Monthly Archives: May 2014

Why Would Men Support Feminism?

I can tell you exactly why men supported feminism. It’s pretty simple really. They wanted a free pass out of traditional masculine responsibilities to bear the sole burden of financial support for a family and traditional male duties such as all male conscription. Feminism also promised them free and easy sex and eradication of laws that protected women and made men accept responsibility. It’s really not that hard to figure out really. Feminism promised men freedom from traditional masculine responsibility and it was just too good to pass up for them.

It’s very hard today to find true masculine men. Most have been made effeminate to some degree and few want to support families, pay for dates or protect women. A lot of men are quite content to hand over their authority to women because they are quite content for women to carry their responsibilities. MRAs seem to be divided between radical nut-jobs hating patriarchy and others that promote patriarchy with a denial of male responsibility. The groups claim to support patriarchy and they want women to be traditional yet at the same time their official policies are to promote “gender neutral laws,” eradication of all alimony and cry foul at any supposed “discrimination” against men.

Some promote chivalry, but only when a woman “deserves” it. Traditional women that fall into line with their standards are “good” and all other women are to be treated as “competition” and given exactly what they “deserve.” So what they are really saying is that they allow the actions of women to dictate their own actions. They will act “bad” if women act “bad” and they will only act “good” if a woman acts “good.” This really sounds kind of insane when you say it out loud, doesn’t it? They emasculate themselves and allow women to dictate their own behaviors.

In reality, whether a woman “deserves” chivalry or not should be irrelevant to whether or not the man gives it to her. Men’s responsibilities towards women should not change just because women act bad (based on the hierarchal relationship between the sexes, however, a woman’s obedience to men must be conditional upon the man acting appropriate). A real man would not reject his responsibilities because the woman is acting bad. He would not allow himself to be dictated to by the woman and allow her to emasculate him or control what he does (isn’t that feminism anyways? women dictating how men should act?).

Men could have stopped feminism. They could stop it now if they wanted to but most are quite content to be passive and let women run things because they don’t want the male responsibility that patriarchy entails or they live in fear that if they attempt to control their women that they will be branded as outcasts and misogynists or chauvinists and face social or legal backlash. Other men, it seems, simply don’t know how to be real men because they’ve never been shown any positive example of what it means to be a man growing up. They grew up with dominant mothers, weak fathers and the media that shows incompetent men and successful career women who can fight just as good or better than any man.

MRAs are actually feminists in their purest form. They want to emasculate all men that way they can eradicate female sexual bargaining power and superiority, unconcerned, until they are faced with child support, divorce, or the recreational sperm donor coming back to claim his “rights”, that in so doing they also compromise the security of the father in the family unit. It also doesn’t seem to bother them in the slightest that their wives, daughters and sisters could be subject to a future draft or be taken advantage of by some irresponsible man following the teachings of their movement.

MRAs are very concerned about false claims of domestic violence and rape. In fact, one could say they are obsessed to the point of mass paranoia. Let’s humor them for a moment and say that they are even remotely telling the truth (yes false claims exist for every wrongdoing under the sun but let’s say they are right in their claims of how widespread this problem is). The problem lies at the very heart of feminism and “gender equality” itself. A woman should never be left in the position where she is desperate and vulnerable and feels no other choice than to cry wolf. Women should always be under the protection and authority of men. Men should be held to their responsibilities and women should have never been deprived of their protections and rights or told that it’s OK to live with a boyfriend and that she should express her sexuality any way she chooses of that it’s OK for a married woman to pursue college and a career. If men had refused to yield their authority to women in the first place and hadn’t rejected their responsibilities none of these wrongs would be happening the way they are.

Men today just assume that if women want “equality” then they are going to give it to them and give it to them full out. It becomes an all-out war. First both feminists and men’s groups wanted to eradicate all protections for women. Once that was accomplished feminists started calling crisis and split from the men’s groups who became “antifeminists” because feminists were no longer promoting the “true equality.” To MRAs women should just “man up.” Women are not “special” to them and deserve no special protections. It’s either corrupt policies should be implemented to “empower” women to protect and support themselves or women should have no protections or support at all.

