De-coupling PDF Print E-mail
Written by Tracy Eberly   
Tuesday, 11 December 2007 22:30
I have received a lot of grief today for standing up for traditional male role models. The Lady Logician provided me with the key to my argument.

Current feminist ideology says that we can de-couple the traditional male role of breadwinner, provider and protector of the family and not have any deterioration of the male connection to the family. The next part of this theory is that male and female roles in the family are completely interchangeable and the male is just as capable of nurturing a child as the female. Conversely, the female can have the lead financial and societal role with no effect whatsoever on the family or the children.

Much of this is assumed to be settled science and I will be called a variety of names for even implying that the sexes aren’t equally suited for either role in the family. I am also ready to admit that in individual cases there are men that are better in the traditional female role and vice versa.

BUT, as a society I would posit that our experiment with removing the male from the role of provider has been disastrous. One just need to look at the damage that welfare has done to the black community to see that once relieved of the responsibility of providing and protecting one’s family, a significant number of males will feel relieved of any responsibility what so ever for their offspring.

Is it possible that the financial provider role is key to keeping a male involved in family life? Could males be genetically predisposed to a hierarchy of responsibilities that collapses once the primary financial responsibility is removed?

To understand the evolution of the male role, you need to take into account that in our modern society, the male role of protector of the family has been appreciably diminished. The natural male advantage of physical strength is much less important now than it was 5 centuries ago. We also have equalized the female’s ability to defend her family with a strong police force, judicial system and firearms. (God made men and women; Sam Colt made ‘em equal! ...)

So the modern male has to substitute earning power for physical strength to fulfill his natural role in the relationship. If we, as a society, remove this role will the modern male lose interest in the relationship all together? I say yes!

We have plenty of evidence from Europe and the US that males are losing interest in marriage and the job of raising their offspring. As marriage rates are dropping, out of wedlock birthrates are increasing. But, there is also a drop in overall birthrates as women make the rational choice to raise only one or 2 children on their own even with the help of the government.

Also, note the glaring contrast of Islam and its strong, well-defined gender roles and the birth rate of Muslims. There are a host of other issues at work here, but the contrast with western society is informative. I’d also say that Hispanics are also reproducing at a faster rate that whites and they also have well-defined gender roles.

So, as we chip away at traditional male roles in the pursuit of equality, we might want to be a bit more cautious as we might be designing a society that males have little interest in participating in, nor perpetuating.

As an aside, we might consider how happy women are now that we have relegated men to the status of sperm donor? While men are “happily” enjoying the sexual company of a variety of females in their 20’s and 30’s, are the women enjoying the continuous string of emotionally unavailable men? And assuming that the male does settle down enough to not only want a stable, long term relationship, but also has achieved a level off success and polish that would make him still desirable as a mate, what are the consequences of not only marrying later in life, but also spending the formative years of your adult life alone?

We are just now starting to see the results of these changes and I can’t say that they look good.

Cross-posted at Anti-Strib. Comments always welcome.