The study of how to rebuild society leads initially to the study of how it was dismantled. That leads to many pathways but the central is the Marxist highway, which, though beginning with the commune in the French Revolution really got its start with Das Kapital by Marx and Engels. There they pinpointed family and religion as the two major obstacles. It took a hundred years of study for their intellectual offspring to figure out how to cause a collapse from with both those institutions. They found one solution for both problems: Sex gone wild, as most graphically illustrated in Mallory Millet’s famous reportageon the pre-founding of the National Organization of Women. Men are suckers for it, and women too – in a very different way.
It is noteworthy that when a marriage or partnership
disintegrates the children normally stay with their mother. This springs from
the fundamental nature of female sexuality: Her sexual biology is overwhelming
in its impact on her boding with her children. Once conceived, her child
changes all her biological systems as they regroup to grow the baby in her
womb. She gets to know that baby as it grows and takes over so much of her life
during those nine months.
Then comes the trip down the birth canal and the eruption of
pain and trauma of childbirth, an experience men cannot conceive of nor write
about. It ends in the joy of holding her newborn and the instant conclusion it
was all worth it. This experience alone would bond both so deeply. But it is
followed by an even more intimate form with months of breastfeeding that makes
the breast forever central to sexuality for both male and female.
For men, biology does not do anything comparable. A man bonding with his children is essentially an act of his will: A decision carried out repeatedly as he deliberately gets closer to his child.
In the architecture of family and of society and even of civilization
and culture the woman’s irreplaceable contribution is biology; man’s is
decision, or will – or good habits.
If the family is an arch the woman is the blocks while the
man is the keystone.
Pull out the keystone and the arch (the family, society,
even civilization) collapses.
The US feminists of the 1960’s, building on the 40 years work of the Frankfurt Schooland its Marxist allies, had finally figured out how to cause the collapse that Lenin envisaged: remove the father from the family. (For them the traditional intact married family is the “patriarchal” family). The “litany chant” at the opening of the study group that led to NOW illustrates the method of removal: Let sex go wild.
The Supreme Court was a key target and delivered the goods: The
right to sex outside of marriage in 1972, to abortion in 1973, to
contraceptives down to age 16 without parental consent, to homosexual acts in
2003, to homosexual marriage in 2015.
With each decision the place of the male in the family was
notched down and down and down, with increases in all the “toxic masculinities”
the APA is seemingly concerned about.
The Marxists figured out that if you remove the father from
the family society will gradually collapse into the waiting arms of the all-controlling
socialist state envisaged by Marx.
In the mid and late 1960’s some of America’s brightest (but
not best) decided to take down the most powerful nation on earth. They have
How to restore and rebuild?
By replacing the keystone in the arch: Good fathers raising
boys to be great husbands and fathers. The man is key. He is civilization. He
is the keystone.
(Women have nothing to fear in this order: It is the work of
both. Equally. Just very different roles, stemming from very, very different
biologies. But totally complementary biologies — if only we can get the “act of the will” right in both male and
female, mother and father, husband and wife).
(With apologies for the length.) As Russell Hittinger wrote earlier this year in First Things, there are three primary societies to which people most naturally belong: Our family, our religious community (church, synagogue, mosque, or temple or meeting house), and our political community (nation or state). He emphasized that all three, for the first time in history, are in deep crisis. In the past when there was a crisis in one, or even in two, the other(s) corrected it.
The simultaneous crisis today in each of the three has the same cause: the sexual gone wild. The fallout within the family is now boringly evident: Most first births out of wedlock, minority of children reaching adulthood without their biological parents married, a norm of multiple sexual partners prior to marriage — even for those who worship God weekly, cohabitation prior to marriage, abortion and divorce.
The crisis in the church is related to sex as well, starting historically, with the Lambeth Conference in 1930, during which the-up-until-then universal teaching among all Christian denominations was ruptured by the acceptance of contraception ingrave circumstances for the protection of the life and health of the mother, which — hardly had the ink dried on the decree — immediately morphed into (without debate) the commonly accepted moral doctrine across Protestant denominations, of the use of contraception to limit family size. By 1950 this was a deeply entrenched pattern. By the 1960’s the crisis on the same erupted in the Catholic Church with a division for many, at almost all levels of the church (but not at the top) between praxis and doctrine.
The children born to all these contracepting parents saw no logical nor practical reason to contain contraception within marriage and, taking it outside, gave us the sexual revolution of the 1960s. That revolution was not only a sexual revolution, but fostered by the cultural Marxists, was a revolution against “authority.” Many churches complied with the zeitgeist, changing, first praxis and then doctrine on divorce, abortion, and cohabitation. With the logical dominoes falling, homosexual sex had to be, and was, logically accepted. Now with multiple religious-moral options, more and more people moved their religious affiliation to less demanding denominations, ceased worshiping frequently while their children ceased worshiping at all.
The emerging recreational sex, naturally led to an abandonment of the worship of God by young adults, and to a loss of attachment to any religious community. It also resulted in the steady erosion of marriage. Thus, the crisis within the family and within religion, are the same: The sexual.
That there is a crisis in the polis – – – the political community of which we are all members – – – is now obvious in the overt refusal of cooperation by the more revolutionary party in Congress. One might say it is akin to a civil war though confined — for the present — to the realm of words (and legal actions). Civil discourse is almost impossible to find. This breakdown is most evident in the debate over the nomination of judges to the Supreme Court and to the Appellate Courts. But this non-cooperation is evident in other areas that impinge on matters sexual, most evidently so, in the issue of abortion but now even at the highest court levels of legal action in matters related to homosexuality. The most publicly forthright, organized display in Congress of a refusal to seek even minimal political cooperation was the behavior of liberal female congressmen and senators during the incumbent president’s First State of the Union speech shortly after his election. These women set themselves apart and aside by an ostentatious show of uniform dress code — white coats — so as to be visible to the nation on television, as pointedly flaunting their refusal of minimal respect when all strive to maintain some semblance of national unity. The day prior, this refusal was presaged in “The Women’s March” whose iconic headgear vulgarly forced all to contemplate the politics of rebellious sex — again with a dress code — this time, not white coats but, pink “vulva hats”.
Any part of Washington that impinges on the sexual has become a nasty place to work, nowhere more than at the Office of Population Affairs at Health and Human Services. The office that runs the family planning/sexual programs of the government. God help anyone who works there who does not comply in their minds and hearts with the radical sexual agenda. They are under intense constant scrutiny and harassment.
In sum, nothing is more contentious at universities, in corporate boardrooms, in bureaucracies, in courts, and in legislatures than the appearance of any item that impinges on the sexual. Everywhere, pollical division and non-cooperation divides the polis.
Why has there never been a crisis in all three societies ever before in history? Never before have so many in powerful places been so insane on matters of sex, family, love between fathers and mothers, parents and children.
Sex, life, love, marriage, children and God are all so intimately linked or decoupled in the thriving of man or in his debilitation, that all functional civilizations and cultures — all — have put tremendous energy, throughout all their institutions, into bringing as much harmony on the society-dependent, foundational issues. In our day instead, we have many in positions of leadership throughout the major institutions (family, church, school, marketplace and government) devoted to deliberatelyincreasing the discord on these issues. A society so divided on these fundamentals cannot stand, as the elite leaders of this revolt understand very well, and have for decades as they worked to this point.
As always, it is the poor who suffer most, and who will suffer even more. For all family life today is much costlier, less productive and less enjoyable than it should be, but especially so for the poor — even as they are used and show-cased as victims by the same elite leaders of the revolt.
Our national fertility — a big sexual issue — is far removed from that of a well-functioning society. For instance, if were no abortions there would not be a Social Security financial crisis today, nor a looming Medicare crisis. Over the next 10 years these programs will gradually shrivel, if not suddenly implode (economists seem to lean towards implosion, barring some global reform in global currency standards). The contraction has already begun as the elderly on Medicare can tell you. And, they have already been flagged that less will be forthcoming and that they must become accustomed to picking up more of the tab (which they had pre-payed).
More than most nations throughout history, we were blessed with the freedom to choose, but we were never free to choose the consequences. Consequences are built into the nature of the choice made, into the sexual and relational nature of man, as the demographics of America — Mapping America — repeatedly illustrates.
To thrive man needs two great loves: The love of his closest neighbor (spouse, and children— sexual love in its fullest expression) and the love of God (minimally expressed in weekly worship).
Is a crisis correction possible?
Of the three societies that we all occupy, the one with the capacity for quickest reform is the religious. Despite all its bad press, some of it, and more to come, no doubt, well deserved — but by no means all, particularly the latest — a close observer will notice the pace of reform within the Catholic Church in this country. It has been gathering steam, not in a way that makes front-page headlines, but more hidden in its deeper reaches. Hopefully the same currents, driven by the same issues (dysfunctional sexuality and its fallouts), are bringing about similar reform within other denominations and faiths.
Addressing the issue of church reform, John Garvey, president of The Catholic University of America, in a recent letter to the university community, quoted St Catherine of Sienna, who was the major stimulus for a reform at another time of deep crisis: “Eliminate the stink of the ministers of the Holy Church. Pull out the stinking flowers and plant scented plants, virtuous men that fear God.”
The road ahead: First the reform of the religious institutions leading in turn to the reform of marriage and the family (all freely undertaken by free adults), which reformed over time, will alter our political behaviors and lead to a reform of the body politic.
