There is no free lunch. While penning my post in response to some ballyhoo about "child-men," I reflected on some things regarding men and what may be called a "marriage strike." Cultural pundits of various persuasions may decry the retreat of men from the institution of marriage but the good things in life have a price tag. The involvement of men in perpetuating a society via the family unit is no exception. When it comes to men, society will get what it pays for. You don't have to be an Austrian School economist to know that if you value something, you should be prepared to pony up. What price can men rightfully affix to the tag placed on the onus of marriage and fatherhood? As I see it, the Establishment must meet at least four conditions:
1. Give men decent wages and employee benefits so they can support the families everyone is saying men ought to have.
2. Don't take away those decent wages through burdensome taxation and unsound monetary policies (devalued currencies, etc.).
3. Roll back the anti-male and anti-family policies of the Nanny State (which kinda' ties in with #2).
4. Stop celebrating self-centered, unscrupulous women who don't respect men. Instead, tell them to "get a life" (or something like that).
I simply lay forth these conditions as an observer of cause and effect. Until the four conditions are met, there will be no cease-fire and no armistice offered by men. The shelling and aerial assault will continue.
Another bad cop
2 years ago
4 comments:
1. Give men decent wages and employee benefits so they can support the families everyone is saying men ought to have.
The only way to successfully do this is to allow businesses to hire and fire anyone for any reason. A business cannot pay men more and keep expenditures neutral without also paying women less or eliminating those jobs that were created to be filled by women in the first place.
2. Don't take away those decent wages through burdensome taxation and unsound monetary policies (devalued currencies, etc.).
Absolutely. I'm voting for Ron Paul tomorrow; go and do thou likewise. ;)
3. Roll back the anti-male and anti-family policies of the Nanny State (which kinda' ties in with #2).
Yep.
4. Stop celebrating self-centered, unscrupulous women who don't respect men. Instead, tell them to "get a life" (or something like that).
Freedom of association. Private sector ostracism can work wonders if allowed to; it is the anti-discrimination laws that force all of us to associate with folks we'd rather not be around.
I think the whole solution is "freedom of association". So long as we are compelled to tolerate awful behaviour from people, there will be no incentive to alter that behaviour.
I hope men never stop fighting.
Heys guys, thought I would pass this on. In his post Single Young Males: A Defense at Redstate , Bernard Chapin over at Redstate.org offers a devastating take-down of Ms. Hymowitz's piece on "child-men". It's not from a religious perspective, but very worthwhile nonetheless.
I was going to include some excerpts, but it's so good, I'd would have ended up posting the whole thing.
Excellent post, Anakin. The impact of social trends in the workplace has been pronounced in the younger generations. I maintain a staff of 45 and most are women. I have difficulty finding guys who are reliable, have a work ethic or see a point to life.
If you take away men's motivation to work hard and plan for the future, you'll have a society like ours - which is remarkably toxic to a Christian life and building Christian families and communities.
Post a Comment