Have you ever heard people (usually female) say that if only women ran the world there would be fewer wars and less aggression? That argument never resonated with me, but an emerging trend is revealing serious flaws in the concept.
The trend is towards the commission of violent crime by women. On Halloween, a woman in an upscale neighborhood of Baltimore was randomly attacked by a pack of 10-15 juveniles. I use the word pack deliberately, as the behavior resembled feral animals more than humans. The newspaper report reads,
“I had a red down-like vest on, so they grabbed the back of my vest and then held me, and then out in front of them came six young women with wood pieces that were like maybe an inch thick and about three feet long…”
“They started hitting me with the wood, in the knees, a lot in my face…”
A number of other citizens were similarly attacked on the same evening.
Earlier in the year, in Chicago, two males and two females, aged 18-24, were charged with hate crimes after viciously torturing a mentally disabled teen. Once again, the attackers completely submerged their humanity.
Women have always been capable of physical viciousness. Accounts exist of Indian women doing unimaginable things to captives. There were female Kapos in Nazi concentration camps and individual mothers have tragically abused children. But are we seeing an increase in callous behavior among groups of supposedly mentally sane females at a time when there is no communal or governmental structure providing the patina of approval? I fear we are.
There are a few commonly advanced reasons for the general deterioration of civilized behavior. Among them are the increasing number of children being raised in single-parent (usually female) homes; the explosion of anger promoted by technology that allows anonymity and discourages real discourse and relationships; the dismal failure of a government school system with politicians seemingly focused on everything except providing decent education; and a public disdain for religion and traditional values.
I would like to make one more suggestion. This thought is coming from my mind and heart. I know that many will refute it and, indeed find it offensive. I have seen no studies to support it nor have I conducted interviews to test my thesis. Yet, it may very well be valid and I do think it is worth putting on the table.
Since the “Murphy Brown” days, we have seen that wealthy, upper-class, and well-connected woman can indeed manage lives as single mothers. The children may lack fathers, but their mothers can afford to purchase the backup support they need and to provide for their children’s needs. However, as the idea of single-parenthood was promoted, women without the same financial and cultural advantages mimicked the behavior even though they were completely incapable of mimicking the positive outcomes. (And no, I am not saying that no non-wealthy mother can successfully raise a family. That is patently untrue. I am speaking in broad terms on a societal, not an individual, level.) Government misguidedly set policies in place to further discourage the concept of reserving parenthood for married couples.
In a similar way, I would like to advance the idea that abortion has had a different effect on the elites who advocate for it and the general populace who falls victim to that elitist vision. People may pontificate that abortion is a minor medical procedure with no emotional element, but in the real world ending a potential life does not equate with removing a benign fibroid.
Not only is the “clump of cells” you are destroying capable of developing a heartbeat, lungs, liver and fingernails, assuming it hasn’t already acquired those features, it is capable of developing a personality. In the future, for many women cooing over a winsome infant or delighting in a toddler’s lisp must bring a reminder of what might have been. In addition, that fetus is a miniature version of you. Destroying something that carries your own chromosomes and genes might very well have a conscious or subconscious psychological effect.
Emotionally secure girls, with access to physical and psychological support may process an abortion without being shattered. Perhaps they can put the memory in a box, separate from the rest of their lives. What about girls who don’t live in similarly healthy environments? Even if some aren’t affected by having an abortion, can we posit that almost no one is?
Is it possible, that by training young women to view abortion as benign, we are creating a group of women who are learning to close themselves off to their emotions? Are we creating hardened, masculine girls? When I was in junior high school, we were assigned a project having to do with the Holocaust. I don’t even remember what a few of my friends and I worked on, but, in a memory that brings me shame, I know that we reached a point of cracking “Holocaust jokes”. I think that we simply weren’t able to handle the research we did, the constant reading about unimaginable atrocities. Yes, children our age and younger underwent those atrocities, but we blessedly were spared them. It might have been better for us not to read so many graphic details until we were more mature. Is it so absurd to think that a generation immersed in an abortion culture learns to deaden their feelings?
I have no information on the specific girls involved in the recent heinous crimes. Their personal stories are somewhat irrelevant. The culture around them disrespects human life.
Can this be a factor in the scary and disturbing increase of violent behavior of young girls? I don’t know, but neither do I think that it should be automatically dismissed.