Are Women Hardwired to Care for Men?

Are men hardwired to protect and provide? Without which, do we run mad?

By Elizabeth Nickson

This is a repost from The Fiamengo File wherein two women discuss feminist psychopathy and the choice of childlessness. If it’s too long, skip to the case studies of miserable women of every age in therapy trying to figure out from whence the misery. Every single young woman you know must read this, at least consider it. A full third are choosing not to breed. And if the stats hold, 90% of them will regret it, some bitterly.

They have been lied to. Childless women - particularly boomers in their senior years - never ever discuss the misery of skipping children. I know dozens, if not hundreds of them, GenX too, and for that solid 90% it is an enduring sorrow.

I am not a biological determinist, nor am I from a family that favors one choice or another. My stay-at-home mother advised my daughter to go back to work after she had twins, even though she already had a toddler. Luckily her employer was fully supportive. One of my grandmothers was a prairie schoolteacher; the other was a socialite who went round the world ten times; toss up as to who was more satisfied with herself, but I tend towards the prairie schoolteacher, though we can easily guess who had the most hedonistic fun..

But these two thinkers below go deeper, suggesting that there is an inescapable bio-dynamic between men and women, that together, they are stronger, in that they serve one another. Shorn of that, we falter and run to neurosis, even madness. As a collective, I suspect, we are seeing the latter.

There is no right course, there is only choice. And information. This is meant as the latter, more data coming in from the generations that fell for feminist ideology.

Janice Fiamengo, a retired English professor steps up.

A Conversation with Dr. Hannah Spier

Last winter, it was my pleasure to engage in a long-form email conversation with Dr. Hannah Spier, MD, co-author of the podcasts “What Should I Tell My Daughter?” and “Psychobabble.” Hannah Spier is a Norwegian-born medical doctor with a specialization in psychiatry. She writes and speaks extensively on subjects of mental and physical health, policy, child rearing, and feminism from a compassionate conservative perspective. She now lives in Switzerland with her husband and three small children.

In a series of exchanges over about two months, we discussed Hannah’s decision—with the support of her husband but against the advice of family and friends—to quit her psychiatric practice in order to be a stay-at-home mother. We also explore her contention, based on extensive work with female patients, that feminism is literally making women ill by encouraging them to postpone (or altogether forego) childbearing. The conversation went in some surprising directions and led me to ruminations I had not anticipated. I am grateful to Dr. Spier for her deep engagement on these issues.  

**

JF: Hannah, thank you very much for agreeing to this dialogue.

You have a podcast with the intriguing title "What Should I Tell My Daughter?" You write that the podcast "challenges the messaging directed at girls and young women over the past four decades" with a focus on "women's deteriorating mental health." 

Could you explain what motivated you to start the podcast, what subjects you have focused on, and how you became interested, also, in the issues facing boys and men? 

HS: Thank you for your interest in my work; I’m excited to share it with you and take the opportunity to pick your brain. 

I started the podcast after years of clinical work as a psychiatrist, struggling to handle the insurmountable list of patients. They were mostly women with psychopathologies I have come to believe are caused by adhering to values shaped by feminism. The damage already done to the family at the point of therapeutic intervention is devastating, and the podcast is my attempt at doing preventative work. We must change women’s mindset before psychopathology develops.

I try appealing to women, as they hold the power to set the framework in which children grow up. That’s why I intersperse topics pertaining to the need for cultural change, which is my focus (i.e., feminism and the consequences of the sexual revolution), with human interest topics like dieting and toxic relationships. 

My own personal journey from modern career woman to traditional conservative stay-at-home mom has shown me how one woman’s awakening can have a radical influence on the well-being of the man involved: my husband. While concern for the mental health of girls and women was the original driving force behind the podcast, through further study and conversations, such as with Dr. Aman Siddiqi, who came on the show, I realize that the problem is bigger than simply the messaging of girls. 

For instance, my son is a typical boisterous boy who’s never happier than when running into things screaming “Hulk smash.” He should be met with “boys will be boys,” but instead people admonish and disapprove. The fear for my sons is a helpless one, because the risk they face isn’t preventable by making different choices. They will meet a society prejudiced against them, tailored for girls to succeed: a society that breeds real pathologies by medicating the disorders they socially construct (i.e., ADHD). That’s why I’m naming season 2 “Psychobabble,” and plan on attacking a broader range of issues where the culprit is feminism.

