Postwar conservatism emerged from three general strands of thought: libertarianism, traditionalism, and anti-communism, which formed the “three-legged stool” of conservatism. Political scientist and FUSION contributor George Hawley wrote in Right Wing Critics of American Conservatism, “Without knowing any context, there is no a priori reason one would infer that these three attributes are correlated with each other, or even that they are necessarily right wing.”
Let's get some finer granularity here. Traditionalism and anti-communism are obviously right wing. That leaves only libertarianism with a questionable status. Likewise, traditionalism and anti-communism will generally correlate with each other, and the only question is whether libertarianism somehow correlates with traditionalism (although it would seem that all libertarians would be anti-communist, right?)
So, the three-legged stool arose because there is a strong relationship binding traditionalism to anti-communism, and both are right wing; and there is a strong bond of libertarianism to anti-communism, although libertarianism is not right wing. The glue holding the three pieces together was anti-communism. When the external communist threat disappeared, the glue disappeared.
What needs to be realized today is that woke leftism is the internal form of the previously external threat of communism. The new three-legged stool is thus traditionalism, anti-wokism/anti-domestic-leftism, and libertarianism. Traditionalists and libertarians should settle their differences after the existential threat of domestic leftism/wokism is vanquished.
You cannot make the leap to a post-conservative movement that jettisons the libertarians and GOP establishment types before you vanquish the existential threat. Today's "post-conservatives" have allowed their animosity towards these groups to drive a premature wedge between them. I have plenty of differences with libertarians, free trade purists, et al. They pale in comparison to my differences with the woke Left.
When I saw "female neediness," I thought it would be about the female drive to make everyone around her change for her. On the small scale, the need to have all of her quibbles addressed. Writ large,changing the office or culture to accomodate women, enforced by female HR.
The observations in the article, "How Feminism Ends," are common sense. The surprising thing is that social observers should be so slow to acknowledge the toxic effects of feminism.
This inability to see the obvious can be traced to a string of modern events.
One of the ironies of the current situation, it should be noted, is that women only hold positions of authority in society today because men permitted it. Women may feel that they won this authority, but if men a century ago (or today), said "no," that would have been the end of it. However, as they practically and sensibly pursued their everyday tasks, men have never given much thought to the proper roles of men and women. The earlier societal structure worked and was taken for granted.
Then when technological progress began to enable women to undertake the same tasks as men, and women began to agitate for the franchise and access to male occupations, men, again not thinking too much of the consequences, were inclined to acquiesce. After all, they (men) did these jobs, so why not (many thought) let the women do the same. Bad mistake. The orders of creation in the Bible, plus many other scriptural injunctions, make it clear that authority in the household and society is the province of men. The capacity of a person to undertake a task is not the only consideration. The legitimacy and standing of the person doing it is also important. A student in a classroom may have more intellectual prowess than his math teacher but should he then assume control in the class and replace his teacher? Hardly. I would assert that the role reversals we are now witnessing in society are just as bad. As Christian influence in society has waned, evil tendencies, including a Jezebel-like spirit influencing women, took its place, and women began to assume many places in society for which they were ill-suited.
With women holding the franchise and the upper hand in many of our institutions, including the media, only a positive narrative of feminism is permitted. The control is so strong that everyone, even men who should know better, just trudge through their daily affairs, and are unable to see a way out.
Thankfully, there are finally some signs of a growing awareness of this problem. Is it too optimistic that one day the yoke of feminism might be cast off? Feminism has ravaged the lives of countless men, women, and their families.
Your article in Fusion begins:
Postwar conservatism emerged from three general strands of thought: libertarianism, traditionalism, and anti-communism, which formed the “three-legged stool” of conservatism. Political scientist and FUSION contributor George Hawley wrote in Right Wing Critics of American Conservatism, “Without knowing any context, there is no a priori reason one would infer that these three attributes are correlated with each other, or even that they are necessarily right wing.”
Let's get some finer granularity here. Traditionalism and anti-communism are obviously right wing. That leaves only libertarianism with a questionable status. Likewise, traditionalism and anti-communism will generally correlate with each other, and the only question is whether libertarianism somehow correlates with traditionalism (although it would seem that all libertarians would be anti-communist, right?)
So, the three-legged stool arose because there is a strong relationship binding traditionalism to anti-communism, and both are right wing; and there is a strong bond of libertarianism to anti-communism, although libertarianism is not right wing. The glue holding the three pieces together was anti-communism. When the external communist threat disappeared, the glue disappeared.
What needs to be realized today is that woke leftism is the internal form of the previously external threat of communism. The new three-legged stool is thus traditionalism, anti-wokism/anti-domestic-leftism, and libertarianism. Traditionalists and libertarians should settle their differences after the existential threat of domestic leftism/wokism is vanquished.
You cannot make the leap to a post-conservative movement that jettisons the libertarians and GOP establishment types before you vanquish the existential threat. Today's "post-conservatives" have allowed their animosity towards these groups to drive a premature wedge between them. I have plenty of differences with libertarians, free trade purists, et al. They pale in comparison to my differences with the woke Left.
When I saw "female neediness," I thought it would be about the female drive to make everyone around her change for her. On the small scale, the need to have all of her quibbles addressed. Writ large,changing the office or culture to accomodate women, enforced by female HR.
Apparently that's still a topic for another day.
The observations in the article, "How Feminism Ends," are common sense. The surprising thing is that social observers should be so slow to acknowledge the toxic effects of feminism.
This inability to see the obvious can be traced to a string of modern events.
One of the ironies of the current situation, it should be noted, is that women only hold positions of authority in society today because men permitted it. Women may feel that they won this authority, but if men a century ago (or today), said "no," that would have been the end of it. However, as they practically and sensibly pursued their everyday tasks, men have never given much thought to the proper roles of men and women. The earlier societal structure worked and was taken for granted.
Then when technological progress began to enable women to undertake the same tasks as men, and women began to agitate for the franchise and access to male occupations, men, again not thinking too much of the consequences, were inclined to acquiesce. After all, they (men) did these jobs, so why not (many thought) let the women do the same. Bad mistake. The orders of creation in the Bible, plus many other scriptural injunctions, make it clear that authority in the household and society is the province of men. The capacity of a person to undertake a task is not the only consideration. The legitimacy and standing of the person doing it is also important. A student in a classroom may have more intellectual prowess than his math teacher but should he then assume control in the class and replace his teacher? Hardly. I would assert that the role reversals we are now witnessing in society are just as bad. As Christian influence in society has waned, evil tendencies, including a Jezebel-like spirit influencing women, took its place, and women began to assume many places in society for which they were ill-suited.
With women holding the franchise and the upper hand in many of our institutions, including the media, only a positive narrative of feminism is permitted. The control is so strong that everyone, even men who should know better, just trudge through their daily affairs, and are unable to see a way out.
Thankfully, there are finally some signs of a growing awareness of this problem. Is it too optimistic that one day the yoke of feminism might be cast off? Feminism has ravaged the lives of countless men, women, and their families.