Tag Archives: disciplining wives

Marriage is Not Meant to be Egalitarian

A husband should be obligated to support his wife just based on the fact that she is his wife, his dependent, and he is responsible for her. It should not be dependent on how much housework she does or whether or not they have children that she is responsible to care for. I see in the times we live in now that a lot of women are telling their husbands or live-in boyfriends that they’ll do housework if he will support her. Of course, then this leads oftentimes to the boyfriend/husband getting angry that she isn’t doing enough housework or isn’t doing her share even though he’s supporting her. Of course, men and women (who aren’t related) should not be allowed to live alone together without being married. But on a husband should fall the obligation to fully financially support his wife no matter how much housework she does or even if she does any housework at all. If a man is rich enough to afford a maid it shouldn’t affect his obligation to support his wife. As much as he provides for himself he should provide for his wife as well and any children they have together. A man shouldn’t be relieved of his obligation to support his wife just because he can afford a housekeeper and doesn’t need her to do housework. In times past men had the legal obligation to support their wives and this obligation was not dependent on the wife “doing her share” in housework or bearing a child every year.

As well, a lot of people look down on childless housewives as though they were not doing anything productive. This is only because we’ve been brainwashed to see everything in terms of money, in terms of how much money it would cost to pay someone else to do what the housewife does. We’ve been brainwashed to believe that marriages and male-female relationships should always be egalitarian. But you can’t put a price-tag on the work a woman at home does, as her work is invaluable. Even if all she does is bake a pie and invite a friend over for tea she has still done something valuable. She has still contributed to society and the family. She has contributed to society in the way of one less broken home, one less unhappy family, one less obese child and one less frustrated and angry woman.

I like to sit down and read a book and occasionally, if there’s anything good to watch, I like to watch a little tv when I get all of my chores done. Just because I sit down for a couple of hours doing something that I enjoy doesn’t mean I’m lazy or “freeloading”. If my husband is unsatisfied with the work I do around the house then he can tell me what I’m doing wrong. It is his job to straighten me out if I’m neglecting my true duties. Likewise, most married women feel they have to volunteer all of their free time or start some home business or something. I have no intentions of starting some home business or volunteering. That would make me very unhappy and no doubt be an unnecessary stress.

A husband should have the legal obligation to fully financially support his wife and any children they do or don’t have and as well he should have the legal right to be head-of-household. It is the woman’s obligation to care for the home and she will generally have her own way of doing things and her own methods. Mostly a husband should just let her do things the way she knows how to do things best. If a wife is truly neglecting her duties around the house and neglecting the kids then it is the husband’s job to keep her in line or punish her if necessary. It’s not really the business of anyone else around as it is the husband’s household and he should have the right to direct his family the way he sees fit (so long as he doesn’t cross the line into abuse and so long as he lives up to his responsibilities). It doesn’t really matter if the feminist woman down the street hates the fact that his wife doesn’t work. It doesn’t really matter if the wife is busy non-stop or what other people think. A wife should not be pressured to be on her feet running herself into the ground all day just to appease the modern-day notion of “equal” marriages. Marriage was not meant to be an “equal partnership.” Marriage is a partnership of sorts, but it should not be “equal.” The purpose of marriage is for men to protect and support women and give women security to have babies. The purpose of marriage is to protect women from having to go out and work and be on their own and to protect women from carrying double burdens.

Every year when my husband files our taxes he is barred from claiming me as a dependent. If we were not married he could do so, but since we are married our laws state that legally I cannot be a dependent and he cannot legally be head of household. Our laws state that we must jointly be head of household. That I, as his legal wife, must accept all the same burdens that are laid upon him and no consideration is given to the burdens that fall solely on a woman or to her weaker and more dependent state. That is not a choice, that is an obligation. It is the law accepting of the feminist perspective and obliging all citizens to follow it despite the fact that it is anti-God and this legally enforced equality in the family has been the primary cause of the complete destruction of the family unit and the instability in marital relationships. But this is not what marriage has historically been about. Marriage is about men protecting and supporting women and being responsible for their actions towards women. Marriage needs to return once again to being an institution about men providing for and being guardians of women and children, no matter how much work a woman is doing around the house.

Recommended Articles:

The Contribution of Traditional Wives to Society

Homemakers Should Not Be Made to Feel Guitly for Enjoying Life at Home

So You Think You Should Go To Work?

If All You Do…


How Can a Woman Deal With a Wayward Husband?