As someone new to advocacy with enthusiasm and hope, I’m grappling with the challenge of charting a course. Here, I think your input would be extremely valuable. How has your journey informed the way you approach the fight against feminism? What are the most common mistakes people make? 

JF: There is much here that I’d like to know more about. I’d like to ask you, if you don’t mind, to share something about how you made that turn from “modern career woman to traditional conservative stay-at-home mom.” Was it gradual or sudden? Was it triggered by a single experience, or was it more of a conscious choice over time?

I had a somewhat unusual trajectory, going from radical feminist to not-particularly-traditional (but radical) anti-feminist. It wasn’t typical and I’m not sure the experience has equipped me to analyze feminism’s effect on women as well as I would like: I sometimes think that my mind doesn’t tend to work like other women’s minds do.

In brief, I was devoted to my academic career for a long time and never became a mother. I have felt guilty about that and also fraudulent: what right have I to discuss the harms of feminism for families, especially children, when I’ve never raised children? (Unlike many women, I suspect, I was born without any maternal instinct. Even from the time I was four or five years old, when a mom on our street invited me and other little girls to visit her newborn baby boy, I wanted nothing to do with babies: the other little girls were excited and cooing over the infant, wanting to pick him up and cuddle him; I felt uncomfortable and awkward. That never changed.)

It wasn’t until much later in life, in my mid-40s, that I understood in my heart that I was made to love a man and look after him. I experienced that deeply, along with a fierce outpouring of affection and angry protectiveness towards young men (and all men.) I found myself identifying viscerally with the men who have been subject to mistreatment and injustice or even simply to the blame and shame that our culture radiates at male persons. It hit me like a tidal wave when I was a university teacher, and the sense of moral outrage has never left.

Because of that primary identification, I have a hard time understanding what women, young and older, are experiencing today. I have had dozens and dozens of conversations with men about gender issues, and I have been stunned by men’s generosity towards women, their general liking of them, and even their reverence, in many cases, for women’s needs. Those conversations contradicted everything I had been told about patriarchal contempt for women. Even men who are angry or disillusioned with women almost never strike me as misogynistic.

I don’t have many conversations with women about gender issues or feminism. I am shy about speaking to women, sometimes convinced in advance that I won’t like what I discover. On some occasions, I’ve been disappointed and shocked by a casual nastiness in such conversations that has made me afraid to go much further. As a result, though I agree with you whole-heartedly that feminism will not be defeated until women join with men to throw it into the garbage bin of history, and although I agree that women too are harmed by feminism, I’m not sure what avenues to explore with them.   

Perhaps you could say a bit about the psychopathologies you saw in your work as a clinical psychiatrist, and how you traced those to the effects of feminism?

HS: It's intriguing to learn about your distinctive journey. Often, those who oppose feminism tend to do so on behalf of women, seemingly for a more digestible reception. I find the way you advocate primarily for men is not only courageous but also shows a rare ability to approach antifeminism through an entirely non-gynocentric perspective. I strive to emulate that in discussions on feminism but find myself invariably harping on about girls and women, as do most conservative opinion-makers.

It doesn’t surprise me that women have showered you with vitriol on the topic of men’s advocacy. I can imagine they fear becoming aware of philosophical inconsistencies and conflicted emotions.

I used to be one of those women who would trigger easily in such conversations. I was raised in Norway, a paragon of egalitarianism, where feminist indoctrination runs deep. This surfaced early in my marriage, marking it with power struggles and sneering. During my first pregnancy, I silently resented the potential stall in my career compared to my husband's unhindered professional trajectory.

After childbirth, the deception became evident. Egalitarian ideals led me to anticipate parenthood affecting both of us equally. The shock hit me as my career ambition waned overnight while my husband's surged. When I returned to work after seven months of maternity leave, the family's overall happiness plummeted. Despite receiving unwavering support and unsolicited encouragement from other women at work, I wept in the hospital bathroom, longing for my baby.

Embracing this emotional discovery, I ventured beyond the liberal echo chamber and encountered opinions and research, particularly your Fiamengo File, which conflicted with the teachings in psychiatric residency programs. These newfound truths resonated with my evolving perspective. After implementing change—quitting my hospital job to be a stay-at-home mother, fully supporting my husband, and clarifying our roles—our marriage was transformed from acrimonious to harmonious.

Without altering my mindset, I would have become a prime candidate for feminist psychopathology. Fully aware that I will now harp on about girls and women, I’ll explain what I mean by feminist psychopathology by outlining three typical cases: though not real patients, they represent recurring archetypes in my therapy room.

Patient one, a 25-year-old with no prior psychiatric treatment, struggles through her university degree in a subject that neither holds her interest nor for which she has shown any aptitude. Despite being socially active and seeking closeness, every interaction with a man deepens her loneliness. She suffers sleep troubles, has concentration issues, and engages in self-destructive behavior. Multiple past relationships hinder building a suitable long-term partnership, the pursuit of which impedes her performance. Negative feedback reinforces existing feelings of inadequacy. At the first consultation, she presents with panic attacks, health anxieties, and reports intimacy problems.

The second case involves a mid-30s woman, university-educated with a prestigious corporate job. Her focus on studies and early career moves left her in a non-committal seven-year relationship. After she moved in with her ill-suited boyfriend, discussions about the future trigger his withdrawal and fear of commitment. Contemplating a breakup raises questions about wasted time and her prospects in the dating market at age 34. Life's expectations clash with her reality, stealing joy from once-enjoyable pursuits. She reports work-induced fatigue and struggles with simple tasks. Resentment builds at the perceived ubiquity of pregnant women and engagement announcements, bringing her to tears. Feeling burnt out, she requests a leave of absence note and sleep medication.

The third patient, a 45-year-old married woman with two kids, exhibits symptoms of moderate depression. Despite achieving her career goals, she feels dissatisfied and annoyed, struggling to find joy in everyday life. Managing school-age children and logistical fights with her husband dominate her days, leaving her feeling unappreciated. She spends much of the initial consultation describing her husband’s lack of effort and cooperation in dealing with the kids’ ADHD and anxiety as well as domestic chores. It causes fatigue, which subsequently reduces her efforts at intimacy. She frequently cries, feels hopelessness, and has gained weight. Aside from blaming her husband, she attributes it to societal and self-imposed expectations. She’s therefore determined the therapy's goal should be to lower her expectations and boost self-esteem.

Going back to the first patient: Imagine if someone had told her at 18 that with her average intelligence and interest in relationships with typical female characteristics, motherhood would be a worthy goal in and of itself and to secure that pathway first and foremost?

The second patient grapples with the repercussions of societal pressures that compel women into lives incongruent with their intrinsic drives. The feminist narrative, perpetuating the stereotype of the discontented housewife and undervaluing motherhood, coerces women into paths misaligned with their natural inclinations. These foster internal conflicts manifesting as anxiety and negative emotions. When an average woman like this patient realizes that the pull towards motherhood surpasses societal norms, and the ache of unmet maternal desires sets in, a psychiatrist is about as effective as a screen door on a submarine.

In the third case, we see that starting a family early is no guaranteed way to escape feminist psychopathology. Feminist ideology has women demanding egalitarian marriage dynamics. In her pursuit of equality, she searches for meaning in career and providing for the family, like a man would. She tires herself out trying to satisfy her drive to nurture her family after work. By the time she looks up from her trudging, the role of mother has passed her by and the damage to the entire family is devastating.

Entering marriage with egalitarian beliefs fuels a resentful disposition in the third woman, manifesting in an overemphasis on her own contributions and feelings while overlooking those of her partner. She molds her husband through years of constant criticism into a version she dislikes and disrespects. In the end, they both feel resentful. The children’s pathologies stem from stress and attachment issues, traceable to an absent, tired, working mom and a father stripped of authority.

The only thing that can worsen this situation is for the wife to have sessions with a psychologist (almost all of whom are liberal feminists) affirming her victimhood and saying (and I’ve witnessed this many times): “A swift and friendly divorce is better for the kids than listening to arguing parents.”

In psychotherapy, one of the most difficult but effective methods is to amplify personality traits, so I’d be very curious, if I may ask, to hear more about your internal transformation: how you came to your caring and nurturing qualities in your mid-40s? Another point that drew my interest was your mention of the casual nastiness in conversations with women. What form did this take to shock you so? I have encountered resistance from fellow psychiatrists and psychologists due to my unconventional perspectives. Were these moments related to how academia treats this subject?

JF: Thank you for this fascinating answer about how the devaluing of motherhood and homemaking may fuel much unhappiness and resentment.

It’s sad to hear, and I suspect that it works well for the leaders of feminism because feminism doesn’t require happy, contented women; it needs discontented, anxious, and angry women, alienated from themselves and their families. They become dependent on the state and unable to say no to its demands. They are obedient foot-soldiers of an ideology that never admits it’s been wrong. The mantra of feminism is: “After 50 years of feminism, if you’re unhappy, you need more feminism!”

Speaking of women who are unhappy at work: I’ve sometimes wondered, when I see reports about the “barriers” that women say they have encountered—often relating to their not feeling adequately supported—whether the real problem was that at least some of the women, of average intelligence, interest, and drive, simply don’t enjoy their work enough or feel adequately driven to succeed in, and thus perceive the environment to be unsupportive. They would be happier being a mother to children.

(Even with an ability only commensurate to the woman’s, a man at the same stage of life is likely to be more driven, more self-directed, more focused, more determined to succeed, and able, or forced, to shrug off perceived indifference on the part of workmates.)

Have you ever had women outright say to you that they would prefer to be at home, focusing on children, husband, and domestic life—but feel coerced into a career?

The matter of attitude is crucial. If one begins with the belief that women are exploited in the home, forced to perform unpaid labor, then of course every aspect of home life is going to be seen through that lens.

Even now, I catch myself feeling resentment when doing a task I don’t like around the house, such as cleaning up the dishes after our evening meal. Maybe most people dislike that task; for me, it is the least pleasant part of the day. I feel hot, tired, and uncomfortable; I don’t like the look and smell of the plates with the scraps of food on them, and I dislike the trouble of cleaning and returning everything to its place, knowing that it will all be taken out and dirtied again the next day. It feels like an injustice that it should be my job (!!), and my mind wanders to those feminist theorists who opined that such was the nature of woman’s work, Sisyphusean, unending, unexalted. I have to consciously remind myself that my husband does tasks that I don’t like that are equally repetitive and mundane. He does all the grocery shopping. He deals with the maintenance of our car. He talks to tradesmen if we have a problem at the house. If I focus on my own discomfort, I know how the resentment can fester and can assume a feminist-dictated meaning that places me and my preferences at the center.

The simple wisdom that women of the past were steeped in has been largely obliterated by feminist indoctrination, which encourages rebellion, self-assertion, liberatory anger. For what? Do I want to create a home environment that is bitter and divisive simply because I am sweaty and irritated while doing the dishes? Or do I want to cultivate cheerfulness, acceptance, and joy in a shared life?

To answer your question, I’m not sure exactly what happened to me that I snapped out of my feminist mindset and began to care about the sons of feminism. I should say, by the way, that I don’t see my men’s advocacy as particularly admirable. I don’t know why I don’t feel more active concern for my own sex—it seems perfectly natural to do so—and I’ve never had to make any effort to think of life from the male point of view.

Perhaps my concern for men came from the maternal instinct I avoided? It started when I was about 33, having just begun my first tenure-stream position at the University of Saskatchewan. My heart went out to all the fresh-faced young men in my classes as I imagined what it must be like to be them, listening to how bad they are, and how ashamed and sorry they should be. Everything in English studies—and in most other university disciplines in North America—is taught from an unquestioned feminist point of view. The ideology says that women and men are entirely equal in all their capabilities; but at the same time, women are better than men, more moral, less violent, more empathetic (ha ha), and at the same time more vulnerable, deserving of special accommodations and special perquisites. It is fundamentally incoherent, but one can see it everywhere. I couldn’t help but wonder what these young men, responsible for no injustice, thought of it. They didn’t seem to object; they looked eager to please, eager to be fair, a little ashamed, a little mystified. It was hard to find any misogyny in their attitudes, but they were continually told that misogyny was their crime.

As for women’s casual misandry, that has been an eye-opener. Just recently, I was speaking to a young woman who would not, I’m fairly sure, identify as a feminist. She was at the time engaged to a man who works very hard in the Alberta oil fields. Somehow the subject of kidney stones came up, and she said, seemingly out of nowhere, that kidney stones are about as painful as childbirth. “When my uncle had kidney stones, we all said, ‘Serves him right! Now he knows how we feel!’” she said with a grin. This was a woman who had not yet had a child, speaking to a woman who had never had children, in an era when women have access to medical technologies (almost entirely invented by men) to reduce the pain of childbirth and make it safer. I could not imagine two men speaking and laughing together about the pain of women in childbirth. “Serves them right!” If any such men did so, polite society would be rightly appalled. Yet women’s expressed glee at male suffering is largely ignored or even encouraged.

I’m interested in your transition from egalitarian-minded working woman to home-maker and caregiver. Could you say a bit more about it, about your husband’s response, and about the response of women around you? Did you experience resistance or criticism? Did you encounter challenges in your own mindset? Have you ever encountered casual misandry amongst women? Do you think there is a (mainly) silent group of women out there who feel as we feel generally, but aren’t able to articulate their thoughts?

HS: I think you are spot on in your assessment of the perceived barriers of working women. When the hospital I worked at spotted my unhappiness, they instantly extended every accommodation to improve my well-being. Since I was conscious of the source of my unhappiness (the unfulfilled need to nest), I was quite taken aback by the almost inappropriate amount of understanding and flexibility. They acted perfectly in line with their mission—to become a bastion for working mothers. My mission was to get pregnant again as quickly as possible.

Six months after maternity leave ended, not having conceived yet, I broke down crying to my husband, begging him to support the radical change of me quitting my job. I’d already told him daily about the research I’d read on the negative effects on kids in daycare, and how wrong I had been in my liberal beliefs, from climate to feminism. He went on that philosophical journey with me and admitted to being miserable in the life of logistics and fights about whose turn it was to leave work when the baby was sick. We were always exhausted. Initially he was shocked at my request, followed quickly by terror. It put a huge financial burden on him; I was making a doctor’s salary in one of the best private Swiss psychiatric clinics. This would mean we had to significantly downsize our spending in addition to him finding a higher paying job.

Nevertheless, he couldn’t jump on that anxiety-inducing challenge fast enough. It was truly impressive what he achieved despite the anxiety of suddenly being the sole breadwinner. By being allowed to be fully in charge, and having us relying on him completely, he felt more like a man. It spurred him to learn new skills, network, and change fields, so that in the following 3 years he managed a career progression others see in 10 years. He often thanks me for initiating the change, and swears it inspires the envy of all his friends. He’s also adamant that the initiative had to have come from me. He paints the analogy of him as the engine who ensures forward movement, but I have to navigate. The egalitarian attitude was like a faulty navigational setting, veering us off course. The reason I had to be the instigator of the change was that the attitude or belief was resistant to contradictory evidence, almost like a cult member would be.

While my husband’s concerns were financial security, I experienced resistance in submitting to the risk dependence brought.  My friends and family warned me (loudly) that I was becoming too vulnerable and exposed. That in the event of a divorce, I would have lost years of career progression and earnings towards a pension fund. They called me stupid for sacrificing so much. I heard words like “unnecessary,” “wasteful,” and “a shame”. Many said that I was too highly educated to be “just a mom.” Some didn’t speak to me for months, and others have even cut contact completely. My repeated insistence that I was acting in the best interest of my family fell on deaf ears.

Still today, I can’t visit my GP without being scolded for leaving the clinic. They behave as if I have offended them personally—can you believe that? I was told I’m doing my kids a disservice by not showing them a working mother. The hardest criticism to hear was that the kids wouldn’t develop properly by “just staying with me.” So, to answer your question, I think that undoubtedly falls under the umbrella of coercion. When mothers confide in me, it becomes evident that societal acceptance is the primary concern, surpassing all other considerations.

It's particularly challenging for those possessing characteristic feminine traits, as they often tend to be highly agreeable individuals. They lack the strength to stray from that path of certain validation and away from the cheerleading that the working mother receives to keep swimming against the current of her intuition.

I had to laugh at your description of the conversation with the woman gleefully telling you about her man’s kidney stone—it sounds so familiar. Not the kidney stone, but women’s resentful fixation on the burden of childbirth. It strikes me as juvenile, how they can so easily disregard the wondrous emotional aspect exclusively afforded a woman precisely because only she can give birth. This selective consideration might share the same origin as the scenario you outlined regarding washing dishes (hands down the worst chore, I agree), requiring a deliberate endeavor to perceive matters from the man's perspective and not dismiss their contributions. On the other hand, this tendency could be attributed to our generally heightened sensitivity to negative emotions and being more prone to promptly recognize our own grievances and articulate them.

I too am shocked at what I hear women say sometimes, but I’m not so alarmed at the empathy gap as by another more harmful breed of misandry. The men I’ve spoken to don’t seem particularly concerned with receiving more empathy: what they crave is respect. Have you noticed that when at dinner parties with friends, wives will frequently ridicule their husbands?  It’s such a clear symptom of deep resentment, where she so easily sacrifices his esteem for a momentary feeling of vindication through the approval of her female friends.

Worse still, often within the same soirée, is the unwavering stance that the wife's job, despite its lower income compared to her husband's, holds equal significance. She seems disinclined to bestow him with due acknowledgment for shouldering the lion's share of the income, or to concede that his professional commitments might warrant priority. Despite his job being the linchpin of their quality of life, she insists on an equal division of all domestic responsibilities, including nighttime childcare duties. A growing number of women even strategically opt out of breastfeeding to enable the father to take these nighttime feeding duties, his job and the attachment needs of children be damned.

In the quest for enhanced support for men, what are your thoughts on redirecting the focus from narrowing an empathy gap to reestablishing women’s accountability for their family instead? Could we minimize resentment at the inherent empathy gap, if women were once again made worthy of it?

JF: Thank you for this account of your experience. It’s remarkable for many reasons, not least because of the widespread negative reactions you received over your decision to devote yourself to being a mother.

I have at times pooh poohed the allegation that feminism was an outright attack on women wanting to be mothers; I now realize I was wrong. How astounding (though not surprising) that in what was likely the most important decision of your life, you were not allowed to claim that you knew what was best for you and your family.

I admire you for having the courage to recognize and act on the truth. Good for you.

It was also very interesting to hear about your husband’s being revved up by the increased responsibility and drive to provide. Tom Golden has spoken about how men get a surge of testosterone when a child is born that enables them to become more active outside the home in order to protect and provide for their growing family.

Your concluding thought about reestablishing women’s family accountability is apt. I agree with you that resentment at the empathy gap would be minimized, if not outright eliminated, if women were made more worthy of social esteem.

Above all, the valuing of partnership between men and women must be reestablished: including the recognition that if our civilization is to survive and flourish, women need to take responsibility for nurturing children because that is primarily what women as a group have evolved to do.

I say this as a woman who never had children, so perhaps I am a hypocrite or at least unqualified, but everything I have observed and read points in this direction. The most important goal of a culture is to ensure that it survives; we in the post-feminist west are not ensuring our survival, and the future looks to be trending in precisely the wrong direction. Women are not happy or satisfied despite believing that the goals of feminism are being achieved.

I have no problem, as a woman who did not have children, in acknowledging that bearing children and creating a home environment in which they can thrive, especially when they are young, is a woman’s most important job. I would prefer to live in a culture that recognized that fact even if it meant that my own decision not to have children was seen as a lesser choice, as having less value (because it was).

I would not want to live in a culture that vilified me for my choice or deprived me of basic rights of citizenship (as happened recently, for example, to those who chose not to take the Covid vaccines). I want to live in a culture that enables freedom of choice to both women and men, and that encourages each person to make their best contribution to their society and to be valued for it.

But I think a sane society should say up front, and should be organized around the recognition, that women who choose to be nurturing mothers are making the most important social contribution possible. Such women should be recognized above others. They should be celebrated and honored. Correspondingly, men who look after their families well should also be celebrated and honored. Needless to say, this would require a sea-change in our societies.

I would like to see an honest discussion about what children need most, what mothers’ responsibilities (as well as fathers’ responsibilities) are, and what society can do to assist fathers and mothers to create the best, most stable and nurturing, environment for children. This would be truly radical as well as traditional.

I can’t speak for all men, of course, but I think many men would be happy to participate in such a shift in emphasis. Most men already commend and value femininity as it is expressed in home-making, care-giving, and mothering.

You raise the issue of the empathy gap and ask whether it is of equal importance to the fact that men are not respected. It’s a complex question, but I think it is fair to say that most men do not expect, nor do they lament the lack of, deep empathy of the sort that women and girls receive. I think men are shocked by the near-total lack of empathy given even to vulnerable boys and young men, but empathy is not their sole concern.

From talking to men, I have concluded that most men do not wake up in the morning thinking ‘Where is the empathy?’ Most men want to be of use; they want to be able to do things that matter in their societies, and they want to have that mattering acknowledged.

Some men have even said to me that they don’t particularly care about being loved. They don’t want to be hated or disdained, needless to say, but they don’t expect an outpouring of warm fuzzies from their society or even necessarily from the women in their lives. They want to be able to make a contribution and not be scorned for it, not told to step aside and let women do it instead, not told that there is nothing distinctive about men’s being in the world. They want to be recognized for their ability to get things done.

How will this change happen? It will not likely be a top-down effort by government or public bodies, an organized attempt to transform perceptions and increase acceptance. Quite the opposite: feminist organizations both within and outside of government will oppose it with all their resources and shrillness. They will tell us that it is an attack on women that will increase misery and dysfunction in society. They’ll lie about studies allegedly showing that children are better off in daycare; that mothers are happier at work. And so on.  

