I would maintain that thanks are the highest form of thought; and that gratitude is happiness doubled by wonder. ~G.K. Chesterton
If gratitude is happiness, then given the unhappiness exhibited by most feminists, what does that tell us about the state of their hearts?
On a previous thread, I remarked:
It’s interesting to me that so far, none of the men have objected to the idea that men have obligations within marriage.
My husband addressed my comment later in the thread:
I think that part of the reason is because men don’t consider “obligations” (in marriage) to be work. We (men) perform these “obligations” out of a passionate love. We take great pride in our abilities to give our wife and children the best that we can give. We don’t think of these “obligations” as work, they are a natural response to love. To a man it would feel weird and wrong to not do these things. I WANT my family to have a roof over their heads and food on the table and I will happily give my hard labor for this. I want my family to be safe and I will HAPPILY lay down my life to defend them.
Feminist Hater added:
And this is the issue though, when I look at your family and how they connect over your father’s stroke and recovery, it shows a deep love for his life and all he has given you. That is what men want in exchange for our labour and our sacrifices. It’s not the sacrifices that make us mad, it’s the mere fact that we want our sacrifices to mean something and to made for the right people, not those that would throw our sacrifices back in our faces.
What does it look like to have your sacrifices thrown back in your face? On an individual level, it looks like Jenny Erikson, who frivorced her husband and tore their family apart because she wasn’t haaaaappy. Everything her husband had worked for in order to build a home and family with her…just gone for no reason.
But what does it look like on a society-wide scale to have your sacrifices thrown back in your face? Stephanie Coontz, feminist researcher and author, gives us the perfect example in her recent New York Times piece, How Can We Help Men? By Helping Women, from which I’ve extracted the main points (emphasis mine):
This week Maria Shriver brings together a star-studded cast of celebrities, from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Beyoncé, to call attention to the economic plight of American women and demand that women’s needs be put “at the center of policy making.”
Social and economic policies constructed around the male breadwinner model have always disadvantaged women. But today they are dragging down millions of men as well. Paradoxically, putting gender equity issues at the center of social planning would now be in the interests of most men.
This was not so evident 40 or 50 years ago, when the struggle for gender equity threatened many male entitlements. In those days, men of every skill and income level had preferential access to jobs that provided security, benefits and rising wages.
Today, however… [m]illions of men face working conditions that traditionally characterized women’s lives: low wages, minimal benefits, part-time or temporary jobs, and periods of joblessness. Poverty is becoming defeminized because the working conditions of many men are becoming more feminized.
Whether they realize it or not, men now have a direct stake in policies that advance gender equity. Most of the wage gap between women and men is no longer a result of blatant male favoritism in pay and promotion. Much of it stems from general wage inequality in society at large.
Establishing a “livable wage” floor would immediately reduce the gap in average pay between American women and men. But it would also boost the wages of millions of low-income male workers, who earn a much lower percentage of the average male wage than their counterparts in other wealthy countries…
Another source of the gender pay gap is the lack of reliable, affordable child care, which forces many mothers to stay home or work part time even when they need and want full-time work.
Putting women first would mean strengthening America’s social safety net, because a higher proportion of single-mother families live in poverty here than in any other wealthy country. But a stronger safety net would help single-father families and two-parent families, too, because these families also have higher poverty rates than their counterparts in other wealthy countries.
Putting women’s traditional needs at the center of social planning is not reverse sexism. It’s the best way to reverse the increasing economic vulnerability of men and women alike.
Given the increasing insecurity of many American men, they have good reason to back feminist policies. And if those policies alienate some women in the upper echelons, then maybe feminism isn’t for every woman, and doesn’t need to be.
Given that liberal feminist policies caused no small part of those insecurities, I’m skeptical that more of the same will do anything positive for men or women. Anonymous Reader paraphrased Ms. Coontz’s article:
MOAR! MOAR! MOAR! MOAR OF EVERYTHING I WANT!
which is really just another way of saying what Dalrock noted a few days ago:
…we have institutionalized unthankfulness as our response to gracious acts by men.
Don’t be fooled by Ms. Coontz’s reframing of these issues as male issues. They are not. They are entirely female issues, and they were caused by feminism. Consider:
It’s never good enough, is it, feminists? Women have spent forty years shrieking at men about their supposed privilege, demanding that they give us some of what they had. And when they did, it turned out that it wasn’t a privilege they’d been carrying but a burden. So after demanding that society be entirely rearranged, feminists now want men to rearrange it all again by enshrining into law that women should have all the “freedoms” that feminism gave us but none of the responsibilities that come with freedom.
In other words, feminists want women to have what we had before – access to provision from and protection by men – but we do not want to be under the authority of any man, so feminists agitate for policies that will redistribute all men’s income to all women equally. This will never work in the long run; men will work themselves to the bone for their own women and children, as my husband’s comment above shows, but they aren’t going to work like that for all women.
Feminism has inculcated in women what Dalrock calls a “culture of miserliness”. This miserliness is bad for individual families when ungrateful women destroy their marriages without cause. This miserliness is bad for our entire society when ungrateful women blame men for women’s declining well-being even though this decline is due to policies that women demanded men enact. It is time for women to stop tearing down their families and society with their miserliness and ingratitude.
The wise woman builds her house, but with her own hands the foolish one tears hers down. Proverbs 14:1