The Sisterhood Discovers There is Still a Brotherhood

Posted by on June 2, 2013 4:22 pm
Tags: , ,
Categories: Recommended

…and shrieks.

You may not know this, but when the subject is even tangentially professional women, professional men are supposed to be seen and not heard. Except for the #chirpinggeldings, of course

If you don’t know this story, follow it in this order: 1) The Lou Dobbs panel discussion with Juan Williams (no conservative), Erick Erickson (no friend of this site) and Doug Schoen (no one I pay attention to anyway), 2) the cited Pew Research Center findings,  worth a full read, 3) a blow-back article, 8 Biting Responses…, 4) Greta van Sustern’s outrage, and 5) if you’re a Megyn Kelly fan, her snitty take on all this as well. There are many others, mostly in the same vein. It was a gang-bang; easy target…men, and easy subject…professional women…where once again, the first casualties are reason and science.

Now, besides the usual array of lefties and #Twittergeldings, I noticed that a lot of conservative women have lined up against the Dobbs’ panel (esp Erick Erickson) and I’d like to understand exactly why in more words than Twitter will allow. Especially since they’re wrong. In fact, their snits tell me a lot about the shallowness of their own conservative understandings in the “what-do-American-institutions-have-to-do-with-the-survival-of-American-civilization” category in the same way Bob Dole’s recent comments caused me to wonder just what did he really learn about fascism while getting shot by it in 1944?

According to Mark Twain, when one finds himself among the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.

Now the main target of this blow-back is clearly Erick Erickson, his killer-quote:

I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology — when you look at the natural world — the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complementary role. We’ve lost the ability to have complementary relationships… and it’s tearing us apart. [Erickson, FBN]

Later, Erickson went on to magnify his “science” comment at Red State, making him “the most hated man on Twitter” according to one savant.

Talk about praising a man with faint damns.

Some may want to nitpick Erickson’s religious references, but his science is right on the mark. He’s still young, and I have always believed if you can prove a Biblical lesson with reason, logic, or (especially) science, as Hayek used to do for sport, why run half your audience away with a scriptural citation…unless your real intent is to make a personal statement of faith instead of an edification?

But in the pull quote above, and for which the snottier of the leftie lampoons are directed, EE states the case clearly. The attacks on his anti-science comments are, well, anti-intellectual. And Twitter, whatever else it may be, is not an intellectual platform, which is why it is the preferred weapon of the can-connect-only-two-dots-crowd in the first place. As a rule, this is as good as they got.

Then there’s the knee-jerk Sisterhood, including many conservative professional women.

Let me describe their “condition” this way: In 2004 I transcribed a long article about “democracy in Iraq” (note the subject of the title), in which Moses Sands, in commenting on one cornerstone of civilization, said that while a man will go the aid of his neighbor, or to the edge of town, even to the shoreline if need be, to fight an enemy to defend his family before an enemy can threaten his house, the woman almost always balks at any such action if it means risking the loss of her children (cubs) or husband (mate).

Both instincts are primal. (That’s “science” for those of you who don’t read much.)

Even though the by-far superior fighter in defending her nest and her brood, the female will prefer to wait until the enemy comes up on the porch and kicks in the door before baring her teeth…at which time, for humans, it is usually too late.

Moses then went on to explain that this dual nature of the family, male and female, what Erickson calls “complementary,” is exactly what makes the free, liberated American family enterprise work, and what is responsible for our country to have progressed as it had the first 200 years. It also means that the male is the more important decision-maker in such matters of warfare and defense…for he has to use advance planning (and tool making) to make up for what he lacks in raw, natural fighting ability, such as possessed by the female.

(Betcha didn’t know that, ladies.)

Pay attention, for these few paragraphs were used by Moses to explain a cultural chemistry, a law, the science of what makes the family organization work, but only to highlight a few universal rules about democracy as it might apply to various Arab and Middle Eastern cultures. He was using a connect-four-dots argument of making a larger point.

But while he received several plaudits about the larger theme of that article, Democracy in Iraq, right on cue, several women stopped right there, at that paragraph (just mentioned), then plopped down in the middle of the road and refused to budge, one of them writing an ugly 1000 word rebuttal against his puny 100 or so words, she was so outraged that Moses would stereotype women so. “Well, I’ll have you know…”

Moral: At the end of her long epiphany she was at about the same place Greta Van Susteren is today, totally clueless of the larger issue, having stopped at the second dot, to begin her screed, quite frankly, totally indifferent to the cultural cataclysm mentioned by the Dobbs’ panel, or that successful wimmen lawyers and rich television personalities have nothing whatsoever to do with the cultural plague they discussed.

