Category Archives: Uncategorized

Rough & Soft 

If there is one thing that I’m sick of hearing it’s that “women love assholes.” No, actually, we don’t. Plenty of women still love men in spite of them being assholes, but no woman loves a man because of it. Not only is it tiring and emotionally damaging dealing with a man who’s an asshole, women actually have good reason to be wary of men who are assholes.

The basic fact of life is that males can easily represent danger to females. It’s actually a major fear for many women that we may come to like or love a man who turns out to be an asshole. After all, a man like that is often very unpredictable and could easily turn violent towards us or abandon us. Women always have reason to fear being physically harmed, raped or impregnated and abandoned by men therefore it makes no sense that we would seek out men who would hurt us. On the contrary, we would be (we are) attracted to dominate men who would protect us. 

Our biology can oftentimes be at odds with our heart’s desires. We want a man that’s strong and high status yet at the same time the very men that we desire could also easily hurt us. The “bad boy” type can be dreamy for many women because he’s confident, strong and charming yet there’s still a darkness lurking underneath the surface that can potentially cause a lot of harm to a woman. 

And, no, I do not actually like being degraded. Overpowered, yes, but always in a loving and gentle way. There’s nothing scarier than coming to love a man and wanting to relax, let down your guard, trust and follow him only to have him turn out to be abusive either physically or emotionally. Never in my life have I loved a man and listed under the characteristics of why I loved him as “he treats me like dirt and regularly disappears on me. Oh he’s so dreamy!” 



In my mind romance always happens by a strong man but also a loving man. There’s always the typical fairy-tale element of being rescued from some sort of danger and being the damsel in distress. Yet at the same time the man isn’t “soft” or emotional either. He loves me, is devoted to me, yet at the same time knows how to play it cool as well. 

Men who are assholes are actually repulsive and this isn’t just something I’ve come to hate because I’ve gotten sick of men with age. Even as a teenager I did not like men who were assholes. I still loved strong men, but not assholes. Yes, it did seem that “assholes” had a lot of sex, but the women they were having sex with were generally very promiscuous and also had sex with a lot of other men too. They weren’t getting “high quality” feminine women by any means.

I’ll never forget when I was only like 18 years old a man declaring to me how much women “just love assholes.” I remember my mouth just dropping open in unconcealed disgust at the things he was saying. He would then go on to tell a couple of stories about men treating women like shit and I remember searching the whole time he was talking for a possible escape away from the guy and away from the conversation. I was sure glad to be away from the guy. But, hey, the guy obviously knew everything. Who was I to argue? Especially since he was already middle-aged I bet he was a real hit with the ladies. 

There are many things that come into play when it comes to who we love and who we desire. Oftentimes it is also forgotten that being a man (as well as being a high quality woman) is also about moral character as well. A man must necessarily play a bit “hard to get” in the relationship department. Men who are too charming and too nice tend to scare away women. The reason is obvious. Not only would a too nice and emotional man tend to come off as more feminine but he would also raise our suspicions because we would think he’s up to something. I’d think he was just trying to kiss my ass to get something out of me (like the one thing men always want from women or perhaps that he was a bum looking to exploit whatever resources I might have). He would be perceived instantly as a “player” who goes around charming women just to get in their pants. So, a man can’t really afford to be a “nice guy” but at the other end of the spectrum is the jerk- which isn’t good either. 

MRA types would swear women like jerks and assholes and all of us are promiscuous sl*ts who just love being used by men and treated like garbage and we are out of our prime by the mature age of 25 and that they are all gods who’s “shelf life” never expires etc, etc, etc… and all men have to do is “show a woman who’s boss” for women to somehow be magically chasing them (instead of the traditional way of men pursuing women and actually having to make an effort and better themselves to attract and keep women). But this (as well as many other of their “Red Pill” cult truths) just simply isn’t true (or, at best, is greatly blown out of proportion). As Andrew from “The Rules Revisited” so wonderfully put it

“Yes, it is partially true that society has lost sight of what these guys call “red pill” truths; I am not denying that. But the very fact that they use metaphors from The Matrix should hint at the fact that many of them have issues with attracting women; and the almost singular focus on pointing out female shortcomings should suggest that maybe, just maybe, they hold their world-view because it conveniently puts them back into the place of power they feel so incapable of occupying.”

Advertisements

What Does a Traditional Women’s Rights Activist Believe?

I think one of the biggest mainstream things that is going on right now that TWRAs do not stand for is putting women in combat. This is unethical and unwise on so many levels I can’t even begin to describe it in one single posting. I have briefly gone over this issue in other posts in the past, however.

More about women in combat:
Ban on Women in Combat to be Lifted: The Feminist War on Women Continues

Feminism and Female Preciousness

Push to Register Young Women for the Draft: The Totalitarian Impulse of Feminists

Stop Women in Combat

TWRAs are not part of the feminist or men’s rights movement. Generally, the “equality” that these groups stand for are the very things that we fight against. Our motto is “Give Us Back Our Privileges.” This was kind of taken from the movement against the Equal Rights Amendment (in the United States) where women took to the streets campaigning “Stop Taking Our Privileges” or acronym STOP.

Some have called us feminists because we want “privileges” for women. Sorry, but our “privileges” do not revolve around affirmative action quotas or sexual harassment lawsuits. The privileges that TWRAs want revolve around our natural roles as wives and mothers. The privileges we seek may certainly have a selfish component but they ultimately work to the benefit of all of society. The privileges that MRAs and feminists seek work to the ultimate detriment of society. This does not mean that all TWRAs are or will become mothers. No, it just means that we want protections for families and that women who do become wives and mothers should be protected by laws and cultural norms that shield them from traditional male burdens and from divorce the way their grandmothers were protected.

Plain and simple, TWRAs want back the legal and cultural protections that have been stolen from us in the last 150 years from modern feminism and the subsequent men’s rights movement that it spawned.

We TWRAs are not all women either. Many of our supporters are men and have always been. Generally we stand for traditional gender roles.We do not all believe in the exact same things. There will always be diversity in every movement. Some of us are more liberal and some more conservative. We are not all of a single political party. I actually consider myself to be sort of moderate when it comes to the conservative/liberal scale. I generally fall somewhere in the middle.

TWRAs are not of any particular religion. We have had many Christian, Atheist and Muslim supporters as well as others with various different beliefs. We are not all American, either. In fact, the TWRA cause has attracted supporters from many different countries. Most Western countries have the same problems with feminists and MRAs and our cultures are pretty similar in many ways. This means that we can come together and stand for making a change and bringing back gender roles.

TWRAs do not generally care for gender role reversal. Generally, we believe it is something that should only be done when there is no other choice. Nature has designed men and women for different roles. Men have evolved to be hunters and warriors and women to nurture young children. This is the way nature/God has designed it to be and we generally believe that we should not alter what nature has designed unless we have no other choice. The burden of financial support should still be the husband’s/father’s even if he is in the home the same as the burden of doing the household work and caring for children should still be the wife’s/mother’s even if she works for money. Simply put, the wife should have the right to demand support from her husband the same as he should have the right to demand that she care for the home and children even if that means taking time off from her career. I mean, really ladies. You can have a career anytime anyways, but your children will only be young for a brief period of time and they need a nurturing that the mother is biologically designed to provide. You have what no man has ever had! Why do you care if you achieve “equality” in the workplace?

One of our goals is to make the husband head of household. This doesn’t mean he gets to chain her to the kitchen and beat her daily (as feminists claim always happened in the past, which is why, according to them, that feminism is needed!). Quite the contrary. The husband is to use his leadership to care for his wife and children. Just because he is “head of household” does not mean that the traditional women does not have rights or a voice. She has her rights to demand her husband fulfill his rightful duties the same as he has the right to oversee the family and demand she fulfill hers. She has the right to demand that her husband protect her. Generally speaking, a woman who is being hurt by her husband is not being protected by him! If he is hurting her or causing her severe emotional distress then he is not fulfilling his duties of protection her!

