Editorials, Media

The Sisterhood Discovers There is Still a Brotherhood

…and shrieks.

You may not know this, but when the subject is even tangentially professional women, professional men are supposed to be seen and not heard. Except for the #chirpinggeldings, of course

If you don’t know this story, follow it in this order: 1) The Lou Dobbs panel discussion with Juan Williams (no conservative), Erick Erickson (no friend of this site) and Doug Schoen (no one I pay attention to anyway), 2) the cited Pew Research Center findings,  worth a full read, 3) a blow-back article, 8 Biting Responses…, 4) Greta van Sustern’s outrage, and 5) if you’re a Megyn Kelly fan, her snitty take on all this as well. There are many others, mostly in the same vein. It was a gang-bang; easy target…men, and easy subject…professional women…where once again, the first casualties are reason and science.

Now, besides the usual array of lefties and #Twittergeldings, I noticed that a lot of conservative women have lined up against the Dobbs’ panel (esp Erick Erickson) and I’d like to understand exactly why in more words than Twitter will allow. Especially since they’re wrong. In fact, their snits tell me a lot about the shallowness of their own conservative understandings in the “what-do-American-institutions-have-to-do-with-the-survival-of-American-civilization” category in the same way Bob Dole’s recent comments caused me to wonder just what did he really learn about fascism while getting shot by it in 1944?

According to Mark Twain, when one finds himself among the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.

Now the main target of this blow-back is clearly Erick Erickson, his killer-quote:

I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology — when you look at the natural world — the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complementary role. We’ve lost the ability to have complementary relationships… and it’s tearing us apart. [Erickson, FBN]

Later, Erickson went on to magnify his “science” comment at Red State, making him “the most hated man on Twitter” according to one savant.

Talk about praising a man with faint damns.

Some may want to nitpick Erickson’s religious references, but his science is right on the mark. He’s still young, and I have always believed if you can prove a Biblical lesson with reason, logic, or (especially) science, as Hayek used to do for sport, why run half your audience away with a scriptural citation…unless your real intent is to make a personal statement of faith instead of an edification?

But in the pull quote above, and for which the snottier of the leftie lampoons are directed, EE states the case clearly. The attacks on his anti-science comments are, well, anti-intellectual. And Twitter, whatever else it may be, is not an intellectual platform, which is why it is the preferred weapon of the can-connect-only-two-dots-crowd in the first place. As a rule, this is as good as they got.

Then there’s the knee-jerk Sisterhood, including many conservative professional women.

Let me describe their “condition” this way: In 2004 I transcribed a long article about “democracy in Iraq” (note the subject of the title), in which Moses Sands, in commenting on one cornerstone of civilization, said that while a man will go the aid of his neighbor, or to the edge of town, even to the shoreline if need be, to fight an enemy to defend his family before an enemy can threaten his house, the woman almost always balks at any such action if it means risking the loss of her children (cubs) or husband (mate).

Both instincts are primal. (That’s “science” for those of you who don’t read much.)

Even though the by-far superior fighter in defending her nest and her brood, the female will prefer to wait until the enemy comes up on the porch and kicks in the door before baring her teeth…at which time, for humans, it is usually too late.

Moses then went on to explain that this dual nature of the family, male and female, what Erickson calls “complementary,” is exactly what makes the free, liberated American family enterprise work, and what is responsible for our country to have progressed as it had the first 200 years. It also means that the male is the more important decision-maker in such matters of warfare and defense…for he has to use advance planning (and tool making) to make up for what he lacks in raw, natural fighting ability, such as possessed by the female.

(Betcha didn’t know that, ladies.)

Pay attention, for these few paragraphs were used by Moses to explain a cultural chemistry, a law, the science of what makes the family organization work, but only to highlight a few universal rules about democracy as it might apply to various Arab and Middle Eastern cultures. He was using a connect-four-dots argument of making a larger point.

