Another good article. I would be interested to hear what feedback you have received from your Wall Street Journal article. Did anyone cite you or get in touch to agree or disagree? Do you think some of them will change their approach now?
Aaron mentioned the "healthy masculine package." An essential component of this is male leadership in society. This should be promoted over and against what feminists say about it.
The Bible strongly supports this position. But even if a person is non-Christian, he can look to human history to support this position. Suppose that you are an atheist and an evolutionist. Then you would surely agree that whatever behaviors are innate to human beings are determined by our genetics. Because our genetic makeup is natural, whatever innate behaviors flow from our genetics are also natural. To oppose our nature would be counter-productive and damaging to us. Now consider prehistoric times before man's mind was fully developed and consider the grand sweep of history all the way up to pre-industrial society. During this whole period, men were the movers and shakers of the world. What are we to conclude from this? Surely, this state of affairs was natural. Human beings were differentiated as male and female, each sex with its own physical and mental characteristics. These characteristics were genetically determined and in harmony with different sex roles in society. It would be silly to argue that male exploitation of women was the cause of different sex roles. Rather, the difference in the sex roles that existed from the earliest times was a natural consequence of our genetics.
Today, our technological society makes it possible for men and women to deviate from roles that are natural, but that is very unwise. To do what is inconsistent with our nature can only lead to unhappiness and even failure. And we are seeing that failure on a massive scale today.
Men should recognize that they are designed to be the movers and shakers in society. Men will not be happy until they re-discover their proper role. Women will likewise be happier if they re-discover theirs. Feminists will reject this, but feminism itself must be rejected.
A number of observers are starting to point out that men feel uncomfortable resisting feminism because they feel it is an attack on women. Men need to realize that it is not an attack on women, but a desire to put society back on course. Rejecting feminism will take courage. Men will be called every name in the book: sexists, misogynists, haters, misogamists, and probably racists, homophobes, and anti-trans as well. But men are designed to be courageous. And it might well be that the feminist monster would shatter with less firepower than we think. It is full of self-contradictions.
I’m curious why you’re skeptical about the results of the Swiss study. Obviously it was done 30 years ago and I’m not sure it’s ever been reproduced. But it seems reasonable that fathers give some kind of authority to a belief. Maybe? I’m not questioning your assertion that we shouldn’t use men as a means to an end. But is it wrong to let men know that behaviors have lasting impacts on their children? Similar to how we encourage women to breastfeed for the health of her child?
Cara, I agree with you. Christian Smith has studied passing on the faith and he would be the next place to check. He writes extensively about parents having effects. I found one quote from his 2014 book on Catholics on fathers being necessary. (I've only read the more recent books on all faiths, and not recently enough to remember if there is a good quote or data that would be a fair comparison.)
"Committed Catholic fathers are not a sufficient condition for producing children who will be committed Catholics down the road. However, in most cases, having a committed Catholic father seems to be a necessary condition. Having a doubting and uncommitted Catholic father appears in many cases to be a sufficient condition for a Catholic child to be an uncommitted and even an alienated Catholic as an adult."
Directionally it’s surely accurate to say that two devout parents are better than one which is better than zero.
But sometimes people will cite social statistics like this and treat the numbers as precisely predictive of the future -- “having a devout father increases your odds of keeping the faith by x%” -- without clarifying that the data is 40 years old from a small alpine nation as opposed to, say, a large Pew survey of the US from the last decade. Which itself would still be deeply flawed as a predictive tool but definitely an improvement.
One study, no replication that I've ever seen. In a foreign country with a completely different cultural landscape and religiosity levels. And 30 years ago. I'd want stronger evidence than that to base a strategy on.
I’ve wondered for years why, with the barrage of research, no one has ever bothered to try to replicate this finding. It would be genuinely useful to know.
Another good article. I would be interested to hear what feedback you have received from your Wall Street Journal article. Did anyone cite you or get in touch to agree or disagree? Do you think some of them will change their approach now?
I got mostly good feedback. There were a couple of editors to the letter that I'm planning to link to in the digest tomorrow.
Aaron mentioned the "healthy masculine package." An essential component of this is male leadership in society. This should be promoted over and against what feminists say about it.
The Bible strongly supports this position. But even if a person is non-Christian, he can look to human history to support this position. Suppose that you are an atheist and an evolutionist. Then you would surely agree that whatever behaviors are innate to human beings are determined by our genetics. Because our genetic makeup is natural, whatever innate behaviors flow from our genetics are also natural. To oppose our nature would be counter-productive and damaging to us. Now consider prehistoric times before man's mind was fully developed and consider the grand sweep of history all the way up to pre-industrial society. During this whole period, men were the movers and shakers of the world. What are we to conclude from this? Surely, this state of affairs was natural. Human beings were differentiated as male and female, each sex with its own physical and mental characteristics. These characteristics were genetically determined and in harmony with different sex roles in society. It would be silly to argue that male exploitation of women was the cause of different sex roles. Rather, the difference in the sex roles that existed from the earliest times was a natural consequence of our genetics.
Today, our technological society makes it possible for men and women to deviate from roles that are natural, but that is very unwise. To do what is inconsistent with our nature can only lead to unhappiness and even failure. And we are seeing that failure on a massive scale today.
Men should recognize that they are designed to be the movers and shakers in society. Men will not be happy until they re-discover their proper role. Women will likewise be happier if they re-discover theirs. Feminists will reject this, but feminism itself must be rejected.
A number of observers are starting to point out that men feel uncomfortable resisting feminism because they feel it is an attack on women. Men need to realize that it is not an attack on women, but a desire to put society back on course. Rejecting feminism will take courage. Men will be called every name in the book: sexists, misogynists, haters, misogamists, and probably racists, homophobes, and anti-trans as well. But men are designed to be courageous. And it might well be that the feminist monster would shatter with less firepower than we think. It is full of self-contradictions.
I’m curious why you’re skeptical about the results of the Swiss study. Obviously it was done 30 years ago and I’m not sure it’s ever been reproduced. But it seems reasonable that fathers give some kind of authority to a belief. Maybe? I’m not questioning your assertion that we shouldn’t use men as a means to an end. But is it wrong to let men know that behaviors have lasting impacts on their children? Similar to how we encourage women to breastfeed for the health of her child?
Cara, I agree with you. Christian Smith has studied passing on the faith and he would be the next place to check. He writes extensively about parents having effects. I found one quote from his 2014 book on Catholics on fathers being necessary. (I've only read the more recent books on all faiths, and not recently enough to remember if there is a good quote or data that would be a fair comparison.)
"Committed Catholic fathers are not a sufficient condition for producing children who will be committed Catholics down the road. However, in most cases, having a committed Catholic father seems to be a necessary condition. Having a doubting and uncommitted Catholic father appears in many cases to be a sufficient condition for a Catholic child to be an uncommitted and even an alienated Catholic as an adult."
Directionally it’s surely accurate to say that two devout parents are better than one which is better than zero.
But sometimes people will cite social statistics like this and treat the numbers as precisely predictive of the future -- “having a devout father increases your odds of keeping the faith by x%” -- without clarifying that the data is 40 years old from a small alpine nation as opposed to, say, a large Pew survey of the US from the last decade. Which itself would still be deeply flawed as a predictive tool but definitely an improvement.
So I appreciate Aaron calling this out.
One study, no replication that I've ever seen. In a foreign country with a completely different cultural landscape and religiosity levels. And 30 years ago. I'd want stronger evidence than that to base a strategy on.
I’ve wondered for years why, with the barrage of research, no one has ever bothered to try to replicate this finding. It would be genuinely useful to know.