We TWRAs frown upon divorce unless it is the only logical option. For instance, if there is abuse going on or adultery we generally think it acceptable to obtain a divorce and thus we think women should have the same legal protections in a divorce that their grandmothers had. We also think a man should have legal protections to insure he does not have to continue to support a woman who has been unfaithful to him or has broken up the marriage because of her wrong deeds. In the past the wife kept the house and kids in divorce and the husband sent his support. However, if she was at fault she lost her right to be provided for (which means he did not have to provide her with a house or money to live off of). Men, however, should not be provided for by women. So, if she was at fault he still had to provide his own home and live off his own wages. We TWRAs believe this should still hold true. Men are at the top of the hierarchical order They do not need protection and support from women.

We TWRAs generally believe that men should be polite and respectful to women and show chivalry to women, even if they don’t “deserve” it. In the past men did not speak perverted around women without social and legal backlash. The woman was even within her legal rights to slap him if he mistook her for “that kind of girl.” [please note that we live in screwed up times and slapping may not be legal in your jurisdiction so you do any slapping at your own risk, k?]. There are some things that should not be said in a woman’s presence and for good reason. Now that these cultural and legal mores are gone we have numerous problems. Both men and women should be held to certain standards. Women are simply not men and the idea that women should just “man up” is pure fantasy. This whole “equal treatment” thing doesn’t work and TWRAs are opposed to it.

What’s in a Name?

When I first started blogging I was fairly new to the world of anti-feminism. I didn’t really know all that much. I had just studied history and knew what was going on in the world from my own personal observations. My purpose of blogging was (and still is) to help women. My purpose here has never been to write about or deal with “men’s issues.” Men’s issues certainly do exist (as do women’s and children’s and so on) but they are not my purpose. The reason why I am saying this is because I have given a lot of thought here lately to the term anti-feminist. I have given a lot of thought to what exactly is in a name. I have been attacked so much since I started blogging. I honestly never imagined I would garner so much attention or what I was saying would be that controversial. Well, I knew there would be a whole lineup of dissenters but I just never expected to get the kind of audience that I have. The biggest thing I have discovered is that the liberals are quick to attack me for standing up for the rights women have lost in the past 40-50 years and the conservatives just simply ignore me. I have even had many conservatives promoting feminist ideas that conservatives would have shunned entirely 50 years ago.

I have kind of re-done my profile to call myself a traditionalist, or someone who stands for traditional gender roles. Identifying as “anti-feminist” has weighed very heavily on my mind and heart here lately and it has been bothering me quite a bit. Not because I am for feminism (I’m not, which I’ve explained and continue to explain over and over) but simply because of the attention I have attracted throughout the time I have been blogging and the kind of attention the term “anti-feminist” generates.

The real problem is the perception society has about feminism. Most assume it did nothing but help women and not care about (or actually hurt) men. This isn’t true, of course, but most average every-day citizens do not realize this. They do not realize that feminists generally used male plaintiffs until they had invalidated all laws that gave common-sense protections and advantages to women. The do not realize that it is generally feminists who think it is so unfair for men to have traditional responsibilities for women and children. In fact it has mainly been feminists who have told me my writings are “sexist” against men for saying that a man should support his wife.

As I have identified myself as an “anti-feminist” I feel as though I have been alienating the very women I have been trying to help throughout all of this time and have been attracting men who either hate women completely or would love to have a traditional woman without having to assume traditional responsibilities for her.

I had one woman come to my page and I could tell that she was really torn up inside. She told me about how she had grown up around men who treated women like they were inferior. I pleaded with her to please just hear me out, that I was against feminism because of the way it has hurt women and I was trying to help. But she wouldn’t listen. She didn’t want to hear any of it. She never stayed long enough for me to tell her that I knew exactly what she was feeling and that I too had been in her shoes once.

On the other hand I have been attracting the attention of so many men who adore traditional women. Yet they turn around and whine and cry about “sexism” when they can’t get things their way and they talk about “discrimination” (while at the same time promoting it where it pleases them, of course). They don’t want women in combat, yet they want them registered for the draft. They don’t want to change a single diaper, yet they always want custody of the children. They want a housewife, yet they don’t want to pay alimony. The list goes on and on. One of the most ridiculous examples occurred when I was interacting on a site where MRAs frequented constantly. A friend of mine asked “Men: Would it be better if all women said they didn’t want equality and instead just wanted to be traditional?” All of a sudden the thread was flooded with MRAs praising traditional women and saying “yeah, yeah!” and “that would be ideal, yes.” They went nuts over it. I don’t think I saw a single one of them that wasn’t praising the idea of women being traditional and saying that was their idea of a dream girl. Well, soon the fun was over and they all went back to screaming “sexism” and “discrimination” and “where’s our equality,” etc… I have attracted the attention of a lot MRAs who claim to want tradition yet want to point out every single area where men are, supposedly, discriminated against.