But while he received several plaudits about the larger theme of that article, Democracy in Iraq, right on cue, several women stopped right there, at that paragraph (just mentioned), then plopped down in the middle of the road and refused to budge, one of them writing an ugly 1000 word rebuttal against his puny 100 or so words, she was so outraged that Moses would stereotype women so. “Well, I’ll have you know…”

Moral: At the end of her long epiphany she was at about the same place Greta Van Susteren is today, totally clueless of the larger issue, having stopped at the second dot, to begin her screed, quite frankly, totally indifferent to the cultural cataclysm mentioned by the Dobbs’ panel, or that successful wimmen lawyers and rich television personalities have nothing whatsoever to do with the cultural plague they discussed.

Show people. Gad.

Writers see this all the time by the way, and it’s a kind of “science” all by itself, for there is a pathology behind that inability of a reader to think past a single sentence if it offends. In fact, it is a kind of stupidity, indulged, thus nurtured, in educated professional women especially, based on the Squeaky Wheel Theory of Cultural Decline. (Anything to shut ’em up.)  It is based on several pathologies; psychological, sociological, but most importantly for our purposes here, anthropological, as it refers to “survival endangering” behavior.

The Sisterhood of Feminists have turned this “science” into just what Erick Erickson called it, “anti-science.”

Saying anything about women these days is impolitic, and saying anything about women and science in the same sentence can be downright self-destructive, so one had better be right on the mark and count as much coup as he can if he goes there. Hoka hey!

Lou Dobbs’ entire panel did better than I ever expected.

Of course Erick Erickson is right. Especially on the science. So much so this story goes beyond Twitter wars (for reasons already stated, to connect more than two dots). I think Fox should push forward one more dot at least, get a sponsor and pull off a Buckley/Firing Line-like debate between the scientific Brotherhood and both the leftwing popinjays as well as the conservative wing of the Sisterhood. Not 2 minutes, but two hours.  Not two dots, but four.

This way, even though they’ll still lose the popular vote, the Brotherhood can at least leave some working papers about cultural survival and the rise of American exceptionalism laying around so the ladies will at least have some reference material lying about when the tyrants come storming upon their front porch, so they can roll them up and swat them.

Law: Women are instinctively socialists because they are born dependent, (there’s that “science” again) BUT will gladly give this status up the moment they can enter into a union with a man so as to form a joint enterprise called the “family,” so as then to be able to build an enduring multi-generational edifice called the “house”…something Nature (science) denies the homosexual. In short, the family enterprise offers a better deal not just for the female, but for the generations to come, than the state can offer or deliver.

Sorry ladies, single moms can’t do this alone, because of that “enduring” clause, nor can Feminist-created substitutes such as the state as surrogate  mate ever work. That formula is unraveling before your very eyes, about which the Dobbs’ panel spoke. You might do well with half a house personally, but in the words of Rev Wright, those chickens will come home to roost in the next, or the next, generation.

The family unit is a “complementary” relationship based on several innate characteristics owned by one or the other of the two sexes, and quite frankly, irreplaceable, whether lost thru death, divorce, or mere choice. There are many things each of the partners can do the other can’t, although since we are no longer an agrarian society, most indoor work at least is no longer exclusive to men.

But, for the most part, it seems, for instance, that risk-taking still is. It also seems that building is. Only I don’t mean building lean-to’s or a law practice here. While the female can run any company as well as any man (a lot of professional female subordinates will disagree, unless they too are in the Sisterhood…some of the mother abbesses are absolute fiends about surrounding themselves only with members of their own Order), she generally seems unwilling to take the sort of chances required to build a business from scratch, especially a brick-and-mortar business such as manufacturing., or opening up a quarry. A law office, fine. Businesses that involve sweat, and 16-hour days?

The female is risk averse by her nature, but which in the family system is offset by strengths found in the male. A team. But alone in the world she is without one arm and hand, and one which the surrogate state apparatus really cannot replace, at least in the cultural (scientific) sense.

