contributed to it. He felt it was his responsibility to teach me things. Now days, it's stick a phone in their hands and ignore them.
"Does the fact that we now think he is wrong mean we should publically condemn him, or worse? Should men go be fired or go to prison for behaviors that we abhor now but cheered then?
These are weighty questions."
That last question is not weighty. The answer is that it is unjust to prosecute or persecute that past behavior.
Let consequrnces flow. Feminism has been protected by the state through the shackling of men to women who want to have sex like rabbits but have men share the family consequences that weren't part of the bargain. This is especially problematic what with manifold and cheap contraceptives. As soon as women are left holding the bag alone a self preservation motive sets up in them. It's called many things. Chasity for one.
More and more from what others in the alt circles say, build parallel societies. Male and female have the ingredients set right in front of them, enough folks understand that most will go with the flow.
May 15·edited May 15Liked by L. Jagi Lamplighter Wright
"How do we go back to a society that honors chastity and marriage?"
Sorry, you can't go back. Life moves forward, the sexual revolution was powered by hormonal birth control and legal widely available abortion, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Marriage changed from a socially enforced lifelong commitment where a man provided resources and protection to a woman in exchange for assurance of paternity of his children. It's now just a legal status, applicable to more than just man/woman relationships, and there is no social pressure/enforcement. It is a legal status to be maintained as long is it is convenient.
Women will never accept that 'girls mature faster than boys' is one of the greatest lies ever told. The lie works, because like every good con, it's a lie the mark wants to believe. They'll never go back to accepting paternal/fraternal/maternal altruism--- folks in their lives trying to keep them from doing stupid things based on believing the lie. They'll continue getting into things they're actually too young and immature to handle. {one of my daughters was very skeptical about this, until she started working as a therapist assisting women, and came to realize many of their problems were based on believing the lie}.
Abortion is the ultimate fail safe for women against reproducing with the wrong guy. Which makes it an enabler for having serious relationships with the wrong guys. Exciting guys. They've shone they won't give that up. Fun is more important than human life. That devaluation of human life, their disdain and contempt for that ability to host life and bring it into the world would have to be the first thing to change. Again, men's admiration, bordering on reverence, for that ability was the basis for the customary courtesies that they're now beginning to abandon. If women are contemptuous of that core ability, why would men respect them for it? Women are not going to abandon that fail-safe. According to numbers from the CDC, in the US:
There was 1 reported abortion for every 3 live births each year from 1973 to 1998. A 25% kill rate.
In 2020, the ratio was 1 to 5. A 17% kill rate but- chemically induced abortion was introduced in ~1998, Plan B became available in 2000, and some areas stopped reporting abortions but do report births. We have no idea what the current kill rate is, at least 17% but definitely higher.
Women want to have their fun, abortion ensures they can.
You can't change human nature, you can't undue technological progress. You would have to start with valuing human life, an awe bordering on reverence for the ability to bring life into the world.
We saw a reverse of just this kind happen in the early 1800s.
Society had been heading towards morelicentiousness, more freedom for women, more disregard of marriage, and it turned around. Just because people decided to.
I think we severely underestimate how much our current society is built on a number of simple lies, for instance, overpopulation, which ultimately justifies nearly all our vices.
If society move to a different footing, I think we'd see a change that we would all find quite surprising, considering that we think certain things are inevitable now.
My only concern is that I'd like it to be a positive change, rather than just negative change in a different direction.
May 15·edited May 15Liked by L. Jagi Lamplighter Wright
My more optimistic side would like to agree with you. I would also cite the 'Jesus Freak' movement in the '70s that seemed to be a rejection of the licentiousness of the 'free love' movement. It seems to indicate folks are willing to embrace a moral code that provides more meaning in their lives.
Yet, even during that movement the abortion rate remained constant. The phenomenon of spree shooters arose.
This isn't a 'woman thing', it's a human thing. All humans will use power available to them. As George Gilder put it, women's sexuality is a type of power, just as men's physical strength is a type of power. Morality is a means of directing that power to be used in the interests of civilization. George Gilder in 'Men and Marriage' asserted that monogamous marriage enforced by society results in men having an interest in a stable and improving society for the benefit of their children and grandchildren. Hence, western civilization rejecting polygamy where only the more powerful men had access to women enabled more men to have children, more men vested in that stable society. Directing their energies in a positive direction as opposed to not caring, or groups of men more interested in impressing each other, normally through physical prowess/capability for violence in a pack. Focus on their local conditions and status instead of the greater society.
This is *not* about sex, or sex outside of marriage. It *is* about Feminism.
You're never going to put the sexual genie back in the bottle. Not since the invention of the Pill, among other things. We're not going back to that world. But yes, what we're doing now is so not-working as to be suicidal.
My thesis is that Feminism is downstream from what I have called the Obsolescence of Women: the fact that during the last 300 years of technical and economic innovation, women went from having full-time, 12-hour-a-day, jobs just keeping the family going, to being no longer needed. We improved them out of a job, and hence their life-role. It was done by men, out of love for women. But no one thought about what comes next. So women looked around for another life-role and the only other one they could see was the male role. So Feminism decided that the future for women was to become men.
That does not work. Women are not men, nor vice-versa. We need a new life-model for women *that works* with the biological realities of H. Sapiens.
You get what you measure. Every time. We measure everything in terms of money, so our society is really, really good at making money. It's not so good at making and nurturing human beings.
If we were looking at any other species, we would measure their success by their average individual health, and their population trend, their reproductive success. For H. Sapiens, both of those things are going backwards at a rapid pace. But we're making money.
What's ironic is that the main reason we seek money with such intensity is that the money buys social status. Why do we want social status so damn much? Because it is highly correlated to reproductive access for primates. Your genes want you to have high social status so that you can get laid and make babies. The terrible irony is that all this money-chasing is the very thing that is causing us to cease having babies. Joke's on us.
What do we do now? We seek to *understand* ourselves, understand just what an H. Sapiens is, and why they do the things they do. Until there is understanding, action is worse than useless. After all, that's exactly what Feminism was and is: action without understanding.
I'm not entirely sure about not going back in the genie bottle though.
I've been doing a lot of research about the early 1800s, and basically almost exactly that happened. Yes it wasn't as much as now, but a social change lef to an entirely different attitude towards women, adultery, whether or not women should be involved in politics, and many other things. Some good. Some bad.
A change in attitude for our society would go a long way towards a very different experience.
May 15·edited May 15Liked by L. Jagi Lamplighter Wright
Having high social status is correlated to greater reproductive success for men. It isn't associated with greater reproductive success for women.
Women do have a fear however, of men leaving them. As the more vulnerable of the two sexes they place greater value on security. Making their own money provides them that security, making them independent of men. Ironically, they also tend to seek men who make more than them, lowering their options in terms of who they see as acceptable for long term relationships. However, rationally-- ensuring you can take care of yourself is a very logical choice.
Another consequence is- building a career to the point they make significant income, also delays them getting into a serious relationship and having kids. They'll be older, and hence probably have fewer children.
Almost an insurmountable problem. Perhaps the only solution is a new Great Awakening which I don't really see happening but don't rule out either. It will be especially difficult in the cities which should it occur, will increase the divide between cities and America.
Unless people of opposite sex can have sexual relationships among the environment of work or school, how do they get to the point of marriage? College is the best environment for women to meet men they may marry . That includes male professors.
If history is any guide, the current societal situation will continue to deteriorate until THIS society fails completely and the need to concentrate on personal and familial survival revives the patterns of behavior that enhance that survival. And the need to band families together for survival against the "barbarians" will create a new society with mores that promote societal survival, instead of the suicidal path we're on at present.
If you read Kings and Chronicles, also, you get quite a few examples of societies that went quite wrong, and then the next king was a reformer and got everybody straighten up again.
That's not what history shows if you look at the year 1800.
The 1700s moved more and more into approval of debauchery, but by 1820 or 30 society was heading in a very different direction. We think of the victorian period as being after Victoria, but it started squarely before.
It was just a social decision among the common people to live more decent lives.
Very good post and very good question.
"What should we do now?"
Since I'm a man, I cannot really answer that for you, but only offer perspective and maybe suggestions.
