Category Archives: Feminism

Rather be Oppressed 

Over the past weekend my husband and I went to town. I began to grow saddened again when we went into stores and I saw all of the women at work. Most of them were not very good looking women either, might I add. I just remember thinking how fortunate I was to marry young and follow all of my feminine instincts to just stay home.

Even still the thought of being independent makes me sick. I just held onto him the entire way home, wanting him to lead me and take care of me. I let him make love to me, and I clung to him and it felt so good, wonderful and right.

There’s a lot of people, including my own relatives, who hate me for who I am and for what I believe. I’ve been pushed non-stop to be the independent woman that relies on nobody but herself. But that’s just not me. I’d rather be “oppressed.” I’d rather be open and loving towards a man. I’d rather be controlled and under the authority of a man that I love and trust. I think we women are vastly unhappy when we are given too much freedom.

There’s nothing unhealthy about feeling a real and deep need to depend on a man. I believe that’s how we women are made to feel. It only seems to me that women become the most psychologically unhealthy when we stray from the protection and authority of our men.

Sitting here writing this, I’m actually in pain right now. I’m not in pain because there’s something wrong with me. On the contrary, I’m in pain because I’m a female and I’m healthy. I’m fairly weak right now simply because of the design of my biology.

I have the option of medicating myself, getting up and forgetting about this female side of me. I could make a few jokes about it, perhaps even some crude ones, and go to work and be Miss Independent- plenty of women do that. But I don’t really want to do that. I’d rather just lie down and rest and enjoy being female; enjoy being weaker and more vulnerable. Sometimes it’s hard and sometimes it’s a bit painful and messy even, but it’s who I am and how I’m made. I’m not supposed to be a man or strong in the same ways as a man. My strength is in my femininity.

It’s ingrained in men to want to take care of women, but the modern woman’s attitudes and behaviors are causing men everywhere to have a “Screw the b****” attitude.

Can you look at the man you love, or the man you think you could one day love, and tell him you are open to him? Can you tell him that you would trust and follow him and live under his authority? Some men don’t want or can’t handle that- and that’s fine. Let them pair off with the feminist women they deserve.

I don’t really believe men only want sex. Men can get sex if they want it. Men can pay for sex. I think most men just want their women to be open to them and trusting of them. They want to be acknowledged as men.

I’ve dealt with the criticism of others but it doesn’t matter. I’ve dealt with men that hate housewives and independent women trying to push me to be like them. I’m different from others and I always have been. That’s what makes me who I am and that’s why you’re reading this article right now.

I would rather be oppressed than liberated. Everyone else lives hectic lives and their families are all torn apart. Why would I want to be like them? Perhaps they just want to bring me and others like me down to their level. Perhaps they want us to fail.

Patriarchy isn’t always perfect or even fun, but it’s the best option for families and ultimately for women too. That’s why women, such as myself, have always fought for it. Plain and simple, we don’t want to leave the protection of coverture or be away from the guidance of our men. That’s why we always come running back while everyone else just shakes their heads thinking there’s something wrong with us. We don’t want to be liberated or really care about women’s “rights.” In the end, we’d rather be oppressed.

It’s Not the Way It Should Be…

When I was yet barely legal I put an official end to my fertility once and for all. I made the logical and conscious decision to do this because I saw how the world that we live in today is and I knew that I could never risk bringing another child into this world. I had to make sure then, as I still do now, that if me and my husband were to split apart for whatever reason that there would never be any more young or minor children to complicate things; that there would never be any dependents to have to worry about; that there would never be any children that could be used as pawns to hurt, control, manipulate or punish me. The heart would love a cabin in the woods with ten barefoot children running around, but that simply is not reality. Our society loves to tell us to follow our hearts but there comes a time when childish fantasies have to be set aside and life has to be faced for what it is. I have made the decisions I have made in my life using my head, not my heart. Emotions and feelings more often than not lead us down the wrong path, not the right one. Either way hormones should never come into play when making major and important decisions about life.

I love how men like to constantly remind women of their “biological clocks” as if they, themselves, don’t have a biological clock ticking. It’s always, “your fertility will run out soon (40’s the limit!) but I’ll still have time to make up my mind so na-na-na-na-na!” and somehow us women will regret it if we don’t start having a bunch of them in our 20s. They (the MRA men, AKA God’s gift to all womankind) will be studs like when they’re 50, 60, etc…

*Whistles* looking good Pops baby!

But I don’t regret anything, even years later. I can’t change what has been in the past nor can I change the way things are in society, but I can make a conscious decision to protect myself and, acknowledging the current state of things in society, plan my life accordingly. Men are more powerful than women, and society grants to women no special protections for our weaker and more vulnerable state, which would mean the only way for a woman to protect herself from a man is to never be with or have kids with one. (I never understood, however, the men who act scared of women. Men can control women, without ever even having to lay a finger on them).

But that doesn’t mean I have to turn into some feminist and come onto the internet and rave about how I hate men and run some marriage strike and complain how all men are wicked and evil and how us women are oh so victimized etc..etc…and let’s go our own way girls! Likewise, a man might see the way things are and decide it’s not worth the risk to get married and have kids and support a woman. There’s nothing wrong with that but there is something wrong with that same man joining up with MRAs and spewing his vile everywhere and being anti-woman and attacking women and joining in campaigns and promoting any policy he can to rid all men of responsibility for women and children. He could choose instead to promote a better way where men and women can live harmoniously together even if he chooses to be single in his own life. Even if he doesn’t have a blog or whatever he can still be an example to others by the way he lives his own life and by teaching and being there for those who look up to him.

Even if my husband begged and pleaded with me to have another child with him I would still have to tell him no, even if the thought is romantic. I simply would never do it. I see the way things are today and, again, I must protect myself. I am married and I take care of my family and fulfill my obligations as a wife and mother (which, in my view does not include obligations to go out and work!). Marriage has a lot of political value. It benefits me, my husband and our child in the way of a more stable and less complicated and stressful life, the accumulation of property and wealth and many other things. I love my husband very much but beyond just the potentially fleeting hormones of love and having fun marriage is about all the aforementioned aspects of property, stability and financial support as well.

Nonetheless, a lot of things can change in 18 years. People change. Society changes. Circumstances change. I am not willing to gamble away my future and decrease my value to other men (in the event I was divorced or something) by bringing more children into this world and complicating my life and tying myself down and putting myself in jeopardy like that. There’s no way in hell I’m going to give children to a man when it’s a 50/50 gamble that the marriage will even last a decade and I could be facing divorce or someone showing up to take my kids away from me without me even having the slightest clue of what’s even going on until the moment it hits me or being drug in and out of court for the next two decades of my life or told I must support the man who has impregnated me (and who is bigger, stronger and more powerful than me, nonetheless) and as for myself i’m just out on my own to fend for myself. I will never put myself in such a situation. Never. So I make the decisions I have made for a reason. It’s not the way things should be, but it’s the way they are. If I was ever divorced or widowed I know that I would also never remarry, at least I would never remarry unless there was drastic legal and cultural changes. I might live with a man and have some kind of unofficial ceremony but even then I would draw up very tight legal contracts between the two of us and I would never have kids with him..

Nonetheless I promote the things I believe in, the way things should be. If we do ever divorce then there will be no more children and no complications and we can just go our own way and I’ll just have to make it the best I can. Our one and only child is getting older which makes things less complicated in the event we ever did split up in the future. Without more children there’s a good chance I could find another man to take care of me and support me (where, at the most, I might work part-time or something) but with every additional child the chance of that decreases significantly and I am not willing to let my stock plummet if I am entitled to nothing in return for everything that I’ve given of myself to a man; if I am not assured lifetime financial support. If I am to put my life on the line I need to know I am guaranteed a home to live in, financial support, security and stability and I know that I simply am not guaranteed any of those things and may never be. I hope that divorce, abandonment, death or any of those terrible things never happen, but, nonetheless, they are realities in the world we live in and must be considered when planning the future. Again, it’s not the way things should be, but it’s the way they are. I would be a fool to just follow my heart and dive in head first and never consider the future or the consequences of my actions.

