Monthly Archives: October 2013

Discrimination is the Solution, Not the Problem

So, I get an e-mail from the American Civil Liberties Union last night asking me to help them and some other women’s organizations pass what is called the “Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.” Now, I’ve been aware of this legislation and the ACLU’s involvement for some time. However, there is something majorly wrong with this piece of legislation (as well as a lot of the very liberal legislation they push for).

The problem is that men and women are not on equal terms. They never have been and they never will be. The simple fact of life is that women get pregnant. That’s just the way life is. Our laws used to make many clear distinctions based upon sex and for very logical reasons. Now, sex discrimination is highly illegal. And what do we have as a result? Problems-and lots of them.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is unreasonable for us to go and rearrange our military, burden businesses to accommodate the differences between the sexes and reorder society just to make everything between the sexes “equal” when it is not nor ever will be equal in the first place.

Do pregnant women need to be taken care of? Absolutely. This is without question. Women have the unique task given to them by a higher power (whether you believe that to be God or evolution, whatever) to bear children. It is a biological fact of life. Women get pregnant and when they are pregnant they need medical care, nutritious food, a home to live in and a stress free environment free from toxins and other dangers. The nine months spent in the womb are the most critical times of anyones life. A woman’s well-being during pregnancy is critical. If she is stressed, if she doesn’t have adequate nutrition or medial care it will not only effect her and potentially lead to illness or death but it will also affect the child, possibly causing developmental problems or even death to the child or complications. Therefore it is absolutely critical that pregnant women have all of their basic needs met.

However, it should not be the responsibility of the woman to provide these things for herself nor the responsibility of businesses to go out of their way and accommodate her while she is pregnant. The problem is not discrimination but the lack of discrimination. Plain and simple, this is why the traditional family unit is important and this is why legitimacy is important. There needs to be a bargaining power for both sexes to ensure that marriage occurs. We need a workforce that will favor men over women in hiring and in pay that way men in turn can do their job of providing for and protecting women. We also need laws to protect the sanctity of the traditional family and legitimacy and laws that hold both men and women to traditional responsibilities- taking care of the home and the children for women and financial support for men.

Advertisements

Women are Still Under Male Control More Than Ever

The reality of the matter is that women are more under the control of men now than ever before. The reason is that feminism is built upon pure fantasy, and not reality. It is men’s organizations that are currently using feminism to force women to register for the draft (with the support of feminists and ‘women’s rights’ of course!). It is men (along with feminist lawyers) that decided that rape wasn’t worthy of the death penalty. It is male Justices who enforced upon women the obligation of alimony (used to be the husband’s responsibility- but feminists lawyers took up the case for men). It is men that decided men should be allowed rights to illegitimate children. If there’s ever a draft it will be men deciding women should be taken (as Congress is less than 20% female it will be men – old men at that- deciding to send women to war).

Women used to be under the control and authority of husbands- one man- or fathers -again only one man- who was also legally obligated to ensure all her needs were provided for and protect her. He was held to moral obligations and responsibilities by society and they were enforced by the law. Now, women are liberated! Empowered! Free! Yeah! Now no more control by husbands, no more sexual restraint, no more being forced to remain in a marriage or remain in the home. Yeah!

Trust me, feminists, men don’t want to oppress you by keeping you home to do housework. Why would they want that? That would then mean they would have to actually take some responsibility for you. The modern man doesn’t have to take responsibility for you as he can assert authority over you without all the chains of responsibility. He can leave you anytime he wants. Society won’t pour disdain on him. He won’t have to support you for the rest of your life. In fact, hey, why not just order you to support him? Sound like fun! If you refuse he’ll just have you thrown in jail (freedom, yea!).

As for sex? Ha! Forget having to marry! Why, we can’t make any sex distinctions or treat the traditional family with any higher regard under the law. Why he can impregnate you, refuse to marry, then come back around and harass you in court and take the child away from you (his mom will do a fine job of raising the child!). If you try to resist, he’ll just have you arrested (what freedom and liberation!) and your paycheck garnished (hey, at least you’re not making 50 cents to every dollar that a man makes anymore).

As for the rapist? Well, everyone uses the roadway anyways. The poor guy is just guilty of reckless driving, that’s all. He probably should have offered to go Dutch on a dinner date and move in with you to split the bills 50/50 before screwing you but we can’t give him the death penalty for that because that would be unfair discrimination against women by assuming women are weaker than men and in need of special protections. And since the feminists insisted illegitimacy was no big deal and there should be no discrimination it would be so wrong for us to deny the guy custodial rights. Marriage? So obsolete these days.

