THE REAL ENEMY? Yet Another War on Women …

The Establishment is the problem. And something called “patriarchy”. I know this because it is loudly and frequently proclaimed to us by important-looking people with important-sounding titles.

Among them are University professors, mid-level government bureaucrats, household names from TV and print media, elected officials, and various community-organizing groups — unionized and otherwise.

“The Problem” isn’t quite accurate. “The Enemy” (or “scapegoat”?) might be more to the point. The Establishment is not the problem, so much as creating a problem. I know this, because they keep telling us so.

What is the problem?

It is a “bad thing” that is perpetrated upon the victim-group. (have you noticed that these stories are never about one particular person who has been wronged by another particular person, so much as some greater struggle between two warring factions? Odd, that…)

There are so many victim-groups that I couldn’t possibly address all of them in this one short column. For now, let us focus on women. It seems, there is some sort of a war against them. Which is, of course a Bad Thing. I know this, because they have told us so.

Now,  I’m not referring to parts of the world where women are rounded up by armed thugs, and sold into sexual slavery. Nor other parts where they can’t even leave the house unattended. Nor places where they risk life and limb to pursue a basic education. Nor even parts of the world where wives die under mysterious circumstances after displeasing their husband in some way. Nor the unnumbered who silently suffer from domestic abuse around the world.

No. This War is far more important than any of these other issues. I know this because of their silence about the other problems. This one invariably takes priority. So this must be far more important. Because, by their silence, they have told us so.

The real war on women has something to do with abortion. And birth control. Again, they have told us so.

In fact, the poster-child (so to speak) for this issue rose to national prominence when she insisted it was the duty of the public to fund her birth control. In objecting to paying costs associated with voluntary high-risk behaviour, we apparently declared war.

I’m still coming to terms with how I (and my y-chromosome) have declared such a war. Forgive me. I’m male, and this circular logic is difficult for me to process without proper indoctrination.

From what I’ve been able to piece together, my offense seems to spring from the fact that I have stubbornly insisted that choices have consequences.  I have, through long habit, taken to calling this “being a realist”. Forgive me. I’m a lost cause, and probably past saving on this count.

I have stubbornly insisted that there are real differences — both physical and emotional — between men and women, and I still consider that a point worthy of celebration, not apology.

I have stubbornly insisted that Sex and the City (or whatever has since taken its place) is a failed model for women to follow on how they might successfully balance personal and professional life.

I have insisted that demanding abortion as a method to wish away sexual choices whose consequence you regret is not morally superior to drowning a newborn for the precisely the same reason.

As I’ve said. I’m a lost cause.

But now, I’m actually seeing similar “lostness” among women. A new strain of it is popping up. Those of you who are more politically orthodox will probably want to get to work on stamping it out.

And I’ve come across it among — of all places — the writings of a professional woman.

Her feminist credentials seem sound enough. She writes for the New York Times, after all. (Her name is Amy Klein, and she wrote this article.)

She’s insisting that women *don’t* have absolute freedom over when they can start a family. (I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure this is heretical thinking to Feminists.)  Medicine can’t trump physiology. If a woman waits until 40 before starting a family, she’s often waited too long.

Putting off marriage (yes, that antiquated term) and children until you’ve finished an advanced degree and begun to climb the corporate ladder is a choice with a consequence you can’t just wish away.

Amy Klein knows this first-hand.

At 41, she went to the fertility clinic, wondering if she should start freezing her eggs. She had no idea that she was already too late.

For all the knowledge we pretend to have about sex — arousal, positions, infection, and protection — there is an enormous blind spot in the area of fertility.  (The blind spot is precisely where most Feminist efforts seem aimed at thwarting natural conception, rather than embracing it.)

Says Klein: According to a 2011 study in Human Reproduction, which surveyed 410 undergraduate students, most overestimated a women’s chances of spontaneous pregnancy in all age groups, but particularly after receiving IVF beyond age 40. Only 11 per cent of the students knew that genetic motherhood is unlikely to be achieved from the mid-40s onward, unless using oocytes or egg cells frozen in advance. “This can be explained by technological “hype” and favourable media coverage of very late pregnancies,” the authors concluded.

This makes me wonder something.

If we, the Patristic Establishment, the Enemy to Be Opposed are apparently waging a war on women…

If we, the Enemy, have been told we stand in the way of a robust sexual education (since “sex ed” of younger and younger students with increasingly explicit and limit-pushing content is their obvious goal)…

If we, the Enemy want to thwart the liberty and happiness of women by denying them access to good and valid choices. (As we have been often accused of doing.)…

What does that say about their cherished Feminists, those who fail to paint a complete picture about female reproductivity? Who willfully keep women ignorant about their own expectations of fertility?

Who’s REALLY limiting women’s choices?

And what do you suppose, is the REAL agenda behind it?

Image: leadershipfreak.wordpress.com