Feminist lunacy

Feminism is one of the shibboleths of our time; criticism of it cannot be brokered.  Mere skepticism is often enough to reveal oneself to be afraid of women who do more than make sandwiches and have babies.  Yet it must be denounced as the grave threat to civilization that it is. 

At heart, feminism is at war with biology, for nature is a cruel mistress who imposes desires within us based on our sex, desires that cannot be eradicated even after years of indoctrination in the schools.  Concomitantly, the other great enemy of the feminist is the nuclear family, for the family provides a constant reminder of the complementarity of the sexes, thereby compelling our embittered sisters to recall that biology has not yet been overthrown.

Here we find a good example of the feminist--hat tips to GL Piggy and Heartise--bereft of logic or common sense, arrogantly adamant that reality must be as she wishes it to be:

The show [MTV's Teen Mom] does not attempt radical advocacy, but it does understand that the most fundamental patterns in American life can’t be covered up. Teen motherhood, single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation—these are not plagues or social ills that pose a threat to the otherwise normal structures of everyday life. They are our new social reality.

The argument, so far as one exists, is that because marriage is increasingly unpopular, it is no longer normal, so we must normalize these poor imitations of that vital social institution.  A cursory examination of the findings of the social scientists would reveal that single parenthood is disastrous for children.  See: anywhere.  But we already knew this.  The reason children of single mothers were mocked as bastards was to emphasize that having a child out of wedlock was an anti-social and harmful act.  Once the child had been born, mother and relations would do their best to raise the child, but no one would consider pretending that this was some newfangled ideal. 

In the future, it would appear that we will all be bastards.  Which is reasonable shorthand for the ways things worked in our pagan and barbarian past.  The writer may console herself with the pleasant thought that if she plays her cards well, she may find a spot in the harem of a powerful male.

There is nothing wrong with teenage or single motherhood. The things children need: economic livelihood, emotional support and an education, are not dependent on a nuclear family structure. Poverty is poverty whether it’s endured by two people or four. A couple cannot raise a child better than one can. Once we get rid of the idea that marriage is the privileged form of cohabitation and that women cannot raise children without the help of a man—ideas that the Left has been working to eradicate for decades—there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family.

This is what Nietzsche called the transvaluation of values: the virtues become vices, and the vices become virtues.  There is so much idiocy here that it's hard to cut through, it helps to change out single motherhood for other anti-social behaviors, as, for instance: There is nothing wrong with sharing needles.  Thus does a feminist "argue".  Note that in cases where it is obvious, no lies are necessary: There is nothing wrong with assisting at a homeless shelter--where, I hesitate to add, unwed mothers form a sizable portion of the... home disabled, I think we're supposed to call them. 

We get to the heart of the matter in that last sentence: "there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family."  Feminism advocates irresponsibility in that it insists that women have the right to do as they please--full stop.  Yet with rights, come duties.  My right to private property carries with it a duty to use that property virtuously.  Single mothers possess a duty to their bastard spawn; before becoming pregnant, they have a duty to refrain from sexual intercourse if they will be unable to provide for that child in a responsible way, which is to say, if they are unmarried. 

As an aside, these duties apply to men as well.  But women have always been the sexual gatekeepers since the consequences of poor choices fall disproportionally on them.  Such facts were readily understood before the Great War on Biology.

Single parenthood depends on a generous welfare State, which takes from the productive members of society, and redistributes these wages to single mothers.  Since feminists have no inclination to actually live autonomously, they have replaced the horrid husband with the State.  Instead of supporting a wife and children, a productive man must hand over a portion of his paycheck to women he does not know, to care for children he did not sire. 

Sometimes, one gets the impression that our present societal arrangement must be a Swiftian satire. 

The consequences of the subsidization of irresponsibility are twofold.  First, marriage will continue to be looked upon as a luxury good: the underclass will have children without bothering to marry; the upper classes will continue to tie the knot at expensive ceremonies; they may even have a child or two.  For more on this, see Charles Murray's excellent book: Coming Apart.  This bifurcation is very bad for the underclass, a point which should become clear once the EBT allowance is cut by a bankrupt Government.

Second, productivity will decline.  The economic progress that we take for granted depends on a small portion of men--and yes, they are mostly men.  Beneath these men of genius, are a large number of, again, mostly men, who, while not responsible for giant leaps of progress, help in their own small way.  They do their job diligently and honestly, partially because of their bourgeois virtues, but also because they either wish to attract a mate for whom they can provide, or, because they have a mate for whom they are providing.  If men become disinterested in this--as the asinine essayist thinks they should, and as some men are thinking, though for completely different reasons--productivity will necessarily decrease.  Men will work only to provide them with what they need. 

This should cause our feminist to tremble with fear, for we are much closer to our civilization's end than her blissful ruminations on the destruction of the family would suggest.  Then again, if she realized the relationship between the family--those little platoons of which Burke wrote--and civilization at large, she wouldn't be a feminist.