I wrote to Phyllis Schlafly last year. I asked her couple of questions and, in a polite way, asked her why she no longer cared about women. I thanked her for her movement many years ago against the ERA and told her that life would undoubtedly be much harder for young women such as myself today if it wasn’t for what she had done. Two weeks later she responded, in all caps, saying that she has always stood up for us. She and Suzanne Venker collaborated together to write a new book, flipside of feminism, a couple of years ago. I was excited to read the book when I first got it because I knew that Schlafly had done great work in the past to protect a woman’s sacred position within the home and family.

My excitement was short lived, however, as I soon began to develop this sour feeling in my gut as I began to read. At first I thought, “great, she’s giving a good history about feminism” but when I got towards the end of the book, she and Venker had done a complete 180 and had joined the ranks of the MRAs. First they say women should be traditional and they promote “sexism” then at the end they complain about alleged “sexism.” There was so much bull**** I actually had to get a pair of waders just to make it to the end of the book. Since society does not accept tradition anymore, I figure that those like Schlafly join up with MRAs to punish women who dare leave traditional roles as it is the only thing society will accept anymore. They know feminists can’t, and won’t, stand against what they are saying (unless it involves the workforce or abortion) because they are too afraid of women being sent back into traditional roles if they say anything about women being protected in marriage or in their roles as mothers. They know they can hit women hard and nobody will come to their rescue.

Yes, I am against feminism- truly against feminism- but calling myself an anti-feminist has become a very painful thing for me. I really and truly want to stand up for women because nobody is. We are so far gone as a culture that many conservatives don’t even care about women being slaughtered in combat and a child being taken from its mother’s breast is seen as progressive because it is politically correct. It is “equality.”

At times feminism has done good things. In the 1800s feminists worked hard to secure protections for women and children. They worked hard to secure a family wage so women could be home with their children instead of being exploited in factories and they worked hard to turn the law away from seeing children as the property of fathers and financial assets to the family. Occasionally I have acknowledged things even modern feminism has done. However, these good things are very few. Often I find feminists tell half-truths. I find myself agreeing with many issues feminists put forth. I know first hand how hard it is for women who have been raped and abused. I know that nobody wants to believe women and I know most women have a hard time getting any kind of justice at all, and that most men never pay for raping and abusing women. But I also know that, while feminism has changed a couple of laws to better protect women, their movement has helped to erase hundreds more that had helped and protected women for generations.

Calling myself an anti-feminist or identifying as an anti-feminist has become painful because of how far downhill society has gone. Ultimately a name is what society makes it. The term anti-feminist is almost completely used to describe those associated with the men’s movement or those who are extremely conservative far beyond even my own views. 50 years ago everyone would have known that I was standing up for women’s role in the family and legal protections if I called myself an anti-feminist. But, now, all I get is hypocritical MRAs.

I am not an anti-feminist in the sense of the way that name is used today. I am a Traditional Women’s Right Activist. I stand up for the rights that women once had before feminism. I stand for our maternal rights and our role in the home. All fit and loving mothers deserve to be able to raise and care for their young children and expect that the father will do his part and provide financial support. I do not stand for “equal treatment” of males and females because it is illogical and a complete fantasy. Men will never have the responsibilities women have no matter how gender-neutralized our laws are. You MRAs complain about boys being treated like girls in the schools yet how do you think women feel being treated like men within family law or the military? This gender-neutral craze of the past 40 years is just plain stupidity. It doesn’t work and it never will. We can say all we want that a woman should just “man up” and get over it or that men should learn to love housework. But, at the end of the day it is only a mess that we are creating.

I talk about feminism because history is important. Women need to know the truth about the women’s movement over the decades. They also need to know about these men’s groups that generally operate very quietly (until recently anyways) so as not to arouse public opposition. The main reason they have been successful at taking advantage of the direction the women’s movement was going is because of how low-key they stayed. The divorce revolution swept through society with barely any media attention or press coverage at all and these men’s groups were right there in the background, along with their gender neutralized feminist allies, to take advantage of the whole thing. If more women understood history (true history) it would change their attitudes and perceptions today. If feminists had a change of heart and truly started looking out for the best interests of women and children I would stand with them in a heartbeat. But, until that day comes, no good is to come from either feminism or anti-feminism.

Explaining the Traditional Women’s Rights Activists Cause

 

I have identified with the TWRAs for a very long time now. In fact, it is approaching a year since I first started this cause. Although I have written many times about history and law, I have yet to truly take the TWRA cause and break it down.

Do TWRA principles take away freedom of choice? I would say not. Have we Americans not been slowly having our freedoms taken away since the 1970s? Most everyone, even if they are not for traditional gender roles, would say yes. By saying that traditional family law takes away freedom of choice you are saying that women’s liberation was necessary because, before then, men and women had no choices. TWRA principles are not just something I pulled out of my rear one day. They are the product of my careful and insightful research into our legal history and family law through the ages. TWRA principles are based on traditional English and American family law before the 1960s.

“ERA will invalidate all state laws which require a husband to support his wife. These laws, designed to protect the most important unit of society, the FAMILY, will be replaced by a new principle making women EQUALLY liable for financial responsibilities. The stability of families will be undermined by this drastic change in wives’ legal status.”[1]

TWRA belief number one:

“Make it the sole obligation of the husband to support his wife so long as she remains faithful and the father to support his children.”

What this is saying is twofold: First, men should support themselves. There is no reason for a wife to have to be held legally responsible to support her husband and there is absolutely no reason for a man to be receiving alimony checks from his ex-wife.

Second, this is saying that it should be the father’s obligation to provide the necessary and most basic needs of his wife and of his children. That is the point of marriage in the first place. Women are the ones who bear the babies and if the fathers are to be brought into the families then they need to take upon the obligation to make sure that mother and child are cared for. It should be their obligation and theirs alone. Not only is this justified, since men don’t bear the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth but it also serves a much larger purpose for the welfare of all of society. If the man does not do his job of financially supporting the wife and children, then the mother cannot devote herself to the children and instead they must be bottle-fed and lose the health benefits and bonding from the mother but it also means they must be raised by other relatives or even the state. This also serves the purpose for fathers who only marry the mother after the child is born, to ensure that their original denial of responsibility does not relieve them of their obligations for mother and child by simply being absent until convenient.

Whether anyone likes it or not, mothers are the ones who were made to be the nurturers, not fathers. Nature, or God, gave children to the mothers to nurture. It is a role that is rooted deep within the biology of who we are as women. Oxytocin, the nurturing hormone, surges within a woman’s very being during labor so that that contractions can open the cervix and so that the mother can bond with her child immediately (indeed, as many women who have had home births can testify that immediately after birth she can hold her child within her arms and begin to nurse) and Oxytocin surges once again so that her body can release milk to nurse her infants. Fathers bring a stability to the family and, when not emasculated by an egalitarian society that tells him he shouldn’t lead his family, it is fathers who are best at keeping order. However, nature did not design them nor equip them with the necessary tools to be the nurturers of an infant. Society never forced women to stay home. Women have always had that choice. However, a man did have the legal right to prevent his wife from working for wages and I believe this is justified. If men are not properly given authority to lead their families then they lose the power to enforce stability within the home. More working wives leads to higher rates of divorce. Study after study has shown this same pattern (I trust I don’t need to write an exhausting list of resources here, but anyone in denial can do the research themselves, plenty of scholarly resources out there). When divorce occurs, individual freedoms are lost and the power to dictate family life is then completely left in the hands of lawyers and judges-who are the only winners in divorce. This increases the power of the government and even more laws are generated to try to get control of the massive breakdown of our families.

“ERA will wipe out state laws that exempt a wife from her husband’s debts even if the husband has deserted her and she has children to support.”[2]

TWRA belief number two:

“Protect a woman by making her exempt from her husband’s debt, especially if she should become widowed or divorced.”

Once again, this goes back to the issue of men being liable for their own support. As men, society should certainly expect them to be responsible for themselves as should the law. If you wish to treat husband and wife as individuals then what is the point of the marriage contract in the first place? These laws also protected the most fundamental foundation of civilized society, which is the family. If a woman must be held responsible for her husband’s debts then that means she is legally forced into the workforce under penalty of law even if she has been abandoned or widowed and has young children she must care for and support. This is traditional family law and it worked well as divorce rates were low and society was relatively stable. Invalidating these laws, designed to promote family stability, has led to the complete moral collapse of society and led to many social ills that have destructed society and the loss of individual freedoms.

Nobody in their right mind would say the condition of families today is all well and good. Plain and simple, rules must be enforced. There has to be laws enforcing stability in society or else you have anarchy and the society will self destruct within a couple of generations, which is what Western society is witnessing now as the traditional family unit has become unrecognizable.

“Women in the home are not performing some optional role that can be more efficiently fulfilled by the welfare state. Women in the home are not ‘wasting’ their human resources. The role of the mother is the paramount support of civilized human society. It is essential to the socialization both of men and of children. The maternal love and nurture of small children is an asset that can be replaced, if at all, only at vastly greater cost. Such attention is crucial to raising children into healthy and productive citizens. Moreover, the link of men through marriage to the support of particular children is crucial to male motivation and productivity.

The provider role of men not only gives the society the benefit of a lifetime of hard work oriented toward long-term goals. It also channels and disciplines male energies and aggressions that otherwise turn against that society. By contrast, full-time work by mothers of small children comes at a serious twofold cost: first, the loss of the immeasurable social benefit of the mother’s loving care for her child; second, the frequent loss of the husband’s full-time concentration on his career. The yield of the mother’s job to the economy or the man’s help in the home only rarely can offset the costs of her employment. The society will pay the costs on way or another: not only through tremendous outlays for day care but also through economic declines, population loss, juvenile delinquency, crime, mental illness, alcoholism, addiction, and divorce.”[3]

Yes, the husband should be liable for his wife’s debts and support unless she does a wrong against him such to invalidate the marriage contract (such as adultery). In such a case, the man should still be responsible for his own and his children’s support (although she should not be allowed to just take off with the kids if she is in the wrong, which I’ll explain later) but, since the contract is broken, he should be held liable no longer for her support. That is traditional family law. So long as the wife has committed no wrong he should support her but if she breaks the contract and is no longer faithful then she also waives her right to support from him. That’s how it works.

“It was precisely upon the conclusion that marriage cannot be a viable career for women that Time magazine rested its Fall 1990 special issue on “Women: The Road Ahead,” a survey of contemporary women’s lives. While noting that the ‘cozy, limited roles of the past are still clearly remembered, sometimes fondly,’ during the past thirty years ‘all that was orthodox has become negotiable.’ One thing negotiated away has been the economic security of the homemaker, and Time advised young women that ‘the job of full-time homemaker may be the riskiest profession to choose’ because ‘the advent of no-fault and equitable-distribution divorce laws’ reflect, in the words of one judge, the fact that ‘[society] no longer believes that a husband should support his wife.’

No-fault divorce laws did not, however, result from an edict of the gods of some force of nature, but from sustained political efforts, particularly by the feminist movement. As a cornerstone of their drive to make women exchange home for workplace, and thereby secure their independence from men, the availability of no-fault divorce (like the availability of abortion) was sacrosanct to the movement. Time shed crocodile tears for displaced homemakers, for it made clear that women must canter down the road ahead with the spur of no-fault divorce urging them into the workplace. Of all Time’s recommendations for ameliorating women’s lot, divorce reform- the most crying need in our country today- was not among them. Whatever hardships may be endured by women who would resist a divorce, Time’s allegiance, like that of most feminists, is clearly to the divorce- seekers who, it was please to note, will not be hindered in their pursuit of self-realization b the barriers to divorce that their own mothers had faced.”[4]

TWRA belief number three:

“Repeal no-fault divorce laws and reinstate alimony for ex-wives to give security to women who opt out of the workforce to raise their children or help their husbands”

Without security for the housewife in knowing that her husband will be liable to provide for her basic needs for her life, women are driven into the workforce, which further increases the divorce rates and puts distrust between husband and wife. It tells women there is only one reliable choice in life: full-time work because neither society nor law sees that the obligation to provide for the wife should be upon the man. No-fault divorce legally guts the marriage contract and leaves it meaningless and family stability, and along with it the rights of parents to govern their children’s lives, unenforceable.

“As one court put it, ‘a marriage license is not a ticket to a perpetual pension,’ but that is precisely what it must be to give a housewife security. In denying that security, society has rejected traditional marriage.”[5]

TWRA belief number four:

“Re-instate a family wage for married fathers”

This is not meant to be an assault on a free market economy. I do not mean there should be a law telling employers what they should be paying their employees. Rather, this is meant to strike down existing legislation that is actually imposing more restrictions on the economy. Equal pay laws must go that way employers may be free once again to favor married men in hiring and pay, thus furthermore protecting the family, the most important unit of society.

TWRA belief number five:

“End Affirmative Action for women”

This furthermore illustrates the need for employers to be free to hire married men, or hire men in general, instead of being forced to keep an even number of women. Affirmative action further undermines the family and the ability of men to be providers. Affirmative Action also forces women to remain in the workforce as the women cannot be legally replaced by men without employers facing a lawsuit.

TWRA belief number six:

“Re-instate the husband as legal head of household with authority to make final decisions regarding finances and where the family will live”

Once again, this serves the purpose of family stability. If the wife is independent from her husband and can feel free to move away from him then the family unit is shattered. Nobody has ever forced women or men to marry in American society. Independent lives are for single individuals, not married couples. And since the husband should be legally obligated to pay the bills and provide the necessaries for his wife and children, it goes without saying that he should be given the authority to make the decisions in that area as well. The law cannot impose upon a man the ultimate obligation of the support of his wife and children without giving him the ultimate authority to manage what his wife and children are doing. He cannot be held responsible for something that he has no control over.

TWRA belief number seven:

“Encourage women to refrain from sexual activities until the male commits to marry and provide for her”

Now here TWRA beliefs deviate from our legal goals for a minute. This is a cultural goal. Sex before marriage is most damaging to women, the child bearers, as we are mentally and physically different from men.Sexual intercourse for a woman involves pain and messiness and a penetration into the most deepest and intimate areas of her body and being. Also by its very nature, the physiological demands of the sex act itself is dependent upon the man’s ability to completely overtake the woman and dominate her. There is not a shred of fungibility in sexual terms between males and females. Male sexual patterns really haven’t changed any at all since women’s lib, it is women’s sexual behavior that has been dramatically altered. TWRA goals are not about bashing women, but about encouraging and protecting women. Fathers should protect their daughters and mothers should instill within their daughters values that currently mothers are not teaching them. It is our responsibility as women to teach the younger women to love themselves, so that they may ultimately love their husbands and their children and have a fulfilled life. Yes, it is our responsibility to teach women of their preciousness. When society no longer values the preciousness of women, which stems from our sexuality, it effects all of us as it is the women that can either build up or tear down society. Divorce, falling birth rates, women in combat, illegitimacy and a whole host of other problems occur as a result. It is the most deepest and scandalous of all politically incorrect truths -something that has always been understood but never said out loud- that women should never trade superiority for equality.

TWRA belief number eight:

“Re-instating common law right for women that were repealed in the name of equality, such as her right to recover damages for breach of promise to marry and seduction.”

Far from a flight from personal responsibility, this indicates that sexual morality is important to society and that, not only should a woman be expected by society to conduct herself as a lady, but also that men are held to a chivalrous responsibility to not take advantage of women. It indicates that society sees marriage as the only appropriate way for sex and childbearing to occur. We do not need a scientific study (although there are plenty available) to tell us that the male sex drive is a man’s prime governing passion and that a man will say or do anything to get a woman into bed. We also don’t need scientific studies to understand what has always been the common knowledge of our ancestors, that women can easily be swayed by men and will even give into his sexual desires because she believes he will remain with her and she will be loved. It shows clearly that men are responsible for women and ultimately in charge and are to be required to conduct themselves appropriately. With authority comes responsibility. It also shows that a woman’s body is valued and should only belong to the man who is committed to her and that society imposes upon her the responsibility to remain pure and only have children once married. This also serves a larger purpose to society as a whole, as out-of-wedlock births decrease and children are raised in a stable home with both a mother and a father, as sexual morality is of prime concern to society.

About Coverture and father’s rights:

First and foremost, I am talking about married fathers. Although I have not specifically stated a difference before, I am right now. I do not believe-for the welfare of women, children, society and even men- that an unwed father should be given the same legal rights and responsibilities of a married father. Where there is a valid contract of marriage, the husband should be the legal father of any and all children born to the wife. If his wife has been unfaithful he needs to make a choice right away when the child is born whether to stay with her, raise the child to adulthood and continue to be the legal father or divorce her- no waiting around for years or months and creating instability and confusion in the child’s life.

When an unwed mother has a child, she should be the sole legal parent of the child (with sole rights and responsibilities for the child) unless she should marry the father and he assume responsibility as provider and head of the family or until she gives that child up for adoption. It is only since the 1970s that unwed fathers have been granted rights like a married father. I believe this, along with our current welfare system and sexual liberation, has served to undermine stability of families and society. Many children are confused and families are torn apart when there is no stable family life.

The husband should be the head of the house, with sole authority and responsibility for the wife and children.

We believe in eliminating no-fault divorces. This alone does away with the problem of one spouse deciding to take off and rip the children away from the other parent without justification. Unless there is a clear showing of abuse or adultery so bad as to make it unsafe or unreasonable to stay in the marriage, divorce should not be granted. However, we do not believe that fault between husband and wife should be used to determine a child’s fate. We believe that the husband’s responsibilities for the child should remain the same no matter where the children live and no matter if he is still married to the mother. Therefore, as the authority in the family he holds the responsibility to place his children where he sees fit.

Traditional marriage is a contract between the man and the woman that basically states that he is held liable for her provision and protection and she will be faithful and only bear his children, not some other man’s. Unless one party has broken this contract, divorce should not be granted and the children should remain in the home with both parents.

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws!”
Tacitus (A.D. 55-130)

The abolition of the nuclear family has led to the rise of societal disintegration. The case for traditional family law does not impose an entire set of unjust laws on the people . Quite the contrary, abolition of traditional family law has led to the rise of numerous laws that must govern our every action and control our families- because the families are no longer being governed from within themselves as there is no prime authority figure. Once divorce occurs the government and the law gets their hands on your property, your money, your children and ultimately your very life. Only in the most extreme of circumstances should this ever be allowed to happen.

In the twentieth century Lewis Termin conducted the only known psychological study where the participants were observed from early childhood until their deaths. What he found was that those participants whose parents divorced before they reached adulthood (or to the age of 21) lived an average of 5 years less than those whose parents stayed together until the children at least reached adulthood. This held true even when controlled for other factors and also held steady even when sex was taken into account (women generally live longer than men, but the lifespans of both the males and females suffered equally negatively under divorce). Many studies today conclude negative health effects in both the husband and wife after divorce and a whole host of other negative problems that are too numerous to continue to name off in this posting.

No, TWRA supporters are not “living in fear” or simply afraid. But we are very concerned. We are concerned for our civilization and the welfare of our families because we live in a society that has been trying relentlessly for the past 50 years to destruct traditional morality and family values. Traditional men and women have been taking this for long enough. If we are to save our civilization and secure the freedom of our children and future generations, we must act now because freedom is never more than a generation away from going extinct.

We are witnessing the rise of every liberal cause under the sun from women in combat to women going bare-breasted in public. These can only be the signs of a civilization in decay.

“Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women… The decay and the ruin of a nation has always lain in the hands of its women. So does its life and strength, its reverence for beauty, its mercy and kindness. And, above all, its men.”[6]

Notes:

[1] http://www.eagleforum.org/era/2003/ERA-Brochure.shtml
[2] Ibid.
[3] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage.” Pelican, 1993.
[4] Graglia, C.F. “Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism,” p.9-10. Spence, 1998.
[5] Ibid., p. 137.
[6] http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/Women_s_Lib_They_re_Spoiling_Eve_s_Great_Con_Game_5010050.shtml

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.