This morning in Kirk I sat next to one of my colleagues and her daughter. The daughter was talking about a local keg party that had got out of control last night and how she had to rescue one of her friends from the mess — the police were called — at 5 am. And we talked about how we are dealing with young people — often in their early teens — who are acting in dangerous ways, and seem to be without a conscience. That their families have no power to control them and they are making choices that are destroying their prospects later.
Being a teenager in New Zealand is a challenge. Our qualification system is such that you have to work fairly steadily over three years to obtain enough points to get into a competitive university or training programme. Son two, in his second year at high school (year 10, grade 9) is already doing “internals” that count toward that system, and son one (year 12, grade 11) is in the middle of this.
My friend was rostered to pray for others. She began praying for the recent victims of events in New Zealand. She then broke down and weeping, prayed for these young people who were not being protected by the adults around them who were not at all grown up.
I have just come back from a fairly long drive with son one. We went up to a the Moeraki Boulders — and during this we discussed what is happening. During this, I reflected on a few observations I have made, or my parents have made.
- In the early 1970s New Zealand revised our social welfare system. We bought in a domestic purposes benefit, removed the requirement that a person be sober and of good characther to recieve a benefit, and increased the amount. My mother recalls one of the Pacific Island women in the church saying “This should not happen, for it will destroy our society”. I now see women whose entire aim in life is to have a child and be on the benefit, perpetuating the cycle of deprivation their mother lived. They see this as normal.
- We have told girls they can do anything. We have told them that they are wonderful. We have been concerned about their self esteem. We have rewarded them by scholarships and support if they enter fields. We have told them they are equal with men… and they have believed us. However, women are smaller, weaker, cannot metabolize substances as fast as men… and, because we have sheltered women from the consequences of their actions, they are hurt, angry and fragile when (not if) they are held accountable for their behaviour.
- Conversely, we have told young men that they are evil, violent, sexually oppressive, and disposable. A number of women call the husband (they have divorced) “the sperm donor”. This has led to men either treating women as friends with benefits, or withdrawing from the dating scene, and instead watching cautiously trying to ascertain what the risk to themselves will be from committing to this person. I said commitment not marriage: in New Zealand if you live with a person for three years or have a child by them your partner now has 50% of what you own. There is no need for paperwork. Marriage and civil unions formalize what will be your legal status.
- As are result we have young women running wild, young men who have disaffiliated themselves from our society… and a minority who stick to the old ways.
Me, I mourn the loss of my marriage. I like traditional marriage. I like the idea of death til us part. I don’t like bars, I don’ t like partying. I like reading, thinking, taking photos, playing music and sharing things. I am, in the terms of the manosphere, a classic beta geek. My sons are the same.
And my advice to all such betas is to leave the nightclub scene and go to the library. Find a girl doing a STEM subject, and woo her. Get involved in a tradtional church. And recreate an old fashioned home.
The society we are told about — the post modern feminist utopia — is destructive. It is time to remove ourselves, and let it go to perdition.
Hi Chris,
I would like to respond to your post more fully but before I do I want to make sure I understand the arguments contained. The title is “The consequences of the feminist revolution… Part 0” and it starts by describing teenage sexual chaos. So presumably there is a reasonably direct causal link being drawn between “the feminist revolution” and teenage sexual chaos. The middle of the post then suggests connections between the two – namely, the Domestic Purposes Benefit, the “Girls Can Do Anything” movement, and negative images of young men. Is it possible that there may also be causal factors which reflect poorly on men? And have you considered these and looked for explanations or evidence which challenge or modify your hypothesis? And surely there is no singular “feminist revolution” but a range of movements, sometimes pulling in different directions e.g. on sexual behaviour.
BTW I agree with your advice to find a potential wife at the library rather than a nightclub but I am not sure what an old fashioned home entails. Is the emphasis on fidelity, children, and community service? Or male-only leadership and female-only submission?
