Tag Archives: Feminism

Why I Write

First and foremost, my first caring is about my own life and that of my family. But I do care about this society that we live in. I don’t read the news hardly ever nor do I even care who’s running for president. It’s all the same to me. I try to stay off the internet except to do my shopping or check up on the blogs I link to or like to read. I know that I am different and that I have always been. I have never fit in with the crowd and I probably never will. But that doesn’t matter to me. I am who I am and if others don’t accept me then that’s their problem. Even the most seemingly insignificant things in life serve a purpose and without them there could be no balance and harmony in the universe.

When I first started writing I never dreamed I would ever build up a little community on the Web or that I would attract any attention at all. How many hits I have gotten on this site has been simply astounding to me. I know that there are a few of my friends and relatives that know about my site, although I cannot know how often or if they ever read what I write. If they like me that’s great, but if not then I do not care.

Although I will not start uncomfortable or controversial political topics with others, I will stand up for what I believe no matter who likes it or who doesn’t. If you want to ask me what I believe then I’ll tell you. Throughout history humans have been persecuted for what they believe. Many have even given their life for their faith and their beliefs. We live in a society that tells us to be who we are and we are told that we must accept everyone’s beliefs and everyone’s way of life- but what they really mean is that we must live and believe as they do. Nobody can be accepting of everyone’s beliefs as they will still always outcast and persecute those who do not accept everyone’s beliefs. You can be who you are, as long as it is what they say you should be.

Over time I have been contacted by several women and even a couple of men. It means a lot to me to read and hear from others who believe as I do. In the society we live in today it’s controversial (and that’s putting it tamely) to even say that a man should support his wife. In reality it should just be assumed that a man will support his wife but I have been treated with scorn and contempt from both sexes just for daring to say such a thing.

I remember how when I got married the preacher said that God calls wives to submit to their husbands. I didn’t think anything about it at all. I might have downcast my eyes shyly but there never registered even a hint of outrage nor offense inside of me. It seemed natural to me. I saw nothing wrong with it. This was before I ever even heard about feminism or women’s lib or domestic violence or anything. I remember being asked once when I was about sixteen if I was a feminist. I had no idea what a feminist even was. I said “sure, I guess” because I thought it was something about being feminine. Then I was informed it was about women’s rights and I said no, that I was not a feminist. In reality I had no caring of the sort about “rights.” I knew I might work for a little while but I always hoped to get married and have my husband support me and take care of me.

It was later that mistrust began to develop. Something was wrong with the world today but I did not know what. Women’s rights and feminism seemed like the way to go but it just didn’t feel right. Being “equal” didn’t feel right. It felt cold. It felt wrong. It felt unjust. It felt that way because it was- and is- cold, wrong and unjust. I started this site to be a voice for women, for families. Without men providing for and protecting women there can be no prosperity, no stable family ties, no civilization.

For the first probably three years of marriage I was always on guard fearing abandonment. It took about three years before I began to really believe that he was going to support me and that I could depend on him truly to do so. It took so long before I could even tell my husband I trusted him. He seemed to change after that. I know he wanted to protect me and support me from the beginning but it seemed to take on a different meaning after that. It has taken me years longer to really believe all the things he has told me to be the truth. Our past has not been easy and we have come through a lot. But I know now he will forsake all others for me, as I will for him.

Without my dependence on him I don’t think we would have made it. If he hadn’t been my provider I could not have felt so deeply for him as I always have. I might not have stayed if I had somewhere else to go. Yes, I have loved him since I was a teenager but that could never be enough. I had to know that I could trust him. The first step was his provision of me but I also had to believe the things he said to me. I needed to understand the truth and without knowing it I would do any crazy thing to leave, to get away, to ease the hurt inside. But now I think I understand that he is not lying to me, that I can trust what he says- especially about our past. There has been a mistrust that has characterized our relationship since the beginning and it has always been an antagonism between us, but all I’ve ever wanted to know is that I can trust him. I don’t give a damn about what anyone else thinks or believes and I never have.

I have been put down for being in the home. I feel like my family always tries subtle ways to get me to have a career- usually by instilling distrust of my husband in me and then *subtly* reminding me that I have not finished college. People always love to make “suggestions” about how I should seek employment to relive my apparent boredom or whatever else. A career is the cure-all for the modern woman. Heaven forbid a woman might find fulfillment outside of the workforce. I have literally been called names and been called lazy for not having a “job.” Funny, if I was a career woman they would never call me such things, even if I was divorced three times and had kids with several different fathers or engaged in frequent drunken one night stands. As long as I was a co-provider and didn’t ever depend on a man or the welfare system to support me or my kids I would be acceptable- no matter how crazy or hectic my life. But I do not care. Call me what you will. Throw stones if you will. I will not waver. I would die for a principle. I would die for what I believe.

Yes, I have changed my husband. That’s what women do. Men will change if their women demand it of them. He has changed for me. But I would never do him wrong. I can never disrespect him because he has worked hard all these years to take care of me. I have never really been able to say anything bad about who he is today even when I am angry. Even though it is a rare occasion indeed that he ever does any housework or childcare I’ve never called him lazy. I could never do that because he takes care of me.

My house is not always spotless. We actually live in the house so it is impossible for it to be spotless all the time. Yet I work hard everyday. I’m not some Stepford wife nor do I believe the 1950s were the golden age of the family. I don’t even think that’s ideal. I don’t want to change the world. Sure it would be nice but that’s a pretty big goal and I just don’t think I have the dedication that would take. I know everyday this site gets many hits from search engines. I don’t know everything people search for. I don’t know who’s reading this. I may never know who my writings impact. I alone cannot save this culture. Maybe there is no saving it, but it is my hope that I can at least save a few individuals.

