F. Roger Devlin -- Home economics, part I

8/7/2019 F. Roger Devlin -- Home economics, part I

1/6

1/17/11 9: Roger Devlin -- Home economics, part I

Page ttp://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_01.htm

www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_01

2008 F. Roger Devlin. This page 2008 WTM Enterpri

All rights reser

Home economicsI

Two conflicting conceptions of feminine dignity;

feminism as male-role-envy

By F. ROGER DEVLIN

If you find this article to be of interest, please send a donation of $3 to TLD. Moreinformation appears below.

1.

One of the hallmarks of Western civilization is the unusually high status it has accorded women. That has

often been attributed to the influence of Christianity, which prizes certain typically feminine virtues (merchumility) more than pagan society had. But Tacitus had already noted the respect paid to women's opinionas being typical of the pagan Germanic tribes of his time. Some believe the regard paid to women to be areflection of conditions in ancient Northern Europe, where the nuclear rather than the extended family wasthe more important economic unit. But however it may have originated, women's position in our civilizatiohas recently been eroded by economic developments and by the feminist movement. The present essay aimto explain how this has happened and argue the need to reverse the process.

Much confusion exists regarding the feminist attack upon women's status, because the feminist movementhas always presented itself to outsiders usually with success as an effort to improve that status.

Feminists, as we all know, assert that women are rightfully the "equals" of men and deserve a "level playinfield" on which to compete with them. In our time, it is a rare person whose notions about women's claimsremain wholly uninfluenced by these slogans; that is true even of many who think of themselves asopponents of feminism. For example, certain would-be defenders of Westerncivilization believe Islam presents a danger to us principally because it doesnot accept "equality of the sexes." Indeed, they sometimes make it sound asthough they would have no objection to Islam if only Muslim girls were freeto wear miniskirts, join the Army, and divorce their husbands. Or again,many in the growing father's movement describe their goal as implementing


2/6



"true" equality rather than recovering their traditional role as family heads. I have even known conservativto earnestly assure young audiences that the idea of sexual equality comes to us from Christianity acrueler slander upon the Faith than Voltaire or Nietzsche ever imagined. The extreme case of suchconfusion can be found in "mainstream" conservatives such as William Kristol, who claims to opposefeminism on the grounds that its more exotic manifestations "threaten women's recent gains": in otherwords, the problem with feminism is that it endangers feminism. It is difficult to combat a movement whofundamental premises one accepts.

In fact, the high standing of women in our civilization not only long predates feminist ideology but islogically incompatible with it. To understand why, one needs to keep two points in mind: 1) women'straditional status was linked to behavioral expectations fulfilling the duties of their station; and 2) itassumed qualitative differences and complementarity (rather than "fair" competition) between the sexes.

As to the first point: strictly speaking, it was never women as such who enjoyed high status but rather thesocial roles proper to them those of wife and mother, chiefly. Being born female (or male) is merely anatural fact of no intrinsic moral significance, but the filling of a social role involves effort and oftensacrifice. Accordingly, the respect paid to women was not an unconditional birthright; it was reserved for

women who fulfilled their feminine obligations.

Among those obligations, marital fidelity was of supreme importance: so much so that in our languagegeneral terms such as virtue and morality have often been used to refer specifically to sexual fidelity inwomen. That is owing not to irrational prudery, as the apostles of sexual liberation imagined, but to therecognition that all which is necessary to destroy a race and civilization is for its women to refuse to befaithful wives and mothers.

The Western tradition also includes a strong presumption that women wish to fulfill their role; in otherwords, women are assumed to be "virtuous" until proven otherwise. In certain eras it was dangerous even suggest that a lady might not be a paragon of sexual self-restraint if one did not have very strong proofs: a

aspersion upon a woman's honor was grounds for a duel. Of course, that does not make much sense whenwomen have no honor; and today, the proponents of equality and liberation openly repudiate the very ideaas an "oppressive social construct." But to be frank, I suspect honor never was actually the primarydeterminant of women's behavior. Good example (especially from their mothers), habit, lack of opportunitreligious instruction, and, in the last instance, the prospect of social disgrace and financial ruin wereprobably always more effective with them.

Men, however, have often been encouraged to believe that women are naturally monogamous, unmotivateby anything so base as sexual attraction, and only seek "good husbands" whom they disinterestedly marryout of love. This pleasing and edifying view of womanhood is the basis of the West's cultural formssurrounding relations between the sexes: gallantry, chivalry, courtship, and companionate marriage. Theseare what place love, in Edmund Burke's phrase, "if not among the virtues, among the ornaments of life."

There are also certain more practical, if less delicate, considerationsinvolved: viz., if a husband trusts his wife, he can skip rushing home fromthe office unannounced to make sure she is not in bed with the gardener.That leaves him free to devote his full attention to his own role asbreadwinner for children he is sure are his own.


3/6



The socially beneficial effects of the chivalrous view of womanhood arequite independent of its accuracy. There is not necessarily any pre-

established harmony between what is true and what it is useful for men to believe. A man may be better ofnot knowing the whole truth about women even, or perhaps especially, his wife. But most womencooperated enthusiastically in promoting the chivalrous view, even if they were not taken in by itthemselves. That is partly because they have been shrewd enough to perceive the advantages of maintainina high reputation with men and partly because they are naturally more reticent than men about their sexual

urges ("modest").

But whether based upon knowledge or pleasing illusion,the regard in which our civilization has heldwomen depends utterly upon their practice of monogamy, and makes no sense apart from it. As long ascases of female adultery were few enough, they could be passed off to men as freaks of nature, akin to twoheaded babies. When, on the other hand, wives in their millions act upon the feminist plan of "liberation,"walk out on their husbands, separate them from their children, bankrupt them in divorce court, and shack uwith other men, that system breaks down. That is where we are today.

To my mind, the most remarkable feature of the revolution we have undergone is the time lag between the

changes in women's behavior and changes in men's attitude toward them. Men often strain to blame theirown sex for what has gone wrong, though the natural disadvantage of the male's position makes his primaresponsibility unlikely on a priori grounds: since women have greater control over the mating process, theare inherently likelier than men to be at the root of any fundamental breakdown in family formation andstability.

It seems that many men have an emotional need to believe in theinherent virtue or innocence of women, a bit of sentimentality akin to theRomantics' cult of childhood. Even today, under a burgeoning feministpolice-state, male commentators not infrequently berate their own sexfor an allegedly insufficient appreciation of the lofty claims of

womanhood. The kindest thing one might say of such men is that they are condemning themselves toirrelevance. A somewhat less kind judgment might be that they are collaborators.

The chivalrous view of women is helpful for keeping in check the naturally wayward desires of younghusbands in a substantially monogamous society; it is useless or positively harmful in a society being run bspoiled and tyrannical females who have "liberated" themselves from domestic obligations. As usual,conservatives are busy calling for the barn door to be shut long after the horse has run off. Our task today not to "safeguard" or "protect" marriage but to rebuild it almost from scratch. The strategy for doing so winecessarily be different from the strategy for defending it when it was merely under threat.

2.

Let us now turn to our second point about women's traditional status: namely, that it implied sexualcomplementarity and cooperation. This means that their status cannot be maintained once complementarityis displaced by a normative ideal of sexual equivalence and competition. The feminist movement has, ofcourse, effected precisely such a displacement, thereby undermining the respect for women they claim topromote. I will now try to explain how that happened.


4/6



First, a caveat: most critical discussions of feminism concentrate on refuting its doctrines, such as theascription of feminine traits to upbringing rather than nature. My approach will be different. While suchformal refutation of doctrines is not valueless, it seems to me to mistake the fundamental character offeminism. The feminist movement consists essentially not of ideas at all but of attitudes, or even mereemotions. Feminist "theory," as it is grandiloquently called, is simply whatever the women in the movemecome up with in post facto justification of their attitudes and emotions. A heavy focus on feminist doctrineseems to me symptomatic of the rationalist fallacy: the assumption that people are motivated primarily by

beliefs. If they were, the best way to combat an armed doctrine would indeed be to demonstrate that itsbeliefs are false. But in the case of feminism, even more than Marxism and other political ideologies, it israther the beliefs that are motivated by various personal and nonrational needs. I propose, therefore, thatfeminism may be better understood through a consideration of the feminist herself.

A feminist in the strict and proper sense may be defined as a woman who envies the male role.

By the male role I mean, in the first place, providing, protecting, and guiding rather than nurturing andassisting. This in turn involves relative independence, action, and competition in the larger impersonalsociety outside the family, the use of language for communication and analysis (rather than expressivenessor emotional manipulation), and deliberate behavior aiming at objective achievement (rather than the

attainment of pleasant subjective states) and guided by practical reasoning (rather than emotional impulse)

Both feminist and nonfeminist women sense that these characteristically maleattributes have a natural primacy over their own. I prefer to speak of "primacyrather than superiority in this context since both sets of traits are necessary topropagate the race. One sign of male primacy is that envy of the female role bymen is virtually nonexistent even, so far as I know, among homosexuals.

Normal women are attracted to male traits and wish to partner with a man whopossesses them. Healthy societies are marked by a cooperative reciprocity between the sexes, but an unequone in the sense that it involves male leadership of the female, somewhat as in ballroom dancing.

The feminists' response to the primacy of male traits, on the other hand, is a feeling of inadequacy in regarto men a feeling ill-disguised by defensive assertions of her "equality." She desires to possessmasculinity directly, in her own person, rather than partnering with a man. That is what leads her into thespiritual cul de sac of envy.

And perhaps even more than she envies the male role itself, the feminist covets the external rewardsattached to its successful performance: social status, recognition, power, wealth, and the chance to controlwealth directly (rather than be supported). She tends not to give much thought to the great mass of men whstruggle to fulfill the demands of their role without ever attaining the rewards of superior performance.

Let us consider next what envy is. First, it involves a painful awareness of something good or desirable inanother person. This much it has in common with emulation. The emulator, however, is primarily concernewith self-improvement. Envy has a fundamentally negative character; it wants to bring the other downrather than raise itself up. The envier usually does not admit that explicitly but rather claims to have beencheated, whether by the envied party or by the surrounding society: he disguises his envy as a zeal forjustice. Often he claims to want to compete on a level playing field, but maintains that competition has bee"fixed."


5/6



Envy, however, is distinct from the sense of justice in being fundamentallyunappeasable. The righteously indignant person genuinely wants to come to asettlement. By contrast, if the envied party grants what the envier demands, itmerely further demonstrates his superiority and provokes more envy. Onereason the feminists have gotten as far as they have is that many men areuntroubled by envy themselves. These men cannot understand the psychology behind feminism. Sincerelycaring about women and wishing to promote their welfare, they waste effort on futile attempts to reason or

compromise. They imagine that limited concessions might persuade feminists that men are not really so baafter all.

But it is a metaphysical impossibility to "grant" what a feminist envies: the successful performance of themale role including risk overcome, obstacles surmounted, and objectively verifiable achievement. What thappeasers actually do is grant women some of the external appearances and rewards of such achievement.That is the meaning of corporate hiring and promotional preferences. But a little reflection will reveal whysuch concessions can never satisfy the feminist. She is humiliated precisely by the awareness that heradvancement is an unearned act of charity on the part of the hated "patriarchy." It would be difficult toimagine, in fact, a more efficient means of stoking her frustration and resentment. (The situation with raci

preferences, incidentally, is precisely analogous: thus, one book on Black beneficiaries of "affirmativeaction" is aptly titled The Rage of a Privileged Class.)

Indeed, concessions are perceived as signs of weakness, and whet the appetite for more concessions, a cycthat could only end with the complete self-destruction of the envied party. In other words, feminists' claimto be motivated by love of justice or fairness is flapdoodle. Feminism is a species not of righteousindignation but of hatred.

In practice, since the feminist can never be the equal of men at the malerole, she concentrates her efforts upon sabotaging that role. In otherwords, because she cannot level up, she contents herself as best she can

with leveling down. So the practical consequence of feminist politicalpower is to make it impossible for men to "do their thing" (fulfill theirrole). For example, women may not be able to have careers as glamoroand successful as they imagined, but one accusation of "harassment" is

all it takes to destroy the career of a man whose accomplishments she could never equal. And there is noquestion that many women get a sadistic pleasure from wielding such power. I myself once heard a womaboast of getting three different men fired.

A whole legal industry has mushroomed within a single generation based upon newly invented crimes andtorts of which only men can be guilty and only women can be victims. Obviously, the Western tradition ohigh regard for women is not going to survive the spread of such behavior indefinitely. Women who wond

why men do not seem to "respect" them any more might seek the answer in the mirror.

Envy of the male role has devastating consequences for women's performance of theirown proper role as well. Although it may be a secondary or supporting one in relationto men, it is indispensable for the survival of the race: the woman bears, nurtures, andto a great extent educates the rising generation. The feminist either refuses to fulfillher natural role or at best does so resentfully, sullenly, and poorly. For that reason,feminism should not be treated merely as a personal folly on the part of some misguided or spoiled wome


6/6

F. Roger Devlin -- Home economics, part I

Documents

Transcript of F. Roger Devlin -- Home economics, part I