The Traditional Family is the Solution to Abortion

I was looking at abortion statistics (source) from 2013 yesterday and this is what I found:

Financial reasons came first (40%) as a reason why women had abortions. After that came relationship problems and then issues like it not “being the right time” to have a baby because a woman wanted to focus on a career or college.

“A 21-year old pointed to a number of reasons why she felt the timing of her pregnancy was wrong “Mainly I didn’t feel like I was ready yet – didn’t feel financially, emotionally ready. Due date was at the same time as my externship at school. Entering the workforce with a newborn would be difficult – I just wasn’t ready yet.” A small proportion of women described not having enough time or feeling too busy to have a baby (2%).”

And as for the relationship issues:

“Nearly one third (31%) of respondents gave partner- related reasons for seeking an abortion. Six percent mentioned partners as their only reason for seeking abortion. Partner related reasons included not having a “good” or stable relationship with the father of the baby (9%), wanting to be married first (8%), not having a supportive partner (8%), being with the “wrong guy” (6%), having a partner who does not want the baby (3%), and having an abusive partner (3%).”

Some more women cited health reasons, some cited that they already had to take care of other children and didn’t want more. Still, even more cited that having a baby would interfere with future “opportunities” (read: career). Some of their explanations are as follows:

“One in five women (20%) reported that they chose abortion because they felt a baby at this time would interfere with their future goals and opportunities in general (5%) or, more specifically, with school (14%) or career plans (7%). Usually the reasons were related to the perceived difficulty of continuing to advance educational or career goals while raising a baby: “I didn’t think I’d be able to support a baby and go to college and have a job.” states an 18-year old respondent in high school. A 21-year-old woman in college with no children explains that she “Still want[s] to be able to do things like have a good job, finish school, and be stable.” Similarly, a 26-year old desiring to go back to college explains “I wanted to finish school. I’d been waiting a while to get into the bachelor’s program and I finally got it.” Another woman explains “I feel like I need to put myself first and get through college and support myself.” As a 21-one-year old seeking a college degree points out, “I’m trying to graduate from college and I’m going to cooking school in August and I have a lot of things going for me and I can’t take care of a kid by myself.” Others spoke to the inability to take time off work to raise the child.” A 21-one-year old holding two part-time jobs and raising two children states: “I wouldn’t be able to take the time off work. My work doesn’t offer maternity leave and I have to work [to afford to live] here. If I took time off I would lose my job so there’s just no way.”’

More cited things such as not being “prepared” to have a baby. Still others cited other issues that didn’t fit into the category like not wanting kids at all or legal issues.

It seems to me that the problems of a career, not being able to support a child or take off of work and other financial issues (as well as legal issues if we had coverture) would be solved by having a strong belief that fathers should be breadwinners. It also seems that the relationship issues could be solved by a strong legitimacy principle (that women shouldn’t have babies out of wedlock and should marry if pregnant, even if not the biological father) and a sexual double standard.

Feminist responses to these issues are more abortions (or subsidized ones by the state), paid maternity leave and anti-sex discrimination laws. Conservatives’ answers are to do away with welfare and tell women to keep their legs closed and pay for their own birth control already. Neither of these solutions are likely to help women in the slightest. Now that the feminist movement is over every one sees that Ok, women have equality now so let’s forget about the women. If anything let’s make everything more “fair” to men now since apparently things have gone too far to favor women. Yet the main theme is still egalitarian. It’s still leaving women on their own to fend for themselves. You don’t see conservatives advocating changing existing marriage and divorce laws to reflect traditional rights and responsibilities between the sexes. The only groups out there looking to protect marriage or change divorce laws are still operating in egalitarian mode (even antifeminist groups).

Furthermore, if conservatives take away women’s right to abortion we are going to have even greater problems as now what will these women do? In the past a man could even be made to support his closely related female relatives beyond just his wife and daughters and women even had such protections that an unwed woman coming to a hospital suffering from an illegal abortion would be questioned about the father and he could even be arrested and thrown in jail (1) (I’m sure feminists left out that little piece of history when exclaiming how society looked down on and slut-shamed single mothers- which they did of course). Now women have no protections in the slightest as they are treated and held to the same responsibilities as men, even though women are not men and don’t even understand half of the time the reality of the current legal climate.

Women had all kinds of protections to force men to be responsible for their actions towards women and children and women could count on support one way or another even if it was just marrying for convenience. But now what will women have? If conservatives wanted to protect unborn babies they could start by protecting the mother and teaching young women that a career should not be number one in their lives but prepare them to be caretakers of their children and homemakers and as well teach men they must man up and accept responsibility for women and children.

Is it any wonder that statistics show that stay at home mothers are more likely to be independent and not lean either liberal or conservative? (2) Could it be that a lot of traditional women like myself are sick of today’s conservatives? I personally think the only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican. The traditional family solves the issues of a woman not being able to financially provide for a baby, or not being able to stay home or not being ‘ready’ because she wants to focus on a career or she doesn’t feel mature enough. Patriarchy tells a woman her child cannot be a bastard. It is harsh, yes, (but then again isn’t life always harsh for those who don’t follow what society deems proper?) but if we look back through history we see that very few babies were born out of wedlock when there was high stigma on illegitimacy and even then those mothers may have married shortly thereafter. Patriarchy puts the obligation to provide on the father. With him as unquestionable provider and authority the woman’s worries of financial support go away. Her problems of not being able to stay home go away. Her worries of not being mature enough or ready go away.

Once again, I don’t argue whether abortion should be legal or not because of the ethical and medical considerations involved. My focus is on the realities of life and gender issues. If society wanted to help families and unborn babies, they would focus on separate rights and responsibilities between the sexes instead of just saying we’re all equal now and everyone fend for themselves and fight each other when they think one party has a 1% greater chance of being a victim of something or not getting something they want.

