Category Archives: Commentary

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

Advertisements

The Wake-Up Call

Sometimes in my spare time I like to watch old classic and vintage movies and TV shows. A while back I was watching a show called The Real McCoys. In one of the episodes, Grandpa and all of the guys were sitting around talking and one of the men starts chiming in about how he “runs his house” while all the men praise him as some sort of hero for it and it seems, at least on the outside, that what he’s saying might be true as it appears that his wife is doing what he’s telling her to do. Then one evening, however, the men are sitting around at his house (the guy who was doing all the talking about how he “ran his house” and “ran” his wife) drinking beer and playing cards when his wife comes home and they go in the bedroom and start arguing, with the wife complaining about the men being there and the husband then apologizing to her and everything. Meanwhile, all of the guys have their ears pressed up against the door listening to the whole conversation and hearing the wife berate the husband for having the guys there so late at night in the house. The guys then back off when they hear the couple coming out of the bedroom, look at each other kind of disappointed-like and say they better be getting home. Later on in the episode when they’re all alone, Grandpa tells his grandson, Luke, that all that talk about him “running” his grandmother was a load of hogwash. He then confesses that it was only true half of the time, and the other half of the time she “ran” him. Not only that, but he also confesses to his grandson that “…The truth is, I guess I just kinda miss it.” He says all this to his grandson and tells his grandson that he has a good and sweet wife, and he just didn’t want to see him go and ruin his relationship with her.

The truth of the matter is, a man’s authority is never 100%. A man is only given authority to fulfill his responsibilities to provide for and protect his wife and children or anyone else that is depending on him. A man also must have standing in order to assert authority; meaning, a man must be operating in his rightful role and fulfilling his responsibilities in order to be able to claim any kind of genuine authority over a woman (or anyone else).

To put it another way, consider how the courts consider if a person’s “rights” have been violated. A person must first have some sort of standing to be able to make a claim to some sort of rights or violation of rights. Take the instance of, say, a claim of an “unreasonable search or seizure.” An example would be when law enforcement come and search you or any property you have in your possession or a place where you are staying. An individual would first have to make a showing to the court that they not only had a right to be in the place that they were at, but also that they had a legitimate interest in or right of ownership to the property. If the individual doesn’t own the property, live there and maintain it, isn’t lawfully occupying it (long-term or temporarily), or has simply disposed of the property and shown no further interest in it, then the individual has no standing in regards to the property and thus there has been no violation of rights- because the individual had no right to the property in the first place or was only using or occupying it for unlawful and illegitimate purposes.

A woman is under no obligation to obey her husband if he is in the wrong. Also, sometimes a man may not realize the consequences of his actions and sometimes he falters, as well. In such a case it is up to his wife (or in some cases perhaps even his children) to tell him that he’s in the wrong and that he’s hurting them or depriving them of some legitimate need that they have a right to (a “legitimate need” being any physical need that is his responsibility to provide- food, shelter, clothing- or, in some instances, a true psychological need such as affection or love). As well, sometimes a man simply doesn’t realize that his actions are harming his family, harming his wife, or even that there’s a problem in the first place. In this case, if a woman never stands up for herself then nothing is ever going to change. No matter what men like to say, the truth of the matter is that most women have to make men grow up and take responsibility or else they never really will.

I think there was a true wake-up call for my husband yesterday. I didn’t go out and take on paid employment or anything like that, but I have been doing a lot of work to help my husband with activities and responsibilities that rightfully fall within his domain. Last night, however, the stress of it all was just getting to me too badly and my husband sat there at the table and watched me cry my eyes out. I was stressed, I was hurting, I was deprived of rest, angry towards him, and simply couldn’t take any more. Not only that, I’m a woman and deal with female issues too that were hitting me pretty hard. It was at that point that things changed, especially after a text message that was taken the wrong way. I was telling him how stressed I was and then the next thing I know I had a message come across with him telling me how he was going to come home and pop the cork on a bottle of wine and have a drink.

I began to get belligerently angry at that point and told him he was an idiot (YES I said those exact words), slammed down the phone, dropped everything I had been doing to help him and went right back to what I should have been doing all along- my duties as a wife and as a mother.