I’ve talked before about when women act bad. When the wife is in the wrong or acting bad then the problem is simple. The husband is the authority figure, he is in almost every case larger and stronger and his wife is obliged to obey him. If she doesn’t want to comply then the husband can use appropriate force or even discipline if necessary to force obedience from an unwilling or reluctant wife. The same holds true for the government/citizen relationship. The citizen is under the authority of the government. If the citizen should not want to obey he can be cited, given a warning and punished appropriately. It’s a straightforward thing really. The laws are laid out. If the citizen acts bad the government has the power to punish or even use appropriate force if the citizen refuses to cooperate and accept the rule of law and appropriate punishment. The rules are laid out and if the person refuses to obey then the problem can be dealt with straightforward in a no-nonsense manner and force/discipline can and will be used against the reluctant citizen to compel obedience against the person’s will to get them to act right and keep order in society. The husband is the authority in the house and if the wife is out of line the husband will tell her and if she refuses to cooperate the husband can just take her in hand then and there and straighten out the problem and put everything back in order even against the woman’s objections. It’s a simple and easy solution that can generally be dealt with quickly and easily as divine law has ordained the husband’s authority (the same with the government’s) and he is more powerful and can simply overpower the woman’s will and everything can be set straight. The home can be in order and peace can reign once again.

But what about if the husband is the one doing wrong? What if he is the one who is out of line? The solution for the woman is not so easy. She is not in authority over him. There are times when she might try to be and if he is in the wrong she might try to confront him head-on and tell him to act right. But what if he doesn’t accept that he’s in the wrong and act right? What if he refuses to change? She cannot be truly in authority over him. She cannot compel him to do something if he doesn’t want to. She has not the strength nor proper authority. Nothing can be law without authority behind it, and no authority can be a true authority without the power to compel obedience against those who are unwilling. The woman in authority over the man upsets the natural order and she, in almost every case, does not have the power nor strength to compel obedience from him. Her position can be the same as that of a citizen who lives under the rule of a tyrannical government that has gone out of control, has become abusive and is not functioning properly. When this happens the citizen cannot compel the government to get “back in line” and function properly and generally has to look for an external form of support. The citizen might find supporters, draw up a petition and look for others to show support and sign it. The citizen might then try to find those higher up the ladder in authority to show support and plead his case. If all else fails, the citizen will probably start looking for a miracle and pray to God to hear his cries.

Likewise, the woman who finds herself in a position where the one who is supposed to be protecting her (her husband) has gone out of control and refuses to perform his rightful duties towards her and/or the children ideally needs an external form of support. If she is a Christian woman or a Muslim woman she can look to what God says and show her husband where he is wrong and expect of him that he change his behaviors. A woman with no religious affiliation can still look to a form of divine law to tell the husband he is wrong and he needs to change. It is important for the woman not to just say “I want it now do it!” or make her case in such a selfishly-oriented way. This will cause the man to pull away from her and he will be less likely to want to protect her or resume his rightful duties towards her if she makes demands unilaterally in a selfish way against him. Putting her case to her husband in such a way causes her to be unfeminine and removes the man’s natural protective instinct for the woman.

I think it is very destructive for women to protect themselves unilaterally. A woman should always try to gain support from the community around her and other men in the family close to her that can deal with the man at his own level if need be (as in deal with him “man to man”). It is hard in our world today because society at large does not care if a husband supports his wife and even more abused women find it hard to find shelter and a woman can hardly count on the law to enforce that her husband perform his rightful duties or be punished. But in any case, a woman should never doubt that her feminine aspects can still draw support towards her and change the husband to be the man he should be. She can also set a good example that will help inspire cultural change.

A woman cannot and should not follow the husband if he is leading her down the wrong path. She also cannot obey when he is not acting in his rightful role as a man. Obeying him when he has truly become neglectful and abusive will cause her to be a doormat and he will continue to be irresponsible. It isn’t always easy for a woman in these situations as a man’s irresponsibility and bad behaviors towards his wife can cause a real problem when he is the one who is supposed to be in charge. I have heard women ask “well, what is a woman supposed to do if the husband won’t act right? Sit around and watch her family fall to pieces all around her?” These women make good points and pose difficult questions with no easy and straightforward answers.

In cases not so severe I believe a woman can win her husband over by still obeying him even if she doesn’t necessarily like what her husband demands or if he isn’t doing things quite the way she wants (no authority figure is ever going to operate exactly as the ones under his authority like anyways). Her feminine charms can win her more love from her husband and she can influence him thus, but unfeminine selfishness will only draw him away and she will be even more unhappy. In severe cases such as non-support, abandonment, abuse and neglect she must put her foot down and refuse to follow the man or temporarily separate and seek the shelter and the support of others and not return to the husband until he has changed his ways and accepted responsibility.

