REVERSING EDEN, Part II – Truth and Consequences – How Feminism Destroyed True Womanhood

August 6, 2019 / Nancy Diraison

Part 2 of 3 (Strongly urge reading this series in sequence!).

In Part One of this three-part series, we examined what went wrong with the first established relationship between men and women. The model was broken due to bad decisions on both sides. Neither wanted to take the blame but both shared the consequences.

The woman, once started down the wrong path, was inclined to want to rule over her husband. When innocence was destroyed, so was trust.

Men often become discouraged when the ones they need and want respect from the most tear them down. Feeling defeated they may withdraw. Or they may lash out in inappropriate behaviors. Either way if a man is under attack from the woman it makes it difficult, if not impossible, for him to retake his position as leader, especially if his attempts are criticized, resisted, and as these days, maligned as “toxic masculinity” and other such previously non-existent and demeaning labels.

What is the point of destroying men and boys? What consequences have been reaped as a result of sidelining the irreplaceable attributes of men in favor of what some called “equal rights for women”, when in fact what they meant was “unequal rights for men”? Did it in fact start with toxic feminism?

The Great Deception

Initially the woman’s role was to be the man’s “helper”. This was a massively important job and the term deceitfully used to motivate women to believe their role was inferior. Some of the motivation came from the men themselves, no doubt, but what ensued only made things worse.

It is helpful to look at the original meaning of the word.

In a right relationship, there should be no victims, and no oppressors!

Going back again to the language of the Old Testament, where the introduction of man and helper begin, we find a surprise.

Both the Old and New Testaments are very specific in which words are chosen for what purpose. Often one word in Hebrew or Greek has many detailed forms in the original language, but ends up translated as the only one available in English. Meanings are lost!

The word “helper” in the ancient text is simple to look up. The word for “helper” used at Genesis 2:18 and 2:20 for the woman is also the same word used in Exodus 18:4 and Joshua 1:14 with some very powerful illustrations. In Exodus 18:4, “helper” is used to describe God himself as the helper of his people! And at Joshua 1:14 the same word is used to describe the task of Joshua’s “mighty men of valor” — the most powerful warriors in Israel! (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. The word for “helper”, number #5828.)

The role of helper is that of one who surrounds, protects and aids. Not someone who cowers, is disrespected or abused.

The woman in her supportive role is the perfect complement to her man. She is his safe harbor, his champion, his chief companion. She enhances his reputation. She helps him as he provides for and protects her. His children are safe with her. He has no need to worry she will damage him or do anything but good. That confidence fuels his enthusiasm for providing for and protecting his family. Without those motivations life is pretty flat.

Once feminists got their short-sighted ball rolling, making women feel inferior for being “helpers”, the true slavery began — that which led to the intractable need for two incomes where one used to suffice.

There is nothing wrong with women wanting to expand and use their many talents and skills, but as matters escalated the family structure disintegrated, children suffered in many ways, and the entire economy is twisted as a result. Everything from the day care industry to “fast” and processed foods developed from the needs related to working mothers, who gradually gave up their own food preparation. Our nation’s health has greatly suffered as a result, and stress has increased for everyone.

In the mid-1980’s it was estimated the value of all the jobs a woman performed in the average home would have cost $50,000 per year through outside sources (at 1985 costs). That was the value of her presence, an earnings equivalent that no family could afford to pay! Given her massive contribution, the family could function on her husband’s income. And the women had all the scheduling flexibility so many now crave and wish they could reclaim even while working outside jobs. Instead of being the free employers of their own time, they press for employers to make up for the problems through benefits that should never be the employer’s domain. When benefits are mandated, other payroll allocations are suppressed. There is nothing “free”.

Many men today could adequately cover their home expenses if the outsourcing costs were stopped.

Birth control of course did not always work, was easily ignored, tampered with or even sabotaged. And as financial benefits became available to unwed mothers, more chose to lean on those rather than marry. Financial independence appealed more than family and marriage. What seemed like a good and noble idea was injecting more damage into the equation. Impediments like the marriage tax penalties did not help.

Young father under stress due to baby crying at night

Eventually, part of the misguided effort to erase the separate roles of men and women was to “equalize” the playing field in child-rearing. Absurd concepts were put forth that both parents are equally responsible for all functions of child care and other household tasks, as if each was not limited by their own 24 hour days, and as if the jobs that men do are not usually more taxing than the ones performed by the women. Not too many women enjoy laying asphalt or hanging from skyscrapers, and not too many are on the firefighting crew that shows up when the house is on fire.

Division of labor is well known in employment. One never sends two people to do the job of one. It’s inefficient. In the single-income household, the pattern allowed for maximization of time and energies for both spouses. Assuming neither was lazy and both doing their jobs, a hard day’s work meshed with a well-run household and led to valuable family time and enjoyable evenings. Not so any more…

A Hard Look at the Statistics of Failure

The subject of family break-down is so large that we can only scratch the surface.