What fools. Liberation? Empowerment? Women are more oppressed than ever before because feminism has destroyed families and through the guise of “equal rights” women are impoverished, harassed and left destitute and men have no obligation to be truly responsible. Sorry, but a little bit of temporary spousal support that women could be ordered to pay as well or a little child support that most women will never see is not male responsibility- nowhere close to it.

Women are always under the control of men. Only today women are under the control of immoral and irresponsible men who have absolutely no obligation to be responsible for their support or well being. In the past a woman was under the control of one man- a husband or father- who was under legal obligation to provide her with all of her needs and protect her. He could not force her to carry his obligations. If she or the children had needs, he would be responsible to provide for all of them. There would be no splitting it all 50/50 as he was called upon to perform his duties as the head of the household. Since sex outside of marriage and legitimacy was taken seriously a man could make absolutely no claim to an illegitimate child and the rapist would have been put to death. Even if he evaded prosecution (as is unavoidable sometimes) he would have had no claim to the child which protected women and children.

It was men who were called to war. They were called on by other men. Now, if there is a draft it will be old men forcing women off to war to die. If they refuse, they will of course face being arrested (what freedom of choice!). Before women’s lib forcing women into war (at least to be anywhere near combat) would have been unthinkable. But now men are asserting their authority over women without having to take the responsibility for them that they would have in times past.

Feminism is pure fantasy. Men’s rights groups are just a response to feminism. Feminism is the real problem here. It is based upon an illusion. Feminists wanted for women something that simply isn’t ever going to happen. The fact of the matter is that women need protections, men are stronger and have certain advantages over women. The fact of the matter is that women will never make up 50% of Congress or be able to compete on the same level as men. They will never hold up in combat or in war the same as men. Taking away protections from women and coercing women into the workforce and out of the home has not made women any more powerful. It has done absolutely nothing to make men respect women more (in fact, it’s had the exact opposite effect). It has left millions of women with no security or protection. Drop the fantasies, drop the illusions and let’s come back to reality here. Millions of innocent women are now paying the price for their grandmothers’ “liberation” that is still ingrained into our laws up to the highest level.

What Have you Really Gained with “Women’s Rights?”

Ladies, where has “women’s rights” really gotten you? Are you really happier than previous generations of women were? Is that job of yours and independence a good trade-off for a simple life at home and a husband who loves you, cherishes you and is faithful to you? Is heeding the commands of a boss everyday really better than following a husband who is sworn to look out for your best interests? Has women’s lib really filled your life and heart with happiness? Has it really given you everything you’ve ever desired deep within your heart? Is trudging off to go put your life in danger on foreign soil really better than feeling the life created with someone you love growing inside of you? Is assuming traditional masculine duties and responsibilities really better than men looking upon you as weaker and therefore in need of protection? Is sexual freedom really a better tradeoff than the security of marriage and a husband who will protect you? Is carrying half the burden of economic support of the family really better than being in the home and tending to domestic duties? Is this really everything you want out of life? Is power struggle really better than law and order and a stable home life? Are you really happier than your grandmothers? Are you really better off? What do you really have to prove by asserting your independence? What have you honestly gained?

The Wrongs of the Men’s Movement

“On the one hand there are real harms against men perpetuated by feminism and on the other there are real responsibilities that men owe towards women and children. The real harm done by feminism is used as an excuse to reject the real responsibilities of men towards women. The appropriate response to feminist injustices is men asserting their rightful authority; the MRA does the exact opposite in response, he instead rejects his responsibilities (Jesse Powell).”

I am not an MRA nor could I ever be. I don’t think anybody’s going to deny that there are genuinely good men out there who have been done wrong or who have been screwed over. But the MRA response is to whine and cry and plead that he’s such a victim,that society should just have more sympathy for him and that if things were just more “fair” and “equal” that somehow it would remedy all of his problems.

The original feminist war was on women. Feminists and MRAs were on the same side until feminists started seeing all the damage the movement had caused to women and started backing out. They created policies to remedy the situation by anti-male and anti-family legislation to balance out the harm being done to women. In turn men’s groups responded with legislation to harm women to try to balance out what the feminists were doing.

When a MRA is screwed over by his wife cheating on him, leaving him, taking the kids, etc. he responds by saying that society should just be more fair to him. He employs the MRA equivalent of the feminist mutilated beggar argument. The MRA hates women and encourages other men not to marry and deny responsibility, to ‘get back’ at the woman by screwing the ‘bitch’ over and he encourages other men who follow him to do the same thing. Don’t marry men, don’t marry! Don’t be the breadwinners because she’ll just screw you in the end! Nowhere does it cross his mind to assert his authority and demand that men be the heads of their homes anymore. Nowhere does it cross his mind to accept responsibility.

We have a problem with out of wedlock births in this country and increasingly in most of the Western world. MRAs are on top of it. Deny your responsibilities men, deny your responsibilities. Deny that you got the girl pregnant, run from marriage -run real fast boys-and encourage mandatory paternity testing (at some undesignated time after the child is born, of course) because all women are just a bunch of sluts looking to commit paternity fraud to get a chunk of your paycheck for the next 18 years! Make identifying the father, instead of marrying him, mandatory for the welfare! (One would think if they wanted to get out of child support obligations they would just be screwing themselves over with this policy, but never mind that). Nowhere does it cross his mind to enforce the double standard and enforce patriarchal restraints on the women or enforce the Legitimacy Principle- that men can only be responsible for legitimate children and a wife that is faithful.

The MRA hates women. He wants to literally see them dead. The average MRA wants to see women dead on the battlefield to deal with what men have always had to suffer through and he wants an MRA version of affirmative action that would ensure women are forced into dangerous jobs and die in those jobs in equal numbers to men. Never mind that women suffer the throes of pregnancy and childbirth just to bring these pathetic excuses for men into this world and always have. Caring for a woman and being chivalrous to her never crosses his mind as the appropriate thing to do.

What could MRAs do? If their movement wasn’t just a hate movement to get out of responsibility the MRA would have several options.

First, they would enforce the double standard upon women. Women would either bear legitimate children or receive no assistance and no financial support from the father. Men would marry the mother while she was pregnant or they would receive no rights and their children would not carry their name. A man would be sure of a woman’s character and have the intention of marrying her or he would not enter into a romantic relationship with her and he would not sleep with her. If he just wanted sex he could pursue the time honored male tradition of buying a prostitute. A woman’s virtue and good name would be of utmost importance (going back to a man only getting involved with a woman of honorable status) so she would reserve her body for her future husband and would not bear children outside of that union.

“Here, from John Dollard’s Caste and Class in a Southern Town, is an example of such manipulative regulation “from the outside”– males persuading females that they are really regulating themselves:

One of the rituals of the university dances is that of a fraternity of young blades entitled the Key-Ice. During the intermission the lights are turned out and these men march in carrying flaming brands. At the end of the procession four acolytes attend a long cake of ice. Wheeled in on a cart it glimmers in the torches’ flare. Then the leader, mounted on a table in the center of the big gymnasium, lifts a glass cup of water and begins a toast that runs: “To Woman, lovely woman of the Southland, as pure and as chaste as this sparkling water, as cold as this gleaming ice, we lift this cup, and we pledge our hearts and our lives to the protection of her virtue and chastity.’

For ‘protection’ Peggy Morgan would (correctly) read enforcing [1]”

To solve the divorce problem men could demand that divorce be harder to attain and demand that there be major fault involved for a divorce to be granted. To solve the problem men wouldn’t sit there begging and playing the ‘poor me’ guilt trip trying to get all of society to feel sorry for them. They would take their responsibilities in their families and assert their rightful authority. They would financially support their wives and take care of them. If we had patriarchy their wives would not leave or go anywhere because of the authority the man asserts and the responsibility he has for them. The woman would be without her social status and without her support if she was not married to him and she would be without her children as he would have the authority over them.

‘A man and wife are one person in law; the wife loses all her rights as a single woman, and her existence is entirely absorbed in that of her husband. He is civilly responsible for her acts; she lives under his protection or cover, and her condition is called coverture.

A woman’s body belongs to her husband, she is in his custody, and he can enforce his right by a writ of habeas corpus.

The legal custody of children belongs to the father. During the life-time of a sane father, the mother has no rights over her children, except a limited power over infants, and the father may take them from her and dispose of them as he thinks fit [2].’

Real men would not whine and complain that women are not taking on an ‘equal share’ of what should rightfully be the man’s sole responsibility. But, no, MRAs cannot accept anything that would actually hold them responsible for traditional male responsibilities. They whine and they cry on and on and they never do anything productive. They cause more feminist backlash which only increases their problem even more and the ones that are ultimately hurt are the millions of innocent men, women and children that get caught in the crossfire of these ongoing gender wars. The innocent men, women and children who didn’t start these wars and have never done wrong. They are the ones who end up suffering.

The MRA will bite back at any woman who claims to have been raped or abused. He will say she’s lying. She’s just trying to separate him from his children or get the upper hand because she wants his money or has her own ax to grind. Now every time a woman is abused or even claims she is abused she has no choice but to turn to feminism. They’ll help her they promise. They’ll make sure she’s believed and justice is served! The lies continue, the wars continue, the fighting continues and never ends. It never occurs to the MRA to take charge of things. He instead want to play without ever having to pay.

He could have chosen from the beginning to assert his authority. The women would have been protected by the mans responsibility and he would have been protected by being in charge of the woman’s actions. His family might have stayed together, his wife and kids might have never been impoverished. Hs children might have had a stable home to live in. But the MRA man can’t put his foot down and lay out the rules within his family. Instead he presses for laws that would just make everything a little more fair and would relieve him of responsibility. He instead runs a hate campaign against women and conducts a marriage strike. He refuses to be a man and complains that women won’t be faithful, that they won’t be women.

The MRA story is a tragic one indeed. It started with feminist harm of women, which led to lies and harm of men which led to lies and harm against all while society collapsed around all this hate and fighting. There will probably never be a happy ever after to this story and it’s a real shame. Because if the MRA hadn’t fled from responsibility in the first place this never would have happened.

1. “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus
2. Ibid.

The Legitimacy Principle and the Good of Patriarchy

“With a large number of tribes, inheritance is based on maternity. Paternity is immaterial. Brothers and sisters are only the children of one mother. A man does not bequeath his property to his children, but to the children of his sister, that is to say, to his nephews and nieces, as his nearest demonstrable blood relatives. A chief of the Way people explained to me in horrible English: “My sister and I are certainly blood relatives, consequently her son is my heir; when I die, he will be the king of my town.” “And your father?” I inquired. “I don’t know what that means, ‘my father,’ answered he. Upon my putting to him the question whether he had no children, rolling on the ground with laughter, he answered that, with them, men have no children, only women.”

We were once matrilineal. We were once matriarchal. Throughout most of human history paternity was never acknowledged. It didn’t matter if women were promiscuous. It didn’t matter how many lovers or husbands they had. The family line and all inheritance was passed through the mother and fatherhood was an unknown concept. Of course, under such a system societies were very primitive. Not much progress really happened in the world. At least, not until the invention of patriarchal societies. Patriarchal societies were ushered in and the sexual freedom and promiscuity of females was brought to a halt. Inheritance was not passed down through the mother anymore, but through fathers. The legacy of feminism has been to overthrow this system. For the feminist movement, any kind of living arrangement was upheld to be acceptable. Illegitimacy was to be accepted and welcome the same as legitimacy, legally sanctioned and subsidized. “There’s no such thing as an illegitimate child” was the motto. Our laws changed in accordance. The gave the unwed father rights, they gave the unwed mother welfare and child support and the patriarchal system crumbled with easy divorces.

This system was supposed to benefit women. Alimony was “sexist” and supposedly keeping women from true fulfillment by keeping women dependent on men. The role of the housewife was making women “subordinate” and “second-class.” A social revolution ensued leading to widespread illegitimacy, broken homes, crime and poverty. Not very long after this revolution feminists panicked. Books such as “Mothers on Trial,” “The Divorce Revolution,” “The Equality Trap,” “Backlash” and “Equality with a Vengeance” started flooding the market and still flood it today. Feminism has created a backlash and ruined the security and well-being of millions of women. But they wouldn’t dare tell women they are at fault. They just want to keep pressing forward with their agenda.

The legitimacy principle is that every child must have a father- but legitimately through marriage. But to the feminist this is no so. To the feminist and our society and legal system today legitimacy no longer matters anymore. Today it would be seen as so wrong and the upmost of all politically incorrect things to declare a child as illegitimate. But this is the way a patriarchal society must work.

“The feminist will insist that the boyfriend is equally responsible with the mother for the procreation of the illegitimate child and therefore equally bound to pay for its costs. Not so in the patriarchal system. Patriarchy divides women into good and bad, those who accept the Sexual Constitution (sexual law-and-order, monogamy, the Legitimacy Principle, the double standard, etc.) and those who reject it. This woman rejects it, and she is “bad” because she denies to a man the possibility of having responsible sex with her even if he wants to. Her unchastity deprives her child of a father and deprives men of the possibility of being a father to her children. She can have a sexual relationship only with a man as irresponsible as herself. She is a sexual Typhoid Mary who has inflicted illegitimacy upon a child and seeks to ameliorate what she has done by demanding to be paid for it. She will plead as justification that “there is no such thing as an illegitimate child,” signifying there is no such thing as an unchaste woman.”

If women and children are living in poverty today then it is because the patriarchal system is gone. The woman who bears an illegitimate child without seeking to make that child legitimate expects that she will still receive support. The feminists will point to the fact that women and children are living in poverty as a way for her to receive even more support and government assistance.

“The Promiscuity Principle entitles her to paternity suit income. It is her right to control her own sexual behavior–including the right not to use contraceptives–and to impose the economic costs upon one of her sex partners–if the District Attorney can round up her playmates, compel them to take blood tests, and identify the lucky one. Then her sexual irresponsibility will pay off and reinforce society’s acceptance of the first law of matriarchy, otherwise known as the Promiscuity Principle.”

Enforcing even more child support and demanding even more welfare creates a backlash. It creates men with a victim complex who are unmotivated and unwilling to marry. It creates more men’s rights activism which only creates even more feminism and in turn even more women and children are hurt in the process.

Ultimately these women wreck the security of good women. All patrilineal societies are fragile. They require female subordination to patriarchal authority and regulation of female sexuality. If women are unwilling to submit, then the system is ruined. Feminism has ruined that system and now, instead of the patriarchal, male-headed household we have what can be termed “rotational” and “blended” families. What we have is broken families. Families that are actually intact are rare.

“The workability of the patriarchal system requires the regulation of female sexuality, including the enforcing of the double standard. In no other way can men participate meaningfully in reproduction. A woman violates the Sexual Constitution by being promiscuous. A man violates it by refusing to provide for his family. The new feminist sexual order proposes that women shall be free to be promiscuous and that the social disruption thereby created shall be made tolerable by compelling men to provide for non-families. But men cannot be held responsible for female irresponsibility if this irresponsibility prevents them from having families to begin with; and it is for this reason that patriarchy holds a man responsible only for the subsidization of a wife, a “good” woman who accepts the Sexual Constitution and her obligation under it to bear only legitimate children”

Patriarchy provides a woman with her most surest source of fulfillment. But a woman cannot have such fulfillment unless she submits herself to patriarchal authority and the legitimacy principle. When she enters into a contract of marriage with her husband under the patriarchal system it is permanent and binding. She agrees to share her reproductive life with her husband and only him. In turn, he provides for her and places her under ‘coverture.’ Such a system is what is needed to build civilization and lift women and children out of poverty. More child support is not what is needed. Most men will evade paying it anyways and he can always just pull out the custody card anytime he objects to the amount, leading to more hardship for the mother and child and an even greater prospect of being shoved deeper into poverty.

“‘Now here’s how it is… Poor black men won’t support their families, won’t stick by their women–all they think about is the street, dope and liquor, women, a piece of ass, and their cars. That’s all that counts. Poor black women would be fools to sit up in the house with a whole lot of children and eventually go crazy, sick, heartbroken, no place to go, no sign of affection–nothing.’

Ms. Robinson’s complaint is that men won’t love, honor and protect their families–which is patriarchy. She cannot see that the first law of matriarchy has deprived these men of families and therefore of the motivation which would keep them working.”

The talk of “women’s rights” always centers around autonomy, freedom and a paycheck. Nobody ever considers that the best interests of women could be found within the traditional male-headed family. Women must make a tradeoff for such a system but they don’t like it. Our laws before feminism gave the man the authority- and responsibility- in the household. The husband controlled the property, finances and his wife as much as his children. The divorce rate was extremely low. The rate of married women working was extremely low. Everything stared to go downhill with the destruction of coverture and the destruction of the husbands ultimate authority in the household. Things got real out of control with women’s lib, ‘no-fault’ divorces , the subsidization of illegitimacy and the flooding of married women into the workforce. The word “family” can mean a million different things today. Practically anything one wants it to mean. That’s how far gone we are as a civilization.

“Providing for a woman and placing her “under coverture” in the honorable state of marriage is perceived by today’s feminists in wholly negative terms as dominance, regulation and oppression. Feminist Dr. Alice Rossi speaks of “an exchange” between a husband and a wife in which the husband confers social status on the wife and “in exchange…she assumes economic dependence on him”–permits him to pay her bills. It doesn’t occur to feminists that “their subordination in sexual matters” benefits women as much as it benefits men. It means law-and-order in the sexual realm and the creation of wealth in the economic realm. It means stable families which provide women with security and status and in which children can be decently reared and socialized.

The best thing for any movement claiming to benefit women to do would be to bring back the traditional patriarchal family with the father as it’s head. It is only the patriarchal family that can serve the best interests of mothers and children. It is only this system that can truly motivate men to be productive and care for women and children. But in order for this system to work, cohabitation, female promiscuity, divorce and illegitimacy cannot be tolerated. It may not always be ‘fair’ but it is the best way to protect women and ensure the best interests of children and the overall social order.

References:

All quotes from “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus