1720. Respect: Lost and Restorable Only by Women


Her Highness Denise asked a question that I didn’t answer. I hope to recover now. At post 1612 she asked why people are not as they were ‘way back then’ when unconditional respect existed between the sexes. Referring to the present, she asks, “What exactly led to people disrespecting themselves and one another?”

It began a century ago but intensified over the last half-century. Americans have been purposely fractionated by friends of Big Government and enemies of private property, family as primary social unit, religion, Judeo-Christian values, capitalism, energy independence, economic prosperity, peacefulness in society, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and every other value that unified us as uniquely American. Revolutionaries, radicals, feminists and leftist followers developed and spread a multitude of political movements designed to dis-unify Americans so that governments could grow with little or no effective supervision by We the People. One such movement, Feminism, aimed to split men and women, and it worked.

Advocates and followers picked up the feminist torch, ignited their imaginations, and found innumerable ways that men are no darned good. Treat anyone as no darned good and you produce two effects. You lose respect for them, and they lose respect for you.

Joining up with other radicals, feminists spread their opinions universally, and men responded with diminished respect of women generally and less respect for individuals that advocate the feminist spirit. When men lack respect for the female gender, male dominance instinctively magnifies its intensity and enhances patriarchy, which further weakens unconditional respect of one sex for the other.

The consequence of Feminism now stirs families in many wrong ways. Because of shortcomings in wifely respect, husbands react by dominating the home. From lack of husbandly respect, wives suffer loss of the natural order of mating up. They lose the privilege/power/ability of ruling the rooster. Wives fight back with in-his-face directness that exhibits even less respect. They seek to restore their natural role of dominating the home, but mutual respect sinks further, separation or divorce follows, and mutual respect of the genders weakens still further.

The consequence of Feminism also makes single women suffer under the unpredictability/undependability/irresponsibility of men scorned so long by the feminist fever.

Once on the downhill slide, respect between the sexes worsens because of this natural phenomenon. Individuals question their own self-respect when they receive less respect from the other sex than they think they deserve. As self-respect declines, the ability to show respect for others follows. Peering at one step beyond individuals, inter-gender respect also declines and in reaction further erodes unconditional respect between individuals.

We’ve been conditioned this way. There’s no end to how we unwittingly or voluntarily fractionalize ourselves and divide society into antagonistic groups. All done in the name of democracy, compassion, or whatever, we learn that other Americans are too different to be respected unconditionally. We learn to find some reason to dislike or not respect others in some way or another.

Another natural phenomenon exacerbates the process: We respect those in our group more than those outside it. When the American motto of e pluribus unum prevailed—out of many, one—the importance of interest groupings were minimized. We were all Americans and unconditional respect of others flooded society.

Now, revolutionaries, radicals, and political activists have killed e pluribus unum, aka the Melting Pot, and we identify ourselves not as Americans but as belonging to various groups in competition with others. Such as, Black vs. White vs. Hispanic vs. Native Americans vs. Asians, taxed vs. untaxed, environmentalists vs. wealth creators,  poor vs. rich, citizens vs. non-citizens, hunters vs. anti-gunners, farmers vs. environmentalists, children vs. adults, blue collar vs. white collar, Protestant denominations vs. each other, Catholics vs. Protestants, Other Christians vs. Mormons, globalists vs. nationalists, union spending vs. dues-payer interests, anarchist gangs vs. civilized order, lawyers vs. tort reformers, ethnic groups vs. each other, politicians vs. free speech, teachers vs. parents, judicial activism vs. We the People who know better, commuters vs. rapid transit advocates, conscience-bound vs. those who aren’t, religious vs. secularists, Congress vs. the public, bureaucrats vs. threats to government power, professors vs. students that disagree, husbands vs. wives that expect better masculine responsibility, administrators vs. teachers, girls that put out vs. those that won’t, wives vs. women luring husbands for sex. The list never ends, because the political class finds usefulness in pitting one group against another.

Many of those competitions rise naturally, but unfortunately for America’s future, all are exploited by the power-seeking political class plus others they can stir to rely on emotions rather than logic, reason, truth, and common sense.

This summarizes the big picture. The American Trinity*—Liberty, In God We Trust, and e pluribus unum—are purposely being made to fade away by anti-American movements such as Feminism, multiculturalism, and many other -isms. We lack unconditional respect for one another, because e pluribus unum has been effectively destroyed. We’re losing In God We Trust that helps reassure us that other Americans are good people. We’re losing our liberty that’s so vital for unifying We the People and making government work for us. Thus, unconditional respect for fellow Americans has been vaporized by purposeful radicals, opportunistic mavericks, and follow-the-crowd activists that seek to change the fundamental structure of the American political system.

The political malignancy induced by Feminism and radical leftism is deeper and now spreads faster than we suspect. UnAmerican values metastasize and eat away unconditional respect, which keeps Americans divided. It will continue until we elect new representatives who then hire new administrators that also seek to restore America as we knew it growing up, that seek to fill the gaps of diminished self-respect and respect for others, that seek to restore unconditional female respect of men who will respond by restoring unconditional male respect of women.

It will all continue until Womanhood rises against it.

As women go, so goes society. Only women have the interest, energy to fight, and common sense to defeat the multitude of political movements that seek to destroy America as we once knew it. Men don’t naturally need morality, and so they aren’t as likely to strenuously defend it as women can and do. Only women need and, therefore, only they can restore the female-defending, character-building, and respect-earning morality of earlier America. The kind of morality they wish for men so that husbands and children interface with a respected wife and mother.

That’s how people came to disrespecting themselves and one another, and that’s why women can and should lead the way to fixing it.

*Dennis Prager coined the term. American Trinity stands for Liberty, In God We Trust, and e pluribus unum, all of which appear on the penny.

—————————

P.S. To paraphrase Blaise Pascal in 1657, I did not have enough time to shorten it.

Guy

About these ads

7 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics, Uncategorized

7 Responses to 1720. Respect: Lost and Restorable Only by Women

  1. Zipporah

    Thank You Sir Guy: it IS about respect…I think young girls may catch on

  2. Femmy

    Great Essay, Sir Guy

    Femmy

  3. Grateful Reader

    A brilliant and inspiring post. I wish all men cared as deeply as you do about the state of families and our society.

    I would like your insights, Guy, on a particular situation. What are your views on a man who lacks basic manners when it comes to protecting women/women’s safety?

    I cite a recent example that I experienced, which involved a man, “George”, who was out socially with a group of friends from church, both male and female, diverse in age, who had met downtown for drinks and a casual dinner. It was a fun evening filled with laughter and friendly chatter. All in the group had travelled in for the meal, some by car and others by public transport. It was late at night when the group began dispersing (close to midnight), and one member of the group, a lovely elderly lady with a mobility (walking) problems who had driven in for the dinner and left her car in a parking garage a couple of blocks away. George was the only man who remained at this point (the others had already gone home). Two of the ladies, “Pam” and “Sue” got up to leave hurriedly so as to not miss the last train home. Cindy and George, the only remaining ones, also started to get ready to leave. Pam, turned to George on the way to the door and said with a smile “You will walk Cindy to her car and make sure she gets there safely?” George said no, he couldn’t, he was in a hurry (although his train was later than the girls’ train and he had plenty of time to get to the station). Pam and Sue immediately looked at each other and then Pam turned to George and said, “We will walk Cindy to her car.” Pam and Sue had to run in order to get their train after seeing Cindy safely to her car in the dark parking garage.

    Afterwards, Pam said to Sue, “Thank God I mentioned that to George — if we had left assuming he would tend to Cindy’s safety, he would have left her there in the restaurant.”

    I had a high opinion of George before this incident but I am now very troubled by what happened. In fact, I am a little bit shocked. My views about George have changed considerably since this incident. In fact, I am now angry at him although I plan to say nothing about it ever again. Is this an ungentlemanly man who has no respect for women or am I being too overly sensitive? George is not young and naiive. He is a highly educated, charming, sophisticated, successful professional man in his fifties who has known Cindy for a long time, and is aware of her health problems.

    Your Highness Grateful Reader,

    Welcome aboard. It’s a great day when another pretty woman joins us on this cruise to WhatWomenNeverHear.

    You describe George such that his behavior appears irrational for the situation, which means you all weren’t in tune with his agenda. Obviously, he was in a hurry but for what? Booty waiting? A few drinks before train time? Prostitute visit? But you all have probably already figured that out.

    If he’s questioned, I doubt you’ll get an accurate answer, so your intention to remain silent appears best. From your description of him and your group, he should read a lot of negative vibes in the future, but there’s no way of telling how he will react.

    Until he proves otherwise, assume the worst, believe the best, and forgive the rest.

    Guy

  4. Thanks for this post Guy. The connection between our deference to God and our common trust in Him, and our unconditional respect for one another was particularly striking to me. A belief in our mutual standing as creations of God, made in the image of God, prevents our complete dismissal of the other and enables genuine societal transformation where society fails to treat people as God created them to be treated.

  5. I read this and thought of you — Some Basic Thoughts on Manhood: Confidence and Fear”. I think it is something WWNH.

    Your Highness Kathy,
    Thanks, it’s a good article. The author identifies their differences this way: She has to get everything done. He has to get everything right. Good summation.
    Guy

  6. sparrow

    This is a really insightful article, but there is next to no “Judeo-Christian tradition.” The two religions take very different approaches to most things, including values.

    Your Highness Sparrow,

    Welcome aboard. It’s a great day when another pretty woman joins us on this cruise to WhatWomenNeverHear.

    It seems that you misunderstand development of the American culture. Of course the two religions have different values. That’s why the term is hyphenated.

    As America developed until the opening of the 20th Century, two religious subcultures morphed into one culture for the purpose of the people governing themselves. Moreover, the two male-dominated religions morphed compatibly into the female dominated Judeo-Christian culture. In earlier days, men dominated society and the workplace and women dominated home and development of the culture. For example, men may have settled the West out of their ambitions, but their wives civilized it with female-friendly values.

    You’re right, however, to call it a tradition (or heritage). It’s past. The decency, pleasantness, and unifying solidarity of the most unique culture ever developed by mankind is under attack and dissolution. But that’s another story.

    Guy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s