The Great Depression

No, the title for this post is not about the calamitous stock market crash and the plague of unemployment that marked the misery of the 1930's...but about a column published today by Conservative Radio Talk Show host, Dennis Prager, entitled "Why Are So Many Women Depressed?"

Prager makes some excellent points regarding the role in which feminist dogma plays in creating a culture that produces a record number of women who are reportedly "depressed." His article is spot on in it's assessment, but I do think he misses some other key contributing factors that are indirectly tied to the epidemic of female depression. Nevertheless, I believe his key point ties in directly to much of the criticisms made of feminism and it's nihilistic ideology.

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.

Prager's entire article is worth the read, but I would argue that THIS paragraph is the key to every other pathology, deviancy and social corruption we can attribute to feminism.

In just about every area of complaint one can make of the feminists and the feminist movement, it is quite obvious that the key here is accepting personal responsibility for ones thoughts and actions. One of the first areas of responsibility one should learn is to control ones natural urges and instincts. One must "oppress" our base human nature.

Feminism, as we know, seeks freedom from oppression...not just the oppression of "Patriarchy," but the oppression of facing the consequences for giving in to ones base instincts. Is this not the prime motivation for legalized abortion and no-fault divorce? So that a woman can engage in any base behavior she wants without suffering any consequences for it?

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.

Does this not speak directly to the problems of the inner city ghettos and the proliferation of single mother households thanks to socialist welfare programs and the divorce industry? The young males raised without Fathers are the very same men that fill our prisons and prey on society; they are the very boys that were denied the primary role models and parental guidance in instilling the lessons of channeling physical aggression into positive outlets.

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.

It's no coincidence that the cultural zeitgeist that emphasizes emotional state as a paramount consideration of "happiness" has accompanied by the rise of the "no-fault" divorce revolution. When one contemplates it, it's not hard to make a leap in logic that the divorce industry was built upon the encouragement of women to destroy their families because of their emotional state of being.

I believe Prager's next point is also a key component in the epidemic of depression:

Another aspect of feminism that has probably contributed to many women's unhappiness was the rejection of femininity.

He lists several examples of the loss of femininity - like feminine dress, the spread of coarse language and the casual sex norms have all contributed to the stripping of value of the virtues of femininity by our feminist-warped culture.

But the best point Prager makes comes next, for it speaks directly to the prime directive of the feminist ideology - the promotion of disharmony between men and women and the dissolution of the nuclear family.

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.

Nature did not intend for men and women to be competitors, but symmetrical components complimentary to each other, each bringing a different aspect to the table in creating and molding the next generation of offspring. Thus it is not a leap of logic to point out that Feminism is truly a crime against nature.

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

They are women without men.

When you hear a woman say she doesn't need a man, know that you are listening to the words of a liar, or a delusional person in denial of reality.

Prager concludes:

...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.

Excellent article...but I do believe there is another factor in the rise of depression, and it has to do with SAD - the Standard American Diet. Modern, processed garbage laden with poisonous compounds masquerading as "food" are now ubiquitous. If the human body does not have the proper nutrition, it cannot produce the right mixture of hormones, neurotransmitters and other chemical processes required to have a "normal" functioning human body.

This state of affairs no doubt contributes to an even greater fluctuation in emotional states in a female body that already experiences fluctuations even when eating an optimal diet. Couple that with the cultural conditioning that does not reinforce the need for women to learn to control their natures, and you have the current epidemic of female depression.

No wonder anti-depressants are far and away the best sellers of the pharmaceutical industry.