Monday, November 11, 2013

The World as a Resentful Matriarchy

"If an empire collapses, it’s people are going to suffer." - Stares at the World

Let’s do a thought experiment and imagine a world in which women had all the high-paying, high-status jobs and men had all the dirty, dangerous jobs feminists never talk about because they certainly don’t want to do them – coal miner, steel worker, oil rig worker, carpenter, etc.

Hannah Rosin, who is most probably a feminist because she is ugly, wrote an article, “The End of Men” and has given speeches about her beliefs (and seems to be quite gleeful about the whole thing), thinks women are taking over all the “better” jobs – lawyers, doctors, veterinarians, etc. Men, of course, would still dominate all those dangerous dirty jobs – firefighter, carpenter, etc.

What would happen in such a world? Leftists believe it would be a wonderful world and it would work just fine. But then leftists, as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn accurately noted, don’t merely misunderstand human nature – they don’t understand it at all.

In reality this world would collapse. Such a world could be maintained temporarily by the power of the State, and to the degree the United States is heading toward this matriarchal society, it’s due to government interference, such as Affirmative Action.

As Charles Murray pointed out in his magnum opus, Human Accomplishment, men have been responsible for creating/discovering almost everything in the world. Specifically he pointed out (and this has been noticed by many others before him) it was European men, and their descendants in America and the rest of the world, who have created/discovered 97% of everything.

In other words, it’s been those disparaged and despised Dead White Males who’ve done all those things.

My thought experiment is of course extreme, a reductio ad absurdum. But it makes things simpler to understand.

If women were in the position in my thought experiment, they would look around and find to their horror there would be no men to marry and have children with, because the men wouldn't be "good enough" for them. So what would happen?

They would decide to have children on their own, without being married. Since an unmarried woman with a child has an economic catastrophe in every culture in the world, these women would have to give their children to others to raise – low-paid domestic help, day-care centers, etc.

These women would of course be outraged if these helpers cost a lot of money and would demand the government subsidize them and their children, i.e., the taxpayers, most of whom would make less money than they do. In other words, the less-well-to-do are supposed to support the better off.

The schooled, not educated, women who make good money are going to throw poorer women right under the bus. And the prescriptions they make for other women are ones they will ignore in their own lives. They have in the past and are doing the same thing today.

Ah, the leftist delusion of a village raising a child fulfilled! For a very short while.

How would the children raised in this “village” turn out? Overall, not all that well. Some of course would grow up just fine, but to use the exception is the Fallacy of Composition – to assume what is true of one is true of everyone.

The humorist P.J. O’Rourke has written that without men civilization would last until the next oil change, and the feminist Camille Paglia has famously noted that if civilization were left in the hands of women we’d still be living in grass huts.

In other words, men created civilization, and have done this in every culture in the world. Women have generally done two things – have babies and determine the comfort level of the home.

Of course some women have contributed discoveries and inventions, but the statistics are so lopsided – thousands to one – that this difference is constitutional and not because of “oppression,” which leftists claim – and will claim until the end of time – is the cause of every problem in the world.

If indeed men were stuck in nothing but dirty and dangerous jobs, there would be little advancement in society. Society would in fact go backwards, until it collapsed and “patriarchy” was reestablished.

Women, for the most part, want husband, home and children. If denied these things, they get bitter, hostile and resentful, and blame their problems on men, rather than on themselves. And when they move into men's job, the status goes down (and the pay) and the men leave.

While men, when they have high-paying jobs (and wages stopped going up in the United States in January, 1973) don’t mind supporting women, if women had all the high-paying jobs and men all the dirty, dangerous ones, would they support men?

A few would, but most would be outraged. So what society would be stuck with are bitter, resentful career women unable to find husbands, so they have children on their own (most of which will grow up with problems), give them to others to raise, while the unmarried men would drink and see hookers. Or else become predators against women, in varying degrees.

What a life, and what a society.

"Patriarchy" is inevitable. Being side-tracked from it is causing some horrible things, which I suspect are going to be worse before they get better. Fortunately, get better they will.


Chris said...

Slight correction, Charles Marray's book was Human Accomplisment, Human Action was Ludvig Von Mises

Bob Wallace said...

I fixed it. I was wondering why that name looked not quite right.