The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

You Should Be Reading Dalrock

Posted on | January 19, 2018 | 1 Comment

The blogger called Dalrock describes himself thus:

I’m a happily married man living with my sexy wife and our two wonderful kids in the Dallas/Forth Worth area. I’m very interested in how the post feminist world impacts myself and my family, and am using this blog to explore these kinds of issues.

I’ve occasionally linked and quoted Dalrock here, and some of his regular readers are also my regular readers. He is unafraid to make tough arguments: “Child support is designed to replace marriage, and it is wickedly effective at this. . . . Child support doesn’t just encourage women to have children out of wedlock, it also encourages women to kick married fathers out of the home.” Remember all those Maury Povich show episodes where unwed mothers learned the results of DNA tests to determine who their Baby Daddy was? That kind of irresponsibility is actually encouraged by the existence of a legal system that uses punitive measures to enforce child-support payments. It protects women’s “right” to screw around by forcing men to pay for the predictable result of such promiscuity. But as Dalrock points out, many conservatives are OK with this destructive policy. “We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan” is the title of one of Dalrock’s classic rants, in which he makes the point that “slut shaming” works.

Too many conservatives are unwilling to confront feminist ideology directly and answer it with an emphatic “no.” It is folly to grant the first premise of an opponent’s argument and then try to argue for a different conclusion to the syllogism. Because many conservatives do not wish to seem prejudiced or unenlightened, they have a habit of giving away the game by accepting the idea of “gender equality” as a desirable goal. This is a strategic error, accepting battle on a field of their opponent’s choosing. A better strategy is the truth — no such thing as “gender equality” has ever existed in human history, and there is no policy which will bring about “gender equality” in the future. Even if it were possible to create “gender equality” by governmental fiat, this would not result in an increase in happiness. In fact, because “gender equality” is self-evidently contrary to human nature, such a regime would require a totalitarian system of enforcement which would negate personal liberty. The increasing insanity on our university campuses — where Title IX has long been a totalitarian mechanism for the enforcement of “gender equality” — is an omen of what feminist policy would produce in society at large.

Do I agree with every argument Dalrock makes? No, but I never agree 100% with anyone. Some of his arguments are offensive, but the point is that he is willing to question the basis premise of feminism, and unafraid to offend us in doing so. Dalrock points out, for example, that Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network recently featured a dialogue between two women who have “mastered the art of not finding a husband.” CBN host Wendy Griffith is 53 and unmarried, while her guest Mandy Hale is 38 and unmarried. Are they really the best qualified experts to offer “family values” advice to young women?

It seems rather rude to raise such questions, but when we are fighting (and losing) a battle to preserve Western civilization, being overly concerned with courtesy is a hindrance to effective warfare. Dalrock’s insulting attitude toward Miss Griffith offends my sense of chivalry, but in doing so, he raises the question of whether Christian parents are giving their daughters advice that is as unbiblical as it is impractical:

[M]odern Christian culture has identified the feminist life script as coming from God. The very unbiblical feminist obsession with women’s self esteem has become a core tenet of modern Christianity.

Ouch! Dalrock summarizes the argument of Lori Gottlieb that “women who delay marriage too long will find themselves with a rapidly declining pool of marriage prospects,” and this is very important for several reasons. Christians who proclaim their devotion to “family values” have a sacred obligation to resist the decadence of secular society: “be not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2). The Apostle Paul warned Timothy against those “seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” that counsel “forbidding to marry.” That scripture can be read as a prophetic warning against those heretical cults which became known as Gnosticism, but in our day we find a sort of neo-Gnosticism creeping stealthily into many churches in the form of “Christian feminism,” an oxymoron.

“The Temptation of Eve,” John Roddam Spencer Stanhope,

Years ago, I warned that conservatives were losing the battle against same-sex “marriage” because they were unwilling to confront the secular gospel of “equality.” See “Gay Rights, Gay Rage” (Nov. 17, 2008) which I amplified in “Whither Marriage?” (Jan. 3, 2009), making the point that men and women are different in ways that are socially significant:

Are men and women equal in the fullest sense of the word? If so, then equality implies fungibility — the two things are interchangeable and one may be substituted for the other in any circumstance whatsoever. (La mort à la différence!) Therefore, it is of no consequence whether I marry a woman or a man.

The fantastical project of yesterday, which was mentioned only to be ridiculed, is to-day the audacious reform, and will be tomorrow the accomplished fact.

This is why so many of those who would defend traditional marriage find themselves unable to form a coherent argument, because traditional marriage is based on the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different, and hence, unequal. Traditional marriage assumes a complementarity of the sexes that becomes absurd if you deny that “man” and “woman” define intrinsic traits, functions, roles.

Attempts to advance “gender equality” require us to ignore or suppress the biological reality and social significance of sexual difference.

A successful marriage requires voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit, and this becomes impossible if a husband and wife see themselves as antagonists in a competition for “equality.” It is entirely possible to have a happy and enduring marriage that does not conform to a 1950s sitcom script of what a “traditional” family should look like. Yet a marriage is unlikely to be happy, and is not likely to endure, if an obsession with “equality” causes the spouses to resent each other for their different (and hence, unequal) contributions to their household.

Malaysia: Imam says girls
should marry before 15,
otherwise their value drops

Malaysian Imam Azhar Idrus stated that “girls are getting married at a later age due to education, adding that they are about 28 years old by the time they are finished with university” and that by “28 years old, no one would want to marry them.” . . .
Azhar added it is haram (prohibited) for teenagers of a marriageable age to befriend men unless the intention is to marry the man.
“Even after finishing school, it is haram to befriend men in any way at all,” he said.

Far be it from me to endorse the views of a radical Islamic imam, but Christian conservatives ought to ask themselves what the consequences will be if Muslims follow the imam’s teachings (which are certainly justified by the Koran) while the Western world embraces feminist dogma. The total fertility rate (average lifetime births per woman) in Malaysia is 2.5, which is 34% higher than the U.S. rate of 1.87.

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and if we wish to prevent that destruction, we must be willing to think seriously, and ask uncomfortable questions, about the causes of social decadence. That’s why I say: You should be reading Dalrock.



One Response to “You Should Be Reading Dalrock”

  1. Kind words from The Other McCain | Dalrock
    January 22nd, 2018 @ 4:05 pm

    […] The Other McCain writes in You Should Be Reading Dalrock: […]