The single most damaging effect of feminism, besides the crushing devaluation of the roles and strengths of men, and the demoralizing of boys along the way, has been the tearing down of moral restraints and the huge escalation of fatherless families.

If the two-income stranglehold is a trap, the single parent arrangement is even worse.

Over 25 million children today, in the United States, are being raised with no father in the home. 40 to 50% of children are in a single-parent household or will be at some point, usually with the mothers. Multiple millions of others have already reached adulthood without the experience of a father in their background, or the wrong idea about fathers due to negative experiences. Boys cannot be expected to understand a father’s role if they never knew one.

The worst afflicted are the African-American households. In1965, the Moynihan report stated that 25% of African-American households were led by a single parent (usually the mother); today that figure is an astronomical 66%. The 25% figure (24% to be exact) now applies to white, non-Hispanic families, and the numbers keep growing.

Children without fathers in the home are almost twice as likely to be hyperactive as kids in homes with two parents. 63% of youth suicides are kids who grew up with no father in the house. 90% of all the runaways and homeless kids out there grew up in fatherless homes. 85% of the children with behavior disorders, 71% of high-school dropouts, 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions, and 85% of youths in prison grew up in homes without a father.

Why the hyperactivity?

In the mid to late 1990’s, famous broadcaster Paul Harvey cited a serious study about what had recently been labeled as “ADD”. The study concluded that “ADD” should rather be spelled “DAD”. The profound studies signaled unequivocally that the restlessness of children was due primarily to emotional insecurities, stemming from absent fathers. The report was quickly buried.

It does not help that healthy physical activities, the kind needed for boys to vent their energies and build their self-confidence, barely exist today. Texting and playing video games do not count.

A study by criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi found “the absence of fathers” to be “the most powerful predictors of crimes” among males. 75% of school shooters are documented as coming from fatherless homes.

The most reliable predictor of crime is not poverty, it is not race, it is growing up without a dad!

Scholar Brad Wilcox adds that fathers are the key role models for their sons when they maintain proper authority and discipline. Doing so helps boys develop self-control and empathy towards others, precisely the traits lacking in violent youth and not coincidentally, in men who go on to repeat not being kind to their families. The presence of mothers, however strong and well-principled, is not enough to offset the absence.

Bringing some findings up to date. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson did an excellent series in March-April, 2018, conducting in-depth interviews and presenting reports on the tragic decline of men in America. Parts of the interviews addressed such facts as women taking over mens’ jobs, outnumbering them in higher education, and now constituting a majority in managerial positions.

Starting with the decline of male teachers at the lower educational grades, and the lack of inspiring fatherly influences in the homes, boys are depressed, and yes, many of them, instead of putting their energies to use, find themselves “diagnosed” with “DAD” (to use the right letters) and put on drugs to keep them down. How disabling.

The whole idea of “father” is wrought with cynicism to those who have never known the benefits of a good father’s leadership — the special warmth, strength and encouragement a father can provide. The missing experience is otherwise projected into disrespect of other authorities, a misunderstanding of authority in the workplace as well as in government and law enforcement. The trend is unmistakable, and so are its sources. Daughters suffer in their own way, negatively fashioning their expectations of males, and suffering great loss of self-esteem which they then seek to build from wrong sources.

Fathers who abandon their children and mothers who take their children away from their fathers have no idea of the price the kids are going to pay. If they know, they don’t care or choose to ignore the information and warnings. This is outside those cases due to abuse, of course, or other extreme conditions warranting separation. Most of the attention is paid to allegations of fathers abandoning children and not to the women who drive them away. We will not make that omission.

The bottom line is that the abdication of marriage as the secure place to bear children, for the good of all concerned, was a huge and predictable mistake.

While a full 92% of Americans still believe that our nation can only go forward if American families are made stronger, there is an avoidance of discussing what family model is the healthiest. Political correctness has vastly increased the price tag.

In the End, Breaking our Men Breaks Everyone

For as long as traditional family structure held as the norm, there was not as much negative to talk about as there is now.

Expectations for marriage, futures, children, were not questioned, and most were satisfied with the formula. It was great for the children, granted women what today they admit craving the most — flexibility in the use of their time — and it allowed men to focus more single-mindedly on their work, careers and providing for their families. This is not to downplay the need women have to develop and utilize their talents. The right family balance should allow for that and depending on other factors, permit some employment outside the home, just not to the detriment of the family’s primary needs, and certainly not to its destruction! We’ll have some interesting observations on that in Part III.

In Part III we will ask where and why we have lost our hearts.

Men and women have lost their hearts for each other, for their children, even for any children.

These are times like no other. And repair must begin in the heart.

*************************

Dreamstime Photo Credits:

Share this: Respectful sharing appreciated.

Like this:

Related

Leave a Reply Cancel reply