There is a real sadness in my heart when I look at the world around me. This website gives me an outlet to express my frustration, my hopes and my beliefs and put them out there for the world to see. I hope that this site will bless those who read it and be a help to those looking for answers. Of course, I cannot have all the answers for anyone nor have I ever claimed to but I hope maybe this site can be a help to guide someone in the right direction or guide them to whatever it is they are seeking.

Those who have supported me throughout these years of writing are of many cultures, many religions and speak many different tongues. I thank you for making this site what it is today.

And to my husband, my love, the father of my child, thank you for sticking by me and for your continued support. May we be different from the world and may we have many long years together.

May you always keep strong in your beliefs,

The Radical One

Advertisements

Security Must Be a Prerequisite to Childbearing

“For, at present, the law protects the persons and the weakness of women to an extent far beyond anything they might legislate for themselves.

Public opinion, almost chivalric in its courtesy among Americans, goes even further, and gracefully yields privileges, which will be best understood when lost. Will suffrage preserve this? Deprive women of such protection, and place them on a sheer equality with men, to struggle for their rights at the ballot-box, and they cannot but suffer by a direct competition, which would create an antagonism…”(1)

Young men need direction and young women need protection. These are the facts of life that the egalitarian culture refuses to acknowledge. Most view those that believe in traditional gender roles as being extremely religious and view anyone pro-patriarchal as believing that women should bear as many children as possible and as being extreme right-wing and conservative. But that does not describe us all. Though I am conservative on a lot of issues I am also liberal in many ways and though I do love children I will never have anymore.

Once upon a time my greatest dream and fantasy was to have children. My head was filled with thoughts of nursing an infant from my breast and being married to a man who would take care of me for the rest of my life. I was a starry-eyed innocent teenage girl who still believed the good in the world. I was innocent and naive about anything outside of the box that I lived in. But I am no longer that little girl. The thing about innocence is that once it’s lost it can never be regained. It is simply gone forever.

I am married. I am a mother. I married young and only had one child before discovering the realities of life in the post-feminist world. I learned I was not safe. My marriage and child was in no way a mistake, but I knew it could never happen again. I need security. I need to know that I will be safe. But since I know I am neither secure nor safe my womb will forever remain scarred closed and barren. It’s not the way it was supposed to be, but then again the fantasies of a young girl are generally far removed from reality. That’s why they’re called fantasies. Security must be a prerequisite for childbearing. It isn’t just a selfish issue either. Not only do women need that security but the children do as well. My mind simply cannot reconcile the capabilities of the womb with the egalitarian culture. I will not bear female burdens if I will be treated like a man. I cannot bring children into this world unless I know that marriage is to last a lifetime and that I will have a home to live in and financial support to raise my children to adulthood. The average marriage today doesn’t even last half as long as the time it takes to raise a child to adulthood.

Even if I know I can trust my husband I cannot trust that I will be secure if anything ever happened to him. We live in a time where everyone thinks they have rights to a child (all in the *best interest* of children, of course) and even married couples have lost custody of their children to outsiders. Mothers have even lost custody of their children to roommates. Everyone from sperm donors, roommates, grandparents and customers victims of IVF mix-ups think they have rights to a child (and are commonly granted them) these days.

I need to know I’m secure if I am ever to bring another child into this world. I know I am not and so I cannot have them. A man can even walk out and divorce his pregnant wife (even if she’s pregnant with his child) these days. If I was ever widowed or abandoned what would become of me and my children? Men do not collectively protect and support women as a general moral principle these days so it is unlikely any man will step up to take responsibility for me and marry me if I ever was left alone for some reason.

“…The ballot will substitute for this tenderness equal rights; then must all else be equal and common…”(1)

I will be a faithful wife and mother but it doesn’t matter. I am guaranteed no financial support from an ex-husband even if I’ve done nothing wrong. At best I might get some temporary support for a year or two just for the sole purpose of “rehabilitating” myself and going back to the workforce (because apparently being a housewife is akin to having some problem and at divorce I will be expected to get treatment- like an education- to cure the problem and live a normal healthy life by having a career). Not only am I guaranteed no support but I’m expect to provide support. I am not even guaranteed that my infant children will not be ripped from my arms just because my husband wants to abandon me, or, if I’m widowed, that some other in-law or anyone with a connection to my children won’t make some claim to them. Society already sees housewives as deadbeats contributing nothing so my financial dependence will be seen as yet another a strike against me as a mother.

These are serious issues. Families are in a bad way right now. If I am ever to have children I need to be assured that they will grow up in a secure environment. It is true that under coverture a husband held sole rights to the children, yet he also was responsible. He could not obtain a divorce anytime “just because” and he had the legal obligation to provide support for an innocent ex-wife for her entire lifetime, or at least until she remarried to another man that would support her. He also had to be solely responsible to provide for his legitimate children whether he was still married to their mother or not. He had rights because he had responsibilities. Now it is an “anything goes” situation and there is no security for women and children. Even if we take out the gender issues this is still a bad time to have children (not that there’s ever been a perfect time to have them).

Only within security and love could I ever bear children and since it is unlikely that women will ever have security during my reproductive years I will not have them. And it’s true, a woman’s husband doesn’t have a choice in the matter. If she is not guaranteed security from him and support and protection then the flip-side is that he doesn’t get a right over her womb. He does not have to support her and neither does he have rights over her. It goes both ways.

Feminism and MRAism exist for no other purpose than to put antagonism between the sexes and make men and women distrustful of each other. And what a good job it does! In our world today every woman is a slut until proven chaste, so a good girl never has half a chance. Men don’t have to be responsible for women they impregnate. Men don’t support and love women anymore. Even many married men are distrustful of their wife’s chastity, and probably with good reason. Words cannot describe the damage, anguish and suffering this does to women who only want to be wives and mothers.

“The feminist campaign to do away with the double standard is an attempt to remove this class distinction and make all women “good.” Instead, it is making all women “bad,” creating the Garbage Generation in the process. The predicament lamented in “Thanks for My Child” has the consequence that women can no longer trust men and men can no longer trust women.”(2)

There is not a shred of security left for women and children. By the time I was born feminists had already insisted they spoke for what I really wanted and had already removed any security I might have had. By the time I was born there was nothing left. Things will change one day but who knows if it will be for the better or if women will have to live under some kind of third-world male tyranny the way MRAs want. I cannot take that chance. I cannot gamble that me and my children will be OK. Having children is serious business that nobody is taking very serious. Even if our laws and attitudes changed tomorrow, ours is a lost generation as we cannot turn back the hands of time to undo what has already been done.

Yes, High Numbers of Women Working IS a New Thing

On the one hand we are told that women were always oppressed in the home and never allowed to have careers. Now after the feminist movement historians have been trying to constantly convince us that women “always” worked and the 1950s were some kind of cult of domesticity where women were forced to stay in the home but before that women were always out in the workforce and plowing the fields and were always “equal partners” with their husbands so feminism wasn’t really even necessary after all because women have *always* worked. One can read a five hundred page history book today and most generally the authors will spend half the book talking about “male divorce power” and the sexual double standard and how adultery was never a crime for husbands, only for wives and so on and so on. They will spend half the book trying to convince us that women have always been forced to work and bear children (that they never had rights to) and live under the rule of men. Barely a word is ever spoken about men’s duties to their wives or the truth about hardly anything. This is what women today are fed and why so many undoubtedly turn to feminism:

“For more than five thousand years, men—fathers—were legally *entitled* to sole custody of their children. Women—mothers—were *obliged* to bear, rear, and economically support their children. No mother was ever legally entitled to custody of her own child.” (1)

This, of course, is a complete lie. See here how they first try to convince us women were never *allowed* to work and then they turn around and tell us that women *always* worked, were forced to work. Then historians will now try to convince us that all women worked in the factories and plowed the fields even when heavily pregnant, then gave birth in the fields and got right back up and went right back to plowing! Another thing undoubtedly many have heard is a story that goes something like this: First, man marries woman for dowry, then proceeds to squander it all away within a month, then man goes and gets drunk every night and heads to the local brothel to have a good time (because adultery wasn’t a crime for men!) then man comes home to beat and rape his wife. But, realistically, the husband would only really uncover the wife just enough to penetrate her to do his “duty” to procreate and have legitimate heirs (because women knew nothing about sex and were clueless about their own sexuality and body until feminists came along and sexually liberated them) and then it was back to the brothel! Of course, women had no rights and men could use and abuse their wives as they pleased. They could do anything they wanted because women were less than chattel and marriage was nothing but slavery for women. The description of the book “Love, Honor and Obey” tells a 100% accurate description of life for women before feminism:

“In 1889, women were chattel, prized solely for their physical attributes, the contents of their dowries, their skills at the helm of the family’s wood-burning cook stove, their capacity to conceive endlessly and their willingness to endure marriage and miscarriage in silence. Women could not vote or smoke in public. Motherhood was sanctified and only the whores ventured out unescorted after dark, dyed their hair and wore make-up.Blissfully young and naïve, Emma Miller nearly lost herself in Edward Richardson’s seductive blue eyes until the reality of her husband’s alcoholic rampages began to erode her cherished dream of marriage. Like the practiced coward that he was, Edward abandoned his wife and children in the dead of night, taking with him their horse and their cookie jar savings.Emma had willed herself to survive Edward’s beatings but could she survive life as a single parent with three children? At a time when women were to be seen but never heard, Emma marched boldly into the dawn of a new era for women. Emma defied polite society by embarking upon a career, taking a lover and refusing to bend in the face of personal and professional conflict.” (2)

What women wouldn’t be a feminist after listening to that? Historically the dowry was always something the groom paid to the father of the bride for her hand in marriage. Often it is called a “bride price.” Later the dowry came to be something that the bride brought into the marriage from her family. Historians don’t know why, some speculate that the absence of eligible men for marriage started the tradition of the bride’s family dowering the daughter instead of it coming from the groom. Some other historians point out that bride-price seemed to be the way in polygamous societies and dowry coming from the bride’s family the way in monogamous societies. A bride price is where the groom pays the woman’s father a sum of money for her hand in marriage or, in some societies, the money would go to the bride herself. A dowry is a sum of money, property or other goods given to the groom upon marriage for no other purpose than the maintenance of his bride. In some societies the bride still controlled the dowry and in others the groom controlled the dowry. If divorce should occur or if the bride was widowed then the dowry had to be returned intact to the bride and her family. Dowry was always a way of signaling social class and the woman’s status in society and the larger a woman’s dowry the wealthier a mate she could be expected to attract (social class was always very important to people and everyone was generally expected to marry someone of their own class). Traditionally a young woman would be dowered by her father or sometimes other male family members. Ancient Rome even had laws requiring that fathers provide dowries for daughters. A poor peasant girl whose family could not afford to dower her might either marry without a dowry or work before marriage to provide for her own dowry. In other cases sometimes donations were made to poor girls’ dowries to help them get married. The dowry, however, did not mean the husband did not have to support his wife. The dowry would help the woman get settled and start a new household. Also important was the woman’s dower, the portion of her husband’s property that the wife would inherit to be used for her support upon her husband’s death. A man could not get rid of his own property nor his wife’s dowry without her consent, which had to be given without coercion as she could reclaim her third (or in some societies half) of her husband’s property that he could not take from her.