The important thing is the woman’s attitude I believe. She should always be willing to obey but make it clear that she cannot do so if he is truly in the wrong (not just because she doesn’t like a decision but because he is truly doing something wrong or stepping outside the bounds of what is moral or appropriate) and is neglecting his true duties towards her and the family. If the husband asks her to do something that he doesn’t have any moral authority to do (such as telling her to “get a job”-that is his responsibility and he has no right to push it on her– or telling her to go commit an indecent or irresponsible act) she must say no. She must tell her husband why she is refusing to make it clear she cannot obey him because what he has asked is wrong and he has no authority to command her to do which goes against God/divine law.

These issues aren’t easy to deal with and there isn’t always an easy answer. For the women who have never heard of Helen Andelin I suggest picking up a copy of her book “Fascinating Womanhood.” Mrs. Andelin taught many women in her lifetime to be feminine and she teaches a woman to embrace old-fashioned femininity and accept patriarchy, not equality. She has very good advice on how a woman can act to bring out the protective and responsible chivalrous instinct in men and how a woman can best fulfill her roles as a traditional woman. She also gives advice on how women can deal with men who won’t earn the living, how women can deal with anger in an appropriate feminine way and have a happy home life in a traditional marriage. Mr. Jesse Powell also has some good articles on how a traditional woman can assert herself with men in a hostile feminist climate and also how the submissive wife is protected under patriarchy that are very worthwhile to read.

Another thing I would like to add is that a woman should not solve the problem by taking it into her own hands when the husband is being too passive in his leadership role or is refusing to support the family. For instance, I heard a woman say that her son would stay up half the night playing on the iPad and she was very worried for her son. She had many talks with her husband about it and he would do something for a time but then would cave and let the son have the iPad back and stay up half the night. Eventually the woman had enough and her husband wouldn’t do anything so she took matters into her own hands and took the iPad and smashed it to pieces. She employed a temporary solution to what was in reality a chronic long-term problem (her husband’s reluctance to accept responsibility and his passivity in his rightful leadership role). The problem was solved for the moment but surely it was only a matter of time before something else big would come up. Her husband was glad she had done something about the problem which shows yet another danger. First she went against her husband’s authority and second she allowed him to evade responsibility so the next time if there should be a serious problem the husband might think “it’s ok, if I just do nothing my wife will eventually handle the situation.” Here a pattern of allowing the husband to evade responsibility is created. In the process she also showed the children that their father was not the ultimate authority thus possibly causing them to even act out more in the future. She upset the natural balance of authority/responsibility in her home.

A woman taking matters into her own hands when her husband doesn’t accept responsibility only worsens the problem in the long run. The same can be true for women who go and get a job because their husband won’t support the family. This may solve the problem temporarily (money’s coming in so the kids won’t starve) but the woman only creates a greater long term problem. A woman should not follow her husband into sin and should put her foot down if he is asking her to accept his responsibilities. If he is rejecting his responsibilities she should remind him what his duties are in a non-selfish way and refuse to obey until he is operating in his rightful role as a man once again.

CDD, You’ve Got it Wrong

Well, I’ve been involved in some interesting stuff here lately. I have been researching some social movements such as the christian patriarchy movement, stay at home daughters movement and the ever popular domestic discipline movement (sometimes part of the christian patriarchy movement). It’s good to at least see the culture moving towards patriarchy but i’m still seeing a lot of problems. First, some of these groups tend to be tinged with sexually explicit BDSM aspects. On some of my research adventures I’ve quite frankly felt a sudden urge to tighten up my anti-virus protection and have been really disturbed by a lot of things.

There does seem to be a lot of women out there really truly wanting to submit to their husbands and have happy homes. But the one thing I’ve seen that they are missing is that they still seem to be feminist in many aspects. For instance, I’ve gotten myself involved in a couple of conversations and following quite a few others. I’ve also been searching through blogs and websites and the one thing that I’ve noticed is that they are still feminist in the aspect of women working and nobody seems to want to talk about a husband’s responsibilities except for where keeping his wife “in line” is concerned. They promise to obey their husbands and then they march right off to work.

I responded to a posting in a group (a Christian domestic discipline group) I joined up with a week ago where a woman was talking about how her husband was disciplining her and how she can submit to him better and she was asking advice at what the other ladies and their husbands do. Then she went on to say about how she just lost her job and she was really stressed. I’ve seen this kind of conversation before and these ladies then go on to talk about how their husbands command them to do this or that before they head off to work and their husband’s discipline helps them relieve the stress they deal with at work and they will talk about having Bible studies and everything as well. I mean, something is seriously wrong here. I mean, you want your husband to spank the stress out of you that you acquired through sharing in his responsibilities? I’d rather be a feminist than deal with that! At least I could “go my own way.” I pointed out that it wasn’t her responsibility to go to work but her husband’s and his role as head of household is so that he can provide for her and their children better. So what did they say? Nothing. In fact, the group is acting like I don’t exist at all. The conversation kept on going and is still going and nobody has made mention or even cared about anything at all that I said. Some of them even wished her luck in finding a new job. But doesn’t their own Bible say it is for the man to work “by the sweat of his brow” to provide for his family and that the woman’s husband is to rule over her even though she will try to rule over him? They acknowledge the husband ruling over her part but make no mention about the man’s work to provide. Some also seem to think it’s perfectly acceptable for a boss or boyfriend to discipline a woman when only a husband (or father when she’s young) should have such a right.

Unfortunately I see these movements as some kind of game. They set out the “rules” of the game, they have names and abbreviations such as “HoH” (head of household) and things like that. They are still, however, part of the modern mainstream culture and what ultimately separates them from their BDSM loving secular egalitarian counterparts? The Bible studies where they ignore scripture and redefine it to what modern society says is right and wrong? These movements might tie in well with movements such as the men’s rights movement that wants men put in charge but still keeping the feminist ideals of women going out and holding employment regardless of their marital status.

Now I’m not going to argue about the whole men disciplining their wives thing. In truth, when it comes down to it, no authority is a real authority unless 1) it can enforce its rule with the approval of society and the law or 2) it has the power to discipline those under its rule. Everyone is disciplined by someone whether physical or not when they break a rule or law. I don’t believe that a man has any rightful authority unless he has unquestionable responsibility. I’ve seen some complain about women pressing charges for things like “marital rape” on their husbands. My thoughts? I don’t think it’s right but if men want to “go their own way” and leave women to fend for themselves then what do they expect? You can’t force yourself upon a woman and force her to bear your children when she can be forced to carry half the burden of the economic costs and you can abandon her any time you want to. You can’t put a woman “in her place” then tell her to go to work so you can sit back and and not have to worry so much. I’ve seen some women say they work full-time and then come home and cook dinner and get a beer for their husband so he can relax and watch TV! That’s insanity. That’s called exploitation. That’s called taking advantage of someone for your own benefit and to their detriment.

I think allowing men to use a little force to restrain their wives or even discipline when necessary might be appropriate and would give men both the power to protect themselves and as well protect their wives from her own foolishness and keep peace in the home. But it’s not a carte blanche to abuse a woman nor for him to push his burdens on her back so he doesn’t have as much to worry about.

Feminism and Female Preciousness

“Why does this always happen to me? Things are going great for like a week and a half then all of a sudden it’s over and I’m mystified! Seriously I am mystified because it always starts out so well! Mike and I had such a connection! The first time we had sex, it was so beautiful; I cried…

“You cried?”


“You mean like one glistening tear on your cheek right?”

“No. I was really emotional. I even told him that I loved him”

“After how many days?”


The above scene is from the movie How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. We all know the movie, right girls? We’ve all seen it and laughed along with it. Glamorous, young, beautiful career women working for a popular women’s fashion magazine. Casual sex with marriage and children put on hold for a glamorous career that maybe less than one percent of women will ever hope to have. The thought that a woman might not be able to hold up to to male standards of casual, no strings attached sex and casual relationships(we might move in together later, maybe, but marriage is just so obsolete these days) is a foreign notion to these ladies. To think that a woman might get emotional during sex, even to the point of crying, is plain heresy to the liberation ladies. If a woman cannot be fungible with men and join in on the sexual revolution without becoming attached to the man, there must be something terribly wrong with her. After all, to conclude that men and women are truly different from each other (besides the obvious anatomy that not even the most hard-core liberal can deny) runs contrary to the feminist agenda.