The sooner the better for every child yet to be born, every one of whom will thrive or wilt depending on how much a diet of the two great loves he is fed.
Back in February I wrote on the single most important chart in all of the social sciences (to date), which illustrates the relationship between chastity and the stability of marriage: Those men and women who had no sexual partner other than their spouse had, by far, the most intact marriages. When I first saw that data graphed in an Excel chart the thought that jumped immediately to mind was: “Those Mediterranean cultures (that insisted on chaperoning) knew what they were doing.” This week I read an article on good manners, American style, which illustrated one of the ways we Americans did the same in our culture: “How to Treat a Lady: Reclaiming Manners between Men and Women” by philosophy professor John Cuddeback of Christendom College. I recommend it highly for reading and dissemination.
“Women are to be reverenced, always and just because they are women.…The nature and dignity of woman may remain something of a mystery to most men.”
Women are always a mystery to men mainly because we are so alike in so many ways, as feminists rightly remind us. But we are also different, deeply so in body, in our ways of relating, and especially in the ways our brains work, which means we process all our sensory data somewhat differently.
Radical feminists don’t like any attention given to “differences between men and women” and thus don’t like a culture of manners between men and women. I remember the first time I was rebuffed for opening the door for such a woman. However men can disregard these instances except when a radical feminist needs her dignity acknowledged a different way. In voicing her issue she is still saying loud and clear she wants her dignity acknowledged.
But radical feminists have made it a bit more difficult to do that when they insist on the right to abort their babies. It is more difficult to see the dignity of killing 50 million American children. But real gentlemen can look beyond even that to the potential mother still within. It is that potential which confers so much of the mystery and beauty on woman. Men, by treating women with the manners our grandfathers had, can take leadership in wooing women back to a culture of love and awe. Enjoy Cuddeback’s article and maybe you know some young men who would read it. It is a building block for the culture we are rebuilding.
“Why are we here today?” she asked. “To make revolution,” they answered. “What kind of revolution?” she replied. “The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted. “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded. “By destroying the American family!” they answered. “How do we destroy the family?” she came back. “By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly. “And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied. “By taking away his power!” “How do we do that?” “By destroying monogamy!” they shouted. “How can we destroy monogamy?”
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
Disconcerting? Yes. Unordinary? Not at all. Mallory Millet recallsthis exchange as a typical chanting ritual among her sister, Kate Millet, and similarly minded feminist activists. The breakdown of the family following the sexual revolution was no coincidence; it was its very goal.
Feminists have largely succeeded in debilitating and eradicating fatherhood. Today, 1 in 3 children in the United States live in a fatherless home, and by age 17 only 46 percent are living with both their mother and father. This fatherless family is the root cause of the majority of social ills. Children deprived of a father are robbed of physical, emotional, intellectual, and economic benefits throughout their lifetime.
For example, children without a father are less likely to have stable relationships. Studies show that adolescents who live without their father are more likely to engage in greater and earlier sexual activity, are more likely to become pregnant as a teenager, and are more likely to have a child outside of marriage. Boys that are close with their fathers have better attitudes about intimacy and the prospect of their own married lives than boys who do not feel close to their fathers. A girl whose father leaves before she is five years old is eight times more likely to have an adolescent pregnancy than a girl whose father remains in her home.
This trend extends into other deviant behaviors. Boys and girls who live without their fathers are less likely to be able to delay gratification, have poor impulse control over anger and sexual gratification, and have a weaker sense of right and wrong. Correspondingly, children who live without their fathers are, on average, more likely to choose deviant peers, have trouble getting along with other children, be at higher risk for peer problems, and be more aggressive.
The importance of a father to children is also evident in school. Children who live without their fathers are more likely to have decreased school performance, and children who do not live with their father are more likely to experience behavioral problems at school. Furthermore, 71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
Children also reap great economic benefits from having a father at home. Intact married families have the largest annual income of all family structures with children under 18. In contrast, children raised in single-mother families, intact cohabiting families, and (biological father or mother) cohabiting stepfamilies are significantly more likely than children from married families to receive most forms of welfare, including TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid.
Every child has a fundamental right to a married mother and father. However, radical feminists have forced their neo-Marxist ideology into society’s most vulnerable and far-reaching unit: the family.They have ripped children apart from their fathers and persecuted women who remain faithful to their husbands. The repercussions of replacing the devout father with the welfare state are rapidly compounding, and are hurling society into a bottomless pit. What is the appropriateresponse today: Why are we here today?To make revolution. What kind of revolution? The Cultural Revolution. And how do we make Cultural Revolution? By rebuilding the American patriarchal family! By reuniting fathers with their spouses and their children!