The idea that women should just “man up” is a very unworkable solution. Women may say that they can protect themselves and support themselves but when it comes down to it they will expect men to rise up in a time of crisis and expect men to protect them. These women are not bad because of this. It is only natural that women hand off the rough jobs to men and expect men to protect them. What is bad is what men and women today are being taught. It is only that the idea of treating men and women equally confuses the sexes and imposes an unreal set of expectations upon men and women. Social movements cannot erase human nature but they can cause instability, confusion and many problems. Women are told one thing and that they can “do everything a man can do” yet when it comes down to it they can’t. Then some men, who have been told to see women as their equals, get frustrated and angry at this. It’s time to face reality because gender equality is unworkable and a pure fantasy.

I find it very insulting and offensive that now, after all the decades of erasing legislation designed to protect the homemaker and to protect women in general that feminists are now turning around and promoting housewifery as a “new form” of feminism or the next “wave” of feminism. I guess now that they have done all of the damage that they can possibly do to the family unit and now that there is no legislation at all left on the books (that’s enforced anyways) to protect women they turn back around and say they stand with traditional women. My point in saying this is that women should not be making the decisions or be in authority over men as when this happens laws, policies, the family unit and the overall social structure begin to be determined by special interest groups and how groups of women “feel” at the moment.

The vote for women itself seems to have spawned the worst economic recession in American history, massive government spending, socialism and a complete destruction of sexual morality and the family unit. All this because men wanted to become emasculated wimps and give up their authority to women so they didn’t have to carry traditional male responsibilities. If men loved women they wouldn’t just sit around and do nothing while those promoting “gender equality” go out and destroy society and the well-being of themselves and everyone else around them. If a man really loved his wife he would control her and protect her despite her objections. He would say “no” to her if she was wanting to go out and work and be independent. No matter what she might say at the moment or how she might feel, in the end she will respect and love him more and she will be a lot happier and better off.

There are real and true duties that men owe to women. When men reject their responsibilities and surrender their authority to women it causes nothing but problems. Men cannot hurt women without also hurting themselves and women cannot hurt men without hurting themselves either. When women refuse to obey their husbands they compromise their security and support. When men refuse to protect women they as well compromise their authority and security and position in the family. The man that takes advantage of a woman and refuses to marry her or refuses to support her or protect her may very well find one day he has a daughter that gets taken advantage of in the same way by a man. The woman who doesn’t respect her husband’s authority and tears down her own family may very well find one day she has a son who is treated the same way by a woman one day. In this way both men and women reap from the seeds they sow and the next generation is worse off than the one before and the future generations pay the price for what their parents and grandparents have done before them. As with most things in life, gender politics are akin to the double-edged sword. The fates of men and women are intertwined together and they will forever be.

Advertisements

How Can a Woman Deal With a Wayward Husband?

I’ve talked before about when women act bad. When the wife is in the wrong or acting bad then the problem is simple. The husband is the authority figure, he is in almost every case larger and stronger and his wife is obliged to obey him. If she doesn’t want to comply then the husband can use appropriate force or even discipline if necessary to force obedience from an unwilling or reluctant wife. The same holds true for the government/citizen relationship. The citizen is under the authority of the government. If the citizen should not want to obey he can be cited, given a warning and punished appropriately. It’s a straightforward thing really. The laws are laid out. If the citizen acts bad the government has the power to punish or even use appropriate force if the citizen refuses to cooperate and accept the rule of law and appropriate punishment. The rules are laid out and if the person refuses to obey then the problem can be dealt with straightforward in a no-nonsense manner and force/discipline can and will be used against the reluctant citizen to compel obedience against the person’s will to get them to act right and keep order in society. The husband is the authority in the house and if the wife is out of line the husband will tell her and if she refuses to cooperate the husband can just take her in hand then and there and straighten out the problem and put everything back in order even against the woman’s objections. It’s a simple and easy solution that can generally be dealt with quickly and easily as divine law has ordained the husband’s authority (the same with the government’s) and he is more powerful and can simply overpower the woman’s will and everything can be set straight. The home can be in order and peace can reign once again.

But what about if the husband is the one doing wrong? What if he is the one who is out of line? The solution for the woman is not so easy. She is not in authority over him. There are times when she might try to be and if he is in the wrong she might try to confront him head-on and tell him to act right. But what if he doesn’t accept that he’s in the wrong and act right? What if he refuses to change? She cannot be truly in authority over him. She cannot compel him to do something if he doesn’t want to. She has not the strength nor proper authority. Nothing can be law without authority behind it, and no authority can be a true authority without the power to compel obedience against those who are unwilling. The woman in authority over the man upsets the natural order and she, in almost every case, does not have the power nor strength to compel obedience from him. Her position can be the same as that of a citizen who lives under the rule of a tyrannical government that has gone out of control, has become abusive and is not functioning properly. When this happens the citizen cannot compel the government to get “back in line” and function properly and generally has to look for an external form of support. The citizen might find supporters, draw up a petition and look for others to show support and sign it. The citizen might then try to find those higher up the ladder in authority to show support and plead his case. If all else fails, the citizen will probably start looking for a miracle and pray to God to hear his cries.

Likewise, the woman who finds herself in a position where the one who is supposed to be protecting her (her husband) has gone out of control and refuses to perform his rightful duties towards her and/or the children ideally needs an external form of support. If she is a Christian woman or a Muslim woman she can look to what God says and show her husband where he is wrong and expect of him that he change his behaviors. A woman with no religious affiliation can still look to a form of divine law to tell the husband he is wrong and he needs to change. It is important for the woman not to just say “I want it now do it!” or make her case in such a selfishly-oriented way. This will cause the man to pull away from her and he will be less likely to want to protect her or resume his rightful duties towards her if she makes demands unilaterally in a selfish way against him. Putting her case to her husband in such a way causes her to be unfeminine and removes the man’s natural protective instinct for the woman.

I think it is very destructive for women to protect themselves unilaterally. A woman should always try to gain support from the community around her and other men in the family close to her that can deal with the man at his own level if need be (as in deal with him “man to man”). It is hard in our world today because society at large does not care if a husband supports his wife and even more abused women find it hard to find shelter and a woman can hardly count on the law to enforce that her husband perform his rightful duties or be punished. But in any case, a woman should never doubt that her feminine aspects can still draw support towards her and change the husband to be the man he should be. She can also set a good example that will help inspire cultural change.

A woman cannot and should not follow the husband if he is leading her down the wrong path. She also cannot obey when he is not acting in his rightful role as a man. Obeying him when he has truly become neglectful and abusive will cause her to be a doormat and he will continue to be irresponsible. It isn’t always easy for a woman in these situations as a man’s irresponsibility and bad behaviors towards his wife can cause a real problem when he is the one who is supposed to be in charge. I have heard women ask “well, what is a woman supposed to do if the husband won’t act right? Sit around and watch her family fall to pieces all around her?” These women make good points and pose difficult questions with no easy and straightforward answers.

In cases not so severe I believe a woman can win her husband over by still obeying him even if she doesn’t necessarily like what her husband demands or if he isn’t doing things quite the way she wants (no authority figure is ever going to operate exactly as the ones under his authority like anyways). Her feminine charms can win her more love from her husband and she can influence him thus, but unfeminine selfishness will only draw him away and she will be even more unhappy. In severe cases such as non-support, abandonment, abuse and neglect she must put her foot down and refuse to follow the man or temporarily separate and seek the shelter and the support of others and not return to the husband until he has changed his ways and accepted responsibility.

The important thing is the woman’s attitude I believe. She should always be willing to obey but make it clear that she cannot do so if he is truly in the wrong (not just because she doesn’t like a decision but because he is truly doing something wrong or stepping outside the bounds of what is moral or appropriate) and is neglecting his true duties towards her and the family. If the husband asks her to do something that he doesn’t have any moral authority to do (such as telling her to “get a job”-that is his responsibility and he has no right to push it on her– or telling her to go commit an indecent or irresponsible act) she must say no. She must tell her husband why she is refusing to make it clear she cannot obey him because what he has asked is wrong and he has no authority to command her to do which goes against God/divine law.

These issues aren’t easy to deal with and there isn’t always an easy answer. For the women who have never heard of Helen Andelin I suggest picking up a copy of her book “Fascinating Womanhood.” Mrs. Andelin taught many women in her lifetime to be feminine and she teaches a woman to embrace old-fashioned femininity and accept patriarchy, not equality. She has very good advice on how a woman can act to bring out the protective and responsible chivalrous instinct in men and how a woman can best fulfill her roles as a traditional woman. She also gives advice on how women can deal with men who won’t earn the living, how women can deal with anger in an appropriate feminine way and have a happy home life in a traditional marriage. Mr. Jesse Powell also has some good articles on how a traditional woman can assert herself with men in a hostile feminist climate and also how the submissive wife is protected under patriarchy that are very worthwhile to read.

Another thing I would like to add is that a woman should not solve the problem by taking it into her own hands when the husband is being too passive in his leadership role or is refusing to support the family. For instance, I heard a woman say that her son would stay up half the night playing on the iPad and she was very worried for her son. She had many talks with her husband about it and he would do something for a time but then would cave and let the son have the iPad back and stay up half the night. Eventually the woman had enough and her husband wouldn’t do anything so she took matters into her own hands and took the iPad and smashed it to pieces. She employed a temporary solution to what was in reality a chronic long-term problem (her husband’s reluctance to accept responsibility and his passivity in his rightful leadership role). The problem was solved for the moment but surely it was only a matter of time before something else big would come up. Her husband was glad she had done something about the problem which shows yet another danger. First she went against her husband’s authority and second she allowed him to evade responsibility so the next time if there should be a serious problem the husband might think “it’s ok, if I just do nothing my wife will eventually handle the situation.” Here a pattern of allowing the husband to evade responsibility is created. In the process she also showed the children that their father was not the ultimate authority thus possibly causing them to even act out more in the future. She upset the natural balance of authority/responsibility in her home.

A woman taking matters into her own hands when her husband doesn’t accept responsibility only worsens the problem in the long run. The same can be true for women who go and get a job because their husband won’t support the family. This may solve the problem temporarily (money’s coming in so the kids won’t starve) but the woman only creates a greater long term problem. A woman should not follow her husband into sin and should put her foot down if he is asking her to accept his responsibilities. If he is rejecting his responsibilities she should remind him what his duties are in a non-selfish way and refuse to obey until he is operating in his rightful role as a man once again.

Thoughts on Coverture, Suffrage, Chivalry, Patriarchy and the Natural Order

“There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make of man and woman beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things – their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived, that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded; and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, “Deomocracy in America,” Chapter XII)

I believe it is the obligation of men to be chivalrous to women. I believe this duty to be unconditional. That means even if the woman acts bad I still believe it is the duty of men to protect and provide for women. I believe that women have special circumstances in life and the differences between the sexes warrant special consideration and protections for women. I believe it is the duty of men to elevate the interests of women above their own and the responsibility of adults to elevate the interests of children above their own. Women are inherently more vulnerable and weaker than men and are in need of special protections and guardianship in marriage. I believe it to be the duty of the husband to provide for his wife and be responsible for her. I do not believe this duty to be reciprocal. Marriage was never meant to be an “equal partnership.” The purpose of marriage is for the provision of women and children. Love is important and I believe it is good that everyone can choose who they wish to marry and spend their lives with and be happy. But marriage is more than that. It is more than how one feels at the moment and more than just “mutual benefit.” Marriage is about masculinity, femininity and the provision and guardianship of women and children. Now that society has lost sight of what the real and true purpose of marriage is the institution of the family has been destroyed and we have such perversions like “gay marriage” and cohabitation and epidemics of single parenthood and divorce and “blended” families that do nothing more than confuse children about their family identity. Once the legal obligation upon men to be providers for a wife and children (if there are any children, even if there aren’t it shouldn’t change his role to provide for the wife) was erased it didn’t take long at all for the family unit to be destroyed.

