Recently, I’ve been thinking that all of feminism’s “advantages” (are they really?) come at the expense of children. These children grow up, and become a new generation of adults who are really not prepared to improve or even continue the beneficial institutions of the society. Children raised by single mothers, among their many problems, have a hard time forming families; or, if they do get married, they soon end up divorced. Basically, women are “sacrificing their children to Moloch,” not necessarily in a fatal way, but, by neglecting their care, they allow their children to be immersed in the environment of public schools, popular media and music, social media, etc. Corruption of the children is a basic Satanic strategy.
Today, a woman who Takes A Stand With the Family must accept that this means focusing a lot of time and effort on raising children well. This will mean homeschooling, or at least, finding a high quality alternative (private tutor, private school) that accomplishes an education comparable to homeschooling. I have a friend who is pulling his children out of a private, nominally Catholic school because it has gone woke-crazy. He is beginning to homeschool. But even setting aside these aberrations, in the best of situations, K-12 education (and college education continuing after that) these days tends to be very mediocre.
This is an interesting description of even the very tippy-top class of “well educated, well behaved” young people today. It is not very encouraging.
Some years ago, I taught a course in public writing at the Claremont colleges, the consortium of elite liberal arts institutions in Southern California. My students were juniors or seniors, mostly humanities or social science majors, almost all smart, a couple genuinely brilliant. All, needless to say, were expensively educated and impressively credentialed. I assumed that they’d arrive with a fairly good idea of how to make an argument with an academic context and that I would be teaching them how to apply those skills to a very different set of rhetorical occasions.
What I soon discovered was that none of them had much idea how to make an argument in any context. Nor were they particularly skilled at analysing the arguments of others. They didn’t know how to read; they didn’t know how to write; and they didn’t know how to think.
Is that what you want for your children?
To understand how this predicament came to pass, one needs to understand how students manage to get into places like Harvard or the Claremont colleges in the first place. It is not by learning how to read, write, or think. It is by jumping through the endless series of hoops that elite college admissions offices have developed over the decades to winnow down their skyscraper stacks of application folders.
To win a place at such a school, students most receive top grades in a broad range of AP courses, show evidence of participation in a dozen or more extracurricular activities—sports, arts, student government, et al.—demonstrate “leadership”, engage in “service”, and gather experiences, often through purpose-built programs, to write about on their personal essays, statements designed to convince the admissions officer of the existence of an actual human being beneath the credentials. To do all this, they will work without cease for years on end, sleeping little and foregoing the freedoms of adolescence.
This is not a system that’s designed to foster intellectual engagement. Students learn to skip and skim, not just their assigned readings, but everything. Everything is done at maximum speed and with the least possible effort. Curiosity and passion must be actively suppressed. Students become experts, not so much in subjects as in working the system. There is simply no time to do anything else.
Of course, colleges are no better, and often a lot worse. Here is this professor’s estimation of the tippy-top class of US universities today:
Is there any real learning still happening at American colleges and universities? Of course there is: in the interstices, the institutional cracks, where it can evade the surveillance of the diversity deanlets and the persecutions of the PC police. It survives behind the doors of the classrooms and in the quiet of the offices of the dwindling minority of true teachers who remember what it looks like and are committed, come what may, to keeping it alive. It persists inside the dorm rooms and the brains of the few recalcitrant students — the real campus subversives — who insist on being individuals, on thinking things through for themselves. May it live to see the end of this new dark age.
Whatever way you look at it, raising children even passably well these days means managing their environment and activities, and eliminating anything that is not Good, True and Beautiful — the food they eat, the music they are exposed to, the clothes they wear, the decoration and organization of the house they live in, and so on. This is basically a full-time project, implying a stay-at-home mother.
One way that Feminism leads to “child sacrifice” is: The children are never born. Careerist women have trouble getting married. Birth control and abortion prevent “unwanted” pregnancies. (Why are they unwanted?)
For the children that are born, many are born to single mothers who, even if they are somehow able to be full-time mothers, typically lack the masculine qualities (discipline, effort, focus) that build good character in both boys and girls.
Children with working mothers — including single mothers, married mothers and divorced mothers who are now basically single mothers — are abandoned to daycare, public schools (or private schools that are often not much better), and various afterschool engagements reflective of mainstream society. Too tired to pay much attention to the children even when she is home, in evenings or on the weekends, the working mother typically abandons them again to television, video games, social media and other easy ways to keep children quiet and out of the way. This is not the mom who works to plan a picnic in the park on Saturday, or who even has the patience to watch over a neighbor child who comes over to play. Typically, children are fed all kinds of bad food, beginning even from their first days with baby formula, resulting in the usual suite of health problems. A mother is too tired to watch over her children’s friends and acquaintances, seeking out good companions and quietly pushing away those that are bad influences.
Immersed in public schools/mainstream media/social media, any efforts by a working mother to somehow engage her children with things that are Good, True and Beautiful are commonly washed away in the deluge of mediocrity and filth that constitutes 90%+ of their children’s lives.
These children grow up, and become adults. Older adults, who were perhaps raised better, in the 1950s and 1960s, are today passing away, or their influence is waning. Parents hope that children will somehow “grow out of” the Woke nonsense, terrible music, video game and later porn addictions that they were immersed in during their whole childhoods. But, often this never happens.
The primary purpose of marriage is to create a context for raising children. There isn’t much need for it otherwise. Thus, divorce too comes at the expense of children. They are deprived of the infrastructure for their growth. The “freedom” enjoyed by the divorcing woman (women cause about 90% of divorces), comes at the cost of the children.
A woman today can become a Barren Whore, and maybe that is tolerable. If she stays unmarried and childless, she probably won’t cause too much damage. Maybe she will be a Good Employee and Good Citizen, and be of some benefit to herself and her society.
But, otherwise, I suggest that a woman should Take a Stand With the Family, with all that this entails.