When confronted by some new bit of feminist nonsense, mother used to say: “Kick the Natural Law and the Natural Law will kick back. Hard!“
She was referring to the immutability of the divinely-created laws governing procreation and healthy human behaviour as followed for millennia by the Catholic Church, which in turn taught that men and women are created equal in the image of God but with differing roles required for propagating new generations of families — which are the building blocks of every society.
For women, counselled to be chaste before marriage, those roles included the bearing and raising of children in a Catholic home which was provided for and protected by their husbands and all sanctified by the sacrament of marriage. According to these traditional roles, women were also required to submit to their husbands who were instructed to love their wives. (Ephesians 5:22).
How quaint all that seems today, does it not? Particularly since the advent of the sexual and feminist revolutions of the 1960s which upended traditional family values, jettisoned chastity as hopelessly repressive and advocated a new philosophy of uninhibited sexual liberation, aided further by the newly devised birth control pill.
Nor did it take long for this brave new sexual world to develop a gospel, as elucidated within the pages of Playboy and Cosmopolitan magazines and feminist tracts written by Betty Friedan and her discontented disciples. This new thinking was advanced further in the cinemas as well with bliss-promising rom-coms and on TV screens where such hits as Sex and the City encouraged new generations of naïve and unhappy women of all ages to find fulfilment wherever they could.
All with predictable results. En masse, women abandoned their homes in search of careers and personal fulfilment, leaving their latch-key children and unhappy husbands to fend for themselves, while at the same time telling themselves they were justified in their choices because, well, the ubiquitous psychologists on every TV channel told them so. Besides, they reassured themselves, the most important family need was spending “quality time” with their now bereft and ever fewer children while their mystified men capitulated to the new feminist zeitgeist with sullen and silent contempt. Yet as these men watched their women strive for “equality” by breaking through that mythical glass ceiling, the results were equally predictable: family breakdown everywhere and increasingly dysfunctional workforces wherein men were blamed for their failure to adjust and their failure to meet every inscrutable demand of their female counterparts.
Add to this the many women who failed to marry at all and who found themselves either co-habiting with a man who wouldn’t commit or getting lost in the ‘hook-up’ culture where lonely women trade sex for affection and false promises from an ever-lengthening list of men who fail to call.
Then there are the abortions, the unborn victims, now numbering well over 50 million in North America alone since the advent of the sexual and feminist revolutions and the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973.
This is success? This is fulfilment? This is happiness?
Still, life went on.
Until something very odd happened.
It all began mere weeks after of the death of Playboy founder and philosopher Hugh Hefner. That was the day the first bowling pin fell in the form of Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein who was suddenly and very publicly accused by a host of women of sexually exploiting them in exchange for parts in his hugely successful movies.
In the days that followed, more pins dropped, beginning with actor Kevin Spacey, network news anchors Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer and conductor Charles Dutoit. And since then, the phenomenon has continued apace, nearly every day bringing a new disgrace, a newly destroyed titan brought low by one or more women accusing them of “sexual impropriety”, often without proof and sometimes even anonymously. And all with the encouragement of the media earnestly counselling audiences to believe these women, even if there is no evidence.
Then in mid-January, the phenomenon hit Canada’s political class particularly hard, beginning with the forced resignation of Ontario PC leader and premiership-hopeful Patrick Brown triggered by the allegations of two unnamed women that he’d been “sexually inappropriate” with them.
Not that Brown will be missed. Particularly not since he’d already been annoying conservative voters with a platform virtually indistinguishable from that of Liberal premier, Kathleen Wynne, and her party’s much loathed sex-ed programme. Which, to Ontario conservatives was particularly egregious since Brown won the leadership largely on the promise that, if he became premier, this curriculum would be eradicated — a promise he reneged on and followed up by bragging about his attendance at gay pride parades on the basis that, in his words, “Love is love is love.”
Love? Didn’t Patrick Brown really mean “sexual attraction”? Eros, if one wants to be high-minded?
In truth, what Brown was describing isn’t Love at all. Love is, and always was, a theological virtue which inclines the human will to act selflessly in the best interests of another which often requires self-sacrifice.
So what are we really watching here? Apart from the prodding #MeToo and #TimesUp campaigns, what is compelling all these women to step forward and confess to acute psychological pain caused by a man they are about to destroy in the public square with a shaming accusation?
What is the real source of their apparent trauma? Could it be a long dormant desire for revenge for unsought and unwanted male attention? Could it be ulcerating anger over a fleeting, frustrated and failed relationship? Could it be rage after failing to achieve a real (though perhaps undeclared) goal such as love, fidelity and family? Could it be the psychological torment generated by their own unchaste sexual behaviour from which they seek escape?
Or could something even deeper be going on here? Is this, as my mother warned, the natural law kicking back in the form of deeply troubled consciences finally awakening? And painfully so? After more than half a century of a sexual revolution which thwarted the natural order of life and tossed the mores of two millennia aside in favour of the new, human-rights-fuelled, soul-and-culture-destroying gospel? Which, in turn, has left countless women feeling guilty, angry at themselves and profoundly cheated? Made all the worse by what may also be their own inability to comprehend the true nature of what’s really bothering them?
This is all terribly politically incorrect and contrary to all feminist dogma and conventional wisdom, I know. But I’ve seen so much of this by now and watched so many women have their hearts broken after falling for the line that, hey, this is 2018 (or 1968, for that matter) and things between men and women have changed – when manifestly, they have not.
The truth is that the natural law remains in full effect, as always. “Free love” was never free and the basic, eons-old relationship between men and women has not changed despite all the attempts to alter it.
What has happened, however, is that women who’ve flooded the workplace and abandoned traditional mores so mindlessly now find themselves completely unprotected by the customs and moral assumptions that once protected them. This, in turn, has left their secret expectations of love, honour, respect and happiness – which remain in their hearts as ever they did – profoundly frustrated.
No wonder they’re outraged.
Even so, it may take a very long time for them to come to terms with the deeper eternal reality of the natural law and its intent, which has always been to protect and safeguard women for their divinely-designed and appointed purpose and the satisfaction only its fulfillment can bring.
But for now, what we’re witnessing may be only the beginning of a backlash still building — a backlash which may manifest itself in other ways as well.
Which means we’re probably going to see much more of this public shaming. Just as we’ll also see ever more attempts to counteract these disturbing developments with more of the same “medicine” i.e. more of the same dogma that caused the disease.
So look for ever more misbegotten measures and “equalizing” gimmicks such as ordering 50 percent of the federal government cabinet to be women. Thereby rendering the cabinet – like so many other politics-ridden, gender-obsessed workplaces these days – unfit for purpose.