Show people. Gad.

Writers see this all the time by the way, and it’s a kind of “science” all by itself, for there is a pathology behind that inability of a reader to think past a single sentence if it offends. In fact, it is a kind of stupidity, indulged, thus nurtured, in educated professional women especially, based on the Squeaky Wheel Theory of Cultural Decline. (Anything to shut ’em up.)  It is based on several pathologies; psychological, sociological, but most importantly for our purposes here, anthropological, as it refers to “survival endangering” behavior.

The Sisterhood of Feminists have turned this “science” into just what Erick Erickson called it, “anti-science.”

Saying anything about women these days is impolitic, and saying anything about women and science in the same sentence can be downright self-destructive, so one had better be right on the mark and count as much coup as he can if he goes there. Hoka hey!

Lou Dobbs’ entire panel did better than I ever expected.

Of course Erick Erickson is right. Especially on the science. So much so this story goes beyond Twitter wars (for reasons already stated, to connect more than two dots). I think Fox should push forward one more dot at least, get a sponsor and pull off a Buckley/Firing Line-like debate between the scientific Brotherhood and both the leftwing popinjays as well as the conservative wing of the Sisterhood. Not 2 minutes, but two hours.  Not two dots, but four.

This way, even though they’ll still lose the popular vote, the Brotherhood can at least leave some working papers about cultural survival and the rise of American exceptionalism laying around so the ladies will at least have some reference material lying about when the tyrants come storming upon their front porch, so they can roll them up and swat them.

Law: Women are instinctively socialists because they are born dependent, (there’s that “science” again) BUT will gladly give this status up the moment they can enter into a union with a man so as to form a joint enterprise called the “family,” so as then to be able to build an enduring multi-generational edifice called the “house”…something Nature (science) denies the homosexual. In short, the family enterprise offers a better deal not just for the female, but for the generations to come, than the state can offer or deliver.

Sorry ladies, single moms can’t do this alone, because of that “enduring” clause, nor can Feminist-created substitutes such as the state as surrogate  mate ever work. That formula is unraveling before your very eyes, about which the Dobbs’ panel spoke. You might do well with half a house personally, but in the words of Rev Wright, those chickens will come home to roost in the next, or the next, generation.

The family unit is a “complementary” relationship based on several innate characteristics owned by one or the other of the two sexes, and quite frankly, irreplaceable, whether lost thru death, divorce, or mere choice. There are many things each of the partners can do the other can’t, although since we are no longer an agrarian society, most indoor work at least is no longer exclusive to men.

But, for the most part, it seems, for instance, that risk-taking still is. It also seems that building is. Only I don’t mean building lean-to’s or a law practice here. While the female can run any company as well as any man (a lot of professional female subordinates will disagree, unless they too are in the Sisterhood…some of the mother abbesses are absolute fiends about surrounding themselves only with members of their own Order), she generally seems unwilling to take the sort of chances required to build a business from scratch, especially a brick-and-mortar business such as manufacturing., or opening up a quarry. A law office, fine. Businesses that involve sweat, and 16-hour days?

The female is risk averse by her nature, but which in the family system is offset by strengths found in the male. A team. But alone in the world she is without one arm and hand, and one which the surrogate state apparatus really cannot replace, at least in the cultural (scientific) sense.

So, as already mentioned, above, her instinct for the survival of the family unit is critical in some circumstances, but absolutely self-destructive in others, as when she will refuse to take risks to go to the aid of her neighbors, or to plan stratagems to meet the enemy half a world away, again relying on the surrogate state (police) to do it for her…which the state almost never does in a pinch. (The whole purpose of the Second Amendment is because the Sisterhood’s’ Plan B for home defense almost always never works when actually needed.)

There is much at stake in the science of this equation at this critical juncture in our country’s history.

Since I was going to do an article on this anyway, consider: After the Battle of Lexington and Concord 2,000 Massachusetts militiamen just up and started walking to Boston with their muskets over their shoulders. There were no orders given, they weren’t even an army. There was no strategy or plan. They just knew a fight was coming. They were mere “tea party” types, albeit of a more survival-enhancing type than today’s variety. (Although no one was there to record it, they all probably left home with their wives tugging at the buckskins not to go.)

The rest, of course, is history.

Compare: today, after hundreds more abuses and usurpations than King George ever threw at them, all our modern freedom fighter can do is cling close to home, write scathing blogs, and generally wait behind the front door for the enemy to kick it in before they get good and mad…

…just like the typical females of yore, per Moses Sands.

We have moved from uncertain victory to certain defeat.

I’m not here saying that the day after Obamacare was passed a million Americans with pitchforks should have marched on Washington, to surround it, with a mean look in our eye, but rather pointing out the “science” as to why we have not.

We have become a nation of women, even as we continue to boldly preach the virtues of liberty, and sing the manly hymns of freedom, for we huddle in the basement instead of sallying forth to meet this enemy.

There is very much a “science” involved in this cultural “gender” conversion, for we have gone from “survival enhancing behavior” to “survival endangering” behavior.

But none of this has anything to do with Greta Van Susteren’s profession or her outrage, so I’m sure she lost me 1000 words ago.

That Pew study mentioned that of the 41% principal female breadwinners, 63% of them are unmarried women. How many are divorced versus just choose to have babies without a dad, I can’t say. But the Pew Report did not even mention the 4 million plus families on the public dole, the state their full-time sugar-daddy, boosting that number closer to 50%. Or the several million young professional women who chose to abort those babies instead of bringing them into the world to raise them. As 41% of those aborted babies were to black women (and girls) it means that 59% were to non-African Americans, many (most?) of which are young professionals who kill off the fetus out of convenience or vanity issues. Sort of like removing nail polish.

Lastly, of those children of that 63% single-adult households, how many made up the Occupy Movement, bare butts up against police cars and hands out? 90%? How many took out $100K student loans to get a degree in Parrot Grooming, then were too uneducated to know that in economies where people have to roast their parrots they can no longer afford to groom them? Or that maybe they made a poor career choice in the first place? And how many have a Cindy Sheehan as a mother?

Seriously, just how many from this 63% cannot even begin to connect that third dot; Work=Money=Stuff?

Anthropologically, culturally, we are spinning out of control in survival-endangering waters, and I don’t have to mention God’s approval or disapproval even once to make this case.

But professional men aren’t supposed to point this out because…?

The Feminist Sisterhood has discovered that there is indeed still a Brotherhood, and from the facts I heard enunciated by Lou Dobbs and his panel, it was all about “culture” which is still defined by science and not politics, especially the politically correct kind.

In other words, the bruised sensitivities of women can only control this conversation on a sinking ship. Those men on the Dobbs panel were talking about a sea-worthy ship, and not about contented passengers on a sinking one.

Of course, none of the Sisters understand all this. Nor do any of their #TweetingGeldings. The logic of science was never their long suite, anyway, for Science is no respecter of feelings.

So, yes, FNN and FBN, go out and hire a hall and discuss this in the open, for it takes 3-5 dots to lay out in precision-like form how one divorce, one abortion, or one single-mother represents  one fallen house, so, in the long view is also one damned divorce, abortion, or single-mom too many, if the civilization is to be rescued.

Make your case, and don’t be surprised if a lot of the Brotherhood tunes in, not out.

17 responses to The Sisterhood Discovers There is Still a Brotherhood

  1. bobmontgomery June 2nd, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    Oh, Brother!

    • Lady_Penguin June 3rd, 2013 at 10:18 am

      Bob, are you worried they’ll start stoning Vassar? LOL He did a great job explaining what Erickson might have meant.

      But I agree with Vassar, the feminization of our society is weakening it. Replacing the man-woman family unit with the state (single women/motherhood – dependent on the state), or even the homosexual unit, creates a nation a weaker nation, not stronger.

  2. Blue Collar Muse June 3rd, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    VB –

    AWEsome post, my friend! I read it to The Much Younger Trophy Wife who agreed with you. Thanks for taking the time to connect more than a couple of convenient dots …

    We owe you for this one, bro!

    • vassarbushmills June 4th, 2013 at 3:44 pm

      Thanks, Ken. It’s a hostile world, so glad to hear an attaboy from time to time.

  3. LadyImpactOhio June 3rd, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    Sorry, can’t agree with you on this one Vassar. While it may be true that society is better off if wimmin can stay home and take care of their brood I don’t see how this is based on “science.”

    The majority of your argument is based on a friend of yours, Moses Sand, and if he was testifying in court I believe most of what he says is based on hearsay, not facts and figures.

    You haven’t talked about the Spartan wimmin who were trained to defend and had weapons. While we see comical drawings of cave men pulling wimmin around by their hair what scientific basis is there for this assertion? None that I know of.

    There are plenty of wimmin out there who will defend and take on a fight no matter what the situation. Me included. Again your assumption that wimmin won’t leave their home to defend others is again hearsay, not based on actual facts.

    I was lucky. I was able to be a stay at home mom until my youngest entered first grade but for those first 6 years of our marriage we sacrificed and many times ate peanut butter sandwiches for dinner.

    I may be the exception, but I don’t think so, wimmin plan for a life altering event, as I did the entire time we were married. I lost my husband 20 years ago and thankfully we planned well enough for me to raise my kids who are wise and put them both through college with no loans.

    I’ve always been suspicious of Pew and while they say they base their study on “science” it doesn’t go into a history lesson which is where I believe Erickson made his gaffe.

    • vassarbushmills June 4th, 2013 at 6:33 am

      You’re wrong about the science, Carol. Sorry. But as for wimmen being better off staying home vs going into the workforce, I’d like to meet the SOB who said that. Only I didn’t say that. Nor did Pew, proving yet another point I squeezed in there. Studies go back almost 150 years tracking children and children’s children who grew up in a single-parent home due to divorce vs due to death of a parent (Women dying in childbirth was the major cause of death until mid-20th C.) showed two entirely different life tracks.

      The heart of the angst over the Pew report are the single mom’s, not successful professional women who out earn their husbands. Again, I have a hard time finding any of their dogs in this discussion.

      • LadyImpactOhio June 4th, 2013 at 9:06 am

        Saying “you’re wrong” both to myself and to others is a tad confrontational don’t you think? Yours is an opinion piece not a scientific paper.

        I can see there’s no point in the 2 of discussing this any further. Just wonder if Moses were still alive would you ever put him on the stand as an expert witness on this subject.

        • vassarbushmills June 4th, 2013 at 3:44 pm

          We’ll agree on the last point.

  4. Melody Warbington June 3rd, 2013 at 11:47 pm

    I’ve said for years that the feminist movement is the worst thing to happen to this country and the family. I stand by that.

    Sad thing is that by the time many women figure out they can’t have it all, it’s too late for them, their husbands and their children.

  5. nessa June 5th, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    Vassar, maybe you should have “bashed” men a bit by mentioning that sans women they cannot create successful multi-generational family units either. I thought the science in your discussion was mainly concerning instinct. The more primitive side of our natures and one that finds ways to assert itself, even after the untold centuries of our evolution from primitive hunter-gatherers to the modern day work/earn money/pay-for-stuff society we have created. Its kind of funny, if you stop picturing the geico caveman on the African savanna and place him in an office building earning money to “bring home the bacon, hunting/gathering really hasn’t changed all that much. We even retained migratory patterns except these now go to and from work instead of following the woolly mammoths or bison. I missed the part where you said wimmens had to stay in the kitchen or the birthin’ room because of the instinctual urges to reproduce. I’ll try reloading the page.

    Imagine that, LIO doesn’t fit the primitive mold. I hadn’t figured that out, its not like the size of her brass balls is an immediately noticeable trait. No, Moses’ testimony isn’t science, no more than Eric Hoffer’s would be. But I’d enjoy listening to the testimony of both.

    One thing I’ve noticed while suffering through sociology and a couple other of the “humanities” (no parrot grooming yet, alas) society may be wrong and un-fair, but it’s probably that way for a reason. If we’re going to change it maybe we should expect a few unintended consequences.

    • vassarbushmills June 5th, 2013 at 3:59 pm

      Moses comments weren’t meant to be “science’, Nessa, although re instinct, they are pretty right on. Actually, what makes a culture/society tick and not tick is pretty well established (as science) and the stats in the Pew Report pretty much point to the “Not Tick” side of the ledger. But not because the main bread-winner is the woman, (I don’t think science favors one sex or the other) but because so many of them are of one parent alone, if you throw in welfare families, probably 40% of all households. This half-a-family course is a suicide course for any culture.

      Try as I might I can’t get any of the knee-jerk feminists to say why this perspective is wrong. I think they just resent men having an opinion in this regard, (Wimmen’s issues) and that goes back at least 30 years.

