A New Strategy in the Sex Wars?
If the “Gender Wars” are even real, that is
Is the “Gender War” real? The New York Times doesn’t think so, or at least their opinion writer David Brooks doesn’t. To him, the gender gap is closing rapidly. Millennial women, despite asserting a stronger sense of victimhood in the workplace than ever before, are achieving gender parity at work and are thus primed to return home. And Millennial men are okay with all of this.
Brooks cites statistics in his favor; 58% of Millennials “…believe that the best home is the one where the man is the outside “achiever” and the working woman is the primary caregiver.” Following the European model, Brooks asserts, this generation will be the one to embrace a return to past norms. Thus, with emerging agreement among the sexes, there is no gender war.
But ending the long running sex wars is not as simple as agreeing on a proposition (much less one that concedes the reason the sex wars flared in the 60’s). As Brooks goes on to observe:
An increasing number of high school-educated men say they are the ones being screwed by modern society, not women, who are better educated on average. More and more college-educated men adopt a Jordan Peterson-style posture, arguing that the assault on “male privilege” has gone too far, that the feminist speech and behavior codes have gone too far.
So Peterson’s disciples are reasserting both victimization and masculinity. Sound strange? First off, I’m not aware of a previous point in history when men assumed the role of the victim. This isn’t a reassertion, it’s simply an assertion, the product of an incestuous relationship between radical feminism and its own spawn, Affirmative Action. Both concepts thrive on victimhood. Radical feminism demands that women are the perpetual victim of the patriarchy, while Affirmative Action insists that all “minorities” are inherently victimized due to their race, class, gender, etc. By asserting victimhood, Millennial Men are turning this age-old game on its ear. We might be the patriarchy, but if this is the era of the matriarchy then we’re the persecuted minority now, bitches.
In the social justice war game this is a rather brilliant move. But it isn’t an end to the sex wars, it’s a shift in stragety.
Reasserting traditional masculinity could prove more effective at actually ending the sex wars. Far from the nihilistic masculinity of the Gen-X Fight Club, a return to the kind of masculinity that prioritizes professional achievement and familial provision is long overdue.
The success of that return, however, is dependent upon Millennial women. If they truly do value a woman’s role as caretaker (not just of children but of men as well) and if they really will follow the European model of “dropping out of the rat race” as gender parity in the workplace increases, there is reason to hope in real societal stability and healing. But what Brooks doesn’t say — what no one dares to say any longer — is that the course of man’s success is motivated by woman.
If women continue to fight for victim status this will be a generation in self-destruct mode. What good is it to believe or even agree that a man should work and a woman should take care of the home if they’re both too busy fighting about who is the victim to make a home? When would they get to settling down, getting married, and having babies, which Brooks says is the cure-all for this over-hyped war. Even while men and women may agree more about ideal circumstances, current birth rates give us a hint about how effective that agreement is.
Contra Brooks, this gender war might be all sound and fury, but it’s far from signifying nothing. Instead of watching a seductive tango of the sexes I can’t help but wonder if the war of the sexes hasn’t morphed into a game of Russian Roulette. Brooks sees the gender war as a “figment of the political circus”. The cure-all, he believes, is parenthood. But, if the kiddies value victimhood over victory, will the children ever be had?
