Thursday, July 13, 2017

why male privilege is a good thing

We are constantly told how men enjoy male privilege and how that’s a terribly evil thing. Men who hold conservative beliefs usually disagree although it’s depressing to note that these days most “conservative” men respond to the charge with groveling apologies. Those men who have not yet been completely emasculated do disagree but they almost invariably commit major errors in the way in which they do so. They make major concessions to feminist arguments right from the outset, accepting the pernicious doctrines of gender equality. Sad to say even some traditionalist men make this mistake. It’s interesting to note that women who reject feminism are often less inclined to make these sweeping concessions.

The fact is that male privilege is a good thing. It’s a very good thing. It’s an essential component of any traditionalist value system, although male privilege is not what most people think it is.

Men and women both have certain duties, certain responsibilities, certain rights and certain privileges and these reflect their differing social roles.

Men have always had a duty to protect women. They have always accepted this responsibility, often at great danger to themselves, often at the cost of their own lives. They still do so. Women used to understand this but today most women seem scarcely even aware of such a basic reality.

Men have also always had a duty to provide for women. Men did not go to work for fun. Unlike female work, which all too often involves nothing more than drinking coffee and talking, male work tends to involve actual work. You often get your hands dirty, sometimes you get injured, sometimes you even get killed. Women do not often get injured in workplace accidents, mainly since they’re unlikely to suffer anything worse than a paper cut. 

Historically women often made a direct economic contribution but it was a secondary contribution. A woman’s duty lay mostly in the domestic sphere, playing a nurturing role to both her husband and her children. This was an equally vital task, but it was very different from the tasks assigned to men.

This setup worked because it was not based solely on duty. It was an interlocking system of duties and privileges. Men took on the dangerous and often exhausting task of protecting and providing for their women, as well as the tasks of leadership in the society. In return they received certain privileges. They were entitled to exercise authority. Women kept house for them, reared their children and provided them with emotional support. This emotional support (and this will enrage feminists) included sex. This was male privilege.

Women took on the tasks of child-rearing, keeping house and providing emotional support to their men.  In return women got certain privileges. As well as the direct advantages of protection and financial support they got to be treated with courtesy and respect and they got a very high social status. They were entitled to be treated as ladies. That was female privilege.

Women still expect to receive female privilege but in the long run society is unsustainable without male privilege as well. Male privilege is a necessary condition for having civilisation. 

7 comments:

  1. I think you described the work aspect, er, slightly one-sided. I mean, it's not really a middle class picture, more like a working class one. What if a woman actually wants to do some serious work? You know, in science, art, journalism, education, etc. I agree that the basic concept of men and women should be traditional, but you can't really practice it strictly by the book. There has to be certain compromises.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What if a woman actually wants to do some serious work? You know, in science, art, journalism, education, etc.

      To be honest if you took away the contributions of women to science over the past hundred years it wouldn't make a scrap of difference to science. As for journalism, we mostly don't even need male journalists much less female ones. Journalism is like prostitution only sleazier. Women should avoid it. Women's contributions in the field of education have been entirely harmful. As for art, no woman has ever done serious work in art.

      For a woman serious work means being a wife and mother.

      If you're going to be a traditionalist you can't compromise because compromising is what has brought us to the spot we're in now.

      Delete
  2. >To be honest if you took away the contributions of women to science over the past hundred years it wouldn't make a scrap of difference to science.

    Don't really know about the West, but in Russia, especially during the Soviet era, women contributed to science alright.

    >As for journalism, we mostly don't even need male journalists much less female ones. Journalism is like prostitution only sleazier.

    I think you're forgetting that journalism isn't only about politics and hot stuff.

    >Women's contributions in the field of education have been entirely harmful.

    Why's that, exactly? I know a lot of female teachers, and they're good at what they're doing. There are good textbooks written by women as well. Again, I can't say anything about the West here, but in Russia they're totally adequate, ideologically speaking.

    >As for art, no woman has ever done serious work in art.

    I meant art in a broad sense. What about lots and lots of wonderful female writers? What about actresses? I think you're really excluding a lot.

    >For a woman serious work means being a wife and mother.

    As we see, you can't have a society where every single woman is bound to do that. It's just not going to last long.

    >If you're going to be a traditionalist you can't compromise because compromising is what has brought us to the spot we're in now.

    And, without compromise, you're bound to have suffragettes sooner or later.

    Personally, I believe female freedoms of the second part of the XX century is OK, but everything that started to happen later must be wiped out mercilessly. Just like with homosexuals after the 1990s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, without compromise, you're bound to have suffragettes sooner or later.

      I understand your point but I think that experience has shown that making concessions is fatal. If you make concessions to a pressure group, like feminists or homosexuals, they'll just keep pushing for further concessions. You have to draw a line in the sand and say that beyond this point there won't be any further concessions but once you've started on the road to surrender it's almost impossible to stop.

      I'm old enough to remember when homosexuals said that all they wanted was for homosexuality to no longer be a criminal offence. They were lying. They wanted much much more and even today they're nowhere near finished making demands.

      Feminists said that women wanted equal pay for equal work. They got that in Australia nearly half a century ago. Now they want equal pay even when they don't do equal work. They said they wanted women to be able to have access to more jobs. Now they want women to be allowed to do jobs for which they are clearly and obviously unsuited and unfit, like being front-line soldiers and firefighters. The demands never stop and never will stop, because they know that society will go on surrendering to them.

      The situation the way it was in the 1950s in Australia wasn't too bad. Women who really really wanted to be doctors or lawyers or engineers could do so but they didn't get a free ride, they had to prove they could actually do those jobs. A small number of women doing such jobs is OK and if the situation had stayed like that I'll admit it would have done no great harm. Everything that has happened since the 1950s has been a disaster.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for explaining your position further - I think I share it now.

      The problem of those groups continuing to push their demands even after they got so much already is a really big problem. I'm afraid it's much wider than that. The thing is, every institution designed for some purpose is highly interested in, well, working forever, - hence, being financed forever, - so its prime goal is not to solve the problem it was created to solve, but the exact opposite of it: to mimic its crusade endlessly. Not only all those groups like feminists and LGBT and greens operate this way, but also government ministries and various institutions. Personally, I think this is one of the scariest problems of humanity.

      By the way, speaking of female soldiers, I think it might be interesting for you to read about this Soviet case of ours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko I mean, even though it is rather unnatural for a woman to go to war, she deserves nothing but admiration when she tries to help and defend her homeland. I suppose you'll agree that men in the Soviet army were brave enough to leave women out of warfare, and still you can see a story like that.

      Delete
    3. I mean, the lesson the society needs to learn from all this is not to reject the very idea of making concessions, but to draw a line in the sand well enough for pushers to understand they're not gonna get anything beyond that line no matter how much they cry and moan. To be able to tell a sane demand from a totally moronic one is extremely important. Humanity needs instruments to work problems out rationally, and sane responds to sane demands of various groups is one of them. Without it, we're doomed as clearly as we're doomed with contemporary ideas of responding to all demands, even the most outrageous.

      Delete
  3. Men have always had a duty to protect women. They have always accepted this responsibility, often at great danger to themselves, often at the cost of their own lives. They still do so. Women used to understand this but today most women seem scarcely even aware of such a basic reality.

    Nail, head, hammer.

    ReplyDelete