What Does “Equality” Mean?

First of all, when I speak of “gender equality” it has absolutely nothing to do with the inherent worth of men and women Yet, that is precisely what most everyone I’ve ever heard justifies the idea of “gender equality” as. I have come across countless blog postings, websites and pages that talk about “gender equality” yet nobody seems to really have an idea of what this term actually means. Numerous people talk about “radical” feminists wanting abortion, obliteration of traditional gender roles, gay marriage and pushing women into combat and forcing them to register for the draft. Many people that I’ve come across that claim to be against all of these things still turn around and say something like “feminism did great things for women by giving them equality under the law” or they will say they are against all of those radical things yet say they unquestionably support “equality under the law.” My favorite is also MRAs who love the idea of patriarchy yet talk about “equality under the law for everyone.” Sheesh.

But what exactly do they think “equality under the law” means anyways? They seem to have some fairytale vision that feminism has somehow given women a status as human beings and that anyone who questions “gender equality” must think women are worth less than men (MRAs will think anyone that’s against it is an evil man-hating feminist).

Feminism has long been about the exact things they speak out against yet they say it’s done good things and praise equality. I’ve even watched pastors talk about how they are promoting “gender equality” while at the same time they are promoting men being breadwinners and speaking out against women in combat, abortion and gay marriage. Where is the reasoning here? Feminism is so pervasive in our culture that we can’t even see anything other than “equality.” And often times many will try to justify equality by saying that men and women are “different but equal.” Different? Definitely. Equal? In our inherent worth most certainly, but equal under the law? Almost entirely now. But what exactly does being equal mean anyways? Basically, equality has nothing to do with inherent worth of men and women and everything to with this:

1) Being “equal” means that women must be treated like men and men must be treated like women, no matter how logical it would be to treat us differently. Meaning:

* Women must be allowed into combat

* Women must be forced to register for the draft

* It is illegal to force upon men the sole obligation of the support of the family

* It is illegal for men to be the legal heads of their household

* It is illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a woman because of her marital status

* It is illegal to pay a man more money because he is expected to be the provider for his family

* Homosexuals must have the same rights in marriage as heterosexuals

* There can be no sex segregation in schools no matter the scientific evidence that boys and girls mature and learn differently and don’t even think about expecting that girls should be homemakers!

* Age of majority for males and females must be the same, despite the scientific fact that females mature faster than males

* Oh and don’t forget that statutory rape laws must be gender-neutralized to support political correctness and feminist theory that all laws must be sex-blind.

* Abortion must be legal under all circumstances

* Unwed fathers must be given the same rights as unwed mothers and married fathers under the law

* Yes, the vote falls under this category too (but women had the vote decades before women’s lib)

2) What equality under the law doesn’t mean

* That men and women have equal worth as human beings.

If you are a supporter of “equality under the law” or “gender equality” yet you object to any of the aforementioned policies maybe you should seriously look into the history of the theory of “gender equality.” The same radical things that feminists push for today are the same exact things they were pushing for 50 years ago (and, actually, some were pushing for these same policies long before that).

Because the concept of equality is so ingrained in our minds today anyone who dares speak out against it must justify their stance and plead that they actually do believe that men and women have equal value and worth as human beings. That is because mainstream culture and media has engrained so deeply in our heads that it took a social movement just for men to care for and respect women.

Such beliefs, however, are completely false. Our female ancestors did not have to justify their worth on the basis of whether or not they were “equal” to men. And men certainly didn’t go around defining their worth based on their status as “equal” or not to women. They would have thought such things were foolish, and for a good reason. So it’s time for us to start realizing and explaining exactly what “equality” is and exactly what it isn’t. It’s time for us to truly push feminism to the side and start re-examining the conventional wisdom of the past 50 years.

I know I have great worth equal to that of my husband but I do not want, however, for us to be “equal” to each other under the law because I believe men and women are different and the law needs to take into account those differences and men and women should have different responsibilities under the law and in the eyes of society.

Men are Self-Made Victims

The MRA mantra: “My flight from male responsibility has come back around to bite me in the a**”

It’s a common theme among MRAs and men today to complain about women not taking “responsibility” (ie, not taking on men’s responsibilities) yet also to complain about divorce, promiscuity and child support. Apparently, men are even complaining about women not paying for dates these days. (1) They want women to be independent and take on their traditional responsibilities, yet they complain when these same independent women divorce them and cheat on them.

