“My prophecy is that men and women will be much more like each other, mentally and physically, both approximating a type far higher than the distinct sex types of today.” –Miss Henrietta Rodman, President, Feminist Alliance, in a 1915 New York Times interview
The topic of the “feminization of men” gets discussed from time to time by various conservative commentators. An example is an article written by David French for the National Review in May, “The Feminization of Everything Fails Our Boys.”
French’s article is yet another toothless treatment of the subject by a conservative writer that fails to look the problem square in the eye.
There can’t be a full discussion of the feminization of men without discussing the masculinization of women, a.k.a. feminism. Yet, this is what conservatives repeatedly fail to do. They circle and circle the issue, without ever getting to the crux of the problem. The reality is, men would not be feminized if feminism hadn’t induced the masculinization of women.
French doesn’t mention feminism once in his article. This in itself is a sign of the feminization of men—their kowtowing to the feminist agenda.
The bottom line is: men are emasculated by the modern woman who is a product of feminism. The flipside of the feminization of men is the masculinization of women. However, this is not a chicken-or-egg scenario. Feminism started this.
French hits upon it, briefly, when he states that in the feminized school there is a “relentless emphasis on compassion and nurturing rather than exploration and adventure (unless the adventurer is a woman).” French only mentions the fact that girls are encouraged to foster masculine traits as a bracketed aside in his discussion of the feminization of boys. However, this is the crux of the problem: the feminization of men follows the masculinzation of women.
Men’s traditional role as protector and provider is central to their identity, and being called upon to fulfill this role can bring out the best in them. Once feminism instructed women to achieve the same things that men achieve, and to be their own breadwinner, that is, independent, men became displaced from this traditional role.
Men want to be part of activities and fields where other men are leading and excelling, and then they too will be motivated to lead and excel, to varying degrees. With women having taken over education, the workplace and the family, men are no longer motivated to take up their rightful places. It is not in men’s nature to follow women, and it never will be. Feminist social engineering, however, is doing everything it can in an attempt to change this.
French offers no solution to the problem of the feminization of men in his article. Conservative commentators are good at pointing out the problem of the feminization of men by providing statistics, as French does in his article, however, they are poor at providing answers.
The only solution, far too late for the dying culture of the West, is to kick women out. Off the battlefield and out of the Sanctuary would be good places to start. Too late. They’re in, and it’s accepted dogma that they’re there. However, they never should have been allowed to enter in the first place.
Why were women barred from voting? Woman suffrage is an affront on the headship of the father of a family—in other words, it feminizes men and masculinizes women. Why were women generally discouraged from obtaining higher education or entering the professions? For the good of the family and society, which is intimately tied to women being feminine and men being masculine. Someone has to bear and raise the children, don’t they? A child’s own mother is the natural and obvious person to do this, yet children are now shuffled off to communistic daycare.
Conservative critics love to lambast feminism, yet, even conservatives are afraid of, or don’t realize, the truth about women and men: we were all better off when women spent their days at home looking after the children and the house while men went off to work each morning to fulfill the role of breadwinner*. French laments that, “The feminization of everything doesn’t just fail our boys; over the long run it will fail our nation,” but is too feminized himself, a modern “nice guy” (which is a creation of feminism) to lay it on the line.
How did all these places—school, the home, the workplace—that French discusses become feminized? By the empowerment of women through feminism. The result: a subtle matriarchy.
When Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders fills in for Sean Spicer the matriarchy is on display. While Spicer has become famous for his fumbles and general awkwardness during press briefings, Sanders handles herself like a fullback. While Spicer exudes a lack of self-confidence, even fear, while standing behind the podium, Sanders appears ready for a fight.
Having Spicer read a picture book to children on the White House lawn at Easter was the icing on the cake of his feminization.
Then there’s Sanders. How is this “conservative” woman any different from your typical liberal feminist who worked in the Obama administration? On political issues she might differ from her liberal counterparts, but all these political women in the public eye, liberal or conservative, are products of feminism’s drive to create empowered, ambitious career women.
