The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
–Hamlet, Act III, scene ii
In my last post, among other things I discussed the emotional reaction many women seem to be having to the Santa Barbara shootings (they don’t seem to mind the stabbings too much).
My intent was to describe the visceral reaction, the notion that something’s off becoming apparent and thus creating an emotional upheaval of sorts. In no way did I mean to suggest that they young women were actually going to do something about it like treat lesser males with a bit more compassion or stop being so damn spoiled.
However, my last sentence could leave that impression:
But if men aren’t entitled to sex, if a young and virtuous bride is an unreasonable demand, that’s fine. They’ll just stop giving women all the goodies to which they feel entitled.
And that’s when civilization collapses. I suspect on some level, young women are beginning to suspect that.
And I did leave such an impression with three men I respect, deti, Reality Doug, and to a lesser extent M3. (Doug objects to another one of my assertions, which I’ll deal with below.)
Well, yes, if the average man can’t get sex, he has no incentive to improve. And if he has no incentives, then he languishes. Multiply that by 10 million or so, and yeah, you have a recipe for civilizational collapse.
But are women suspecting that? I don’t think so. Are women drawing the connection between collapse and any role that they themselves might play in that? I doubt it. Not because they are stupid, but because they just don’t connect the dots. And they don’t connect the dots because they don’t have to.
I think they see the events of last weekend as proof that they, and society, are justified in avoiding and discarding these men as unimportant and dangerous. I think that they will use this as further proof that more and more men are rightly being pushed to the fringes of society because, well, that’s where they belong.
Look. I’m not saying that women have to start sleeping with these men. Far from it. I’m simply saying that this is going to be used as proof that awkward, socially misadjusted men are going to be viewed not as a symptom of what’s wrong; but as the cause; and therefore must be removed.
As long as they flip the switch and the light comes on.. life is peechy. As long as the iPhone can recharge and get a signal from the tower.. the world is fine. As long as there is water coming from the tap to make her morning coffee.. there is nothing to worry about.
Reality Doug, in a post of his own:
I think Martel gives women too much credit. I’m no closer, but I have field experience, and I can tell you field experience is the cure to giving women too much credit. Women are not complex, not unfathomable. I think Martel may be hoping against hope that women will wake up and realize how wealth stewardship is important to all of us. They will not.
This doesn’t particularly make for a wild and crazy shouting match, but I agree that “they just don’t connect the dots,” that young women feel “justified in avoiding and discarding these men,” that if “there is water coming from the tap to make her morning coffee…there is nothing to worry about,” and I seriously doubt that “women will wake up and realize how wealth stewardship is important to all of us.”
However, I wasn’t writing about a rational response to the shootings, for I began my post by describing the volume and intensity of the #YesAllWomen tweets, none of which (that I read) were sympathetic to the plight of any males in the slightest or drew any connection whatsoever between today’s sexual/marriage markets and impending doom.
Instead, I was referring to a subtle disruption, a sense that something might be off (although I concede I wasn’t as clear as I should have been). Rational creatures like M3, deti, and Doug might respond to such a feeling by making an intellectual effort to “connect the dots”, to ascertain what’s really behind what’s going on.
Irrational creatures don’t. They”l sense a “disturbance in the force” and loudly and violently blame what strikes them as easiest to blame. Elliot Rodger hated women, therefore the problem is misogyny. Claiming anything other than that much mean you’re a misogynist, too. The more evidence you present to support your assertions, the more brazenly they’ll call you names.
Sometimes when discussing economics or other issues with lefties, they’ll be perfectly calm and reasonable until I’ve got them pinned down on some point or other, at which point they’ll get extremely angry and start calling me racist or misogynist or something. They don’t do this when I’m still flushing out the points we have in common (before I’m any threat), they wait until they have to face the terrifying prospect that I might be right.
Such it is with this. By no means to these women think that the ostracism suffered by unwanted males might merit some sort of attention or solution (do many of them even think at all?), but when one such male goes off and starts wreaking havoc, it’s got to shake them up a bit.
