I’m not sure we’re all interpreting the term “social conservatism” in the same manner. For me, it describes the types of men and women who supported punitive measures against men who just happened to become the victims of female vindictiveness — in divorce in many cases, but in paternity and child support cases as well. They are the type of men who act as though young women can do no wrong, and hold men to social responsibilities that are quite often impossible to fulfill today (e.g. support a family alone in an era of out-of-control housing expenses). They are the kind of people who support the laws that throw young guys in jail when they lose their jobs and can’t afford a crippling support order. They are the judges sitting on the bench who sympathize with a woman who squirts tears out of her eyes to evade responsibility for her behavior. They support sending SWAT teams to men’s houses over alleged “domestic disputes,” many of which are fabricated from whole cloth.
This is what I have in mind when I think of social conservatives. Essentially, I see them as people who have a strong impulse to judge and punish others – men in particular – for flimsy or backward reasons. They justify their sadism by portraying themselves as defenders of virtuous, defenseless young maidens who, not coincidentally, are the objects of their lust. This is why one can see some very odd intersections between policy advocated by lesbians and social conservatives, who disagree violently on some other issues, such as abortion — they both have similar motives in the matter of relationships between females and other men.
Christians may know well the words “Judge not lest ye be judged,” but this is only the first line in a profound statement, and needs to be read in its proper context:
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
So when I criticize social conservatives, I’m not thinking of good, religious people, but rather those hypocrites and liars who hide their base instincts in a cloak of righteousness. They are the Pharisees of today; the kinds of people who mask their avarice and lust with legal constructs and false piety. The PUA, who openly declares what he is doing and honestly explains why is morally of a far higher stature from my point of view. He is like the heathen barbarian for whom salvation is an open possibility.
As for the social cons, I can’t say I’m all that optimistic. They’ve led us down a long, strange path to a dark, ugly place, and still they urge us along.
But I leave open the possibility that the term “social conservatism” may not be the best choice. However, language has a funny way of overriding our personal objections, so I’ve learned to take a utilitarian (or Daoist?) attitude toward it.