Tag Archives: male irresponsibility

Does it Matter if I Don’t Have a Dad? 

For various reasons my actual biological dad has never really been around in my life for a long time. I’ve never had too much of a relationship with him since I got old enough to be on my own (this pretty much happened when I was a teenager) and to be honest I’m not sure that it has really hurt me that badly. I mean, I never remember actively looking for some other man to be “dad” to me, even when I was younger. I never panicked and said “oh my God I need a dad where can I find one? Think they have a sale at the local Walmart?” It hurts that someone you’ve known all your life and someone who’s supposed to be family  is no longer around and has hurt you badly but I’m not so sure it is because he himself brings something special to my life just on account of the genetic relationship/ social role played by being dad. 

The truth is that fatherhood is a cultural creation. Mostly the drive for “father’s rights” and the importance of “every child having a father” is an attempt for men to stay relevant in a world where women are increasingly independent of them and can have and support themselves and their offspring without men. After all, if women ever figure it out and are allowed to have babies without men and can be self sufficient to where men aren’t needed then what role will men have in society? The quest for father’s rights is about men’s drive for dominance and control and also about male sexual jealousy. Harsh truth? Yes. But as they say, the truth hurts.

It is what it is. Of course in modern society monogamous relationships with fathers playing a central role in providing for offspring and mothers raising them is quite necessary. It all depends on the norms of society. We aren’t running around in beads and feathers anymore; our lives are more structured and therefore our family arrangements must reflect this as well. Men need to have an important role in society in one way or another. 

Of course, anytime one lives in a way or comes from a family pattern that differs from the norm it can create confusion and problems. Someone growing up never knowing their dad in a society where everyone else is expected to have a dad will undoubtedly have problems and feel confusion, anger, depression, etc… and suffer as a result. They’re different. They’re an outcast and “not one of us.” And they know it. If one is raised in a primitive society where promiscuity is the norm and few even know their fathers because nobody even cares then there is unlikely to be any problems, confusion or heartbreak because, hey, they’re completely normal just like everyone else. It’s no big deal. They’re “one of us.” I think we will see these same problems in children being raised by two gay parents as well because they are different from everyone else and undoubtedly they will be confused and have the same mental issues as a result of being different. 

Society always shapes our perceptions of ourselves. Nobody is immune from this. If you’re an outcast and differ from everyone else, it hurts. Plain and simple. If you are like everyone else and fit in life is more pleasant and you’re happier. No matter how much we say we don’t care about what others think, deep down we do- at least to an extent and someone who just can’t fit in is likely to withdraw completely from the society that has outcast them.

So with all that being said does “dad” himself bring something special? I don’t think, in truth, that he does. I think when I look back and when I think of my life now it is more about a drive to depend upon men, look up to men and follow men. It is a primitive instinct and I think it is hard wired into all women to do so. After all, women have been doing this since the beginning of time and it has always been necessary for survival. Modern men may be withdrawing from this responsibility (to disastrous results) but it doesn’t change the facts one bit. It doesn’t change biology. Women can live without men for the most part- at least until disaster strikes. Even where men don’t provide most of the resources they have always universally and historically provided protection.

Family arrangements are cultural constructions. It’s never really bothered me not having an actual dad around because I always seemed to have at least one man around who wasn’t perverted to me and acted fatherly to me and who took care of me in one way or another. Even if I didn’t have a close relationship with the men they still made a difference in my life. My dad may have been around when I was growing up, but that didn’t make a difference when it came to how much male attention I craved or whether or not I partied, etc… Maybe it would have been different if he would have been different towards me, I cannot say. But either way I don’t think I’ve ever really felt the loss of not having a father-daughter relationship. I distanced myself from him many years ago and have honestly never cried about it and honestly never felt any void beyond just wishing I had a family and somewhere to belong. 

Education and a greater understanding of the world has also made me more immune to any insults from others and the ways society tries to outcast those who are different. The truth of what I’ve discovered about life is that the majority of people are stupid and most (not all) blindly believe what they’re told/what they hear so what they think is of little concern to me.

I think the problems really occur when there are no men around for women to look up to. I think that is the hurtful and damaging thing. After all girls and women in countless societies have never had dads, but they still depended on the men around them and still had male family members to depend on and to take care of them. I mean, if a woman looks around and every man young and old is an unreliable, untrustworthy pervert how is she to feel? On the other hand if there are a few men in her life that she can trust and look up to and who take care of her that’s a different story. It’s like the world is set right somehow. 

So is it dad himself that makes a difference? Probably not. It is ultimately all about society’s norms and a deep biological drive for women to depend on and follow men and a woman’s need for stability and security. 

The father’s main role should be protection and provision of his offspring, as women need the protection of men (even to protect them from other men) but that role can be fulfilled by other family members and eventually a husband. 

