There's a fascinating article at the Los Angeles Times about a cultural shift amongst Iran's educated women. It seems that Western norms are taking hold amongst this group, leading to a declining marriage and birth rate in that country, as well as a higher divorce rate.
The article claims that the Iranian women are "liberated" but are held back by the men being too "traditional". But when you read through the interviews with these educated Iranian women a certain picture emerges. These women want things on their own terms. If the husband works too long hours, then they want a freedom to divorce him. But the husband has to accept it if she works long hours. They want a freedom to sleep around as they wish when young, but dislike it when they hit their 30s and want to marry and only meet men who want to sleep with them. An Iranian man in the comments also points out that they claim to want to be independent, but refuse to use their own earnings to contribute to household finances - they are suddenly traditional when it comes to men being the breadwinners.
I think it's evidence of just how easily a society can fall into a culture that is hostile to stable family formation.
I know a traditional family from the middle East. The man worked his whole life supporting his wife and children.
ReplyDeleteHis wife never worked.
When they (he) retired, they both got the pension.
He's still expected to pay all the bills and she can use 'her' money on herself.
The result? He needed new glasses and had to save for 6 months to afford them, whilst she's been back to their country of origin (by herself) every couple of years.
It's actually in the Koran that a man must be the bread winner and any money a woman makes is hers.
Interesting. This is one way that women in the Middle-East are privileged relative to men. The Iranian man who made a comment to the story I linked to made the same complaint that many men make about Western feminism - that feminists want to retain traditional privileges whilst at the same time asserting equality where it suits them.
Delete"I think it's evidence of just how easily a society can fall into a culture that is hostile to stable family formation."
ReplyDeleteThat may well be the case, but the bigger message here may also simply be that woman are the same, everywhere and at all times. Men must control and restrain them, or face his own demise.
In Sweden, we went all the way in giving women what they said that they wanted. The result is that they hate and despise the local men and are doing everything to eliminate us. And they are winning!
Heed our warning or follow our path.....
Yes, it's a harsh lesson but it seems to be what modernity is showing us to be true. If we want our own civilisation to endure, then we as men have to apply a frame to society that keeps family life going.
Delete" If we want our own civilisation to endure, then we as men have to apply a frame to society that keeps family life going."
DeleteI agree! But how?
I moved to Switzerland many years ago. A big reason for this was that is was the least feminized place that I could find in the West. And it has been great! However, I now see the same things happening here that took place in Sweden 20-40 years ago. Nobody really cares, but if you have seen it before, it is a different story...
It just seems unstoppable, once women have the vote and free access to higher education. Woman in Switzerland only got the vote around 1970 and that has a lot to do with the country being the least affected by PC madness. But the young ladies going to universities now are copies of their sisters in Sweden around 1990. We all know what came out of that....
EuroSwede, I've been thinking a bit more about the Iran situation. What's noteworthy is that Iran does not even have a feminist establishment. All that it really took for educated women to start living a sex in the city lifestyle was access to higher education and jobs and the anonymity of city life. So restoring the stability of family life will be difficult. Overthrowing liberalism as a state ideology won't be enough by itself. One of the problems, perhaps, is that women get power in the sexual marketplace early on, in their formative years. They get much attention from men and this encourages a mindset that they can play the field in the knowledge that there will always be another man along. It is not difficult, in other words, to be a female player. This erodes the instinct to committed love, in which a person reserves something of themselves for the one that they will marry. Traditional societies seemed to know about this and so took measures to prevent young women from starting out on the player road. For instance, men could not simply approach a woman in a bar or on the street but needed an introduction to the family - meaning that the parents needed to be impressed as well as the daughter. Women tended to live at home prior to marriage which helped as well. A woman's reputation mattered and if she wanted to retain her class status she needed to preserve this reputation.
DeleteI don't know if such traditions can be applied anymore. For instance, the old calling card system is difficult in a world of online social media. But I do think that the player road has to be closed off, simply because it is too easy a road for women to take and because it sets off a shift in a woman's mentality that harms her ability to pair bond and to appreciate marital and familial love.
"What's noteworthy is that Iran does not even have a feminist establishment. All that it really took for educated women to start living a sex in the city lifestyle was access to higher education and jobs and the anonymity of city life."
DeleteYes! I have also read a bit about Iran, just because of this. To me, this case indicate that organised feminism is just one of many symptoms of a lager, underlying problem.
Access to higher education for women stands out as a sure way to break down society. But to stop this via some form of democratic process seems impossible. Furthermore, I am supporting my daughter in going to Med School, one of the longest educations.
Maybe I am just weak, but I really can not see that there are any realistic alternatives. So even if I think that higher education for women is harmful in general, I will still support it in the one case where I have some meaningful influence. It is a depressing paradox.
Something like the Amish may be the only real way forward. Now, I know that sounds extreme but I am not saying that we have to go all the way. But creating separate groups that live in a traditional way seems far more realistic that getting whole countries to change. Any such groups would then gradually become more influential over time, since they would have many more kids.
Yes! I have also read a bit about Iran, just because of this. To me, this case indicate that organised feminism is just one of many symptoms of a lager, underlying problem.
DeleteYep. Organised second wave feminism was pretty insignificant until the 1970s. By that time western society was already far down the road to ruin. The 1950s was not a golden age of stability - it was an age of radical and catastrophic social change.
I've mentioned this topic before in your comments, Mark. Feminism is like a virus, really. It distorts the behaviour of the organism.
ReplyDeleteThere's a man I know in Iran; he is a surgeon and he gets paid a lot. His wife has her own eye surgery and is also very wealthy. Of course he has to pay for everything, multiple homes included (she is still not satisfied with multiple homes). They only have one child ofc. The wife is, to put it bluntly, an insufferable selfish bitch, but being a man of weak spirit the husband does nothing about her behaviour. It's a sad state of affairs.
His mother lived a more traditional life - staying at home to manage children (4) while the father worked away from home in a mine. Feminists like to talk about role reversal, but you can you just imagine it? The wife leaves for weeks at a time to work in a mine while the husband stays home and spends a lot of time bonding with and providing instruction for the children (how does one even get to that point with 4 children)... Honestly, they don't want that; they want role dysfunction. They want what they want and screw society...
Honestly, they don't want that; they want role dysfunction. They want what they want and screw society...
DeleteI wrote a post ten years ago about the writer Lionel Shriver. She felt torn between two paths: the path she had taken which she recognised was a civilizational dead-end, or the more traditional path which allowed a future.
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com.au/2006/02/no-future-clause.html
Iran has, for at least a decade, had a fertility rate of 1.3 child/woman, as low as Italy.
ReplyDeleteFor historic reasons, it is an outlier in the Middle East with cultural affinity to the West.
There is a very sharp rural/urban divide in the culture. Even more so than in the US. The traditional life of a countryside peasant is unrecognized make to the Tehran cosmopolitans.
Perhaps living in cities, as anonymous autonomous economic units, makes us more likely to try to shed traditions or meaningful family roles.
It's an important reminder that liberalism is the enemy of all civilisations.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately it really is impossible to do anything about this in a democracy. Democracy is civilisational poison. The things that need to be done cannot be done.
I'm inclined to think that democracy is heading towards collapse. The globalists and SJWs hate democracy and many on the more conservative side are starting to recognise its evils as well. The only question is, when the you-know-what hits the fan will we end up with a globalist/SJW totalitarianism or an old-fashioned authoritarian dictatorship. The former seems more likely at the moment but if things get really bad anything is possible.
As to what needs to be done, one obvious step is that abortion needs to be outlawed and contraception needs to be restricted to married women. Once you have sex without consequences society is in trouble. The Pill has played a major role in destroying society. Single parents' benefits should only be paid to widows or married women who have actually been deserted. No fault divorce should be scrapped. All government child support payments should be restricted to married couples - actual married couples, not de facto relationships.
The things that need to be done are really very simple. It's just that they're impossible in a democracy.
That's why the Chinese are very wise to resist democracy.