Can I just say one thing? Ok, I hate the 1950s. seriously. I hate it that when I say that I believe in stuff like traditional gender roles and that I’ve always stayed home and stuff like that that people immediately start thinking “1950s.” Ugh. I hate that era. Personally, I see the 1950s as a time of female superiority if you want to know the truth about it. I actually think the era was quite feminist. It’s always been clear to me that both of my grandmothers were always “in charge” in their marriages. The 1950s weren’t traditional from my point of view. I mean, women were already voting and a lot of wives were already starting to join the workforce and stuff like that.
I don’t act like a 1950s housewife nor do I dress like one. Ok, well, I do kind of like stuff like vintage dresses and bikinis, but because I think they’re cute, not because I’ve got a thing for the 50s or anything like that. I used to have some vintage dresses but they fall off of me these days so I haven’t worn them in years. But, anyway, back to the subject. We’re not rich. My husband doesn’t “have money.” We’re just simple people, and I’m just a simple girl.
I know I’ve said it before, but when I say “housewife” I think a bit farther back to the times when husbands were actually in charge. I don’t think of high heels and perfectly permed hair so much as I think of bare feet, waist length hair (for a woman) and simplicity.
I also don’t like people that think housewives are somehow “lazy” or anything of the sort. I don’t sit around eating bon-bons all day, watching soap-operas, and writing “honey-do” lists while having an affair with the pool boy. I would also hate to think that a man only wanted to provide for me just because of the way I look. That’s why I would never want to be with a rich man, unless I knew in my heart that that man truly loved and cherished me for the long-term and would always do so.
My husband provides for me 100% financially speaking, as I believe it is his responsibility to do so, but he’s also in charge of everything too. For instance, he gave me a credit card on his account I could use for a while but then he took it away from me last year after I came back home. (He said it was because he got a new card, but I suspect the real reason was to take independence from me so I wouldn’t leave again. In either case, he never gave me another one.)
He gives me things I want and need, but he also has the power to say no to me or take them away from me too. And yes, I accept this even though I’ve suffered pain and frustration and I still accept it no matter what others might think about it, because it confers security on me and protects me. I’d rather accept this life than the life of the modern woman with all her unhappiness, unstable relationships and lack of ability to raise and care for her own children every day.
You want to talk about lazy and entitled? It’s the men these days that are lazy and entitled, just as much or not more so than the women are. Men who talk about how their wives need to “get a job” or go around bragging about how they’ve got their wives in the workforce full-time and stuff like that or how that they’d never support no woman. It’s these same men that also complain about women being spoiled and entitled “not wanting responsibility”, when in reality men are just as bad and lazy as modern women.
In his latest article, Jesse Powell talks about red-pill men moving on to a higher-functioning stage in the wider culture. Undoubtedly I think a movement like this will grow, and that it needs to, but what they advocate for is unsustainable and unworkable when it denies male responsibility for women, so in the end it will result in men having obligations imposed upon them instead of it being all about exploiting everything to their advantage and screwing everybody else and the damage left in their wake.
On The Red Pill, Fisher commonly expressed disappointment that the institutions of marriage and religion were destroyed by women’s equality. He maintained that as a result of financial independence, women were no longer compelled to remain faithful and as a result, men needed to protectively adapt their sexual strategy.
Ok, so how are women going to be financially dependent if men don’t fully financially support their wives? Only for a mere six weeks did I hold paid employment out of nearly a decade of marriage, and it was only to separate from him. I never worked for money, neither inside nor out of the home, and my husband never had to play a bunch of head games just to keep me sexually attracted to him or invested in the marriage.
By “protectively adapting their sexual strategy” what do they mean? Screwing as many sl*ts as possible? (Because that it sustainable for society when you leave illegitimate children all over the place, and that’s sure to help them with all those “pregnancy scares!”) Or perhaps he means playing a bunch of stupid head games that will result, at best, in keeping a woman’s interest for a whole six months- if that? (Because that will obviously lead to a high-functioning committed relationship when one person is a narcissistic abuser.)
“To give women autonomy is to take away the very thing that made marriage a realistic institution… what I dislike is the general attitude that somehow we owe [women] something for sex… Women enjoy the autonomy that feminism has afforded them… But don’t expect the relics from back in the day to continue to benefit you without the sacrifices you were making,”
Well, don’t expect the relics YOU enjoyed back in the day to continue to benefit YOU without the sacrifices you made as well. And I’m unaware completely of any traditional relics from back in the day that women are still enjoying out in the real world. To deny the breadwinner role (for men) is also to take away the very glue that once held marriage together. Men enjoy the easy ride and easy sex feminism has afforded THEM. And women sacrifice more in sex and bring something to the table men don’t, every society in the history of the world has recognized and given credit to this undeniable fact. Get over it.
“Marriage, and yes, female oppression, slut shaming, religion, these were all a means to control hypergamy [infidelity]. Marriages might be considered loveless, and women might have been unhappy, but for men it meant marriages that lasted, commitments that continued, and protection against the fickle whims of females,” Fisher wrote on The Red Pill in November 2012.
Yes, never mind when men chase after “bad girls” that will only screw them over or when husbands disappear or cheat on their breadwinner wives with a poor woman that makes him feel more like a man. Not to mention that you run a simultaneous marriage strike and spend all your time chasing after the very sl*ts you claim to hate. A traditional woman deserves a traditional man.
But, in conclusion, stop it with the 1950s stereotypes. The 1950s were a whole world better in many ways than today, but the era still wasn’t traditional by my point of view. But if I would ask anything of men today, it would be to please stop this. Please do something about the state of affairs today. It isn’t a woman’s job to fix it. It’s a woman’s job to be “good” and to accept a man’s authority (when and where it’s legitimate). These are your daughters, your sisters, your mothers, your wives/future wives and mothers of your children and all of the women you know and love. They aren’t some outside enemy or foreign invader to get rid of and punish at all costs. They’re your own people, of the same blood and heritage as you. Girls and women today grew up/ are growing up never knowing the stable relationships, protections and security that were afforded to our ancestors- just the same as men. Stop acting like you’re some kind of special oppressed snowflakes. Your grievances have merit, but I think they’re exaggerated beyond belief and only tell one side of the story.
I know from experience there are just as many traditional men as there are women, it just seems like there aren’t because most of the time men just remain silent. They watch and listen, but they don’t comment, they don’t form opinions or organize and protest. For decades they’ve left all of that up to women. But if there’s anything good happening now, it would be that it seems men are finally taking some kind of action, even if they are, as of now, in a rage and sorely misguided. But if men take action, women will follow, and men that accept responsibility (such as a husband keeping his wife out of the workforce and providing for her) can still impose the rules on women even when they are unwilling. YOU don’t expect that “privilege” otherwise. The man that loves a woman provides for her and he protects her- even from herself. I’ll only know the red-pill is “highly-functioning” when their men strive to do just that.