After marriage a man was by law required to provide for his wife all of her necessities. There were no obligations upon a wife to support her husband or pay the family’s bills until very recently with women’s lib where the law became bastardized as support being something both spouses “owe” each other and the egalitarian vision of the mother working equally as the father to support the family. Of course, throughout history women taking on masculine responsibilities does resurface and it always seems to correlate well with societal decline. Feminism is not a new thing. All throughout history women have tried to usurp their husband’s authority and men have tried to evade responsibility. From the fall of Rome in the fifth century to the crumbling of the monarchy in the tenth and eleventh centuries and the ending of Anglo-Saxon rule in England, women taking masculine responsibilities and husband and wife being “equals” sharing in rights and responsibilities resurfaces and usually destroys society. Usually once a great empire falls, it never regains its former power or glory.

The role of housewife for women is not new. Modern technology has made the work easier than what it used to be, but the idea that this “50s housewife” ideal is a new thing is a lie. Families have been organized in many different ways throughout time and in different societies but the modern idea of the “traditional” family of a husband, wife and their kids living in one household apart from any others is not a new thing. Speaking of the Western world specifically here, people living together with their extended kin in one household seems to resurface throughout the centuries but the nuclear family of husband, wife and kids in one household with the man standing alone as sole provider for wife and children has been around for centuries. Barbara A. Hanawalt speaks of the life of a medieval peasant woman in England in her book “The Ties that Bound; peasant families in medieval England”

“Women’s daily household routines are very well summed up in the ‘Ballad of the Tyrannical Husband.’ The goodwife of the poem had no servants and only small children, so that her day was a full one. She complained that her nights were not restful because she had to rise and nurse the babe in arms. She then milked the cows and took them to pasture and made butter and cheese while she watched the children and dried their tears. Next she fed the poultry and took the geese to the green. She baked and brewed every fortnight and worked on carding wool, spinning, and beating flax. She tells her husband that through her economy of weaving a bit of linsey woolsey during the year for the family clothes, they would be able to save money and not buy cloth from the market. Her husband insists that all this work is very easy and that she really spends her day at the neighbors’ gossiping…”

This woman sure sounds like a housewife to me, only without the modern-day convinces of an electric cookstove, washing machine and prepared food from the grocery store. Coroners’ reports reveal a clear pattern of traditional gender roles for the medieval wife and mother. The same as we see today, women who were rich in the past could afford to hire a wet-nurse and have a maid to do the household chores and watch the kids. Poor women were in the home doing all these things themselves.

In America, as well, there is no evidence to suggest women were out plowing fields or all women were out in the workforce. In America there is actual statistical and census data to show that only 5% of married women were actually engaged in “gainful occupation” (as opposed to 96% of married men) in the 19th century and single women only worked at a rate of around 45% which is much lower than the rates of even married women working today.(4) Also many left journals describing their daily lives as housewives which correlate very well with what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of American women (in 1830) in his book III of “Democracy in America:” (emphasis mine)

“In no country has such constant care been taken as in America to trace two clearly distinct lines of action for the two sexes, and to make them keep pace one with the other, but in two pathways which are always different. American women never manage the outward concerns of the family, or conduct a business, or take a part in political life; nor are they, on the other hand, ever compelled to perform the rough labor of the fields, or to make any of those laborious exertions which demand the exertion of physical strength. No families are so poor as to form an exception to this rule. If on the one hand an American woman cannot escape from the quiet circle of domestic employments, on the other hand she is never forced to go beyond it…

Nor have the Americans ever supposed that one consequence of democratic principles is the subversion of marital power, of the confusion of the natural authorities in families. They hold that every association must have a head in order to accomplish its object, and that the natural head of the conjugal association is man. They do not therefore deny him the right of directing his partner; and they maintain, that in the smaller association of husband and wife, as well as in the great social community, the object of democracy is to regulate and legalize the powers which are necessary, not to subvert all power. This opinion is not peculiar to one sex, and contested by the other: I never observed that the women of America consider conjugal authority as a fortunate usurpation of their rights, nor that they thought themselves degraded by submitting to it. It appeared to me, on the contrary, that they attach a sort of pride to the voluntary surrender of their own will, and make it their boast to bend themselves to the yoke, not to shake it off. Such at least is the feeling expressed by the most virtuous of their sex; the others are silent; and in the United States it is not the practice for a guilty wife to clamor for the rights of women, whilst she is trampling on her holiest duties…

As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that, although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply – to the superiority of their women.”

