Henry’s Book Review: A History of How Intellectuals Ruined the Family

 

Professor Scott Yenor has done a great service to humanity by writing a book, The Recovery of Family Life: Exposing the Limits of Modern Ideology, that discusses the all-important issue of sex robots. Sadly, his book is not all about sex robots. Rather, he writes about the status of the family vs. post-modernism and feminism. To paraphrase Keynes, Yenor believes that, “Modern men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct feminist who denies human nature.” He makes a good case. His book goes through the radical and post-modernist philosophers that helped create our modern world and how we think about sex and family. It’s a good read that helps us understand why modern people think the way they do about sex and family.

Professor Yenor focuses on culture rather than technology. This is quite fascinating to me because I come more from the Jonah Goldberg camp that emphasizes technological innovation. Jonah theorizes that the sexual revolution couldn’t have happened without the pill and that Washington DC couldn’t have become the imperial capital that is without air conditioning. Also, it’s much harder to control everybody if you can only issue orders by the speed of a man on horseback. I doubt that the Oregon pioneers could care less about whatever laws DC was passing.* The telegraph was necessary for DC to be able to control the West Coast.

Yenor makes a convincing counter-argument by going through the intellectual history of post-modernism and radical feminism. He does this very well and from what I know of post-modernism, (radical feminist theory isn’t my bag) he does so accurately without getting bogged down in the minutia of why Foucalt hated Derrida. Before buying the book, read this article. If you like the prose of that essay, you will like this book.

In essence, modern feminism is essentially derived from the idea that there is no human nature, no femininity, and no masculinity that is not socially constructed. Yenor ably goes into a fascinating dive about feminist radicals and post-modernists, and later in the book he discusses what our reaction should be to it.

He suggests that we leave homosexuals alone but we as a culture should focus on monogamous heterosexual marriage and the family. He also suggests that most women would prefer to work part-time while raising children and that we as a society should do more to accommodate rather than try to strive for a complete equality that no one actually wants.

He refers to a debate between Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir where Simone de Beauvoir as a contrast between moderate and radical feminism. “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children… As long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity are not destroyed . . . women will still be oppressed.”

Yenor seems to suggest that radical feminism is beginning to dominate the debate about feminism. From what I’ve read of Douglas Murray, he is right and feminism is becoming more of a hindrance to both sexes rather than the noble pursuit of equality that overreached in some cases. Near the end of the book, Scott Yenor view tries to break with the word feminism and suggests that people describe themselves as Womanists.

While not in his book, this particular passage from an earlier work of his describes that Womanism should, “be grounded in seeing the desirability for women to work as a means of making a living, just as men work to make a living, but also see that making a living and making a life are two different things. It must begin with an acknowledgment of the goodness in human love, human community, and responsibility, not with a radical embrace of independence and self-created identities. It must acknowledge and respect some differences between the sexes and see them as part of human being.” It should also honor and respect motherhood as one of the most important parts of the experience of women.

He doesn’t come as a scold with his recommendations and I appreciate that. Also, his humor is refreshing in an academic book. It reminds me of when Jonah Goldberg was much more interesting and funny because he focused more on humor than Trump. I personally would add more jokes but Yenor is after all a professor and he is probably stretching his academic credibility by writing a book that people without a B.A. will enjoy reading.

As a follow-up to this book, I listened to Michael Walsh’s audiobook. He focused more on communism thought than radical feminism but he and Jordan Peterson seem to confirm the veracity of Professor Yenor’s claims. Walsh’s book is strikingly Christian and is thus alien to me. Yenor’s book is neutral on the G-d question and it is more focused on a specific topic.

More regrettably, Yenor doesn’t write enough about sex robots. He mentions that young men will soon be able to obtain sexual gratification without the work of building a relationship and that this is incredibly important. To be fair, he is focusing on what is rather than what will be in his book. Still, the book would be much improved if he included a few more pages (or maybe 15 minutes of audio) about how men have changed in their reaction to women because of pornography and how they will continue to change with the rise of sex robots. But what book could this not be said of?

In conclusion, people interested in the topic of feminism or how our modern world is created through the bad ideas of those that deny our nature, read his book.

*People who survived disease, storms, and attacks by some Indian tribes now have progeny that are burning down Portland. All is vanity and vexation of spirit.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 35 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    It’s too bad there aren’t some women writing about the wages of radical feminism. Personally, I oppose feminism of every stripe — even women’s suffrage! ;-)

    No one is more able to address the radical unhappiness caused by feminism than a woman of my traditionalist persuasion.

    Interesting post, as usual Henry. Even without the sex robots. . .

    • #1
  2. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    I have written on my personal blog about some of the results of radical feminism.

    https://rushbabe49.com/2012/07/20/the-single-most-destructive-slogan-in-recent-memory/

     

    • #2
  3. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    I have written on my personal blog about some of the results of radical feminism.

    https://rushbabe49.com/2012/07/20/the-single-most-destructive-slogan-in-recent-memory/

    Science agrees with you that the two sexes are psychologically different. The book briefly touches upon this as well but it’s been proven by so much evidence he doesn’t dwell on it. 

    • #3
  4. Kephalithos Member
    Kephalithos
    @Kephalithos

    I’m skeptical of sex robots. I can’t imagine why any male would want to . . . er, have relations with one. First, there’s the uncanny valley problem. Second, eew. Third . . . eew.

    • #4
  5. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Kephalithos (View Comment):

    I’m skeptical of sex robots. I can’t imagine why any male would want to . . . er, have relations with one. First, there’s the uncanny valley problem. Second, eew. Third . . . eew.

    I understand your concern with the sex robots that we have now. But what about when they look like this?

     

     

    • #5
  6. Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai… Member
    Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai…
    @Gaius

    I’m curious why the West family was chosen as the image to accompany this post.

    • #6
  7. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai… (View Comment):

    I’m curious why the West family was chosen as the image to accompany this post.

    Seriously. I saw the pic and decided to not read the post.

    • #7
  8. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai… (View Comment):

    I’m curious why the West family was chosen as the image to accompany this post.

    Seriously. I saw the pic and decided to not read the post.

    • #8
  9. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Maybe because, regardless of what they do for a living, they are a Married Couple and all four children are their children.  Those look like four happy kids.  I think the photo was well done.  They are a Family, not Baby Daddy and his Baby Momma and the kids of mixed mom/dad parentage.

    • #9
  10. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Maybe because, regardless of what they do for a living, they are a Married Couple and all four children are their children. Those look like four happy kids. I think the photo was well done. They are a Family, not Baby Daddy and his Baby Momma and the kids of mixed mom/dad parentage.

    Honestly, I thought Kanye would make more people read my post because Kanye. Also, I liked the picture.

    • #10
  11. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Maybe because, regardless of what they do for a living, they are a Married Couple and all four children are their children. Those look like four happy kids. I think the photo was well done. They are a Family, not Baby Daddy and his Baby Momma and the kids of mixed mom/dad parentage.

    Honestly, I thought Kanye would make more people read my post because Kanye. Also, I liked the picture.

    I believe his conversion to be authentic and from the evidence of which I am aware (and I admit, it’s little), it seems they are both committed to each other and their children. This is a model the U.S. and the Black community in the U.S. particularly need to see more of. Refer also to Spencer Perkins’ comments about the decline of marriage among Americans of African Ancestry back in the 90s already. Or the Moynihan report. 

    • #11
  12. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Personally, I oppose feminism of every stripe — even women’s suffrage! ;-)

    Preach.

    • #12
  13. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    Henry Castaigne: Still, the book would be much improved if he include a few more pages (or maybe 15 minutes of audio) about how men have changed in their reaction to women because of pornography and how they will continue to change with the rise of sex robots. But what book could this not be said of?

    😂😂😂

    • #13
  14. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Maybe because, regardless of what they do for a living, they are a Married Couple and all four children are their children. Those look like four happy kids. I think the photo was well done. They are a Family, not Baby Daddy and his Baby Momma and the kids of mixed mom/dad parentage.

    Honestly, I thought Kanye would make more people read my post because Kanye. Also, I liked the picture.

    I think they are all gorgeous. The adults are total weirdos, of course, but their family is stop-in-your-tracks beautiful.

    • #14
  15. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai… (View Comment):

    I’m curious why the West family was chosen as the image to accompany this post.

    Short answer: because they’re a family. And it’s exceedingly rare in the world of celebrities and is becoming rare among us common folk.

    • #15
  16. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Personally, I oppose feminism of every stripe — even women’s suffrage! ;-)

    Preach.

    Short answer that deserves longer treatment: women’s suffrage has had the effect of putting women in contention with men — particularly the men they might be married to. It is a source of conflict between the sexes. My evil genius plan would be to have only married couples with skin in the game (children) be given the vote, and only one vote between them. They would have to agree and they would be more likely to vote in the long term interests of their children.

    Of course, first we’d have to eliminate no-fault divorce. . . 

    • #16
  17. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Personally, I oppose feminism of every stripe — even women’s suffrage! ;-)

    Preach.

    Short answer that deserves longer treatment: women’s suffrage has had the effect of putting women in contention with men — particularly the men they might be married to. It is a source of conflict between the sexes. My evil genius plan would be to have only married couples with skin in the game (children) be given the vote, and only one vote between them. They would have to agree and they would be more likely to vote in the long term interests of their children.

    Of course, first we’d have to eliminate no-fault divorce. . .

    I think sex robots to will be an easier fix.

     

    • #17
  18. dukenaltum Coolidge
    dukenaltum
    @dukenaltum

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Kephalithos (View Comment):

    I’m skeptical of sex robots. I can’t imagine why any male would want to . . . er, have relations with one. First, there’s the uncanny valley problem. Second, eew. Third . . . eew.

    I understand your concern with the sex robots that we have now. But what about when they look like this?

     

     

    All I see is a very large knife in the hands of an automaton that lacks a compatible moral world view. 

    • #18
  19. Ontheleftcoast Member
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Kephalithos (View Comment):

    I’m skeptical of sex robots. I can’t imagine why any male would want to . . . er, have relations with one. First, there’s the uncanny valley problem. Second, eew. Third . . . eew.

    Then there’s the expression “he’s so horny the crack of dawn had better watch out.” 

    And the expression “coyote ugly.” 

    There are no surprise pregnancies

    Oh, yeah. No rejections. Less drama.

    And:

    . . .one in four sexually-active adolescent females has an STD, such as chlamydia or human papillomavirus (HPV)

    . . .In 2018, among females aged 15–24 years, the [gonorrhea] rate was 627.0 cases per 100,000 females

    Chlamydia 2018 by age, race, sex

    Gonorrhea 2018 by age, race, sex

    Primary and Secondary Syphilis 2018 by age, race, sex

     

     

    • #19
  20. Ontheleftcoast Member
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Personally, I oppose feminism of every stripe — even women’s suffrage! ;-)

    Preach.

    Short answer that deserves longer treatment: women’s suffrage has had the effect of putting women in contention with men — particularly the men they might be married to. It is a source of conflict between the sexes. My evil genius plan would be to have only married couples with skin in the game (children) be given the vote, and only one vote between them. They would have to agree and they would be more likely to vote in the long term interests of their children.

    Of course, first we’d have to eliminate no-fault divorce. . .

    I think sex robots to will be an easier fix.

    The economic impact on family and divorce law could be epic.


    Kephalithos (View Comment)
    :

    I’m skeptical of sex robots. I can’t imagine why any male would want to . . . er, have relations with one. First, there’s the uncanny valley problem. Second, eew. Third . . . eew.

    Then there’s the expression “he’s so horny the crack of dawn had better watch out.” 

    And the expression “coyote ugly.” 

    And:

    . . .one in four sexually-active adolescent females has an STD, such as chlamydia or human papillomavirus (HPV)

    . . .In 2018, among females aged 15–24 years, the [gonorrhea] rate was 627.0 cases per 100,000 females

    Chlamydia 2018 by age, race, sex

    Gonorrhea 2018 by age, race, sex

    Syphilis 2018 by age, race, sex

     

    • #20
  21. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Hartmann von Aue (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Maybe because, regardless of what they do for a living, they are a Married Couple and all four children are their children. Those look like four happy kids. I think the photo was well done. They are a Family, not Baby Daddy and his Baby Momma and the kids of mixed mom/dad parentage.

    Honestly, I thought Kanye would make more people read my post because Kanye. Also, I liked the picture.

    I believe his conversion to be authentic and from the evidence of which I am aware (and I admit, it’s little), it seems they are both committed to each other and their children. This is a model the U.S. and the Black community in the U.S. particularly need to see more of. Refer also to Spencer Perkins’ comments about the decline of marriage among Americans of African Ancestry back in the 90s already. Or the Moynihan report.

    One of the things really surprising to me was around the time of his conversion, he was having issues with Kim over her modesty that was getting aired on their shows and being ridiculed by Hollywood media. It seems to me she chose to respect her husband over it. Nothing really came out that she was offended or a riff in the family… she seems to be compliant at the very least with his change and may even on board with it.

    if I were into reality tv, I’d watch the show to gain evidence of this impression, but she’s been rather surprising the last 4 years.

    • #21
  22. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    Henry Castaigne:

    the status of the family vs. post-modernism and feminism

    I was sort of thinking about this topic earlier today.

    However, I think some of the roots of the feminist movement or women empowerment movement go back further than many people think.

