Woman’s Worst Enemy 

It’s often a mistaken belief among women that women can represent the interests of women the best; that a woman will be more sympathetic to another woman’s plight. The feminist movement has always promoted the theory that women can only have true representation by other women and that more women as lawyers, judges, and congress members will be a good thing for women because women can best legislate for other women. The reality, however, is often far different. Take the abortion debate, for instance. Women often say things like “if only men could get pregnant abortion would never be illegal” or something of the sort, but the reality is that men have been constantly shown to be more “pro-choice” than what even women are. This has held steady for decades. It is women that oppress other women. It is women that destroy the security of other women. Look at any other issue such as military duty of the draft for women. Once again, women are more likely to want women to be forced into war and into the traditional duties of men while men are more likely to be against it. When you put women in charge everything simply becomes one big b*tchfest. 

The reality is that women are often each other’s worst enemies in nearly every area of life. A woman would do best to plead her case in front of men than in front of women or both men and women. It is true that men do not always act as they should towards women, but most of these problems originate from the emasculation of men in our society. In the past if a man did not act right towards a woman, that woman could seek the protection and help of other men to straighten him out, but no such protections exist today because the men have all stepped back out of the way to let women run things. The results have been disastrous not only to women and children but also to men and all of society.

I have seen very often in life that women often turn to a fellow woman thinking she will be more sympathetic to her situation (because, after all, she’s a woman too and she would “understand” whatever it is that she’s going through or how she feels) just to find that the women are much worse than the men and often are simply bent on their destruction. Women often think “another woman would understand!” But another woman often will not understand nor care. My mother once pleaded to her mother-in-law for help and got the door slammed in her face. Where was her father-in-law? In the background, apparently, while his wife took charge of the situation to disastrous results. She just couldn’t understand how another woman and a fellow mother could be so insensitive to her- and she is not alone. Millions of women look to other women, other mothers, other women “just like them” who will “understand” and help them. We are taught all our lives in the post-feminist world about “sisterhood” and that men being in charge and in power in all areas of life leads to the oppression of women. But that is simply not how human nature works. 

There is this book by Taylor Caldwell called “Melissa” that I have always really liked because it showcases human nature very well. Melissa was an odd sort of woman who, after her mother’s death, marries a man for his money. She never fit in well with others in society and was regarded as strange by everyone else. Upon arriving at her new husband’s home her sister-in-law is determined to destroy her and break her down. Her sister-in-law has a bunch of guests staying over and Melissa notices that the men give her sympathetic looks while the women look at her with amusement and an evil gleam in their eyes. She remembers that her mother told her one time that women are a lot meaner that what men are and she starts to suspect that her mother might have been right. Towards the end of the book her sister-in-law has succeeded in breaking her down and putting enmity between her and her husband and has caused so many problems that Melissa plans to simply leave. Melissa’s sister-in-law calls upon Melissa’s brother and brother-in law for a conference about Melissa’s “behavior” trying to convince the men that Melissa is an immoral woman. Meanwhile, Melissa thinks to go to her sister for help (because surely it’s only natural that a sister would understand and help her more than a brother would?) but upon arriving at her sister’s home her sister screams at her, calls her a slut and slams the door in her face. Meanwhile, Melissa’s brother, sitting in conference with Melissa’s sister-in-law, is very suspicious of what the woman is saying and doesn’t really believe a word of it. After the conference he goes to find Melissa to find out what’s really going on. Of course, according to feminists, he would be very chauvinistic as earlier on in the book he slaps their sister across the face and tells her to sit down and shut up so he can talk because he’s the man of the house now. 

Me and a friend of mine were talking about this movie from 1945 called “Frontier Gal,” starring Yvonne de Carlo and Rod Cameron. At the end of the movie when Lorena is coming to her husband because she wants to live with him and take care of the home and their child it is another woman who convinces her husband to leave the house that way they might talk “woman to woman.” The woman then convineces Lorena that it is best if she is out of her daughter’s life forever because she would be no good for the girl. Once again, her husband stepped out of the way to let the women make decisions and disaster ensues (although the misunderstandings are cleared up in the end). 

If I close my eyes and think about any potential oppressors that I might have I always see the faces of other women. It’s true that sometimes women have to band together against a man who’s acting insensitive, but once the man is acting as he is supposed to he will be the better protector of the interests of the woman that what another woman will.

It is a bad thing for our society and a very bad thing for other women when men step back out of the way and let women take charge of things. Women are often each other’s competition. I see every day in the world that we live in that men are just stepping out of the way and letting women run everything. What women really need is for men to be the ones in charge of everything. A world where women are not allowed the vote or to involve themselves formally in politics would be the best for women. A world where men are in charge within the family and hold the political power in society is the best thing for women. A woman who finds herself in a bad situation would be best to turn to another man to help her. The worst thing she can do is turn to other women or try to manage on her own. Turning to another woman might be an intermediate step if she is in a bind but she is still better off having the help and protection of another man. If a woman puts herself under the protection and authority of a man (a man that is moral and masculine) her best interests will be served. In addition, I believe that most men will step up to the plate and be responsible if women are depending upon them to be so. 

