German National Socialism turned evil with imperialism and war, but its family policy was sound. Feminists shriek that the NS policy put women in the home and placed men at work, but it made good sense(and New Deal Era in America wasn't all that different; in both US and Germany, women entered the workplace in huge numbers only during the wartime due to manpower shortage; when men returned from war, they took up the bulk of jobs again). Both NS and ND understood the relation between biology and sociology. Men's role is to 'hunt' and bring home the bacon. Women's role is take care of home and hearth. So, jobs are many times more important to men than to women.
Also, functionally speaking, women have TWO places in society. Most women can function as homemakers or as workers. In contrast, men have only ONE place in society: at work. Sure, men return home, but they must bring home the bacon from work. It's like primitive men must bring home the meat from the hunt. Now, among many animals, males play no role in 'family life'. Family consists of just mother and offspring. So, the animal-mother has to do everything. But human society developed so that both man and woman play role in raising of kids(though less among blacks). So, what is the man's place and woman's place in this? Women have two places. She can work or she can take care of home. Man has only one place. He has to work. So, even if workplace is taken from the woman, she still has a meaningful place in society. Place in the home. But if workplace is taken from the man, he has no place in society, esp because most women will not marry 'losers'(men without jobs or lower-paying jobs). When women take jobs(esp well-paying ones), they are taking jobs from men who need them far far more than women do. If women were to lose their positions in the workplace, they still have the home-place. But if men lose positions in the workplace, they cannot go home(because they can't even start a home life).
Consider the One-and-Two-Dic*-Hypothesis. Imagine there are two guys. One guy has one dic* while the other guy has two dic*s. Suppose there is a need for a dic* donation. Who should lose the dic*? Obviously, the guy with two dic*s. Even if he loses one dic*, he has one left, whereas the other guy will have no dic* if he loses his.
The fact is women have 'two dic*s' whereas men have only one, metaphorically speaking of course. (If dic* talk is too vulgar, replace dic*s with hearts. Surely, a person with two hearts is in a better position to give up one of his/her hearts than a person with only one heart is.) The problem of the Modern World is that men have been browbeaten into letting women dic* around too much. Women are told that it's great to have well-paying jobs AND be mothers too. So, women should be super-women and have it all, and society must do everything possible to ensure that women can be both the most successful workers and most fulfilled mothers. Such a society not only leaves men dic*less but ball-less. It pegs them in the arse.
In order to have meaningful bio-socialism, we must have a law that says a family can only have one earner with income higher than $90,000. If a family is allowed to have two high-earners, it leads to concentration of wealth in elite communities. Two incomes that could have supported two families just go into ONE family, esp one that is likely to have only one or two kids. Bio-libertarianism sucks. We need bio-socialism that takes into account the biological underpinnings of social reality.
Also, too much of the discussion focuses on the premise that people are essentially individuals and economic units. But this is a shallow view of reality. Individuals didn't just pop into existence out of the blue. No life was ever created by ideas or ideology(just like no life was ever created by homo activity). No life ever leaped out of the pages of a book or the screen of a TV or mobile device. All humans are biological products of their parents who are biological products of their parents and so on. Before they are anything, they are life-form and organisms. Life is created through union of men and women, and males and females are most fertile, moral, and mutually fulfilled under certain conditions. While every man or every woman is an individual, a male individual has his male needs/abilities and a female individual has her female needs/abilities. Men and women may be interchangeable in most professions(that are asexual in function), but they are NOT interchangeable in life. Men produce sperm, women produce eggs. Men are stronger and better able to protect the home. Women are warmer and kinder to the kids. Fathers and mothers impart different influences on the kids, and both are essential in a yin/yang manner. But because so much of the discourse is about individual rights and economic competition, we overlook that men and women are not mere interchangeable individuals in the actual saga of life. Sure, the tranny cult would have us believe a man is a 'woman' with a wig and hormone injections and a woman is a 'man' with a dildo-strap-on, but that's just decadent and delusional(not to mention batshit crazy).
Feminism makes no sense because it emphasizes womanhood as identity but then ignores and neglects what makes women distinct from men. Feminism is really asexualism. It says women should take part in professions where their female-ness doesn't matter. After all, a female accountant is just like a male accountant. An asexual number-cruncher. Emphasis on professionalism makes one's sex irrelevant. There is no such thing as a good FEMALE law clerk or good FEMALE baker. The skills necessary in those jobs can be done by men or women. Professions, with few exceptions, are asexual in their design and operation. Now, some professions are better with men because they require lots of muscle strength and manly attitude. And some are better with women(or homos) because they involve lots of 'dainty' or whoopity stuff with fingertip than hand-grip work. Because most professions are asexual in purpose, it makes little sense to emphasize female-ness in relation to them. There is little to distinguish a female short-order cook from a male short-order cook, a female insurance agent from a male insurance agent. They are given a job to do, and they do it.
Where women are truly different from men is in the way of life, sex and reproduction, and parental role. So, if feminism is really about the special role of womenfolk, it should focus on what is unique and special about them: What women can do that men can't do and why women must do them to fulfill their womanly roles in the river of life. The question must be asked, Why did nature design women that way? With that understanding, a better society can be conceived in which women do their womanly things in partnership with men who do their manly things. (Feminism also fails as an egalitarian ideology. While it calls for equal opportunity for women in the workplace, it is only because women with extra-smarts want to rise as high as possible to marry and have kids with high IQ men who are just as rich or richer. So, it's about elitist-minded women wanting to be equal with elite men. It's not about the equality of all sisterhood or equality of women with the under-privileged of society.)
While it makes good sense to regard ourselves as individuals with rights and economic units with utilitarian roles in society, we mustn't put individualism or economism at the core of our consciousness. At the center must be the sense of ourselves as organisms. Laws, culture, society, and freedom arose from organisms, not vice versa. While it's not enough for us to be mere organisms -- like brutish animals -- because we are creatures of culture, ideas, and civilization, the fact is we are organisms before we are anything else. And even the abstract ideas and values in our heads exist only because we have organic matter like brains with neurons and hearts that pump blood. If all of culture were to vanish, humans could create new ones through more imagination and inspiration. After all, so much was destroyed by barbarian invasions and wars, but surviving humans revived or reinvented culture and civilization(even surpassing the earlier cultures that were destroyed and turned into dust). But if all human organisms were to perish even as all the culture -- museums, art works, architecture, libraries, etc -- were to remain, it would be the end of everything. After all, culture is useless without people to appreciate them. And people are organisms, and they appreciate culture through organic senses such as eyes and ears.
As people age, they grow a bit tired of culture because they'd seen it already: Been there, done that. That is precisely why they need to have kids because children experience culture(and nature) with fresh eyes, and then, the adults/parents can share in the wonderment. This is why Christmas continues to be special for families with kids and grandkids. Even as the adults don't feel much excitement themselves, they share in the magic through their kids' eyes.
If our core sense of self is organismic than individualistic or economic, we need to ask WHAT KIND OF SOCIAL ARRANGEMENT optimizes the existence of humans as creatures of continuity in the endless cycles of life and death. How are men different from women and vice versa, and how can that truth be acknowledged to arrange for social and professional roles that produce the greatest good for most people. This is where the (bio)socialist element comes in. Purely from a libertarian view, every woman is primarily an individual. And if all women, as individuals, want to take well-paying jobs from men, they should have the freedom to do so. The ONLY thing that would matter is the demand of the individual. But what would be the long-term and wider consequences of such socio-economic practices? It would spell doom, ultimately for women as well as for men because neither sex can survive/thrive without the other. It'd be like a society where everyone on the football team decides to do his own 'individualist' thing instead of knowing his place in the game. Imagine if an offensive lineman demanded that he be the quarterback and if the kicker said it's his turn to play running back. It'd be chaos.
Also, humanity must understand that home, not work, is the center of life. In other words, work exists so that people can bring something home. It's like a primitive savage goes hunting not just for the hell of it but to bring the kill back to the community to share with his family and kinfolk. Home should be the constant in life. People may go from job to job, from place to place, but the one constant must be family and home. It's no great deal to leave a job to take another, but it's a serious matter to leave one's family, though, to be sure, in our decadent-degenerate age, much of the stigma has been removed from people abandoning or rejecting their spouses or children. It's no longer shameful for men to renege on their obligations as husbands/fathers. It's no problem for women to get pregnant and raise kids on their own(with government assistance) while they shut the door on the fathers of the children. Or worthless skanks shunt off the kids(often mulatto) to be raised by the grandparents while they whore around some more. (Obama's mother was just an higher variation of whore-life.) The current culture doesn't put home/family at the center. Rather, the ego-driven individual occupies the center. Even when a man or woman decides to have a family, it is not to serve the family but to have it serve one's own 'needs' on the conceit that 'one can have it all'. It's just another trophy in the game of leggo-my-ego.
In an ideal society, people work so that they can bring home the bacon. It is in the home that genuine attachments and deep devotion exist. There is love for spouse and kids. And when people grow old, the only people who are going to care are the members of the family. After all, how many co-workers over the years in the various companies are going to be at one's deathbed and funeral? Because the Home is central and because Workplace really exists to serve the Home-place, a sane society must prioritize the MAN's position in the Workplace because that is his ONLY WAY HOME. Without a place at work, men cannot go home because they can't get married and build a home. In contrast, women have a place at home even without a place at work. They can marry someone and take care of the home while the man labors at work to bring home the bacon.
Anyway, the basic fact of life-and-culture is that women have two dic*s and can afford to surrender one. In contrast, if men lose their one-and-only dick*s, it's all over now, baby blue.
No comments:
Post a Comment