When he came home he said that it was taken out of context and that he just intended for us to relax together that evening, but nonetheless, I took it as him saying he was going to come home and start drinking while I sat there doing work that he rightfully should have been doing. I told him, plain and simple, that I had duties to fulfill as a wife and mother and those duties did not include fulfilling his responsibilities while he came home and sat around drinking! Though that was never his intention to do and it only came out wrong, it nonetheless got me thinking that there are a lot of women who deal with this exact same thing (as well as many other issues with their men). And guess what? Things will never change unless a woman makes it clear to a man that his behavior is not acceptable and refuses to go along with it. After I went off on him and refused to touch his responsibilities, guess who stopped watching television and started doing what he should have been doing in the first place?

Inside of marriage or outside, men just simply aren’t going to grow up if women are not making them do so. They aren’t going to marry, they aren’t going to be responsible husbands or fathers or ANYTHING unless women start demanding it of them. And it doesn’t matter one bit what men say. There’s such a thing called “talking shit”- and men- all men- do a lot of it. But in the end, women DO have the power to make men act better and change their ways. A woman does this with her love, a woman does this by being chaste and being a dutiful wife and mother and clearly communicating her needs to a man. Most of all, a woman does this by refusing to participate in activities that harm her, that go against what is right, and by refusing to submit to a man who is not operating within his rightful role or assuming his rightful responsibilities.

Also, a wife and mother has authority over her children as well as certain aspects of the household, which also means she has certain responsibilities therein. If she must do the man’s duties, then she must neglect her own responsibilities or else do both while her health and well-being suffers and the man is given free rein to act immature and irresponsible. I put down what I was doing for him, refused to touch it again as it had been consuming too much of my time and putting unnecessary stress on me and went to do my own duties. Ultimately, most men would probably much prefer it this way anyway, as it means the feminine things are taken care of.

I relaxed this morning. Even though I didn’t get all that much sleep, I still oddly felt like I had rested enough (probably because a lot of the strain was gone) and I laid in bed a bit longer while my daughter was up getting ready for school until it was time for her to leave. If nothing else, I was psychologically more at peace. It’s unreasonable, especially when I already deal with feminine issues that really hit me hard to also deal with male responsibilities. (My husband used to think things like “PMS” and the like were just women exaggerating- until he got married. Now he sees first hand, EVERY MONTH in symptoms that last for at least one to two weeks, how hard those things really do hit women and how much of a stress it is and what women actually go through- including a lot of physical pain and emotional strain- on account of our biology.)

I spent the morning doing all the girly things I do and taking care of the home. Nothing is neglected in the home now as it’s all pretty and clean and smells nice. He bought me a pretty shaded up-lamp yesterday and I put it in the kitchen for decoration and to give some soft lighting and I like to light up candles, spray freshener in the room and keep some flowers on the counter-top to make things all pretty, as well as make sure the floors are freshly swept and mopped. I like to take my time in making my own home in my own soft and feminine ways and always smiling while I do so.  As a wife and mother, even after many years, I’ve still kept my beautiful figure, pretty long hair, still stay freshly showered and wear makeup and pretty clothes, still act feminine and girly, and keep the house fresh and clean and everything organized. I like all the girly feminine things. He keeps me, loves me, protects me and has sheltered me for all these years so I get to remain all soft and fragile-like and feminine. It’s also the best anti-aging regimen one could ask for.

There’s nothing more wonderful than keeping a beautiful (even if only a simple) home and having a loving family. So always pass such wisdom on to your daughters and teach them the ways to be feminine, chaste, and keep a good home and love their husbands and family with all their hearts.

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

Victimology

Victimhood

Victimology– or the study of crime from the unique perspective of the victim. It’s an interesting thing, really. It would seem to fit under the broader scope of sociology, but being as how it relates to criminal justice, it actually falls under the broader category of study known as criminology.

The one thing one learns when studying victimology is the impact that crime actually has on the victim, which leads to the idea that the law should put focus onto the victim, as opposed to solely on the prosecution and punishment of the perpetrator, as if the law and society owes something special to the victim or has a duty or obligation to the victims of crime.

On the flipside, the study of victimology also showcases why some people become victims. Without a doubt, it’s not right to put the blame solely on the victim when the blame should rest on the one who has actually done the wrong. Just because somebody is at the wrong place at the wrong time or is acting without caution doesn’t give anybody the right to commit a wrong-doing against them. However, the reality of life is that most people who become victims of crime become victims because they put themselves in a situation that exposes them to criminal acts, or they associate with others who themselves are criminals. This is borne out by the evidence. While there are some things that are out of our control, we all have the power to control our own destiny.

It could be said that the rise in victimology as an actual scientific field of study gave rise to the idea that some people, or groups of people, are “victims” of society and deserving of some special status or compensation or recognition by the government as such. This could certainly be said to be the case of the women’s movement that brought us new legislation to change the definitions of what constitutes violence and rape. One wonders how the female half of the human race (or the human race at all) has survived for millennia when before feminist domestic violence and rape legislation we were at the mercy of these misogynist beasts society likes to call men. Does it make sense that the stronger half of the species (males) would be programmed to want to harm the weaker half of the species (women)- the half of the species that is infinitely more valuable to the very survival of humanity?

If you look at the mission statements and goals of these organizations that offer help and services or run shelters for abused women, you’ll notice that it’s not really about protecting women from violence or rape, but rather about challenging the idea that men have any right to control or power over women. Go to any of their websites, and this idea is clearly stated quite boldly. Even all the way up to the United Nations, the goal is actually “gender equality” and “the empowerment of women.” In other words, at the heart of it all is stripping men of their power to govern society and family life and have any say in the well-being or sexuality of their women. The real goal isn’t even about protecting women, but furthering political aims. It’s about disempowering men and dismantling patriarchy.

But men don’t really like to be knocked out of their place of power. Yes, feminists, this is true. Their roles are changing and they don’t like it. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Men need to feel that they can protect and provide. Without that role, then what role do they really have? Men need to feel strong and powerful, it’s how they’re made. The stronger women get and the more “empowered” women become, the more hostile men and men’s organizations become against women. Men then start to wage war against and fight back against their own women- whom they should be protecting. Emotional/psychological abuse, utilizing of the family court systems, and even outright acts of violence and aggression are all methods utilized to maintain power and control and keep women “in their place.” This creates the cycle of hate and victimology, strengthening the feminist cause. Feminists and women’s rights organizations and their political allies can then use men’s groups as examples of why extra legislation is needed to protect women from male violence. The more powerful women are, the less men like it. Just look at places such as India, which is purported to have the strongest men’s rights movement in the entire world. Yet I’ve noticed feminism is pushing hard over there. I can’t research anything without getting constant sources from India. Am I the only one?

The Realities of Life

Consider this scenario. A woman walks into a place alone. Let’s say she’s walking into a place where a party is going on and people are drinking. Alone she’s fair game for any male that has evil intentions on his mind. He has nothing stopping him from using any trick on her or just outright grabbing her. She’s pretty much fair game, no matter how much she believes in women’s empowerment.

Now consider the opposite scenario: A woman walks into the same place, but this time with a man who’s arm she’s securely holding on to. The other men might still have evil thoughts running through their heads, but this time there’s a significant barricade in their way- the presence of the other man. In order to get to the woman, the man that the woman is with must first be disempowered. He must be removed from his position of power and influence over the woman.

Of course, this has happened countless times throughout history. A woman is with a man (her husband, boyfriend, male relative), yet perhaps the man is overtaken by a group of guys who incapacitate him, leaving the men free rape and harm the woman. Whether on a personal level or for a society as a whole, to do harm to the nation or its women you must first disempower their men.

Of course, the feminist will point out that men do indeed sometimes harm the women they are supposed to be protecting, and this is true. But it is still the best protection that can be offered up to women- that of a husband, father, brother or male relative to protect her. Looking at the design of nature, there’s no real question that men were designed to be able to protect and provide. So why, then, does it make logical sense to disempower men?

A woman is least likely to be harmed by her husband, but it isn’t really about that, is it? Laws have been changed to re-invent the very definition of violence. Violence is now defined as anything a man might do in order to control a woman. The reality is that there have always been laws against a man beating his wife and rape used to be punished much more severely whenever women were expected to guard their sexuality.

Not Every Man

You guard the things that are most valuable to you, and when the most valuable of items is stolen or damaged, the punishment for the harm/theft of those items is expected to come quickly and severely. The feminist position on rape is that sex happens when the woman says it does- that she and she alone has the right to have sex when she pleases, become a mother when she pleases and express herself sexually in the way that she and she alone sees fit. Society and men have no say in it. This renders the value of female sexuality valueless, as it is up to the individual to set the price for it, meaning female sexuality in general is not seen as something of upmost value to be protected by the fullest extent of the law and guarded. A man taking a woman’s sexuality or having sex with her is only in the wrong if the woman does not consent to it at the moment, not because he is in a special position and relationship with the woman where he- and he alone- is allowed access to her sexuality.

Coming back full circle to the idea of victimology, no, blaming the victim is never “right” or “just” but in the area of rape and domestic violence there has to be some level of double standards. In order for rape to be taken seriously, girls must be taught from a young age to guard their sexuality as if it was truly valuable and of great worth. There must be some responsibility placed upon a woman and that of the men who are supposed to be acting as her guardians (who’s responsibility, power and authority was the aim of feminism to destroy) to guard her sexuality. If rape is to be taken seriously, it cannot be left solely to the discretion of the individual woman to set her own price on what the value of her sexuality is, but rather there must be some societal-wide standard that says that female sexuality does have intrinsic worth and value and that the allowing of any man to access her sexuality who does not have the right to be accessing it (ie., her husband) is either a crime (rape) to be punished by the fullest extent of the law or something to be frowned upon by society (promiscuous sex or a woman willingly allowing a man below the status of husband to have access to her sexuality) with stigma attached to it. Because if it’s valuable, it must carry a heavy price tag. If it’s not valuable, then who even cares about it? Don’t we all have better things to do than worry about meaningless things?

Subsequently, the same must be true for acts of violence against women. As should be the case with a woman’s sexuality, there needs to be a distinction made between the men who have a right to control a woman- and the men that don’t. Specifically, if the man is not her husband (or close male relative who is responsible for her), the man has no right to control her- excepting in the cases that the man is an officer of the law carrying out his legitimate duties to uphold the law. If a man is not a woman’s husband (or father), then there should be punishment for him trying to impose his will in any way on her.

In some cases in our world today men have been accused of “domestic violence” just for grabbing their wives by the arm too hard (because it’s a sign he’s trying to control her). I read a case a couple of weeks ago where the wife herself couldn’t even get the law to back down on the issue. (I can’t verify the source, however, because I don’t remember where I read it. I considered it unimportant at the time and was busy with something else). If a man is truly harming his wife and causing her severe mental distress or harming her physically, then the larger society needs to step in to stop or punish the man. In some cases, separation might be necessary, but feminist crafted domestic violence legislation should not be.

If it is simply a man attempting to control his wife, unless he crosses the line, then the issue should be left alone. Each case of claims of domestic violence (if the man and woman are married) should be decided on a case by case basis by of judge of whether or not a criminal act of violence has been committed, plain and simple. And greater consideration should be given to the husband’s testimony while still ensuring that a woman (or child) is not truly in any physical danger.

But You’re Not Special, Sweetie

 

“Patriarchal institutions are a two-way street, and if men ever supposed they had the power to control the lives of their womenfolk, they were, in so thinking, obliged to support and protect them.” [1]

 

On the flipside of this argument are MRAs who do not see women, nor their sexuality, as valuable. Instead, MRAs see women as expendable sex objects and are only concerned with their own supposed “rights” without any regard for the welfare of the weaker sex or the true safeguarding of the nation’s family. Even when they supposedly give consideration to the children, they are really only concerned with their own “rights,” with no regard to true inalienable duties they have to women, children and society. They see no reason why they should protect women or be responsible to provide for them. They fuel the hatred that feminists feel towards men and keep the cycle going.

But if men ever suppose they should be in charge of anything, or that they should control women and have the right to a “virtuous” woman or the stability of an intact family where their paternity is assured and their position as father is secured, then they should also assume that they have duties associated with such a position of power. After all, a leader’s duty is not to himself, but to his people. A ruler in charge of a nation has the responsibility to see that his people’s needs are met and that they are safe and cared for. The position of a man within the family should be no different. You can’t have it both ways.

Men cannot expect easy availability to “sluts” and yet have a nation without widespread illegitimacy or “false rape charges.” Men cannot expect to be “in charge” without having the responsibility to support women. Nor can men take on female duties (childcare, staying home while the wife works) without expecting that they will be made fun of in the media and their status degraded in the eyes of society.

The laws of Rome gave fathers power because fathers had the responsibility to provide the support, as was the way in generations past in America and the rest of the Western world. As with Rome, a man could even have to answer for his wife’s misdeeds, so he had certain discretion in controlling her and setting punishment.

A Better Way?

Men have a duty. Women have a duty, even if the concept of duty to anyone but oneself is an alien idea in the modern society. Society shouldn’t seek to disempower men, but rather disempower women. The greatest power of a woman is the influence she has over her family. The responsibility should largely rest with men to protect their wives and daughters and for women to submit to such control.

Is there really any better way? If so, society has yet to find it.