What’s in it for the Modern Man?
If you read Hugo Schwyzer’s piece titled “Why Men Should be Willing to Die for Women” closely, you’ll see that he’s essentially trying to delink duty from honor in the story three men in Aurora, Colorado. These men, to Schwyzer, are just offering recompense to the feminine for the sacrifice it has made for the sake of humanity throughout history. Schwyzer writes:
All of the chatter about a lost male heroism misses the point. The reality is that these sacrificial gestures, as impressive and touching as they are, belong to a tradition that dates back to an era when far more women died for men than vice-versa. Until the advent of modern medicine, childbirth was one of the leading causes of death for women; a conservative estimate places the historic rate of maternal mortality at 1 for every 100 births. Even now, at least 800 women die worldwide every day as a consequence of childbirth.
Every woman who dies in childbirth dies as a result of sex with a man
Schwyzer’s lack of facts and figures aside, scholar Theda Skocpol wrote a book back in the early 1990s called Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. She argued that the foundations of the U.S.’s welfare state were laid out for the veterans of the Civil War first and then the mothers of the Progressive Era. Both groups are considered by the public to be a certain sort of infrastructure. They are warm bodies sacrificing for the greater good.
But while Schwyzer wants to give the modern woman a ride on the coattails of the traditional, family-oriented women of history, he forgets that women today are fixed with ahistorical freedoms that completely shakes up the sacrificial calculus. I’m talking mainly about abortion but also the fact that the welfare state is centered toward women and children – a perverse incentive which has slowly crowded out the “decision rights” of men. Radicals and social liberals alike have fought tooth and nail to undermine the very calculus that Schwyzer is strangely embracing as justification for men sacrificing themselves.
It’s funny that Schwyzer will draw from history when it suits his argument but then disregard either custom or evolved behavior if it opposes his gender ideology. The mark of a sophist.