Although I’ve never come out and straightforward said much about my beliefs, I do believe in God, although I don’t have any particular religious affiliation. I never really talk about this much because I want my site to welcome those of all religious beliefs as well as atheists to the cause of traditional sex roles and traditional marriage (I don’t believe one can have a traditional marriage without traditional sex roles and the obligation of husbands and fathers to provide). I believe men and women were made for certain roles in this life and men have a moral obligation to to care for women and children and put women and children first. Man has always tried to pervert the natural order of things and go against God, there is nothing new or unusual about that. I guarantee any crazy thing one can think up of some society somewhere has tried it, somebody has done it. But that doesn’t mean that we should. We have thousands of years of history to show us the consequences (both good and bad) of different human behaviors and different laws and policies.

The sex act itself reaffirms traditional gender roles. The man is dominant, the woman submissive. The man gives, the woman receives. The man is powerful while the woman is often helpless. The man covers the woman with his body and penetrates into her most intimate places first with his own body and after the act is completed with his seed that lives inside her in the most intimate and precious place where all life begins. The man controls and leads the act while the woman follows and submits. The sex act depends upon the man’s ability to achieve. He must give to the woman, he must work to bring fulfillment to the woman and put her needs before his own or he has failed and is incompetent, impotent and dysfunctional. This is the order that traditional gender roles take, with the man giving to the woman and being dominate over the woman, while the woman receives and accepts what the man gives and submits. The woman is precious and weaker and it is the man’s job to protect and provide for her.

Although I’ve alluded to it before, I don’t believe that women should participate in politics and I am against the vote for women. The world may hate me for what I believe but I don’t care. I will not change what I believe in to fit what modern society tells me is right. Right now I may be hated and be in the minority viewpoint but in time the tables will turn. I will state what I believe no matter who is against me. If I have to change myself for someone to follow or like me then what is the point of writing? As a traditional woman I don’t want to deal with external affairs and problems in the community and society at large. I take to writing to speak out against what I see as wrong. Women have always done this, vote or no vote. If women have the right to vote then we also have the obligation to participate in politics and other duties that traditionally fell only to men. As it stands traditional women have no choice because if we back out and don’t participate in politics there will be a huge imbalance as non-traditional women will get everything they want and traditional women will be outnumbered and our voice ignored. If women have the right to participate in politics that means they also have the obligation, and a woman cannot just mind her own business at home and remain under her husband’s authority and be at peace.

“We are sometimes told by politicians who wish to press this matter on us, ‘You women will not be forced to vote.’ But our conscience speaks otherwise. If, in spite of our remonstrances, we have political obligations forced upon us, we shall feel it to be the first duty to vote every man out of place who has abused his lawmaking power thus to oppress us, and also to counteract the votes of bad women-and here is the appalling danger. While conservative women may stay at home the infamous women of our cities, numbering thousands, will be brought to the polls as a unit, and every such vote bought by some scheming politician. What legislation will this vote ask for? Surely nothing less than a social disorganization. Women of this hitherto happy land, reflect. Are you prepared for such consequences.” (1)

Under coverture the woman’s husband spoke for her. He represented her. Men cared more about the interests and well being of women because they were responsible for women. They knew they had the moral duty to elevate the interests of women above their own. They knew they had to think of women and children first. Now men don’t care about the interests of women because many modern women and the feminist movement has insisted that women can speak for themselves, protect themselves and support themselves and they have no need of the protection or support of men. But women do have need of male protection and guardianship. It is not degrading to women. It signifies that women are precious and loved, favored even. I don’t believe America has been a true patriarchy since the mid-19th century when coverture started being repealed. Patriarchy entails male headship of families and the legal dependence of wives and children as well as male guardianship of women and men in charge of the overall social order. Many societies have adopted aspects of patriarchy but if the social system does not involve chivalrous ethic on behalf of men towards women I don’t believe it to be patriarchy. For instance, I don’t believe a tribe that acknowledges fatherhood and descent through the male line yet has the women own all the property and do all the drudgery work to be a patriarchy, patrilineal perhaps, but not truly patriarchal.

“It may not be altogether easy to determine the exact difference in function between the sexes; in minor details those functions may differ in differing civilizations. But speaking broadly, it may be said that the work of battle in all its forms, and all the work that is cognate thereto, belongs to man. Physically and psychically his is the sterner and the stronger sex. His muscles are more steel-like; his heart and his flesh are alike harder; he can give knocks without compunction and receive them without shrinking. In the family, therefore, his it is to go forth and fight the battle with Nature; to compel the reluctant ground to give her riches to his use. It is not for woman to hold the plough, or handle the hoe, or dig in the mine, or fell the forest. The war with Nature is not for her to wage.” (2)

It is important to note that although men in general hold authority over women in general, a woman is not under any obligation to obey just any man. In fact, a man attempting to assert dominance over a woman where he has no authority is often subject to punishment, sometimes by the woman’s husband (or father) himself. For instance, if the man is holding out his hands wanting the woman to feed him or he is trying to order her around or he pushes himself on her sexually then he has committed a serious offense. In patriarchal societies men were often put to death for raping a woman. It was an offense not just against her but also against her husband/father because the woman was under guardianship. Even the Bible itself gave a husband the right to punish a man who brought physical harm to his wife. Not because women were “property” but because they were under guardianship and her husband was responsible to protect her. (As a side note no in the Bible and in other ancient societies women were not “damaged goods” if they weren’t virgins. Women were only punished for adultery and her lover was punished equally. Widowed and divorced women frequently remarried and the man had to marry the woman if they were intimate and she was not already engaged. In the Bible the man would have to pay the bride price (dowry) anyways if the woman’s father wouldn’t agree to the marriage).

I have been a supporter of automatic father custody, but only under the principle of coverture. I do not support men’s or father’s rights groups because these groups are abusive. They do not elevate the interests of women and children above their own interests. Their interests are purely selfish. They are about asserting their dominance over women but in a way that harms women and gets them out of responsibility. They want men’s rights without men’s responsibility attached to it. The only time they care about fatherless children is to show that they and not the mother should have custody. Family breakdown is only really a problem when they can’t get whatever they want out of divorce or when they have to support illegitimate children that they don’t want (at least that they don’t want until the child support gets to be too burdensome, at which point they all of a sudden become dad of the year and start pulling out the custody card and claim to be victims). No, I support father custody under coverture. For the father who is married to the children’s mother and is responsible to provide for them. I support this because it brings more security to women and children in ways I can’t completely explain in one posting. Under coverture the wife and children are already under the husband’s custody. Divorce should be rare in this instance but if divorce or separation does occur it should not change the rights nor the responsibilities between husband and wife (for instance, she shouldn’t automatically be responsible for being a co-provider nor should the husband’s authority now have to be shared with the wife over the children as in her getting equal rights to them over the husband’s objections). As long as she hasn’t been adulterous he should still have to support her, so him wrestling the kids away from her won’t get him out of responsibility.

This is what I believe. I’ve always felt that it was right to let my husband support and protect me and I always felt it was right to obey him. I was just innocent and naive when I first married. I had never even known the words “women’s liberation” and I knew I felt inside that men should protect women and love them, not harm them. It is particularly damaging when a man exploits, abuses and abandons a woman much more so than if he abused another man just the same as it is particularly more damaging if an adult abused or exploited a child than if an adult did the same to another adult. It is very damaging when the natural order is perverted and women are given no special consideration as being the weaker and more vulnerable of the two sexes. Men are stronger than women and always inherently more powerful. Feminists tried to put women on an equal level to men by erasing laws that protected women but doing so didn’t make women as powerful as men, it left women desperate and vulnerable and liberated men from their responsibilities. It shouldn’t be this way. It is man’s duty to protect women, not declare war on them.

“For until she had been unsexed, until she had ceased to be woman, she could not play the part which her destiny and her ambition assigned to her. For like reason society exempts woman from police functions. She is not called to be sheriff or constable or night watchman. She bears no truncheon and wears no revolver. She answers not to the summons when peace officers call for the posse comitatus. She is not received into the National Guard when bloody riot fills the city with peril and alarms. Why not? Is she not the equal of man? Is she not as loyal? as law abiding ? as patriotic? as brave? Surely. All of these is she. But it is not her function to protect the state when foreign foes attack it; it is the function of the state to protect her. It is not her function to protect the persons and property of the community against riot; it is man’s function to protect her. Here at least the functional difference between the sexes is too plain to be denied, doubted, or ignored. Here at least no man or woman from the claims of equality of character jumps to the illogical conclusion that there is an identity of function.” (2)