The Final Goal; Women, Progressivism and Slavery

Careful readers of the last two posts on women and Progressivism will have noticed a contradiction; how can women be for Fascism (the leadership cult) and against male aggression (the strong male)? This essay, which references my book, Daughters of Slaves, attempts to bring these two threads into logical balance. Unfortunately for mankind, it is not a solution any Libertarian would wish for.

The Final Goal
Women, Progressivism and Slavery

It seems clear to anyone who has studied romantic fiction from Cinderella to Pride and Prejudice to Maid in Manhattan, that women generally love the idea of being rescued from the drudgery, the pain and frankly the hard work of everyday life by a prince on a white horse. That their rescuer, as in The Sheik, should be a cruel authoritarian Muslim, or as in Pride and Prejudice a haughty English aristocrat, hardly matters because they eventually wind up, like and Diana Mayo and Elizabeth Bennett, in taming the savage beast.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama waves while speaking in front of the Siegessaeule at the Grosser Stern in Tiergarten on July 24, 2008 in Berlin, Germany.

I've know this for quite a while; all men have, but I have never plugged this concept into the larger ideas of what women—the feminist movement—might be up to if the prince failed to show up on time. What political goals would they aim for once the suffragettes got the vote?

As I wrote earlier, the original emancipation of women went hand in hand with the temperance movement. Prohibition came into effect in 1920 with the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and women got the right to vote in the United States the same year with the 19th Amendment. The 18th Amendment lasted 13 years when it was overturned, with much joyousness, but what it speaks to us now has nothing to do with booze.

Why, you might ask, did women universally vote for prohibition? A glance at the history books shows it was because the breadwinners in poor families spent much of their pay on wine, women and song and not enough on the rent, food and clothing. They also became abusive when called on this and beat their women folk in a drunken rage. Women, because they were nearly powerless to stop the rage, thought they could deal with the problem by stopping the alcohol.

This was one of the first -- and clearly a hugely mistaken -- practical attempt at social engineering. There would be more to follow, including the native schools program in Canada, missionary attempts to convert natives in Africa, fascism's attempt to create the New Aryan Man, Communism's attempt to create the New Soviet Man, Mao's attempt to create the New Chinese Man, and more.

Each one of these Progressive ideas had plenty of women supporters, but why? Why did women accept the idea of re-ordering society when it meant they lost control over the society of their own families?

The answer, I think, can be found in my book, Daughters of Slaves. In it I posit the case that women today are the children, going back a million years or more, of women who were slaves, chattel, not real people. As second class citizens, as domestic slaves, I argue they developed a slave mentality; dividing their reality into compartments: one for the master, one for their fellow inmates (other women), one for their dreams (the Prince on the white horse). I then take that further and say that women even today create new realities for each individual they meet; thus the importance they have for the unworkable concept of privacy.

OK, so women, as a group were powerless and felt powerless in the home. But they weren't idiots; they had brains, they had ideas, and the biggest, best idea of all was to shift power from the home to the state: Statism or more correctly, Progressivism.

Consider what the Nazi party (and the Liberal Party of Canada) have in common: a desire for universal child care, a desire to erase class structures (graduated income tax), a desire to have the state do more (no smoking, no lead, no drinking and driving) in the way of parenting than parents themselves. In short, if you really look hard at it, Progressivism, at least in its most modern incarnation, constitutes a major shift from the family to the state.

Why would women want to do this? Because they figure they have some control over the state whereas they have little or no control over male aggression.

And so we have same sex marriage, metrosexuals, no child 'families'. And so we have a steeply declining birth rate among progressive, independent women who think now the solution to being pushed around by a man in a family is to not have a family! Let the State do the work of the man, let the fertilization clinic do the work of the man, and pay men to do what they must to protect and defend women (like paid slaves). By this I mean police, firemen (usually), pilots (usually), soldiers (usually).

We'll do what men used to, we'll pay men to do their rough, tough stuff, and the State will look after us.

This is no joke. I know plenty of women who really think dialing 911 is the solution if they are ever attacked in their home by drug addled mental patients.

But back to my main theme. The flaw in this thinking is that in gaining their freedom from male domination, women are walking into another trap, the domination of a strong male figure, the domination of a fascist leader. If you don't understand or believe in Liberty, you won't know when you lose it to a State, or a religion, that doesn't believe in it.

And all these social engineering campaigns? What happens when they are turned against you, when the State itself become the bully your husband used to be. What then?

Well, then, we'll have a Brave New World, won't we girls.

Footnote
Why have I put Obama's picture in the post? Because he's a Progressive who seems to have a messianic hold over his audience. He's had a 'black liberation' pastor for twenty years and has a wife with a big black chip on her shoulder. Where do you think he's going with his plans for a new army of civilians? I don't know and frankly I don't want to know, but I guess I'm going to find out pretty soon.