future, digging up the ruins of our townsrnand cities, may reconstruct a record byrnwhich they beheve these same hadrnnames such as Nixon and Burger King,rnRadio City, Tinseltown, Coca Cola,rnFreeway, and Playboy. And perhaps thernnames will sound as exotic and colorfulrnto them as the Indian names do to us.rnLarry Tritten writes fromrnSan Francisco.rnFAMILYrnEstrogenrnPoisoningrnby Marian Kestet CoombsrnAfirst-grade teacher in the suburbs ofrnWashington, D.C., concludes thatrnwhile some of her pupils suffer variousrndegrees of parental neglect, others seemrnto be experiencing the opposite extreme:rnsuch pampering at home that they cannotrneven tie their own shoes, and mustrnhave it done for them. It takes a whilernbefore she realizes that the latter childrenrncannot tie their shoes because nornone has ever taken the trouble to teachrnthem.rnA developmental psychologist at thernUniversity of Rochester is disturbed byrnthe high rate—13 percent and rising—ofrn”attention-deficient,” “hyperactive” sixtorn12-year-old boys being dosed with Ritalinrnin that urban area. After reportingrnon her informal observation of severalrnmother-son pairs (“Son cuddled next tornMom. Son ran the strings from the hoodrnof Mom’s jacket through his lips. Sonrnrocked his body back and forth. Son pattedrnMom’s face. Through all of this.rnMom ignored him”), the psychologistrnwrites, “What’s behind the alarminglyrnhigh incidence of ADHD, I believe, isrnthe widespread failure of parents andrnteachers to help children learn to regulaternthemselves, including managingrntheir attention. Many parents do notrnseem inclined to socialize their children”rn{Rochester Review, Fall 1996).rnA young working mother is having arndreadful time finding someone, anyonernto whose mercenary mercies she canrnsafely entrust her precious two-year-old,rnand so she writes an angry little get-itoff-rnmy-chest piece for Woman’s Day.rn”Day care in America is such a hodgepodge,rnantiquated affair that parents arernforced to take a leap of faith with thernwell-being of their child that theyrnwouldn’t take with any other part of theirrnlives,” she whines. “We are so vulnerable.rn. . . Where is the affordable, decentrnday care that will let parents go off tornwork secure in the knowledge that theirrnchild is being well cared for?. . . Does itrnreally have to be this gut-wrenching?” Byrnnow we do not have to be told what suchrnwhining precedes: still another demandrnfor still another fix of big government.rnWhen The Awakening was publishedrnin 1899, public reaction to author KaternChopin’s hostility toward those lowlyrncreatures she termed “mother-women”rnwas disbelief that any woman could feelrnthat way about motherhood, and scandalizationrnat the sheer “perversity of herrnunnatural sentiments.” A mere threerngenerations later, Ms. Chopin’s sentimentsrnhave been almost universallyrnadopted by our society—most fervently,rnin fact, by mothers themselves.rnFatherlessness has been tagged as thernbiggest problem facing the family in thisrncountry today, and by extension thernbiggest problem facing our society as arnwhole. But it is really motherlessness thatrnbesets us. Nobody wants to be the mom.rnMotherhood is viewed as a sucker’srngame. Yet what a wondrous system itrnwas, admirable in its lavish economy, itsrnunimpeachable irrationality, its gloriouslyrnselfish selflessness, its universal particularity.rnEvery child was to have at leastrnone person on earth who was absolutelyrncrazy about him, a sucker for him. Everyrnchild was to be the diminutive king orrnqueen of at least one person’s susceptiblernheart. The usual law of life—Eat or berneaten!—did not apply to motherhood,rnwhich gloried, up till now, in giving—rnEat, eat! But big-government feminismrnhas decreed that motherhood must go;rntaxes are levied against it; studies arernconcocted to prove it baneful; and so it isrngoing.rn”Feminism” is a misleading term forrnthe culprit, however. What these infuriatedrnwomen want to do is get rid of femininityrnaltogether, to seize and wieldrnwhat they clearly consider to be superior,rnmasculine attributes. The movementrnshould rightly be called masculism; it isrnthe triumph of all values traditionallyrnassociated with the male: dominance,rnaggression, egotism, single-mindedness,rnprofanity, promiscuity, toughness, brutalrnobjectivity, aloof self-sufficiency. Evenrnthe bodies of men—the sculpted musculaturernof flat abs and steel glutes—arerndisplayed as templates for the new womanrnto reproduce herself upon. Not forrnher the female body as temple whereinrnthe race is reproduced. Everything womenrnhave historically been associated with,rnamong every people, in every land andrnage, is being devalued and derided in thernname of “feminism.”rnWith these acquired masculine characteristics,rnthen, young women are tornforce themselves into the mold of citizen-rnsoldier, power attorney, “extreme”rnall-out athlete. Arrayed in teams, sortedrninto rigid hierarchies, exhorted to “Gornfor it!” no matter who or what stands inrntheir way, women are to become malernimpersonators. Not mere impersonators,rnof course: one of the central beliefs ofrnmasculism is that women are and havernalways been just as good (that is, as masculine)rnas men, and indeed will provernbetter at the game once they have takenrnit over. This belief was recently strokedrnby a Foundation for the Future studyrn”proving” that females in the labor forcernare superior to males in 28 out of 31rnways.rnBut “masculism” is also a misleadingrnterm. It is not really the masculinizationrnbut the homosexualization of societyrnthat is occurring. True masculinity isrnunswervingly attracted to the feminine;rnas Isak Dinesen, a female Nietzsche,rnwrote in her epigrammatic fashion, “Thernlove of woman and womanliness is arnmasculine characteristic, and the love ofrnman and manliness is a feminine characteristicrn. . . [I]t is almost impossible for arnwoman to irritate a real man, and as tornthe women, a man is never quite contemptible,rnnever altogether rejectable, asrnlong as he remains a man.” In contrast,rnit is the homosexual mind that findsrnboth the truly feminine and the trulyrnmasculine—that is, the heterosexual—rnunspeakably distasteful. It is the true naturesrnof both men and women that havernbeen targeted for denunciation and destruction.rnWhy? Because the traditionalrnfamilial order of society is an immovablernobject in the path of the irresistiblernforce of the state and its plans for our improvement.rnThus at the same time masculinernattributes are aped, their originators—rnmen, and white men in particular—arernsavagely mocked and attacked for pos-rn44/CHRONICLESrnrnrn