As I see it, such a change will have to happen woman by woman, man by man, family by family. Perhaps there will be gatherings of like-minded families in small communities. They will offer the opportunity and the model. I’m sure they already exist; as the ills of feminism become ever more evident, we can hope that such communities will proliferate.

Do you have any thoughts about this or related matters? Do you see it happening?

HS: Thank you for your kind words, I grab that encouragement greedily. What you write about the importance of motherhood is all the more powerful coming from you because you chose the other path and are able to assess the different aspects of that choice with intellectual honesty.

You’re right in pointing out the importance of freedom of choice, I’m glad you did, as the conservative in me tends to come across as rigid on these matters. We shouldn’t be governed by nostalgia, so I agree with what you’re saying about the optimal way forward being readjusted to children’s needs while continuing to allow for personality differences.

At the same time, I can’t help but feel it’s the “everything is acceptable as long as it’s your choice” attitude that is contributing to the misery of men and women and the psychopathology we have been discussing.

A relevant case example comes to mind. I treated a single and depressed 38-year-old girl living here in Zürich. Her twin sister had moved to Israel from Zürich in her early twenties. One of the sources of my patient’s unhappiness was her sister’s successful life as a settled mother of 3, posting smiling pictures of the family group. I realized what a difference being immersed in a traditional religious environment, as the sister had been in Israel, can have. I know from personal knowledge of Israel that a 30-year-old single woman is an object of sympathy rather than encouragement (outside the liberal Tel Aviv bubble), nudging the younger women not to be at the receiving end of that sympathy. My patient, having lived her formative years on Tinder in a European metropolis, had heard the same old nostrums, for instance the prevalent “you can’t expect anyone to love you before you love yourself” and other banalities. She had also followed societal norms.

The twin in Israel not only saw people living by example but people daring to disapprove. The Zürich-based twin had until now only been subject to these modern niceties. I told her the opposite: That it wasn’t necessary for her to learn to love herself before entering a relationship. I was also honest about the importance of communicating the desire for kids on the first date, seeing as she didn’t have many fertile years left, and frozen eggs often fail. She was stunned and outraged at first, but funnily enough, showed physical relief. What made this even worse, however, is that I was neither the first nor the second therapist she’d seen. Maybe not being so nice can be a kindness.

I agree it will take a sea-change, but I doubt living by example is enough to induce it. Having been the only stay-at-home mom for miles, the only change I see is further alienation rather than inquisitive investigation. That’s why I think public figures and politicians must get involved. Georgia is a great example here, the only western democratic country with population growth. The Georgian Patriarch incentivized people by promising to personally baptize, and become godfather to, every third and later child of married Orthodox couples. As a deeply religious country, it does, as you so nicely put it, “recognize nurturing mothers above others.”

On that note, in our secular Western democracies, I dare say that more people go to therapy than to church or synagogue. Hence the song I’m trying to sing: That because therapists have taken on the role previously held by religious authority figures and community institutions, they greatly contribute to societal ills when they counsel along ideological lines. I have witnessed them doing so and have often taken over cases, or rather the train wrecks, they have caused.

What upsets me about this is: Doctors are subject to malpractice claims if an intervention causes infertility. But no consequences befall a therapist whose advice is responsible for wasting a woman’s youth. Similarly, if you would go to a priest for advice, the religious agenda is readily apparent. Now, those who press on the levers of people’s life choices are allowed to give the impression they are unbiased and set above the trivial archaic notions of religion. They enjoy the esteem of being all-knowing about human psychology, while refusing to admit the most obvious truths. I agree with your assessment that any apparent move top-down would be hard hit by the feminist engine, but I would be interested to see what happens, if all therapy sessions were taped, archived and open to litigation.

Nevertheless, I do think there is some movement in the woodwork. At least the largest organization for young conservatives in the US (TPUSA) is successful in telling a story that can compete with the attraction of feminism. They are succeeding in making traditionalism appealing to young people (or at least talking about something other than tax cuts).

Watching the TPUSA-types gives me hope; their gatherings and followings are huge and rapidly increasing. We also need traditional mothers to be vocal and advocate, but that sadly seems a contradiction in terms. There are some who do, however. The “Tradwife” movement even has a growing presence in Norway, the vanguard of egalitarianism. Though the “tradwives” receive criticism for going backwards, they bravely show their opposition, and courage is contagious. So, I thank you again for taking an interest in my podcast and articles, where I attempt to do my part, however small an impact it may have.