CDD, You’ve Got it Wrong

Well, I’ve been involved in some interesting stuff here lately. I have been researching some social movements such as the christian patriarchy movement, stay at home daughters movement and the ever popular domestic discipline movement (sometimes part of the christian patriarchy movement). It’s good to at least see the culture moving towards patriarchy but i’m still seeing a lot of problems. First, some of these groups tend to be tinged with sexually explicit BDSM aspects. On some of my research adventures I’ve quite frankly felt a sudden urge to tighten up my anti-virus protection and have been really disturbed by a lot of things.

There does seem to be a lot of women out there really truly wanting to submit to their husbands and have happy homes. But the one thing I’ve seen that they are missing is that they still seem to be feminist in many aspects. For instance, I’ve gotten myself involved in a couple of conversations and following quite a few others. I’ve also been searching through blogs and websites and the one thing that I’ve noticed is that they are still feminist in the aspect of women working and nobody seems to want to talk about a husband’s responsibilities except for where keeping his wife “in line” is concerned. They promise to obey their husbands and then they march right off to work.

I responded to a posting in a group (a Christian domestic discipline group) I joined up with a week ago where a woman was talking about how her husband was disciplining her and how she can submit to him better and she was asking advice at what the other ladies and their husbands do. Then she went on to say about how she just lost her job and she was really stressed. I’ve seen this kind of conversation before and these ladies then go on to talk about how their husbands command them to do this or that before they head off to work and their husband’s discipline helps them relieve the stress they deal with at work and they will talk about having Bible studies and everything as well. I mean, something is seriously wrong here. I mean, you want your husband to spank the stress out of you that you acquired through sharing in his responsibilities? I’d rather be a feminist than deal with that! At least I could “go my own way.” I pointed out that it wasn’t her responsibility to go to work but her husband’s and his role as head of household is so that he can provide for her and their children better. So what did they say? Nothing. In fact, the group is acting like I don’t exist at all. The conversation kept on going and is still going and nobody has made mention or even cared about anything at all that I said. Some of them even wished her luck in finding a new job. But doesn’t their own Bible say it is for the man to work “by the sweat of his brow” to provide for his family and that the woman’s husband is to rule over her even though she will try to rule over him? They acknowledge the husband ruling over her part but make no mention about the man’s work to provide.

Unfortunately I see these movements as some kind of game. They set out the “rules” of the game, they have names and abbreviations such as “HoH” (head of household) and things like that. They are still, however, part of the modern mainstream culture and what ultimately separates them from their BDSM loving secular egalitarian counterparts? The Bible studies where they ignore scripture and redefine it to what modern society says is right and wrong? These movements might tie in well with movements such as the men’s rights movement that wants men put in charge but still keeping the feminist ideals of women going out and holding employment regardless of their marital status.

Now I’m not going to argue about the whole men disciplining their wives thing. In truth, when it comes down to it, no authority is a real authority unless 1) it can enforce its rule with the approval of society and the law or 2) it has the power to discipline those under its rule. Everyone is disciplined by someone whether physical or not when they break a rule or law. I don’t believe that a man has any rightful authority unless he has unquestionable responsibility. I’ve seen some complain about women pressing charges for things like “marital rape” on their husbands. My thoughts? I don’t think it’s right but if men want to “go their own way” and leave women to fend for themselves then what do they expect? You can’t force yourself upon a woman and force her to bear your children when she can be forced to carry half the burden of the economic costs and you can abandon her any time you want to. You can’t put a woman “in her place” then tell her to go to work so you can sit back and and not have to worry so much. I’ve seen some women say they work full-time and then come home and cook dinner and get a beer for their husband so he can relax and watch TV! That’s insanity. That’s called exploitation. That’s called taking advantage of someone for your own benefit and to their detriment.

I think allowing men to use a little force to restrain their wives or even discipline when necessary might be appropriate and would give men both the power to protect themselves and as well protect their wives from her own foolishness and keep peace in the home. But it’s not a carte blanche to abuse a woman nor for him to push his burdens on her back so he doesn’t have as much to worry about.

The Wicked Loving Lies of Feminism

Feminist heroines. They irritate me very badly. They are all so stuck on “independence,” disguising themselves as boys, chopping off their hair, not bathing and constantly complaining that “marriage is slavery.” You’ve read about one of them then you’ve pretty much read about them all. However, every once in a while comes a heroine that embodies the very persona of feminism to such an extent that it causes her so many untold miseries throughout the entire story- so much that you could write an entire article about it. One such character is Marisa (Marisa Antonia Catalina de Castellanos y Gallardo) from Rosemary Roger’s 1976 novel Wicked Loving Lies. I think there is a real life lesson to be learned from such a feminist character. For those ladies who haven’t read the book but were thinking about it, be forewarned that I’m fixing to spoil the whole thing for you.

After the Prologue the novel starts out with Marisa in a convent. Her exact age is never stated, but it is clear that she is very young, say no older than about 17 or 18. She is content to live her life right where she is, certain she will never marry. However, her father sends word to the convent that she is to marry a Don Pedro Arteaga. However, Marisa will have none of it. She is scared of marriage and scared of men because of some things she witnessed when she was younger. So, she takes off with her friend Blanca and joins with her family-gypsies. But, alas, from there who should she run into but a group containing Arteaga himself as well as his friend, now identified as Dominic. Out of anger or some quest for revenge she picks his pocket and somehow gets free away from the little group. It doesn’t last long, however, as the little group has friends in high places and Dominic catches back up with her. Of course, he believes her to be a gypsy and a whore. Out of fear of having to marry Arteaga she stays silent about her real and true identity even though it means being dragged off by Dominic to his ship so he can make use of her “services” in exchange for not turning her over to the authorities. She stays silent, he rapes her and only then figures out she is actually a virgin. If she would have only told him who she was this would have never happened. But, oh well, deed done. He offers her a sizable amount of money (which she refuses because she doesn’t want payment for something she never sold in the first place). She gets frustrated, chops off her pretty long hair, hides away with a little help from a kind member of the crew on his ship and makes her way to France.

