Monthly Archives: July 2013

What’s in a Name?

When I first started blogging I was fairly new to the world of anti-feminism. I didn’t really know all that much. I had just studied history and knew what was going on in the world from my own personal observations. My purpose of blogging was (and still is) to help women. My purpose here has never been to write about or deal with “men’s issues.” Men’s issues certainly do exist (as do women’s and children’s and so on) but they are not my purpose. The reason why I am saying this is because I have given a lot of thought here lately to the term anti-feminist. I have given a lot of thought to what exactly is in a name. I have been attacked so much since I started blogging. I honestly never imagined I would garner so much attention or what I was saying would be that controversial. Well, I knew there would be a whole lineup of dissenters but I just never expected to get the kind of audience that I have. The biggest thing I have discovered is that the liberals are quick to attack me for standing up for the rights women have lost in the past 40-50 years and the conservatives just simply ignore me. I have even had many conservatives promoting feminist ideas that conservatives would have shunned entirely 50 years ago.

I have kind of re-done my profile to call myself a traditionalist, or someone who stands for traditional gender roles. Identifying as “anti-feminist” has weighed very heavily on my mind and heart here lately and it has been bothering me quite a bit. Not because I am for feminism (I’m not, which I’ve explained and continue to explain over and over) but simply because of the attention I have attracted throughout the time I have been blogging and the kind of attention the term “anti-feminist” generates.

The real problem is the perception society has about feminism. Most assume it did nothing but help women and not care about (or actually hurt) men. This isn’t true, of course, but most average every-day citizens do not realize this. They do not realize that feminists generally used male plaintiffs until they had invalidated all laws that gave common-sense protections and advantages to women. The do not realize that it is generally feminists who think it is so unfair for men to have traditional responsibilities for women and children. In fact it has mainly been feminists who have told me my writings are “sexist” against men for saying that a man should support his wife.

As I have identified myself as an “anti-feminist” I feel as though I have been alienating the very women I have been trying to help throughout all of this time and have been attracting men who either hate women completely or would love to have a traditional woman without having to assume traditional responsibilities for her.

I had one woman come to my page and I could tell that she was really torn up inside. She told me about how she had grown up around men who treated women like they were inferior. I pleaded with her to please just hear me out, that I was against feminism because of the way it has hurt women and I was trying to help. But she wouldn’t listen. She didn’t want to hear any of it. She never stayed long enough for me to tell her that I knew exactly what she was feeling and that I too had been in her shoes once.

On the other hand I have been attracting the attention of so many men who adore traditional women. Yet they turn around and whine and cry about “sexism” when they can’t get things their way and they talk about “discrimination” (while at the same time promoting it where it pleases them, of course). They don’t want women in combat, yet they want them registered for the draft. They don’t want to change a single diaper, yet they always want custody of the children. They want a housewife, yet they don’t want to pay alimony. The list goes on and on. One of the most ridiculous examples occurred when I was interacting on a site where MRAs frequented constantly. A friend of mine asked “Men: Would it be better if all women said they didn’t want equality and instead just wanted to be traditional?” All of a sudden the thread was flooded with MRAs praising traditional women and saying “yeah, yeah!” and “that would be ideal, yes.” They went nuts over it. I don’t think I saw a single one of them that wasn’t praising the idea of women being traditional and saying that was their idea of a dream girl. Well, soon the fun was over and they all went back to screaming “sexism” and “discrimination” and “where’s our equality,” etc… I have attracted the attention of a lot MRAs who claim to want tradition yet want to point out every single area where men are, supposedly, discriminated against.

I wrote to Phyllis Schlafly last year. I asked her couple of questions and, in a polite way, asked her why she no longer cared about women. I thanked her for her movement many years ago against the ERA and told her that life would undoubtedly be much harder for young women such as myself today if it wasn’t for what she had done. Two weeks later she responded, in all caps, saying that she has always stood up for us. She and Suzanne Venker collaborated together to write a new book, flipside of feminism, a couple of years ago. I was excited to read the book when I first got it because I knew that Schlafly had done great work in the past to protect a woman’s sacred position within the home and family.

My excitement was short lived, however, as I soon began to develop this sour feeling in my gut as I began to read. At first I thought, “great, she’s giving a good history about feminism” but when I got towards the end of the book, she and Venker had done a complete 180 and had joined the ranks of the MRAs. First they say women should be traditional and they promote “sexism” then at the end they complain about alleged “sexism.” There was so much bull**** I actually had to get a pair of waders just to make it to the end of the book. Since society does not accept tradition anymore, I figure that those like Schlafly join up with MRAs to punish women who dare leave traditional roles as it is the only thing society will accept anymore. They know feminists can’t, and won’t, stand against what they are saying (unless it involves the workforce or abortion) because they are too afraid of women being sent back into traditional roles if they say anything about women being protected in marriage or in their roles as mothers. They know they can hit women hard and nobody will come to their rescue.

Yes, I am against feminism- truly against feminism- but calling myself an anti-feminist has become a very painful thing for me. I really and truly want to stand up for women because nobody is. We are so far gone as a culture that many conservatives don’t even care about women being slaughtered in combat and a child being taken from its mother’s breast is seen as progressive because it is politically correct. It is “equality.”

At times feminism has done good things. In the 1800s feminists worked hard to secure protections for women and children. They worked hard to secure a family wage so women could be home with their children instead of being exploited in factories and they worked hard to turn the law away from seeing children as the property of fathers and financial assets to the family. Occasionally I have acknowledged things even modern feminism has done. However, these good things are very few. Often I find feminists tell half-truths. I find myself agreeing with many issues feminists put forth. I know first hand how hard it is for women who have been raped and abused. I know that nobody wants to believe women and I know most women have a hard time getting any kind of justice at all, and that most men never pay for raping and abusing women. But I also know that, while feminism has changed a couple of laws to better protect women, their movement has helped to erase hundreds more that had helped and protected women for generations.

Calling myself an anti-feminist or identifying as an anti-feminist has become painful because of how far downhill society has gone. Ultimately a name is what society makes it. The term anti-feminist is almost completely used to describe those associated with the men’s movement or those who are extremely conservative far beyond even my own views. 50 years ago everyone would have known that I was standing up for women’s role in the family and legal protections if I called myself an anti-feminist. But, now, all I get is hypocritical MRAs.

I am not an anti-feminist in the sense of the way that name is used today. I am a Traditional Women’s Right Activist. I stand up for the rights that women once had before feminism. I stand for our maternal rights and our role in the home. All fit and loving mothers deserve to be able to raise and care for their young children and expect that the father will do his part and provide financial support. I do not stand for “equal treatment” of males and females because it is illogical and a complete fantasy. Men will never have the responsibilities women have no matter how gender-neutralized our laws are. You MRAs complain about boys being treated like girls in the schools yet how do you think women feel being treated like men within family law or the military? This gender-neutral craze of the past 40 years is just plain stupidity. It doesn’t work and it never will. We can say all we want that a woman should just “man up” and get over it or that men should learn to love housework. But, at the end of the day it is only a mess that we are creating.

I talk about feminism because history is important. Women need to know the truth about the women’s movement over the decades. They also need to know about these men’s groups that generally operate very quietly (until recently anyways) so as not to arouse public opposition. The main reason they have been successful at taking advantage of the direction the women’s movement was going is because of how low-key they stayed. The divorce revolution swept through society with barely any media attention or press coverage at all and these men’s groups were right there in the background, along with their gender neutralized feminist allies, to take advantage of the whole thing. If more women understood history (true history) it would change their attitudes and perceptions today. If feminists had a change of heart and truly started looking out for the best interests of women and children I would stand with them in a heartbeat. But, until that day comes, no good is to come from either feminism or anti-feminism.

We are Not gods, Let’s Stop Acting Like It

It’s time to get back to the basics here. We are not gods and it’s time to stop acting like it. Science and technology has done many great things for human society. We can better keep in contact with our loved ones, we have cell phones if we are stuck somewhere and have an emergency and we are no longer dying from crippling diseases such as Polio or Smallpox epidemics. However, there is a dark side to all of this technology that is fundamentally altering human life and relationships. There are simply some things in this life that we were never meant to know or mess with. In the last 40 years we have tried to obliterate all legal sex distinctions and make all of society politically correct. Nowhere is this better seen than in the case of unwed fathers. Now that science has advanced, we are attempting to define fatherhood and the rights and responsibilities that come along with it based upon biology. This is a major shift from what has been done all throughout human history. Nobody gives a mother rights or responsibilities for her children, they are simply an inherent part of her basic biology. The role of a father, however, has always been determined by society and the linking of men to specific children generally through marriage or other social ties. Now, we have companies ready and willing to exploit the inherent insecurities of fatherhood by promising to link them to specific children based upon the genetic relationship alone, and society has shifted to determining paternal rights based solely upon the genetic relationship, instead of marriage and the father’s relationship with the mother.

A man today can break up a stable home life where a child is being raised by adopted parents or by the biological mother and her husband simply by petitioning the court for rights based upon his genetic relationship with the child, no matter of the role he has played in the child’s or the mother’s life. The ever increasing welfare state now coerces unwed mothers to identify the biological father at the child’s birth in an attempt to generate child support payments from what are generally no more than recreational sperm donors and repay the state for the assistance the mother has received. There is simply no end to the problems that are occurring as a result of this. Like most all technological and scientific advancements, there has been an obvious need to limit its use for the welfare of all of society and human dignity. Places such as France, Germany and New York have criminalized the use of at-home or secret paternity testing, and for a good reason. In France, psychologists rightly state that fatherhood is determined by society, not biology. The only way paternity testing can be done is legitimately through the courts.

But the rest of the world isn’t catching on yet. We have unwed fathers constantly causing instability in a child’s life and married men who, years after the birth of “their” children, all of a sudden are bothered by the fact that their children have never resembled them in the slightest. Now that paternity testing is cheep and easy we have fathers swiping their child’s cheek and then going MIA a few weeks later never to be seen or heard from again, causing severe psychological and behavioral problems in the children they leave behind solely based on the realization that they share no genetic relationship. Most men generally turn a blind eye to these things until the relationship is falling apart then they all of a sudden they question their wife’s or partner’s fidelity. Some of these men petition to end their obligations for the child yet still want to have a relationship with the child. After many years they sit down to tell the children they have raised that they share no genetic relationship. Naturally this rips apart a child’s life, not to mention the emotional damage it actually does to many men. And worse, we have those today who were raised by two parents who can’t help but try to find their biological parents (in some cases this can be either the mother or father) when they are grown. Never once have I ever seen this end well. Generally they find their biological parents are either deceased or have no concern about their well being in the slightest. And, of course, many parents are more than happy to have a relationship with their biological child once the child is grown and someone else has done all the work of supporting and raising them. This problem is particularly critical with many unwed fathers, who enjoy the rights that once belonged solely to married fathers without any of the obligations to the mother and child that have always come with it. Someone else may have done all the work, yet society is determined to give them rights equal to the mother’s or the married father’s solely based upon their genetic contribution.

These issues are of critical concern to men’s groups who are obsessed with “paternity fraud” (statistically speaking, in the vast majority of cases it is the father who has lied about the child’s paternity, not the mother) and getting out of responsibility even for the children they have indeed fathered. Their proposals generally go along with harassing and violating every woman who gives birth by forcing her to test the child. This proposal, however, is not only a gross violation of human and personal rights and disrespectful to good women everywhere, but it is also impossible. In some cases there is a good reason why the mother will not identify the biological father and there are many men who choose to raise children as their own despite the genetic relationship. Of course, many unwed fathers purposely go MIA when they discover they have impregnated a woman in order to purposely evade and deny all responsibility. Since there is absolutely no biological need for a father at any time during the birth or nurturing of a child, fathers are not always readily identifiable and it would be absurd to go tracking down every Tom, Dick and Harry that the mother has ever known just to see if one of these men might be the donor.

What ultimately needs to happen is that we need to get back to basics. There are some things that are not meant to be and some things we are not meant to know or mess around with. Just the same as ultrasound technology that has been sent to developing countries and subsequently used to abort large amounts of female babies (causing more males to be born than females, to the ultimate detriment of society when those males grow up to be young men who will not be socialized into marriage due to the absence of available young women and who will thus turn to crime and the primal male instincts causing chaos in society), a more accurate understanding of genetics and the human genome system has ultimately caused a similar kind of chaos.

Plain and simple, paternity should only be acknowledged when the father is legally married to the mother. The system is broken and needs to be completely overhauled and redone. We need to go back to the standards that no unwed parent can petition the court for any kind of rights or support from the other parent and the welfare system needs to be completely redone (if not entirely eliminated). The only paternity testing that should be legally allowed is by a married father who has good reason to believe that his wife has been unfaithful and he wants to divorce because of her infidelity. Such a claim, however, should only be allowed within a strict time frame after the child is born. No woman should be allowed to be divorced while pregnant, but only after the child is born and both mother and child are safe and stable. If the husband is wrong, however, and the child is truly his (and there is no other evidence that she has been unfaithful, such as her running around and bring AIDS or Gonorrhea home to him) then it should be treated as slander and he should be forced to continue to provide for her and the child’s needs and all evidence of his denial of fatherhood forever buried for the sake of the child. If he is right, then he should be cut off from any responsibilities to support the mother or child and his paternal rights legally ended.

There are some things we are simply not meant to play around with. Attempting to define fatherhood based upon biology is causing chaos and upheaval in society similar to what divorce causes. As much as we may talk about “personal freedoms,” these types of “personal freedoms” infringe on the well-being and rights of others as well and the stability of society as a whole. More problems are also created when we hold an unwed father responsible for support as most unwed fathers will fight back in any way possible to get out of responsibility and most unwed fathers do not have a real investment in the outcome of the pregnancy (the most critical time in any person’s life that determines their health and well being for the rest of their lives) in the first place. The ones most hurt by this are mothers and their children.

I know men have suffered confusion and losses in the last 40 years right along with women. MRAs, however, are not working to make things better in society but instead make them worse and causing more enmity between the sexes than what there already is. You would be pleased to know I don’t think a man should have to support an illegitimate child nor do I think he should have rights to an illegitimate child. Many of you have certainly given me the thumbs up on that one, but I do not say this solely for your benefit and certainly not for your approval (I could care less about your approval or anyone’s for that matter).

Only a married father who is a provider for his family should be granted all the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood. Ultimately this is to the best interest of women and children and it keeps society and human relationships stable. Life is often terribly unfair and there’s nothing we can do about it. No matter a woman’s sexual history, her children remain her’s no matter what. She does not have to worry about that, but on the same token neither are men burdened with the physical consequences of sex. A woman is immediately responsible for her children despite the role the father does or doesn’t play in her or the child’s life. This is only a bad thing in societies that make it that way, however. As I’ve said before, I am in favor of the nuclear family and socializing men into their children’s lives through marriage but I am not against other family arrangements such as matrilineal clans if such a thing should become the best option sometime in the future. Determining fatherhood based upon biology, however, is a recipe for disaster. Supreme Court Justices Burger and Blackmun warned us forty years ago in a dissenting opinion that going by the “natural law” regarding fatherhood “…ascribes to that statutory system a presumption that is simply not there and embarks on a novel concept of the natural law for unwed fathers that could well have strange boundaries as yet undiscernible.”

Are You that Frickin’ Stupid?

Seriously, MRAs are you really that ignorant? Claiming that you’re all the slaves of women just because women can vote and don’t have to register for the draft? This is pathetic on so many levels. Let me just get out of the way that I don’t think women should be making decisions regarding war or politics. As one blogger so rightly stated:

“Just for the record, I am against the draft for both men and women. Over the past decade, there have been literally millions of young men who supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but chose not to fight in those wars; if every man who supported a war also fought in it, there would be no need for a draft. As a woman who has never had any intention of enlisting in the military, I don’t think it is my place to tell men that they should or shouldn’t go to war, which is why I have neither supported nor opposed the recent wars. War is the purview of men: barring extreme circumstances, ie, the U.S. being taken over by Nazis, women should stay out of it.”

With that out of the way, I wonder if MRAs actually have any knowledge of politics at all Citizens do not have the power to declare war. Citizens do not vote whether or not to go to war. Only Congress has the power to declare war. The President may be Commander in Chief, but even he cannot declare war (although there have been conflicts with exactly what his Constitutional rights are in this area, as is exemplified with recent wars and military action). The vast majority of those in Congress are male and we have never had a female president. In fact, the 113th Congress is only 19% female. In fact, if you know anything about history at all you would know that the first woman elected to Congress, Jeannette Rankin in 1916 (yes ladies women were in politics long before women’s lib), was the only Congress member who actually voted against WWI. The nature of women hasn’t change all that much since then. Even our armed forces are less than 20% female and they are all concentrated in the “softer” branches. As for feminists? They want to see women slaughtered on the battlefield and drafted right along with the men. The same with our children. They want women to lose custody so they aren’t “stuck” with the kids and are freed up to compete with men in jobs and politics.

So, cut the crap already. You are not “anti-feminist.” You MRAs are as feminist as the bra-burning, no shaving/bathing radials of the 1970s. You want to blame someone for the “custody wars” and resistance to combat duty/draft for females then blame us every day, ordinary people. Blame us ordinary mothers, blame us ordinary, everyday people who actually have some common sense and quit your whining. At the rate you waxed, coiffed metrosexuals are going you won’t even need women to breed with anymore (a dream come true for MGTOWs!) in a generation or two because you’ll be able to bear children yourselves.

So, take your shoes off, hang your balls (assuming you’ve still got them) on the coat-rack by the door and shut up. Any draft involving women would consist of old men sending young women off to war, not old women sending young men to war. The feminist fantasy of women filling up 50% of the jobs in politics has never happened and probably never will.