Feminism's Third Wave

Last Friday's article on date rape by Murray Rothbard in these pages brought back a lot of college memories (not many of them good). By the end of his essay Rothbard cut to the real motive of the feminists: the campus date-rape campaigns of the early 1990s weren't motivated by a genuine concern for the well-being of women. They were part of an ongoing attempt to delegitimize heterosexuality to young, impressionable women by demonizing men as rapists.

The only point I'd add is that the regulations the feminists were proposing applied only to men, not to the hordes of lecherous dikes teaching in "Wymyn's Studies" departments whose most prized occupational perk is brazen sexual harassment of young women with complete impunity.

What a difference ten years makes. The newest twist of feminism finds men guilty again, but in an exquisitely tortured way (e.g., Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Why There Are No Good Men Left). Taking their cues from Betty Friedan's Second Wave (the First Wave of feminism being suffrage), young women since the late 1960s have increasingly bought into the idea that building a career instead of a home and family are of central importance to their lives during their early twenties to mid-thirties (ironically their prime years for bearing children).

Today's young women thus climb the corporate heights, entering dream careers earning six- and even seven-figure incomes. They acquire beautiful sports cars, commodious homes, and the respect of hundreds to thousands of subordinates in hectic Palm-Pilot worlds.

Sometime in the midst of this material utopia, New Single Woman suddenly finds herself in an epic crisis: she's 35 to 40 and still unmarried with no prospects in sight and rapidly expiring eggs in her ovaries. This leads to a furious hunt for a hubby who's every bit as brilliant, gorgeous, sexy, hip, financially successful, and personally accomplished as she is and guess what? He's nowhere to be found. Ergo, "There are no good men left."

If you think this is a joke, it's not. It's feminism's Third Wave, where women run to expensive relationship consultants like Barbara DeAngelis (who's been divorced 4 times), join speed-dating groups, and post photos of themselves on Yahoo! Personals to few takers. What could be the problem? First, guests who arrive at the party five hours late can't legitimately complain that the buffet has been cleaned out. Gorgeous men (like women) go to the earliest and highest bidders. If you're a 35 to 40-year-old corporate spinster, it's time to give up on Brad Pitt, honey. If you want a hubby bad enough, you'll just have to settle for a...(gag!)...average mortal man. Sorry.

(What's interesting is that absurdly high standards – or inexplicably low ones as we'll see later – is the obvious diagnosis with most of these women, but it's never the diagnosis that our popular culture gives them. It's always, "Oh, you poor thing. You're so wonderful and men are just too stupid or mean to admit it.")

Feminism proclaimed that for women to be fulfilled they had to adopt the career ambitions of workaholic men, the sexual promiscuity of John F. Kennedy, and the cynicism of Gloria Steinem (the pre-married one, that is). Can you think of any demographic group other than women who would have bought into this prescription for complete disaster and then cried victim when the Bunker Buster of Inevitable Biology crashed through the roof and blew up in their faces? Think Wile E. Coyote. No, think of someone much dumber.

Women were designed by God for marriage and motherhood and deep down they have an innate desire for it, no matter how sublimated nature can be to social idiocies such as feminism. What's so remarkable about the feminist charade was how long a run it had before a few women caught on to it. It didn't even pass muster as a leftist ideology, focusing on material objectives such as money, prestigious jobs, and physical possessions. It was utopian ("You can have it all") but in the end really not much more than pseudo-intellectual hedonism.

There's a saying from some older culture to the effect that the quickest way to destroy a rival society is to ruin its women. It's a dictum undoubtedly coined by some man who probably didn't begin to grasp the stunning magnitude of the self-destructive instinct that is so much a part of Collective Woman. (These are the inexplicably low standards alluded to above.) While I have a great deal of sympathy for her family, no one will ever convince me that Laci Peterson didn't see an abundant number of red flags before marrying the creepy Scott. Sociopaths aren't made overnight.

Out here in California the Peterson case is being compared to the O.J. Simpson murders and yet an O.J. verdict is entirely possible if Peterson gets even a majority-female jury. Women on the Menendez jury almost got their wish to free the murderous Lyle and Erik just because they found them handsome. (One female juror actually expressed sympathy for the brothers "because they no longer had parents." Uh, the brothers no longer had parents because they murdered them, stupid!)

As for the Peterson case, forget the grisly discovery of the needle-nose pliers on Scott's boat with Laci's hair in them. Anyone with a brain knows that innocent men don't bleach their hair and beard and run off to San Diego with a load of cash and survival gear. And yet Scott gets dozens of love letters, cards, and flowers every day from women all over the country who want to marry him and have his baby because he's good-looking. It's not easy to imagine a similar phenomenon vis-à-vis men, as down in San Diego all Kristin Rossum ever got from men over the last two years were death threats for running off with her boss and fatally poisoning her husband. Ditto for even better-looking women such as Susan Smith and Pamela Smart.

The problem goes way beyond Laci Peterson, Nicole Brown Simpson, and the 36 women murdered by the handsome but thoroughly evil Ted Bundy. (Michaud and Aynesworth report that scores of beautiful blondes were vying for Bundy's attention at the July 1979 trial in Miami where he was first sentenced to death. Bundy's last wife Carole Boone married him on February 12, 1980, the day of his third death sentence for slitting the throat of 12-year old Kim Leach, mutilating her genitals with a knife, and stuffing her lifeless body under an abandoned hog shed. Incredibly, Boone believed in Ted's innocence until Ted himself finally dissuaded her right before his 1989 execution.)

Earlier this year many men were so taken with the beautiful and supposedly genteel star of The Bachelorette, Trista Rehn. Rehn, who eventually chose handsome firefighter Ryan Sutter as her husband, has to be glad her new hubby didn't look too close into her past. Some of the disturbing skeletons include, among heavy slutting with different men, a significant stint with a very creepy-looking tattooed ex-con. The man, with the ironic name of Brian Bachelor, bears an uncanny resemblance to the tattooed criminal wife beater Tommie Lee, whom the beautiful actresses Heather Locklear and Pamela Anderson both married and divorced.

Average men continue to be outraged by this perennial female adulation of either sociopaths or extremely good looking men who use them up and move on. They see no rationality in such a warped set of preferences. The key word here is rationality. The default mode of thought in women is not rational, it's emotive. Criminals and philanderers are interesting and mysterious – that's the key. It's irrelevant that they offer no real future. In a nutshell, they're crass entertainment like ditzy afternoon soaps. (I know so many of you men were certain there was some stunningly profound answer to this question, but there isn't. Sorry for the letdown.)

All of this is exactly what decent men should wage a revolution against. They are the ones called upon to pick up the pieces of shattered relationships and foot an enormous bill as both stepfathers and taxpayers. Today, the staggering cost isn't just financial in terms of ready-made dads drafted to foot the bill for two or three of another man's kids (or thousands as taxpayers). The cost is emotional as well. Good men don't like to admit it – for fear of being pegged as wimpy – but off the record many express deep resentment at having to struggle to build sexual intimacy with women who have been sexually plundered by so many past partners.

My great interest is in the churches (Catholic and Evangelical alike) where it's an even sadder story in singles groups, where innocent, bookish, never-married men like my brothers who have been in the church since their teens, are perversely brought together with cynical, used-up, divorce-battered women still looking for either criminals or movie stars. The ones who finally wake up (usually in their 30s at the earliest) have nothing to offer these men as they either don't want or can't have any more children. (The age of 27 – not 40 as many women mistakenly think – is when a woman's fertility begins its rapid decline.)

The largest immediate hurdle is that our society is so steeped in feminist double standards that not even most men recognize them anymore. Can you ever imagine a book being written by a man (never mind published by a big New-York house such as Broadway) entitled Why There Are No Good Women Left? You can already hear the howls of indignation from Oprah, The View, and conservatives such as Joe Farah who recently cheered the cause of automobile murderer Clara Harris. (Thankfully Farah didn't express a desire to marry Harris. He'd have to be female to do that.)

Can you imagine Hollywood making a movie such as Shallow Hal (2001), only this time with two average-looking career women who discover that it's better to choose their mates on the basis of their personalities rather than their physical appearance? You can't, and it's not because today's women aren't superficial: indeed, most are now as bad as the worst men precisely because they've so insulated from criticism on that point. It's "sexism" or "misogyny" to point it out. Indeed, the most brazen female superficiality is now sold and encouraged as "female empowerment."

If there is ever going to be any restoration of sanity, it's decent men who have to lead the way back and first by understanding what all the upheavals of the 1960s are now costing them (not just the sexual revolution which turned today's dating women into prostitutes). Keep in mind that running after sociopaths while simultaneously claiming that "There are no good men left" is just the latest twist in this 40-year-old female Superscam – and the tip of the iceberg at that.

A good start would be to look at how the 52% female portion of the population got classified as a minority and thus eligible for unofficial affirmative action. A second interesting question is how the sex with the higher life expectancy got its own wing in most hospitals (along with children). A third angle would be a comprehensive study of the family court system to see how the average man's probability of winning custody of children stacks up to the average woman's. After that take a look at which demographic group is most fervently eroding the Second Amendment and leading the charge toward the full federal takeover of U.S. health and day care. (All of these latter horrors would never have been a reality in Canada without the decisive support of women at the ballot box.)

Maybe not with respect to marriage, but in terms of resistance to all this escalating nonsense, the question of where all the good men went is a valid one. To the decent men, if you think you're getting the shaft economically and socially now, just continue to sit back like a bunch of feminine cowards and let things continue to deteriorate. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Tell it to my law school class, which is half women. Few of them seem to understand that they're taking themselves out of the marriage market.

I was just talking this past week to a beautiful, smart, traditional, moral woman who also happens to be a lawyer. She's 35 and her marriage prospects are not great. The ironic thing is that she'd be a great catch in today's situation, but men are too gun-shy to even think about marrying a lawyer in most cases. Also, I don't think she has come to grips with the fact that her own decisions have resulted in putting her in this situation. Many of us don't wake up to the realities of life until our late 30's. But for women, that can be too late.

I understand the workload of attorneys quite well. I have several of them in my family.:)

I still disagree with what you said earlier. In fact, in some of the more presitigious firms, it is considered quite a faux pas not to have a wife without a certain pedigree.

Perhaps not THE solution but a healthy part of the solution.
Having women stand strong for traditional values helps the debate in our favor for the simple fact of disarming the feminista with their ad hominem attacks such as misogynist or neanderthal.

Feminists have positioned the debate so that they speak for Women, not merely feminists. Conservative women need to stand toe to toe with them for several reasons; one being that young women need to know that you do NOT have to be a feminist to be thought of as "strong". There is more strength in being graceful than in being bitchy.

Feminists such as Erica Jong completely resented being "defined by men", then she turned around and wanted to define women in nothing but feminist terms. There is an old curse about becoming what you hate and many feminists who decried sexism became sexists.

Women decrying feminism are long overdue. I would be the last person to take a baton to their knees at this stage of the game.

...beautiful, smart, traditional, moral woman who also happens to be a lawyer

Why does this remind me of the setup for a joke?

You know... the one about a tombstone request for "Here lies a yadda yadda... and a lawyer"?

And they guy tells the requestor that it's illegal to bury two people in the same grave... :)

**My great interest is in the churches (Catholic and Evangelical alike) where it's an even sadder story in singles groups, where innocent, bookish, never-married men like my brothers who have been in the church since their teens, are perversely brought together with cynical, used-up, divorce-battered women**

A bump for all Christian men! I have witnessed the scenario above. Sickening.

Fiori and Coulter like to preach to the choir.

Neither one of them will ever be successful in convincing women who don't already agree with them. And both of them have a mean streak which should be a turn off to gracious, non-bitchy women.

I'm more interested in women who can formulate a message that your average, non-political junkie, adult female will recognize as true.

My vote goes to Pia de Solenni.

Very well put.

I happen to like both Ann and Angela. They can be firebreathers but that's called for from time to time, and was refrained from for much too long a period of time, IMO. Passion convinces many who can be influenced.

No serious social movement happened by impetus of bland reason. Everyone loves a good speaker because a good speaker can move them.

The passion of Christ is what made me love him, not the parables, as beautiful as they were and are.

No serious social movement happened by impetus of bland reason. Everyone loves a good speaker because a good speaker can move them.

Uh-huh. Do you have any female friends or colleagues who are liberals, who are pro-abortion, who have gone through very bad divorces, who are lesbians, or just generally couldn't care less about politics? My guess is that most American women fall into one of those categories. Or do you mostly interact with people who think just like you do?

Aristotle tells us that three things are required to make a good argument: Pathos, Ethos and Logos.

Pia does play well to a more adult mind of the classical liberal persuasion and one could certainly do a lot worse.

I prefer the splenetic approach of these femme noirs to the cool rationalism of Dr. de Solenni. Adopting as she does the role of Christian feminist, she strikes me as an appeaser rather than an adversary of liberalism.

Please do not take this as meaning I think she is a liberal, merely that she seems to be walking the line. I have no wish to undermine her in any way, she is still on the right side of the issues(mostly).

What does this have to do with my point about bland reason not being as effective as passion to persuade those who can be persuaded? How many pro-abortion women are going to give that one up easily, most especially with the tool of bland reason? My guess is that most women who have gone from pro-abort to pro-life have done so because of something vibrant and not bland. Uh-huh INDEED!!

My guess is that most American women fall into one of those categories.

So what? Again, how does that prove against my view of the benefit of a passioned response?

Or do you mostly interact with people who think just like you do?

Why that question lacks definite grace, and has a bitchy component to it. We don't agree, so what?

Try not to let a little word like bland set you off, especially when your expounding on the efficacy of prosaic formulation as a superior method of persuasion for the average, non-political archetype you've created.

Try not to indulge your insecurities, it'll make your mind even more 'independent'.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.