Sexism and Conservatism
Of late, we have heard much ado about how encouraging young women to dress modestly, and to employ maidenly virtues to attract the ever-shrinking pool of useful bachelors, is an act of oppression by an invisible yet omnipotent patriarchy allegedly ruling the world.
Progressives in the area of Critical Sex Theory assure us that shameless nymphs should be allowed to flaunt their curvaceous gifts of beauty like meretricious strumpets, but to be above criticism, on the theory that no one should judge them by the clothes they wear.
Any satyrs attracted to the trollops have offended honor, decency and good taste, and must retract the hated “male gaze” of their “toxic masculinity.”
This is part and parcel of a Grand Unified Theory of Egalitarianism that may be familiar to regular readers here. The theory holds that no outcome is fair: no success is due to virtue nor diligence nor luck, no failure to vice or negligence or misfortune, therefore any inequality of outcome must be corrected by deterring virtue as vice and promoting vice as virtue.
Here, this same self-refuting logic is applied to matters of sexual morality and to the liberation from morality, otherwise called immorality.
I notice that framing the question in terms of “no one should judge them by the clothes they wear” assumes a mutual antipathy between men and women.
It assumes that if men are sexually attracted to those things designed by nature and by art to attract men, such as red lips made redder by lipstick, or shapely legs made shapelier by nylon hose, that this is not a situation where men seeking copulation and women seeking husbands have a natural overlap of cooperative and mutually beneficial interests.
In reality, in general, the women set the tone by using the signs and signals agreed upon by the consensus of society as to how to dress and deport themselves when they signal that the want to attract romantic advances.
In reality, in general men, usually the woman’s male relatives, traditionally policed each other to court women with the proper degree of persistence. A man who was too persistent was a masher — later this word was changed to stalker.
Women, meanwhile, was allowed to say “no” when she meant “yes” in order to test the character of the suitor, and because, let’s face it, flirting and coyness are fun, like playing with fire. There is danger of attracting the wrong man or the wrong sort of man, hence a danger of getting burned, but a man with no spark at all, who has no fire to play with, is not good material for a mate.
So modesty is both meant to be an allure and also a moderator, a dampener. Modesty is both gas and brakes. It is a paradox. It is not easy for women to juggle these social niceties, but then again, ever since Eve, womanhood has not been an easy chore.
Likewise, it is also not easy for a guy to pluck up his courage in the face of the fairer sex, make the approach, make your intentions honest, make them known, without being too direct and scaring the doe. The risk is grave the suitor will be lured in, teased and tormented with hopes, found wanting, and shot down in flaming ruin, misery, and sorrow.
And, above this risk, there are girls who tease and torment merely to exploit male weakness, win loot, gain status in her peer’s eyes.
Don Juans, Lotharios, cads and rakes who seek the cheese of love but escape the rat-trap of matrimony were commonplace even before fornication was discouraged by a healthy culture, rather than, as now, encouraged by a sick culture.
The ruin, misery, and sorrow risked in the case of female exploitation was greater, and could be as permanent as motherhood, and so traditionally the safeguards surrounding female chastity were stronger.
There are advantages and disadvantages to the role either sex plays in the mating game. On the whole, myself, I think men have an easier time of it, if the game is played correctly, but the stakes are still as high can be.
The Enemy, as is invariable, reframed this mating dance, performed for the mutual delight of both sexes, as a zero-sum game and as a power struggle.
In the power struggle paradigm, if the lady dresses immodestly, this is an exercise of her sovereign power to flout social expectations, tweak the nose of society, and provoke cheap male attention, while taking no responsibility whatsoever for tweaking and provoking.
Being able to misbehave without fear of consequences or come-uppance is a sign of superior power.
The slut wishes to force the honors paid to the virgin be given her. It is stolen valor, like wearing a purple heart by one who has never seen combat. In an act of perfect hypocrisy, she does this by complaining to menfolk to protect her and grant her this gift.
If the women sees and respects the social norms of dressing modestly, this is (somehow) seen as a victory for male patriarchal power – as if males were not gratified at the sight of a nubile young lady, or rewarded with a smile.
It is only gentlemen who do not want to see ladies demeaned by exposure to lustful gazes. This is a sign of cherishing the virtue of the lady, somehow, by an act of aberrant moral inversion, is recast as an act of trampling her rights and demeaning her.
I have explained at length in earlier columns how the logic of egalitarianism works: by assuming all victories illegitimate and all defeats unfair, it concludes that the virtues leading to victory are vices, and the vices leading to defeat are virtues.
So, here, modesty becomes demeaning to women, and immodesty becomes glorification. Virgins are shamed and harlots are lauded.
The whole thing is more grossly unfair to women than to men. In a land of unpaid whores, randy young men can experience a series of demeaning and momentary expressions of sexual pleasure, and need only worry about accusations from retroactive rape as the women withdraws consent after the fact to consensual sex — a psychiatric condition known as “Me-Too.” However, being a member in good standing with the Democrat party, or a member of any of their token elite groups, renders one immune from this danger. See the case of the politician Justin Fairfax of Virginia for an example.
The woman, meanwhile, who by nature does not desire nor seek harems of temporary lovers, nor to mother passels of bastards with no man to establish order and discipline, have been convinced that her natural vanity and desire to seem appealing and attractive to many men, is, in fact, the same as the polygamous indiscreet lusts of the young barbarian male. She is told unchastity is power, and will make her happy.
But not even males are happy in the long term in a sexual free for all. A few high-status males attract young high-valued females when anarchy rules, discarding them shortly thereafter. This shrinks the pool of potential female mates.
Hence the low status males must grow violent in order to fend off poachers, including both his fellow low status males lacking mates, and including high-status males more desirable than he; and, more to the point, he must maintain a notorious reputation for violence.
As anarchy spreads, a young woman will cleave to the violent male, even if he beats her, because to be without his protection exposes her to more and deeper violence at the hands of strangers.
Without a custom of monogamy, enforced by the lockstep consensus of the womenfolk humiliating and expelling harlots and adulteresses from their midst, there is no incentive for young males to be chaste, nor to respect the chastity of others. The wedding ring will not repel the wolf.
In a world where marriage means nothing and adultery is not seen as wrong, the only way to fend off unwelcome advances paid to the mother of your children is to beat, knife, or shoot your rival. There is no ward, no boundary, no fence placed around wedded couples excluding them from sexual competition.
Nor has man and wife any tie of honor or religion to strengthen the bond of marriage for better or worse, richer or poorer.
The wife of a veteran who returns from the war a cripple correctly calculates, if nothing but her own pragmatic utility is consulted, his lack of earning potential will create poor lives for her children. She is wise to abandoned his broken body and broken heart. Likewise if a husband discovers his wife ill, and unable to reproduce or nurse the young. Both his pleasure and his family interest will be serve by finding a nubile and fertile debutant.
Prudent, if nothing else, would suggest that a vow to cleave man and wife one to the other for better or worse, richer or poor, in sickness and health, be kept and be taken seriously, and enforced at law. There is no point in vowing a vow one need not keep.
In a society without honor and without religion, the bond of marriage is protected, if at all, only by the man and wife. These days, it is getting more rate for the family to lend support to the sanctity of marriage.
If chastity is not respected, virginity is seen as shame, and modesty no longer acts as an advertisement of a women’s ability to retain self control in the face of the Great God Eros, which is perhaps the single most attractive virtue in a female in all healthy societies. Marriage is a restriction of the erotic impulse into lawful means, to affix children to their proper parents, and modesty shows the girl has the ability to abide by such restrictions: it shows she is marriageable.
In an unhealthy society, modesty is mere a lack of advertising of wares to be sold. The harlots who flaunt buxomly cleavage and callipygous buttocks will find more customers, and, in an unhealthy society, she need not stop at one.
Real whores at least get paid. The daughters of this generation do not enjoy even that.
Try as they might, the Progressives cannot stamp out the last vestiges of feminine nature, even from the breast of the most ardent feminist. She still wants a superior man, by which I mean, a man superior to her both in real and in symbolic ways: taller, stronger, braver, richer, more stoical — a man worthy to be loved, honored and obeyed.
Do not imagine that the submissive and yielding nature of the feminine has been or can be eliminated by the gender-free sterility of the asexual posthumans the progressives wish us to become. Romance paperbacks are still dominated by pictures of well-muscled and shirtless antiheroes, usually a Vampire, Werewolf, Billionaire, Pirate, Surgeon, or Red Indian, with his fair captive with unlaced bodice kneeling and clutching his manly knee. The popularity of FIFTY SHADES OF GRAY shows that if healthy expressions of feminine submission are denied, unhealthy expressions will replace it.
Do not misunderstand the point and purpose of this yielding and accommodating nature. Submission in women is not surrender, it is victory.
Men, from time to time, can be Lone Wolves, and defy the expectations and direction of the consensus. In those cases where the consensus has lost its way, this defiance is a necessary evil. Romanticizing such nonconformists is deeply engrained into the American character, but such things are as rare and dramatic as amputation.
Far more social difficulties and disharmonies, however, are cured by medicine rather than surgery, so to speak, by patient application of small corrections to build up a habit of behavior of virtue and social harmony. This is the vocation and avocation of all women of sound mind and social diligence: acts of reconciliation and good grace as small as remembering to send a greeting card to arrange a get-together, or as large as introducing a couple and arranging a marriage.
Men in general by nature and vocation are expected to obey orders, put aside personal vexations and self interest, and play his role to achieve victory for the team; in the rare occasions where the leadership betrays its role, obedience to higher law demands rebellion against the leadership, once proved illegitimate. Males occupy a binary world of success and loss, winner and loser, the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Even a debate, run by rules of logic, has a winner and loser.
Women in general by nature and vocation occupy the complimentary role to this, concentrating on equity rather than law, gentle and indirect methods rather than confrontational. There is not supposed to be a winner and a loser if the woman does her work successfully in a feminine way. Instead there is reconciliation, lessons learned, misunderstandings cleared up, and the stubborn menfolk are less pigheaded, for once. Mutual forgiveness is a different type of victory, not a zero-sum-game.
Even conversation with women are maddening, because the distaff sex will not stick to the rules of logic and adhere to the topic of conversation until a clear winner and loser emerges, and the superior debate tramples the face of the humiliated loser with the iron boot of logic.
Instead the females talk about strange things like personal feelings and practical consequences, as if trying to change your heart rather than your mind.
So when talking with a women, you are never talking about what you think you are talking about.
And because women are curious about what you are not saying, they must chatter far more than the simple laconic grunt, growl, or barked-out order needed for male communication.
Likewise, the ladies find it maddening to talk with men, because we will not say what we are not saying, lest we be seen as weak. And, to be honest, we are actually just thinking about sex.
Among married couples, men decide important things, like whether we should go to war in Afghanistan. Women decide unimportant things, like whether we should buy a new house.
But she generally wants the man to make the decision, for that is the comfort to the female heart, but she wants him to make the right decision, which she will decide for him without telling him directly.
And, by the laws of domestic tranquility, it is better, boys, to let the wife win all disputes. But you are still in charge, and the leader. The paradox of how to do this is unknown, but somehow we do.
So let her win the argument, and just grunt. Then tell her how nice she looks. Kissing the wife is very important. Keep her happy, she keeps the children happy. Never marry a feminist, because feminism is the philosophy that makes women unhappy being feminine. Being masculine is no bowl of cherries either, but men tend to be better at it naturally.
It is not for no reason that sports teams in general – mixed doubles tennis is an exception – cheerleaders are nubile females and linebackers are brawny males. Women encourage the team, giving them the spirit to press on in the face of defeat. The bucks show off before the does.
Without a wife to give him heart, rare is the man who can prevail. Without wives and children, we have precious little to fight for. No one goes to war to protect his record collection. No one throws himself on a hand grenade for himself.
Feminine revenge fantasies concern showing up a rival and exposing her to humiliation, such as having a rival hissed at the opera, and drummed out of polite society. Male revenge fantasies concern laceration, puncture wounds, third-degree burns, blunt force trauma, defenestration, and explosions — lots of explosions.
Socialism rewards the profligate behaviors leading to poverty and punishes the thrifty and industrious behaviors leading to prosperity. Generally, a businessman who wastes money goes bankrupt, whereas a bureaucrat who wastes money gets budget increase. Taking from each according to his ability incentivizes disability; giving to each according to need creates need. Marxists, in my youth, promised enlightened men could all be prosperous by discouraging prosperity.
The relation of mutual benefit between investor and wage-earner could be replaced by a deliberately counterproductive system of mutual hostility, a zero sum game.
They also said fire will wet you and water will burn.
Cultural Marxists apply the same logic and reach the same results in non-economic fields.
In this case, the relation of mutual delight embraced between masculine and feminine nature, the romantic danger and intoxicating risks of the mating dance, the struggle and delight of the mutual self sacrifice of monogamous marriage, is to be replaced with unpaid whores seeking their personal pleasure by exploiting the lust of young cads and rakes, who seek their personal pleasure by exploiting the whores, resulting in mutual recrimination and mutual detestation.
Bastards are born in astronomical numbers, and a whole generation has no example of a hale and sane family to copy. Venereal disease becomes a badge of courage — I wish to high heaven I were exaggerating here.
Sexual perversion, that high-speed lane leading straight to broken lives and suicide, suddenly becomes indispensable rather than reprehensible. Equality between chaste and pervert is recast as a Civil Rights issue, as if perverts were a minority race suffering under a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, so to ask men to restrict their sexual reproductive impulses to the sexual reproductive act, becomes, by some asinine form of the commutative property, distasteful, if not bigotry, if not unconstitutional.
Refusing to bake a cake to celebrate an unnatural abomination hateful to God and man, under the rules of the Alice-in-Through-the-Looking-Glass cultists of Cloudcuckooland, is an unforgiveable heresy, so their Inquisition will hound and punish you for life.
And so their new and utterly intolerant sexual morality of the Cultural Marxists promotes all the virtues that erode and undermine domestic tranquility, and belittles and punishes those that uphold it.
This situation of mutual hatred, loneliness, misery, adultery and bastardy set to the wild and screaming tunes of an endless bacchanalia, is presented as an orgy of good, dirty fun, to which no one could possibly object, except for Puritans, prudes, killjoys, and teetotaling Mohammedans.
The idea that gentlemen want their lady wives to be happy, and their daughters likewise, never enters the airtight echo-chamber of libertine propaganda.
The hidden truth that our women are prettier, and our sexual joys are deeper, more passionate, and longer lasting, because there is no sex to compare with when a couple is energetically trying to make a baby, without any contraptions, contraceptives, skewed hormones or contrivance of artificial sterility.
Dear libertines, you abandoned domestic bliss and erotic joy in the name of unhindered eroticism, and you are left with neither bliss nor eros.