The latest
idiocy of an
academic.
Innocence Project Biologist: Men Unnecessary (
reaction at Dr. Helen's)
Some made the argument from pop sociobiology/evo psych that men are expendable; given the relative number of gametes produced by members of each sex, less men are needed for a population to maintain itself than women. "Sperm are cheap, eggs are expensive." I find this line of argument reductionistic. It's not that men are expendable, but if there is to be war, who can fight? The men are willing to lay down their lives not because they perceive themselves as being worth less, but because they love the group and their families more than they love their own lives. Even if single men are more willing to risk themselves, their inclination to love the group does not entail that they estimate their value to be less. One can risk a certain number of men dying in order to protect the group, so long as other men are able to step in and take care of their families when peace comes. Otherwise, the group may be be better off fleeing somewhere else.
Someone living in a misandric society with little prospect of finding a worthy wife and seeing the emptiness of consumerism may wish to go off the grid, refusing to support through taxes and the like a corrupt system, when that system benefits those who do not deserve it, while taking away from those who are industrious. Why not starve the system which is against your interests and treats you worse than a beast of burden, as an enemy so that it may continue to have power by relying upon the votes of the "oppressed"?
One without the worry of supporting a family has other freedoms, as
a man can survive on comparatively little if he embraces a "Spartan" or ascetic lifestyle. Besides, as so many Uhmerican women are not worthy of marriage, being single may be the better option, even if it has its own spiritual difficulties. He may wish to associate with a local
monastery, and not needing much in terms of wages, he can work as a farmhand or do some other form of honest work, one that is not ordered to the perpetuating of a system predicated upon infinite growth and consumerism. (I can't see how work on an organic or local farm can provide a living wage for a family.)
Why a monastery? Besides offering laymen the opportunity to participate in its liturgical life and receiving spiritual direction from one of the monks, a monastery may not be plagued by the problems besetting the Church at large which frustrate men. Indeed, the "institutional Church" can be said to be complicit in the destruction of society by endorsing [moderate] feminism in practice, if not in teaching, and statism, refusing to hold immigrants to assimilation (no confidence in Western culture), and participating in the industrial education scam.
While talking about "solidarity," bishops have forgotten about the order of charity. If Christians are called to build up community first amongst themselves then they may need to embrace some sort of voluntary poverty. If it is not possible to do so in a megapolis, then they should consider relocating, along with their extended family, to another place. After all, aren't most Catholics descended from immigrants? American Catholics should consider community as a good of the family and not just economic necessities.
If one is going to be single, it might even be better to be a monk, but that may not be an option as many monasteries do not accept candidates older than a certain age. Besides, a layman may still have some responsibilities of which he does not wish to rid himself yet.
Is the American Church an immigrant Church, one that has adapted to Yankee culture? Does it seek to overwhelm the Protestants with numbers and thereby make the country Catholic? This is a charge lodged against the Church by Protestants favoring immigration restriction. Do American bishops believe that Catholic immigrants can become the leaven of society? Is this the worst sort of "ecclesiastical nationalism"? There are some extremists who who cheer the decay of Protestant ecclesial communities in the United States, as if this is punishment that is deserved. Rarely do they do so because they think they are heralding the impending triumph of the RC Church.
The early Christians may have been more innocent but that didn't prevent them from perishing along with their cities. Why should Americans, who are cooperating, even if only materially, in the destruction of their own society, expect that they and the American [local] churches would be exempt from Divine Judgment?
