The other day I was contacted by a friend about a comment I made in an older posting, that “women are born socialists unless…”. It was intended to be a grabber, and she grabbed…for my throat.
I’ll preface this by saying that in his 2004 article on Democracy in Iraq, Moses Sands made the comment that a woman would not send her son, husband or boyfriend next door to defend her neighbor, so she is pretty much anti-war by nature, regardless of the external threat. That comment did create a little firestorm from some women, even on the right, and I learned, in reading their responses, that once certain buttons are pushed the rest of the article is neutralized. Some people just cannot get past it. (On a much broader scale we saw the same thing happen with Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” comment about Sandra Fluke.)
Moses’ point of his comment was to note that a women can turn banshee when defending her children and home, but she usually waits to turn mean only after the front door’s been kicked in. By that time, it’s usually too late. The idea of sending her menfolk down to the end of the street to head off danger usually eludes her.
On the other hand, it is in the man’s nature to view threats further away and be willing to go there to defend his house; to the edge of town, to the water’s edge, even to the other shore. Men do this because they see threats in different ways than women, and will leave their women, kicking and screaming if they have to, to go fight that threat. If you have ever watched wartime romance films you’ll note that this is the theme of at least 80% of them (and 50% of all westerns)…for the wife, girlfriend, mother always have to let their men go…then sit down at the kitchen table and have a good cry. It is why those blue star pins are so important, even in these days. They too serve who sit and wait and sob.
Moses concluded his sermon by saying that in such matters it is the man who usually wins out, and marches out to meet the enemy, for there is, in anthropological terms, a survival benefit to his behavior.
It is also why a complete House, made up of a man and a woman, is such a fundamental building block of human liberty and the Constitution. One of the things men do well is sally forth to defend it. So, the husband-wife give-and-take is crucial in the survival of our society. And it is why a majority of women without men are such a threat to the Constitution, for if you noticed, they voted overwhelmingly for the anti-constitutional candidate in 2008.
Moses was right. He said the greatest threat to the Republic was “women without men and men without willies,” since, it seems, they seem to vote more often as not.
But my comment that women are “born-socialists” was, as I said, a grabber. It came with an equivocation, for if a woman finds her security inside her home, and her home is a family enterprise, then socialism has no place in her life, except as some sort of abstraction. (We all think socialist thoughts every time we see an unfairness that cannot be immediately remedied.) Women are not born socialists in the sense that they know what socialism is and then cling to it. Most men and women have no idea what socialism is fully, and that is why it is so dangerous, for it is built on half truths, that is bait, and only hurts after the hook is set.
But women will vote socialist, and not just on national defense, but other kinds of security; child care, education, domestic security. And their children, as we saw in the last election, will mirror Mommie’s voting patterns, not absentee-Dad’s.
So, It’s in the nature of women-without-men to empower government. (And if you think the early feminists, c1900-1950, were unaware of this, think again.)
The reasons are simple and while mostly common sense, are also biological. As nurturers, women/mothers need protection, which historically had been provided by the male. (Not necessarily a “strong” male as in many homes the woman always wore the pants. The ideal is an integrated home for like as not, as a team, it generally works out fine in terms of passing on a strong home to the next generation.) With the advent of feminism, many women found themselves moving forward without men on purpose, while more often, they lost them through divorce. Some feminists see this as perfect state of nature, for one, because they are socialists in the starkest sense and like the idea of a non-sexual, non-cohabiting protector anyway.
But I think this is a crippling blow to liberty as we’ve known it.
The Founders assumed a House consisted of a husband and a wife, and not half-a-house, which, on the survival scale of 10, rarely makes it. (If anyone can get a federal grant to do the math, this can proved, but like the mental health benefits of smoking, the government isn’t funding those kinds of studies.) The U S Constitution enabled men and women to do what no other form of government ever has. Besides being married, they could actually build something together they could pass on. We call it the House, but you can call it the family corporation if you prefer. Bill and Edna, Inc. Half a family makes for a lousy corporation and almost nothing good is passed on or is lasting. This idea of the House is man’s greatest dream…not hooking up at a Coors’ saloon.
The net result is that women with full families have husbands and community to protect them and their brood, so they can then do for the family corporation what they do best. The role of government in their lives comes way down their list of priorities. In fact, in most households, government is a net pain in the butt, beginning with taxes.
The tough thing about socialism is that while it is voted in, it doesn’t stay voluntary. It’s almost impossible to throw it out the same way it was put in. Socialism is a form of governing, and it is all about the State (and the elites who run the State…for the people). The people are more like drones in a beehive. Socialist see “pursuing life, liberty and happiness” as a kind of selfishness that takes away from the purposes of the State. Divorce is good for the state, as is easy sex, and no personal accountability. The Pop Culture is also good for the State, so advertising is good for the State if it can lead men and women (beginning at childhood) to stray from the purposes of the family corporation. Men should go to sports bars instead of waste their time at Home Depot getting tools for the house and yard.
We are quite certain this republic cannot long survive with half the males laying up in bars watching the NFL, and only occasionally hooking up or getting into some relationship that ends up badly, leaving one or two kids to be raised by a single Mom. But that is about 50% of American society today, split equally between men with professional degrees and high school diplomas. In this scenario, the odds favor socialism in that family’s life and future. Advertising is generally against marriage, as they make more money, far more money, by causing families to detour from the main purpose of their House. Science is against marriage as it invokes God, who science unofficially (for now) is opposed to. Maybe only Home Depot is for marriage and a few churches.
Something has to give, but as we’ve been saying, a restoration of the Constitution is not going to happen spontaneously.
Obama won the commie-mommie and Sandra Fluke slut vote in 2008 57-42. He is now losing. This proves some very important laws, but the window of opportunity is very narrow to capitalize on it.
I think Romney will win, but the hard work will only begin.