So, as already mentioned, above, her instinct for the survival of the family unit is critical in some circumstances, but absolutely self-destructive in others, as when she will refuse to take risks to go to the aid of her neighbors, or to plan stratagems to meet the enemy half a world away, again relying on the surrogate state (police) to do it for her…which the state almost never does in a pinch. (The whole purpose of the Second Amendment is because the Sisterhood’s’ Plan B for home defense almost always never works when actually needed.)

There is much at stake in the science of this equation at this critical juncture in our country’s history.

Since I was going to do an article on this anyway, consider: After the Battle of Lexington and Concord 2,000 Massachusetts militiamen just up and started walking to Boston with their muskets over their shoulders. There were no orders given, they weren’t even an army. There was no strategy or plan. They just knew a fight was coming. They were mere “tea party” types, albeit of a more survival-enhancing type than today’s variety. (Although no one was there to record it, they all probably left home with their wives tugging at the buckskins not to go.)

The rest, of course, is history.

Compare: today, after hundreds more abuses and usurpations than King George ever threw at them, all our modern freedom fighter can do is cling close to home, write scathing blogs, and generally wait behind the front door for the enemy to kick it in before they get good and mad…

…just like the typical females of yore, per Moses Sands.

We have moved from uncertain victory to certain defeat.

I’m not here saying that the day after Obamacare was passed a million Americans with pitchforks should have marched on Washington, to surround it, with a mean look in our eye, but rather pointing out the “science” as to why we have not.

We have become a nation of women, even as we continue to boldly preach the virtues of liberty, and sing the manly hymns of freedom, for we huddle in the basement instead of sallying forth to meet this enemy.

There is very much a “science” involved in this cultural “gender” conversion, for we have gone from “survival enhancing behavior” to “survival endangering” behavior.

But none of this has anything to do with Greta Van Susteren’s profession or her outrage, so I’m sure she lost me 1000 words ago.

That Pew study mentioned that of the 41% principal female breadwinners, 63% of them are unmarried women. How many are divorced versus just choose to have babies without a dad, I can’t say. But the Pew Report did not even mention the 4 million plus families on the public dole, the state their full-time sugar-daddy, boosting that number closer to 50%. Or the several million young professional women who chose to abort those babies instead of bringing them into the world to raise them. As 41% of those aborted babies were to black women (and girls) it means that 59% were to non-African Americans, many (most?) of which are young professionals who kill off the fetus out of convenience or vanity issues. Sort of like removing nail polish.

Lastly, of those children of that 63% single-adult households, how many made up the Occupy Movement, bare butts up against police cars and hands out? 90%? How many took out $100K student loans to get a degree in Parrot Grooming, then were too uneducated to know that in economies where people have to roast their parrots they can no longer afford to groom them? Or that maybe they made a poor career choice in the first place? And how many have a Cindy Sheehan as a mother?

Seriously, just how many from this 63% cannot even begin to connect that third dot; Work=Money=Stuff?

Anthropologically, culturally, we are spinning out of control in survival-endangering waters, and I don’t have to mention God’s approval or disapproval even once to make this case.

But professional men aren’t supposed to point this out because…?

The Feminist Sisterhood has discovered that there is indeed still a Brotherhood, and from the facts I heard enunciated by Lou Dobbs and his panel, it was all about “culture” which is still defined by science and not politics, especially the politically correct kind.

In other words, the bruised sensitivities of women can only control this conversation on a sinking ship. Those men on the Dobbs panel were talking about a sea-worthy ship, and not about contented passengers on a sinking one.

Of course, none of the Sisters understand all this. Nor do any of their #TweetingGeldings. The logic of science was never their long suite, anyway, for Science is no respecter of feelings.

So, yes, FNN and FBN, go out and hire a hall and discuss this in the open, for it takes 3-5 dots to lay out in precision-like form how one divorce, one abortion, or one single-mother represents  one fallen house, so, in the long view is also one damned divorce, abortion, or single-mom too many, if the civilization is to be rescued.

Make your case, and don’t be surprised if a lot of the Brotherhood tunes in, not out.

Tagged , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *