Category Archives: Political

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.

Advertisements

Tell Him He’s Good

As anyone who has ever studied the field of psychology knows, there are no easy answers. You could study and work in the field your entire life and still be baffled by the things that people are capable of doing. A couple of months ago I was with my husband’s aunt and we were re-arranging things and talking. I said something about my husband “running his mouth” about something years ago and she just turned to me and said “Oh, honey, that’s all men!” We both then had to share a good laugh over that one. Of course, any woman over a certain age and with any experience dealing with men knows that to be true (that men run their mouths), and smart women pass this information on to their daughters, as well. But it did get me to thinking about things, and the current state of society, as well as man’s need to feel important and validated, not only by women, but by society.

It’s a need that I can say I have never truly felt as a woman, it’s true. As a woman, I desire inside to be validated, yes, but in an entirely different way. To be loved, cherished, looked upon with desire as an object of beauty and value. These thoughts overtake the fantasies of every woman, and always have.

Recently I have been doing a lot of research into criminal activity, and the subjects recently have delved into the frightening world of terrorism. I will say that there is only so much any sane and healthy-functioning person can take at once before becoming ill and needing to look away and re-focus on something else. It’s unbelievable not only what humans are capable of doing to one another, but also the lengths that some individuals will go just to inflict harm upon others- upon those that they perceive to be an enemy to fight against. These individuals will literally destroy themselves, risking life, limb, and serious harm and bodily injury (not to mention imprisonment and a host of other negative social outcomes) just to target and destroy their perceived enemy.

And, yes, any “normal” person (whatever the heck “normal” is anyway) would say that these people are “evil,” “sick,” and “deserving of whatever is coming to them.” All these things are true, of course. They do deserve to be stopped- and punished- for the protection of society and innocent individuals. There is most definitely something wrong in their minds and hearts. But what is more striking is the psychology behind all of this. People aren’t necessarily born “good” or “evil” any more than they are born as a “blank slate” where everything they are or will ever be is solely a product of their environment. Again, it is more complicated than that. Again, nobody knows as there are really no answers.

One thing that does stick out, however, is a deep sense of pain, rage and hurt. Many isolated individuals and individuals who feel marginalized- especially by the mainstream society- are easy targets for terrorist groups and organizations. Some people whose loved ones get drawn into criminal and terrorist organizations think that appealing to their sense of reason will bring them back. But then again these individuals have no idea the power of human emotions to override all reason and sense. There is no reasoning where the human heart is concerned.

International terrorist organizations such as ISIS have even been known to recruit individuals using red pill/blue pill terminology from The Matrix. They tell them they understand their hurt, their pain and can show them the truth and the way. They offer them a place of inclusion to these individuals who have mainly been excluded and rejected all their lives and suck them in. Before long, the individual is lost and willing to believe most of anything. They reject loved ones, family, willing to destroy their lives for a place of inclusion and the annihilation of their “enemy.” Sometimes the evil comes from a need for self-preservation and sometimes from loneliness and pain that overrides all else until hatred seeps in. Only the slow return of human love and feeling can ever bring them back- if they can ever be brought back at all. The real cost and consequences of their actions are unimportant to them. All that matters is their rage; their mission and belonging to the group. Even those who act alone without belonging to a specific group oftentimes are found to follow and believe in the ideologies of these global terrorist organizations.

And it was this that really got me thinking. We are all really just human underneath, right? Even the psychopath- the dreaded all-maligned creature of evil held up for veneration and in fascination by Hollywood for decades- is still human underneath, as studies have demonstrated that diagnosed psychopaths even have the ability to feel empathy and love- if their brains are triggered to. The only difference being that, in contrast to normal individuals, their brains generally operate in a I don’t give a **** mentality from day to day.

The point of all this, you ask? Well, it got me to thinking about the truth about society today and the relationships between men and women. It got me to thinking about the manosphere and the “red pill.” It’s the same common recruiting technique. Modern men feel marginalized, like there is no role for them anymore. Then you see a lot of these men- in particular young men (and most terrorists are still young men)- having no success with women or getting “used” by women or rejected (that’s what you get for being a “nice guy!-” You beta!”).

Enter The Red Pill. They’ll show you the “TRUE NATURE OF WOMEN” and “ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT” so just come and get red-pilled and open your eyes to the truth and the light! Women are your enemy and it’s OK to “game,” manipulate and abuse them no matter the devastation you cause to society or individual lives. All that matters is the mission and that you remember AWALT. They’ll give you a purpose and identity in a world and society “lacking a positive identity for men.”

Of course, a lot of men come out of it when they finally wake up. I’ve seen a lot of men saying that they joined because they were just looking to be loved. Yes, that is the human condition- to love and desire to receive love in return. I’m not saying that these groups are right- they are not. The Red Pill is trash and I hope one day it’s nothing but a bookmark on the pages of history, but in truth it will probably always exist to some extent in one way or another so long as men are looking for identity and validation in society (and from women).

The problem is that we as women are not giving them that validation. No, you’re not his mamma, but underneath he still wants to be seen and validated as a man. There’s a hidden and silent nurturing that a woman does. Red-pill men are in the wrong and women need to be protected from them and their abuses, but they are still coming from a place of hurt and pain. I know how hard it is as a woman sometimes. There’s a reason for the old adage of the “long-suffering wife.” It’s no myth. It’s a very real reality.

No, women are oftentimes ignored and not believed- it’s true. Men do try to knock women down oftentimes. But we have power and importance in that we civilize and greatly influence our men. We give them meaning in this life. We give our men a reason to work, to believe in themselves, to achieve. Did you know that some of these men will spend hundreds and thousands- give these PUAs and Red Pill cult leaders (who themselves are often one breath away from the very definition of clinical insanity) hundreds– just because they hope to land a woman (either for the night or for a lifetime)? If you’re hurting bad enough- or desperate enough- you’ll be easy prey for the lies and promises of riches, women, grandeur, validation, fame, etc. You’d believe and go along with anything.

So what makes some people immune? Only a deeper understanding and resiliency separates those who succumb to the hurt they feel inside and the hardships they experience in life- hardships everyone experiences- and those who overcome. Only with understanding and resiliency does reason triumph over emotion.

And you think women never had worth? Men have built and torn apart civilizations because of women. If you want them to be men, they will be. If you don’t, they won’t be. It’s as simple as that. That’s the power of a woman. The power of a woman isn’t conquering, fighting, competing. Our power is more subtle. Women have told modern men that they don’t need them. While on the surface most men seem to be going “Great! Sex! Fewer responsibilities! Let her go to work every day instead of me! You wanted equality!” on the inside these men are angry, suffering, feeling as though they have no purpose and their relationships are crumbling to pieces.

And yes, there are women terrorists (an increasing number, in fact, showing that women are becoming more hostile and aggressive and themselves lost and confused), and there are some effeminate and gay men to whom this doesn’t apply. But to normal, heterosexual males, it still does. And the ones who say it doesn’t? Well, look closer. They are generally either single, red-pilled, divorced (isn’t everybody?), drunks, lay-abouts, living with mommy and daddy until middle-age and generally failing in everyday life. Some can’t even hold a job (a problem which goes far beyond the realm of the political).

So, considering, perhaps it’s OK to understand why he runs his mouth. He wants to feel superior. He needs to feel important, stronger, achieving. What does my husband like about the things I write or the way I am? That he’s in charge, he says. Ah, but smart women know better, because we know they do it all for us.

He just wants to know that he’s good.

 

Recommended:

The Feminization of Men Meets With Only False Resistance

They Do It For You

 

They are Men’s Issues

There is no issue, there is no complex

As I told you before; I am feminine, I am female, I am woman

We uplift the masculine because it protects us. The women today they would rather degrade themselves and live in filth with men that don’t respect them- to give their bodies away easily as if it gives them autonomy or power in some way. They might find a temporary happiness in this existence, but they will never have true and lasting contentment.

Oh, but I could show you contentment! I could show you fulfillment. Fulfillment and contentment like you’ve never known, never seen.

The world today has become so vulgar because there is no regulation on sexuality; there are no rules. So many are gender-confused and androgynous and we express ourselves in however the individual sees fit. But we must uplift the feminine, uplift the masculine. Not all men are good, but not all men are bad. Look to the men that love you and put your trust in them. Encourage them to be the men they were designed to be, trust in them to speak for you, trust that God or nature has given them that natural authority. Obey that authority and listen to it.

It’s not necessarily that we put our trust in a human being that has faults, but rather a divine authority that has granted to males greater strength and ability. They were designed that way for a purpose. Yes, men might be superior, but isn’t that the way we want them to be? But a woman being under the protection and covering of a man, such as her husband, shows that she as well is favored and beloved and worthy of being given the world.

We were meant to live together as male and as female. We were made for each other. We were not made to be the equals of each other but rather to be as one. There is but one leader, and that is the man. There is but one that carries life and brings it into this world, sometimes suffering severe hardships in the process, and that is woman. And yes, we women are vulnerable when we depend upon a man, but by nature we were designed vulnerable. When we take a man inside of us we make ourselves vulnerable. We were designed to be dependent and weaker by nature.

But letting go, trusting, opening our hearts and our bodies and making ourselves vulnerable, we free ourselves. There is a passion that I cannot explain. It can only be understood by living it. Free yourself to be a woman, to be feminine. If we as women have an issue, the state cannot protect us. Women’s rights are no protection, instead it is about distrust in our men. But we have to trust them. Let them be who they are as men. If we do have problems, the first ones we should confide in are our men for protection or the things we need.

Domestic violence, rape, and single motherhood are things that feminists had no business getting involved in; that the state has no business getting involved in except in special circumstances. They are real and serious issues, but they are ultimately men’s issues as our sexuality and our welfare should be the business of our husbands, our fathers and our brothers.

This doesn’t take away our freedom. On the contrary, it grants to us women the greatest freedoms we have ever known. There is a joy and a peace that I cannot explain. But I know we women today have severe issues. Nearly every woman that I know has suffered some mental illness, even if only temporarily. We have rejected our true natures to pursue independence and shallow relationships with men, if we pursue relationships at all.

When I was younger, I stayed in the home to care for a child. It was work that needed to be done. But the first issue was my bonding with my husband. I lived under his protection, depending on him for the things I needed, listening to what he told me to do and trusting him to protect me. It created an atmosphere of passion and love, where I would wait for him to come home and deeply long for him. Being in the home allowed me to live as one with him.

Having the husband fulfill the breadwinner role was about us being one. It was never, and has never been, about being a “stay-at-home mother” as in some androgynous role that either sex could fulfill or that could be outsourced. It was about contentment and fulfillment that had nothing to do with housework or childcare. There is no “going back to work,” nor has this ever been an issue or in question. Being home is not some temporary thing that I did only because there was work to do in the home and then I would leave to pursue work elsewhere when it dwindled down in a couple of years.

Hate me, love me, but I am who I am. And yes, I have been rejected. But I have been rejected all my life. I care not whether they accept or love me. I can see myself standing there before him as we are to be wed. I can picture him as he lifts the veil from my face to gently kiss me. I can see him standing tall and strong over me. In my mind, how I see it, is that I’m giving myself over to him, to live under his authority, as he is giving himself to me, to cherish, love and be responsible for me. He covers me with his love and strength and I lovingly accept him. And yes, I know that it might come with pain and hardship at times. What life doesn’t? I know that I am vulnerable in depending upon him and submitting to him, but he is also vulnerable in investing in me. But we are one, made for different purposes in life, but each purpose works together towards a common destiny.

But what happens if something happens to him is irrelevant. A man who is in love with a woman and has committed himself to her is very unlikely to leave her, and we as women must trust overall in our men and in the divine authority that has made men our protectors and providers in the event that we are left alone. That is the way life goes sometimes, and we have no way of seeing into the future to know what might happen even when the sun rises the very next morning, but we must trust that a way will be provided for us always.

How is it degrading to be protect or provided for by a man? You women of today will reject any notion of patriarchy, coverture or genuine male authority from the men in your lives yet you will engage in games and role play literally begging for men to beat you, call you names and choke you until you’re blue in the face and do things that I can’t even fathom just in the hopes of feeling some temporary sexual pleasure.

Yet I need no games. I am not degraded. I feel that my body was made beautiful and precious and what a joy it brings. There is no sexual repression, but on the other hand overwhelming feelings of sexuality and sexual pleasure that make all other pleasures pale in comparison. Sexuality that is deep, that is real, flowing through my veins and defining me as female, distinct from any and all characteristics that are male.

Love is overwhelming, femininity is overwhelming. Love and passion are what makes life worth living, of what humans have spent centuries pursuing and writing about. I know who I am as a woman and I don’t need to compete with any man. I know he’s stronger. I know that, yes, he could hurt me. But when that masculine and feminine polarity is felt, I know inside that he won’t.

And the ways of our modern world oftentimes make me cry. I cry that no man will rise up to defend a woman. I cry at the horrific thought that any man would think it OK to see their women sent off to war or expect them to be, that men no longer cherish their women or think to provide for them or protect them; that women would reject any attempts by men to do so, or worse that any man would be OK with being provided for or led by a woman. It is a passion killer that leaves but a coldness and an emptiness inside.

My first instinct has always been to acknowledge a man as a man, to look up to and admire men in general. I am ever glad that in my life I have had very little workplace experience and that I have never been put in the position of being in authority over any man. It would not be right, and indeed, the concept of women’s rights is wrong on a fundamental level. The concept of female empowerment is not right, it is misguided.

We must uplift our men first. Our issues are men’s issues. It has always been men that have made the laws and policies to give us any protections, rights, or freedoms that we seek. I believe that we can trust them to speak on our behalf. I believe that men want to be acknowledged as men and for the things that are distinct to manhood and masculinity and that a man will love a woman who acknowledges him as such.

Because this is not right. It has become an issue of us vs. them. But there should be no separation between us. Was it not men who legislated that a man should pay for the crimes of harming or raping a woman? Was it not men that always went to war to keep us safe? Was it not men who legislated that a man should provide for his wife, his children? I have seen it with my own eyes how a man, even one hardened against women, will soften and become protective towards a traditional woman who embraces patriarchal and anti-feminist ways.

As women we must let go and trust in the masculine. We must be genuine, authentic and trusting in our femininity. If we do that, things will fall into place as they were designed and meant to be.

Not a “50s Housewife”

Can I just say one thing? Ok, I hate the 1950s. seriously. I hate it that when I say that I believe in stuff like traditional gender roles and that I’ve always stayed home and stuff like that that people immediately start thinking “1950s.” Ugh. I hate that era. Personally, I see the 1950s as a time of female superiority if you want to know the truth about it. I actually think the era was quite feminist. It’s always been clear to me that both of my grandmothers were always “in charge” in their marriages. The 1950s weren’t traditional from my point of view. I mean, women were already voting and a lot of wives were already starting to join the workforce and stuff like that.

I don’t act like a 1950s housewife nor do I dress like one. Ok, well, I do kind of like stuff like vintage dresses and bikinis, but because I think they’re cute, not because I’ve got a thing for the 50s or anything like that. I used to have some vintage dresses but they fall off of me these days so I haven’t worn them in years. But, anyway, back to the subject. We’re not rich. My husband doesn’t “have money.” We’re just simple people, and I’m just a simple girl.

I know I’ve said it before, but when I say “housewife” I think a bit farther back to the times when husbands were actually in charge. I don’t think of high heels and perfectly permed hair so much as I think of bare feet, waist length hair (for a woman) and simplicity.

I also don’t like people that think housewives are somehow “lazy” or anything of the sort. I don’t sit around eating bon-bons all day, watching soap-operas, and writing “honey-do” lists while having an affair with the pool boy. I would also hate to think that a man only wanted to provide for me just because of the way I look. That’s why I would never want to be with a rich man, unless I knew in my heart that that man truly loved and cherished me for the long-term and would always do so.

My husband provides for me 100% financially speaking, as I believe it is his responsibility to do so, but he’s also in charge of everything too. For instance, he gave me a credit card on his account I could use for a while but then he took it away from me last year after I came back home. (He said it was because he got a new card, but I suspect the real reason was to take independence from me so I wouldn’t leave again. In either case, he never gave me another one.)

He gives me things I want and need, but he also has the power to say no to me or take them away from me too. And yes, I accept this even though I’ve suffered pain and frustration and I still accept it no matter what others might think about it, because it confers security on me and protects me. I’d rather accept this life than the life of the modern woman with all her unhappiness, unstable relationships and lack of ability to raise and care for her own children every day.

You want to talk about lazy and entitled? It’s the men these days that are lazy and entitled, just as much or not more so than the women are. Men who talk about how their wives need to “get a job” or go around bragging about how they’ve got their wives in the workforce full-time and stuff like that or how that they’d never support no woman. It’s these same men that also complain about women being spoiled and entitled “not wanting responsibility”, when in reality men are just as bad and lazy as modern women.

In his latest article, Jesse Powell talks about red-pill men moving on to a higher-functioning stage in the wider culture. Undoubtedly I think a movement like this will grow, and that it needs to, but what they advocate for is unsustainable and unworkable when it denies male responsibility for women, so in the end it will result in men having obligations imposed upon them instead of it being all about exploiting everything to their advantage and screwing everybody else and the damage left in their wake.

From the Daily Beast article he quoted:

On The Red Pill, Fisher commonly expressed disappointment that the institutions of marriage and religion were destroyed by women’s equality. He maintained that as a result of financial independence, women were no longer compelled to remain faithful and as a result, men needed to protectively adapt their sexual strategy.

Ok, so how are women going to be financially dependent if men don’t fully financially support their wives? Only for a mere six weeks did I hold paid employment out of nearly a decade of marriage, and it was only to separate from him. I never worked for money, neither inside nor out of the home, and my husband never had to play a bunch of head games just to keep me sexually attracted to him or invested in the marriage.

By “protectively adapting their sexual strategy” what do they mean? Screwing as many sl*ts as possible? (Because that it sustainable for society when you leave illegitimate children all over the place, and that’s sure to help them with all those “pregnancy scares!”) Or perhaps he means playing a bunch of stupid head games that will result, at best, in keeping a woman’s interest for a whole six months- if that? (Because that will obviously lead to a high-functioning committed relationship when one person is a narcissistic abuser.)

“To give women autonomy is to take away the very thing that made marriage a realistic institution… what I dislike is the general attitude that somehow we owe [women] something for sex… Women enjoy the autonomy that feminism has afforded them… But don’t expect the relics from back in the day to continue to benefit you without the sacrifices you were making,”

Well, don’t expect the relics YOU enjoyed back in the day to continue to benefit YOU without the sacrifices you made as well. And I’m unaware completely of any traditional relics from back in the day that women are still enjoying out in the real world. To deny the breadwinner role (for men) is also to take away the very glue that once held marriage together. Men enjoy the easy ride and easy sex feminism has afforded THEM. And women sacrifice more in sex and bring something to the table men don’t, every society in the history of the world has recognized and given credit to this undeniable fact. Get over it.

“Marriage, and yes, female oppression, slut shaming, religion, these were all a means to control hypergamy [infidelity]. Marriages might be considered loveless, and women might have been unhappy, but for men it meant marriages that lasted, commitments that continued, and protection against the fickle whims of females,” Fisher wrote on The Red Pill in November 2012.

Yes, never mind when men chase after “bad girls” that will only screw them over or when husbands disappear or  cheat on their breadwinner wives with a poor woman that makes him feel more like a man. Not to mention that you run a simultaneous marriage strike and spend all your time chasing after the very sl*ts you claim to hate. A traditional woman deserves a traditional man.

But, in conclusion, stop it with the 1950s stereotypes. The 1950s were a whole world better in many ways than today, but the era still wasn’t traditional by my point of view. But if I would ask anything of men today, it would be to please stop this. Please do something about the state of affairs today. It isn’t a woman’s job to fix it. It’s a woman’s job to be “good” and to accept a man’s authority (when and where it’s legitimate). These are your daughters, your sisters, your mothers, your wives/future wives and mothers of your children and all of the women you know and love. They aren’t some outside enemy or foreign invader to get rid of and punish at all costs. They’re your own people, of the same blood and heritage as you. Girls and women today grew up/ are growing up never knowing the stable relationships, protections and security that were afforded to our ancestors- just the same as men. Stop acting like you’re some kind of special oppressed snowflakes. Your grievances have merit, but I think they’re exaggerated beyond belief and only tell one side of the story.

I know from experience there are just as many traditional men as there are women, it just seems like there aren’t because most of the time men just remain silent. They watch and listen, but they don’t comment, they don’t form opinions or organize and protest. For decades they’ve left all of that up to women. But if there’s anything good happening now, it would be that it seems men are finally taking some kind of action, even if they are, as of now, in a rage and sorely misguided. But if men take action, women will follow, and men that accept responsibility (such as a husband keeping his wife out of the workforce and providing for her) can still impose the rules on women even when they are unwilling. YOU don’t expect that “privilege” otherwise. The man that loves a woman provides for her and he protects her- even from herself. I’ll only know the red-pill is “highly-functioning” when their men strive to do just that.

Going Home

I don’t need to justify to anyone the way I choose to live my life or the beliefs that I hold inside. I’ll just let the results of the life I have lived speak for themselves.

People say I’m “lucky” to stay at home or believe my husband must have money or something, but neither of these things are true. We were dirt poor before we married yet I quit working entirely, even though we didn’t yet even know where we would live, and never for a single day were we ever out on the streets. I’ve always lived with what he could give to me, or what he chose to give to me, and over time we were blessed as a result of it. I believe we have been productive precisely because I stayed out of the workforce, but more than that, I believe it is because of my traditional beliefs in coverture. (Even though I had no idea what coverture was, or that it was really a legal thing once, I still felt it in my heart.)

Me being at home isn’t so much about my relationship with my child as it is about my relationship with my husband. It’s not about being a “stay-at-home mom.” I’m not a stay-at-home mom, I’m just a traditional wife. And this will hold true even when our daughter is fully grown.

For the brief period of time that I worked, I had no relationship with him. As my readers know, that is precisely why I started working- because in my heart I was separated from him and no longer willing to submit to him. But I felt in my heart I would be OK, that it was time to reconcile. He told me that, while he wouldn’t necessarily forbid me from working a couple of days if I really wanted to, he would really rather that I just put in my notice and quit entirely, so that’s what I did, because I couldn’t reconcile the beliefs and desires of my heart with having paid employment- even part-time employment. Part-time employment is still employment.

At the beginning, so many years ago, I chose to accept him as my guardian, my authority, my provision and protection. It can be scary sometimes, to give up that independence you once knew and rely entirely on a husband, but I did it, and I will do it once again. He tells me he wants me to stay close to him and to do what he tells me to do. I accepted that at the beginning and I told him that I would accept it once again. He’s not a pig or a misogynist, nor is he weak or “beta.” He cherishes me the way men have all but forgotten to cherish women in our world today, and I look up to him the way women have all but stopped looking up to men.

“What’s there to cherish?” the modern man will say.

“What’s there to look up to?” the modern woman will say.

So, yes, I’m coming home. I know he’s always provided well for me. There were things in the past that he told me I couldn’t do, so I didn’t do them. There were things in the past he told me we couldn’t afford, so I couldn’t have them. But that was ok with me. It’s still ok with me. While I did like having some money to spend, a paycheck could simply never compensate for the loss of love and passion I experienced. If I am to submit to him and allow him to protect me and take care of me, I can’t also be my own independent woman out in the workforce. And I sure as Hell am not going to work and submit to him. What a joke.

I know some scoff at me, I know some think me a fool- but that’s their problem. I’m a lot safer and secure depending on a husband than being independent. It’s like people feel sorry for me if I tell them I’m going back to my husband and quitting my job. But that’s their problem. They can think what they want. The results of the life they live show, as do the results of the life I have lived. Shall we compare them?

So, I am going home once again. In my experience people do what is in their hearts to do. If a woman has it in her heart to be home and relying on a husband and submitting to him, then that’s what she’s going to do, even if she’s poor- the same as I was poor all those years ago. The same people who talk about two incomes being “necessary” are the same ones who talk about how they could never give up their independence, and the women who say they wish they could be at home are the same ones who turn around and start talking about how they could never just “sit at home” depending on a man and how they love to cash in those paychecks. You do the math. I believe modern women work because of ideology, not necessity.

But that doesn’t matter. I don’t care what it is people might think or say. They are of no concern to me. I accepted to follow him and do what he told me to do. The outside world doesn’t concern me. For the brief time that I worked everything turned into a disaster. The house was a wreck. There was all of a sudden nobody there for the small errands that needed to be run, and entire schedules had to be re-arranged when our daughter wasn’t in school, was sick, or when my husband had doctor’s appointments and needed someone to drive him.

Never again. I cannot see how anyone could live that way. If I had worked since the beginning we wouldn’t be together today, and it’s doubtful that me working would have even helped us financially- unless I had some fancy career, which would have only been even more problematic.

Lastly, I won’t defend the words I say to anyone. I’m not going to apologize or give a speech about how I’m not really anti-feminist or anything of the sort. Because I’m pro-patriarchy. I’m against feminism. There’s nothing great about feminism and there’s nothing wrong with patriarchy. I don’t have to defend my words and beliefs to the over-sensitive PC crowd. They’ll get over it and find something new to bitch about ten minutes later anyway. I don’t believe that as a wife I should be in the workforce, not even part-time. Even part-time work takes me away from his guardianship.

Because femininity is passive, submissive, graceful, nurturing and beautiful– and that just isn’t compatible with being independent and career-driven in my book. I always felt it was right to be under the guardianship of a man that loves and cherishes me and I know that what I’ve always felt in my heart cannot be wrong, especially considering that it has been the way of so many cultures, including our own for so long. Feminist politics can’t protect women.

But I leave all these things I have written up, because they show the truth of what is in a woman’s heart and how she is made. And I hope that young women everywhere will truly listen.