Now everyplace in the world has had their own traditions, but I speak not of every place in the world. I speak of the Western world, of Europe and the Americas and my own ancestors. High numbers of married women in the workforce is a new thing. I personally am American and American women were always sheltered from the workforce and masculine duties as well as any dangerous jobs or jobs that required hard physical labor. On the other hand, every occupation has long been open to women. The only exceptions I could find in American history were the obvious prohibitions of women to be in the military and women were prohibited from being coal miners and being bartenders unless they were the wife or daughter of the owner. I have found no other exceptions in our history. Obviously there is always going to be your amazon woman out proving she can work like a man, but she would have been the rare exception, not the rule. I know personally from those I’ve talked to how much neighbors would try to help a family who’s husband was injured or gone and could not work to take care of the family. Women were never left out on their own to fend for themselves and their children as so great was the ethic of providing for and protecting women until feminism came along.

But let’s just say those attempting to redefine history were actually right. Let’s say women have always worked in the fields and in the home and borne the babies and this housewife thing is new. Does that mean we should destroy a cultural and legal ethic that did shield women from the masculine burdens just because women in the past were in the fields? Does that justify tearing down a system that actually worked well, even if it was a supposedly new and temporary invention? What sense does that make? Surely if something better had been invented to protect women and families it would only makes sense to embrace it, not destroy it. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Suggested resources:

Women Plowing

Woman Suffrage and the Laws

Doctrine of Necessaries Law & Legal Definition

Questioning Economic Necessity

Why Would Men Support Feminism?

I can tell you exactly why men supported feminism. It’s pretty simple really. They wanted a free pass out of traditional masculine responsibilities to bear the sole burden of financial support for a family and traditional male duties such as all male conscription. Feminism also promised them free and easy sex and eradication of laws that protected women and made men accept responsibility. It’s really not that hard to figure out really. Feminism promised men freedom from traditional masculine responsibility and it was just too good to pass up for them.

It’s very hard today to find true masculine men. Most have been made effeminate to some degree and few want to support families, pay for dates or protect women. A lot of men are quite content to hand over their authority to women because they are quite content for women to carry their responsibilities. MRAs seem to be divided between radical nut-jobs hating patriarchy and others that promote patriarchy with a denial of male responsibility. The groups claim to support patriarchy and they want women to be traditional yet at the same time their official policies are to promote “gender neutral laws,” eradication of all alimony and cry foul at any supposed “discrimination” against men.

Some promote chivalry, but only when a woman “deserves” it. Traditional women that fall into line with their standards are “good” and all other women are to be treated as “competition” and given exactly what they “deserve.” So what they are really saying is that they allow the actions of women to dictate their own actions. They will act “bad” if women act “bad” and they will only act “good” if a woman acts “good.” This really sounds kind of insane when you say it out loud, doesn’t it? They emasculate themselves and allow women to dictate their own behaviors.

In reality, whether a woman “deserves” chivalry or not should be irrelevant to whether or not the man gives it to her. Men’s responsibilities towards women should not change just because women act bad (based on the hierarchal relationship between the sexes, however, a woman’s obedience to men must be conditional upon the man acting appropriate). A real man would not reject his responsibilities because the woman is acting bad. He would not allow himself to be dictated to by the woman and allow her to emasculate him or control what he does (isn’t that feminism anyways? women dictating how men should act?).

Men could have stopped feminism. They could stop it now if they wanted to but most are quite content to be passive and let women run things because they don’t want the male responsibility that patriarchy entails or they live in fear that if they attempt to control their women that they will be branded as outcasts and misogynists or chauvinists and face social or legal backlash. Other men, it seems, simply don’t know how to be real men because they’ve never been shown any positive example of what it means to be a man growing up. They grew up with dominant mothers, weak fathers and the media that shows incompetent men and successful career women who can fight just as good or better than any man.

MRAs are actually feminists in their purest form. They want to emasculate all men that way they can eradicate female sexual bargaining power and superiority, unconcerned, until they are faced with child support, divorce, or the recreational sperm donor coming back to claim his “rights”, that in so doing they also compromise the security of the father in the family unit. It also doesn’t seem to bother them in the slightest that their wives, daughters and sisters could be subject to a future draft or be taken advantage of by some irresponsible man following the teachings of their movement.

MRAs are very concerned about false claims of domestic violence and rape. In fact, one could say they are obsessed to the point of mass paranoia. Let’s humor them for a moment and say that they are even remotely telling the truth (yes false claims exist for every wrongdoing under the sun but let’s say they are right in their claims of how widespread this problem is). The problem lies at the very heart of feminism and “gender equality” itself. A woman should never be left in the position where she is desperate and vulnerable and feels no other choice than to cry wolf. Women should always be under the protection and authority of men. Men should be held to their responsibilities and women should have never been deprived of their protections and rights or told that it’s OK to live with a boyfriend and that she should express her sexuality any way she chooses of that it’s OK for a married woman to pursue college and a career. If men had refused to yield their authority to women in the first place and hadn’t rejected their responsibilities none of these wrongs would be happening the way they are.

Men today just assume that if women want “equality” then they are going to give it to them and give it to them full out. It becomes an all-out war. First both feminists and men’s groups wanted to eradicate all protections for women. Once that was accomplished feminists started calling crisis and split from the men’s groups who became “antifeminists” because feminists were no longer promoting the “true equality.” To MRAs women should just “man up.” Women are not “special” to them and deserve no special protections. It’s either corrupt policies should be implemented to “empower” women to protect and support themselves or women should have no protections or support at all.

The idea that women should just “man up” is a very unworkable solution. Women may say that they can protect themselves and support themselves but when it comes down to it they will expect men to rise up in a time of crisis and expect men to protect them. These women are not bad because of this. It is only natural that women hand off the rough jobs to men and expect men to protect them. What is bad is what men and women today are being taught. It is only that the idea of treating men and women equally confuses the sexes and imposes an unreal set of expectations upon men and women. Social movements cannot erase human nature but they can cause instability, confusion and many problems. Women are told one thing and that they can “do everything a man can do” yet when it comes down to it they can’t. Then some men, who have been told to see women as their equals, get frustrated and angry at this. It’s time to face reality because gender equality is unworkable and a pure fantasy.

I find it very insulting and offensive that now, after all the decades of erasing legislation designed to protect the homemaker and to protect women in general that feminists are now turning around and promoting housewifery as a “new form” of feminism or the next “wave” of feminism. I guess now that they have done all of the damage that they can possibly do to the family unit and now that there is no legislation at all left on the books (that’s enforced anyways) to protect women they turn back around and say they stand with traditional women. My point in saying this is that women should not be making the decisions or be in authority over men as when this happens laws, policies, the family unit and the overall social structure begin to be determined by special interest groups and how groups of women “feel” at the moment.

The vote for women itself seems to have spawned the worst economic recession in American history, massive government spending, socialism and a complete destruction of sexual morality and the family unit. All this because men wanted to become emasculated wimps and give up their authority to women so they didn’t have to carry traditional male responsibilities. If men loved women they wouldn’t just sit around and do nothing while those promoting “gender equality” go out and destroy society and the well-being of themselves and everyone else around them. If a man really loved his wife he would control her and protect her despite her objections. He would say “no” to her if she was wanting to go out and work and be independent. No matter what she might say at the moment or how she might feel, in the end she will respect and love him more and she will be a lot happier and better off.

There are real and true duties that men owe to women. When men reject their responsibilities and surrender their authority to women it causes nothing but problems. Men cannot hurt women without also hurting themselves and women cannot hurt men without hurting themselves either. When women refuse to obey their husbands they compromise their security and support. When men refuse to protect women they as well compromise their authority and security and position in the family. The man that takes advantage of a woman and refuses to marry her or refuses to support her or protect her may very well find one day he has a daughter that gets taken advantage of in the same way by a man. The woman who doesn’t respect her husband’s authority and tears down her own family may very well find one day she has a son who is treated the same way by a woman one day. In this way both men and women reap from the seeds they sow and the next generation is worse off than the one before and the future generations pay the price for what their parents and grandparents have done before them. As with most things in life, gender politics are akin to the double-edged sword. The fates of men and women are intertwined together and they will forever be.

The Wicked Loving Lies of Feminism

Feminist heroines. They irritate me very badly. They are all so stuck on “independence,” disguising themselves as boys, chopping off their hair, not bathing and constantly complaining that “marriage is slavery.” You’ve read about one of them then you’ve pretty much read about them all. However, every once in a while comes a heroine that embodies the very persona of feminism to such an extent that it causes her so many untold miseries throughout the entire story- so much that you could write an entire article about it. One such character is Marisa (Marisa Antonia Catalina de Castellanos y Gallardo) from Rosemary Roger’s 1976 novel Wicked Loving Lies. I think there is a real life lesson to be learned from such a feminist character. For those ladies who haven’t read the book but were thinking about it, be forewarned that I’m fixing to spoil the whole thing for you.

After the Prologue the novel starts out with Marisa in a convent. Her exact age is never stated, but it is clear that she is very young, say no older than about 17 or 18. She is content to live her life right where she is, certain she will never marry. However, her father sends word to the convent that she is to marry a Don Pedro Arteaga. However, Marisa will have none of it. She is scared of marriage and scared of men because of some things she witnessed when she was younger. So, she takes off with her friend Blanca and joins with her family-gypsies. But, alas, from there who should she run into but a group containing Arteaga himself as well as his friend, now identified as Dominic. Out of anger or some quest for revenge she picks his pocket and somehow gets free away from the little group. It doesn’t last long, however, as the little group has friends in high places and Dominic catches back up with her. Of course, he believes her to be a gypsy and a whore. Out of fear of having to marry Arteaga she stays silent about her real and true identity even though it means being dragged off by Dominic to his ship so he can make use of her “services” in exchange for not turning her over to the authorities. She stays silent, he rapes her and only then figures out she is actually a virgin. If she would have only told him who she was this would have never happened. But, oh well, deed done. He offers her a sizable amount of money (which she refuses because she doesn’t want payment for something she never sold in the first place). She gets frustrated, chops off her pretty long hair, hides away with a little help from a kind member of the crew on his ship and makes her way to France.

She then escapes him and his crew, runs into Phillip Sinclair (who we later learn is Dominic’s cousin and the two are bitter enemies) who then takes her back to her aunt and her godparents. Her aunt knows what has happened but says it’s ok. All the fashionable ladies take lovers, her aunt says. She gives her a few potions-which don’t work for her- to make sure she doesn’t conceive and life goes on. She contemplates making Phillip her lover. That, however, is short lived as Dominic (who her aunt herself had had an affair with, apparently because he has a savage wild side to him) comes back into the picture. Word of what he did to her gets out and the two are forced into marriage. Marisa hates him and he starts to believe her a liar plotting against him somehow. They seem to be happy for one day after their marriage where they talk together and picnic. However, the next night Dominic gets violent and rapes her and the next morning she wakes up to find him already gone and setting sail to God only knows where. Meanwhile, she nearly dies from a miscarriage. Phillip stays with her and brings her flowers everyday. After this is over she decides to go back to England. She agrees to be a spy and her aunt accompanies her back home to England. While she’s there she enjoys freedom and independence and all her friends exclaim how envious they are of her because she doesn’t have a husband breathing down her neck dictating her life. She refuses to be faithful to her marriage vows and hates Dominic even more after finding out he was the one responsible for her father’s death. Well, time passes and her spying ways get her in trouble. She panics when she hears the death of another supposed spy (or whatever) by this assassin and hears that the assassin marks his victims, but how or where she doesn’t know. She becomes terrified, realizing she has gotten in way over her head and wants out. So her and Phillip decide to leave. But on the way their stage is held up and Marisa is grabbed, branded on her thigh and raped by a masked man (she later learns that the masked man is her husband, Dominic, who was set on her as a “warning” by a vengeful Madame De L’Aigle, who she learns is the real assassin).

After the event she returns home to find her home filled with people and lit up brightly. She then learns Dominic has returned. She gets angry that he has barged in on her independence, makes no secret that she hates him and plots to run away with Phillip. She does, and when they arrive at Phillip’s Uncle (the duke of Royse’s) estate she finds that Dominic is there and has dueled with the Duke and killed him. Phillip attempts to shoot Dominic but instead accidentally kills himself with the gun. Dominic then takes Marisa and leaves. They board a ship (not his own) and pirates siege them. The captain surrenders because he does not have the men nor arms to fight them off. Marisa is separated, along with two other women, away from the men. Dominic had told her, in an attempt to protect her, to not reveal she was his wife and tell them who her family was and that she was worth a lot of ransom money so they wouldn’t harm her. She tells the story and Dominic backs it up as well.

She is held captive (albeit in luxury) in the Middle East and soon after a Kamil Hasan Rais takes an interest in her (despite his vows of celibacy). The first time he drugs her and has her sent to him but after that Marisa (now renamed Leila) becomes his willing lover to the point that she embraces Islam and agrees to become his wife once Kamil’s term of service is up. Soon, however Marisa tells him that she is pregnant and confesses that she had a husband. Kamil tells her it’s ok, he’ll give her some herbs and get rid of the problem but she simply can’t abort the child because of the loneliness and emptiness she remembered from her first miscarriage. So he says it’s ok and promises the child won’t be harmed. However, Kamil’s vengeful sister has other plans. She hates Marisa so she finds out some info and brings Dominic to where he can see her. Marisa walks into the stables and sees Dominic. What does she do? She tells him she hates him, that she’s pregnant, the child might be his or might not, tells him she doesn’t want the child, tells him she’s in a position of authority now and will have him punished and then nearly gets him crucified. Marisa has her child some time later but is drugged unconscious and when she wakes up is told she had a girl and the child died. She never questions that she had been lied to at all. The truth of the matter is that the child lived and was a boy (since the child was a boy Kamil arranged to get rid of it while still keeping the child safe as he promised, because he couldn’t allow the child to be his heir and shame himself). Marisa forgets all and becomes a complete hedonist.

War breaks out and she is ransomed back to her people and taken back to France. Dominic fights with a group of soldiers then comes back and kills Kamil and takes the boy (who was unmistakably his child). He heads to America believing she hates the child and willingly abandoned it. Marisa goes to Cuba and her Uncle (a powerful political figure) takes her to America and, neither of them knowing there was a child from the union, obtains an annulment for her . Events happen and she stays with her vengeful stepmother and meets back up with Arteaga and later Dominic. She finds out her child is still alive but Dominic, never thinking to see her again, has gotten engaged to another woman and Marisa agrees it’s best to leave. Her stepmother takes her to New Orleans to the plantation she inherited when her stepmother brings evidence that she is really a slave. She is sold and soon Dominic finds out and spends all his savings to rescue her. To make money back he takes her as well as Marisa’s friend (a former slave) and a large group of rough men on a trip to capture wild horses. Many weeks pass and she spends more time with Dominic, all the while complaining to her friend about men and mad that she’s stuck doing women’s work. Her friend tries to explain to her about the way men act (you know all prideful and stuff) and that she might try actually being sweet to Dominic for once. She doesn’t listen. Dominic tells her a few weeks later that she is in the way and tells her he’s leaving her with a local tribe and she’ll be safe. She doesn’t understand what he’s about and thinks he hates her when the truth is he actually has loved her for a long time and wants to protect her because Dominic is a spy and knows there’s fixing to be a battle and wants her out of danger. She protests but really doesn’t have much choice in the matter.

Eventually she is given back to the spanish and finds herself come full circle back to a convent. She stays there for a while until she hears from officer Fernando Higuera that colonel Arteaga (Don Pedro again) has executed Dominic. She decides she loves Dominic and thinks to take matters into her own hands (because that’s work so well for her in the past, you know) and comes to Higuera trading her body in exchange for him taking her to see Arteaga. They travel and when they get where the men are she starts having more affairs, even with the governor himself, she finds out Dominic is still alive (barely). She finds out she’s pregnant again as well. She tries to take matters into her own hands again and makes a big public scene until Higuera stops her. She never listens to reason. Eventually Arteaga says if she’ll marry him he’ll help Dominic escape. She agrees. Arteaga is on a quest for vengeance (the entire situation is never completely explained) then decides he wants to get back at Dominic and the best way to do that is to consummate the marriage with Marisa on the floor in front of Dominic’s jail cell. He rips her clothes and proceeds to do just that until Higuera intervenes. They spar with words until Arteaga pulls out a pistol. He never gets to use it as Dominic kicks him and he falls in a nearby well to his death. Marisa is hysterical and Higuera has to get a little rough with her to get control over her and yanks her to her feet. She’s naked as her clothes were torn by Arteaga so he tries to cover her with his cloak. He attempts to lead her away and take care of her (he even offers her marriage to take care of her as Dominic was to be executed) but he doesn’t get far before she pushes him away and starts off on a women’s lib rant that would make Steinem herself proud. She throws it all out there: that her body belongs to her, that she has a mind of her own and can take care of herself and she doesn’t need a man to take care of her and treat her as weak or helpless (because her way had done such wonders for her life so far). Well, her Uncle shows back up, her marriage to Arteaga and her annulment weren’t even legal because she had a child with Dominic already. Dominic is declared dead and escapes with Marisa. Marisa has the new baby shortly thereafter and everyone lives happily ever after. The End.

I think the real lesson to be learned from fictional character Marisa is that her feminist mindset is what caused pretty much every problem she ever encountered. Her father picked her out a husband to protect her. He was only looking out for her best interests even though at the time she didn’t understand it. Yes, she was scared because she had been through traumatic events when she was young but if she would have obeyed her father in the first place she would have been safer. She might never have been raped, kidnapped, forced into slavery, lost her child or any of the numerous problems she got herself entangled up in. And even after she did run away she had chance after chance to change. She could have identified herself to Arteaga and Dominic’s party that night but she didn’t. After her marriage to Dominic she could have been truthful to him. True, she wasn’t hateful at this point but she had done nothing but lie since he knew her. In his mind, how could he trust her? She could have been faithful to her husband but she wasn’t. She didn’t want to accept her marriage vows but instead wanted to run her own estate, be independent and still sleep with who she wanted. She is raped several times by several different men in the book and has willing affairs with just as many. When Dominic did show back up she could have been civil to him. Even if she didn’t want the marriage and even if she didn’t love him she could have been honest with him, she could have been respectful to him and done right by him but she never did. Instead she declares she hates him and runs off with another man. When she met him again in the Middle East she could have made up with him. She could have been truthful. Even if she couldn’t say she loved him she could have told him she wanted their child, could have told him she wanted to return to him. She could have refused to have an affair with Kamil, or if she was forced, she could have at least stayed faithful in her heart. Maybe if she would have he would have came for her and took care of her. But as it was she pushed him away from her and made him distrust her time and time again. She gets involved with affairs that should be left to the men. She wants to get in Dominic’s personal business several times thinking she has a right to, even though he is involved in things he is trying to protect her from. She believes it is her business to know everything he’s involved in, such as his spying, and she nearly gets him discovered at one point.

Dominic doesn’t win husband of the year in my opinion. His character is a man with a dark past, a “legitimate bastard” as he calls himself (since his father preferred the company of other men to women and his mother had an unfaithful heart). He’s been in the British navy, he’s been in prison, he’s been done wrong over and over as many times as he’s done others wrong. He shouldn’t have abandoned her or did things he did. But he did feed, clothe, shelter and protect Marisa. He still fulfilled those duties as a husband at least. Even if it was just a marriage of convenience forced upon the two Marisa could have accepted it and fulfilled her duties as a wife. She could have made the best of it.

Throughout the entire story she refuses to listen to the men who are trying to genuinely help her. Instead of staying out of a man’s business she wants to get involved in it, with disastrous consequences every time. Fernando Higuera was trying to help her but she didn’t like being ordered around and couldn’t understand the situation she was putting herself and others in so she ranted at him about not needing his help or protection. It was her feminist mindset that caused her all of her troubles. She wanted to enter into the man’s world of politics only to find she didn’t know what she got herself into and ended up getting herself hurt (she could at least be thankful it was her own husband and not another who hurt her as her own husband didn’t truly harm her, only as much as needed to protect her). She wanted to be independent and sexually liberated which drove away her husband and drove her into the arms of men who ended up really hurting her in one way or another. She listened to her aunt and the other ladies who told her to take lovers and that it was just fine. She listened to others who encouraged her to express her individuality and independence to the detriment of her marriage and ultimately even her own happiness.

Another thing to note is that she did get a taste of what second-class citizenship really looks like for women when staying with one of the tribes. The men would strut around in beads and feathers all day while the women did all the drudgery work. The men spent all day polishing their weapons while the women worked. They contributed practically nothing. The women cropped their hair short, never bathed, and did all the hard labor. The men would always eat first, leaving the leftovers to the women and children. If there wasn’t enough food the women and children would starve. She sees this yet she still doesn’t make the connection that men in her own society work to protect and support women and give them a much better life than what women in many primitive societies had. She can’t really see the connection there between patriarchy (which threatens her independence) and the high status of women in her own society. She doesn’t see that the men take charge to protect her and lift her up out of the old-world system of matriarchy where the women do all the work. It is the societies such as those Marisa saw where women do all the drudgery work and are sexually free that feminists praise because these women prove they can do what men in her own Western society believe not suited to a woman and the women are sexually liberated. Yet she still rants and raves and salutes women’s lib values even to the end of the book.

The sad part is she doesn’t ever have appeared to have learned her lesson really. She is with Dominic in the end but how long will it last? What happens when he tries to tell her to do something she doesn’t like to protect her? 10 pages from the end of the book she was still ranting off feminist dogma so what happens next when her free will is threatened by her husband or possibly even her children keeping her from being independent?

I guess we’ll never know for sure as it is a fictional book. But even in fiction there are sometimes life lessons to be learned. Marisa exemplifies everything women should not do and showcases exactly the kind of misery that feminism leads women to.