There is one difference that should be noted, however. During press briefings Sanders likes to wish her children “Happy Birthday.” In a similar vein, Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway has regularly mentioned her children during interviews, and stated that “the most important job any woman can have is being a mother.” It seems in their professional lives these women like to remind people that they are moms too.
Yet, these women have rejected “the most important job any woman can have” to work at the White House. We expect this of liberal feminists**, but of “family values” conservatives? These women do not practice what they preach. They’ve taken demanding top-level positions at the White House and delegated the care of their children to someone else. This is feminism, and it is thoroughly embedded in both liberal and conservative worlds.
The very things conservatives fight for—so-called “family values”—are undermined by conservative women themselves. Instead of taking on roles that should be filled by men they would do better to sacrifice their career goals and become good examples of true womanhood, of which modesty is the cornerstone.
Conservatives criticize liberal feminists, but their own women, who may not be marching in pro-abortion marches, are feminists nonetheless. They do not act like traditional women in how they choose to spend their days, that is, they spend them at work not at home (which is the hallmark of feminism, so yes, these women are feminists despite wishing their children “Happy Birthday” at press briefings). Conservative men turn a blind eye to this double standard because these women are on their side, and are often their wives.
The effect of these women taking on such roles, besides the direct effect it has on their families, is the masculinzation of women and the feminization of men.
The foundation for this was laid long ago.
Women working in the abolition movement in the 19th century were angry about the fact that women were not supposed to give public talks. This unwritten rule was implemented not because of male tyranny over females, rather, it was there to protect women’s modesty and femininity. (Modesty? What’s that? you might ask, since we have no sense of it anymore.) Those women became the early woman’s rights advocates. Now, we have women who are “free” not only to speak in public, but can divorce their husbands, abort their babies, and hand their children off to daycares and nannies.
I’ve discussed in previous essays on this site why men fail to attack the problem of their emasculinization. Men need women, and will put up with a lot and make all sorts of changes to be near them. On another level, allowing themselves to be feminized is a survival tactic for men in the new matriarchy.
Masculinity is upheld by man’s role in the family—as head. This headship includes the submission of wives to their husbands, an idea, which, along with women’s modesty, feminism has long since made mincemeat out of. The overturning of the natural, God-given order of the family and society is a triumph of feminism and liberalism. Conservatives partake in so much of what liberalism consists of that there is little hope that right order will be restored. Hence, the “false resistance.”
French and conservative men like him will never see an improvement in the “feminization of everything” because a) they are afraid to look at the beast (the modern woman) in the face in all its ugliness, and b) the reasons for and the answers to the problem are so far beyond anything in today’s liberal or conservative mindset. When is the last time you heard someone state that wives should be submissive to their husbands, for example?
Men have imbibed the same “pro-woman” values as their feminist wives—regardless of whether they call themselves conservatives or liberals. It doesn’t matter. “Woman’s equality” is a supreme value of modern Western democracies. In a modern liberal democracy your are “good” not if you avoid sin and love God, but if you are supportive of women’s empowerment.
French is part of the false resistance that does not break through a certain “comfort zone” of criticism. Public discourse is restricted (yes, even in conservative circles) by feminist control and is itself feminized. To criticize the modern woman and her choices and to blow the lid off feminist control of both liberal and conservative politics is just not done.
Again, the answer to the problem is for women to be kicked out and put in their place. Get out of politics (which men can do by themselves) and start taking care of your own children (which only women can do well), is the harsh directive women need. So obvious, so utterly reasonable, yet no one seems to realize it.
The modern woman has been told all her life how wonderful she is (brave, smart, strong, etc.), and how she can and ought to achieve her dreams (code for competing with men and conquering a coveted spot in the upper echelons of politics, law, business—any field that was or is dominated by men). Women are high on their own wonderfulness thanks to a culture that constantly celebrates their achievements. Wonderful they may seem, as all of society works to make a lie seem like the truth. However, the truth is women are terribly degraded—used for their sex and sexuality, which became prevalent only when women left their traditional domain of the home to take centre stage in public life. It’s no coincidence that as feminism progressed from the 19th century on that women’s clothing and comportment became less and less modest. And no woman is wonderful who abandons her children to strangers at a daycare every day to pursue her own “fulfillment” via her career.
Conservatives are inept at approaching the problem of men’s feminization because they are handicapped by the same ideological vice grip of feminism that liberals are. Are conservatives any different than liberals when it comes to women’s roles? They are just as conquered by feminism, and they serve the god of feminism just as much, making offerings and sacrifices of their women’s femininity and their men’s masculinity.
Conservative commentators like French are willing to state the problem of the feminization of men, but they are unwilling to dig deep into it. The god of feminism must be worshipped and sacrifices made to it.
This will only continue. It will not change as we hurtle toward our own destruction—the feminization of men is part of this destruction. Women will not be put in their place. However, the “end of men” is also the end of us. French does get this, as he ends his essay with the following:
To that end, it’s time to remember that strength is a virtue, rightly channeled aggression creates and preserves civilization itself, and there is nothing at all inherently toxic about masculinity. The feminization of everything doesn’t just fail our boys; over the long run it will fail our nation.
I discussed this point in a previous essay, “Why Women Shouldn’t Work,” by stating:
The state of a country’s men is reflected in the state of that country—in particular how it governs. If men cower in the corner from their wives and children, countries will shrink from their responsibilities. If there is chaos in the family, there will be chaos in the government. The foundation of society is the family, and when the family is destabilized, society is left open to decay and invasion.
Although it is said that a civilization is ruined through its women, it is the weakness of men that leads to a civilization’s demise. It is the role of men to protect civilization from internal decay and external attack. Weak men don’t make good warriors. What is more, they will fail to even recognize that warriors are needed.
In the 1915 New York Times interview with feminist leader Henrietta Rodman from which the quote at the beginning of this essay is taken, the interviewer, George MacAdam, asks his questions in such a way as to expose the weaknesses and inconsistencies of Rodman’s feminist ideas. For example, in the interview, Rodman is promoting the idea of a collectivist “feminist apartment house” wherein professional staff will do much of the housework and childrearing to allow for both parents to work outside of the home. When Rodman says that the feminist apartment house will allow women to carry “the full responsibilities of womanhood…home making, childbearing…wage earning and citizenship…” MacAdam points out that, “…the feminist cannot carry what she considers her full responsibilities unless she has some other women to help her; while she tends to wage earning and citizenship, some other woman must tend to her home and children.” When Rodman says, “The bringing up of a child is the greatest creative work of the average man or woman,” MacAdam counters, “And yet you feminists demand that it be turned over to employees…” The interview continues in this vein.
In the questions MacAdam asks Rodman he clearly wants his reader to know he thinks her feminist ideas are bunk, and he does an excellent of job of exposing them as such. Where are such critics today, who not only properly criticize, but do so with eloquence and in a highly entertaining style? Gone, only to be replaced by the cowering masses of feminized men who may not live in a feminist apartment house, but likely live in a house with a feminist.
*It is not true—but a myth created by feminism—that women en masse were ever unhappily chained to the kitchen sink. Gertrude Himmelfarb in her 1995 book, The De-Moralization of Society, points out that in Victorian England men’s and women’s spheres were not as separate as is popularly thought. Himmelfarb also discusses Elizabeth Roberts’ study of women’s lives in Victorian England: A Woman’s Place: An Oral History of Working Class Women 1890-1940, which found that women showed a sense of satisfaction with their roles as wives and mothers. George Gilder in his 1986 book, Men and Marriage, points to research of suburban post-war America (for example, that of sociologist Helen Lopata) that paints a more positive picture of the lives of housewives than the one drawn by Betty Friedan in The Feminine Mystique. Carl Degler does the same thing in his 1980 book, Against Odds: Women and the Family in America from the Revolution to the Present, repeatedly observing that women were generally content with their traditional roles whether on the Oregon Trail or in 1950s suburbia.
**Actually, it was a liberal feminist, Marie Anne Slaughter, who quit her job as director of policy planning at the State Department because she was missing out on being with her children, and wrote about it in a 2012 article “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” for The Atlantic.