The Manosphere is downright loaded with generalities. Men are like this, women are like that, Alphas don’t buy drinks for women, betas actually like chick-flicks, Danish women are fat.
Of course, there are exceptions to most of these generalities, and those who disagree with you will be quick to point these out. Mention how little boys like to break stuff, and you’ll invariably hear about some Little Lord Perceval somewhere who prefers playing with a Fisher-Price oven set to seeing how many firecrackers it takes to blow up an old toy truck as he rolls it down the hill.
That said, most boys have brutal instincts that they need to get worked through their little systems. I was a pretty well-behaved kid who almost never got into trouble, but God only knows how much time I spent smashing action figures with rocks, burning them, seeing what happens when I rode over them with my bike, experimenting to see where best to stick the firecracker inside them to make the best explosion. Few things were more fun that finding a bunch of long fluorescent bulbs in a dumpster somewhere and breaking them in as many was as possible (throwing it off a rooftop, hitting it against a tree, launching it in the air with spin, launching it in the air straight up and down, two at once, five at once, etc.).
So pointing out the exceptions in hopes of refuting the general rule can, despite the truth of the exceptions, obscure the larger truth of the generality. If I say something like “black people don’t like Van Halen”, I’m accused of stereotyping. After all, at a Van Halen concert in a 16,000 seat stadium you might see up to a dozen black people. Never mind that you could drive through certain neighborhoods forever and never hear Summer Nights or Unchained blasting from a single house or car ever, if you point out the simple fact very few black people have any insight into the David versus Sammy debate or forget to use the word “most” before “black people”, you’re probably a racist so you should shut up and go away.
This alone is a nasty little rhetorical trick in that you can find yourself forever qualifying yourself and are forever rendered unable to make your point, no matter how obvious it might be. I’m not saying that there’s no danger to generalizing (which I’ll address at the end of this post), but there’s far more danger to never being able to generalize, especially when we focus of our society on the exceptions at the expense of those who are more likely to follow the rules (in the sense of fitting into certain patterns, not doing what people tell you to do).
A perfect example of this is feminism. There have been women with strong masculine leadership traits from Judge Deborah to Judge Judy, Madame Curie to Maggie Thatcher. We’ve always had tomboys and girls who love getting under the hood of a car. Some women have the business drive and acumen to rival any man, and there have always been women who felt stifled being a housewife.
However, that’s not most women. Most women find a strong urge to be a mommy and spend less time at the office after a few years. Most women don’t join the Army because they want the opportunity to legally kill (hopefully for a good cause). Most women don’t find that their occupations are as central to their identity they are for as most men. In fact, I would even argue that most women feel more fulfilled by seeing their little tots grow into happy men and women than they ever could by hitting the top of some sales matrix for ten years running.
Are there exceptions to each of these examples? Yes, but the exceptions are exactly that: exceptions. However, feminism in both its social and political manifestations wants us to treat the exceptions as the rule and to encourage those who are naturally inclined to follow the rule to make themselves into exceptions. We’re left with a world in which women who just want to be a mom are told that they’re selling themselves short if they denigrate themselves by just being a housewife (as if being a corporate drone is somehow more important than raising well-adjusted kids). We trick women into thinking that they’re being screwed over if the time they spend on maternity leave somehow counts against them in the rat-race. We confuse “independence” with being supported by the government instead of a husband. We tell women that they can have it all, and they find themselves alone and unfulfilled at thirty-five with some pretty impressive accomplishments but no husband or children. We imagine that a woman who sleeps with twenty different guys over the course of a month will somehow feel the same sense of accomplishment that a man would feel for doing the same. After all, out of the hundreds of women I’ve met over the years, about three really seemed to think about sex the same way as guys.
But there are exceptions, and there is danger in stereotyping (especially about race). Hence, my bizarre hybrid of libertarianism and social conservatism.
First, I believe that we are all individuals endowed with the right to Equality Under the Law. We’ve got to do something about family law (although I’m not yet sure exactly what), but women are entitled to the same legal protections as men. Women should be free to choose whatever path they wish to follow that doesn’t violate anybody else’s rights.
This does not mean that we should give her government assistance so that she can trick herself into thinking she’s independent. Independence includes both rights and responsibilities. A woman who depends on government-funded daycare, healthcare, and whatever other programs is dependent, and that’s the opposite of independent. I know that some of you will disagree, but under such a system children won’t starve, and we’ll probably end up with more kids raised in two-parent families.
But more importantly, we need a societal re-awakening. It’s one thing to allow our Madame Curies to pursue their scientific dreams, it’s quite another to plant it in every girl’s mind that she’s probably the next Madame Curie. It’s one thing to not banish sluts to some island off Alaska somewhere, but it’s quite another to repeatedly tell them that they can find happiness on the Alpha Cock Carousel. It’s one thing to educate our young women, but when men are crowded out of college instead, there’s something seriously wrong.
Libertarians like myself are often accused of not caring about the poor because we don’t favor government assistance for them. Well, I boldly declare that I really want women to be women again, but government programs are not the answer. Sure, we need to reform family law, but no legal changes can ever be as effective as husbands being the type of men their wives don’t want to leave, women remaining the beauties both inside and out that attracted their husbands in the first place, or families and communities castigating couples for not doing what it takes to make it work. Nothing will keep girls from giving themselves away like slut-shaming. Little girls want to feel like princesses, boys want to learn how to kick ass, and there’s no good reason we shouldn’t acknowledge this.
We are what we are, male and female, good and bad with strengths and flaws. Understanding that A is A is essential.
Yet that’s only a first step. Pace my secular readers, but turning things around (if it’s even possible) will necessarily include more than the proper understanding of A; we’ll also need something to believe in.
The purpose of this blog is not Christian apology, but it’s no accident that Genesis contains as much Red Pill wisdom as anything ever written, that the downfall of ancient Israel so closely mirrors our own, that only the West became fully Christianized and only the West gave its people such freedom and prosperity, that so many Proverbs written by some guy thousands of years ago contain such quality marriage advice, that the desert temptations Christ rejected are the very temptations that wreck so many of us.
It is what it is, women and men have certain traits, and just because more rules have exceptions, it doesn’t mean there aren’t any rules. All of this is secular truth, and so long as you acknowledge it I consider you an ally.
However, simply getting more in line with our biological natures won’t be enough, for it’s wired into us to believe as much as we’re wired for hypergamy or spreading our seed.
And expecting us to get our butts in gear without acknowledging that there’s More strikes me as every bit as fanciful as Obamacare.