She then escapes him and his crew, runs into Phillip Sinclair (who we later learn is Dominic’s cousin and the two are bitter enemies) who then takes her back to her aunt and her godparents. Her aunt knows what has happened but says it’s ok. All the fashionable ladies take lovers, her aunt says. She gives her a few potions-which don’t work for her- to make sure she doesn’t conceive and life goes on. She contemplates making Phillip her lover. That, however, is short lived as Dominic (who her aunt herself had had an affair with, apparently because he has a savage wild side to him) comes back into the picture. Word of what he did to her gets out and the two are forced into marriage. Marisa hates him and he starts to believe her a liar plotting against him somehow. They seem to be happy for one day after their marriage where they talk together and picnic. However, the next night Dominic gets violent and rapes her and the next morning she wakes up to find him already gone and setting sail to God only knows where. Meanwhile, she nearly dies from a miscarriage. Phillip stays with her and brings her flowers everyday. After this is over she decides to go back to England. She agrees to be a spy and her aunt accompanies her back home to England. While she’s there she enjoys freedom and independence and all her friends exclaim how envious they are of her because she doesn’t have a husband breathing down her neck dictating her life. She refuses to be faithful to her marriage vows and hates Dominic even more after finding out he was the one responsible for her father’s death. Well, time passes and her spying ways get her in trouble. She panics when she hears the death of another supposed spy (or whatever) by this assassin and hears that the assassin marks his victims, but how or where she doesn’t know. She becomes terrified, realizing she has gotten in way over her head and wants out. So her and Phillip decide to leave. But on the way their stage is held up and Marisa is grabbed, branded on her thigh and raped by a masked man (she later learns that the masked man is her husband, Dominic, who was set on her as a “warning” by a vengeful Madame De L’Aigle, who she learns is the real assassin).

After the event she returns home to find her home filled with people and lit up brightly. She then learns Dominic has returned. She gets angry that he has barged in on her independence, makes no secret that she hates him and plots to run away with Phillip. She does, and when they arrive at Phillip’s Uncle (the duke of Royse’s) estate she finds that Dominic is there and has dueled with the Duke and killed him. Phillip attempts to shoot Dominic but instead accidentally kills himself with the gun. Dominic then takes Marisa and leaves. They board a ship (not his own) and pirates siege them. The captain surrenders because he does not have the men nor arms to fight them off. Marisa is separated, along with two other women, away from the men. Dominic had told her, in an attempt to protect her, to not reveal she was his wife and tell them who her family was and that she was worth a lot of ransom money so they wouldn’t harm her. She tells the story and Dominic backs it up as well.

She is held captive (albeit in luxury) in the Middle East and soon after a Kamil Hasan Rais takes an interest in her (despite his vows of celibacy). The first time he drugs her and has her sent to him but after that Marisa (now renamed Leila) becomes his willing lover to the point that she embraces Islam and agrees to become his wife once Kamil’s term of service is up. Soon, however Marisa tells him that she is pregnant and confesses that she had a husband. Kamil tells her it’s ok, he’ll give her some herbs and get rid of the problem but she simply can’t abort the child because of the loneliness and emptiness she remembered from her first miscarriage. So he says it’s ok and promises the child won’t be harmed. However, Kamil’s vengeful sister has other plans. She hates Marisa so she finds out some info and brings Dominic to where he can see her. Marisa walks into the stables and sees Dominic. What does she do? She tells him she hates him, that she’s pregnant, the child might be his or might not, tells him she doesn’t want the child, tells him she’s in a position of authority now and will have him punished and then nearly gets him crucified. Marisa has her child some time later but is drugged unconscious and when she wakes up is told she had a girl and the child died. She never questions that she had been lied to at all. The truth of the matter is that the child lived and was a boy (since the child was a boy Kamil arranged to get rid of it while still keeping the child safe as he promised, because he couldn’t allow the child to be his heir and shame himself). Marisa forgets all and becomes a complete hedonist.

War breaks out and she is ransomed back to her people and taken back to France. Dominic fights with a group of soldiers then comes back and kills Kamil and takes the boy (who was unmistakably his child). He heads to America believing she hates the child and willingly abandoned it. Marisa goes to Cuba and her Uncle (a powerful political figure) takes her to America and, neither of them knowing there was a child from the union, obtains an annulment for her . Events happen and she stays with her vengeful stepmother and meets back up with Arteaga and later Dominic. She finds out her child is still alive but Dominic, never thinking to see her again, has gotten engaged to another woman and Marisa agrees it’s best to leave. Her stepmother takes her to New Orleans to the plantation she inherited when her stepmother brings evidence that she is really a slave. She is sold and soon Dominic finds out and spends all his savings to rescue her. To make money back he takes her as well as Marisa’s friend (a former slave) and a large group of rough men on a trip to capture wild horses. Many weeks pass and she spends more time with Dominic, all the while complaining to her friend about men and mad that she’s stuck doing women’s work. Her friend tries to explain to her about the way men act (you know all prideful and stuff) and that she might try actually being sweet to Dominic for once. She doesn’t listen. Dominic tells her a few weeks later that she is in the way and tells her he’s leaving her with a local tribe and she’ll be safe. She doesn’t understand what he’s about and thinks he hates her when the truth is he actually has loved her for a long time and wants to protect her because Dominic is a spy and knows there’s fixing to be a battle and wants her out of danger. She protests but really doesn’t have much choice in the matter.

