Monthly Archives: April 2013

The Failed Philosophy of Male-Female Fungibility

I was up at the preschool the other day. My LO doesn’t go full time she stays home with me but I still take her up to the preschool a couple of days a week. Well anyways I was observing the behavior of the kids while they were playing outside. There is simply no denying that they boys are simply more aggressive and risk taking than the girls. Of course, a few of the girls would play with the boys too but for the most part they were off playing with other girls. The boys were running around much more than the girls and several times the teachers had to break them apart from fighting with the other boys (a couple of times they even started fighting with the girls and they stopped that real quick).

Feminists supported gender neutral laws and standards of dealing with males and females. MRAs complain about the way boys are treated yet they too are advocating for the same gender neutrality as feminists. The problem is that the sexes are not fungible with each other yet any attempt to segregate the sexes in any area of life is met with fierce resistance and claims of “stereotyping.” and “sexism.”

In some areas boys will suffer and in others girls will suffer. Not only are boys more aggressive and can’t sit still (they evolved/were made to be hunters and warriors after all) but they also don’t mature as fast as girls. In other areas girls suffer. For instance, teenage boys do not get pregnant. Well feminists wanted to invalidate all laws that favored and protected women. For instance, statutory rape laws that used to lay penalties on the male. This is called common sense. Not only is the boy not going to get pregnant but he also has a much larger sex drive and 20 times more testosterone coursing through his veins. But, no, of course in the interest of sex-neutral laws and male-female fungibility we have the punish the girl on top of the natural punishment she will already receive from society and the risk to her body and life that would result when the inevitable pregnancy occurs as a result of the sex act. But of course these laws must be gender-neutral because, you know, women can be guilty of statutory rape too and teenage girls should face the same punishment as the teenage boys even though the boy won’t face the same responsibilities and hardships as the girl and history is just filled with stories of groups of rowdy women coming through a town, killing all the women and children and taking out all the young virgin males and using them for reproduction! Justice William Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion on the matter in 1981 was:

“Because virtually all of the significant harmful and inescapable identifiable consequences of teenage pregnancy fall on the young female, a legislature acts well within its authority when it elects to punish only the participant who, by nature, suffers few of the consequences of his conduct. It is hardly unreasonable for a legislature acting to protect minor females to exclude them from punishment. Moreover, the risk of pregnancy itself constitutes a substantial deterrence to young females. No similar sanctions deter males. A criminal sanction solely on males thus serves roughly to ‘equalize the deterrents on the sexes.’”[1]

In addition we still have some sex segregated schools left today, but the ACLU is working fiercely to shut those down. You know, by all that’s holy how dare us force boys and girls into “stereotypes” regarding their sex! You know, it’s not like the girls will grow up to be mothers and need those nurturing home-making skills and it’s not like we should ever suggest that the boys grow up to be men who provide for and lead families! How dare us? Why a woman should march off to work big and pregnant while her dainty little house husband sits home knitting sweaters and painting his nails! What is wrong with society today? The entire point of marriage and bringing fathers into the family is for them to do their part providing for women and their children so that the mother does not have to both bear children and support the family on top of it. Intimacy and structure can be satisfied without marriage. There is no other point of marriage other than to be a safety net for women to bear and nurture children, which women are going to do no matter what. But the prime fact of life is that no man will bear the burden of pregnancy.

“Similarly, man’s ‘innate need for structure’ can be satisfied in hundreds of forms of organization. The need for structure may explain all of them or none of them, but it does not tell us why, of all possible arrangements, marriage is the one most prevalent. It does not tell us why, in most societies, marriage alone is consecrated in a religious ceremony and entails a permanent commitment.

As most anthropologists see it, however, the reason is simple. The very essence of marriage, Bronislaw Malinowski wrote, is not structure and intimacy; it is ‘parenthood and above all maternity.’ The male role in marriage, as Margaret Mead maintained, ‘in every known human society, is to provide for women and children.’ In order to marry, in fact, Malinowski says that almost every human society first requires the man ‘ to prove his capacity to maintain the woman.’”[2]

So the only thing that’s actually happening as a result of all this gender neutral legislation and forced male-female fungibility is that boys are falling behind in school and, oh my, teenage girls are still getting pregnant as they have since the beginning of time! Who would have thought? But, of course, let’s continue on with this failed philosophy.

 

Notes:

[1] Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma City., 450 U.S. 464 (1981) Dissent by Justice William Rehnquist
[2] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage,” Pelican, 1993.

 

 

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Advertisements

You Deserve Whatever’s Coming to You

There is nothing worse than a man that refuses to accept his responsibilities as a man. There is nothing more pathetic on this Earth than the man who, instead of accepting his responsibilities for women, instead wants equality with them. I’m talking to any mangina out there who complains about how victimized he is by our justice system or how he does not want to be the breadwinner for his family because it is either to much work or there is nothing in it for him. You men are not impotent victims. You can whine and cry all day but in the end if you are accepting the doctrine of gender equality and gender-neutral laws you are simply contributing to you own demise. You do not have to be run over by women or dictated to by them unless you so choose. Most women will follow if you just begin to lead. But, no- and I’m especially talking to you pro-equality MRAs out there- you choose instead to accept equality and push your burdens off onto women.

Most women, unless they are the exception, want men who are dominant and in control. It’s not something that we always come out and say. But it is nonetheless something that we all crave and expect men to understand. You could put a stop to anti-male legislation that prevents men from leading and keeping order within their families but you choose instead to protest anything that would hold you to any kind of traditional responsibilities for women and children. It’s so obvious to every single one of us traditional men and women that you are promoting equality to be let out of your responsibilities. The equal rights movement took off in the 1960s and 1970s with feminism and you jumped on board at the prospect of no longer being held to the duties of being a man.

But the simple fact of the matter is that you have no right to shun your duties as a man. Civilized society depends upon you fulfilling those duties. Just watch and see what you are going to cause by promoting that women fulfill your duties, assume the roles as breadwinners and register for the selective service. At first you will cause the suffering of women, but soon after will follow the suffering of all and the complete collapse of moral order and domestic tranquility of your own nation and then the rest of the world.

If you want to end this then take charge of the situation. If you fulfill your responsibilities, even if it may be difficult and tiring at times, your families will stay together and order will be restored to your society. Don’t let your wives order you around or be responsible for your support/their own support. You must love her and be responsible for her and in charge. If this is too much for you then you deserve whatever is coming to you. Yesterday I saw a man describe divorce as “pulling off your testicles through your wallet.” But I can’t bring myself to feel sorry for you pro-equality men and MRAs out there when you sit around shunning your duties and stating that divorce is a “freedom” and that you support the equality of the genders. Women are out there performing YOUR rightful obligations and all you can do is sit around and complain and want further out of responsibility. If you support male-female fungibility then you (and I’m also talking to feminists as well as women have been hurt and victimized by gender-neutral laws) deserve whatever is coming to you.

 

 

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Do MRAs Want to be Victims or Take Responsibility?

Some of MRAs asked what was in it for them, what changes to the legal system we sought. Well, first, we seek to END “NO-FAULT” DIVORCE. That is the first thing that has to change. Second, yes it should be the obligation of HUSBANDS to support their wives financially and fathers to support their legitimate children. Yes, this is the man’s burden and the man’s alone. You see, men used to have all kinds of obligations of the sort yet they weren’t so bitter all the time and we didn’t have so much chaos or broken families. Yes, the husband should be the legal head of household. A woman has the choice who she wishes to marry. She should know when she says “I do” that she will become one with him. He has to pay the bills, therefore if he wants to move the family she should be under the obligation to live with him and take care of the home. Feminists were very bitter about this. In New York, a pamphlet supporting ratification of the ERA read:

“DO YOU KNOW THAT RAPE IS LEGAL IN MARRIAGE?

According to law, sex is the purpose of marriage. You have to have sexual intercourse in order to have a valid marriage

DO YOU KNOW THAT LOVE AND AFFECTION ARE NOT REQUIRED IN MARRIAGE?

If you don’t have sex with your husband, he can get a divorce or annulment. If he doesn’t love you, that’s not grounds for a divorce

DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE YOUR HUSBAND’S PRISONER?

You have to live with him wherever he pleases. If he decides to move someplace else, either you go with him or he can charge you with desertion, get a divorce and, according to the law, you deserve nothing because you’re the guilty party. And that’s if he were the one who moved!”[1]

Well, sex is kind of the point of marriage dear feminists. Males and females are going to come together and offspring will result in the normal course of events. This is nature’s way. Therefore, marriage is the institution that serves the purpose of creating stability in society for children to be raised.

Now, should I have to take my husband’s last name or obtain his consent to get a credit card or something like telephone service? Yes. TWRAs cannot ask for our husbands to have the legal obligation to support us and pay our debts if we can go and run up a 100,000 dollar credit card bill- that he has to pay- without his permission.

There is no other way. Return to traditional marriage and divorce laws or else men and women will both face the possibility of the other spouse leaving without justification and taking off with the house, kids, etc… And since most married women work and contribute to the family support women are at risk too at losing their assets and homemakers are at risk of being left without a way to survive (rarely will a woman be entitled to alimony unless for a brief period of time).

Now, we don’t really talk a whole lot about abortion. My view is that men should not be granted the same legal status of rights and responsibilities to illegitimate children as to legitimate children. So, I would absolutely not consider that an unwed father should get a say in abortion. That draws too far on the natural law and could cause severe consequences (rapists are already obtaining custody imagine what could happen if the unmarried man had a say over the woman’s womb). Now, for a married man I would certainly consider that he should get a say if he had the SOLE OBLIGATION of supporting his wife and children. As for if abortion should be legal, I’m not going to go into that because there are way too many issues- both medical and ethical- to consider here.

Men today do not have near the obligations their male ancestors did. There is no current draft, no front-lines (and as far as the draft, no women should not have to register, previous wars could not have been won if it was not for women at home taking care of families and working in factories while the men were gone, and every feminist organization around took up the case of drafting women and considered it a major setback to “women’s rights” when they lost). A man is not stuck with lifetime support of his wife until she marries another man at least (only a handful of states even have anything resembling lifetime alimony today).

Either MRAs can continue to face grievances today, or accept traditional responsibilities for women and children. I read a comment on an article a while back which I thought was pretty good:

“… I went to a seminar on “the role of the man in the family” about 12 years ago that talked of this issue. One of the interesting examples/questions he used was: Gentlemen, if your wife is driving down the road and the oil light comes on and she keeps driving, who’s responsibility is it when the engine freezes up? Answer: It’s your responsibility. Is that a good deal for the woman? You bet. Is it a good deal for you? It just is. But since you’re responsible, maybe you will always make sure there is oil in the car so the problem won’t occur.

When men understand and TAKE their responsibility which, btw, also implies AUTHORITY, they are empowered to control their own destiny and the destiny of their family. REAL women want exactly that in a man.”

So yes, authority means responsibility. Do MRAs want to be victims or do they want to take the authority and responsibility that comes along with tradition? As I said, a few changes in the legal code such as ending no-fault divorces completely and distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate birth and there would be a lot of security for both men and women.

Note:

1. Mansbridge, J.J., “Why We Lost the ERA,” p. 102-103. The University of Chicago Press, 1986.

 

 

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Push to Register Young Women for Draft: The Totalitarian Impulse of Feminists

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/29/16745990-push-for-all-younger-women-to-register-with-selective-service-gaining-steam?lite

Don’t worry women! Feminists are on your side. Of course women should be ripped up out of the home during their prime childbearing years and prime years to find a husband to serve in the military just like a man. Of course don’t exempt women from combat either. Let’s treat women just like men. Then, turn around and call crisis about violence against women after you train men not to show any chivalry to women and be desensitized to a woman’s screams. Then, after sacrificing the precious and irreplaceable youthful years of women let’s get ultra paranoid and ban abortions because that’s the only politically correct way to say that we can’t afford to sacrifice the fertility of women. And, shhh! Don’t say anything about below replacement birth rates and be sure to play dumb as to why Western civilization is dying out. Then, tell me all about how feminists promote “choices” for women. Ah, the irony of feminism.

And they have the nerve to say I hate women. Anti-feminists (TRUE anti feminists) are the only ones trying to stop feminists and other groups that support gender neutral laws from hurting women.

Feminists have never been for women! Their entire movement was about invalidating all laws that protected and gave common sense advantages to women! There is no reason for women to have to register for the draft. Our prime years for child-bearing are between the ages of about 18 and 25 (the very years they want women to have to be subject to the draft). Men don’t give birth. They don’t get pregnant or nurture young children from their very own bodies. That’s why tradition placed military duty, jury duty and the obligation of support of a family to the men. Though not every woman will or can have children the very fact that females as a group, as opposed to males, can bear children is a very solid reason to exclude women from military duty and such male burdens like alimony. We’re also nowhere near as big or strong as men. The average man will probably never in his lifetime meet a woman that is truly stronger than him and that can overpower him physically.

Feminists are not on your side ladies. Neither are these men’s groups that want gender-neutral laws. Please pass this on and stop supporting the faux notion of “gender equality.” Feminists have always wanted this for women. They supported male plaintiffs to ensure women weren’t exempt from the draft (even though they lost) and they supported male plaintiffs in just about every area of the law to ensure there was absolutely no law that protected or exempted women. After this there will be nothing protecting women. And if they can secure the Equal Rights Amendment it will only be that much worse for women.

This is what women’s lives will soon look like:

Soviet Union Eglitarianism in Action: The Great Con of Women’s Liberation

The Feminist War on Women: Forced Labor

 

 

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Why Patriarchy?

Even regarding religion and patriarchy, why do you think these religions became so successful and dominant? The religions of non-patriarchal societies usually didn’t survive very long and those societies generally did not create prosperous civilizations. If we look at Judaism* and Christianity we see that they came from very patriarchal societies. They were born from civilizations that were patriarchal. Once the Hebrews (literally: “wanderers”) had a land of their own they were very prosperous, for a time anyways. They have a long history of building and destroying powerful civilizations. And, of course, Christianity has similar origins. Islam was born out of a land that was originally matrilineal and was turned very patriarchal. There is overwhelming evidence coming out that gender role reversal isn’t working (such as health problems in women who have high-stress jobs and high-earning careers and, of course, the rate of infant deaths at the hands of male caretakers while the mothers are off at work).

It is theorized that science might be changing the reality of gender, or at least might in the future. But, in all honesty I just don’t see this happening anytime soon. Women are still needed to bear children. We are the ONLY ones who can do this. There are plenty of experiments that worked well on lab rats but failed to live up to expectations for humans. I don’t really see there ever being a time where our child bearing abilities or men’s physical and mental abilities will be obsolete. I mean, what are we going to do? Require that all infant females undergo massive invasive surgery at birth so their eggs can be removed and frozen so that the future generation can grow in some artificial womb? What would we do have warehouses all around the world (taking up massive amounts of natural resources) housing these unborn infants? It is super simple to extract sperm from a man but even then artificial insemination is costly and can be quite ineffective.

 

So, let’s just rule out that science is going to change our lives that much. I doubt any of us will be alive if that day ever comes in the future.

 

Now, theoretically I believe the best environment for children is one that is stable. I believe that is the most important thing. A child that constantly goes back in forth between two different families (who often hate each other and are at war with each other) is not living in a stable environment. That is what gender equality and feminism has brought us. It treats illegitimate births the same as legitimate. It gives unwed fathers (who may only learn about the child’s existence many years in the future or may know but be unconcerned with the mother and the child) the same rights as a married father with legitimate children that has always lived with and support both mother and child. The biggest problem is that the unwed father often causes problems with the stability of the child’s life. Our society loves to pour criticism on “welfare mothers” (which are a problem in a class of their own) but never will you hear anyone mention what harm an unwed father causes. He may discover that he fathered a child only when the child is several years old and walk into that child’s life completely ripping apart the only reality the child has ever known. Or, he may refuse to marry the mother and instead assert his rights causing the child to have to be torn between the two parents. These men of course will not support the mother leaving her free to devote her time to her child because they do not have to. Instead, many deny all responsibility until it is convenient for them. Also, unwed fathers who do not live with the mother during pregnancy do not breathe in her pheromones and thus do not have their testosterone levels drop any to prepare them for settling down with the mother and child. Our modern court system does not care a man’s marital status or whether he has ever lived with the mother or child. He donates a sperm, they give him rights. I think Justices Burger and Blackmun made a perfect case against granting unwed fathers the same rights as married fathers (or for that matter, the same rights as mothers) in their dissenting opinion in Stanley v. Illionis in 1972 and why this is not a good environment for children. And, of course, our society today also faces another problem that making Unconstitutional to distinguish between unwed mothers and unwed fathers causes and doing away with the death penalty for rape: rapists are getting custody and visitation.

 

Now, we do have another option. Many societies have not recognized fatherhood at all. Today we have societies such as the Tuareg in Africa, the Moso in China and the Minangkabau in Indonesia. These societies practice matrilineal descent. The Moso, for instance, know no concept of paternity and the words “father” and “fatherhood” do not appear in their dictionaries (neither does the word “rape”). Generally in matrilineal societies it is the woman’s uncle who is the primary male authority figure within the family. Children belong to their mother’s family (who have sole rights and responsibility for their children) and paternity is never an issue.

 
Of course, many societies have survived like this. But, matrilineal societies are generally more primitive. They generally can’t compete with patriarchal societies and are usually conquered by them. Patriarchy serves to bring fathers into the family and maximize investment in children. An important aspect of patriarchy is that paternity does matter. The father will only invest in the children if they are legitimate (born to the woman he is married to). The father will only have rights and responsibilities to the child if it is legitimate. Illegitimacy is scorned and for obvious reasons. When a man has a wife and children that are “his” he has incentive to work hard for their support and protect them. Men then have incentive to build civilization and invest in their children. Thus the society becomes prosperous and civilized.

 
Ultimately other living arrangements could work as long as there is stability and strict gender roles. No society can withstand anarchy or an acceptance of every kind of living arrangement. I find it humorous how feminists point out these matrilineal societies and then act as if all the women in the society are “feminist” or that the society has adopted “feminist” values. Um, no, actually these societies still have strict rights, roles and responsibilities between the sexes. Feminism does not give this to society. Feminism breaks down gender roles and gives rights and responsibilities indiscriminately. This is not a sustainable practice and actually serves to do more injustice to women and children.

 
Personally, I prefer patriarchy. It is better for women in many ways. When a woman stays close to one man who has the legal responsibility for her support and protection then she is ultimately a lot safer. She is safer from being harassed, raped or hurt by other men as she sticks close to her husband who takes care of her. While no system is without its faults, the patriarchal system ultimately works best towards the protection of women and children. A woman is certainly much safer with a husband than with casual encounters with other men and children are certainly better off when there is a stable home life. The evidence is simply irrefutable; the damage broken homes have on children negatively effects their life span and their mental and physical health. Divorce has a domino effect. It affects not only your children but your grandchildren as well. And of course, women today are suffering from depression, anxiety and other potentially fatal medical conditions in record numbers due to the breakdown of families and gender roles.

 
Patriarchy works.It builds civilization and works towards the best interest of women and children.

 

 

*There are some small traces in the Bible of Jewish decent being matrilineal. However, this is not widespread in the Bible. Overwhelmingly, the monotheistic religions have always been overwhelmingly patrilineal and strongly patriarchal.

 

 

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.