It’s been several decades since the “war between the sexes” was a term in wide use. The feminist movement and the radical femi-nazis did not name it, start it, advanced it, and certainly did not explain or clarify it.
The “war between the sexes” did not start with the stupid sex advice columns in Cosmopolitan or Playboy, or the idiotic women’s studies courses in college. It did not start with The Pill and the sexual revolution that allowed women to be just as immoral about sex as men. It did not start with frat boys and panty raids, or college girls who did not want a BA or BS, just the Mrs. Although it was the major staple of television shows in the 1950s and 60s, it did not start with “The Honeymooners,” or “I love Lucy” or “Ozzie and Harriet,” or even the “Donna Reid Show,” all of which relied on showing off men — men of some stature and achievement such as a doctor, a successful entertainer, or even “just” a bus driver — to be imbeciles who had to be manipulated into being a decent human being by a wily scheming conniving but loving wife. It did not start with Tracy & Hepburn and all the other such movies in the 1940s and 30s. It did not start with that line in the English version of the operetta “The Merry Widow,” in which a womanizing character sings, “he who loves and runs away, lives to love another day.” It didn’t even start with shotgun weddings (but Johnny, you HAVE to marry me, I am pregnant!). Thanks to my wife’s love of romantic literature, I can trace it back at least to Jane Austen, whose novels challenged the English aristocracy’s assumptions on marriageability and eligibility.
While we derived a lot of entertainment and myrth from the treatment of this topic in school and the media, while it is too much fun getting lost in the morass of marginally relevant or totally irrelevant details, as a serious exploration and clarification of the issues they all fell seriously short, because none bothered to get down to simple, essential fundamentals.
Men and women are different. We are different for a reason, and that reason is biology, out of which derive other important psychological, philosophical and even political differences, which in turn explain (but do not excuse or even justify) the rage of the feminists.
Over the years I have found only two authors who bothered to think things through and explain this intelligently and comprehensibly. One is Elaine Morgan and her book, “The Descent of Woman.” The other one is Ayn Rand, in “The Fountainhead” and in her numerous nonfiction writings.
Biology defines us as male and female. Ours happens to be just about the only mammalian species that is always “in heat,” that is, sexually driven, available, accessible and fertile practically at all times. But there is a fly in the ointment. Biology decrees that only women get pregnant, only women have babies. Biology also allows men to flit like butterflies from flower to flower and have sex with and “knock up” any number of women, leaving them in their rather precarious condition.
Biology thus leads to further differences between men and women. Men compete against other men for access to desirable women, and women compete against each other for the attentions of desirable men. In the man, competition fosters a psychology, philosophy and politics that in America became known as “rugged individualism;” one man against all the others. But for a woman, pregnancy and motherhood are both long term, all-consuming conditions. Therefore she has to look for security and support, for herself and her baby; she has to make sure her man stays with her and provides for her in her times of need — and her most obvious tool is sex and affection. Indeed this is the biological foundation of civilization. This is also the source of her biologically based predisposition to the psychology, philosophy and politics of dependency. No, she cannot “do it all” alone, and she knows it. She needs help, in the short term as a pregnant wife and in the long term as a mother. If her man is NOT there to help her, or if his help is not adequate, then her dependency will lead her to embrace the welfare state and even such an evil political philosophy as socialism, in either of which government fulfills the rudimentary job function of a husband. Of course the institutionalization of the concept of “husband” only leads to the further destruction of families, traditional family values, and the very concept of “family” itself, which is perfectly fine by the social engineers who view 1984, Animal Farm and Brave New World as blueprints for what they see as a desirable utopia, not as desperate warnings of a nightmarish future logically derived from current cultural and political trends.
This refusal to analyze and understand simple fundamentals is what makes the feminists so incomprehensible. Men did not decide that males shall be bigger and stronger than females, or that sex is something a male does TO a female. Biology assigned to us our different roles. We can discuss and argue over the practical economic, sociological and political consequences, but we will not derive anything useful from that discussion if we do not respect the nature of our differences and interdependencies. Men may be prone to be tilting at windmills and doing many other such stupid things, both in trying to live up to their responsibilities and in trying to avoid them, but feminists are raging at nature and nature’s God. There is nothing more irrational than that.