Eventually she is given back to the spanish and finds herself come full circle back to a convent. She stays there for a while until she hears from officer Fernando Higuera that colonel Arteaga (Don Pedro again) has executed Dominic. She decides she loves Dominic and thinks to take matters into her own hands (because that’s work so well for her in the past, you know) and comes to Higuera trading her body in exchange for him taking her to see Arteaga. They travel and when they get where the men are she starts having more affairs, even with the governor himself, she finds out Dominic is still alive (barely). She finds out she’s pregnant again as well. She tries to take matters into her own hands again and makes a big public scene until Higuera stops her. She never listens to reason. Eventually Arteaga says if she’ll marry him he’ll help Dominic escape. She agrees. Arteaga is on a quest for vengeance (the entire situation is never completely explained) then decides he wants to get back at Dominic and the best way to do that is to consummate the marriage with Marisa on the floor in front of Dominic’s jail cell. He rips her clothes and proceeds to do just that until Higuera intervenes. They spar with words until Arteaga pulls out a pistol. He never gets to use it as Dominic kicks him and he falls in a nearby well to his death. Marisa is hysterical and Higuera has to get a little rough with her to get control over her and yanks her to her feet. She’s naked as her clothes were torn by Arteaga so he tries to cover her with his cloak. He attempts to lead her away and take care of her (he even offers her marriage to take care of her as Dominic was to be executed) but he doesn’t get far before she pushes him away and starts off on a women’s lib rant that would make Steinem herself proud. She throws it all out there: that her body belongs to her, that she has a mind of her own and can take care of herself and she doesn’t need a man to take care of her and treat her as weak or helpless (because her way had done such wonders for her life so far). Well, her Uncle shows back up, her marriage to Arteaga and her annulment weren’t even legal because she had a child with Dominic already. Dominic is declared dead and escapes with Marisa. Marisa has the new baby shortly thereafter and everyone lives happily ever after. The End.

I think the real lesson to be learned from fictional character Marisa is that her feminist mindset is what caused pretty much every problem she ever encountered. Her father picked her out a husband to protect her. He was only looking out for her best interests even though at the time she didn’t understand it. Yes, she was scared because she had been through traumatic events when she was young but if she would have obeyed her father in the first place she would have been safer. She might never have been raped, kidnapped, forced into slavery, lost her child or any of the numerous problems she got herself entangled up in. And even after she did run away she had chance after chance to change. She could have identified herself to Arteaga and Dominic’s party that night but she didn’t. After her marriage to Dominic she could have been truthful to him. True, she wasn’t hateful at this point but she had done nothing but lie since he knew her. In his mind, how could he trust her? She could have been faithful to her husband but she wasn’t. She didn’t want to accept her marriage vows but instead wanted to run her own estate, be independent and still sleep with who she wanted. She is raped several times by several different men in the book and has willing affairs with just as many. When Dominic did show back up she could have been civil to him. Even if she didn’t want the marriage and even if she didn’t love him she could have been honest with him, she could have been respectful to him and done right by him but she never did. Instead she declares she hates him and runs off with another man. When she met him again in the Middle East she could have made up with him. She could have been truthful. Even if she couldn’t say she loved him she could have told him she wanted their child, could have told him she wanted to return to him. She could have refused to have an affair with Kamil, or if she was forced, she could have at least stayed faithful in her heart. Maybe if she would have he would have came for her and took care of her. But as it was she pushed him away from her and made him distrust her time and time again. She gets involved with affairs that should be left to the men. She wants to get in Dominic’s personal business several times thinking she has a right to, even though he is involved in things he is trying to protect her from. She believes it is her business to know everything he’s involved in, such as his spying, and she nearly gets him discovered at one point.

Dominic doesn’t win husband of the year in my opinion. His character is a man with a dark past, a “legitimate bastard” as he calls himself (since his father preferred the company of other men to women and his mother had an unfaithful heart). He’s been in the British navy, he’s been in prison, he’s been done wrong over and over as many times as he’s done others wrong. He shouldn’t have abandoned her or did things he did. But he did feed, clothe, shelter and protect Marisa. He still fulfilled those duties as a husband at least. Even if it was just a marriage of convenience forced upon the two Marisa could have accepted it and fulfilled her duties as a wife. She could have made the best of it.

Throughout the entire story she refuses to listen to the men who are trying to genuinely help her. Instead of staying out of a man’s business she wants to get involved in it, with disastrous consequences every time. Fernando Higuera was trying to help her but she didn’t like being ordered around and couldn’t understand the situation she was putting herself and others in so she ranted at him about not needing his help or protection. It was her feminist mindset that caused her all of her troubles. She wanted to enter into the man’s world of politics only to find she didn’t know what she got herself into and ended up getting herself hurt (she could at least be thankful it was her own husband and not another who hurt her as her own husband didn’t truly harm her, only as much as needed to protect her). She wanted to be independent and sexually liberated which drove away her husband and drove her into the arms of men who ended up really hurting her in one way or another. She listened to her aunt and the other ladies who told her to take lovers and that it was just fine. She listened to others who encouraged her to express her individuality and independence to the detriment of her marriage and ultimately even her own happiness.

Another thing to note is that she did get a taste of what second-class citizenship really looks like for women when staying with one of the tribes. The men would strut around in beads and feathers all day while the women did all the drudgery work. The men spent all day polishing their weapons while the women worked. They contributed practically nothing. The women cropped their hair short, never bathed, and did all the hard labor. The men would always eat first, leaving the leftovers to the women and children. If there wasn’t enough food the women and children would starve. She sees this yet she still doesn’t make the connection that men in her own society work to protect and support women and give them a much better life than what women in many primitive societies had. She can’t really see the connection there between patriarchy (which threatens her independence) and the high status of women in her own society. She doesn’t see that the men take charge to protect her and lift her up out of the old-world system of matriarchy where the women do all the work. It is the societies such as those Marisa saw where women do all the drudgery work and are sexually free that feminists praise because these women prove they can do what men in her own Western society believe not suited to a woman and the women are sexually liberated. Yet she still rants and raves and salutes women’s lib values even to the end of the book.

The sad part is she doesn’t ever have appeared to have learned her lesson really. She is with Dominic in the end but how long will it last? What happens when he tries to tell her to do something she doesn’t like to protect her? 10 pages from the end of the book she was still ranting off feminist dogma so what happens next when her free will is threatened by her husband or possibly even her children keeping her from being independent?

I guess we’ll never know for sure as it is a fictional book. But even in fiction there are sometimes life lessons to be learned. Marisa exemplifies everything women should not do and showcases exactly the kind of misery that feminism leads women to.

What Happened to a Father’s RESPONSIBILITY?

Mom Arrested for Drinking and Breastfeeding

So I came across another interesting news story the other day. Apparently an Arkansas woman was arrested for “drinking and breastfeeding.” Um, OK. Now I’ve come across some really weird things before but the weirdness factor is not what’s bothering me about this story. When looking at the discussions revolving around this story the only thing people really seemed to be concerned about was a) whether breast-feeding and drinking was legal and b) does drinking during pregnancy/breastfeeding harm a developing child. The entire mainstream seems to be blind to the fact that this child has a father somewhere. I had to go through several news reports and articles just to see if this woman was even married as nobody thought this very important apparently. I finally happened upon a DailyMail article that showed a picture of her with her husband and daughter. So, apparently, she is married. If that is the case then where are the father’s responsibilities in all of this? The mainstream is so concerned with “father’s rights” (in a gender-neutralized way anyways) but nobody seems to be all concerned with father’s responsibility in the least. I’ve seen many news reports of mothers leaving their children in the care of these “stay at home dads” who then abuse the children and mom gets some BS charge of “not finding alternative care” or something like that. If a mother attempts to leave an abusive father then she’s charged with some “Parental Alienation Syndrome” or some BS like that that these men’s rights nuts created. But who is holding the father of this child in any way responsible for the mother and child?

The entire culture has seemed to abandoned the fact that men should have any rights or responsibilities at all during marriage or towards women and children. Not only can a man not have the right to possess legitimate children under the contract of marriage (which is basically meaningless these days apparently) but also men have no obligation to be authoritative in marriage nor have any responsibilities towards their wife or children to support them and be responsible for their actions. What should happen is that all eyes should be on the husband to ask why he did not control his wife’s actions and he should be held responsible. Holding the husband responsible for his wife and children to protect and control them is an ancient practice going all the way back to Biblical days. The law should be questioning him about all of this and why he did not control the situation and protect his child as well as his wife.

If it would have been me, not only would I not have gone out without my husband’s permission or without him chaperoning me but he would have insisted on speaking to police and taking responsibility for what had happened (and probably have put me over his knee when we got home!). The only “men’s rights” revolve around men getting their way in divorce and the only “men’s responsibility” we ever hear about is men paying child support. It seems to be an entirely foreign concept that men should have any rights or responsibility during marriage itself. Nobody even finds such a concept worth mentioning.

This isn’t the only article like this to catch my attention. Over the months I’ve seen things like women being arrested for miscarrying or doing drugs while pregnant and news reports questioning, since paternity testing is easier than ever, if men should be required to financially support the mother while pregnant if he’s proven the father before the child’s born. It should be a no-brainer that he should support the mother while pregnant and be responsible for all her basic needs of food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Instead of using technology to enable irresponsible men and break apart families instead we could use it to put families together and make men be responsible. If he has gotten her pregnant he should be required to marry her and provide for her and take responsibility for her. Women’s cycles and pregnancy cause a lot of mental and physical changes in women and that is why men need to be in charge and take responsibility. Most women like it anyways. They can spout off as much women’s lib dogma as they want but if a man “puts her in her place” so to speak then all of a sudden most women fall in love (but contrary to men’s rights dogma women don’t like dominant men because of some kind of widespread “penis envy” but because a dominant man can protect and provide for her and her offspring better and lead them to safety and defend the turf when needed).

So, if nobody else wants to say anything I will. Yes, laws have changed but what people don’t seem to realize is that they will change again, and again, and again… It is the way of life. You can guarantee that what is law today will not be law a generation from now. Few things in life are so certain as that.

Put the husband in charge and look to him to answer for the wife and children. Plain and simple.

The Return of Patriarchy in Mainstream Culture?

Generally I don’t get involved in Hollywood much. I can think of a million things better to do than listen to the latest noise put out by the mainstream or watch the latest TV shows. It’s all so contrary to what I believe in and most of it is extremely offensive. However, I don’t live under a rock. I see what songs top the charts and what movies are released. I just don’t pay much attention to watch them or listen to them. But this morning a song was brought to my attention that I actually did want to listen to. I’d never really thought about it at all much until Jesse Powell pointed it out. When he pointed it out I dug into the song and actually listened to it closely and watched the videos closely. The song is called “The Man” by Aloe Blacc. Now this is just my opinion but I really do think this song is promoting patriarchy, and in a big way. Of course, it’s subtle. If you weren’t really looking for it you might just dismiss it as another catchy tune but looking deeper I think there’s more to it than that. And, hey, if I’m wrong I guess you can send me a nasty e-mail telling me how it is.

At the beginning of the official video we see a woman on a cell phone. She types in

“I’m “in the streets & feel like ‘startin’ a revolution’ with ‘my fam’ to ‘brand new old school’.”