There is really no other way. I see it as a very bad and depressing thing that there are a record number of women in congress and women as lawyers and a ten-fold increase in women being breadwinners over the last couple of decades. The longer this continues, the worse things will get. 

Posted in Commentary, On Being a Woman, Personal Relationships | Tagged , ,

Oh Yeah, You’re Bad 

I’ve seen often of men in MRA circles thinking themselves so high and mighty and going to extraordinary lengths to find any area where they can put down women or claim themselves to be superior in some way. There seems to be this innate jealousy among them that women have the upper hand in sexual matters. But they just love to expound on the theory that it won’t last forever, that women are only attractive for a very short amount of time and then are nothing more than old hags who are “on the shelf” and forever forgotten about while they, the almighty male creatures that they are, continuing being hot stuff for the rest of their entire lives. 

They seem to think that women (young, hot women) are still going to be chasing after them even when they are senior citizens. I’ve also seen a lot of complaints that older and middle aged  men who do online dating will put down that they are willing to date a woman who is even as young as eighteen years old (even though women rarely are willing to date a man so much younger). I’ve seen a lot of young women complaining about this as well, exasperated that these men think so highly of themselves to really think young women of that age are going to all flock around them or even be interested at all. 

The one thing that we hear all the time (now that women are putting careers before marriage and children) is that female fertility will hit its peak early on and that youth is important for women who want to have families. We also hear that women having babies when they are older can put their offspring’s health in jeopardy. While all of this is true, the one thing that nobody ever focuses on is that men, even though they don’t go through a kind of menopause where their fertility officially ends, become less fertile as they age too. Actually, male fertility starts to decline around the same time female fertility does. Although most men can still father children throughout their entire lifespans, their ability to do so lessens as they age and men take just as much a risk as women do that their offspring will be unhealthy if they father children at middle age or later. This isn’t to say that men or women can’t procreate healthy children later in life (after all, my mother had two healthy children in her forties without any problems) but is just simply to say that youth is important for both males and females who want to have families, not just for women. If, evolutionary speaking, men would be attracted to younger women because they could bear children, then would not too women be sexually attracted to younger men who would be in peak physical shape and also be able to father healthy offspring? 

Of course, part of a man’s attractiveness is what he accomplishes in life. A younger woman might be attracted to a man who has status and who she perceives to be an authority figure. It’s not really all that unusual but unless the guy’s extremely rich it’s unrealistic to think that hot twenty-something year old females are going to flock around him even when he’s a senior citizen. Contrary to the narcissistic beliefs of many men in the “manosphere,” men do have a “shelf life.” Let’s get real, no woman wants to date her grandpa. Unless the guy’s Hugh Hefner (and even he’s not so virile anymore), it’s unrealistic to think he’s really going to still “have it” when he’s a senior citizen and his b*@ls are sagging to the ground. There have been a lot of older men (like kings and other powerful men) with younger women (sometimes a lot of younger women) throughout history but these women often didn’t have any choice in the matter or, once again, were with the man because of the extraordinary riches and influence he had. Once again, this simply doesn’t describe your average Joe out there in the dating/marriage market.

The way I see it is that women are instantly attractive when they reach physical maturity. A woman doesn’t have to accomplish anything to be attractive to men. She can offer a man her body and promise to have his children. She can offer herself to a man. A man, however, can’t just walk up to a woman and go “here I am baby, what you see is what you get!” Oh please.  Men have to achieve status in life to up their value in the dating and marriage market. Generally I think it takes men about a decade longer to really up their market value but men probably have another decade longer than women of being more attractive. But that attractiveness will decrease with time and men delude themselves if they really think otherwise. Besides, most couples are around the same age and it’s generally the exception to find older men with much younger women and older women with much younger men. It doesn’t mean it can’t happen or that it can’t last, but simply that it isn’t the norm. 

Another issue is older women in the media. It’s true that older women are not quite as represented in movies and television as older men, but let’s examine the facts of life here. Most movies and shows, unless they are strictly romance, have a male lead (and where there is an exception to this I’ve found that older women are just as represented as younger women). I’ve also seen that a lot of shows and movies tend to cater to the younger generation, which means younger male and female leads .That’s just how it goes. Most men don’t want entertainment in the way of movies, television or music that is female dominated. Women routinely will listen to music sung by men or watch shows dominated by male actors (in fact sometimes they prefer it) but most men won’t. Look at any man’s iPod and, unless the guy’s a complete fruitcake, you probably won’t find a lot of songs sung by women. You might find one or two, but for the most part men like listening to music sung by men; they like movies and shows with men doing masculine things. I guess that’s because men need to have an area of life that is all theirs, that women are mostly excluded from. 

Nothing lasts forever. All things fade away in time, and a man’s virility is no exception. There are some men who are still attractive even as senior citizens, but then again there are some women that are too. A young woman might feel an attractiveness to an older man because she perceives him as a father figure, but that doesn’t necessarily mean she wants to date him. 

