It's always pretty much always pandemonium in the world -- hey, it's the history of humanity -- but you'd think America would have enough sense to avoid most of it. After all, we do have the whole of history before us to guide us. Right? Right?
Then why do we keep making the biggest mistake of all, the one that has brought down society after society after society? What I mean is this: the growth of the State, which, as it grows, always damages or destroys society. And I do mean always.
Whatever the State gets involved in, it will always hurt that thing. And also always, if the interference goes on long enough, it destroys. And that includes one of the things that is the basis of any stable society -- the relationships between men and women.
If the State stayed out of those relationships, men and women would fall into their natural roles, contrary to the delusions of leftists who think that people who believe in freedom are actually just wankers (I am reminded of a comment by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: "Leftists don't merely misunderstand human nature; they don't understand it at all").
Since the State does intervene massively, current roles are anything but natural.
For an example: wages stopped going up in 1973 (and, yeah, wages do have an effect on relationships). This collapse of wages is 100% the State's doing. It's been estimated by economists whom I actually respect and that means they aren't utterly incompetent autistic whackjobs out of Harvard, Yale and Princeton (e.g. Paul Krugman), that if wages had continued to go up, as they would have if we still had a free market, the average salary would be about $90,000 a year. Now imagine that!
With that kind of money a man could easily support a family. If his wife didn't want to work, no problem. They could have a middle-class house, a yearly vacation, and everything else that used to be part of the American Dream.
Those days are gone. Gone, gone, gone.
There are other problems (there are always "other problems"). Over the past few decades (about 30 years, I'd say) the law (sic) has benefited educated, intelligent (perhaps "high-IQ is a better phrase, since this kind of women aren't exactly smart) women (but not lowly-paid, not-so-bright women) at the expense of men. This has caused some pretty big problems. Really big problems.
As a woman's socioeconomic status has gone up, many if not most of them expect a potential husband's not only to keep pace with hers, but to be higher. He is supposed to be taller (always), just as good-looking if not better-looking, have just as high-paying of a job if not higher...and also support her career, etc., etc.
You know exactly what I'm talking about; I don't have to go on and on and explain all the bullshit in detail.
However, the law is now against men. For example, Affirmative Action means "White Men Need Not Apply." I have seen the truth of this several times, often from men who at first thought it was a fair thing but who now are rabidly against it.
I have seen men with Master's degrees who could find nothing but part-time jobs, for several years, while they watched, at first unbelievingly, as less qualified (and sometimes unqualified) women (and minorities) were promoted over them.
I've had more than one man tell me the men at the job had to carry the women, many of whom thought working was holding meetings and talking and drinking coffee. I've seen it myself. More than once.
What's ironic about men carrying some women at work is that these women, who believe they got their positions completely on their own, generally do not consider the men who work for them to be marriageable. Now that is a tragicomedy if there ever was one.
And of course the marginally-qualified, indeed the unqualified and therefore inept, never know they are. I've seen it several times, and so have you.
What this means is that while the socioeconomic status of educated women is going up, the exact opposite is true of many men. So many of these women look up and up and up for a husband...while most of them are down below.
This is one of the reasons why 49% of all people in the United States are not married (and soon it's going to be 50%). It's not the only reason, but it's the main reason why educated, highly-paid women are living alone in apartments with cats taking the place of the kids they'll never have because their ovaries have shriveled up.
These problems between men and women were taken care of in the past by society when men were highly paid and women were kept out of most jobs. Since women's socioeconomic status wasn't that high, the available pool of potential husbands was much larger.
Nowadays, if a woman is a lawyer (shudder) or a doctor or an MBA or has a PH.D. or a CPA or a CEO, she is going to look around by a man who's even higher up...and then finds they are not there. And if they are there, what man in his right mind would marry a female lawyer?
When men go home they want peace and quiet and a little bit of happiness. That ain't asking for much, I don't think.
These women, unable to find a man they consider marriageable, then get hostile and blame their problems on men. And I'm seen that, too, more than once. And so have you.
These women in fact are turning themselves into spinsters. That's not a word used anymore, but it should be. Not only spinsters, but self-deluded, ambitious spinsters, who justify their being alone with fantasies about how men don't like "strong women" (read unpleasant and hostile) or "successful women" (read unpleasant and hostile).
If these women wish to get married, then they will have to lower their standards. However, they cannot do it. They cannot love a man they consider not up to their standards; they cannot respect him, and they are in a self-induced, self-deluded rage at everything but their own ignorant selves.
What is ironic, and almost completely ignored (or denied as untrue or due to a non-existent "oppression" by "patriarchy") is that men are responsible for civilization.
As Camille Paglia so famously noted, without men, women would still be living grass huts. And as P.J. O'Rourke noted, more humorously but just as accurately, without men civilization would last until the next oil change.
Also ignored or denied is that, as Charles Murray (and others in the past) noted in his Human Accomplishment, for the past 500 years (and probably longer) European men and their descendents across the world have been responsible for 97% of all the inventions in the world.
This is not due to "oppression" of women, preventing them from all the accomplishments they would have achieved. Anyone who believes that has fallen for 40 years of Marxist/feminist/ lies.
For that matter, the words "freedom" and "liberty" are strictly Europeans concepts. The ideas have never existed anyplace else in the world.
You'd think women would be grateful to men, admire and respect them? Nope. Instead, for the more educated ones, more! more! is their motto. "The more you give give me, the more I want from you."
Of course, this means high-paying indoor jobs. It doesn't mean digging coal or working on an oil rig. Nothing dirty and dangerous, of course.
Since indeed men are responsible for nearly all (for all practical purposes, all) advances in society, when they are not allowed to do so, by force of law, it is logically inescapable that society will go backwards.
Men will always dominate in what is known as STEM -- science, technology, engineering, math. And of course these men are always considered geeks and nerds, and of course are not the heartthobs of almost all women.
Of course we can go back to the past when the free market gave men high-paying jobs (good idea) and women were kept out of most jobs (not so good of an idea).
People might want to keep in mind that is mistranslated as "the pursuit of happiness" is really the Greek word "eudamonia," which can mean "a system to pursue well-being or flourishing." The way to do this is "arete," which translates as "excellence." (The word "phronesis", often translated as "practical or moral wisdom, is also used.)
Or as the philosopher Brand Blanshard put it, "I'm inclined to think the person does the most for the world by being his own self in the fullest measure." In order for this to happen, there must be freedom. Not the law benefitting one group and oppressing another.
Spinoza noticed the same thing Blanshard did a long time ago: "Men, I repeat, can wish for nothing more excellent for preserving their own being than that they should all be in such harmony in all respects that their minds and bodies should compose, as it were, one mind and one body, and that all together should endeavor as best they can to preserve their own being, and that all together they should aim at the common advantage of all."
In others words, liberty allows people to fall into their natural roles, allows them to exercise their excellence to their fullest, and therefore be happy. This not only allows them to be as happy as they can be, it also benefits society.
So of course the State should get the hell out of people's lives. And then -- watch what happens! It'd be a much better country if liberty and freedom again became American values, not just the empty words they are so often today.
It sure would be a lot better country than the one we have now.
In the meantime, the women looking for Mr. Perfect ("rugged but sensitive but tough but loving but horny but smart...having his way with a protesting but willing but stuggling but yielding temptestuous female"*) can find him in women's pornography...also known as romance novels.
(* from Neil Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon")