« Coffee Snorters, Inbox Edition | Main | Kids These Days... »

January 11, 2013

Anti-Feminist Blames Men for "Enslaving Women", Destroying Human Race

Too funny. Glenn Reynolds links to an 1915 essay from an anti-feminist opponent of women's suffrage. He excerpts one sentence that - along with the longer passage chosen by Retropundit, suggests that women should not be allowed to work (or, apparently, vote). Women who are free to set the course of their own lives won't marry or have children:

When a smart young man receives a big salary it is a good thing for the race. He can marry and transmit his smartness to posterity. When a young woman receives a big salary it means disaster for the race, and the wider, handsomer, more efficient the woman is to-day the more likely she is to have a salary instead of a husband. You couldn’t run a chicken farm on those principles. Suppose you took all the best hens and set them aside to go to college or run a feather factory for the other hens. It’s a tragedy!

It has taken the race millions of years to produce the high salaried women of to-day, and now those qualities are allowed to perish. The spark carried through the centuries is snuffed out by a salary!

Nearly a century later, uncooperative facts cast some doubt on the author's bold predictions. These days, the women with the most options in life are more likely to marry than their less fortunate sisters. But let's not get distracted from our Important Hen Analogy.

Hens lay eggs to make baby chickens. Unlike hens, chicken farmers don't much care about the continuation of chickenkind. They want hens to lay eggs so humans can eat them (thus failing to transmit the smartest chicken genes to the next generation of chickens). Farmers find eggs useful in other ways, though. Eggs produce more chickens that will - in their turn - also be eaten by humans. Since no one appears to be eating human babies, it is not immediately apparent to this author why human reproduction should be managed on the same principles as a chicken farm. But no doubt this is what happens when generations of big-salaried, wide women prevent the smartness of young men from being transferred to the next generation of commercial protein sources.

Now at this point, you're probably ready to grab the nearest feminist and string her up by her armpit hair. We can't really fault you for this beautiful and natural urge but before you do, you might want to read the rest of the essay. Inexplicably, the author blames men for this mess:

I don't oppose suffrage because it will change things so much. If women had the vote, things would be just as they are now - only worse. It is only one manifestation of the feminist movement brought about by the entrance of women into industry. The race originally had two chief purposes - to get a living and to rear the next generation. Man forced woman to aid him in his task of creating wealth and stole her from her home duties.

Dagnabbit! Why were we not informed that feminism was nothing more than a dastardly male plot to destroy the human race? But it gets worse:

Now the whole race is being drafted into man's business of creating wealth while women's business of creating men fades into the background and woman has yielded with the most deplorable docility. She bows under the yoke and calls it freedom!

You big brutes! Why are men always trying to get women to do your work for you? How dare you force us to get jobs against our will? The Editorial Staff are so confused by all these newfangled choices. Just a few months ago, we were warned that affluent, educated women are being chained to their desks by other women. As if that weren't bad enough, affluent, educated working women are preventing less affluent women from marrying! To stop this horrifying trend, we must stem the rising "tide of female education and achievement" before it kills us all. Hugh Hefner, being male, sees a different problem. In his view, traditional marriage and gender roles enslave men!

The early Playboy sought the eyes and minds of what Fraterrigo calls “the young, affluent, urban bachelor,” and the first issue was pitched by Hefner as “a little diversion from the anxieties of the Atomic Age.” These anxieties were not only about being barbequed by Soviet nukes; for the American male, they included having to marry the first woman you had sex with, living with your parents (thanks to a dire postwar housing shortage), and feeling emasculated by the new nature of American work, no longer artisanal or rugged or self-determining but managerial and inchoate and soul-stranglingly indoor.

This.will.not.stand:

What fuels the selective outrage against feminism? Is it principle, or personal pique? Keep in mind that Playboy began bashing marriage in the 1950s - years before Betty Friedan wrote the book that launched second wave feminism. No fault divorce and Roe v. Wade were still decades away and birth control was still illegal in many states. Yet somehow, evil feminists found a way to go back in time and brainwash poor Hugh. Who knew they had such power? Their message was a simple one: chumps settle down with one woman and raise families. Real men demonstrate their sophistication and manliness by ducking marriage and wallowing in commitment-free sex:
According to the writer, William Iversen, husbands were self-sacrificing romantics, toiling ceaselessly to provide their families with “bread, bacon, clothes, furniture, cars, appliances, entertainment, vacations and country-club memberships.” Nor was it enough to meet their daily needs; the heroic male must provide for them even after his own death by building up his savings and life insurance. “Day after day, and week after week the American hubby is thus invited to attend his own funeral.” Iversen acknowledged that there were some mutterings of discontent from the distaff side, but he saw no chance of a feminist revival: The role of the housewife “has become much too cushy to be abandoned, even in the teeth of the most crushing boredom."

One thing is for certain: far too many men and women are being enslaved by all these choices. And someone - men, women, or perhaps Poultrykind - is to blame for all this.

Clearly, we don't want the human race to get smarter over time, because some very smart scientists (thankfully male) claim that intelligence has a dysgenic effect on fertility. The conclusion here is self evidently self-evident: if the goal is to increase or preserve human intelligence over time, we must all breed like hens. But there's a danger here. If the intelligence of the human race goes up, this will cause us to have fewer children and become dumber over time.

However this debacle plays out, we can safely say that feminists, Hugh Hefner, or scheming lazy men had something to do with it.

Though personally, we're inclined to blame the chickens.

Posted by Cassandra at January 11, 2013 08:23 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4477

Comments

Hens lay eggs to make baby chickens.
Wa...wa...wa...what?!? Damn! What do the roosters do to make baby chickens? Whistle? :-)

Posted by: spd rdr at January 11, 2013 10:23 AM

Roosters nail hens to have baby chickens. Both hens and roosters are needed to produce progeny, but hens don't need roosters to lay eggs (and they don't stop laying if there's not a rooster handy). I'm guessing the tragic lack of state sponsored sex ed is responsible for all this pointless ovulation:

[click my name for link]

...hens don't actually need need roosters in order to lay eggs. In fact, most hens raised in commercial farms have never even set eyes on a rooster.

The only thing hens need in order to stimulate egg-laying is light. Hens are programmed to lay eggs in the spring and summer, which they judge by the amount of daylight. Of course, commercial farmers tap into this tendency by simulating summer days in their chicken coops all year around.

Now if only we could do the same with human women!

Posted by: Nobody here but us hens... at January 11, 2013 10:43 AM

Now if only we could do the same with human women!

No, please don't. The LG is fertile enough already. Just breathing on her unprotected and she gets pregnant.

Don't want a 4th kid.

:-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2013 10:51 AM

I now know more about chickens than ever I wanted to know. No wonder I blame them.

Posted by: spd rdr at January 11, 2013 01:11 PM

Let's just boil this down to what we know and what we don't know or, better yet, what is so and what is not so.

We know this; that in all creation there has never been found so fundamentally sound a creature as the human male; elemental, transparent, forthright, indomitable defender... the plinth of unalloyed mettle upon which civilization rests.

What we may believe as true (empirical evidence allows it); women are highly evolved complainers. This is not altogether bad, it is in fact a good thing. Absent women's dissatisfactions men might still be content in their rock caves.

What we don't know; who, or what, is responsible for the state the world is in? Women are not entirely exonerated. When it has gotten to the point of there being more complaints than things to complain about then it can be concluded we have breached a threshold.

What I suspect; it is diet. Women, kind, caring, altruistic, have got their men to eating, for a healthier and longer life, leaves – arugula, etc. Men, having been denied meat and fed leaves, have become herd ruminants, ruminants in both meanings. Women have recently taken to complaining about this very thing but have not made a connection.

If we are to spare civilization its own demise, men must have meat; men must once again hold sway over civilization, women hold sway over men, and one assist the other to keep from backsliding to the cave.

Posted by: George Pal at January 11, 2013 01:36 PM

Cass' head explodes in 4, 3, 2, ...

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2013 01:49 PM

We know this; that in all creation there has never been found so fundamentally sound a creature as the human male; elemental, transparent, forthright, indomitable defender... the plinth of unalloyed mettle upon which civilization rests.

Too true, George... too true! :)

What we may believe as true (empirical evidence allows it); women are highly evolved complainers....When it has gotten to the point of there being more complaints than things to complain about then it can be concluded we have breached a threshold.

That is one of the funnier things I have read of late :p Also, and sadly, too true.

The thing is, we women think the world of you big lugs. We think you can do anything, and most of the time men prove us right. When that fails, we notice that the recycling bin is full -- AGAIN!

Posted by: Henpecked Anti-Feminist at January 11, 2013 02:17 PM

I now know more about chickens than ever I wanted to know. No wonder I blame them.

Me too. I always wondered whether hens laid eggs if there was no rooster around. Now I wish I didn't know!

...please don't. The LG is fertile enough already. Just breathing on her unprotected and she gets pregnant.

Heh :)

I used to tell people that it wasn't even necessary for the spousal unit to make eye contact with me across a crowded room. I could get pregnant if someone told an off-color joke and both of us heard it ...

Posted by: Henpecked Anti-Feminist at January 11, 2013 02:20 PM

Sounds like he is hen-pecked.

Posted by: Mrs. Leghorn at January 11, 2013 04:29 PM

Dark meat's ok, if you go for that kind of thing. I'm more of a breast man, myself.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano Official Member of the Oink Cadre™ at January 11, 2013 04:55 PM

*groan* :)

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2013 05:00 PM

Sounds like he is hen-pecked.

Shhhhh.... don't let her hear you. I'll never hear the end of it!

