A Friendly Disagreement With Naomi Schaefer-Riley

Part two of three.

I like Naomi Schaefer-Riley and she is on my list of Ann Coulter-types, but I disagree with a few points she makes in her article, “Where have all the gentlemen gone?” nypost.com. September 7, 2014.

Schaefer-Riley's one-sided article criticizing men is exactly like the countless thousands of articles that appear in the Feminist Media. It puzzles me how someone can write about one of just two sexes and somehow completely overlook the other sex. Especially when Schaefer-Riley knows full-well that men already take a staggering amount of criticism compared to women.

Her criticism of men is valid, but nowhere in her article does she so much as perfunctorily note that women aren't perfect either. When, in fact, there is plenty of room to criticize women and their behavior.

“Are there any gentlemen left out there?” she asks. Yes, as Ann Coulter points out, there are millions, if not tens of millions, of good men in our country. A much more pressing question is, are there any full-grown adult ladies out there? There are, statistically, zero Ann Coulter-types in this country.

Schaefer-Riley writes, “Maybe there was an advantage to having women teach men how to behave at a younger age. Fatherhood, which tends to make men kinder and a little more aware that they are not the center of the universe, has been delayed as well. Now the man-child stage can last well into a guy's 40s.”

The condescension in that paragraph is enough to make the likes of Ann Coulter do a spit-take. “Center of the universe” compared to whom? Some men might be self-centered compared to other men, but when comparing the two sexes, women are much more self-centered than men.

For just one example, men risk sacrificing their lives for complete strangers. Don't tell me feminists sacrifice as mothers. Feminists bitterly complain about the role and responsibilities of motherhood. Their hatred for motherhood explains why they like abortion so much and why they would like to separate babies from their parents. (See entry “Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism Part 4”.)

And, she should have written “parenthood for both sexes” instead of “fatherhood” -- unless she believes women achieve perfect maturity by the time they're 18-years-old. Why doesn't anybody ever say that women also do a lot of maturing and learning after becoming parents? Because to say women need to mature and learn, implies that they weren't perfect in the first place. Feminists want us to believe that women can't be criticized because women are perfect.

What about the woman-child stage? Knowing that there are only two sexes, I think whenever someone uses a sex-specific phrase such as “man-child”, it screams out for at least a quick look into the possibility of a matching “woman-child” phenomenon. Does she not find rich, well-fed feminists constantly complaining about “oppression” childish? If your own kids took that same lousy attitude and complained as much as feminists complain, you would send them to their rooms.

Schaefer-Riley writes, “On college campuses, there is currently an official campaign now called 'bystander intervention' that asks young men to step in if they suspect their friends are going to sexually assault a woman. Is this something that men needed to be told 50 years ago?”

Of course not, that was before feminists, liberals, and socialists started abolishing morality, virtue, womanhood, and manhood.

What we really need is bystander intervention for women so that they step in if they see feminist women are going to deceive, manipulate, and mistreat men. We need women to use their biggest weapon, their mouths. Why can't women stand up for men for once?

Schaefer-Riley writes, “What we don't tell boys is to respect girls.” We don't tell girls to respect boys, either. In fact, in the feminist culture we live in, women have been taught since birth to complain about everything.

There is nothing more disrespectful to men than for feminist women to complain about nonsense such as “oppression.” But feminists oppose teaching two-way respect because it borders on character which is adjacent to virtue, which in turn comes close to Judeo-Christian morality. Feminism is the absence of morality. Feminists want one-way legal moralism. Feminists want men to have more respect for women, but feel there is no need for any improvement among women because women are already perfect.

Schaefer-Riley writes, “It's gotten so bad that a group called the Network of enlightened Women (NeW), founded by Karin Agness, hosts an annual 'Gentlemen's Showcase,' a nationwide contest to identify and honor college gentlemen. Just to encourage such behavior.”

Here, Schaefer-Riley completely misses the tectonic cultural point. It is not at all remarkable that there are gentlemen to honor – we still have millions, if not tens of millions, of good men in this country – sociologically, what is truly remarkable is that there are any ladies remaining in our country to honor them.

Doesn't she understand that men need encouragement too? After feminists have done nothing but tear down men the past several decades, I'm not exaggerating when I say I didn't think I would live to see the day when an organized group of women would put effort into showing respect toward men by honoring us in any way.

Schaefer-Riley notes some problems in the culture and asks, “But is there a way to escape this kind of sliminess in one's own life?” Yes, but it requires women to help fight the “war at home” against feminism.

What did she expect would happen? When the female half of the adult population, plus half of the adult male population that is left of center, either fails to take a stand for a virtuous culture – or is outright hostile toward it – then the culture will be abolished. You cannot escape the problem by ignoring it. Socialist, liberal, and radical feminists have every intention of bringing sliminess into every facet of your life.

(Almost) all of Schaefer-Riley's articles are really, really great and she has criticized the excesses of feminism in the past. I needed to criticize this one, but I won't hold it against her. You should start reading through her entire archive of articles.