The Rule of Law

Did you vote for the president as a result of the political “issues” of the day? Did you vote for him because you are “pro-life” or pro-Second Amendment? But did you know that the president doesn’t actually control these issues? Nearly every president in history has campaigned on a promise of “hope” or “change”- but did they deliver? Do you hate a president you once endorsed because he didn’t deliver on his promises? But perhaps he never delivered on those promises, not because of some flaw or malicious intent, but rather simply because he can’t.

By far and large, apart from all of the other branches of government, the Congress was designed to be the most powerful branch of the Federal Government, holding the ability to even strip the other branches of government of their power. Congress may limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts (including the Supreme Court) for whatever reason it chooses, or if Congress simply feels the Court(s) has/have gotten out of hand and run amok too far into the arena of judicial activism, control and limit the number of justices that are to sit on the Supreme Court, abolish all of the inferior Federal courts beneath the Supreme Court and pass legislation to ordain and establish an entirely new system of Federal courts as well as outline their jurisdictional boundaries. Congress may yank the purse strings on a rogue president thereby denying him the funds he needs to carry out any operations, completely ignore him if he gets too belligerent, override any of his attempts to veto legislation that is passed and require him to cease any military operations or otherwise give a full account of his actions to Congress. Congress may also impeach, convict and remove from office any Federal judge (including Supreme Court Justices), as well as the President and Vice-President, declare war on any foreign nation, coin and print money, raise and support an army- and more.

America, in a way not seen since the days of the Civil War, however, is split in two based upon party lines, with the president being placed front and center in the eyes of the people and voted into office largely on account of the issues they believe that he can change, while Congress is barely even mentioned in any scenario- despite wielding all the power behind the scenes. The jurisdiction of a rogue Federal court can be stripped and a rogue president can be put in his place. A united- and determined- Congress, on the other hand, would be virtually unstoppable. But does the average citizen truly know how important and powerful the United States Congress truly is? Do they know, in the words of Woodrow Wilson himself, that the “Senate always has the last word?”

I am an independent, sitting somewhere on the fence of the political spectrum, but I do not vote. I do not vote for several reasons, the forefront of all of them being that I simply do not believe in the vote for women[i], because I believe that men should be taking care of women and also because I believe that it should be the purview of men alone to both have the civic rights and obligations in the arena of war and politics. With this said, I do not mention the president in this posting as a way of throwing dirt on him in an attempt to discredit him in some way on account of hating him[ii] for issues he ultimately does not have the final say over. I also realize that no amount of civics education is going to ever change the fact that democracies do not work in the long term and that the average, ordinary citizen in any country will simply never acquire the understanding of politics or deep, intellectual reasoning ability to be able to see the real issues at play behind the smokescreen. I mention the president in all of this as a way to make a point. This nation, as previously mentioned, is divided in half based largely upon political party lines and hot-button issues such as abortion, immigration, and gun rights. This is not new. Though everyone always likes to believe that new and novel ways are being devised to deprive citizens of their rights and tear down the system of government, nothing either new or novel is in actuality taking place that has not happened before throughout our history.

This nation and the rule of law has been in peril many times throughout United States history- yet the nation nonetheless survived on through it all. The reason for this is that the system of government created by the drafters of the United States Constitution- that all famed “assembly of demigods”– works. This nation has pulled through various wars, rogue citizens’ militias intent on overthrowing the established government, violent warfare between citizens and a nation so split in two that half of the states ignored the established government to completely secede from it entirely, thereby refusing to acknowledge the superiority of the Federal government to preempt State action. Consider the words, below, of Abraham Lincoln in his special address to the United States Congress on July 4, 1861. On the outset, history must be given here that the rule of law was not being followed by the nation’s citizens, the Southern and border states were rebelling, and Lincoln’s address came in part because Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Roger B. Taney had sent a letter to Lincoln declaring his order to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to be Unconstitutional, as only Congress had the power to suspend the writ[iii]:

…And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic, or democracy–a government of the people by the same people–can or can not maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration according to organic law in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask, Is there in all republics this inherent and fatal weakness? Must a government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence…? So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation… This would be disunion completed…It recognizes no fidelity to the Constitution, no obligation to maintain the Union; and while very many who have favored it are doubtless loyal citizens, it is, nevertheless, very injurious in effect… This authority [suspending habeas corpus] has purposely been exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done under it are questioned, and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who is sworn to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” should not himself violate them… The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution in nearly one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen’s liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very limited extent be violated? To state the question more directly, Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it? It was decided that we have a case of rebellion and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power; but the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it can not be believed the framers of the instrument intended that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion…Whether there shall be any legislation upon the subject, and, if any, what, is submitted entirely to the better judgment of Congress… The forbearance of this Government had been so extraordinary and so long continued as to lead some foreign nations to shape their action as if they supposed the early destruction of our National Union was probable. While this on discovery gave the Executive some concern, he is now happy to say that the sovereignty and rights of the United States are now everywhere practically respected by foreign powers, and a general sympathy with the country is manifested throughout the world… In a word, the people will save their Government if the Government itself will do its part only indifferently well… It might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the present movement at the South be called “secession” or “rebellion.” The movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation of law. They knew their people possessed as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order, and as much pride in and reverence for the history and Government of their common country as any other civilized and patriotic people. They knew they could make no advancement directly in the teeth of these strong and noble sentiments. Accordingly, they commenced by an insidious debauching of the public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism, which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps through all the incidents to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is that any State of the Union may consistently with the National Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the Union without the consent of the Union or of any other State. The little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice… This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertaining to a State–to each State of our Federal Union. Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union… Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of “State rights,” asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the “sovereignty” of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a “sovereignty” in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it “a political community without a political superior”? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty; and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to be for her the supreme law of the land. The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. By conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independence and liberty it has… This relative matter of national power and State rights, as a principle, is no other than the principle of generality and locality. Whatever concerns the whole should be confided to the whole–to the General Government–while whatever concerns only the State should be left exclusively to the State. This is all there is of original principle about it. Whether the National Constitution in defining boundaries between the two has applied the principle with exact accuracy is not to be questioned. We are all bound by that defining without question… As a private citizen the Executive could not have consented that these institutions shall perish; much less could he in betrayal of so vast and so sacred a trust as these free people had confided to him. He felt that he had no moral right to shrink, nor even to count the chances of his own life in what might follow. In full view of his great responsibility he has so far done what he has deemed his duty. You will now, according to your own judgment, perform yours. He sincerely hopes that your views and your action may so accord with his as to assure all faithful citizens who have been disturbed in their rights of a certain and speedy restoration to them under the Constitution and the laws… …And having thus chosen our course, without guile and with pure purpose, let us renew our trust in God and go forward without fear and with manly hearts. ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

Lincoln had acknowledged in his address that he had “been called upon to “‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ and not himself violate the laws.”[iv] The president is not a lawmaker; his job is rather, as the very name of the branch he heads implies, to enforce the law[v]. Notice also that Lincoln in the above scenario did not reply to Taney directly but rather called Congress into a special session to address Congress personally to explain his actions and properly seek Congressional approval (as soon as was safely possible to do so). While the Supreme Court may hand down decisions, it ultimately has little power to enforce them.

Right now something akin to what is stated above can be seen in society- the rebellion of the states, the Supreme Court refusing to reopen cases regarding issues recently decided upon. Now the Supreme Court may refuse to pick up a case for a number of reasons (it does not have to say but rather can dismiss petitions for certiorari or appeal without comment), but sometimes the Court will refuse to hear a case solely because it does not wish to create new precedent during a sensitive time where the nation is either at war (and civil liberties will naturally be restricted beyond normal boundaries) or because the nation is undergoing a form of political upheaval where the Court’s decisions are either being ignored or the rule of law is not being followed. Despite the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, the States are nonetheless passing legislation in defiance of Supreme Court case law and they are largely doing so under the pretense that the current president will simply not enforce the laws that he or his political party doesn’t like. In other words, the States (most all of which are curiously Southern) are passing legislation because they believe they have a president who is “on their side” in a rebellion of sorts against the established order.

Lincoln’s aim was to preserve the Union and the rule of law. Though many in the Union were debating simply allowing the Confederate States to secede peacefully, history teaches that the Confederate force’s attacks on Fort Sumter started the war, and Lincoln, whose entire presidency was overshadowed by war, took the actions necessary to faithfully enforce the nation’s laws, preserve the spirit of law and values embedded in the Constitution and preserve the Union along with it. Although he ended up being the final casualty in the bloodiest war to be fought on American soil, the Union was nonetheless saved, the Rebel States and their citizens welcomed back to the Union, given a permanent place in the nation’s history, and the country moved on. The Constitution was amended to protect civil liberties. The checks and balances implemented by the Framers from the beginning worked, and the rule of law prevailed.[vi]

But what happens if the system stops working? The Supreme Court may hand down decisions, but it cannot enforce them. The law is the law (although it most certainly is not always just and there are many laws that should, in fact, be struck down and new legislation crafted to overrule those laws), but what if the President refuses to enforce it or follow it? Congress may stop him, compel him through various means or pass legislation to address any grievance or serious issue that society faces, but what if Congress, split in two on account of the country’s division, is too weak to act? If Congress cannot act, the Executive must make quick and decisive action to save the Union and rule of law- but what if he won’t? What if he- and a majority of his party- believe he himself is the law?

I will make a summary here, and that summary is that there are too many people making decisions. America was created as a Republic. It was left to the individual states to decide how the electors of the Electoral College should be chosen. It was left to Congress to make the laws, an independent judiciary, set apart from popular opinion, to wisely interpret their legality and a single unitary executive– at least partially at the command of Congress- to enforce them. But what if the president doesn’t believe in an independent judiciary[vii] and political upheaval, civilian rioting and ultimately war cause the civil courts in their entirety to vacate and cease to function? The question is, what happens then? Nothing lasts forever. The very fact that the United States Constitution has held intact for over two centuries is a world record, but what would succeed it? Democracies always commit suicide in the end, because it is a fact of life that majority rule cannot for long uphold the rule of law nor can the majority of the citizens of any given population truly sit in reasoned judgement on the issues and reason rationally about them. As I have always said, there’s a reason why the number of citizens in any given population will always far outnumber the amount of wise judges-who will always be few in number.

—————————-

[i] I have a tag titled “the vote” on this site, to be found here https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/tag/the-vote/ where I talk about the vote for women in numerous postings, in all of which I have rejected the idea of female suffrage on grounds explicitly stated. In particular my former posting Thoughts on Coverture, Suffrage, Chivalry, Patriarchy and the Natural Order https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/thoughts-on-coverture-suffrage-chivalry-patriarchy-and-the-natural-order/ says it all the best. More than anything, it is my belief that the involvement of women in politics and women’s “advancement” is part of the problem of this country’s division. I also should note that Republican women are by far the most feminist in my opinion, only sparring with feminists on the other side of the political spectrum as regards abortion politics yet hardly anywhere else. Far from making things better for women, the only thing that I have yet to see is women engaging in war against other women while men simply become passive bystanders, emasculated with victim complexes and a fear, hatred and distrust of women in general. I propose that the relations between the sexes in the modern era are part of the problem as to why the rule of law is ultimately breaking down and why the checks and balances in the American system of government are something that society can no longer take for granted.

[ii] I’ve talked about Trump before and how I am not a fan, but I simply understand too much about the inner workings of the law and political system to bother to get into any kind of “hot debate” over the president- no matter who holds office. https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2018/02/21/the-appearance-of-impropriety/

[iii] This issue is explored in depth more fully by two books by the former late Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court William H. Rehnquist: See generally, William H. Rehnquist, All The Laws But One, Civil Liberties in Wartime (Vintage, 1998); William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court (Vintage, 2001).

[iv] Quoted from The Supreme Court, supra, p. 67.

[v] See Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952). This case also demonstrates the remarkable way the rule of law still works when Truman complied with the mandates of the Supreme Court. This and other instances in United States history showcase the brilliance of the “checks and balances” built into the system of government and its remarkable ability to withstand the test of time. See also The President and the Snowflakes https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2018/04/17/the-president-and-the-snowflakes/

[vi] There was rebellion and Congress used its remarkable powers to coerce the rebel states to fall in line with its mandates, from denying representation to the states who refused to comply, to using its Enforcement Powers https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/14/essays/175/enforcement-clause to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1866 against the South. The fact that the Reconstruction Amendments were largely passed despite Southern resistance (and even resistance from president Andrew Johnson himself) also shows the inherent powers of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government whenever it is determined and united on an issue. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-codes ; https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html

[vii] See Preserving the Courts https://protectdemocracy.org/preserving-courts/ for discussion about current president Donald Trump and former presidents who have defied the Supreme Court on the preservation of an independent judiciary.

Traditional Living Advice for Traditional Gals: Common Questions, Answers and Myths

This is part of a series of posts about being domestic and living traditionally for all interested ladies (or curious gentlemen) out there. Companion Q& A piece from That Stepford Gal to this article here. 

Q: Domestic women are stagnant and dependent just being at home. Don’t you want to use your talents in a career?

There’s nothing wrong with a female being dependent upon and serving her family. So what if it’s not normal to society? What is normal to society? Being obese, watching hours of television every day, being stressed, being in debt and having poor-quality or nonexistent romantic relationships with the opposite sex? A woman depending on her man breeds a closer, deeper relationship and makes families stable. Why would a man work at all or fight at all out there in the world if not for a woman or family that he loves? It gives a man purpose and meaning in life and makes women less stressed and more feminine. A career is not the only way to use one’s talents. It is only seen as the only way because of the emphasis put on women having careers in the post-feminist society.

Q: Domestic women are lazy and don’t want to work. Why do you just want to be at home and do nothing?

Most people are lazy. Period. Most housewives I know are not lazy, unless they are really career women on temporary leave, or as fellow traditionalist blogger That Stepford Gal likes to call it, “a three-year nanny for hire.” True traditional women love to be feminine and keep a good home. Anyone can come home and toss the laundry in the wash and throw a microwave dinner in the oven and throw some dishes in the dishwasher with food still caked all over them, but truly making a home and doing it right is exhausting, time-consuming and draining work- even with all the modern technology a housewife has in the 21st century. Have you seen most people’s houses where both partners/spouses work? Case closed. Unless they hire someone to clean it, you probably wouldn’t even want to eat there. But traditional women make homemaking an art to cherish and do with delight.

Q: Domestic women cannot afford to be at home. What about getting a house and saving? You’ll have nothing.