*tiptoe-ing away*

Posted by: Henpecked Anti-Feminist's Henpecked Husband at January 11, 2013 05:23 PM

"Man forced woman to aid him in his task of creating wealth and stole her from her home duties"

A little odd, if you think about it, for someone to write this in 1915...a great deal of the "wealth production" involved people working on farms, and women had been very active participants in farming tasks from time immemorial.

Posted by: david foster at January 13, 2013 10:42 AM

It's even odder when you contrast the image of a man-hating female anti-feminist from 1915 with the stereotype we hear about non-stop, 24/7:

"Before feminism came along to ruin everything..."

But some moron will find a way to blame even man hating from an anti-feminist on feminism, too. The one great constant in life is human nature. Times change, culture changes, but people always want to blame someone or something for the problems in their lives.

Everyone wants a simple solution - they want to go back to that rosy time when everything was perfect and whatever they're complaining about today never happened.

Except it did. I've been writing about the utter folly of women stereotyping and blaming men and men stereotyping and blaming women for nearly 10 years now. I don't think it does any good.

Maybe George is right and we all need a good steak :p

Anyway, I appreciate you all letting me rant.

Posted by: Cass at January 13, 2013 02:55 PM

Where. Ever. Do. You. FIND. These. Things? ;-)

Posted by: CAPT Mongo at January 13, 2013 07:08 PM

There's always some task that a particular caste was forced to do, and then when the caste can't be forced to do it any more, everyone's up in arms about how the task will get done. Seems to me it will get done the way all tasks get done: when someone else is either persuaded (by argument or innate sense of duty) or forced (by violence or necessity) to get it done. Cultures that don't figure out how to raise enough kids will die out and be replaced by those that do figure it out. That's been the rule for about three billion years.

As for hens, they lay eggs just fine without roosters but they don't produce many chicks that way!

Posted by: Texan99 at January 14, 2013 09:25 AM

You're fisking stuff from 1915 now? :)

Actually, I like the RetroPundit site's concept. It's always fun to find stuff in the New York Times celebrating the Boy Scouts, or the LA Times explaining that local high schools are setting up machine-gun ranges for target practice. It's amazing stuff.

Posted by: Grim at January 14, 2013 10:19 AM

Actually, I like the RetroPundit site's concept. It's always fun to find stuff in the New York Times celebrating the Boy Scouts, or the LA Times explaining that local high schools are setting up machine-gun ranges for target practice. It's amazing stuff.

I did sort of end up fisking the linked article, didn't I? :)

That wasn't really my main point, though. I think the fisking was more to make it clear that I thought the anti-feminist author's male bashing was just as poorly thought out as 90% of the feminist/woman bashing I read on a daily basis.

My point was that most of these arguments are specious. People start from their desired endpoint (if you're a conservative or a MRA, FEMINISM IS DESTROYING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!!!11!, or if you're Hefner, TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE AND GENDER ROLES ARE RUINING MEN'S LIVES!!!11!, or if you're a radical feminist TRADITIONAL GENDER ROLES ARE RUINING WOMEN'S LIVES!!!11!) and pretty much make it up from there.

FWIW, I always enjoy going back and reading news articles and essays from history because we hear so many utterly unsupported arguments that "things never used to be this way until X, Y, or Z" and then you go back and find out that women have been blaming men (our 1915 anti-feminist) and men were blaming women (Hugh Hefner, or the items I wrote about a long time ago blaming overprotective mothers for raising wimpy sons) throughout history.

Human nature never changes.

Posted by: Cass at January 14, 2013 11:36 AM

Is this what we crossed the road for?

Posted by: Mrs. Leghorn at January 14, 2013 12:02 PM

Actually, it was just to show the possum that it could be done.
0>;~}

Posted by: Snarkammando at January 14, 2013 01:28 PM

"We die, so...that...we...LIVE!" (The Hedge)

Posted by: Possum at January 15, 2013 06:15 PM

I dont know where you get your stats but marriage rates for college educated women have been declining for the past 25 years.
Oh, and merry Christmas.

Posted by: Jpe at December 24, 2013 03:31 PM

I dont know where you get your stats but marriage rates for college educated women have been declining for the past 25 years.

As tempting as it is to argue about something I never claimed, I'm going to pass.

Please read more carefully. The statement in my post is here:

One reason educated heterosexual women may worry about their marriage prospects today is that overall marriage rates have been slipping since 1980. But they have slipped less for educated women than for anyone else. Furthermore, college-educated women, once they do marry, are much less likely to divorce.

If you'd like to take issue with the actual point of this (or the linked) posts, have at it. Oh, and the marriage data comes from the Census Bureau.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 24, 2013 03:43 PM

Oh Dear Sweet Lord, I love this blog.
Someday I'll work up the courage to ask who is who behind the often amusing screen names. Until then I'm just gonna enjoy the ride.

Merry Christmas!
and
Very Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at December 24, 2013 08:34 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)