    About 10 or 15 years ago, I realized that a lot of the fathers in the neighborhood where I grew up had a lot less power in their families than I originally thought as a child.  My mother has been living in the same house and neighborhood since the 1960s.  My grandmother lived in this neighborhood about 20 to 25 years.  My grandfather and great-grandparents also lived in this neighborhood for a decade or very briefly.

    What I discovered about 10 or 15 years ago was that the mothers in the neighborhood where I grew up were the ones who had all or almost all the power.  The only exception were some of the women of my grandparents’ generation, and even then I would guess the women of this generation might have controlled the households 20% to 50% of the time.  You almost have to back to a generation born in the 1920s or before to find these people, and those folks have almost all completely passed away.  My great-grandparents were born in the 1890s, and my great-grandmother was the one who had control in that family even though my great-grandfather was a foot taller and probably had a lot more compassion and common sense.

    I see a lot of men on youtube from the manosphere who have completely given up on marriage and in some cases even Western civilization as dominated by feminists.  I think a lot of it has to do with the ugliness of divorce.  Many manosphere men, who are almost exclusively rather conservative, and who have gone through a divorce or seen their parents get divorced view all of the Bill Bennett books and Prager University videos promoting marriage as the craziest thing ever.  However, in the Scott Adams phrase of the two-viewscreen world that we all live in today, the conservatives who have not seen divorce close up still cling to past images of marriage providing instance stability.  Conservatives no longer believe that college loans for silly degrees provide instant stability, but 21st Century marriage in lawyer-soaked United States is almost the same situation.

    • #22
  23. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    The Cloaked Gaijin (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne:

    the status of the family vs. post-modernism and feminism

    I was sort of thinking about this topic earlier today.

    However, I think some of the roots of the feminist movement or women empowerment movement go back further than many people think.

    About 10 or 15 years ago, I realized that a lot of the fathers in the neighborhood where I grew up had a lot less power in their families than I originally thought as a child. My mother has been living in the same house and neighborhood since the 1960s. My grandmother lived in this neighborhood about 20 to 25 years. My grandfather and great-grandparents also lived in this neighborhood for a decade or very briefly.

    What I discovered about 10 or 15 years ago was that the mothers in the neighborhood where I grew up were the ones who had all or almost all the power. The only exception were some of the women of my grandparents’ generation, and even then I would guess the women of this generation might have controlled the households 20% to 50% of the time. You almost have to back to a generation born in the 1920s or before to find these people, and those folks have almost all completely passed away. My great-grandparents were born in the 1890s, and my great-grandmother was the one who had control in that family even though my great-grandfather was a foot taller and probably had a lot more compassion and common sense.

    I see a lot of men on youtube from the manosphere who have completely given up on marriage and in some cases even Western civilization as dominated by feminists. I think a lot of it has to do with the ugliness of divorce. Many manosphere men, who are almost exclusively rather conservative, and who have gone through a divorce or seen their parents get divorced view all of the Bill Bennett books and Prager University videos promoting marriage as the craziest thing ever. However, in the Scott Adams phrase of the two-viewscreen world that we all live in today, the conservatives who have not seen divorce close up still cling to past images of marriage providing instance stability. Conservatives no longer believe that college loans for silly degrees provide instant stability, but 21st Century marriage in lawyer-soaked United States is almost the same situation.

    Marriage isn’t the problem. Feminists and their enablers are. Traditional marriages among Catholics with big families and weekly (if not daily) church attendance are 99% solid. It helps if people have a clear understanding of what marriage is — and isn’t (like between two people of the same sex). Feminism and the culture generally are not helpful in this regard.

    • #23
  24. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    dukenaltum (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Kephalithos (View Comment):

    I’m skeptical of sex robots. I can’t imagine why any male would want to . . . er, have relations with one. First, there’s the uncanny valley problem. Second, eew. Third . . . eew.

    I understand your concern with the sex robots that we have now. But what about when they look like this?

    All I see is a very large knife in the hands of an automaton that lacks a compatible moral world view.

    That is what is so hot. Also, her world view is compatible if you believe in Nietzsche.

    • #24
  25. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    The Cloaked Gaijin (View Comment):
    What I discovered about 10 or 15 years ago was that the mothers in the neighborhood where I grew up were the ones who had all or almost all the power. The only exception were some of the women of my grandparents’ generation, and even then I would guess the women of this generation might have controlled the households 20% to 50% of the time. You almost have to back to a generation born in the 1920s or before to find these people, and those folks have almost all completely passed away. My great-grandparents were born in the 1890s, and my great-grandmother was the one who had control in that family even though my great-grandfather was a foot taller and probably had a lot more compassion and common sense.

    I agree with this, but not your conclusion about marriage. Somewhere along the way I think the church became feminized. I actually think that phenomenon affects the Protestant church more than the Catholic Church and I don’t know why. It came with it softened hymns that morph into soft worship songs, men reluctant to participate in church, and Jesus, the Compassionate and never Jesus, the Truth that divides like a Sword.

    Maybe I’m conflating frontier American Christianity with all of western Christianity. Maybe this is distinctly American.

    • #25
  26. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    Ontheleftcoast

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Personally, I oppose feminism of every stripe — even women’s suffrage! ;-)

    Preach.

    Short answer that deserves longer treatment: women’s suffrage has had the effect of putting women in contention with men — particularly the men they might be married to. It is a source of conflict between the sexes. My evil genius plan would be to have only married couples with skin in the game (children) be given the vote, and only one vote between them. They would have to agree and they would be more likely to vote in the long term interests of their children.

    Of course, first we’d have to eliminate no-fault divorce. . .

    I think sex robots to will be an easier fix.

    The economic impact on family and divorce law could be epic.

    I don’t think so. Most divorces are initiated by women. Women (so far) aren’t all that interested in sex robots. I think it might reduce divorces because men could be sexually satisfied without having to have a fight with their wives. 

    • #26
  27. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

    Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai… (View Comment):

    I’m curious why the West family was chosen as the image to accompany this post.

    Seriously. I saw the pic and decided to not read the post.

    I think the West family is a great choice for this post. First of all, they seem to be sincerely trying to practice and model the best of traditional family behaviors, for all people but especially for the black community. I think Mr and Mrs West are celebrities who recognize that celebrities  have more of an obligation to work at being examples of what they know is good because they have more influence, whether or not they want more influence.
    Secondly,  we’re all more receptive to a message, whatever it is, while beholding beauty. And those little people of theirs are absolutely gorgeous. (The parents are two very good looking people. But they don’t hold a candle to their kids.) I love the way they used grey and white to put more focus on how alike yet different from each other their faces are. I love the picture.

    Great post, Henry Castaigne.
    I clicked on the link and found myself astonished that more people at the time didn’t stand up to Betty Friedan, and call her a self absorbed, hysterical Jenny ass who was trivializing the Holocaust and showing herself insultingly blind  to the survivors of it when she wrote this….

    ”Women who ‘adjust’ as housewives, who grow up wanting to be ‘just a housewife’ are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps—-and the millions more who refused to believe that the concentration camps existed.”

    Shame on us for not tearing that apart on a couple of  different grounds.

    Ironically, the manners of the time probably had a lot to do with why there wasn’t more pushback on Friedan’s lunacy. You simply couldn’t tell a woman—-especially a homely woman who happened to be Jewish—-that however unhappy she needed to imagine Western women were, it was wrong to compare them to Holocaust victims and survivors. It was wrong to compare them to people who were being increasingly persecuted, attacked and murdered prior to being  transported to death camps.  And you absolutely couldn’t say anything like that to her without coming across to others as a bully if you were male.

    • #27
  28. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Ansonia (View Comment):
    Shame on us for not tearing that apart on a couple of different grounds.

    And allowing millions of women, men, and children to be immiserated by her noxious ideas.

    • #28
  29. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    dukenaltum (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Kephalithos (View Comment):

    I’m skeptical of sex robots. I can’t imagine why any male would want to . . . er, have relations with one. First, there’s the uncanny valley problem. Second, eew. Third . . . eew.

    I understand your concern with the sex robots that we have now. But what about when they look like this?

     

     

    All I see is a very large knife in the hands of an automaton that lacks a compatible moral world view.

    How about Cordelia with a sword?  Definitely not an automaton!

    • #29
  30. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    Ontheleftcoast

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Personally, I oppose feminism of every stripe — even women’s suffrage! ;-)

    Preach.

    Short answer that deserves longer treatment: women’s suffrage has had the effect of putting women in contention with men — particularly the men they might be married to. It is a source of conflict between the sexes. My evil genius plan would be to have only married couples with skin in the game (children) be given the vote, and only one vote between them. They would have to agree and they would be more likely to vote in the long term interests of their children.

    Of course, first we’d have to eliminate no-fault divorce. . .

    I think sex robots to will be an easier fix.

    The economic impact on family and divorce law could be epic.

    I don’t think so. Most divorces are initiated by women. Women (so far) aren’t all that interested in sex robots. I think it might reduce divorces because men could be sexually satisfied without having to have a fight with their wives.

    You think that women wouldn’t resent being “cheated on” with machines?

    • #30