Hmm. Ok, revolution. What kind of revolution? Again you’d have to pay close attention to get that. I think it becomes more obvious to those that are paying attention what kind of revolution here. This is obviously a song about men being men and being proud of being men. Although Aloe is a black man and the men he links arms with in the end of his official video are black, this is obviously not a song about racial pride. He is clearly speaking as a man and what he must do and who he is as a man. A black man wouldn’t tell a white man that he’ll be “the quick relief to all your stressin’.” Nor is this the kind of thing that a man would generally say to his mother or sister or male friend. No, he is obviously talking as a man to a woman. But this is obviously not just a love song between a man and a woman . This song is about standing up and being a man. It is obviously very anti-feminist and very anti-MRA. He’s not advocating for “pumping and dumping” women nor objectifying women. In the official video and official lyric video he is very well dressed in a suit and very presentable. He’s not in baggy pants sagging to his knees while he smokes dope with his homeboys while a bunch of women in short shorts jiggle their butts in your face while he’s rapping about how much p**** he’s getting. He’s respectful, a gentleman even. He never apologizes for being a man and having manly urges or needs yet he does state he takes responsibility. He states:

“I believe every lie that I ever told
paid for every heart that I ever stole
I played my cards and I didn’t fold.”

This is obviously signifying his pride as a man, that he’s not backing down from what he’s done as a man. He takes responsibility for what he has done as a man. He doesn’t just give up and fold. He doesn’t throw in the towel when the going gets tough because he’s a man, a member of the male sex in a different hierarchy than a woman and he is prideful of that and accepts the responsibilities that come along with that.

I think this is just amazing. I can’t really see any other way that this song can be interpreted. It’s clear he’s talking about being a man and taking charge as a man and as well taking responsibility as a man. In his video there are riots going on and it is clear that the rule of law and social order has collapsed. He states:

“Stand up now and face the sun
Won’t hide my tail or turn and run
It’s time to do what must be done
Be a king when kingdom comes”

In other words, once everything’s collapsed it’s time to be a man and put things back in order.

As well in the song he also states over and over “this is my world.” He also states “I’m a soldier standing on my feet. No surrender and I won’t retreat” and follows it up by stating again “this is my world.” This can obviously mean nothing other than it’s a man’s world meant for men to rule and lead and he is not going to back down from his duties and responsibilities nor his pride in being a man. He is obviously also singing about leading and caring for women (and possibly others who are under his care and protection and whom it is his duty to lead and guide) when he states:

“I got all the answers to your questions
I’ll be the teacher you could be the lesson
I’ll be the preacher you be the confession
I’ll be the quick relief to all your stressin’”

This is followed again by him stating that “this is my world.” He’s obviously speaking as a man to a woman, putting himself in the dominant position by telling her he has what she needs and he’s in charge because “this is my world”. What I get out of this is that he’s telling her not to worry about anything, that’s he’s going to lead her, guide her and protect her. She doesn’t have anything to worry about because he’s in charge and giving her what she needs. In the background we see men toasting to what he is saying. Again, I can’t see how this could this could mean anything else.

Also another thing to notice, although it is subtle, is that when he is walking into what appears to be an official government building there is not a woman to be seen. Men are standing in order when he walks by and there is men (not women) in the background in suits with briefcases going about their business. Women are obviously an important part of this but they are not at the forefront of what’s going on like the men. He is walking past men in uniform, he links arms with men (not men and women) at the end and even all the photographers and reporters around him are men as well. We even see men getting ready for a fight (boxing match obviously) walk by him as he’s walking and singing down a hallway. I hardly think this to be a coincidence. This is obviously a subtle message promoting patriarchy. He stands tall and proud throughout the whole thing. He doesn’t appear to ever lose his composure or be unsure of his place in life in the song or video nor does he appear the child-man that is so common in the mainstream today.

I think this song is a subtle beginning to much larger cultural change going on, a way of brining patriarchy into the mainstream. He states over and over that he’s “the man” and not only does he know it but he wants everyone else to know it as well. He shouts it out that he is “the man” over and over and makes no apologies for it. He wants to be recognized as a man who takes responsibility, who is in charge and who does what needs to be done, to “be a king when kingdom comes.” It’s not easy but he “won’t hide my tail or turn and run” because “It’s time to do what must be done.” More than likely this is a subtle message for men to take charge and put things back in order and be responsible because everything is falling apart and it’s time for the disorder to come to an end.

Again this is my take on this but I don’t know how else this song and the messages from the official videos can be interpreted. Hopefully it is a sign, the beginning of what is to come.

More sources for traditional gender roles in mainstream culture:

The Long Way Home

Why Young Women Shouldn’t Listen to their Mother’s Generation

I sit snuggled up under a blanket watching the snows fall outside as I write this. My husband is not here now. Every day he works to take care of us, to support and protect us. I take care of our child everyday. I keep our house clean and cook. I know that I don’t have to worry about anything.

Instead of envying women who are very “successful” out there I can only really feel sorry for them. When I was younger I know my mother used to fill my head with thoughts of all the things that I could “do with my life.” I could be a superstar, a lawyer, the next president, whatever (housewife was never on the list though). And yes, yes I could have been all of those things. Maybe. I was told to get a job, be “smart,” go to college and do all the things that young women today are constantly told to do in order to secure our futures. But nobody ever told me that all of those things could actually rob me of my future or the misery that following such a life could actually cause me.

Oh I could have been a superstar for sure. I could have wasted my most precious years being a pawn to make somebody else rich until pop culture decided I was a “has been” and tossed me aside where my only hope for remaining relevant was by gracing the covers of those trashy magazines you see in the supermarket checkout lanes with my latest divorce scandal. I could have wasted my youth on some career. I could have slept with many different men and had babies by several different daddies then realized when I hit middle age that all men were pigs and younger men are just such the way to go! Maybe I could have lived with some guy about half my age who mooches off of me for my money while I trudge off to work everyday in some old clunker to my lovely job at the supermarket.

Or lets say maybe I went to college and got some fancy career. I’d probably have married a guy that expected me to keep working after we were married. If we ended up having children (probably one boy and one girl, wouldn’t want to be unfashionable now) we’d probably be in a war. I might not have been able to quit my job because of all the college debts and all the debts we’ve accumulated by buying everything new and fancy on credit. We would probably fight because of the *unfair* burden I’ve all of a sudden dropped in his lap by wanting to stay home with the kids (the mangina I married that supported my career with great enthusiasm probably wouldn’t want anything to do with being the breadwinner). That lovely career wouldn’t be so lovely after all especially since it would now have to get interrupted not only in the amount of money I would make but also I’d probably be a burden on my employer once he has to give me maternity leave and disrupt his business (or maybe my boss would be a woman which would mean I’d probably get even less sympathy).

Maybe I could have been the breadwinner. A couple years later my husband would probably be feeling quite emasculated and gone out and had an affair with some woman with much less money and career prospects than me. We’d probably split up and I’d never see my kids any (he was the caretaker after all!) and still be supporting his dead a**.

Yes, what I life I could have had. I look around at my generation and my mothers generation. Most of those around me have had babies with more than one father/mother. Most are divorced (many two or three times). A cousin of mine by marriage married a man (a distant cousin of mine) with two ex-wives and three other kids and I had to hear the entire tale of her troubles because now she’s had a child with him too. She can’t understand why children from “blended” families just can’t have quite the same opportunities as those from two-parent families that remained intact. She would tell me all about how her momma taught her to never depend on no man and how she supported her family. She got irate at me for my anti-feminist views and told me if I didn’t want rights that was my problem but she asserts her “rights.” Her entire tax return went to pay her husband’s back child-support to his 2 other ex-wives (who, of course, in her view were “deadbeats” expecting a man to support them). Unfortunately, this story is nothing new and is quite common in today’s world. These women are liberated and they generally get tangled up in bad relationships and never really have any prosperity for themselves or their children.

This is feminism’s legacy. This is the path our mothers were teaching us to follow and many young women today are still following it. If you are a young woman, please do some thinking about what the mainstream is telling you. I’m not telling you to be some goody two-shoes here but I am telling you that as a female you are mentally and physically a world apart from males. Unless you are undeniably gifted in an area and are sure that it is the path you want to follow and you never want marriage or kids, think twice about going off to college! If you get that degree you will only attract men who have no interest in financially supporting you or maybe even marrying you. You don’t have to be a virgin (although it would be best) but your body is precious and you must make sure that you do not get pregnant by anyone but your husband (or, if nothing else, at least the man you intend to be your husband). Put sex to work, make him support you via marriage. If he’s already got a child with another woman (or, heaven forbid, more than one child), do not marry him or have children with him! No matter if the divorce or break up was “his fault” or not it doesn’t matter. Getting with him will only cause you to be right in the middle of all of his problems and you will never know peace and there will be nothing but strain in your relationship and confusion in the lives of your children about their place in life. If you have children with more than one man you will face the same difficulties and lower your value in the eyes of good marriageable men out there.

Insist upon marriage to the father if you have gotten pregnant before marriage. Do not sign anything to acknowledge him as the legal father until he legally marries you. Make him support you and form a real and true relationship with him. If marriage to the father is not possible or he is not a good man, do not inform him that you are pregnant and try to find a good man who will marry you despite your situation. Just be truthful to him and faithful.

I know we’ve been told all of our lives how *wonderful* feminism has been, but it’s nothing but a lie. We as women have to throw the women’s lib mindset away. Just get rid of it. This mindset is what’s holding you back, not widespread “misogyny.” Women today are in a terrible way because of what feminism has done but we can change that. We women are powerful by virtue of being women as we hold incredible influence over men. Most men can be reformed but it’s not going to happen unless women make it clear that feminists do not speak for all women and that if our men will lead, we will follow. Most men want to take charge anyways, it’s in their nature. They’ve just had the masculinity indoctrinated out of them since childhood because of feminism.

It is actually more beneficial to society for us as young women to not have jobs. Our joblessness will cause men to be men and be productive to support us and our children. Young women would almost always do better focusing on their children while the father goes out and works to support them. Think twice before going off to college. You can educate yourself in numerous ways. Read books or watch instructional DVDs for all the things you want to learn and know about. If you go to college you will only trap yourself if you do get married and have kids in the future. Don’t live with your boyfriend until you hit middle age. If you do that then you’ve given away your youth, you’ve given away your bargaining power for marriage. I don’t care what Katie Couric, your mother and your career orientation teacher tells you, don’t listen!

Don’t let anyone put you down because you have kids young or get married young. Our ancestors had children very young and they were much happier than we are today and their marriages lasted. They weren’t concerned about “teenage pregnancy”- they were concerned about legitimacy and society and individual family units were much better off and successful. Simply insist that marriage is the way because it is the only thing that is going to ensure you and your children’s long-term happiness and prosperity (unless you really want to let mulitple men use and abandon you, live with a boyfriend who will probably only cheat on you, be constantly looking for someone to watch your kids, work at some dead-end job and have a double burden and have constant court battles with the father who probably never pays a dime of support).

Be willing to let the men in your life lead. We have been told all our lives that we should fear ever going back to a time when men were in charge of things but we have no real reason to fear such a thing. These thoughts were put in our heads by those who wanted to put antagonism between men and women and tear families apart. They were put in our heads by those who wanted to exploit women, not protect women. If we let our men be in charge then their first priority will be to represent our best interests and the community overall will be concerned about men doing right by women and children.

