Womanliness

At this point there is nothing original in pointing out that the Democratic Party has a manliness problem. Simply, it no longer appeals to members of the masculine gender. Its grandees have twisted their minds, beyond recognition, trying to figure out how to correct the problem.

That their last presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, tried to deal with the problem by choosing as her vice president a man who happily placed tampons in boys school rest rooms tells us more than we really want to know about her mental limitations. Which, by now, are legion.

Take it for what it is worth but Claire Cain Miller, a highly capable writer, has explained in the New York Times that America, and not just Democrats, has a manliness problem.

Women are getting ahead in the world. They are outscoring boys in school and even in the workplace. They are achieving levels of excellence in extra-familial activities, often at the expense of boys.

Of course, this is a feminist wet dream. It represents a cultural revolution, imposed on America by (single) mothers and teachers. When the feminists sold us this dream they insisted that women’s success in the world outside the home would not displace men and would not demean manly achievements.

Obviously, it was untrue, but people believed it anyway.

I have already written about Miller’s article, but, for today I wish to address the issue that she does not mention. Sherlock Holmes called it the dog that did not bark.

Now, given that young women are taught and implored to excel in activities outside of the home, whether in school or in the workplace, one ought to ask how well these women are capable of performing within the home. 

American men might have a manliness problem, but American women have a womanliness problem. 

If women are hellbent on excelling in school or in the workplace, it makes sense that they will feel that housewifely tasks are beneath them. If they are identifying as male in the outside world, whyever would they take responsibility for doing the laundry, decorating the parlor or for making dinner? As more than one feminist has been known to declare, these women really need wives at home.

The point seems obvious, but apparently it is not all that obvious. Traditionally, women have been associated with the home, with housework, with caring for small children-- you know the litany. It would be helpful to add romance to the list. Romance is a woman’s world. Women excel at it. Men, not so much. 

And you will note, self-evidently, that these activities do not involve anyone in a competitive marketplace. A woman who learns to be a fierce competitor in the marketplace will not, normally, use the same skills when she gets involved in a romantic attachment.

You might have noticed that activities in the marketplace are quantifiable-- they involve profit and loss; salaries and expenses. Such is not the principle that defines life at home, and certainly not romance.

In truth, it is not an accident that today’s modern liberated women are less likely to get married and to become homemakers, and more likely to hook up. A girl has needs, after all. And who is going to tell her not to fulfill her needs. 

Unfortunately, if a woman chooses to indulge in the hookup culture, she will often take herself off the marriage track. And then she will hate men for not seeing her as marriage material.

Far too many modern women are allergic to the notion of being a wife. The last times I faced young women who were professionally accomplished and unmarried, I asked them, in all innocence, whether they wanted to become wives.

For which I received a look that translated: What kind of girl  do you think I am?