Most people are in debt. When you destroy marriage you also destroy property and inheritance as well. The idea that women can’t “afford” to be home has no basis in reality. You make do with what you have and over time you gain more assets. Husband and wife are a team. Attacks on marriage are also attacks on property as property cannot be passed down through the generations so that one’s children and grandchildren can have something to start out with to build a life on their own. But anyone can live on one income. Historically, women with husbands who earned the most money went out to work while poor women stayed home. It’s still the same today. What I’ve found as I’ve gotten a bit older is that the majority of commonly quoted mainstream beliefs are untrue and unfounded, if not plain-out false, and I’ve found this to be the same with the idea that women can’t afford to be housewives. The only women who can’t afford to be housewives are either women who’ve made extremely poor choices in life or women who simply don’t want to be housewives.

Related Postings:

https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/questioning-economic-necessity/

https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/there-has-never-been-an-easier-time-for-women-to-stay-home/

https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/where-are-the-men-the-case-for-male-breadwinners/

The Sanctity of Marriage

As is always the way with me, I’m a thinker, a doer. Lately it has been on my mind to write a few things. Many aspects in life and including the comments I’ve received here have led me to think about these things. First off, I just want to say that it shouldn’t matter what anyone else thinks about the way you choose to live your life whenever you choose to live in a traditional way. I don’t have anyone I’m trying to please and the opinions even of my own relatives are unimportant to me. What they think about my lifestyle doesn’t matter.

Recently I had to send a formal letter to my own mother telling her that I wished no further contact with neither her nor any of my relatives. They were interfering in my life and it concerned me. It was getting completely out of hand. They would rather see my marriage ruined, they would rather see me finish college and live the life they want for me to be living[i].

But the thing is that none of that matters to me. And I’m writing and saying all of this because I know just how many young women out there are facing the same pressures from relatives[ii]. But like I told my own mother, I love her- I really do- I’ve always longed for a good relationship with her but I know that it’s just never going to happen. Ultimately, they are not what is of importance. They want me to live in a certain way but they won’t be the ones who ultimately pay the price for the life they believe I should be living- I will be.

Traditionally the law threw a cloak over marriage[iii][iv]. Even in religious beliefs, it is well established that a man and women leave the sphere of their relatives and join together. From then on out they are one and all others take second stage (or in some cases, such as is often the case with friends and acquaintances, cease to matter altogether). Only in matriarchal or tribal societies does marriage not take on such importance[v]. In these kinds of societies, even the raising of children becomes some community matter and there are no permanent and stable romantic relationships between men and women.

The existence and establishment of “gender equality” and “gay marriage” have lessened the importance and sacredness of marriage by obliterating separate rights and responsibilities between the sexes and stripping the true meaning from sex- but even here many jurisdictions still cloak marriage in various ways (such as exclusive rights to offspring within the marriage and immunity regarding testifying in criminal/civil cases). Where the last of these privileges fall by the wayside, it means that society no longer sees marriage as something worth preserving nor protecting.

This showcases what marriage traditionally meant to our society. Traditionally, the husband was head of the household. His wife and his children were his[vi]. The marriage was sacred and outsiders had no right to come in and interfere with the relationship of a man and his wife, or of parents and their legitimate offspring unless compelling circumstances necessitated the law’s interference. When you take away the foundations of the institution of marriage you also strip away all these protections.

Also keep in mind here that it doesn’t matter what the “majority” are supposedly thinking. Your average, ordinary citizen is largely ignorant of the law[vii] and the world around him (or her). Despite all our fancy technological gadgets, human beings are not any more or less ignorant than what we were thousands of years ago. Human nature doesn’t change and likewise humans tend to let emotion overwhelm them and get into a mob mentality where all common sense flies out the window. But that’s why your average, ordinary citizen doesn’t have the power to make laws or policies[viii].

It doesn’t matter what others say or do. Your best protection is to educate yourself (this can be done outside of formal settings) and marry a good man while you’re young. From there on out- no matter what the society might say right now as the society is not always right- your husband should be your everything. A young woman should start out by looking to her husband for everything. He should be your protection, your provision and your guidance that you look to. You will also hold great influence over him as well as many a man have accomplished great things when they had the guidance and support of a good and faithful woman by their side.

Relatives, in-laws, friends can all be nasty and vicious and tear apart marriages if they are allowed to. That’s why the marital relationship must be first in importance and why we need to get to the point in society once again where the husband is the head of house and responsible for his family and, absent compelling circumstances, rights are only established and defined within the state of marriage. In our world today, marriage is regarded as a mere piece of paper that is optional whenever men and women procreate with each other- but this has got to change.

The marriage protects your privacy, the marriage protects your well-being. Also realize your influence as a woman. I never felt that my mother or relatives had my best interests at heart, which is why I always rejected the things they wanted for me and I always left their side and their influence to bond with my husband. I knew that my protection was only going to be found in him. I knew that no one else could ever protect, love or understand me the same. Others will invade on your home, attempt to run your life and invade your personal sphere and privacy if they are allowed to. Marriage should block this from happening and traditionally it always did by clearing establishing rights and responsibilities that could not be obtained anywhere else[ix].

Under coverture, for instance, husband and wife were considered as one[x]. A wife could represent her husband or conduct business in his absence even if need be, as they were one. A man could take his wife, wherever he found her, and take her with him wherever he went, as he had a right to keep her by his side and nobody had a right to keep him from her (unless she had obtained a legal separation from him). This protected her, and this protected the husband as well. A wife had a right to the support and protection of her husband, as he was responsible for her[xi]. He had the obligation to support her, and this ensured her security when she left her family and had children. The idea is to leave one’s relatives and cling to one another, forsaking all others[xii]. Even where your children are concerned, teach them the sanctity of marriage as one day they will leave the home to form their own families.

When the law upholds traditional marriage, the door can be slammed in the face of outsiders and all others as what goes on inside the home is sacred, because the marital relationship is sacred. I know that my husband knows me better than anyone else, and being there under his wing keeps others from harming and harassing me. My privacy is assured, my security is assured. This is important.

————————————

[i] This is what life looks like when following the feminist plan, check out my earlier article where I discussed my thoughts regarding this: https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/why-young-women-shouldnt-listen-to-their-mothers-generation/

[ii] One recent comment (though there have been many just the same) on one of my recent postings showcases the pressures many women get, being forced into feminist lifestyles which they do not want on account of pressure from relatives https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2017/11/30/listen-to-me-victimology-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1133

[iii] For another example of the law legally cloaking marriage and protecting children and families, see The United States Supreme Court case of Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989)

[iv] There are numerous ways in which the law has done this, from spousal immunity to testifying in criminal trials, to disallowing paternity suits to children born within marriage, to protection in cases of disability and death, etc… Some states, such as California and New York, for instance, no longer regard marriage as a sacred institution, instead declaring that a child may even have as many as three legal parents in California, https://verdict.justia.com/2013/10/15/california-allows-children-two-legal-parents an unmarried father having the right to claim rights to a child being raise by a woman and her lawful husband, and New York, for instance, recognizes no protections regarding privileged communications even regarding those occurring within legal marriage before the marriage has broken down.

[v] The Mosuo, from China, for instance, are probably the last modern example of this kind of matriarchal family structure: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/01/the-kingdom-of-women-the-tibetan-tribe-where-a-man-is-never-the-boss https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/19/china-mosuo-tribe-matriarchy The Late Daniel Amneus also portrayed the matriarchal way in his infamous book “The Garbage Generation: On the Need for Patriarchy” which showcases that many historical societies had no concept of even the word “father” as is the custom in patriarchal societies.

[vi] See my previous article https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/the-wrongs-of-the-mens-movement/ for more info on a father’s authority under coverture

[vii] Look at this poll, for instance, as reported in an article on CNN https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/poll-constitution/index.html which states that more than 1/3 of individuals surveyed couldn’t name a single right protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, only ¼ could name all three branches of government, and 1/3 couldn’t name any branch of government.

[viii] The framers of the Constitution intentionally feared a direct democracy, as well as too strong of a central government (even though they realized a stronger centralized government was necessary as the Articles of Confederation were weak and thus had to be repealed, and ultimately replaced, with the new Constitution that called for a Republic form of government where people elect representatives but do not directly make the laws and policies), and feared putting important matters in the hands of the common people http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Why%20Our%20Founders%20Feared%20a%20Democracy.htm

[ix] The old protections of marriage are numerous and plentiful. Check out some of my earlier articles on illegitimacy, for instance, for more references to ways in which this is so: https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/tag/illegitimacy/

[x] See, for instance, William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England https://www.thoughtco.com/blackstone-commentaries-profile-3525208 ; http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/blackstone-commentaries-on-the-laws-of-england-in-four-books-vol-1 As American law is derivative of the common law of England, which was adopted by the colonists and still, to this day, remain our laws unless otherwise changed.

[xi] Consider the old English common-law “Doctrine of Necessaries” https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/doctrine-of-necessaries/

[xii] Though still treading the bounds of political correctness, consider this article which cites Biblical references about forsaking all others within marriage: Protecting Marriage from Outside Intruders: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kreitz/christian/Boundaries/09intruders.pdf

The Appearance of Impropriety

Former United States President Abraham Lincoln once stated, concerning who he was as a man, president and a public official, “I must not only be chaste, but above suspicion.” Mr. Lincoln knew that propriety- in both his public and private life- was a necessity, as all of our ancestors once did, in order to be seen as credible, respected and taken seriously.