Posted in Commentary, Movies, Books and TV, MRAs | Tagged

Swiss Family Robinson

The other day me and my husband were looking for something to watch and while he was pointing out one movie I saw down below a movie I haven’t seen for a very long time, Swiss Family Robinson. It is an old Disney movie and one I remember watching in my childhood. It is about a family (father, mother and their three sons) who become shipwrecked close to an uninhabited island. The captain and crew have apparently up and abandoned the ship, leaving the family trapped inside. Since the ship was abandoned they now have legal claim upon it and upon reaching the nearby island safely the father and two oldest sons go back to the ship to start bringing its contents on shore and use the materials they find to build a treehouse and other things that the family needs.

The movie has always been kind of a fantasy to me. I have always had vivid memories of the movie but had kind of forgotten about it over the years and I was very happy to see the movie again. It’s a movie that children can enjoy, as there is nothing bad in the movie and children undoubtedly would like all of the animals in the movie but there is also a lot of action, adventure and romance making it a good movie for adults to watch as well.

It’s kind of interesting how this movie has stuck with me over the years. It seems as much a fantasy to me now as it did when I was a child, only in a different way that I couldn’t really perceive as a child. What really stands out for me about the movie is how old-fashioned the movie is. From the very beginning of the movie it is the father and the oldest sons who are responsible for getting the family to shore safely. The oldest two sons have a very strict sense of duty to protect their mother and the youngest son (who looks barely older than maybe ten years old and is not really old enough to do the work the men do yet or make any big decisions). It is the father and oldest two sons that go back to the ship to salvage its contents and it is the father and oldest sons who build the tree house and do all the work Western society has always traditionally assigned to men. As well the father and oldest son always carry the guns to protect the family.

There is a clear hierarchy, which is also clearly stated in the movie, in which the oldest son takes charge if something happens to the father and then it goes down the line to the next son and so on. None of the men in the movie ever talk down about women. They never push any woman around nor treat any woman in a disrespectful way in the slightest. The mother’s position in the family is clearly one of dependence upon her husband and sons but she holds a high status in the family. Her opinions matter and she does have authority within the family. Nobody challenges her nor overrules her when she states that she does not want her youngest son up in the treehouse until it is finished and safe. She and her youngest son stay on the ground while the men are building the house. It is also the mother who ultimately decides that it is time to go ahead and let the two oldest sons travel around the island to see what they can discover and see if they can possibly find help. At every step of the way the mother’s opinion matters and is highly valued.

Later in the movie the two sons set out to sail around the island. They eventually run into the pirates from earlier on in the movie. Their boat gets wrecked and they help to free two captives of the pirates. They are only able to free the youngest of the two captains, who they believe to be a young boy. They lose the pirates and have to make it back to their home on foot. On the way, however, they discover that the captive they freed is actually a girl. Her grandfather (the other captive they didn’t free as he insisted there was no time to free him and to leave him there as he was worth ransom anyways and they wouldn’t touch him) had made her cut her hair and disguise herself as a boy so the pirates wouldn’t know she was a girl. From then on this changes things a lot. The boys insist that if she would have just said she was a girl they would have made things easier on her, which they now do.

The movie is just really old-fashioned all the way through. Traditional gender roles are promoted in the movie. Neither of the two women ever express any desire to do any of the things the men do. The men never ask for assistance from the women in any of their masculine tasks. You don’t ever see the women fighting men twice their size or chopping up wood or doing any of the things the mainstream media today shows women doing. Roberta (the girl they rescued) actually cried when the boys discovered she was a girl because she did not want to have short hair or dress like a boy. The boys take care of her and never act indecent towards her or try to push her to “man up” and get over her circumstances or fight like one of the boys. They even rescue a zebra so that she won’t have to walk all the way back as she was very tired and was having a hard time keeping up. When they make it back to their treehouse Roberta is overjoyed at getting to finally wear a pretty dress again.

There is also some fighting between the oldest two boys over leadership, and predictably, over the girl too, in which the oldest son always wins. Roberta expresses her desire to be back in Europe but in the end she stays on the island and plans to marry Fritz, the oldest son. The boys fend off snakes (Fritz actually wrestles with one) and wild animals on the journey back to the treehouse. Both Roberta and Ernst (the second oldest son after Fritz) actually challenge Fritz’s leadership at one point but end up following him anyways. Although the two sons fight to win Roberta’s affections, Fritz always comes out ahead. Ernst is more studious and Fritz shows more traditional masculinity and it is Fritz that Roberta ends up with, in contrast to today’s romance movies where the girl always falls for the more “thoughtful” or “emotional” type of guy.

This movie is just a rare find. It was just wonderful and traditional all the way through; a very innocent and happy movie. I don’t know that I can recall very many movies at all like this one that was just wonderful in every way or that was so old-fashioned. Even most movies and novels set in the past still find a way to write in feminist heroines and modern-day values. But there was none of that in this movie and I guess that’s why it’s stuck with me so much over the years and why I still love it so much to this day. It’s just something to forever dream and fantasize about.

