Why I am an Anti-Feminist Woman Part II

Why am I an anti-feminist woman?

1) I want my man to be chivalrous: My man has always paid for our dates and held doors open for me. He doesn’t expect a woman to pay because he knows that is his job. He is not the type of man who believes women and men are equal because he believes women should be protected and taken care of. He does not throw our society’s mainstream vision of equality back in my face by telling me to pay my own way, open my own doors, and fight our wars. “Of course, when you wipe out masculine men, you also eliminate gentlemen, the kind of men who would defend and protect a lady-like the gentlemen who remained on the Titanic. Of the ship’s survivors, 94 percent of those in first-class and 81 percent of those in second class were women.”[1]

2) I don’t want to be “equal”: I know as a woman I am already of great worth. I don’t have to go out into the workforce to prove myself. It does not make me inferior if my husband pays the bills and has all the money because that means he is assuming responsibility as a father and husband and providing our needs. I don’t want the burdens that have been forced upon wives and mothers because of feminism. I want my husband to have the legal obligation to provide my needs and the needs of our child and I want him to be the head of household. I do not want to be treated like a man. “Different but equal” is a term that contradicts itself.

To ameliorate the problems caused by society’s overvaluation of male marketplace activities and women’s dissatisfactions with a traditional female role, masculinity must be reinforced. Only a man secure in his masculinity will place a high value on the traditional female role and exert himself to make that role viable. The fiber of effete, attenuated, androgynous males must be shored up so that they can happily marry, reproduce, and assume responsibility for supporting a family. A man secure in his masculinity will not usually believe himself suited to the female role, but he will respect the woman who assumes it and take pride in providing for her and their children. Such a man will afford his wife the security and affirmation that enable her to deal with the troubling aspects of her role and perform it with satisfaction.[2]

A sea of change had occurred in men who only two decades before had taken pride in their ability to provide for wife and children. With scarcely a whimper, many males accepted the new androgyny and capitulated to the very feminist demands which have impaired their earning ability. Then, they too encouraged their wives to leave children hostage to the vagaries of surrogate care and pursue the economic opportunities which would spare husbands from assuming the now apparently overwhelming role of breadwinner.[3]

3) I want to be valued for the natural work I do: Our society does not see woman’s natural work of pregnancy, birth and child nurturing as work or as worthwhile. They tell us we do not do our part unless we are held to all the responsibilities of men. This is simply not true. As women we naturally do our part for we are the ones that bring life into this world. I want to be valued and cherished for the work I naturally do. We spend months and years of our lives to bring the next generation forth and it should be counted as more than just doing our part and respected. Feminists have never seen us as doing our part and have forced us to take on the man’s burden of supporting the family and have tried many times to get Congress to draft us. “But if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship…”[4]

…While androgyny advances the feminist cause, it is for the traditional person the ultimate perversion. Because of its essential elimination of what is singularly masculine or feminine, an ideology of androgyny is an attack on the biological constitution of society, a muting of the excitement created by that sexual distinctiveness and complementarity most conducive to satisfying heterosexuality. The widespread desexualization of our lives through a proliferation of androgynous styles has created fallow soil for growth of contemporary feminism. Societal acceptance of androgyny has validated feminist efforts to trivialize sexual differences. When androgyny becomes fashionable, women will become diffident about, even somewhat ashamed of, the sexual differentiation announced by their reproductive capability. Striving to become more like men, they will eschew the distinctively feminine satisfaction inherent in being female.[5]

4) I treasure my sexuality and my body: Feminists have for decades told us to pursue sex on the same terms as men and that double standards are holding us back. We are pressured from a young age to have sex and to be ashamed if we have not had sex. I remember being so ashamed of being a virgin that I had to lie to everyone I knew about sexual encounters that never even happened. It’s a pitiful thing when young women don’t understand their inherent worth and feel they must participate in sexual activity in order to feel accepted and loved. Sex for a woman will never be the same as sex for a man.

“ In the past, men had to commit before they could have sex. As a result, women were cherished for themselves and given a lifelong role that satisfied their deepest emotional needs.

Both mothers and daughters are victims of deliberate social subversion. A woman’s career used to be wife and mother. She consecrated her sexuality for the man she loved, the father of her children, her protector and provider.”[6]

Dworkin depicts sexual intercourse as a much more momentous experience for a woman than a man, because it is ‘an act of possession in which…a man inhabits a woman, physically covering her and overwhelming her and at the same time penetrating her…By thrusting into her, he takes her over. His thrusting into her is taken to be her capitulation to him as a conqueror; it is a physical surrender of herself to him; he occupies and rules her, expresses his elemental dominance over her…’ In intercourse, says Dworkin, a woman ‘is occupied- physically, internally, in her privacy.'” Her depiction might be considered an outrageous exaggeration (many of Dworkin’s critics so characterize it), but I find it a dramatic portrayal-from the woman’s, but not necessarily from the man’s perspective- of sexual intercourse at its best. Dworkin describes an overwhelmingly personal, a truly awe-inspiring, event in which a woman should shrink in horror from participating on any basis even remotely casual. One might think that in her lifetime a woman would meet few men that she considers worthy of exercising such power over her. This may explain why women often invest their romantic relationships with a meaning the facts do not support, endeavoring to convince themselves that the man is what he is not and that the woman means much more to him than she truly does.[7]

Notes:

1. Schlafly, P., Feminist Fantasies. Spence, 2003.
2. Graglia, C.F., Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism. p.151. Spence, 1998.
3. ibid., p.40.
4. http://www.amazon.com/Firing-William-Buckley-Rights-Amendment/dp/B007Q3QMEW/ref=pd_ybh_1
5. “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 61.
6. http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/feminists-surprised-their-daughters-are-sluts/
7. “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 173.

© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Advertisements