It’s worth remembering, in his essay Women’s Rights Women, the context of Dabney’s famous quote about Northern conservatism being the conservatism of expedience only, and the shadow that follows radicalism to perdition. It is that Northern “conservatism” was the opponent of feminism until it was no longer politically expedient to oppose the witches. Tocqueville writes that the enlargement of suffrage in America was certain, because American men are timid. And Dabney predicts that this would abolish marriage and destroy our Christianity and civilization.
Dabney mentions, in the same essay, that Elizabeth Cady Stanton “holds that woman’s bondage is not truly dissolved until the marriage bond is annulled.” She sought to redesign marriage as a contract between equals, writing: “When woman is man’s equal the marriage relation cannot stand on the basis it is on today.” Later in life, she referred to marriage as “legalized prostitution” and slavery. She consistently recognized that Christian faith stood in her way. And then one day, it didn’t.
As we all know, she won. Marriage and the family are now in tatters. Too few white children are being born. Covenantal fidelity has precipitously declined, and our inheritance has been given to strangers (Lamentations 5:2). Women believe they’re men,[1. Women moved into the majority of college students in 1979, and have been at over 57% since 2003. For those with college degrees, more women than men are employed.] and men no longer view them as wives[2. Men are blamed for not wanting to marry, but women are not blamed for purposely delaying marriage and childrearing until their thirties, so they can focus on their careers.] and are unwilling to protect them and provide for them. Why should they, if men and women are equal? Consequently, demand for security by ever-encroaching government, which is increasingly led by women, rather than security by competitive husbands and clans, has never been higher. Now we collectivize rather than take dominion.
Our bodies were not made for this radical inversion of sexual roles. Men think big, abstract thoughts about identity and territory. Women have an instinctively narrower circle, which is well-suited for child-rearing in the home, and they are good at fostering relationships within a small circle, but not among those with fundamental differences. It’s easy to understand this in terms of sexual instincts.
Studies show that women are far less cooperative than men. Men must cooperate with other men for mutual protection of their families. This is how societies are formed. Rivalries among men are more easily negotiated for the sake of common purpose or to face a common threat. Women are catty with other women because their sexual instinct is to eliminate competition in attracting a man.
When young women become exhibitionists, it’s for the purpose of competing with other women for the attention of a few[3. So few that twice as many young women than men have herpes.] alpha males. Absent the masculine social conventions that harmonize marriage, guided by shame at one end and family reputation at the other, their unrestrained hypergamy turns them into nothing more than a harem for peacocking players. The dysgenic effect on society is extreme, effectively polygamous, as most other men are cut off from finding a good wife and are left with no outlet for their naturally authoritarian instincts. Many succumb to depression and suicide, or simply abandon productive endeavors.
As Roissy puts it, men compete then cooperate; women compete then eliminate. Men defend property; women defend social consensus. Man adapts to nature; woman adapts to man. Any society that has the misfortune of being led by women is vulnerable to invasion. Men invade, women invite, and no amount of wishfulness can overcome it.
Scientists have discovered that the amygdala in a man’s brain is significantly larger than a woman’s. The amygdala is vital for threat detection.
See this recent study about the differences between men’s and women’s attachment to groups. The importance of a group to which a woman belongs depends on how close she feels to other members of the group, whereas to men, the importance of a group depends on both relational and collective attachment (i.e. group identity).
In another study, we see that women tend to trust those who share direct or indirect relationship connections. For men, it is more important that kind follows kind, because the instinct is that safety follows trust, and trust follows familiarity. You can see that a woman’s instinct is critical at the family level but is dangerous when personal attachments cloud prejudice for keeping separate what is demonstrably best kept separate.
Here’s a study which shows that women hold an advantage in processing objects while men hold an advantage in processing movement. This “may reflect sex differences in bottom-up versus top-down analytical strategies.” We know, for example, that when crime statistics are studied, men are more likely to focus on per capita trends, while women are more likely to mentally process anecdotes and personal relationships.
Prejudice is innate to a man due to his abilities in abstract reasoning. In 1989, research by J. Meyers-Levy found evidence that men are “selective processors” who rely on heuristics (i.e. common sense, intuition, stereotypes) for a subset of available information before rendering judgment. Women are found to be “comprehensive processors” who attempt, far less efficiently, to weigh all available information before rendering judgment.
Studies show that there is activation in the reward centers of a man’s brain when he sees justice served, whereas this produces activation in the pain centers of a woman’s brain, suggesting that women feel empathy for suffering even when it is deserved. Women are more empathetic and emotional, factoring personal cost into their decisions. Men are more principled and selfless.
A man’s thought processes are abstract, analytical, and deductive. A woman’s thought processes are relational and oriented towards care. When women are allowed to govern, law and order become less important to them than caring for everyone’s needs, an ethic that is perfectly suited for the home, where a man establishes law and order and defends boundaries, but which is cancer for national survival. Witness our thoroughly-feminized immigration policy for the last half century, which is designed to care more for outsiders than our own people.
As Dabney wrote more than a century ago:
When we point to the fact that they are naturally more emotional and less calculating, more impulsive and less self-contained, that they have a quicker tact but less logic, that their social nature makes them more liable to the contagion of epidemic passions, and that the duties of their sex make it physically impossible for them to acquire the knowledge in a foreign sphere necessary for political duties, we do not deprecate woman; we only say that nature has adapted her to one thing and disqualified her for the other.
Feminists, who view the world through the Marxist lens of oppressors and oppressed, will always seek to subjugate what they view as the dominant (white, male, Christian) class to universal human interests. When feminists transfer blame for their discontentment to the “patriarchy,” it’s to cover not only their natural state as the weaker sex but also their manipulation and envy of other women. Likewise, blacks replace their weak family ties, due to promiscuity, with the group solidarity achieved in blaming their disconnectedness on slavery and segregation. Envy and resentment fuel dreams of Wakanda to cover their dark reality of disease, dysfunction, aggression, criminal violence, laziness, and subordinate intelligence.
The next article concludes the series.