At Dalrock’s latest post, commenter Escoffier had some interesting comments in response, regarding how social conservatives reacted to the changes wrought by feminism; he argues persuasively, IMO, that social conservative didn’t out intentionally endorse the changes, but found themselves swept up in the culture, and didn’t have the moral or intellectual basis to resist said changes, alas.
I think you overestimate the extent to which SoCons willingly, knowingly went along with feminism. I think instead what happened is that they found early feminism, feminism 1.0, unobjectionable and impossible to resist. That is, they could not conceive of a principled argument against opening up educational or career opportunities to women. To do so would be to endorse “unequal treatment” and they had no intellectual ground on which to do so. Some of them tried on religious grounds but they just got laughed at and their argument was never taken seriously in the wider debate and was soon swept aside everywhere but in their own small communities.
SoCons were NEVER happy with the Sexual Revolution and still aren’t. They didn’t put up much of a fight at first because they considered it fringe and also it seemed not to be affecting their own daughters. By the time it had swept the country, many of their own daughters had participated and everyone loves his own and it’s hard to condemn your own daughter. So they adjusted. That’s a big part of how “good girl” came to be defined as “few LTRs” rather than “virgin.” That was an accommodation, though, not a matter of willing participation. And, some SoCons have rallied and attacked the SR and made a rational stand for chastity. You’re not giving them any credit. Late to the party, sure, but some have done it.
I don’t think the SoCon thought process is as you describe, i.e., they took the lead in attacking “slut-shaming.” No. They still are totally uneasy with sluttery and don’t want their daughters to become sluts. But, again, SoCons have had to accommodate themselves to the prevailing culture. They concluded, rightly or wrongly, that they couldn’t stop their daughters from having pre-marital sex. So the next best thing was to try to instill in them whatever restraint they could. In practice that meant not being too harsh about LTRs. SoCons are still very harsh and openly judgmental (at least within their own families) about “hooking up.” Beyond that most of them have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy because, really, what father wants to know every detail about what his daughter is up to?
There are a number of causes for this, but culturally it somehow became “uncool” in the middle class and above to have kids who were not high achievers, including daughters. So even SoCons internalized this and became vaguely ashamed of a daughter who married at 20 but hugely proud of one who went to Harvard to be filled with feminist/liberal bilge. They want their girls to get fancy educations and start careers. It’s a status marker. Low Rent People get married young. That’s for hillbillies. Not my daughter!
Now, an unintended consequence has been all that you describe. But SoCon’s didn’t choose or encourage this except insofar as they encouraged their girls to get educated and get “careers” rather than mere jobs. Perhaps they should have seen it all coming, as you seem to think they should have. I dunno, but anyway, at worst they are guilty of a failure of foresight.
As for SoCons blaming men: I think you and other “manosphere” bloggers have done great work on this. Not in demonstrating that the SoCons are simply wrong but that their knowledge is woefully incomplete. They blame men without understanding the causes of male misbehavior, and without understanding that the primary cause is female misbehavior which is at least as bad as, and arguably worse than, male misbehavior.
The thing is, though, much of the Hymowitz/Bennet criticism is not false. They are attacking male behavior that is genuinely lousy. You always have to caveat your praise of Roissy/Roosh with “not that I’m endorsing this” yet you never seem to wholeheartedly condemn what they are doing either. And what they are doing is wrong—morally, ethically, politically, in every way. To paraphrase Lincoln, if manwhoring isn’t wrong, nothing is wrong. Then there is no sexual morality. Just because women are hypergamous sluts, it’s not suddenly OK for men to be polygamous cads.
This should hardly need to be said, but apparently does: A life spent in pursuit of pussy is an empty, wasted life. Whether you are successful at it or unsuccessful. And I don’t need recourse to religion say that; unassisted human reason is sufficient. Those guys are losers. They accomplish nothing, they degrade their souls, they hurt their country, they defile (non-innocent, to be sure) women, and they coarsen society. And think of the opportunity costs.
You leave out the point that the rise of working women led to the dominance of the two-income household, which led to the necessity of the latter by driving up housing and schooling prices (and much else). This is all demonstrated in the Harvard-Lib Elizabeth Warren’s book The Two Income Trap. Say what you will about her, she’s intellectually honest.
Some salient points.