"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

"The Women's Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought."




Why Are So Many Women Depressed?
by Dennis Prager

It is widely reported that women suffer depression at twice the rate of men. Apparently, more women are clinically depressed than ever before. On the assumption that these assessments are true, the question anyone interested in the subject -- which means anyone who cares about any woman -- asks is, why?

In a recent column I offered one explanation -- the impossibly high expectations for happiness that feminism created for many women.

There are other possible explanations.

One is the way in which many girls have been raised.

As every wise person and wise culture in history has known, it is impossible to attain any happiness without conquering one's nature. This is, of course, equally true for boys and girls, men and women. However, along with feminism arose a belief in the superiority of female nature. One result of this has been the suppressing of many male instincts -- both negative and positive -- along with little or no suppression of negative female instincts.

Societies and parents always knew that it was imperative to teach boys to control two aspects of their male nature -- their sexual desires and their predilection for violence. So all of us decent men were taught from a young age to touch a woman sexually only with her permission and to channel our physical aggression into sports or into helping to fight evil by joining a police force, or the military, or by being prepared to physically defend innocents. Men who did not learn to control these aspects of male nature not only became bad men, they became unhappy men. Happiness is attainable only when we control our nature and not when our nature controls us.

Societies and parents also always knew that it was imperative to teach girls to control their natures -- in particular their predilection to be ruled by their emotions. Women who allowed their emotions to rule them not only became destructive (to members of their families first and foremost), they became unhappy women.

However, with the advent of contemporary feminism and other social trends that coincided with the rise of feminism -- among them the elevation of compassion over standards, the great emphasis placed on feelings, the rejection of patriarchy and the devaluation of traditional masculine virtues (like subdued emotional expression) -- female nature came to be seen as far less in need of discipline than male nature.

So, while society continued to teach boys to control themselves, it stopped teaching girls to do so. Girls' emotions and feelings were inherently valuable. And denying this was attacked as sexist, if not misogynistic.

Consequently, the women many of these girls grew into lacked the ability to control their natures, to control their emotions, or their moods, and therefore lacked the facility to engage in the self-control necessary for happiness and the avoidance of depression.

Another aspect of feminism that has probably contributed to many women's unhappiness was the rejection of femininity. Feminism was more often the celebration of masculine virtues (for women only, alas) than the celebration of feminine virtues. The latter were usually dismissed as weak, passive, underachieving or even oppressive. There are scores of examples. One is the rejection of feminine dress -- a girl who attends class at almost any high school or college wearing a skirt or dress is an anomaly. Another is coarse speech. A generation ago, men refrained from using curse words in front of women. Today many young women curse as readily as men (I have probably seen more women than men drivers make an obscene gesture at other drivers). Such behaviors were inconceivable when women were expected to act feminine. And, of course, the "liberated" female's celebration of casual sex, throughout history associated with male nature, is the antithesis of femininity.

This loss of femininity may well have contributed to many women's depression. Though in our foolish age femininity is often identified with weakness, it was in fact empowering for many women, giving them a distinct power and identity that was unavailable to men. Women are not generally happy being largely indistinguishable from men.

Which brings us to yet another cause of unhappiness among women -- the effects of all the above on men. Women are generally happier when they have a good man in their lives. And by "good man," I mean not only devoted and kind, but masculine as well. Yet the prevailing egalitarian doctrines have conspired not only to undermine femininity in women but masculinity in many men. Just as women were supposed to forge feminine virtues, men were supposed to relinquish masculine virtues, which have been derided as sexist, oppressive, patriarchal and, therefore, anachronistic.

However, once again, things did not work out for many women as feminism had led them to expect they would. The dearth of masculine men has not brought most women happiness, but unhappiness. Those who do not believe this should simply ask single adult women looking for a husband what their greatest problem is with the men they meet. "They are not men," is the single greatest lament. Not "they are not egalitarian enough" or "not sensitive enough."

And women without men are not, as the old feminist saying went, fish without bicycles. They are women without men.

The 1960s ushered in The Age of Hubris, a time of almost unprecedented levels of conceit that one knew better than all previous generations how to order life, that almost everything inherited from the past was just plain wrong and outdated. For this hubris we have paid, and will continue to pay, a steep price. And many women, untrained in subduing darker aspects of their natures, deprived of the female joy of femininity and increasingly deprived of men (as opposed to boys), are feeling the brunt of these losses. They call it depression.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2008/06/24/why_are_so_many_women_depressed?page=full&comments=true

I want to make a brief comment - got to go get ready for worship service.

_________________
Sandra Miller

This article reminds me what my Presbyterian friend used to tell me when I would psycho-analyze bad behaviors. She would listen and after I finish my rant she would say "Sandra, it is because of sin!" I can now hear her say this after explaining this article to her. However, having said all this one must not be blind to the cultural trends and how it effects the church. The devil is sneaky and will take his good old time if he thinks he will win: just go slow and get people used to the dark gradually, and when it is dark they will devise ways to lighten the room. And people have done a fantastic job at that.

Women have always worked in the marketplace however this trend was accelerated after WW2 and has since spiraled out of control. Higher education was promoted among females to ensure a decent wage for time spent at work because females were paid less then males for the same work performed.

In the meantime, divorce was becoming more frequent so the need to become self-sufficient was greater. Now women needed more specialized training to accommodate the loss of income incurred by divorce. Another trend asserted it self by unregenerate males working in close proximity to unregenerate females providing lots of opportunities for lust that led to divorce. Now females were thrust into the arena of being a provider for themselves plus their children.

This is what popular culture has done and too many Christians have unwittingly participated in this by taking their daughters out of the home and promoted their secular education at the expense of learning domestic skills that are essential to making a house a home. Too many educated females care little about making the home an orderly place to be, to kick back and relax. Homemaking has been spurned, mocked as being beneath one's dignity to pursue. What is the alternative?

May I suggest that daughters be taught homemaking skills that include cooking, baking - beginning with basic ingredients; cleaning a house on a schedule; learn some craft that will beautify your house; take an interest in child development; learn the value of making your money go further by thrift; learn the value of postponing instant gratification done by impulse buying; learn to sew modest clothes for yourself and other family members; teach gardening, the growing of fruits and veggies and then preserving the excess. If a girl is taught all these skills it will be of great value to the male she will marry because she will not need as much money to run a household. She will be very productive.

Must run now - our church meets to go Christmas caroling. May write more later...

Any comments, anyone?

ginnyrose

_________________
Sandra Miller

Here is an article for consideration:

http://www.savethemales.ca/040902.html

Ginnyrose,your post tempts comment. Yes I agree with what you say. Sounds like your "daughter" would make some farm lad a good wife. No, I've been happily married 42 years.

_________________
charles randall

For those of you who may not have heard it yet my husband thought this was really good so I am posting it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX8KWSuEhIc

Is it absolutely necessary that one have a "significant other" in their life to be happy? Is the grace of Jesus not sufficient for us?

_________________
Troy A Lasseigne

Quote by Troyor:

"Is it absolutely necessary that one have a "significant other" in their life to be happy? Is the grace of Jesus not sufficient for us?"

As a married woman who has lived in this state for 41 years I can say with absolute certainity the answer to this question is "NO!". Allow me to explain.

If you marry for the purpose of "personal happiness" you will be disappointed - eventually. This purpose reeks of selfishness and selfishness has absolutely no place in a sucessful marriage. Consider Ephesians 5:25: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her." This text implies a sacrifice on the husbands' part for the betterment of his wife. And sacrifice is not pleasant, it hurts. Having said this, marriage is satisfying. I love being married and if my DH would die, I would miss him and the relationship. It is the lack of relationship many widows find difficult to deal with.

Some are called to singleness and find the grace of God adequate to live in this state.

If you are making a decision of marrying or not marrying on the basis of personal happiness, seems to me you are in serious error because no one state can promise one perpetual happiness. Happiness as a goal is ellusive: it is the by-product of serving and living in obedience to God.

My observation and opinion...

Blessings,
ginnyrose

_________________
Sandra Miller