|
Woe
to Women and Ruined Men By
Rabbi David Eidensohn
This may not be news to you, if you are a woman, but according to the
National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, young American men are
"commitment phobic" when it comes to getting married. Cheryl
Wetzstein, in the Washington Times, June 26, 2002, quotes one of the
researchers of the project, David Popenoe, "The median age of first
marriage for men has reached 27, the oldest age in our nation's
history." This is worrisome to "the many young women who hope to
marry and bear children before they begin to face problems associated with
declining fertility."
The sexual revolution, according to the article, has allowed men to
have all the sex they want, without the commitment of marriage. Women are
anxious to marry, so they offer themselves, and the men take the sample but
don't pay. We thus see that men have it all. They have no worries about
fertility, because they can have children for decades after the woman is
already infertile, a process that sets in strongly around age 35. In a
culture where women work in professions and begin to think seriously about
marriage only in their late twenties, their window of biological opportunity
is very short, less than ten years. In these eight or so years, a woman who
meets a man is not on a level playing field. She is desperate, and he is
content. The more she gives, the more he takes, and the less she gets. She
then begins to feel anxious, unable to achieve what she wants, and she
suffers from stress and frustration. She gave all to a career, and because
of it has many years on her resume; now she sees her career as a conflict
with her basic biological and emotional needs, and does not know what to do.
Modern society thus tortures women in their most sensitive years with
a gauntlet whereby her desperation is obvious, her options limited, and her
hopes decline. A man just sits and sneers and she just comes back for more.
What else can she do? The past generation knew about men sneering and tried
being lesbians, but that didn't work too well, so now the women are almost
ruined, and nobody really seems to care. As the article said, the government
has all types of studies about everything, except marriage.
Of course, we might read this article, run outside to find a man, and
then stick out our tongue. But is he at fault? Why should he want to marry?
American society works day and night to ruin men. As Don Feder pointed out
in his Father's Day article, all of the television shows about fathers
portray him in a negative light. Men and boys are not allowed to be
masculine, because the society frowns upon it. In order to empower women,
the thought goes, we must weaken men. In fact, many young men are ruined. A
recent study showed that in colleges throughout the country, women are doing
much better than men. Studies are commissioned to find out how to encourage
men to participate in college with more commitment instead of hanging out
and going to work. If men have suddenly turned off, they are simply reading
the signs from the culture that they may not be men. If they are aggressive,
manly, charging forward in life, they are falling into a gender role
"trap" that threatens the atheistic anti-family agenda. Since the
atheist anti-family agenda controls the media, colleges and entertainment
culture, people get the message. Men: Don't do what comes natural. Another
message from the secularists: If you act like a man, you threaten diversity.
The boys who enter public schools and gun down their colleagues are
usually from fine and successful families. People are shocked when it
happens. They should not be. Playing with a boy's masculine identity
produces great anger, and the natural male aggressiveness will come out
another way, perhaps by mass murder, perhaps by torturing his wife and
children, perhaps by letting his girl friend hang in desperation while he
refuses to commit himself.
The blocked male aggressiveness can even turn against himself, so we
should not be amazed that throughout the country males are failing in
colleges. One cannot tamper with nature, and yet, our society is unnatural
to men and to women. Our society is racing to make the unnatural natural,
and the natural unnatural. Natural men are lampooned, and homosexuals are
portrayed in a favorable light. The government spends fortunes for gay
organizations to teach people the glories of homosexuality, and nothing on
encouraging men to be natural men. In fact, the government is doing what it
can to weaken the natural masculine instinct at various levels, such as the
military.
What is happening with women these days? The Gallup Poll of July 2
tells us. "Only 12% of women aged 18 and older identified their current
situation as 'homemaker.' About half, 47% were employed full time. One
percent of men were homemakers." (June 3-9 Gallup Quick Quiz) The
obvious question is: Who is taking care of the children? If only 12% of
women are "homemakers" and only one percent of men are, how are
children managing? Nor is this only a problem for children. A man works hard
all day and comes home. His wife has been working hard day and she comes
home. Okay, what happens now? Both come into a home without a homemaker.
What kind of home is that? Does the husband seize a broom and start baking?
Does the wife offer her husband some warm words? What do you think? When a
spouse works hard all day they come home to rest, to repair from the
stresses of the day. These are terrible stresses. One never knows what slip
will cause much mischief. One never knows whether a competing person in the
office is getting more points with the bosses. One is not sure that the
whole company will not simply close down for some reason or another. People
need to come from work to a "home," not an abode, not to a hotel,
and not to a place that has no homemaker. A female homemaker tells her
husband that he is ready to repair himself. A wife who comes home to a house
needing a house maker is hit with a guilt trip, and the husband, even if he
is understanding, doesn't like what he is missing.
Such a country as ours, lacking homemakers, is the only country in
the world to produce children who regularly mass murder their schoolmates.
Why do we publish articles in our newspapers about poor, suffering women
because nobody wants to marry them, when we know that these same women
compete with men in being men? What is the difference between a wife and a
husband, between a man and a woman? Both work. Both must be aggressive. Both
must not be homemakers. So, what is the difference? Why marry? Sex is free,
and children are a pain without a homemaker, so why build a home?
On Monday, July 1, the Washington Post ran a column with Cynthia
Gourney answering questions about women's sexual problems. Will there be a
female Viagra? One questioner wanted to know if the birth control pill,
which alters hormonal activity, could cause women's sexual problems. If you
turn a woman's ovaries off, do you turn her off as well? Mr. Gourney said
that despite the fact that millions of American women take birth control
pills, nobody has cared enough to find out if by so doing they inhibit their
sexuality. Others ask whether women become depressed by taking the pill.
Society offers no conclusive answer. It doesn't care. Therefore, women can
just keep chasing men, take the pill, and hope.
What kind of country will this be with men avoiding marriage and
women teetering on infertility or single lives? Will the children be there
to suffer?
A country that is too busy to have babies, too involved with career
to marry, has no future. A nation cannot survive without strong families,
and America does not have strong families. There is a vicious cycle
building, threatening our country like the worst dirty bomb. Women need
money, because they want to be able to live when they get divorced,
something quite frequent in society. Even in the Bible Belt, it is about
fifty percent. Women therefore become professionals and build careers, and
must wait to marry until they are dangerously close to the infertility
cliff. The closer they get to the cliff, the more desperate and anxious they
become. The more desperate the women are, the more they offer themselves to
men. The men have all the sex they want, and know, too, that if they marry,
there is a good chance that a divorce will come and blow everything away. A
feminist judge or one sympathetic to the children will jail a father if he
does not pay monies that the father may not have. Judges are
"helping" women by going after men with savagery. Women who deny
the father visitation rights are to be found all over the country, but they
don't get jailed. Men have their revenge by watching women age. Our country
gets lovelier every day.
If women are too desperate for money to stay home and watch the kids,
just wait a few more years. We have, in several earlier articles, presented
the disaster of Social Security. When my generation kicks in, our kiddies
won't pay for our share, because my generation was too busy for such things.
In 2017, Social Security will pay out more than it takes in. There is no
money in the government to pay the 10 trillion dollar debt for Social
Security, according to Alan Greenspan, and we already owe over 6 trillion
dollars. The
latest census bureau statistics show that 15,000,000 Americans work for
state and local government. Since the census bureau claims 281 million
Americans, this means that almost six percent of America works for the
taxpayer, and must be paid by the taxpayer. Government statistics claim 98
million taxpayers. If 15 million people work for state and local government,
and there are only 98 million taxpayers, this means 98 people support 15
people. Six people support one person. and his or her office, telephone,
expenses, and of course, building where he or she works, its construction
and maintenance. If we add Federal workers, the cost of prisons, schools,
highways, military etc., we have broken the back of six taxpayers a dozen
times. The average income in 2,001, by government stats, is 25,944, or about
26 thousand dollars. How much can such a person afford? Surely not our
government. Put
another way, the Federal government alone spends 2 trillion dollars a year,
and its entire income is only 1.2 trillion. Its interest payments are about
.4 trillion dollars, leaving it only .8 trillion to pay for expenditures far
over a trillion dollars. This is only the Federal government. When we see
the distress of the states, so desperate they are preparing to raise steep
taxes, we see an America where we spend far more than we can afford.
Why don't we learn that enough is enough? Let's cut down government
not because we don't need it, that is a political question, but because we
have no money for it. Let's cut down expenses in the home, so that women can
afford to be wives and mothers, and men can have a wife and mother in his
home, instead of a competitor.
This July 4, let us hear it for family and marriage. The only way
that is going to work is if we do something about the budget, live within
our means, and don't fantasize about the future until it is too late. One
day all of us could wake up to realize that we did not produce a next
generation of America, because it ran out of young people and money and no
foreigners wanted to keep propping up the mess with risky loans.
|
|
|
D. Eidensohn's poem
"The Wall" won an International Poetry Contest. His poems appear in
|