Of course, this movie came out when I was younger and at that time I had no way of knowing I was being indoctrinated by feminist beliefs and ideals for women (what is feminism anyways? Wasn’t it that movement I briefly read about in Social Studies that gave us women rights?) At the time, it was just normal. Us women are supposed to finish our school and go straight into college so that we can “do something” with our lives. At the ages of 15 and 16 we are told by our parents that being sexually active is OK, as long as we visit the gynecologist regularly and be sure to remember to take the pill every morning. And, of course, remember that the pill does not protect against STDs or AIDS so be sure when you change sexual partners to make him wear a condom! Pregnancy before the age of 25 is not allowed because that would jeopardize college and career prospects!

So young women go out with boys. They may not necessarily want sex, but if we don’t give it to him, won’t he leave or think us a prude? Won’t the other girls and everyone think there is something wrong with me and outcast me if I confess I’m a virgin or don’t like sex? And if we have sex and it isn’t good, isn’t that because there’s something wrong with me?

This is the legacy of the feminist movement. Our society has become so blind to the differences between the sexes that they cannot even possibly imagine why women might need to be protected differently than men. To speak of unequal treatment of the sexes in any way is heresy and is cause for severe backlash and hatred against the brave sole who dares speak up.

But the fact is that women are not men. The sexes are neither mentally nor physically the same and when it comes to sex, our needs and desires are so vastly different from each other. But to speak of these differences is not allowed, as feminists have worked endlessly to gender-neutralize all of society so that women are not perceived in any way as weak or nurturing. This is also why women in combat doesn’t even spark backlash among conservatives anymore, because they too have adopted feminist ideals for their daughters. Feminists said that a young woman’s remains in a body bag should be perceived no differently than a mans and all of society has taken their argument seriously.

“Women’s increased sexual promiscuity and the high rates at which they have exercised their unlimited abortion rights have well served feminism’s goal of defeminizing women so as to make them androgynous male equivalents. Dramatically illustrating this commitment to promoting fungibility of the sexes, the women’s movement rejected changes to the proposed Equal Rights Amendment that would have lessened opposition to the amendment by forbidding military drafting of women or, at least, their service in combat. Since combat service would validate their consistent denial of female preciousness, feminists have always favored placing women in combat… Even if only relatively few women could meet the physical requirements of combat service, denying women exemption from that service serves feminism’s need to confute any perception of females as soft, yielding, potential mothers”[1]

So society has taken this message to heart. MRAs, and increasingly many men these days, are losing their caring and belief of treating women any differently than another man, and many are now simply saying if women are wanting “equality,” let’s let them have it. As one blogger stated:

“Sad to say but IMHO most men these days really DON”T like women ! That’s how much damage feminism has done !
Many men won’t speak out because they don’t care anymore what women want or if they live or die. It’s all a part of the “Men’s rights movement”. If women want true “equality” there are many that are determined to give it to them.”[2]

This was all apart of the feminist goal. Women’s sexuality is the most undeniable thing that separates women from men. The feminist theory was that if only men stopped being chivalrous to women and protecting women, then women would finally have to stop depending on men and putting their trust in them. Then they would finally achieve independence and stop relying on those alimony and child support checks!

Women, as opposed to men, have an extended sexual role that goes far beyond intercourse. This extended sexual role makes women precious, as women are the only ones who can bear children. This extended sexual role also causes women to perceive sex differently than what men do. It is not uncommon at all for a woman to become emotional over sex. Sex ties directly into women’s extend sexual roles of conceiving, carrying, bearing and nursing infant children. All of these sexual roles entail deep emotions. The nurturing hormone Oxytocin surges both in childbirth and in orgasm for women. In the aforementioned How To Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Michelle is assailed by her female co-workers for having cried after sex and become attached to the male. She is told that the most beautiful woman on the planet would drive a guy away with that sort of behavior. Crying, then calling him multiple times wondering why he won’t talk to her? What is wrong with this woman? Doesn’t she know she should just take it like a man and move on? It was only sex, after all. There are plenty of fish in the sea and she’s got a fashionable career and girlfriends to cry with over a fine glass of wine.

And because of the sexual revolution, many indeed may not care that a woman’s needs are different than a man’s. And as well, many men will also not care when women are shipped overseas to put their lives on the line in combat. In their view, women are not precious but instead androgynous male equivalents.

