Editorial: Feminism has wide acceptance and popular support. It is the default position of most sitcoms that paint men (especially husbands and fathers) as incompetent n’er-do-wells while accentuating the cool reserve and logically superior females (especially wives and mothers).
The legal and court system also favors feminism. Men in cases of divorce are the real victims even if they have legitimate grounds for terminating a marriage. While there are real inequalities between men and women in the corporate world the glass ceilings have crumbled one-after-another in the modern business world. Much of the narrative surrounding inequality favors women competing for top-tier jobs and conveniently overlooks the scores of men passed over the same positions.
Premise# 1 Women are not the enemy
A woman that is raised in a culture devoid of the malignant influences of feminism are not man’s natural enemy. Woman was created to be a helpmate to a man. This entails all of the complimentarian ideas about inter-gender relationships and some of the ideas of egalitarianism.
Rejoinder: Egalitarianism taken to its logical extreme as exemplified by modern feminism has co-opted complementarianism and has replaced anything that is complementary between the sexes and overwritten this with principles of egalitarianism. This means that egalitarianism goes well beyond the scope of its own principles and includes by definition equal responsibilities and duties.
- Equal duty entails a level playing field in all body politic, industrial, social, and military fields.
Moot: Feminized egalitarianism cannot substantiate that the key differential between male and female is merely opportunistic. In other words, asserting equality in gender differences is a far cry from demonstrating the veracity of the claim that physiological and biological differentia are less important than opportunities for equality.
Analysis: Egalitarianism as properly defined by feminism is both a physiological and biological farce. A blending of complementarianism and egalitarianism is reasonable and rational while the contrary is irrational and unreasonable. Equal ontology does not entail equal expression of being across the gender chasm.
Premise #2 Feminism is the enemy
Feminism is a pendulum that has swung outside of its natural tract. The plausible and reasonable request of feminism i.e. ontological and social equivalence was long ago affirmed. The Feminist conquistadors noting the unequivocal withdraw of its enemy (namely all forms of masculinity) pushed their armies forward in virginal procession toward the goal of calling into question every premise that failed to place the vagina on a pedestal of adoration.
Rejoinder: Feminism will soon begin a slow retreat. The pendulum having swung beyond its moorings is not sustainable long term. What is reasonable about feminism will remain while the unwarranted premises will be negated by further generations. In the forty years since the publication of The Second Sex, feminism has blossomed into a totalitarian state.Feminism militates against a feminine distinctive, the need for security which cannot be provided effectively by females nor effeminate men.
- Feminism as an exaltation of the vagina and the female form provides no long-term pragmatic benefits for society. The violent state of the world generally, and the United States specifically will reaffirm masculinity as venerable.
Moot: Feminism should be replaced by complementarianism while retaining equality in the social and political spheres. Feminism’s assault on masculinity is only won by replacing all things masculine with feminine forms creating a univocal and androgynous society devoid of sexual polarity that assists in human flourishing
Analysis: Feminism pushed too far, assumed too much, and has reached the pinnacle of its success. The armies of gelded males and masculine females has no additional territory to win. Society, tolerant of the worship of females for a time, is genuinely disinterested in further acquiescing the parade of dissimulation.
The easy answer is to dichotomize the problem, negate one pole, and claim victory. This is somewhat plausible since this has been the skeleton key used by feminism to unshackle females from their bonds. However, the outcome of such a program has catalyzed an untenable condition for males. Males are now bashful about masculinity, are chided for failing to embrace their feminine pole, and otherwise derided for any form of maleness that would stymie feminist totalitarian designs.
The solution lies in a males response to both females and to feminism. Affirming the inherent and complementary nature of males and females while rejecting the feminist claim that anything masculine is inherently flawed is one option. The other option seems to be educating males in the virtue of both the masculine and the feminine form while downplaying or otherwise negating the overreaches of feminism qua feminism.