When it comes to such issues that society deals with today, such as sexual harassment, or even the marijuana issue, for instance, it is clear that our society is asking all of the wrong questions, as well as focusing on all of the wrong issues, and this is mainly so because nobody wants to touch the electric barbed-wired fence that is feminism or any of its related issues. As well, Americans in general seem to have this whole “It’s a free country, so I can do whatever the Hell I damned well please” kind of outlook on life- even though such a view is largely fictional and holds no realistic standing under the law.

Law enforcement officers on every level are held to certain codes of ethical behavior as they are representatives of the law and of our social customs and values- and the President of the United States is the highest law enforcement officer in the land. It’s even more telling that ethical codes of conduct are being dropped even in the lowest standing trial courts of the land, where shootings and violence are now routine occurrences and foul-mouthed behavior has even become commonplace amongst prosecution and defense lawyers and judges.

Whether anyone loves Donald Trump or hates him, he is, nonetheless, a reflection of who we are as a people. He directly reflects upon us- and any group of people, if they are to survive and coexist with one another, must have a certain set of rules, laws and policies that govern their behavior and their interactions with one another. Culture and law are not separate from one another, but rather reflect upon and influence each other.

My take on this sexual harassment issue is that, yes, it is a load of BS. I think most people at this point would agree with such a consensus, despite the prevalence of the #MeToo movement and other “girl power” schemes that encourage women to be “strong” and stand up against “misogynistic” men (no mention of men having any actual duty here, other than perhaps to be “good little boys” who follow the rules feminism has laid out and be dictated by the whims and rule of females). However, the laws and policies against sexual harassment- as well as other related social issues- came into being for a reason.

As a society we can conclude that family is important, the care and well-being of children is important and essential, and as well, if we can conclude all of these things, we can also easily conclude that sexuality- and in particular female sexuality- is of upmost importance to society. Sexuality plays a central role in all of our lives from the very moment that we are born (if not before). Therefore, the regulation of how we (both males and females) express ourselves sexually and what we do with our sexuality is always going to be of concern to society.

Where once social custom and common law largely dictated the “rules” regarding sex and sexuality as well as family arrangements, all of the old restraints and boundaries have largely been done away with in modern society, necessitating the creation of entirely new polices and laws to take their place because the behavior (including sexual behavior and codes of conduct) of individuals in any society must always be subject to regulation and boundaries. Without regulation, there would be no civilization as individuals would have free reign to trample all over the rights, dignity and personal/property boundaries of one another. It would be a true case of survival-of-the-fittest and the people would still eventually have to come together to form a system of regulation and government, even if only informally.

If we, as a society, wish to do away with the post-feminist polices that have disrupted the order of family relations, relations between men and women and have created distrust, suspicion, burn-out, and placed antagonism between personal and romantic relationships and men and women, then we must replace the current laws and polices with other laws and policies that we might conclude to be more effective and fair to all parties.

It is not unreasonable for society to conclude that, with males being physically larger on average and stronger than females, as well as being the ones who penetrate and impregnate, that men should be held to higher standards of behavior in regards to how they conduct themselves towards and around women. The same holds true in regards to interactions of adults around children (even though these restraints, too, are largely being eradicated). We’ve dropped the idea that men should take care of women to replace it with the (entirely irrational and ineffective) fantasy idea that men and women should be “equals” and compete with one another entirely independent one sex from the other. Our laws, policies and social customs now reflect this viewpoint. But is such a thing rational, effective or productive? And to what ends?

Yes, I, as a woman, take offense at many aspects of Donald Trump’s behavior towards women. Blatantly disregarding and refusing chivalry to the First Lady, multiple divorces, offensive public discourse regarding women, scandals surrounding alleged extramarital affairs with porn stars and Playboy models, all show an appearance of impropriety, turning the presidency into little more than a joke and a position that cannot be respected nor taken seriously and clearly showcasing how low we as a society have sunk to. (If our law enforcement officers and elected officials do not even respect the rule of law nor hold themselves to ethical standards of behavior then why should anyone else? How can we respect such a rule of law or system of government at all?)

Without a doubt, all men are thinking the same things that Donald Trump has gone and said out loud. It’s just the way men are. They look, they fantasize, they like women and they like *****. Nonetheless, social custom (as well as common-sense) used to dictate that, just because a man thinks it, he should, nonetheless, be held to a certain standard of behavior in how he talks and behaves around women. Custom used to also dictate that women had a corresponding duty to be chaste and command respect from men, which is just as equally important.

As even some writers in the manosphere have stated, speaking out against their own fellow men, there isn’t a father in his right mind who would want his own daughter to come into contact with men who comport themselves in such a way; with “players” and men who act in narcissistic, abusive, Machiavellian, sadistic and perverted ways- the very behaviors that the red-pill and Pick-Up-Artist types teach men to become; the very behaviors that feminism has also allowed and encouraged. And being that Donald Trump is often heralded as a hero in the manosphere I’d say this is very telling for who and what we have become as a people. Why? Because all standards of ethical and appropriate sexual behavior and boundaries have been washed away. We are a civilization in despair seeking hedonism to relieve the pain, loneliness, brokenness and torment of our modern existence. We are a civilization without restraint, without control.

We can create any policies and laws that we as a people want. However, there is a cause-and-effect relationship with any law and policy and each law and policy proposed has to also be examined for its effects upon society and the individuals who will be subjected to said laws and policies. They must be evaluated for their effectiveness as well as reasonableness. The current laws, customs and policies simply do not function well to create order, stability, harmony, and prosperity. They don’t function well and will, inevitably, have to be re-written and done away with to be replaced with more workable and logical laws and policies- no matter who it might offend. And it will always offend somebody.

Gender equality doesn’t work. It’s that simple. Men and women are not the same nor is our sexuality the same. Until we, as a society, can acknowledge such a thing, there will be constant antagonism and war between men and women. There will be no peace. Nor can we make this a conservative vs liberal thing, or a Republican vs Democrat thing. It is a society-wide issue that reflects upon our culture, our nation and our values as a whole.

Because Women Wanted it That Way

I think it is one of the saddest things, that at Christmas dinner I noticed my cousin was starting to act like a royal jackass to me and the other women in the family. It was completely unprecedented and I had to wonder what on earth was going on with him. This is the cousin that I grew up with, the same fun-loving one that used to laugh and joke and generally have a good time with everyone.

He got married a few years back and they have a daughter (I think she’s about 3) together. But I also know that my cousin has never been the primary breadwinner for his family and I’ve seen what has amounted to him acting very un-masculine in many respects, even going so far as to engage in lots of “baby-talk” and the like with others around him, signifying that he’s been engaging in a lot of primary child-care work. He also looked pretty uncomfortable whenever his wife mentioned to my husband that she was working two jobs there for a while to take care of them, which made me wonder if there was something more going on with him, like perhaps some underlying feeling of emasculation or inferiority, and then, given a couple of comments that I overheard with him saying that “everything has to be PC these days” I had to wonder in all seriousness if he’d begun to frequent manosphere or red-pill blogs. I have no way of knowing if he does (or has) for sure, of course.

The thing is that his wife is a wonderful woman and my cousin is a great guy. As far as I know, he’s never had any legal trouble and hasn’t ever done any drugs or really consumed alcohol hardly at all, and in his younger years he’d always frequent the gym and stay in good shape and everything. But I noticed too that there was this subtle antagonism between him and his wife, an antagonism that I’ve never seen before, like she was keeping him at arm’s length. In fact, over the years they’ve always been so close; always talking about their future together and hoping they’d last a lifetime the way our grandparents did. Though it’s not my business or anybody’s else’s (for the most part) about what is or isn’t happening in their relationship, it’s also true that sometimes those on the outside can see things that those on the inside, in the midst of the drama, cannot. And I saw things I had never seen before.

Though I’ve never cried before over my grandfather’s passing (he wouldn’t want me or anybody else to) I did cry for a while whenever I got home, thinking what he might have said had he still been alive today and had been there.

My grandfather was a product of a generation of men who knew what it meant to be honorable and chivalrous towards women and those weaker than themselves, and knew what it took to have a marriage that lasted a lifetime and knew the meaning and value of hard work. They weren’t “weak,” they weren’t “beta,” they were real men in a world where everyone knew their place and what was expected of them.

There were times when him and my grandmother were still raising their children that he would work at the factory for 12 hours a day, oftentimes 7 days a week. He was also a WWII veteran who went to war straight out of high-school, never complaining or whining that women weren’t drafted, whenever his country called him to. My grandfather also worked for a long time as an electrician, and they resided in various locations around the country, primarily in California, Texas, Arkansas and Illinois. My grandmother was telling me about it once how you would just get used to the routine of getting up where she’d fix his breakfast and lunch and then he’d come home, and they’d go to sleep, only to get up and do it all over again the next day. Contrast that life to the life now where we have nothing but a generation of complainers and men that won’t grow up and have no sense of any ethical duty that they owe towards women.

But it’s not all the men’s fault. The fact of the matter is that most men, I believe, would rather take care of women. I’ve had men e-mail me and leave comments on the site saying even how they’d love to have lasting relationships, be chivalrous and take care of women, but that they have no success with women when they do so. Some have even commented that, from what they see, women want nothing more than men who are jerks.

It has to be understood that men out there in the manosphere or red-pill blogs aren’t out there promoting their ideals or adapting their behaviors unilaterally according to their own selfish desires, but rather they are responding to what they believe that women want.
Have you ever considered why, as policy, that men made more money than women? That only men were allowed to vote? That men were considered heads-of household? That men primarily have always held positions higher up in companies and political office? The one thing that society refuses to consider is that this was the cultural and legal way because women wanted it that way.

Women want their men to be strong and dominant and in a world where women are outpacing men in all areas of life (academically, politically, economically, socially) the game changes to be one of men becoming sadists, jerks, and assholes in order to please their women or have any romantic success with them. Most men, from what it seems (I’m not a man so correct me if I’m truly wrong here, I’m just going by observation and what I’ve been able to research) don’t really want to be jerks, engage in BDSM or any of those things. It’s actually women who want those things. Consider that the Fifty-Shades culture was promoted primarily by women, not men.

If women are superior to their men naturally in everyday life or “equal” to them, then the only thing left is for men to degrade women. But the reality is that nobody is truly happy that way. Game-playing doesn’t last. Sooner or later the mask is going to slip off and then the truth emerges. Are you genuine or has it all been a put-on show?

Men of the past didn’t have to degrade their women because everybody (men, women and children) “knew their place” and everybody had their own roles to play. Men could be chivalrous and not turn women off because women were still largely dependent on men. I depend upon my husband to protect me and provide for all my needs. It’s the way that I bond with him- truly, really, deeply. He doesn’t have to play games, though he does have to be masculine. He doesn’t have to degrade me because I’m already weaker than him and dependent on him. I rejected independence and paid employment primarily because I didn’t want to create that separation. I wanted to rely on him as bigger and stronger than me so I didn’t have to think about the outside world and could just hold onto him and let him lead me. It allows him to be dominant in a non-abusive and non-degrading way that is beneficial instead of harmful and counterproductive and I don’t have to feel bad afterward but rather happy and content.

After we were first married he tried to degrade me and call me names one time during sex and I started crying, yelling at him and telling him to get off of me and not to touch me. I didn’t like it. I wanted to feel safe and protected in the arms of a strong man that I depended on, not degraded. Guess what? He never did it again. But we were both young, and he was probably only doing it because he’d heard it passed around that “women like jerks” and erroneously thought it would turn me on. Once he discovered it wouldn’t work, he stopped doing it.

And women need to understand this. Men are generally clueless about women anyway and what women want but it’s made all the worse when feminist-minded women are the only ones given the spotlight in the media, speaking about what “all” women supposedly want. It’s a very confusing thing for both sexes because nobody knows how to act or what is expected of them.

This is where women have to be assertive and make it known to their men what they really want. If you’re into a guy but he’s acting like a jerk then you need to let him know that you don’t like it and that you aren’t going to consider taking things further with him unless he gives you the respect and consideration you deserve and require. This doesn’t mean being dominant. It’s not asserting power over men for women to tell men what they want and what they need or demand respect. It is essential.

If the modern woman continues to demand that men put on the clown suit and play that role, then men will do it. However, for all the women out there (and the ones that contact me too who are traditional ladies) who want tradition, you need to speak up. Let your voice be heard that feminists don’t speak for you and also that men engaging in games that the red-pill teaches is not acceptable behavior. Tell the men in your life that you want them to be more traditional, chivalrous and they will oblige. Who cares what others think? The ones who put you down have probably already destroyed their lives and failed in their relationships and want to drag you down to their level to feel better about themselves and raise their own value. We are the products of a generation of men and women who taught their sons and daughters how to fail in life– plain and simple. Our parents are all divorced and a product of a largely spoiled generation that refused to ever grow up. Their only legacy- unlike the legacy of my grandfather’s generation and the generations that came before- is one of devastation and destruction.

Men and women don’t trust each other- and for good reason. Things weren’t even this bad whenever I was growing up (and that was only a short time ago). I don’t think men really want to treat women bad, they just feel that they don’t have any other choice. Consider the culture around us and where it’s heading. It’s plain awful. But men are only adapting according to women’s preferences (no matter how much they insist otherwise). In a world where women depend upon men to provide for them and take care of them, men don’t have to be jerks because they already have an important part to play in society and are in the dominant position because women need them. Society today says women don’t- and shouldn’t- need men.

I don’t like it when my husband acts weak or soft and I’ve told him so. There are times when he can get away with it but, especially if things are bad in the relationship, he’s going to have to step up and act more dominant than he might normally act. There are times when a man has to be more serious and put aside foolishness in accordance with the needs of his woman and his family. But that doesn’t mean playing games. Game playing doesn’t work in the long-term. Any man can be a jerk and get a woman’s attention short-term, just the same as any woman can flaunt herself in front of a man and get his attention in the short-term- but it doesn’t last. Men have just as much of a need to bond as what women do (more, perhaps), whether or not they will admit it (would you seriously like it if they did admit just how vulnerable they are to needing a woman? Probably not. As a woman you just want to instinctively know and feel that it’s true) and history can teach to us what works and doesn’t work. Isn’t that why we study it?

A civilization where women are dominant over men and men do nothing more than play games is simply not practical and in the end nobody wants such a thing and everybody is miserable. Plain and simple. So, as we head into 2018, I think it’s time for society to make a change and time for traditionalist men and women to finally have our voices heard. And trust me, I think that day is finally coming. I might have been a lone freak 5 or 6 years ago promoting traditional gender roles and modesty (which is at the heart of a woman’s happiness and even sexual pleasure), but not now.

Recommended:

The Failure of Feminism