      • nessa June 5th, 2013 at 4:59 pm

        I got that Vassar, I was trying to imply that philosophy isn’t science either, but every now and then someone (Hoffer much more so than Nietzsche, for example) recognizes one or two of the truths of the universe. I personally put Moses in that category, philosopher, not social scientist. Most of the changes we’re witnessing to society have unintended consequences. Some worse than others, some worth the cost, others not. There is a reason for societal “rules” they’ve developed over centuries with one goal fixed in mind, the continuation of the species. I’m not saying the societal rules can’t be changed, I’m just saying “be careful, there’s a penalty to be paid when we tamper with forces we don’t completely understand.” I think the PEW report is correct and we’re seeing the results of too many children raised in single parent homes. What we do about it is well beyond me, I have no desire to go back to the Victorian era’s repressive values. I do think that removing government’s hand from its role as provider to the poor would go a long way towards improving the situation. That is charity’s responsibility and charity can provide some social pressure to straighten up and fly right, where government awards and thereby promotes, a moral-less society. People give their money willingly to charity, in order to get that money charities must rely on people who share their values. The femi-nazi’s can raise money and reward unwed teen mothers all they want but without government’s fat thumb on the scale I’ll bet they can’t afford to for long. Go to the Church and ask for help paying your rent, they’ll help you, monetarily or otherwise, but you’re going to have to sit and listen to the Padre before they do.

        • vassarbushmills June 6th, 2013 at 6:52 am

          Totally agree, Nessa. As usual, you say it better than I. Individuals, families, hell even towns, can go down in flames simply because they made the wrong choices. Our entire constitutional system was predicated on the notion that vast majority would make the right call as far as passing the torch to the next and next generations, i.e., survival engendering. (I always considered Moses a keen observer and interpreter of events, rather than philosopher. But if he were a philosopher, it would be more of the “what man seeks” school than the what “man ought to seek” school. In the Constitutional framework, he felt that man had found what he seeks in liberty. I agree.) And no question about that, the Pew numbers threaten that chemistry.

          What was interesting in the EE-van Sustern flap is that the response was knee-jerk, even from conservative women. (As soon as EE made his comment they didn’t even have to bother to read the Pew Report, they had their whipping boy.) They had to invent inferences from what he said in order to take issue with them. For 30 years, feminists have said there are entire areas of American culture that are off limits for men even to discuss in public. You can knock her up, but you can’t discuss it later. Conservative or no, this is a pattern going back to the Sisterhood in the days of Sanger, scream bloody hell about that you don’t believe, then refuse to say what you do believe as an alternative. It really is bad form for conservatives to dance to that tune as well.

          However ham-fisted EE may have sounded, he was on firm ground, and that’s a debate I’d like to see amplified, for I’d like to see any of those Sisterhood members step forward and say (which they won’t) that 40% of our children being raised by single moms is perfectly safe for our society, and back that up with an equal scientific link, or, that the breakup of the American family has been the goal of Marxists since the early 20th C.

        • vassarbushmills June 6th, 2013 at 7:04 am

          Totally agree, Nessa. As usual,
          you say it better than I. Individuals, families, hell even towns, can
          go down in flames simply because they made the wrong choices. Our entire
          constitutional system was predicated on the notion that vast majority
          would make the right call as far as passing the torch to the next and
          next generations, i.e., survival engendering. (I always considered Moses
          a keen observer and interpreter of events, rather than philosopher. But
          if he were a philosopher, it would be more of the “what man seeks”
          school than the what “man ought to seek” school. In the Constitutional
          framework, he felt that man had found what he seeks in liberty. I
          agree.) And no question about that, the Pew numbers threaten that
          chemistry.

          What was interesting in the EE-van Sustern flap is that the response
          was knee-jerk, even from conservative women. (As soon as EE made his
          comment they didn’t even have to bother to read the Pew Report, they had
          their whipping boy.) They had to invent inferences from what he said in
          order to take issue with them. For 30 years, feminists have said there
          are entire areas of American culture that are off limits for men even to
          discuss in public. You can knock her up, but you can’t discuss it
          later. Conservative or no, this is a pattern going back to the
          Sisterhood in the days of Sanger, scream bloody hell about that you
          don’t believe, then refuse to say what you do believe as an alternative.
          It really is bad form for conservatives to dance to that tune as well.

          However ham-fisted EE may have sounded, he was on firm ground, and
          that’s a debate I’d like to see amplified, for I’d like to see any of
          those Sisterhood members step forward and say (which they won’t) that
          40% of our children being raised by single moms is perfectly safe for
          our society, and back that up with an equal scientific link, or, that
          the breakup of the American family has been the goal of Marxists since
          the early 20th C.

  6. texasgalt June 5th, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    Da Twitters: ” As a rule, this is as good as they got.” –VB, you’ve written another law.

  7. texasgalt June 5th, 2013 at 8:56 pm

    I think it is as natural for most women to reject all this as it is for them to grab the belt loop of their man when he ventures out to defend her. Who can really understand? God only knows.

Leave a Reply