Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Feminist betrayal

I have lately been reading some of the works of German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. He was born in 1788, one year prior to the French Revolution, and in his lifetime saw much of the social turmoil in Europe during the transition from the king and church paradigm to democracy, Napoleon's empire, the enlightenment, etc. He read Voltaire and other famous writers who came directly before him, and observed a great deal about human nature during his philosophical career.

This particular treatise I am excerpting for you today is from his work on the concept of Honor. Of course, it starts out with honor among gentlemen, gambling debts, and goes on to cover knightly (chivalrous) honor, honor among governments, etc.

Part of his observations, of course, discuss honor among the relationships between men and women. What Schopenhauer was seeing was the beginnings of what we now call feminism, and makes some comments that I have made, in other forms, myself. The topic of this section of his writing is basically the social contract that men and women have regarding marriage and raising children.

Feminists today would say these ideas are antiquated and oppressive to women - but they don't actually ask most women about it, I think, or they'd realize they're dead wrong. First, look at what Schopenhauer observed:

...In treating of sexual honor and the principles on which it rests, a little more attention and analysis are necessary, and what I shall say will support my contention that honor really rests upon a utilitarian basis...

...Female honor is the general opinion in regard to a girl that she is pure, and in regard to a wife that she is faithful. ...So an arrangement is made for mutual interdependence... Women depend upon men, men upon women... [Ultimately] man undertaking responsibility for his wife's [financial, material] needs and also for the children that spring from their union - an arrangement on which is based the welfare of the whole female race.

...Women have to band together with a show of esprit de corps, and present one undivided front to their "enemy," man, in order to [affect this mutual interdependence between them]. To this end, the honor of all women depends upon the enforcement of the rule that no woman should give herself to a man except in marriage, in order that every man may be persuaded, as it were, to surrender and ally himself with a wife; by this arrangement provision is made for the whole of the family. This is a result, however, which can be obtained only by a strict observance of the rule, and accordingly women everywhere show true esprit de corps in carefully insisting upon its maintenance. Any girl who commits a breach of the rule betrays all her sisters, because their welfare [and that of their children] would be destroyed if every woman were to do likewise...

...The same doom is awarded to a woman who breaks the marriage tie, for in so doing she is false to the terms upon which the man agreed to covenant, and as her conduct is such as to frighten other men from making a similar surrender, it imperils the welfare of all her sisters...

...The corresponding virtue in men is a product of the one I have been discussing. It is their esprit de corps which demands that, once a man has made that surrender of himself in marriage which is so advantageous, he shall take care that the terms of the treaty are maintained...

...Once this esprit de corps is acknowledged to be the foundation of female honor, and is seen to be a wholesome, nay, a necessary arrangement, as at bottom a matter of prudence and interest, its extreme importance for the welfare of women will be recognized...

The problem is, the modern feminist paradigm does not recognize the damage they have done to their sisters. Women and children all over America have been thrown into poverty due to lack of support from men who no longer are interested in the millenia-old social contract that protected women and children from exploitation by men who had no intention of supporting them.

Now, regrettably, the social contract has largely been shredded in secular society. Women no longer have an option to stay home and have a traditional family. They no longer have the option to raise their own children, men now insist that their defenseless children be put into herds to be raised by badly paid strangers who will never care about them as much as their real mothers. Why? Worship of the almighty dollar and the materialistic junk it buys over the real welfare of their wives and children - and later in life, their parents, too, who are also dumped into herds, just more expensive ones.

Ironically, interspersed throughout these comments are a few remarks to the effect that the marriage contract actually benefits women far more than it does men, and this is in fact the case. Feminists refuse to recognize this truth, however, and continue to pretend that marriage and motherhood are some sort of unnatural thing that has nothing to do with the female gender or the success of children and society.

Women of the feminist movement purposefully broke the social contract, insisting that living as a burden on society (welfare, daycare programs) and as slaves of the corporate robber baron CEOs (in the workforce) are somehow "Better" and "liberating" when in fact they are nothing of the kind.

I continually marvel when people claim they are free but have no say whatsoever how to spend their time all day, how to raise their children (except for a couple of hours in the evening), and cannot even properly recover from illness or any sort of family difficulty because they have sold themselves into servitude. They "save" themselves from the horrors of housekeeping and other chores by buying poorer women to do it for them, and claim they are "free," never admitting the damage they are doing to the family in general by demeaning ordinary household chores as somehow beneath them. In the process, they demean poor women and perpetuate the cycle of disdain for normal everyday activities of life.

My children are in school during weekdays now, but even when they were babies I had more freedom and choices of how to spend my time that these supposedly "free" women do. I can sit with my sick child all day and not live in fear of the displeasure of the robber barons who bought me. I can enrich my children's lives by taking them to the park, or the pool, or the museum, or just for a walk around the block anytime - I don't have to try and squeeze their lives into the few hours of time allotted to me by the CEO. I'm free. I can read a book, write this blog, cook wholesome organic food for my family - even teach my sons how to cook, which they enjoy! We all share the household chores as a family, with a rotating list, so that the kids learn everything they will need to know to run a house in the adult world, and also learn that ordinary chores are not "beneath" any of us.

The quality of our life is 1000% better than all the expensive electronics, lessons in this-that-and-everything, and other materialistic junk that people think they can substitute for time with their children and real attention to their emotional and psychological needs. And, more to the point, I am free. My day is my own.

The social contract is not evil - it is the best possible arrangement for the welfare of women and their children, elderly parents, charitable organization, religious obligations, and the needs of society. By destroying the social contract, feminism has not benefited women and has not given them more "choices." Men aren't willing to support a wife and children when they can get the benefits of marriage for free and continue to live like overgrown little boys, using their resources for bigger and more expensive toys instead of for the best interests of their offspring and society. Because of feminism, women have LOST choices, not gained them.

No comments: