I suppose to even suggest that females have a nature is to declare war on them.
Well, we are at war. But only against the women who deny their own nature -- and Nature in general (the one entails the other).
Democrats know this: they know that one of their most reliable clients is this large and growing pool of humanoid misfits. They are the polar opposite of whatever it is Pajama Boy represents.
Normally there is a sexual polarity that results from the complementarity of male and female. But who or what is the complement of Pajama Boy? A domineering mother, I suppose.
Likewise, what could be the complement to those pathetic "Julias" of the liberal imagination? The only thing I can think of is the State, so this is one of those rare occasions that I agree with liberals.
If marriage were still the norm, we'd have a permanent conservative majority. Consider: in 2012, married people favored Romney by a margin of 14 percentage points. Single women, however, supported Obama by a whopping 68 to 30 (cited in Tucker).
Who are those 30%, anyway? Right. The attractive ones. Or at least the ones who aren't repellant.
No woman is an island, which is why the State simply displaces the role of husband. As they say, a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. However, she needs the government like a woman needs a man.
And the feeling is mutual, since the state needs single mothers like a man needs a wife. It's just patriarchy by another name.
In the past I have written of how the premature, neurologically incomplete, and helpless baby is the hinge of evolution. After all, if the babies don't survive and thrive, then the game is over.
However, in reality, like their Creator, humans are irreducibly intersubjective and tri-complementary. Therefore, you can't change one member of the subcelestial trinity without changing all the rest.
Thus, for example, when women no longer need men, we end up with Pajama Boy on the one hand and Hoodie Boy (e.g., Trayvon Martin) on the other: with wimps and barbarians.
So it is fair to say that each of the three is a hinge of evolution and of civilization: Man, Woman, and Baby. Each has certain responsibilities and certain entitlements.
But not just in terms of their biological categories. That means nothing. Here again, we're not talking about nature, but about NATURE, and a merely natural man sinks beneath himself into infrahuman Rousseauian hell.
Because we need to placate the angry and/or hysterical sub-female mob -- the ovary tower -- we are not permitted to talk about female responsibilities, only female "rights," such as the right to a dead baby and free birth control from Daddy.
Not so with boys, who are made aware of their responsibilities from the get-go, mainly to curb their aggression, impulsivity, competitiveness, enthusiasm, spirit, and life force. In short, they are to imitate female nature, even though there's no such thing.
And what is the primary cosmic responsibility of females? Interestingly, it is to help civilize male nature, but not in the way of the tenured or with the heavy hand of the state, as in the paragraph above.
Rather, Tucker discusses the centrality of female virtue, which is as critical to civilizational advance as are infantile helplessness and male strength and aggressiveness. You don't even need to look at it from a moralistic angle. Rather, just consider the results.
Tucker traces the roots of monogamy back to the spirited virtuous woman who refuses the seductions of powerful high-status males in favor of genuine passionate love.
This is a pattern we see "time and again in Western history -- high status aristocrats trying to make concubines and morganatic wives out of lower-status women, and the women, often peasant girls, standing up to them and refusing to comply. If there is one individual who is the lynchpin of a monogamous society, it is the Virtuous Woman." (Monica Lewinskys of the world, take note.)
Just consider the cascade of consequences that occurs when the woman fails in her duty to consecrate the booty. Ultimately we're talking about the failure of monogamy, and when that happens, all hell breaks loose for everybody, men, women, and children:
"[N]ormative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses.... By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity...." (Tucker).
So yeah, there is a war on woman. Primarily by other women. Cat fight!