They would go in this order:
1. Dump the F'ing radical feminists (opportunists) that led you down this path of destruction and never really cared about you - past the numbers you added to their pursuit of power, money and influence at all costs. Contrary to the propaganda they fed you, men were not the ones who told you to loathe yourselves and everything that made you women...that was your destructive radical sisters.
2. Figure out what being a woman is and means - and then teach that to the next generations of females, as fast as you can. The radicals have always fought their wars based on attrition. They infiltrate a group, subvert it and then turn it against itself - knowing the destructive orthodoxy will spread like a cancer, from member to member. So you are fighting a numbers war and you're way behind. If you really want to find your way back to a baseline, then you need to makeup the ground they've taken and then surpass them. Keep in mind they are making converts hourly.
3. Drop the lie of "winner or loser". That was sold to you to keep you on the plantation. It's no longer relevant, if it ever was and it's an unquantifiable goal. Since their definition of "win" was ever moving and changing, you were never meant to achieve it - only be held in a battle that kept you controlled and subjugated, by the radfems for their own purposes. How else could they get women, to kill unborn women - while cheering and chanting "women's rights are human rights"?
4. Understand that as much as you've been told that men see you as chattel, it's the radfems that saw and treated you like fungible tokens. This is evident in their support for the new women - you know...the ones with penises. Matter of fact, you women who refuse to accept your new "sisters", are immediately attacked by those same radfems, that only the day prior stood shoulder to shoulder with you, in the "war of the sexes".
5. Unlearn the lessons you've been taught by the radfems - make it opposites day. Anything they told you is wrong, so the opposite - on the whole - must be right. Prostitution is not sex work; Promiscuity is not empowering and liberating; men are not the enemy; being told you are attractive is not sexual abuse; having a door held open for you by a man is not misogyny; eye contact from a man is not rape; homemakers and stay at home mothers are not stupid, dumb, dupes or handmaids in a tale and abortions are not empowering, healthcare or human rights.
6. Guard against letting radicals back into your groups. Watch the walls well and be wary. They come in all forms and have all manner of subversion to sell.
7. Cut away the dead skin. Some will not be able to be saved. Let them go. War of attrition, remember? You don't have time to waste.
8. Learn to appreciate who you are as a woman, which means setting personal boundaries, norms and morals. This is not a hive mind, group think, or collective dogma. You can't become you, if you're a drone in the collective - which is what they sold you in the first place.
9. Lastly seek out others and form your own liberated (from the radfems) groups to support one another and not tear each other apart.
10. Ok, this is the last one - more a request for all women - do not indulge in the fish lips, fake boobs, airbrush make-up and hooker fashion, that they are trying hard to make the norm. Yup, many of us men will turn our heads to look, but even the guys that do, think the package looks clownish.
All the above really isn't just applicable to escaping the radfem capture, women seem to have fallen victim to, but applies to any group that finds it's been taken over by radicals and is being destroyed from the inside out. These days, that's all of us, on some level.
No time to waste.
Wow. That's a lot.
And absolutely spot on.
I try not to make comments, that are posts...but this and other issues are hard to address with a few lines. I appreciate your indulgence of my soapbox.
Kudos to you, for stepping into this dissident space. It's the only way you girls will reclaim your sovereignty from the radicals.
Keep bringing the truth and wisdom.
CTD
Lol I almost wrote back "You know, your comment would make a good post!" ;-)
Thank you.
Probably best to reset. Repeal the 19th. See where we go from there. We beat R v W and now we are watching the GOPe throw that away. Put Chesterton's fences back up. See where we get from there.
Turn to God, then. That is the only answer. Turn away from evil, for that is what all of this is, and turn to the One who has made you.
This is the only abd real answer.
Anything else leads to more problems.
Until women realize that men are there as partners, not enemies, nothing will change.
Men work so hard to make the world a better place; all they want is a woman who will support them and hold them up as a beacon.
We have never had a problem with women working or wanting to stay home. We just wanted women to be happy.
It's just that women could never figure out what made them happy.
And now, it's almost too late. Women hate men, men are walking away, and hope for the next generation goes with them.
Agreed!
Loving men is the main thing most women have done throughout all history. There's nothing wrong with that, and we need to get back to basics!
