Fifty years ago, when I lived in London, I used to listen to Fredrick Lohr’s oratory at Speakers’ Corner, in Hyde Park, London. Fredrick would hold thousands spellbound and fascinated for hours on end. When the audience ceased to be hypnotized and spellbound, then he had a technique that was guaranteed to arouse and unite every single one of his audience: He would talk about sex. At once every man, woman and even child would stand immediately to attention. Everyone was identified with that one subject.
Now we have had many points of view about sex recently in these columns. Men and women have expressed their enchantment, their disenchantment and their sufferings and problems. For, after all, doesn’t passion mean suffering? Someone has said that sex is pain so intense it becomes pleasure — shades of masochism and sadism. The passionate tortured facial expressions of lovers having sex verifies Woody Allen’s observation that sex is the most fun people can have without laughing.
D.H. Lawrence, who spent his life and all his writings obsessed with the problems of sex, finally proclaimed that “men and women have nothing in common except the bed.” “What drives men and women together,” he insisted, “is the indomitable necessity of sex”.
That being said, we have to recognize that women and men are not equal. Two triangles may be equal, but mathematical equations are not applicable to human beings, least of all to men and women. As the French say: “Viva la difference!”
The fact is women are cultivated by men. Women are cultivated by their fathers and by their husbands. A good cultivation produces “a pearl without price,” as described in the Good Book. An ill cultivation and we have women with many problems, none of them of their own making. The happiness of women on this planet depends upon the men.
In modern-day society, that women have to work alongside men as wage slaves in socialist societies is not because of equal rights and equal opportunity for women but because production has become a deity, an almighty god. A woman has no choice but to work outside the home. A man’s wage cannot any longer support a wife and family, so that a wife might choose whether to work outside the home or not. So the wife is forced to work outside the home in order to subsidize the husband’s take-home pay so they can make ends meet, and the wife is thereby forced to neglect the home and the children. She is forced to work outside the home and she has no choice. Left-wing politics and maybe right-wing politics, too, (there is little difference these days) are both involved in the degradation of women in the industrial world, such that a woman has two jobs, one in the home and the other outside the home. Is that progress?
And left-wing politics are involved in the degradation of men also for a man should earn a living wage enough to support his family without government subsidies from all kinds of welfare organizations and ever greater and ever-expanding bureaucracies that collapse under their own weight until we have a world economic and financial crisis and approaching world anarchy. A man should earn enough so that his wife may choose whether she wants to work outside the home or not.
Karl Marx has a lot to answer for. Millions have suffered and died because of his ideas, both men and women, not only in the former Soviet Union and Red China, but all over the world. Marx is seldom the target of feminists, and I wonder why not? The ideas of Karl Marx have exploited and degraded women all over the world and continue to do so. Incidentally, income tax is also a Karl Marx idea but, to his credit, he intended it should only be used in times of war.