The big news lately – especially hyped by the feminists – is that for the first time in history more than half of American women do not live with spouses…51%, actually, a milestone of some sort. A celebration of singleness has been initiated by those who believe that womanhood has finally come of age, with the concomitant corollary that manhood has finally been put in its place. ABC Nightly-News anchor Charlie Gibson waxed eloquent at the news. One supposes that 51% of men are also enjoying bachelorhood, but apparently no study of that has been made, or at least hyped.
The drive toward singleness-as-utopia has been on the way for a number of years – actually ever since World War II, but has been greatly enhanced in the last 35 or so years, and especially lately as women have made their presence felt in high-profile elective offices. Being elected doesn’t, ipso facto, highlight distaff bachelorhood, but it points to the fact that “you’ve come a long way, baby” is not an empty phrase, as it sort of once was. Women have proven their abilities to be effective in government and other institutions/professions and so there is nothing here by way of disparagement vis-à-vis female brains and will.
Since men live on average more than five fewer years than women, widowhood accounts for a good deal of the singleness. Nearly 4.9 million households in 2005 were managed by unmarried partners (4.3% of all households), so the shack-up arrangements account for a significant number of “singles,” both men and women and whether homo- or heterosexual in nature. Half of marriages end in divorce, as well as 60% of remarriages, so there’s a large pool of unattached women and men out there at any given time.
The tendency toward much smaller families during the last half of the 20th century has also made it possible for women and men to either manage their child-rearing activities together or farm them out to individuals or day-care centers singly, thus the single-mom-syndrome that’s become so hyped as the best thing for women since the suffrage amendment. Interestingly, 44% of abortions for 2002, according to the National Centers for Disease Control, were not first-time procedures for the women involved, so abortion for many is a sort of way of life and obviously greatly engenders singleness, since bothersome children perhaps necessitating marriage (at least on paper) never have to become a problem.
One wonders if somewhere down the line historians will see this singleness-craze trend as a cautionary tale. Even in this modern era, will this drive toward women-as-self-sufficient displacing men as traditional hunters-gatherers-providers, even to the point of needing only men’s sperm but not men themselves in conceiving offspring and thus living only for the self and child instead of the traditional family, be proven to be a fatal flaw in the national fabric? Will the almost casual acceptance of men as little more than “stud material” be the nation’s undoing?
More women than men go to college and university. Women outnumber men in law schools. There are more female pediatricians than men, though not more doctors. Women make up nearly 15% of the military (almost 20% of the Air Force). Sixteen percent of the U.S. Senate is comprised of women, while 17% make up the House of Representatives. In short, while childbearing, childcare, and home-maintenance once comprised the highest calling for women, career now is considered, if not more important, at least as important as maintaining the family.
Though the inane notion of unisex is constantly driven into the American consciousness by the radical feminists and their allies in especially the mainstream media, there ARE very important differences between the male and female – inborn and ultimately inviolate, no matter the effort to discount them. Thus, the cautionary tale, particularly with respect to the blood-and-guts matters of defense and realistic dealings with other nations. It is at this point that the obsession with accepting “singleness” as “sameness” becomes dangerous.
From the Heritage Foundation, November 6, 1997: President Clinton's assistant secretary of the Navy, Barbara Pope, has averred that "We are in the process of weeding out the white male as the norm. We're about changing the culture." This statement speaks for itself. It was Ms. Pope’s way of saying that aggressiveness (a male attribute) was unacceptable in her U.S. Military. It was also her way of saying – unintentionally, of course – that this nation would cease to FIGHT (a white male predisposition) for its existence. It was also her way of saying that women (whether white or not, since she only mentioned white males) could better conduct the nation’s security system than men.
The culture that has made this nation great is anchored in the concept of family. Ms. Pope would have changed that culture to exactly the opposite context, undoubtedly opting for the single woman as the new anchor. It is at this point that the obsession with this subject is not to be tolerated, not because women are not smart enough, but because they are neither strong nor mean enough (including in law enforcement agencies) to do the job. Woman’s instinct is to care. Man’s instinct is to make it possible for caring to produce tangible results.
At this time, when political correctness is paramount as a social matter, it is to be hoped that women will still recognize the culture for what it has been and should continue to be, never mind the screamers who would have the instinctive man-woman roles reversed.