“Benefits accrue from this arrangement: for both, higher income; for him, freedom from the breadwinner’s responsibility; for her, status in the public arena, divorce insurance, and whatever pleasure she derives from market production. To the man, she is precisely what contemporary feminism demanded that she must be: a financially independent roommate who is a full-time market producer, much like himself. These ministrations are not designed to embody an individual who delights in developing her feminine role to its fullest dimensions, but to embody one who must narrow that feminine role sufficiently to become fungible with, and thus more closely resemble, her husband. This is why, in so using her, the man can be said to demonstrate despite of femininity. Women have thus harvested what feminism sowed; for some, the fruit has turned to ashes on their lips.”[3]

But, women must be independent, says mainstream society and the feminists. Traditional women are also assailed for depending on husbands. They act as if a woman has no clue of the “risks” involved in such a decision. But, if there is one thing that women *know* above all other knowledge today, it is that men are not dependable. That is, after all, the message we have received all of our lives. If there is one thing that women understand today, it would be that they must not trust in men. Of course, women’s dependency (when and where it actually existed in civilizations throughout history) has always been a common concern. Life is not always fair to us. The one we thought we trusted and loved could very well leave us or possibly die. Yet the feminists refuse to take accountability for their movement that liberated men from responsibility and caused women to understand that a career must be their first ambition in life. Their argument for forgoing alimony, for instance, is the same argument they still use today regarding women in combat. They will probably say “but, most men never paid their support” and likewise, “but, women are already in combat.” Feminists have always used the women who were in the workforce, without support or who had died as soldiers to officially demolish the laws that protected women.

A young woman might very well wonder then if she could ever trust in a man. Casual sex isn’t the glorious thing the media and the feminists constantly hold it out to be. Feminism has created a society full of Michelles. She has no power or hold over a guy that she sleeps with, yet he probably wouldn’t ever even consider her if she refuses sex. What is a girl to do or believe in her case? What is any woman to do? Women have deep emotional needs and the women’s movement has robbed women of their sexual bargaining power.

“Instead of deploring this development, women have been urged to become just as promiscuous and irresponsible as the men. Somehow, if we all descend to the lowest common denominator, we’ll find happiness in the mess we’ve created. “There isn’t a venerable history of women celebrating promiscuity;” writes columnist Frederica Mathewes-Green. “[I]f anything, women’s wisdom over the ages taught that emotional security was the precondition for sex being fun, and a wedding ring was the best aphrodisiac. But again, what did stupid old housewives know? Men called them prudish, so that’s what they were. Thirty years later women are still going morosely out into the night in dutiful pursuit of fun. And if it’s not fun, she presumes, it must be because something is wrong with her.” So now those of us who reject the doctrines of the sexual revolution (which had their roots in the “free love” movement of Marxism in the 1840s and in Margaret Sanger’s writings in the early 20th century) are expected to just go along with the “brave new world” the radical feminists created in the name of all women.”[4]

And, since men and women- in the view of modern society- are so fungible with each other, a woman must have sexual experience in order to be “good.” If the sex isn’t good, then there must be something wrong with her. If she is dissatisfied with casual sex then there must be something wrong with her. You will never hear anyone confess the truth of the matter. The conventional wisdom that feminists rejected at every turn is undoubtedly what can truly make a woman happy. Deep down women have a need to be able to depend on the man she mates with. This may also be why we are seeing the rise of such diversifications as BDSM. Increasingly I have been researching and seeing many women engage in DD (often with a side of BDSM) and feminists insisting that it is all about “exploring their sexuality.” They insist that it has nothing to do with actually needing to depend upon a dominant male and continue on with these games (for that is all they truly are). Yet while a traditional woman might find some aspects of BDSM erotic, she is already fulfilled by her dependency and trust in her husband. While men may have been disciplining their wives for thousands of years (not as often as we are led to believe, however) I cannot honestly see how women could actually want to engage in such a thing just for fun. But these games, much like casual sex, has been the feminist prescription for millions of women. The Michelles of the world continuously wonder how they can ever find a man they can trust in or a man that will stick around, yet feminism has no answers for these women. After all, they know very well how men lie and play women for their own benefit, right? How does a woman know she is truly special to the man? Surely not because he says so.

“As Zora Neale Hurston’s John Pearson so well put it: ‘You know better’n tuh b’lieve anything uh man tell yuh after ten o’clock at night.’ A woman can only know through the life the man constructs with her, through how he makes her feel as a female, through what he is to her and does for her compared to what she does for him by bearing his children. It is easy for a man to give these assurances to Brünhilde by assuming the traditional provider role, for that’s what she wants from him. But what can a man do to assure the spiritual virgin? She largely does it all for herself.” [5]



[1] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p. 191. Spence, 1998.
[2] “Do Men Like Women?” by Judithann Campbell, quote in comments section.
[3] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 349
[4] http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/You_Don_t_Know_Feminism_744100744.shtml
[5] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 144.


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