Now how am I supposed to feel sorry for these men? Simply put, I don’t feel sorry for them. They wouldn’t be having these problems if they accepted traditional male responsibilities for providing for and protecting women in the first place. But, since they reject these responsibilities and instead want women to share in them they now have to pay the price for it- and they don’t like it one bit.

Study after study has shown that independent women are more likely to cheat and initiate divorce. It’s not even debatable anymore. The more independent the wife, the more likely she is to do her husband wrong. Yet, men today, while complaining about the sour deal they’ve apparently gotten from feminism, still refuse to accept traditional responsibilities. The truth of the matter is that they are responsible for feminism. It was- and still is- a movement that promised them they would no longer have to carry the traditional male burdens alone but that instead women would share in them. Their movement today is about nothing more than complaining about the price they have to pay for supporting feminism, female promiscuity and breadwinner wives.

Women’s willingness to engage in casual sex with them without commitment is fun- until, of course, the men have to pay for the illegitimate children and don’t get a say in abortion. Then, all of a sudden they are “victims.” Claiming rights to illegitimate children is fun for them because they don’t have to take responsibility to have these rights. But, of course, it always comes back around to bite them in the backside when another man can intrude himself into his household when he has a family of his own. (2)

Women’s willingness to carry half of the financial burden is fun- until, of course, men can only stand by and watch when their wives file for divorce and take the kids. Then, of course, the men, once happy with women sharing in their burdens, are “victims.” But, hey, their wives don’t *need* them anymore so what is to stop them from filing for divorce? You men wanted them independent and now they are. If you don’t like this turn of events there’s only one way to stop it… (3)

Maybe by now you get my point. Men today are certainly facing injustices, but they are, in fact, self-made victims. Women today are self-made victims as well. They complain about irresponsible men but women are the ones who have made men that way. If men get what they want outside of marriage (sex, paternal rights) then women can’t have security in marriage nor can they expect men will be too overly willing to be breadwinners. Women can’t claim independent status then expect men to protect them. Of course women today don’t always want protection from men nor support and it does in the end come back around to hurt them. Feminists in the name of “all women” sold women out. MRAs, in the name of “all men” have sold men out.

Men wanted to be free from financial responsibilities for women and the traditional duties of men such as the draft. Women wanted to be independent and sexually “free.” Now both sexes pay the price for it.

Somebody asked me once if I was against “men’s rights.” The simple answer is that I am for men’s rights, but only when attached to it comes men’s responsibility. I am wholly against the MRA version of men’s rights because they want both the goods of feminism and the goods of tradition. Men today want (and increasingly have) rights without responsibility. But not all of the rights they once had, of course. They can’t expect to get a say over their wives bodies’ when they don’t have to support her for life or can instead demand support from her. I am in favor of husbands (not boyfriends or sexual partners) having a say in birth control and abortion but only when attached to it comes the responsibility to forever support their wives. If the wife carries his burdens then, in my opinion, the husband does not deserve such rights. The original deal for men sharing in the reproductive life of a woman was that they offer up financial support. Men have broken that deal thus what is their argument for getting a say in reproduction?

Men, of course, were the ones who made feminism possible because they have always held the majority of political and economic power. They supported feminism because it was a good deal for them- until it all blew up in their faces.

Plain and simple- men’s rights must come with men’s responsibility. And if you men have come so far in rejecting responsibility for women that you can’t even pay for a simple date then what does that say about you? You’ve already shown the woman from the beginning that you have no intention of taking care of her, providing for her, or treating her any different than you would your guy friends, so why should she respect you or give up anything for you?

And, girls, a man’s willingness (or not) to pay for dates is a good indicator of what kind of a husband he will be. If he won’t pay for the date, dump him. Plain and simple. After all, what happens if you do marry him or get pregnant (even if you aren’t planning on having kids)? Dating a man gives you an opportunity to see his true character. Putting him to the test (does he pay for dates? Will he leave if I turn him down for sex?) will tell you whether or not you should continue seeing him. Be true to your own morals and remember that being sexually faithful (in marriage!) is the woman’s responsibility.

The Day Nobody Cared about Women in Combat

The other night I lay in bed restless. I told my husband how I didn’t feel much like sleeping. Something bothered me deeply. Something had me frightened and had my stomach in knots. I mentioned how I was so glad I wasn’t born just a few years later because of the fate that is fixing to befall the young women who are just now coming into adulthood and graduating. The fate that is fixing to befall them because of what their mothers and grandmothers have done (even though their mothers and grandmothers aren’t going to pay the price for it, they instead will). It wasn’t illegal immigration nor was it Obamacare that had me so disturbed that night. No, this was serious. This was much bigger. Something much bigger is tearing society apart and fixing to harm millions yet everyone I know has remained completely silent. Everyone I know just doesn’t seem to care.

I remember that fateful day back in January when I heard the news. It was outrageous to me and I had to say something! I had to do something! First I wrote my own post about it and attracted some attention. But that wasn’t enough. Surely the conservatives are on this right? Surely they are outraged? I preceded to knock on every conservative door in the online world yet nobody was saying anything. Nobody was doing anything about it. Conservatives weren’t saying anything. Not a single posting. The Ronald Reagan republicans weren’t saying anything. I moved on over to the Tea Party and managed to get one thumbs up (out of like 500,000 potential thumbs up) for my comments asking them about women in combat, but that was about it. They had more important things to worry about, such as conversing about how the abortion pill wasn’t necessary healthcare.

But, wait, I have conservative family members right? They’re always talking about their Second Amendment rights and keeping with the latest abortion news. They are conservative to the core so surely they will be of help! Sadly, I was mistaken. None of them payed me any attention. They didn’t really seem to care nor pay any attention to this issue. With a heavy heart I left once again.

I came across some men’s rights groups. They were throwing a party. Finally! Women get what’s coming to them! Finally! I told them they deserved whatever was going to come to them and whatever feminism has done to them and left.

I finally got around to some liberal groups who were playing a big part in all of this. I berated them, called them all a bunch of fools and asked them if they had any idea what the consequence of all of this was going to be. They just told me it was about time that women were being forced to “do their part” and they preceded to tell me to come out of the dark ages. Oh yes, they also told me that there wasn’t any noteworthy difference between mothers of young children and fathers of young children being sent off to war.

Seriously, I knew I would get nowhere with the liberals responsible because they can’t be reasoned with. But, the conservatives? They should be ashamed to call themselves conservatives when they can’t even speak one single word about WOMEN in COMBAT. As little as 50 years ago there would have been an outrage about young women being sent off to die. It’s bad enough when innocent women and children get caught in the crossfire in wars but to purposely and deliberately place them there? Only the most barbaric of societies take their women and place them into harms way deliberately. Yet not even the conservatives of our society care one bit about it. It’s not even worth mentioning to them.

But women in combat will have serious consequences. I’m sure our enemies will love it as they can take out the current and the future generation at once- two birds with one stone. Feminists will love it because finally women are proving they can do what men can (oops, except it probably won’t work out that way, being that all of feminist visions have been fantasies that have devastated women). Men’s groups love it because they can send women off to do their job and it gets them out of responsibility (they just hate responsibility).

What this shows is that we are a civilization in decay. It isn’t something that happened overnight. Feminists didn’t storm the halls of Congress with the Equal Rights Amendment then have the general public on board with women in combat the very next day. No, first gradual destruction of families and gender relations had to happen until one day the entire feminist vision could be achieved and nobody would even resist anymore.

Young women everywhere will pay the price for this when they are drafted and run scared for their lives. Young men will pay the price when their lives are put in unnecessary danger. Society will pay the price because our once great civilization will fall, as Rome did, and decay. The future of our civilization will be in peril because nobody cares about the potentiality of motherhood that rests only in the bodies of young women, not young men. For if we are not fighting the the future of our civilization and so that our children may live in prosperity then what is the point of fighting? Have men not always gone to war for women, for children for their families and the future generations? If men no longer fight for their families (that’s right, their families are broken and torn apart now) then what do they fight for? What is the point of fighting? Does women in combat not defeat the very point of going to war in the first place?

Maybe it’s just as simple as reality has not hit everyone yet. Maybe that they are tied up in their own little world and don’t really believe that their daughters will actually be drafted or forced to serve. Or maybe gender relations have gone so far down hill because of feminism that men just don’t care if women live or die anymore. Maybe it is just the simple belief that such things could not possibly really happen to them or the ones they love. Whatever the case, it showcases how far gone we are now and how terrible the state of affairs is today.

Women in combat- does anyone care?

Father Custody Under Coverture Revisited

So why would I say such a thing? Why would I support automatic father custody under coverture? I think my reasoning behind my support of father custody deserves a closer examination.

First, I don’t believe coverture or father custody as a principle under coverture violates a woman’s or a mother’s rights in any way. If feminism has supposedly made such great strides for women then why is it that, apart from death, that there has never been a time when so many children were separated from their mothers? Children today are without mothers increasingly because of divorce, mothers of young children entering the workforce at record levels and because of families that failed to form in the first place. Again, I’m not talking about death or other life issues that interfere with the family. I’m just concentrating on gender relations here. If we look at the statistics well it would seem obvious that women were ultimately served much better under coverture than under current family arrangements and gender-neutral laws.

You see both sexes need a bargaining power for marriage to occur in the first place (the man obtaining paternal rights to offspring and the woman a higher social status, financial support and a home to raise her children in being those traditional bargaining powers that drove men and women to marry). Both sexes also need a bargaining power to stay in the marriage and also invest in it. Men are more unwilling than ever to invest financially in a woman and family because they have no security that the family won’t be broken apart and their investment taken from them. Women are more unwilling to invest in the marriage via their traditional roles because they have no security that the family won’t break apart and that they won’t be left financially devastated.

The traditional laws of marriage under coverture served the purpose of giving both men and women peace of mind to go ahead and invest themselves in the relationship. The husband had the security that his family wouldn’t be taken from him after he had dedicated years to slaving away at the factory to provide for his children and the mother of his children. The wife had the peace of mind that she could safely drop her status as an independent woman upon marriage and rely solely upon her husband because she had the security of lifetime financial support.

Today men and women have no such security. Either spouse can take off at any time with the money, the house and the kids and leave the other spouse destitute. There isn’t even a cultural expectation that marriages should last anymore. On the contrary, mainstream culture has leaned the direction of even seeing divorce as a good thing. So, obviously both men and women are hesitant to trust each other or invest fully in the marriage and rely on each other. How many times have I heard men or women say that they have too much to lose by marriage? How many men are paranoid about losing their lives savings by marrying an unfaithful woman? How many times have housewives been told to hang up their aprons and get a career before they are left financially destitute? And who ultimately pays the price for all of this if not all of us and our children?

The reality of the matter is that we can’t have it both ways as a society. There must be one dominant family arrangement that becomes law. This egalitarian era is a catastrophe. Not all family arrangements can be legally and culturally sanctioned. So we are left at the point where we much choose what arrangement is to be upheld under the law and as the social norm. All others must be frowned upon and given a lesser status socially and legally.

As a traditional woman I believe that financial support is something that a woman should be able to rely on in marriage. I believe in a woman becoming a covered woman under the law by her husband assuming responsibility for her. As such the husband must be in charge of things. I do not believe that fault between spouses should be used to determine a child’s fate (you cheated on me! I’m taking the kids b****!). As such authority must be delegated to someone to oversee the family and control the family. Will it be the mother? If it is the mother then we have matriarchy. If the women control the families then what incentive do men have to work hard everyday to provide for a family that they cannot lead and cannot control? Is it to be a handful of greedy lawyers or a judge that is to decide the fate of a child? It can also not make sense that a man is the head of the family during marriage and have that authority all of a sudden severed at divorce to allow someone else (a judge, the mother, etc.) control of the family just because the family is falling apart. If anything, a family that is falling apart needs the husband in control of it and responsible for it more than ever.

Enter the husband’s authority extending even to divorce. A man that has invested himself into his wife and children throughout marriage is the obvious best choice for deciding what is best for the family. Since he has the same liability no matter where his children live and no matter what his relationship with their mother he will obviously be less likely to separate them from their mother because then he would have to both fulfill his traditional obligations and the mother’s as well. On top of it all he would have to keep paying alimony to an ex-wife he no longer lives with. As for the woman, she would be less likely to initiate divorce because of the prospect of being without her kids and without her husband’s paycheck. Until recently divorce was a hush-hush thing that nobody talked about. Divorce was considered a disgrace to one’s entire family even.

As some have pointed out today’s men are not mature enough and are generally in no way capable of leading a family. But that is only because they weren’t raised in families under coverture but instead in a egalitarian society that shuns true manhood. In the past boys expected to grow up to be men who would provide for and lead their families. As such they followed their father’s examples and would even learn the role of being the head of a family by taking charge in their father’s absence. Girls, of course, were taught to be wives and mothers and fulfill their traditional roles by their mothers (and other female family members). Both sexes were taught how to invest in the marital relationship and were well learned in their traditional roles. If men cannot be trusted as heads of their families it is because there is no obligation upon them to be mature and take charge. It is because society no longer imposes such responsibility upon them.

There can never be a guarantee that men or women won’t get hurt. The laws of coverture could easily deal the husband an injustice just as easily as they could deal the wife an injustice. That is how life works. For every law there will be someone done wrong. But, laws are necessary for social order and the well-being of everyone. With strict laws protecting the sanctity of the family there will still be men and women who get hurt, but there numbers will be far fewer than they are today.

Coverture protects a mother’s rights more than any arrangement that has been conceived since coverture was repealed. Yes, it is possible that a husband could do his wife wrong and alienate her from her children, but given the social customs and laws stacked against him under coverture if he does his family wrong, it is unlikely that he would. Women would have security under coverture and be able to raise their own children and be financially supported. Both male and female investment in children and in the family would rise.

The traditional family and authority over the family belonging to the husband could stop the fighting, stop the gender wars and stop all of the harm done. If families could never be put back together and no distinctions ever made again between unwed father’s rights and married father’s rights and men do not ever assume once again their traditional responsibilities for women and children then I would support a law (such as the tender years doctrine) to give mothers child custody protections. But to me it isn’t the end goal. It’s not the best that could be offered up to women nor to children.

“Our Judeo-Christian civilization has developed the law and custom that, since women bear the physical consequences of the sex act, men must be required to pay in other ways. These laws and customs decree that a man must carry his share by physical protection and financial support of his children and of the woman that bears his children, and also by a code of behavior that benefits and protects both the woman and the children.

This is accomplished by the institution of the family. Our respect for the family as the basic unit of society, which is ingrained in the laws and customs of our Judeo-Christian civilization, is the greatest single achievement in the history of women’s rights. It assures a woman the most precious and important right of all- the right to keep her own baby and to be supported and protected in the enjoyment of watching her baby grow and develop.”- Phyllis Schlafly, 1972

Related Articles:

Responding to the Rationale of Father Custody under Coverture

My Review of the Garbage Generation

Book: “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus.

I’m not really sure what exactly made me think of this book, maybe that a lot of my supporters used to cite it, but it has been on my mind lately to write a review.

Amneus’ underlying theory and explanations of why our society needs patriarchy are solid. I could not find much flaw in his reasoning there. He does insist that men should not have to provide for “non-families” as he calls them, basically meaning men should not have to support illegitimate children and he explains why. He also points out how the welfare state is undermining families and therefore subsidizing illegitimacy. He talks about how female promiscuity, spurned on by the sexual revolution which feminists endorsed, is at the heart of this problem.

Amneus goes into great detail about how feminism has actually wrecked society and how women have deeply been the victims of it as well. When women are promiscuous males are demotivated and don’t want to work. When men are forced to support illegitimate children they will evade those sanctions in any way possible. The more the federal government becomes rigorous in enforcing child support payments the more of a backlash is created-against women and children.

Amneus actually endorses men providing for families but insists that they must only do so through marriage. It makes no sense for fatherhood to be determined by biology and in fact defies and goes against human nature itself. There are multiple problems created by the subsidization of illegitimacy. And he also does mention how men wreck intact families as well when the legitimacy of children no longer matters anymore, as our laws now will allow a man who is the biological father of a child (even though he was never married to the mother or ever even known the child) to make a paternity claim and wreck an intact family.

“The existing law states that the woman’s husband must be presumed to be the child’s father, a legal rule-of-thumb intended to strengthen families and avoid custody battles. Hirschensohn’s lawyer, Joel Aaronson, says the legal rule is old fashioned and outdated and fails to take into account recent changes in the American family.

What Hirschensohn is demanding is the right to proclaim his daughter a bastard, the right to confuse her concerning her social and family identity, the right to advertise to Gerald D.’s relatives and neighbors and the public that Gerald D. is a cuckold and his wife an adulteress, the right, based upon his status as an adulterer, to perpetually intrude himself into Gerald D.’s household for purposes of visitation, to embarrass and humiliate and weaken the family bonds between Gerald D. and his wife and daughter, the right to deny to Gerald D. his right, which would be unquestioned with respect to non-adulterers, of protecting his home and family from the intrusion of people he doesn’t want to associate with.

Hirschensohn says he is only asking to be treated like a divorced father, which is to say he is only asking the courts to declare that marriage confers no rights on husbands. He says that the current law, holding Victoria to be legitimate, fails to take into account “recent changes in the American family.” The recent changes referred to are those which replace the Legitimacy Principle by the Promiscuity Principle, and its corollary, the denial to men of any right to procreate and possess legitimate children under the contract of marriage.

That the Supreme Court would even consent to hear such a claim is a dereliction on the part of the profession whose responsibility ought to be the safeguarding of the family but which has instead become the principal agent of the family’s destruction.”

Amneus also is right on target when he states how feminists betrayed women and, upon hearing the outcries of women everywhere who were left destitute and impoverished on behalf of their movement, they turned around and refused to acknowledge responsibility. Instead of hearing women’s cries and instead attempting to reverse the damage and strengthen the family unit, feminists instead undertook to weaken it even more. There is no sign that even today that they have any intention of ever turning back or ever admitting to women the faults of their movement.

This book does clearly explain that women are indeed hurting, but instead of weakening family bonds and forcing the subsidization of illegitimacy which increases the problem, patriarchy, a sexual double standard upon women, and legitimacy must instead be enforced.

Amneus is right on these matters. However, there are a few flaws about this book. First, I believe in a father’s right to control his family (a married father in regards to his wife and legitimate children anyways, not unwed fathers by any means) and I understand that Amneus is endorsing father custody as a rule as a means of strengthening the weakest bond in the family (the role of the father). However, Amneus seems to have the general belief that there is no such thing as an innocent women. His basic premise is this: woman bad, guilty; man good, innocent. There is no middle ground for him. Also, he criticizes single-mother families (which are obviously not good and showcase the need for patriarchy and the strengthening of family bonds) to intact families and he uses that as the reason why children are better off in the custody of fathers. Obviously single mother families compared to intact families are going to look pretty bad! If he wanted to say that children do better with single fathers then he should compare single fathers vs single mothers, but he doesn’t. This book was written at a time when mothers were still generally given custody of their children and states were only beginning to demolish their tender years doctrines. However, since that time things have changed. There have been some studies done on single father vs single mother families and single father families aren’t looking too good. In fact, compared to single mother families they score downright awful, which makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. But, Amneus makes the case that father custody would keep families together by keeping both parents in the marriage. On that his theory is solid.

Second, he never mentions women who are actually innocent. Once again, if women file for divorce then they must be guilty! He states also that men shouldn’t have to pay alimony to ex-wives so they (the men) can remarry and have more children and have a full paycheck as a bargaining power to do so! I mean, really? What about the innocent middle-aged ex-wife who’s husband has cheated on her and left her? Unlike a man, she is going to have a hard time remarrying and a high-powered career probably isn’t going to help her chances a whole lot. If she can’t depend on support from her ex-husband then she has no choice but to fulfill the feminist vision for her which means concentration on a full time career and man-hating. That hardly decreases feminism. Amneus also pulls out the same old men’s rights dogma that women are more violent then men. Yet he (like most MRAs) never actually backs up his assertions with any credible evidence. He states that men would be OK with entering unstable marriages if they were guaranteed a good deal out of it. Really? How does that solve his problem of family breakdown? All that says is he thinks women are always guilty and men are always innocent and our laws should act accordingly. In other words, give the men a good deal and throw women to the side unconcerned about their fate. Also the idea that “women have all the rights and men have all the responsibilities” is so deeply absurd I don’t even know where to possibly begin.

But, despite some flaws and obvious men’s rights biases this book is solid. It showcases the desperate need for patriarchy in our society. This book says it how it is for the most part. I think that if women will open their hearts and listen to it they will see that Amneus does make good points and he is showcasing the harms of feminism to women and that patriarchy can indeed help women. This book is old and a bit outdated on a few points statistically speaking (such as the bias to mother custody in our courts, which despite father’s rights propaganda, numerous studies and research have disproven that such a bias still exists) but feminism is far from dead and the problems are only mounting every day. Amneus’ book will always remain true in our need for patriarchy and the good that patriarchy with strong male-headed families can bring to women and children. And yes, ladies, patriarchy does bring good to women. I still recommend this book.