Well, male professors and female students falling in love has been a problem since the days of Abelard and Héloïse. I don't think society ever found a good solution to that problem.
lol No. True.
Indeed. When I was a grad student in the late ‘60s/early ‘70s there were a lot of professor - coed relationships … perfectly legal, assuming the coeds were above the age of consent, but regarded with a bit of a jaundiced eye from an ethical point of view. It was considered thoroughly unethical to have a relationship or just casual sex with a coed in a class one was teaching…and - though it was quite common - thoroughly unethical for a professor to have a relationship with a grad student on whose committee he sat or chaired. The minimum standard was to date only coeds not enrolled in one’s courses, the more generally ethical notion was to stick with coeds outside one’s department….
A real family with children is built around one person that earns enough to provide for everyone.
So the other can stay home with the children, and in the worst case work there.
Earning enough comes from a mix of wage and prices.
Lower wages and higher prices means less families, with or without the sexual revolution.
Law cannot determine culture, but could at least give a more favourable balance of wages and prices.
6That wage /price thing just does not reflect the way children have been born in the past. I think that's a modern theory.
The majority of place in the past, they have had much less wages, much more want, then even the poor do now much less the modern well-to-do who think they're too poor to have children.
This is a cultural issue, not a financial issue.
As an example, a good friend who lives in Africa, lives in a situations so poor that we would not imagine it here in America, but he has four kids, and he took in his nephew.
Money is not stopping people from having children, love of money, greed, wanting to live the "good life" is stopping people from having children.
Part of the problem is that the developed world has turned children into a greater burden. Sure child labor could be abusive but we're at the point now where things like mowing neighbor's lawns on a weekend has been made effectively illegal. Plus (and related) these days if you allow your children any form of unsupervised activity such as walking to school on their own you are in danger of being accused of child abuse and having your kids taken away by the state.
It's a lot harder and more expensive to have children now.
It depends on where you live.
I know a lot of families right now with six or more kids. But you have to make being a family your purpose, not whatever supposedly exciting activities a lot of people would rather do.
I know families like that too (some may even be ones you know) but they are rare because both parents need to want it. I think it is more common for couple and would be parents to want 3 or 4 and then, for all sorts of reasons, to end up with one or two
What I have seen is that if one or both are atheists, they end up with 0-2.
It's the religious families who are having many kids.
All the religions.
That's true. The wage/price thing is missing a component. It's the whole modern mindset of Things being more important than People/families. I was a stay at home mom, for the most part, and only worked outside when some special need arose. I still found small ways to bring in extra income, but we were also far less consumed with having every shiny new thing that came along.
Granted, I'm getting old, but there have been many valuable points brought up in the discussions here. Family is far less important to most people these days and they have no idea what they are robbing society of. Thankfully, there are a few youngsters who are firmly in the "Old School" mindset, maybe even more than when I grew up. That remnant may yet be the ones who turn things around.
In my books, I have families and stress the importance of teamwork within couples. Men and women aren't equal in gifts, but work together contributing equally to make a very special whole. When they work together as a team, neither is more important than the other, just different, with different things to bring to the partnership.
Without that, they'd be striving against each other.
I think stories with good families is very important. If they aren't in the stories children and young people read, how will they know about them?
I had a friend say he wanted to put a set of my books in his daughter's elementary school (in an Asian country.) I objected that I didn't think they were fit for elementary school.
He said, "But the girls think and talk about getting married. I don't see that anywhere else."
It seems like In most times and places children have been an asset. To Almanzo Wilder’s father and probably a lot of fathers today around the world a child is one more person to work in the fields.
That's true in some areas, but not in others. There were plenty of places where second and third sons had to go to great effort in order to provide for themselves, but people still tried to have them.
Coming from a family where work ethic was important and valued. I did all kinds of chores and helped my dad (my brothers are far younger than I) even to the point of helping him lay brick when I was 10. That was the Best thing he could have done! We worked together, I learned how to Do things. He was not considering me unpaid help, but a part of the family that contributed to it. He felt it was his responsibility to teach me things. Now days, it's stick a phone in their hands and ignore them.
"Does the fact that we now think he is wrong mean we should publically condemn him, or worse? Should men go be fired or go to prison for behaviors that we abhor now but cheered then?
These are weighty questions."
That last question is not weighty. The answer is that it is unjust to prosecute or persecute that past behavior.
Indeed.
Let consequrnces flow. Feminism has been protected by the state through the shackling of men to women who want to have sex like rabbits but have men share the family consequences that weren't part of the bargain. This is especially problematic what with manifold and cheap contraceptives. As soon as women are left holding the bag alone a self preservation motive sets up in them. It's called many things. Chasity for one.
The family is no longer sacred. There will be artificial wombs. It will be a return to slavery.
More and more from what others in the alt circles say, build parallel societies. Male and female have the ingredients set right in front of them, enough folks understand that most will go with the flow.
Let them die off, to put it in brutal words.
The problem with parallel societies is that they don't seem to really work.
The good stuff just gets converged again.
On the other hand, if a portion ofthe population behaves one way and is happier, others may start gravitating to it.
Trying again.
The US is structured as 50 parallel societies, and you do see population shifts from state to state. U-haul is a gauge.
Good point!
Stay close to Jesus.
That is the only real answer.
"How do we go back to a society that honors chastity and marriage?"
Sorry, you can't go back. Life moves forward, the sexual revolution was powered by hormonal birth control and legal widely available abortion, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Marriage changed from a socially enforced lifelong commitment where a man provided resources and protection to a woman in exchange for assurance of paternity of his children. It's now just a legal status, applicable to more than just man/woman relationships, and there is no social pressure/enforcement. It is a legal status to be maintained as long is it is convenient.
Women will never accept that 'girls mature faster than boys' is one of the greatest lies ever told. The lie works, because like every good con, it's a lie the mark wants to believe. They'll never go back to accepting paternal/fraternal/maternal altruism--- folks in their lives trying to keep them from doing stupid things based on believing the lie. They'll continue getting into things they're actually too young and immature to handle. {one of my daughters was very skeptical about this, until she started working as a therapist assisting women, and came to realize many of their problems were based on believing the lie}.
Abortion is the ultimate fail safe for women against reproducing with the wrong guy. Which makes it an enabler for having serious relationships with the wrong guys. Exciting guys. They've shone they won't give that up. Fun is more important than human life. That devaluation of human life, their disdain and contempt for that ability to host life and bring it into the world would have to be the first thing to change. Again, men's admiration, bordering on reverence, for that ability was the basis for the customary courtesies that they're now beginning to abandon. If women are contemptuous of that core ability, why would men respect them for it? Women are not going to abandon that fail-safe. According to numbers from the CDC, in the US:
There was 1 reported abortion for every 3 live births each year from 1973 to 1998. A 25% kill rate.
In 2020, the ratio was 1 to 5. A 17% kill rate but- chemically induced abortion was introduced in ~1998, Plan B became available in 2000, and some areas stopped reporting abortions but do report births. We have no idea what the current kill rate is, at least 17% but definitely higher.
Women want to have their fun, abortion ensures they can.
You can't change human nature, you can't undue technological progress. You would have to start with valuing human life, an awe bordering on reverence for the ability to bring life into the world.
And yet
We saw a reverse of just this kind happen in the early 1800s.
Society had been heading towards morelicentiousness, more freedom for women, more disregard of marriage, and it turned around. Just because people decided to.
I think we severely underestimate how much our current society is built on a number of simple lies, for instance, overpopulation, which ultimately justifies nearly all our vices.
If society move to a different footing, I think we'd see a change that we would all find quite surprising, considering that we think certain things are inevitable now.
My only concern is that I'd like it to be a positive change, rather than just negative change in a different direction.
My more optimistic side would like to agree with you. I would also cite the 'Jesus Freak' movement in the '70s that seemed to be a rejection of the licentiousness of the 'free love' movement. It seems to indicate folks are willing to embrace a moral code that provides more meaning in their lives.
Yet, even during that movement the abortion rate remained constant. The phenomenon of spree shooters arose.
This isn't a 'woman thing', it's a human thing. All humans will use power available to them. As George Gilder put it, women's sexuality is a type of power, just as men's physical strength is a type of power. Morality is a means of directing that power to be used in the interests of civilization. George Gilder in 'Men and Marriage' asserted that monogamous marriage enforced by society results in men having an interest in a stable and improving society for the benefit of their children and grandchildren. Hence, western civilization rejecting polygamy where only the more powerful men had access to women enabled more men to have children, more men vested in that stable society. Directing their energies in a positive direction as opposed to not caring, or groups of men more interested in impressing each other, normally through physical prowess/capability for violence in a pack. Focus on their local conditions and status instead of the greater society.
This is *not* about sex, or sex outside of marriage. It *is* about Feminism.
You're never going to put the sexual genie back in the bottle. Not since the invention of the Pill, among other things. We're not going back to that world. But yes, what we're doing now is so not-working as to be suicidal.
My thesis is that Feminism is downstream from what I have called the Obsolescence of Women: the fact that during the last 300 years of technical and economic innovation, women went from having full-time, 12-hour-a-day, jobs just keeping the family going, to being no longer needed. We improved them out of a job, and hence their life-role. It was done by men, out of love for women. But no one thought about what comes next. So women looked around for another life-role and the only other one they could see was the male role. So Feminism decided that the future for women was to become men.
That does not work. Women are not men, nor vice-versa. We need a new life-model for women *that works* with the biological realities of H. Sapiens.
You get what you measure. Every time. We measure everything in terms of money, so our society is really, really good at making money. It's not so good at making and nurturing human beings.
If we were looking at any other species, we would measure their success by their average individual health, and their population trend, their reproductive success. For H. Sapiens, both of those things are going backwards at a rapid pace. But we're making money.
What's ironic is that the main reason we seek money with such intensity is that the money buys social status. Why do we want social status so damn much? Because it is highly correlated to reproductive access for primates. Your genes want you to have high social status so that you can get laid and make babies. The terrible irony is that all this money-chasing is the very thing that is causing us to cease having babies. Joke's on us.
What do we do now? We seek to *understand* ourselves, understand just what an H. Sapiens is, and why they do the things they do. Until there is understanding, action is worse than useless. After all, that's exactly what Feminism was and is: action without understanding.
That's an excellent point about money and status!
I'm not entirely sure about not going back in the genie bottle though.
I've been doing a lot of research about the early 1800s, and basically almost exactly that happened. Yes it wasn't as much as now, but a social change lef to an entirely different attitude towards women, adultery, whether or not women should be involved in politics, and many other things. Some good. Some bad.
A change in attitude for our society would go a long way towards a very different experience.
Having high social status is correlated to greater reproductive success for men. It isn't associated with greater reproductive success for women.
Women do have a fear however, of men leaving them. As the more vulnerable of the two sexes they place greater value on security. Making their own money provides them that security, making them independent of men. Ironically, they also tend to seek men who make more than them, lowering their options in terms of who they see as acceptable for long term relationships. However, rationally-- ensuring you can take care of yourself is a very logical choice.
Another consequence is- building a career to the point they make significant income, also delays them getting into a serious relationship and having kids. They'll be older, and hence probably have fewer children.
Almost an insurmountable problem. Perhaps the only solution is a new Great Awakening which I don't really see happening but don't rule out either. It will be especially difficult in the cities which should it occur, will increase the divide between cities and America.
Unless people of opposite sex can have sexual relationships among the environment of work or school, how do they get to the point of marriage? College is the best environment for women to meet men they may marry . That includes male professors.
If history is any guide, the current societal situation will continue to deteriorate until THIS society fails completely and the need to concentrate on personal and familial survival revives the patterns of behavior that enhance that survival. And the need to band families together for survival against the "barbarians" will create a new society with mores that promote societal survival, instead of the suicidal path we're on at present.
If you read Kings and Chronicles, also, you get quite a few examples of societies that went quite wrong, and then the next king was a reformer and got everybody straighten up again.
That's not what history shows if you look at the year 1800.
The 1700s moved more and more into approval of debauchery, but by 1820 or 30 society was heading in a very different direction. We think of the victorian period as being after Victoria, but it started squarely before.
It was just a social decision among the common people to live more decent lives.