I look around and see the way things are and the way men are acting and within two seconds flat every wall of defense I have goes up and there is this thought and feeling inside of me that I don’t want anything to do with any man, ever. Something I see or hear triggers this response and then I don’t even want my own husband to even touch me and intimacy with the man I love seems more like a gross violation than something wondrous, pleasureful, sacred and beautiful. The only thought then becomes to protect myself because all men are just abusers of women and they can’t be trusted. I get the thought that I just want to hate men, even though in reality I want to look up to and admire the men around me and trust them.

I can’t help the things I think, but I can help the things I promote. And that is the difference. I don’t come here being a feminist (although MRAs think anyone who doesn’t fall into line with their agenda and anti-woman propaganda and thinks men should have any obligations at all towards women is labeled a “feminist” I tend to write them off as unimportant) or promoting feminist ways. I talk about what I see as wrong and promote something better, something more sustainable and a social order that does justice to men, women and children (even if that social order doesn’t happen to revolve around everybody just doing whatever they want, whenever they want and with whoever they want and screwing everyone else in the process). That’s the difference.

I can’t help the way society is but in my own life I make conscious decisions about the future. Besides, I will only live once and I’ll only be young once. I want to enjoy my youthful beauty and figure and not risk sabotaging it by back-to-back pregnancies. I want to spend my youth in high heels and miniskirts, not maternity clothes, even if in all honesty I’ve never felt more beautiful than when I was with child. I have one child, a beautiful daughter, who I adore and who I know looks like me and my husband. It’s nice to do it once and it’s nice I’ve had one child and when she’s older it will be like having my own legacy, someone who’s a part of me, a legacy that will live on even after I’m gone. I cherish that. But I do like a simpler life too. We are well off financially and in the coming years I can be a little selfish. I can spend my days keeping a petite figure, taking care of the home, relaxing and not giving a care about the world around me or if it falls all to pieces. It will be nice not having to be burdened with the care of young children.

The society around me could go to hell and I’d probably never notice. I don’t pay attention to the news (in fact I purposely avoid it), I don’t vote, I have my own home and family. I can help change things by the way I live my life. In the end that’s probably the most powerful influence anyways. I’ll never have a large family nor do I want one. Now I can save myself one bureaucratic nightmare and financial drain after another. This isn’t to put down those with large families, it’s just my opinion. I live my life and you can live yours. I have respect for those who have large families but I will never go down that road.

But I will continue to promote something better, because reproducing is a part of life and the family is the foundation of society and I believe that those who choose to have families and have children need to be protected. I believe women need to be protected and I believe children deserve the right to come from stable homes where they can have a good start in life.

So Parents “Deserve” Affordable Childcare?

What Obama just said about stay-at-home moms literally disgusts me

I was having a conversation yesterday about Obama and him saying how we need “affordable childcare.” Then I re-read some articles about what he said last October on the issue and how he bashed stay-at-home mothers. First, let me just say that I hate the term “stay at home mother.” It makes it sound like I’m making some kind of feminist choice to stay home for a while or something (which is exactly the intention of the term).

But, anyways, the sad thing is that in all the solutions ever proposed to fix the current crisis of the family nobody ever suggests bringing back the traditional family (which is patriarchal and headed by the husband, not both spouses and not by the wife). Instead, the conversation always revolves around something politically correct like counseling couples to work out their problems instead of divorcing or something and finding good daycare or “one parent” staying home or something.

The part where Obama said parents “deserve” to be able to drop their kids off with someone else at an affordable price is the worst. And then lamenting about women losing career prospects because they take some time off to care for children, as if it’s some kind of terrible obligation nobody should ever be forced to do or something! As if all women even give a care about a career!

So, the taxpayers should, once again, foot the bill for someone else to watch your kids. Family breakdown costs a tremendous amount of money every year. It has always been the few- very few- patriarchal families still left today that generally foot the bill for it. But, as I said just a few sentences ago, nobody wants to do anything about it that will actually work. We can’t look for simple, time-tested solutions that have actually been proven to work. We must continue going out of our way and scratching our heads wondering why everything has gotten so awful bad as if it’s really some big mystery that nobody can quite figure out.

Not to mention the harm done to children when left in the care of others. Yes, they may be fed, changed and physically taken care of but this does nothing for them emotionally, psychologically and it does nothing for the protection of their souls.

The worst part is that conservatives are no better. Conservatives still want women out of the home just the same as liberals, only they wish to forbid homosexual encounters and abortion. Other than that they are NO DIFFERENT than liberals. The end result is still women out of the home.The end result is still the abolition of sex roles by saying either parent can stay home. The end result is still FEMINISM.

The problem is that it doesn’t work! It never has and it is only getting worse and will continue to get worse. The obvious solution is for men to actually man up and take on the sole obligation for supporting their families and for women to submit themselves to their husbands, even if the thought does make them cringe. Traditional family law had it that when children were in the custody of their fathers (generally this meant marriage but also extended to divorce as well) that the father had the sole obligation to support them. It was his responsibility, not the mother’s and not the taxpayers. Mothers only had to take on that obligation in the event of emergency, such as if they were widowed or unwed or something.

Mothers going off to work was considered a very bad thing. Looking at our world today we can see our ancestors were right to look down upon it. Society was stable when women stayed home and when few married (and even single) women worked. It is the only solution that works and I’m sick of hearing about careers and the “wage gap” and I’m sick of the talk about “women’s rights” as if all women care about careers and nothing else.

When does it end? Give women back their traditional rights to be financially supported by husbands and give men back their position as heads of families. We need a system such as coverture to be implemented again that gives husbands authority over women and children and where husbands have obligations for the support of their wives and are ultimately called to answer for the state of their families.

Recommended:

Can You Have Your Cake and Eat it Too?

Should Women Have Careers Before Marriage?

What sense does it make to have a career before marriage if you plan just to be a housewife or stay at home mother? How on earth can you expect employers to not discriminate when your plan is to work for a few years and then just up and quit or plan to take a lot of time off? Of course this brings up the point of why the women’s movement had to abolish legal protections for housewives and also to degrade her role and promote full-time work for women, regardless of their marital status and regardless whether or not they have children. If society just assumed that women would quit their work after marriage then it would be unreasonable for employers not to discriminate. As it now stands, however, it’s illegal to discriminate no matter if the woman plans on getting married and no matter if she has children, which just complicates everything and honestly disrupts businesses.

What sense does it make to keep giving leave to women to take off for their menstrual cycles and for childbirth when instead companies and businesses could just hire men who would ultimately be more reliable? Besides, women in the workforce cause problems and make it hard for men to really get any work done. Also, there are the issues of sexual harassment and the like that wouldn’t even be issues if men didn’t have to work beside women so much (and if we went back to the days where a good old-fashioned slap across the face and men’s chivalrous duty to protect the honor of women took care of a man who was getting a little too fresh).

It doesn’t make any sense to me why women would waste years in college and get a career just to up and quit it. Also, I believe it is just plain awful to leave children in daycare or with babysitters/other family members just so you can go off to work or so that the parents can fight and divorce. The memories of my childhood are nothing more than warring parents and riding the bus to daycare after school. My childhood was hell because of it. We talk all the time about “the best interests of the child” but in reality this is nothing more than code speak for “don’t say anything politically incorrect” and a justification for gender-neutral policies and laws.

The feminist movement knew it was bad news if women just wanted to be housewives and if society accepted that women should be housewives because it would ruin all their plans of women becoming fungible with men. If society saw that the ideal was for women to be housewives and care for their children and love and obey their husbands after marriage then our customs would change to favor men in the workforce on the logical basis that the men would more than likely be sole providers for families one day and the logical basis that a woman would have a husband to provide for her. Society would also see that women need protections due to the vulnerability that comes along with being dependent in their traditional roles. Denying protections to women and degrading traditional women goes along with feminism’s plans to make all women independent from men and to refute any thoughts of women being potential mothers and weaker and more vulnerable than men.

If on the other hand society sees that married women should have careers then the protection of women isn’t even an issue and nobody cares. Indeed, that’s what we have today- nobody cares. But we need to care. Men need to provide for and protect women and society should impose these responsibilities upon men as it is ultimately in the best interest of all of society.

More on anti-discrimination:

Discrimination is the Solution, Not the Problem

Recommended:

My Review of “Why We Lost the ERA”

Feminism and Female Preciousness

Is Feminism Pro-Choice?

Enough of This Home Business Business

Being a traditional woman means to be financially dependent on one’s husband. Traditionally, the working world was seen as “men’s business” and married women were shielded from the necessities of earning a living. I see women all the time who just simply cannot leave well enough alone. They simply cannot understand anything other than earning a paycheck. Even conservative Christians try to interpret the Bible to something pleasing to modern-day standards. For instance, I see all the time stay at home mothers who are Christians interpreting the Proverbs 31 woman as the ideal and saying that, if applied to the modern day, it means a woman should start a home business (as well as bear children and take care of the house!). A woman making her own money would be a financially independent woman no matter where that money is made. That would make her consistent with the feminist ideal for women. Also, a woman working everyday at her husband’s business would make her a business partner with him and not dependent upon him. Even conservatives promote the feminist ideal for gender relations and this has been going on for a while now. As George Gilder observed in his book “Men and Marriage:”

“As a critique of the feminist movement and its politics, Sexual Suicide now seems less telling. But the central themes of the book remain vitally important. Though rejecting feminist politics and lesbian posturing, American culture has absorbed the underlying ideology like a sponge. The principle tenets of sexual liberation or sexual liberalism-the obsolescence of masculinity and femininity, of sex role, and of heterosexual monogamy as the moral norm- have diffused through the system and become part of America’s conventional wisdom. Taught in most of the nation’s schools and colleges and proclaimed insistently in the media, sexual liberalism prevails even where feminism- at least in its antimale rhetoric- seems increasingly irrelevant.”

Sanne at Adventures in Keeping House, also sums it up perfectly in this post (comments section):

“As I see it, the problem often is that nowadays people see men and women as interchangeable. They are supposed to have the same interests and fulfill the same roles in society. Often, even conservatives who claim that they are pro-family will state that as long as one of the parents has to stay home, it’s O.K. and it doesn’t matter whether it is the father or the mother. On the other hand, the fathers who work long hours are criticized by the same conservatives for not contributing to raising the children. Excuse me, but the father who works hard and enables his wife to stay home is contributing enough, even though he doesn’t change the diapers!

I say men and women are different, and should be judged according to a different standard to some point. Long live sexual dimorphism!”

Before feminism men were required to financially support their wives. It was a man’s duty as well as a legal obligation. Our culture has lost this ethic entirely as the breadwinner ethic has been entirely eroded. A lot of women today are trying to gain respect for stay-at-home wives and mothers yet they are still focusing on teaching women how to make money from home. It’s still egalitarian; it’s still feminist. The point of marriage is for men to provide for and protect women; to take a woman out of the workforce so that she may be home and care for her children and others.

Also another thing that has gone out of our culture is that men, not women, are supposed to head households. When the provider ethic was the strongest (before the 20th century) it was also the oldest son, not the mother, who took over temporarily as being the head of household if the father was absent or away on business (assuming he had reached a certain age of maturity). It seems so odd and strange to us today (indeed it might even seem a little twisted and backwards) but the idea was that men had an obligation to protect and support women and that men should be in charge and take financial responsibility unless there was simply no other choice and those burdens had to fall to women. A woman’s closest male family members were also charged with her protection. This included her brothers and close cousins as well and it was not unusual for a woman to be financially supported by her adult brother if she was unmarried or widowed or for her brothers to take an avid interest in any man who might come calling on her with romantic interests.

It is clear to see that family breakdown began to be the norm at around the 1970s, when equal support obligations began to be laid upon wives and mothers and sexual promiscuity and divorce became common and accepted. Even conservatives do not promote sex roles anymore. A home business is still a business. A woman making money from home (unless it’s an occasional thing) is still being a co-provider. She is still adopting feminist ideology for her and her family. That is not traditional, it is egalitarian. We need to return to the cultural ethic of men being providers and protectors of families, not women. Being a traditional woman means depending on your husband, not finding ways to still be a co-provider while changing diapers and mopping floors.

Recommended:

Proverbs 31 Feminist Woman