Do you think there is something to this, or am I simply revealing being wet behind the ears in dealing with antifeminist advocacy?

JF: Well, you really opened up a fascinating angle here, and I appreciate it very much. We end with a bang!

We need to “dare to disapprove,” you say. Amen, my sister! Yes, we need to prevent women, if possible, from ruining their lives (and the lives of others) by telling them when they are going wrong: to express sorrow for and disapproval of poor choices and damaging behaviors. We need to stop showing false love and baseless applause.

That would be revolutionary.

A corollary to that would be open and unstinting social encouragement to traditional virtues as well as the overarching goals of female partnership with men and motherhood; also, perhaps, state and quasi-state incentives to marriage and family life of the sort you describe in Georgia (I think there may be some similar initiatives in Hungary, though I don’t know the details). Also, perhaps there could be more avenues for part-time work for women, with the expectation that many women will want and need to take significant time off work, or may enter the workforce late, because of home commitments. I find it interesting that this quite plausible option—of women finishing their education and entering some professions much later in life—seems never to have been seriously considered.

Part of the problem is that many women don’t know what they want. They are susceptible to social pressure. Or perhaps it is more exact to say that in our feminist culture, many women find themselves caught between what they truly want in their hearts and what they think they (should) want, and the result is a great deal of bitter unhappiness.

We seem to be circling around the simple but radical idea that women and men each have a nature, and that we would all be better off if we acknowledged it and made it the basis for social policy.

We have denied this nature and made a false counter-claim (that men and women are essentially the same; that differences are socially determined) for a long time. It has had disastrous consequences: for women themselves, for their children, for men and for the larger community (employers, employees, workmates, clients, and so on).

It would be better to let women know that they are, generally, made in a way that men are not. And we need to raise girls with a knowledge of that nature while equipping them with the qualities and skills that will help them prepare for their future. The change to our contemporary assumptions would be massive.

Of course, we should maintain some place for those women—like me—who, independently and in defiance of the orthodoxy, will choose a different path (there have always been such women in the west: mystics, teachers, healers, thinkers, artists, women who in singleness or childlessness made a contribution, so I am not particularly worried that such women will be denied their calling).

But we would make no doubt that the central role of women in any viable society is to care for their menfolk and to raise the next generation, and to cultivate self-control, faithfulness, truth-telling, modesty, gentleness, and loving kindness. I have no problem, as I’ve said before, acknowledging this central role and celebrating women who do it well.  

Whether this can be done in the absence of a religious tradition, I am not sure. That’s a whole other issue. How we could come to agreement about it in any post-feminist western society, with a majority of women absolutely vehement that they must have total freedom and should never be criticized in any manner, I also don’t know. But the beginning is to articulate the counter-vision as engagingly as possible and, as you said, to dare to disapprove. It’s good to see that starting.

Perhaps in the process we can hold those accountable (like therapists and university professors) who spread untruths and give destructive advice.

It’s a tall order.

Thank you for your forthright responses and for sharing your experiences as a therapist. Your insights are extremely valuable, and have been a shot in the arm for me. I wish you all the best with your podcast.

HS: And thank you for the opportunity to engage in this meaningful exchange. You make such an important point in highlighting girls’ susceptibility to social pressure and being guided astray. It reminds me of a Pew statistic I saw last year, which showed 88% of American parents prioritize a career over family when asked about aspirations for their children (girls and boys alike). This underscores why I am dedicated to impressing upon mothers the risks associated with such messaging. As you rightly point out, meaningful change must occur from family to family.

As we wrap up our conversation, I want to tell you how your perspectives inspired me reconsider how we approach the challenges faced by both men and women in our society. I eagerly anticipate building upon these insights and further these vital topics future discussions. Your question about displacing feminism without relying on a religious narrative is particularly intriguing. I believe it will be a valuable point of exploration.

---

Go paid at the $5 a month level, and we will send you both the PDF and e-Pub versions of “Government” - The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! and a coupon code for 10% off anything in the Government-Scam.com/Store.

Go paid at the $50 a year level, and we will send you a free paperback edition of Etienne’s book “Government” - The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! OR a 64GB Liberator flash drive if you live in the US. If you are international, we will give you a $10 credit towards shipping if you agree to pay the remainder.

Support us at the $250 Founding Member Level and get a signed high-resolution hardcover of “Government” + Liberator flash drive + Larken Rose’s The Most Dangerous Superstition + Art of Liberty Foundation Stickers delivered anywhere in the world. Our only option for signed copies besides catching Etienne @ an event.