And it has. We’re not seeing a calm refutation of Rodger’s thesis, we’re seeing fuck all loser men!!! being screamed all over the place on Twitter like never before. This isn’t because they’re more convinced of the rational basis for the need to subvert the patriarchy, it’s because they’re beginning to suspect that there’s a problem.
That’s not to say they’ll correctly identify the problem, nor that they’ll respond to it with any perspective or maturity. But they most decidedly had to sense that something’s wrong in a way they didn’t before. Their reaction will probably be exactly what Alinsky advocates: to double down in the face of doubt. However for a moment, way deep down, they did have a brush with doubt.
Otherwise they wouldn’t be acting so damn obnoxious.
Therefore, I reject Reality Doug’s notion that I’m somehow overestimating women. (I”m painfully aware of how much chicks dig serial killers.) Moreover, even if I were being naive, it’s not my theology that would have led me to such mistaken notions. Mine is the theology that teaches us about Eve, Jezebel, Delilah, and Herodita. Besides, Christian deti was on the same side as Doug on this.
However, Doug does have another issue with my post that deserves to be addressed, for he directly took issue with my assertion that I don’t believe we should force women to “spread their wealth (sexuality) around”.
For many reasons, I advocate a government using force as rarely as possible on its own citizens, including women. Unlike many others of a libertarian predisposition, I come to my conclusions not because I believe in some inherent goodness of man. Quite to the contrary, I believe we’re too fundamentally craven to be allowed to have too much power over each other.
Fortunately, I see little need to break with this principle to rectify our current sex-based mess.
The problem is less that women are being “allowed” to do what they want, it’s that they’re able to do so with impunity, with Uncle Sam intervening to prevent them from suffering the full weight of their mistakes. The vast majority of negative female behaviors are subsidized by government interference.
Why are marriage contracts the one type of contract (that I’m aware of, at least) that allows a first party to break it and afterwards use the courts to make the second party suffer for the first party’s breach of contract? I’ve formulated a paternity testing system that minimizes governmental interference in families. Government student loan programs encourage women to get degrees who probably shouldn’t (and consequently fund hard-left academia), government-mandated maternity care, government subsidized child care, healthcare, birth control, and welfare ALL encourage women to make poor choices on somebody else’s dime. Furthermore, sexual harassment law has completely subverted the notion that you should be able to know whether or not you’ll be committing an offense before you do it (how the hell can you ever know if your “advance” will be “unwanted” until after you’ve made it?).
Before making the case that we should force women to do what they should, how about we first try to refrain from paying them to do what they shouldn’t?
She can do whatever the hell she wants, but she has no right to require her employer to bend over backwards to support her childcare decisions, if she frivorces her husband she won’t get the house, she can get a degree in Victimhood Studies if (and only if) daddy is willing to pay for it, and banging a dude who refuses to support the resulting kids means she has to support the kids on her own. She can play programmer at the tech conference, but nobody has to pay any attention to her if she gets offended by the dongle jokes.
Reforming the government in such a manner won’t completely solve the problem: it never does. However, it would help a lot. Moreover, it doesn’t require more effort or deficit spending on our part to solve our problems, it just means stopping all the crap we’re ostensibly doing to solve them now (while actually making them worse). Such an approach is anything but passive; it’s merely the enforcement of liberty.
Nevertheless, however messed up and misandrist our laws may be, nothing will work if we don’t get our own asses in gear as men. Not only are wimps incapable of enacting legal reforms, they’re incapable of having a sufficiently positive influence on our overall culture, their communities, or even their own families.
So in addition to and more importantly than legal reforms, we’ve got to change ourselves, to keep writing and talking and leading and being the men we were made to be. Only then will we attract those who want to be part of our strength, and only then will we strike sufficient fear into our enemies.
Besides, nothing makes a woman realize how immature she’s being than a strong man in her life showing her what’s what. If it can be done (and that’s sometimes a pretty big “if”), that’s the very best way.