All the best, Grant
I missed a few of the intermediate steps.
1. In the US (nor sure about NZ) 70% divorces intiated by women.
2. In NZ, domestic violence in Otago and Christchurch child development surveys around 50:50 male:female. However, our laws are such that in a domestic one party– by policy the man — will be ordered to leave the house and attend anger management regardless of fault.
3. I’m dealing with a son who wants an old fashioned marriage (but will not say that in public) eventually but is frightened of any relationships after seeing what happened to him and me when the marriage imploded.
The old fashioned patriaarchy was hated my young women and players who were restricted in their choices — you had to marry and be faithful to one person, and philandering was a cause of shame and stigma. Those restrictions are now gone. And the move thru the sexual revolution destroyed it.
Now… if one takes feminism as more than equality (and the current advocates seem to say this) then it is part of the problem.
I think I was writing in shorthand. Again.
Hi Chris,
I don’t know specific figures for initiation of divorce but I’m trying to see how this explicitly fits into your argument. Is it that feminism has caused more divorce? And that men are not to blame for divorce because they didn’t initiate as many (30% instead of the expected 50%)?
As for domestic violence, I am not a specialist in the research but I would be wondering what account was taken of the difference between pushing/shoving/slapping etc and life-threatening/injury-causing assaults? Once again, how does this all fit into your argument? Is it connected to negative stereotyping of males? And seen as causing sexual chaos etc?
I can see why you want something positive to offer your sons in terms of models for relationships. Can such a model offer a positive view of how men and women can form good relationships together? And what does that look like? I don’t see how “old-fashioned patriarchy” is the best of the available options.
All the best, Grant
Grant, the data (and it is something I am doing from memory) does not indicate a difference in severity of actions and intent.
At least from the development surveys.
From my work, there is a gender difference for General Practitioners (at least) males are more likely to be assaulted, females to be sexually harrassed, and the risk decreases in late middle age for both. The political discourse — men are violent and women are the victims — does not fit the data.
Which takes me back to the post. Men (well most of us) seem to somehow, somewhere, learn that if we fight we will get hurt at best and end up in trouble with the law at worst. Men know that if they sleep with a person they are responsible for the results… and if you do not know that, you are stigmatized and punished. As the Advts (in NZ) say “It’s not OK”.
Now… we have recently developed a cohort of women who seem to ignore all this. This is fairly new. It was unusual ten years ago — it is far more usual now.
Moving from data to theory… as a pragmatist, it seems that the revolution of morals that occured while I was in primary school and intermediate (say 1965 — 1975) led to the undermining of familial structure. This process has continued through the last four decades.
What I see — as an observation — is that we have more troubled, and more deeply troubled young people than I saw two decades ago when I started in this trade. The emotionally unstable end of the population are getting themselves into deeper trouble, faster. They are falling out of general society. I’ve been seeing this for boys for some time, but now it is occuring to girls, and the girls are actually far more extreme.
So something is going on.
No, it is not women’s fault, or men’s fault. It is societies fault. It is the fruit of our ideologies and the way we raise people. We can argue as to the caouse, but it does not look like we are doing that great a job at present, and when people who should be functioning start falling apart (which is what my colleague and I both have noticed) we have to worry that we are falling towards a cliff, if not halfway down it.
The families emphasis is home family community service. Together. Two intelligent adults in agreement.
With a lot of flexibility in tactics: I am NOT saying women should be in the kitchen. I am saying that sorting out the task of raising kids (which is hard work) and supporting families is best done by two adults working together.
And… in the US, where the state school system is academically appalling, home schooling etc is a reasonable tactic. Or church schools…. hence a number of mums who are quite bright and competent are at home doing that — where elsewhere they would be doing other things while their kids were at school.
Each family is different. But we need to set up a structure where families survive.
Hi Chris,
We are in 100% agreement that raising kids is hard work. And broader society can make that easier or harder. All the best with your efforts.
All the best, Grant