The family, America’s traditional ethnic balance, and much else is in flux. Very little of this is entirely spontaneous. Much is engineered and subsidized or managed through laws and regulations and assumptions of our governing class. We deliberately encourage mass Third World immigration and in doing so destroy the power and identity of native-born Americans. The family and the father in particular is assaulted through the pincer movement of welfare subsidization and the destruction of fatherly authority in no fault divorce. Liberals have celebrated Romney’s problems with the single women vote, and, indeed, much of that is driven by feminism. But very few of these changes can be called natural or organic or anything other than a deliberate grand strategy of societal revolution.
An interesting interview at the Washington Post shows how utterly insecure, prickly, and altogether ungenerous the feminist spirit is. Obsessed with power and status, it is fearful of all that made up the former and relatively successful accomodation of sex relations that was the chivalric ideal. Romney, it seems, was a symbol of that, though he was also a symbol of patrician out-of-touchness, and the latter had a lot also to do with his problems in my view. Even so, the rising clout of single women–government subsidized, multiply sired fatherless children in tow–can’t be denied, nor too can their widespread ethos:
Gene: What’s wrong with good manners?
Gina: Nothing, but chivalry is the opposite of good manners. It’s infantilizing. It’s contempt masquerading as politeness. The chivalrous guy is establishing roles; he is the protector, you are Limoges. Your job is to let him be masterful. In my experience, when you are standing on a pedestal, there’s not much room to move around. That’s by design.
Gene: I’m fine with all this, but I would like to observe that this entire line of analysis — reducing the girl vote into a matter of romantic preference — is not entirely consistent with rigorous feminism.