WHY ARE SO MANY WOMEN DEPRESSED? LET'S ASK A CONSERVATIVE!

So I thought I'd try something new, a fun little feature I call "Let's Ask A Conservative!" For the inaugural edition, I thought I'd investigate an article brought to me by StumbleUpon, the greatest thing ever created by man. The article comes from humanevents.com, the self-described "Home Of The Conservative Underground," and is entitled Why Are So Many Women Depressed?
So let's see, Dennis Prager, Why are women so depressed?

"Because I'm their blind date?"

Ok, well, I just finished the article and... um... Well, I'll let Dennis speak for himself.

"It is widely reported that women suffer depression at twice the rate of men. Apparently, more women are clinically depressed than ever before."

Ok, wrong, the gap between men and women is nowhere near that large and the statistics are only higher now because we've become better at diagnosing and are aware of more symptoms of depression and have eliminated the social stigma attached to it, but whatever, depression is still a problem. What do you think might be a cause, Den-Den?

"As every wise person and wise culture in history has known, it is impossible to attain any happiness without conquering one's nature. This is, of course, equally true for boys and girls, men and women. However, along with feminism arose a belief in the superiority of female nature. One result of this has been the suppressing of many male instincts -- both negative and positive -- along with little or no suppression of negative female instincts."

Ok, that first part, about wise cultures? Thats the historical equivalent of "Some people say." There is nothing to back that statement up whatsoever. Also, remember what he says here; It's the suppresion of masculine instincts and the embrace of feminine instincts that started causing trouble. This will be important later. Prager prattles on for a bit, talking about how decent men control their sexual and violent urges, and how only evil and unhappy men rape women, bringing this up for no other reason than to force you to agree with him on at least one point. But then he starts talking about how while men are still taught to control these aspects of their nature, women are no longer taught to control their baser nature, what he calls "their predilection to be ruled by their emotions." Ok, yeah, I guess it's not cool to let emotions control you, but couldn't you have put that less condescendingly? But anyway, lets see why this is dangerous.

"Girls' emotions and feelings were inherently valuable... Consequently, the women many of these girls grew into lacked the ability to control their natures, to control their emotions, or their moods, and therefore lacked the facility to engage in the self-control necessary for happiness and the avoidance of depression."

Dammit! How could we have known that by telling girls to acknowledge their emotions, we were turning them into selfish emotional gluttons! Oh, the humanity! If only they had been stoic and self-controlled, like men! Femininity truly is the enemy.

"Another aspect of feminism that has probably contributed to many women's unhappiness was the rejection of femininity. Feminism was more often the celebration of masculine virtues (for women only, alas) than the celebration of feminine virtues."

...huh?

"There are scores of examples. One is the rejection of feminine dress -- a girl who attends class at almost any high school or college wearing a skirt or dress is an anomaly. Another is coarse speech. A generation ago, men refrained from using curse words in front of women. Today many young women curse as readily as men (I have probably seen more women than men drivers make an obscene gesture at other drivers). Such behaviors were inconceivable when women were expected to act feminine. And, of course, the "liberated" female's celebration of casual sex, throughout history associated with male nature, is the antithesis of femininity."

Ok, Dennis, you can't have it both ways here. First you say feminism killed masculinity and celibrated femininity. Then you say the complete opposite? Also, are you suggesting it's cool for men to be promiscious but not women? I've never seen anybody openly admit to that double standard. Basically the thrust of this part of the argument is that women don't really want to be able to do all that man stuff, because it takes away there female identity. Now, I'm a man, so I may be going out on a limb here, but I'd guess most women wouldn't stop wearing jeans so they can feel like they're a member of the Super-Secret Women's Club. But wait! There's more!

"Women are generally happier when they have a good man in their lives. And by "good man," I mean not only devoted and kind, but masculine as well.... Those who do not believe this should simply ask single adult women looking for a husband what their greatest problem is with the men they meet. "They are not men," is the single greatest lament. Not "they are not egalitarian enough" or "not sensitive enough.""

Ok, no. Women aren't looking for lumberjacks, as far as I know. And come on, really? Women don't complain that men aren't sensitive enough? You've managed to hit every other stereotype about women, and then you go against the only one thats partially true. Jerk.

So, I figure this could be a regular feature. Hell, I could do all of them based off Prager's articles. With names like Is Gay The New Black, this guy could keep me in material for years.