**Update: The movie I’m referring to is the original Disney movie made in 1960

Posted in Movies, Books and TV | Tagged

Reasons Why I Personally Believe in Traditional Family Values and the Preservation of a Patriarchal Society

Guest Post by Ms. N.

It wasn’t meant to be this way. Take it from a 31 year old female who got her Bachelor’s degree with honors in 2005. After several years of being bullied by other women in offices, while men never cared to try and look into, or help the matter. I went to the male managers once or twice, trying to make the organization better by making them aware of employees that were costing the company efficiency, and all it ever did was make every day miserable for me.

Where was the joy and happiness that was mentioned when growing up? This job or career that was supposed to be so magical and liberating? Where was the feeling of “independence?” (I couldn’t feel real independence until I was far away from these unethical individuals). Wasn’t that supposed to happen when I started working full-time, and got my own apartment? Surely I was not misled….

It has been a very tough pill to swallow. I look back on the past and think to myself how many relationships I could have possibly had with good men, but for various reasons, could not. God, and nature, have intended a man to be a woman’s leader, as well as her provider. But, thanks to modern day feminism, I bought into the idea of not being vulnerable and trusting of men in my earlier office days. And, who knows? Maybe they would not have stepped up financially in the end. Maybe they would have. But looking back, it would’ve at least been worth it to let my guard down and find out for myself.

Perhaps it was the people and misery I was around every day, but, I am not here to blame and point fingers anymore. I am just here to say that these experiences have made it all the more evident to me: Money-making (paid work) is masculine. I’ve always had some of these ideas, but not to the extent that I do today.

To my surprise, my brother even agreed with me on the matter recently, and he is an Atheist. That made it clear to me that even people who don’t believe in God, can deduce that this is still the natural way of life. Furthermore, he made the statement about a woman getting up and taking the lead as manager at his place of employment. This made him suddenly feel unattracted to her, once she went into a masculine role. Which begs the question I have asked myself for quite some time now: WHY is there a desire to play the man? Is it to buy a new designer purse and look feminine until you step into the man’s shoes tomorrow? Is it to afford your child’s daycare in which half your paycheck goes to pay strangers to raise him or her? As a person who has never needed or asked for much (especially in terms of unnecessary material goods) I just don’t understand it-nor do I want to try to, anymore.

I JUST WANT TRADITIONAL FAMILIES TO COME BACK. Sure, they might not be like the 1950s, but the incorporation of modern day things with previous values is the life that I want-not only for myself, but for the betterment and preservation of the family unit and its vital role in a sustainable, healthy society. At the very, very least, “women’s rights” should extend a notion of same-level respect to a woman’s choice to stay home, so the CHOICE is not shunned and frowned upon. She should not be made to feel like an ostracized sinner because that is what she knows in her heart will make herself and her family happy. Today, we have a way of making this woman feel as though she should not breathe the same air, or call herself a human being, and to me, it says our society has become an unaccepting, close-minded, judgmental and nasty people. And, the most concerning part is that it’s only getting more horrifying by the year. Top that off with the fact that it seems even more acceptable, and almost “cute” when Dad stays at home with kids these days.

Unless the male is a complete homosexual, I do not believe that this is a step in the right direction based on the natural order defined by God. I do not find it progressive, nor “cool,” or “hip with the times.” Quite the contrary-I find it next to repulsive that most women now find the majority of their identification in their workplace, rather than their home.

My statement on the traditional family order collaborates with my spirituality, unnatural experiences, common sense, and the warmth I experienced from the mother of my first boyfriend who stayed at home full-time. She was adored by her kids and her hard-working husband. At the time, I didn’t understand it to the full depths that I do now. Not only are men more physically capable than woman by nature; God gave them the strength and power to sacrifice themselves for the women and children they love, but they have not been doing so.

I can imagine this is the fault of both sexes: The men, because they are not stepping up and demanding to manage their family’s finances so that women can be with their children-and the women, because, for some reason they have been insisting for too many years on having an upper hand, or refusing a man’s offer to take care of her. Which, unfortunately means that they are sitting in positions that more men should be occupying. Don’t get me wrong: If there are women out there that want a career to be her life and don’t want marriage or kids, then by all means, they should have every access to education and a promising career. But, I find the balancing act of trying to “have it all,” completely unreasonable, unrealistic, unnecessary, and damaging to relationships, in the end.

Additionally, a man wanting to take care of a woman is sometimes even seen as some kind of threat to her “independence,” that powerful, hypnotic word that gets throw around all too often today. In reality, that woman with so much financial independence might just be the one managing the office and acting in the immature and inappropriate manner that I have experienced. She is, what I like to call, the “woman-child.” She could be the type that I describe; hungry for power and control over others, while conveniently having them fooled (or threatened) by title, and status. Also, costing the company time and money that an organization cannot recover. But, as the saying goes: Misery loves company.

Furthermore, I cannot force myself, nor pretend to have a sense of pride, when seeing women in police and army uniforms. According to modern society, I am supposed to feel that we are “making progressive strides” when seeing women in masculine fields. It is, in my opinion, insulting to all of the beauty and feministic traits that Our Father has bestowed upon the female form. Contrary to popular belief, a woman does not need to fend for herself financially and physically just to be seen as a heroine and a person of worth. All she needs to do is be kind and nurturing to all of her family, and people around her.

Perhaps some would blindly consider women in the equation when they hear the statement: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is when good men do nothing.” I would put that on men to bring back romance, joy, and peace into the American family. Men are capable of doing this, and together we can stop living like the walking dead, and learn to feel the emotions as men and women were granted to share with each other again.

This right to desire a man to be our provider, is what I will argue in favor of for the rest of my life. Sure, people will accuse me of wanting to be lazy, of not doing my “equal” part, and of not having any ambitions. I will refuse to let their comments make me feel like a second-class citizen. I have experienced too much negativity, hostility and constraint in financial environments, and so it has nothing to do with “not having any ambition” and no real work goals, but rather a strong desire to live a peaceful existence.

As far as the “equality” comment goes: How is it ever going to be equal when a mother has to work outside of the home, take care of kids, and do most of the housework? That’s not equality; that’s insanity, pure and simple. I cannot imagine the marital strain when feelings of resentment from either side begin to develop for having to do more, or being too tired and worn for intimacy. Then, we Americans wonder why the cheating and the divorce rate have become such a common, familiar problem. At a slow and treacherous pace, feminism has been destroying many meaningful relationships. Perhaps not the original or current intent of the movement as a whole….but an inconvenient truth, nonetheless.

In conclusion, I know for my own life, what I want. The worth of a good woman obeying (WHILE being treated like a first-class citizen) a wonderful man so that he can protect her and the children, if they decide on them, is worth more than any amount of money that exists on this green Earth. As strange as it may sound to some, it is the order in which there will be the most communication and harmony together in the sexes. While no system will ever be perfect, a more patriarchal approach to family life and satisfaction, is crucial. That is what I am certain of, now. Men need to start acting more like providers, and women have to start setting aside their inbred fears of the opposite sex.

Posted in Guest Posts

So Parents “Deserve” Affordable Childcare?

What Obama just said about stay-at-home moms literally disgusts me

I was having a conversation yesterday about Obama and him saying how we need “affordable childcare.” Then I re-read some articles about what he said last October on the issue and how he bashed stay-at-home mothers. First, let me just say that I hate the term “stay at home mother.” It makes it sound like I’m making some kind of feminist choice to stay home for a while or something (which is exactly the intention of the term).

But, anyways, the sad thing is that in all the solutions ever proposed to fix the current crisis of the family nobody ever suggests bringing back the traditional family (which is patriarchal and headed by the husband, not both spouses and not by the wife). Instead, the conversation always revolves around something politically correct like counseling couples to work out their problems instead of divorcing or something and finding good daycare or “one parent” staying home or something.

The part where Obama said parents “deserve” to be able to drop their kids off with someone else at an affordable price is the worst. And then lamenting about women losing career prospects because they take some time off to care for children, as if it’s some kind of terrible obligation nobody should ever be forced to do or something! As if all women even give a care about a career!

So, the taxpayers should, once again, foot the bill for someone else to watch your kids. Family breakdown costs a tremendous amount of money every year. It has always been the few- very few- patriarchal families still left today that generally foot the bill for it. But, as I said just a few sentences ago, nobody wants to do anything about it that will actually work. We can’t look for simple, time-tested solutions that have actually been proven to work. We must continue going out of our way and scratching our heads wondering why everything has gotten so awful bad as if it’s really some big mystery that nobody can quite figure out.

Not to mention the harm done to children when left in the care of others. Yes, they may be fed, changed and physically taken care of but this does nothing for them emotionally, psychologically and it does nothing for the protection of their souls.

The worst part is that conservatives are no better. Conservatives still want women out of the home just the same as liberals, only they wish to forbid homosexual encounters and abortion. Other than that they are NO DIFFERENT than liberals. The end result is still women out of the home.The end result is still the abolition of sex roles by saying either parent can stay home. The end result is still FEMINISM.

The problem is that it doesn’t work! It never has and it is only getting worse and will continue to get worse. The obvious solution is for men to actually man up and take on the sole obligation for supporting their families and for women to submit themselves to their husbands, even if the thought does make them cringe. Traditional family law had it that when children were in the custody of their fathers (generally this meant marriage but also extended to divorce as well) that the father had the sole obligation to support them. It was his responsibility, not the mother’s and not the taxpayers. Mothers only had to take on that obligation in the event of emergency, such as if they were widowed or unwed or something.

Mothers going off to work was considered a very bad thing. Looking at our world today we can see our ancestors were right to look down upon it. Society was stable when women stayed home and when few married (and even single) women worked. It is the only solution that works and I’m sick of hearing about careers and the “wage gap” and I’m sick of the talk about “women’s rights” as if all women care about careers and nothing else.

When does it end? Give women back their traditional rights to be financially supported by husbands and give men back their position as heads of families. We need a system such as coverture to be implemented again that gives husbands authority over women and children and where husbands have obligations for the support of their wives and are ultimately called to answer for the state of their families.

Recommended:

Can You Have Your Cake and Eat it Too?

Posted in Current Events, Feminism | Tagged , , , ,

Life is Sacred, Until It Leaves the Womb

Daily Show Shreds Alabama’s Ridiculous New Abortion Law

This has just gotten so insane. Yes, unborn life is precious but these nut-job republicans today are crazed. So what happens when the girl is forced to give birth to that life these “fetus lawyers” so well care about? Will they care about that life then or how it is raised or do they only care about it before it’s born then afterwards “who cares your on your own?” Of course, it’s not like this law serves any purpose other than to “run out the clock.”

Instead of others testifying against the young woman, whose life is probably already torn to shreds and out of sorts due to an unwanted pregnancy, how about her parents and the fetal father be put on trial for failing to protect her and the unborn and abandoning their obligations? Or is it only mothers who should be put on trial for abandoning their children or abusing them? If a mother walks away from her child then wants to show up later she is regarded as the worst kind of scum imaginable but men do it every day and not only are they not looked down upon for it, they are regarded as heroes and “good guys.”

How about the young woman be allowed to testify against the father and force him either into marriage or to give up his rights? Republicans care about children until they are born, at which point they are no better than anyone else with divorce, failure to protect the sanctity of marriage and general who cares about children and let’s treat the sexes the same (except where they can hurt women and get away with it) BS.

100 years ago the fetal father could even be put in PRISON if something happened to the mother or child but now apparently he can testify against the woman he has impregnated, keep her from obtaining an abortion and still have full legal status as a father without ever having to take on any kind of real responsibility.

What the hell kind of nation have we become?

My previous posts on this issue:

The Traditional Family is the Solution to Abortion

The Problem With Republicans

Coverture and the Criminalization of Pregnancy

Posted in Current Events, Political | Tagged , ,

Step Right Up!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/whos-your-daddy-dna-van_n_1827465.html

This is completely sick, I know this is a couple of years old but I just saw this and couldn’t help myself. How much worse can family breakdown get? As science advances we open up Pandora’s box and turn our relationships with other human beings upside down. It’s like step up one and all and see that your wife is a lying b*tch, go see, it’s real easy, if that child raised in a stable family that already has a father providing for it might have been fathered by you. Find your baby daddy on the go, line up all your sex partners, see which one might be the baby daddy. Step up, open the box, and have stable relationships severed forever. Just like the pill and abortion and free sex, it’s a money maker. Companies make money off of promiscuity and breaking up families. Go ahead, girls, I’m sure it’s a wonderful idea that years later some test might be a good idea to find your child’s father, to bring him into that child’s life years later and screw up your child’s life and confuse your child about his/her family identify and where he/she really belongs. It’s on the go, it’s freely available, nobody cares. It’s as simple as ordering an ice cream cone! Have your kids any way you choose, with whomever you choose and raise them in whatever environment you choose and nobody better ever say anything. Exploit some poor girl over seas to birth your baby because you can’t be bothered with pregnancy (it is, after all, inconvenient) then send her packing with no more than a few thousand to “compensate” her for her “troubles.” Freeze your eggs for later so you can be an old granny raising an infant that’s still biologically yours (because that’s all that matters, unless we decide some other arrangement is more convenient). Sleep with every man you want. The morning after pill will be there and if it isn’t the abortion will. And if that don’t work or isn’t your cup of tea you just have your local health clinic find the daddy and send him a nice “I love you” card in the mail telling him he’s a daddy! Congratulations! Who cares whose life you screw up or the confusion and instability within the family you cause. A man isn’t a father because he provides for a wife and child within marriage! Why, that’s outdated! What is this, the 1950s? He’s a father because his sperm was the fastest swimmer in a sea of fierce competitors of different genetic backgrounds! Your family isn’t made up of the ones in the long cherished scrapbook of people who worked hard, loved each other, stayed together and made stable relationships with each other. It’s whatever some genetic testing company says it is! Why, family can mean anything you want it to mean! Choose whatever arrangement you want! Have your kids with your co-ed roommate then cheat on him and go have kids with someone else. Be sure to be fair and split the maternity leave that way he can stay home too! Marry a guy, get divorced two years later then be a cougar who keeps a lesbian lover on the side. Hey, maybe your lesbian lover wants rights to the child being equally raised between your former co-ed roommate and your ex-husband and you! Who is to deny her? Split the child between you all and let’s just make life one big orgy. It’s all good, so long as we don’t hurt nobody and everyone gets equal rights!

Posted in Commentary, Current Events, Opinion Pieces

Guns- A Man’s Best Friend?

I was watching this episode of the 1950s-1960s TV show, The Rifleman, starring Chuck Connors, the other day. The marshal of the town, Micah, goes out of town and the local blacksmith, Nils, temporarily takes over as deputy marshal for a couple of days. He decides to make the town a “peace-loving” town and institutes a policy that nobody can carry guns in the town. It sounds all good and reasonable (no guns= no violence= we all just get along and live peacefully and there’s no need to ever fight) until three wanted murderers, escaped from prison, show up in town. They see that all of the men in the town are unarmed and realize that it presents them the perfect opportunity to cause mischief. In the end Nils ends up needing Lucas’ help as Lucas refused to give up his gun and instead just stayed away from town. Nils admits that the murderers probably wouldn’t have ever tried anything if the people had been armed and could defend themselves.

I haven’t seen the whole series of this show but instead have just seen a few episodes but there was another politically incorrect episode that I saw as well where Lucas taught his son Mark after an accident that guns themselves are neither bad nor good but instead can be used for both good or bad, depending on the intentions of the person using them. After all, take the guns away from decent law-abiding citizens and criminals, already intent on breaking the law, will still have guns and use them to harm others and take away the life, liberty and property of others.

It would have been nicer in a lot of ways to live in those days where men were actually men and women were actually women. Men actually had to be real men then and were expected to be the protectors and providers and they definitely sacrificed a lot and worked hard to fulfill those roles too. It was inconceivable that a woman would be called upon when the local law enforcement was forming a posse to hunt down criminals and it was also inconceivable that a woman should act as a law enforcement officer, be drafted into the military or that a man shouldn’t have the right to head the household and protect it. The gun in reality is a symbol of masculinity. In those days women definitely needed the protection of men but it is a mistake to think that women no longer do, as the world is no less dangerous now than it ever was.

Anyways, I just thought it was thought-provoking. It’s definitely not the kind of thing you see these days. I like watching older TV shows as they are often a big improvement over whatever you see on TV these days, not always though.

Related:

Can Violence Solve Anything?

Posted in Movies, Books and TV | Tagged , ,

Nobody Can Take That From You

For any wife and mother, never forget that you have a great importance in life- an importance society cannot take from you, though the society might try. Throughout all of history, in every society, the role of a mother has been of upmost importance. No matter what roles men did or did not play; no matter what responsibility they did or did not take, there has always been the mother, at the center of the family and of paramount importance in the raising and bearing of children. A new study may come out every six months trying to convince us that men can nurture young children just as well as women. A string of biased polls might come out telling us women would rather have careers. Children today are often taken from their mothers to be put into all kinds of crazy custody arrangements and men are often seen parading around the local park pushing a baby carriage while their high-earning wives are out to work. It doesn’t matter. The father holding the infant child and nursing it with a bottle can never be the same as a mother suckling the child at her breast. He can never be the same as the woman carrying life within her; life brought into this world from her body and her sacrifice; life that can be immediately nursed from her body even with its life-force while in the womb still attached and connected to her. At best the father nurturing the infant can only be a stand-in for a mother.

It doesn’t matter what crazy scientific inventions mankind has created or how much we try to play God. It cannot take away what God himself has given to women. It doesn’t matter if a father does or doesn’t accept responsibility for his part in procreation. It doesn’t matter that society often loves to hold children hostage from mothers at birth in reward for the woman’s good behavior or that immoral and irresponsible men love to use children as pawns to control women. It doesn’t matter that a woman’s privates are the subject of every political debate around. It doesn’t matter how much a man might want to proclaim you a slut just because he wants to evade the consequences of his actions. He is only, at best, declaring his role to be uncertain and a cultural creation. Don’t ever forget that your role as a mother is biological. It is imperative. It is as old as time itself. Since the beginning of time, nobody alive has ever been able to live in this world without first coming through a woman, a mother. Even if society does not care about mothers nor the sacrifices they make it doesn’t matter. Nobody can take a mother’s importance away from her. You ARE doing your part just by being a wife and mother and don’t ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

Men may have superiority in other ways but never forget, if you are a wife and mother, that God has granted you superiority within the home and the lives of your young children. Never trade that superiority away for equality with men. Never trade that away for a mere career. It doesn’t matter who likes it or who doesn’t. It doesn’t matter what anyone else says. It doesn’t matter how hostile the law becomes towards wives and mothers. It doesn’t matter how much men’s and father’s rights activists scream about the injustice of woman’s sexual superiority and how much they don’t want any responsibility. It does not matter. You are what God made you as a woman and nobody can ever take that from you. Nobody can make you inferior. You, as a woman, have the bargaining power over sex and you can use it to enable you to better fulfill your role as wife and mother. It doesn’t matter whether or not feminist women nor egalitarian men like it.

It does not matter. God gave to women the ability and responsibility for bearing the children. Nobody can take that away from you no matter how much they try. Seasons come and go and the times change, yet the role of the mother has forever remained the same.

Posted in Commentary | Tagged

Sleeping Beauty, Feminist Style

Sleeping Beauty gets a 21st century update in the 2014 movie Maleficent, starring Angelina Jolie. The entire backstory of Sleeping Beauty is given. Maleficent was once in love with Stefan and they were close friends, but in order to become king he betrays her. He comes back to Maleficent making her believe that they will begin anew where they left off, only to drug her, cut off her wings and leave her. She wakes up to find he has betrayed her and taken her wings. Later, when King Stefan and his queen have a baby girl she shows up to put a curse on her, following the original Sleeping Beauty story.

This time, however, the story takes a bit of a different twist. Instead of not knowing where Aurora, the beautiful princess, is hiding she instead assumes the role of fairy godmother to her. She actually watches out for the child as she is growing up and then presumably comes to love her very much. She tries to revoke the curse that she put on the girl but it cannot be revoked. Of course, Aurora does meat Prince Phillip in the woods and Maleficent brings the Prince to the castle when Aurora does prick her finger on a spindle on her sixteenth birthday, as was her curse. However, the Prince’s kiss does not wake Aurora up from her sleep but instead it is a kiss by Maleficent herself, upon the girl’s forehead, that wakes up the beautiful Princess. Aurora then wants to go and live with Maleficent. But by this time King Stefan (who apparently is so consumed with revenge upon Maleficent that he doesn’t even care about his daughter any longer nor his dying wife) and his men have already laid a trap for Maleficent and are waiting for her inside of the castle and surround her whenever her and Aurora attempt to leave. The attempt to kill Maleficent fails, however. Her wings sense her presence in the castle and are returned to her (with the help of Aurora) and King Stefan ends up falling to his death. Aurora becomes queen and her and Maleficent unite their kingdoms and the walls Maleficent put up are brought down forever. We see Prince Phillip show up at the end presumably to get to know Aurora and start a relationship with her.

This film had great special effects and the twist on the story was interesting. I will admit it was pretty neat but there is just something that screams out about this story. There seems to be this very strong “girl power” theme about the story. Men are evil and powerless in the story. The Prince does not fight to save Aurora as he did in the original 1950s version of Sleeping Beauty. His kiss cannot wake her up as his kiss is impotent. He does not fight his way to the castle and battle to save the Princess. Instead he is carried, unconscious, to the castle by Maleficent. It is Maleficent, a woman, that does all the fighting to save the Princess. Prince Phillip doesn’t seem very confident nor masculine. He seems more instead like a typical 21st century androgynous male living in a female dominated world. In fact, after his kiss doesn’t work he just leaves and isn’t even seen again until the very end of the story. He does no fighting nor does he stick around to try to save Aurora or help her in any way. He doesn’t try to rescue her, find some cure or antidote for the spell nor help her out of the castle to safety. Apparently this is woman’s work.

King Stefan did Maleficent wrong. He not only led her on but he did physical harm to her by cutting off her wings, a part of her body (possibly an euphemism for rape or female circumcision?). He is deserving of punishment in the story and Maleficent, in my opinion, deserved to be compensated in some way for the harm he inflicted upon her but there is just something very wrong with the story in that the King did not even seem to care about his daughter and, likewise, she didn’t seem to care very much about him. Yes, he got what he deserved you could say but the entire storyline just seems to be bordering on feminist man-hating and lesbianism to some extent.

We can no longer have a story where a man rescues, protects or fights for a woman. Apparently that is “sexist” and just can’t be done! Disney Princesses these days have to be strong and independent, such as Princess Merida from Brave. She is competent, independent, rebels against the way a “proper” woman should act and can shoot better than any man. No man comes to save her. All the princes that show up to battle for her hand are all incompetent drooling idiots who probably couldn’t navigate their way across the street without assistance. Many modern television and movies degrade women, but they also degrade men by assaulting traditional masculinity.

Most women would swoon and crumple to the floor by seeing a man being truly masculine, in charge and fighting to save a helpless damsel in distress (hmm, maybe that’s why masculinity must be degraded and discouraged, because it would turn women helpless and dependent on men).

I was reading this article a few months back where someone was posing the question of why anyone would want to be the powerless Aurora when instead they could be the all-powerful Maleficent. What they apparently didn’t understand is that the original Aurora is powerful, only not in the masculine realm the way Maleficent was powerful but instead she was powerful in the feminine realm. Yes Aurora was helpless to save herself and completely dependent upon a man to save her. Yet she was very powerful. She was loved by many mainly due to her sweet innocent disposition and traditional femininity. For her Prince Phillip would do anything. There is no battle that he wouldn’t fight for her. In the original Sleeping Beauty he risks everything to come for her and will stop at nothing to save her. He is strong, chivalrous, masculine and confident- in contrast to Aurora’s delicate beauty and helplessness. When they meet in the woods he seems protective and willing to take the lead. There is also a beautiful scene where they are leaning against a tree and you can tell he stands much taller than she is. He exudes masculinity, and she femininity.

In the new version Prince Phillip doesn’t do anything for Aurora- she and Maleficent do everything for themselves. The new Prince Phillip instead seems quite soft and unsure of himself. There is not even the tiniest sign of any man being in charge at all. The new Prince Phillip is like a clueless teenage boy. It is complete 21st century gender-role reversal.

Posted in Movies, Books and TV, Reviews | Tagged , ,