Double Standards are a Good Thing

A double standard is when one group of people can get away with something that another group can’t. In modern society we like to think that double standards are so unfair and should be done away with. But what if double standards are actually a good thing? What if they serve some greater purpose to society that actually benefits everyone?

One of the biggest double standards that we all grew up with concerns sexuality. Men, in general, have always been able to sleep around without being socially shamed or called names. Women, on the other hand are generally labeled as “sluts” or “whores” if they do the same thing and are generally not considered marriage material by respectable men looking for long term relationships. A classic double standard against males is that men have only traditionally been required to go to war and register for the draft. If a man refused not only would he be labeled a “pussy,” “wimp,” and “coward” by society but more than likely he would serve some jail time as well. Women are called “whores” while men get away with sleeping around. Women are allowed to hide and be sheltered in times of war but men are jailed. Unfair, right? “Sexist,” right? Dreaded double standards that have no place in an “enlightened” society, right? But just what if these double standards might actually be good things?

In the case of war, it has always been a man’s duty. This is so for several reasons. First, women are the only ones who can bring the future generations into this world. If society is to survive females must be protected and kept safe so that there will be future generations (that’s why we fight wars in the first place, right?). Beyond keeping women safe so that they may care for and bear children, men are much bigger and stronger and must be taught to never use their strength against women unless absolutely necessary to restrain her. Sending women to war defeats the purpose of protecting women, ensuring the well-being of future generations and teaching men not to direct acts of violence against women or be OK with acts of violence against women.

In the case of sexuality, why can men sleep around and not women? Once again, this serves a fundamental purpose to all of society. This double standard does not exist against women in all societies. In many societies women slept around freely. In some societies women even took on multiple husbands and divorced them at will. Who actually fathered her children was of no concern to anyone either. In patriarchal societies men control female sexuality. They have to. There is no other way that they can support families or be fathers in the first place. All children by default are in the custody and care of their mothers. Maternity is certain, it is a fact of life. It is a bond society can depend upon. The mother-child bond is there from conception and is unquestionable. The mother’s role is biological and the same in every society that has ever existed. A man, however, can only be a father to a child if the mother declares him as such, if he is socialized into the child’s life via a third party through marriage or other cultural ties. Paternity can never be truly certain and men can never participate meaningfully in reproduction short of a long term monogamous relationship with the mother. Thus the need for men to control female sexuality and “own the womb.” Thus in every patriarchal society there is an obsession of females being chaste and shunning any female who is not or who bears children out of wedlock.

So this means the double standard only benefits men, right? It’s all about men so they can have things their way? Alas, that is not the whole story. The patriarchal family ultimately benefits women just as much as it does men. Marriage is a permanent commitment. Marriage links a man to specific children via a long-term monogamous relationship with the mother of those children. She agrees to be chaste for him and share her body only with him. In return society and the law imposes upon the man the obligation to carry the burden of financially supporting the children and the mother of those children. She shares her reproductive life and the children she bears with him and in return he protects her and provides for her. Sounds pretty beneficial to both sexes to me.

There are numerous other double standards and in most cases they serve a grand purpose for society. Men and women are not on equal grounds. The same rules do not apply to men and women because women and men are made different by way of nature, no matter what our laws say. It is easy to see what happens when laws are gender-neutralized and double standards are forgotten. How will we survive when our women are maimed and come home in body-bags from war? How are the campaigns attempting to stop violence against women going to be successful when we teach men to treat women, the weaker sex, as just “one of the boys?” We either have to lower standards and change the rules so that women can participate in a man’s world or we have to train men to just run over women and treat them without any special consideration. Both of these options are bad. And what about children? Does anybody care about this apparently forgotten group of humans who are helpless to care for themselves for many years? Wouldn’t it just make more sense to have double standards of what a man’s duties and a woman’s duties are? How else will we keep society running if we fail to discriminate and just send both men and women equally to war? And who will keep things running at home if we ship both young men and women off to war?

How will the family keep running if we fail to discriminate and lay double standards against men and women? If both men and women are held equally to support the family then what happens? Marriage becomes a competition and there is nobody to care for the home. Women don’t need husbands to support them and can walk away from marriage. Men aren’t interested in providing because they don’t have to. Grandma ends up raising the kids and picking them up from school. Divorce happens five years later and mommy and daddy play tug-a-war with the kids so they can get the upper hand against the other and equal financial responsibility between parents ups the ante. Antagonism is created between men and women; husband and wife and meaningful relationships are never formed.

And what happens when there are no double standards against the sexes when it comes to unwed mothers/fathers? An unwed mother automatically has rights for the child, but the unwed father doesn’t. How very sexist of us. We should give the poor guy rights to interfere in the child’s life or make a paternity claim to reck an intact family. And, of course, we should let women slap a paternity suit on a married man and have the full sanction of the law behind her to be a home-wrecker. We are “enlightened” after all and wouldn’t want to be unfair to anyone. Or maybe it would in the best interests of everyone to have a little sex discrimination and double standards. Just a thought.

Above all, double standards are good. They are necessary and no society is going to get very far without them. Men and women should be treated different and held to different standards in every area of life. It’s not all bad and patriarchy actually has a very romantic aspect to it. What could be more romantic that a man providing for and sheltering a woman from harm? It ultimately uplifts the family and protects it and contributes to meaningful and secure male-female relationships that benefit individual families and all of society.

Suggested Reading:

Great Quotes by George Gilder

Why Patriarchy

Women Deserve Better than Feminism

Do Women Really want to Smash the Patriarchy?

Looking Back on the Feminine Mystique

Previous Older Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 371 other followers