A discussion about a research article by JD Unwin, a British anthropologist, has prompted me to try to express my views on the particularly controversial subject of how sexual liberation, especially of women, has changed society.
JD Unwin states: ‘100% of societies that loosened constraints on female sexuality, opening Pandora’s box quickly degenerated and fell apart. Natural female instincts are destructive to civilization’.
Basically, in order to keep society functioning, women should be deprived of demonstrating part of their natural instincts because they are destructive (?) to civilisation. Societies and civilisations have had wars and problems regardless of how much or how little freedom women had.
I think that the actual issue of sexual freedom as it has developed (or degenerated, if you prefer) was a carrot dangled in front of women, who were promised freedom not only to do what they considered right but to be free of guilt for doing so. It never quite happened, or at least not how it was expected to.
Nowadays in my sons’ generation there’s still the “stud and slut” dichotomy. Men were told that women didn’t need them and women were told they didn’t need men. So what happened- and this is my personal and probably flawed and biased take based on my experience and what I observe- is that men let their “inner little boy” take over when they were told that they needn’t take responsibility for women, which translated into them never quite growing up. Women, on the other hand, saw that they had to take care of themselves because a lot of men were, as they say, dropping the ball more than was acceptable. So they became tough, demanding and In a certain way “masculine”.
Of course, me being my grandmother’s descendant, I know that women are quite capable of taking care of their lives and many have leadership qualities, like men.
Economist Joseph Schumpeter equated the success of capitalism to’ love of the family, for without family the male would have less incentive to sacrifice and save money out of love for his wife and children, and would probably spend his money on more pleasurable endeavors.’
So family is not one of life’s pleasurable endeavours and therefore men have to submit to marriage in order to be useful to society. Men are useless to society unmarried and/or childless? They cannot control their financial resources if not ‘tied’ to a family? Of course, women bear the brunt of childbearing and rearing. This hasn’t changed in its origin. I’d be livid if I were a man and read these things about men shirking their duty. Why don’t these erudite gentlemen take a step further and research on why it happens? Is it women’s fault or is it, as I pointed out before, that some men cannot handle a strong capable woman and feel diminished regardless of her treatment of him?
Been there. Made myself small, worked menial jobs so as to not hurt the man’s feelings, birthed and raised two children while alone 50% of the time, made decisions that did not benefit me in the first place…all to no avail. There’s an epidemic of Peter Pans and I certainly don’t think women are to blame.
Nikola Tesla: (what a disappointment, apart from proving that he understood women as much as I understand Chinese)
“Our civilization will sink to a state like that which is found among the bees, ants and other insects–a state wherein the male is ruthlessly killed off. In this matriarchal empire which will be established the female rules. As the female predominates, the males are at her mercy. The male is considered important only as a factor in the general scheme of the continuity of life. The tendency of women to push aside man, supplanting the old spirit of cooperation with him in all the affairs of life, is very disappointing to me. Woman’s independence and her cleverness in obtaining what she wants in the business world is breaking down man’s spirit of independence. The old fire he once experienced at being able to achieve something that would compel and hold a woman’s devotion is turning to ashes. Women don’t seem to want that sort of thing to-day. They appear to want to control and govern. They want man to look up to them, instead of their looking up to him.”
First, if women are to look up to a man, he must be worthy of it. He must be trustworthy and self sufficient and not need a mommy to boss him. I know many men of all ages who are good men but unless someone is pushing them, or better, dragging them along like a stubborn ox who will not budge for his life, will not do their share of work in a family. They believe their role is limited to breadwinner and little else. In such a circumstance, women HAVE TO be the leader. You try to get him to do what’s right but after years, you give up and do it yourself. Furthermore, what’s so wrong in man looking up to a woman? Aren’t women, at least some, worthy of admiration? These erudite gentlemen don’t say a peep about men shirking their duty, just that if men aren’t put into a marriage they become lazy and spend what they earn on pleasurable things, which it implies that a family is not. All the responsibility for families and society neatly and conveniently placed at women’s feet… Been there, done that. It’s useless to toil away and deny yourself and nag and pinch and grunt. Some men are useless married or otherwise…like some women.
Precisely this dividing women into pieces, some of which are ‘right’ and others which are ‘wrong’ is something that some feminists do too. They sell women the idea that only their intellectual self is worthy of being developed, while their nurturing side will make them slaves. Now, enter JD Unwin who, from a peculiarly conservative point of view, says that female instincts are nefarious for society. You do see the irony? So women can give free rein to their instincts as long as these instincts are ‘controlled’ by someone other than women because if given too much liberty, they will destroy civilisation. Female sexual liberty is to be feared!
Why do men, then, not try to be real men? Trustworthy, hardworking. dependable, invested in their families and not just accepting the unfair and limited role of breadwinners?
A real man is sturdy, not inflexible; intelligent and capable and carries the responsibility for his own life. A real man shares his thoughts and feelings and is not afraid of a capable woman; on the contrary, he values a strong woman because he doesn’t need a damsel in distress but a warrior like him by his side. A real man is caring and compassionate but will not hesitate to defend his people and himself if necessary.
As Simone de Beauvoir said quite rightly ‘ You are not born a woman, you become one.’
This is applicable to men as well. Women and men are responsible for themselves.
A civilisation is not dependant on only half of its members, whether for good or for bad, for its survival but on the interaction and capacity to employ all the resources it possesses for the advancement of society.