We’ve all noticed the fact that most modern men are uncultured: they don’t care about art, music, languages, history, etc. They have to ask what a “duvet” is, they don’t like scented candles, and they are not able (or willing) to distinguish between colors. Women then have to settle with having partners who have no class and no imagination.
I’m wondering if this is how it played out in history: Women in the, say, 1800s, were told that art, and science, and music, and literature, and such were masculine things- things only men were allowed to do. They resented the fact that only men were allowed to do these things, because, well, they were normal humans, and normal humans don’t like being denied the liberty to do things they enjoy.
When liberal men came along, they promised to tear men down, take them away from so-called “snobby” culture and intelligence which they were entitled to, and to make them more “real”. This appealed to the women, who welcomed the idea of equality.
But what happened was this: these decultured men were LESS appealing to women, because they acted like ANIMALS. What the women didn’t realize, or didn’t admit to these liberal social revolutionaries, was that it wasn’t culture they hated- it was the idea that men were allowed culture and they weren’t. It was equality they originally wanted, but instead of asking to be allowed to practice culture in addition to men, and since men wouldn’t let them, they were so desperate for fairness that they were content to take culture away from men…which had consequences.
That culture that men had was at least in some ways a benefit to women. A woman back then could more likely count on a man to be civilized and knowledgeable and art-loving and sensitive. Now, all she can count on is a man who might like watching the Wizard of Oz only if there’s a kid around, and who doesn’t know the difference between turquoise and indigo. Peachy.
What women have benefited from in regards to this liberal social revolution, is knowledge about the true nature of most men. Now, at least women can be sure which men to avoid, since they are allowed to be their animalistic selves. Their freedom actually had some benefits to society.
The “men shouldn’t have to be cultured” revolution was a revolution to free men from culture, not for women’s benefit, but for men’s benefit, by giving them the option to ignore the responsibility of civilization and intelligence and altruism, and allowing their subhuman side to show through, their culture hating, morality-ignoring animal nature.
Perhaps this is what “freedom”, to these social revolutionaries, means: freedom of MEN to get back in touch with what they see as MEN’S nature, to the detriment of women. Women have to deal with the mess these men’s “freedom” has left them.
These revolutionary “dudes” tricked women into believing that intelligent, cultured, protective, moral men were their enemies, by painting them as oppressors, and leaving women with Mr. Hyde in the place of a kindly, though patronizing, Dr. Jekyll. (of course, not all men were nice, and many were abusive, but there was at least the pretense of better behavior then, and at least the hypothetical male, the male model that men were supposed to imitate, was more likeable than today’s).
It’s just like what they did with monogamy. They highlighted the bad aspects of the old system, only to replace them with a worse, more unpredictable system. While no women would enjoy being under the “protection” of a male patriarch a la The Victorian Era, I’m sure a good portion of them prefer that sometimes-responsible adult patriarch to the porn-watching, Xbox playing, culture-hating dood who doesn’t know Shakespeare from Mark Twain, and who doesn’t have a moral system- even a skewed one- to prevent him from abusing females even MORE than his 19th century counterpart.
I think the whole reason today’s historians, especially the male “feminists”, want to convince us that the old days were so horrible, is because they want us to feel like we’re totally safe nowadays. “Those old days were terrible and patriarchal! You’re much happier now!” they say. They are really just trying to get rid of any inkling of responsibility and personality men were once supposed to have.
Many women tend to prefer the god Apollo’s virtues- logic, reason, predictability- and are intimidated by Dionysus- the god symbolizing disorder, drunkenness, orgies, and destruction. BOTH, however, are gods, not goddesses, and as such are attempts to keep women under the palm of men, no matter what form that palm may take, right palm or left palm.
As for me, I prefer not having to choose between shit and crap, and I think that women should have the choice to marry and date other women, who are more likely to love and respect them. If there are good men, then forced monogamy should be abolished so we can share them.