Advertisements

If You Want to Promote Responsible Fatherhood…

Interesting that I’ve noticed my little one’s school is always having special programs to reach out to fathers and to grandparents but never anything special for mothers specifically. Our school is now starting a new parenting program to get “male members of our community involved in our school” and it says “Moms- stay home and rest.” Oh, that’s interesting. It’s funny how everyone always screams about how poor oppressed victims fathers are yet there isn’t a program one that I’ve seen to get mothers more involved or anything anywhere to uplift the unique role a biological mother plays. There are no groups or organizations out there to protect mothers and sorry but feminists don’t want mothers protected because that would mean women might be pushed back into traditional gender roles (oh the horror!). I even had a feminist rival of mine (a “stay at home mother” nonetheless) tell me that women used to die in childbirth all the time so there is no need for a mother after birth and a father is just as good. I guarantee that if there was a program at school telling dads to just “stay home and rest” and reaching out to mothers that there would be outrage, not only from feminists and working mothers saying “how dare you think us women should just be home with babies!” “how sexist!” but also from fathers upset that somebody dared think they can’t be just as good a replacement for a mother in the home. How dare somebody exclude them!

I’ve seen a couple of studies done trying to assess an infant’s need for nurture by the mother but they always have to say that the actual natural mother can be easily replaced by someone else nurturing. There’s all kinds of studies everywhere put out by men’s groups about how fatherless children do bad. They don’t really seem to discriminate between married fathers and men who just fathered a child through casual intercourse with some random woman either. Apparently, fathers are just superior and mothers are replaceable in all ways to them just on the basis that fathers have a penis (of course mothers have to carry the babies, they can’t deny that, but after that they are expendable and replaceable.) But try to find a study about how motherless children do and you will come up empty-handed. Also, do a Google search for “do family courts favor fathers?” and Google will think you made a typo and will say “did you mean ‘do family courts favor mothers’?” So much for fathers being victims?

Our entire society has been taken over by gender neutral principles. There isn’t even a shred of common sense at all. Our laws today are based upon pure wishful thinking and fantasy instead of the common sense that prevailed for generations before us because common sense has no place in a society overtaken by political correctness that has been taken to lunatic extremes.

Also, can somebody please explain how getting more men to stay home and nurture babies and offering them paternity leave is going to make more women want to have babies? Seriously? That’s just more politically correct BS because nobody wants to talk about a solution that has been proven to work for centuries. How about if you want to promote men’s involvement in children’s lives and responsible fatherhood and get women to be interested in actually having more babies to offset declining birth rates we uplift the mother’s natural role in the nurturing of young children and make the father the head of the household? When there was strong legal and social stigma against illegitimacy and married women did not work men were more responsible and more invested in children’s lives. The male role as provider for his children and the mother of his children in marriage strengthens families and strengthens men’s role in families.

If you want to get fathers more involved and make them become more responsible how about we return to the tried and true method of the traditional male-headed patriarchal family that served our country and the Western world so well for centuries? It is men’s abandonment from the provider role and women’s abandonment from caring for the home and children that has led to the weakening of the family unit and men’s role in being responsible for their families and the children they father.

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.

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.

When Women Act Bad

“And to any Mangina who might be reading this: These are YOUR women. Why are you letting this happen? Why are you handing them over to government, to feminists? Especially American men abandoning their own to seek a wife abroad. One in four of them is medicated for depression or anxiety these days. If you guys can’t even manage your own, what makes you think you deserve one from overseas? Those have only turned out better because their men DID THEIR JOBS. You, like beaten dogs with a tail between their legs, skulking off to lick their wounds, leaving YOUR WOMEN to rot. That’s cowardice. A captain who abandons ship isn’t worthy of his rank. Shrugging like a sullen teenager “well it ain’t my fault”. Come on… Are you really fool enough to believe you have no power, no influence?!” (Happy Housewife)

Today we have a nation full of whiny crybaby men. If you look around for a while you will see entire groups of them whining that women are bad, women are evil, women are just as abusive (even sexually) as much as what men are. That men are really the victims of some unrecognized epidemic of female on male sexual assault and violence but the feminist court systems refuse to recognize it, etc…etc… They spend much of their time being paranoid about aggressive women and complain that they must live by women’s rules. They’ll whine and cry that they want equality with women and that they’ve been oppressed and dragged down into the dirt and are victims.

If these “men” would have been men in the first place none of this would have ever happened. Their solution is to abandon women, to hate women. If women are “bad” then they in turn are going to be “bad” and irresponsible as well. The truth, however, is that if women are out of control it is ultimately the fault of men. Just the same as if we have a nation of undisciplined, disrespectful and out of control youth it is the fault of adults. The problem can be traced back to adults being irresponsible and not doing their jobs as parents. Likewise, if women today are being bad, disrespectful and out of control the fault can be traced back to men being irresponsible and not doing their jobs in most all cases.

“Is it wrong to treat a child like an adult and on that basis refuse to provide for the child or to punish the child by abandoning the child rather than giving to the child corrective discipline and then continuing to care for the child as before? Of course; such behavior towards a child is child abuse. Well, a woman’s status relative to a man is similar in many ways to the status of a child relative to their parents. It is abusive to a woman to refuse to provide for her in a marital context. It is abusive to a woman to deny her basic provision and protection when she does wrong to a man when corrective discipline can be imposed upon the woman instead while the woman continues to receive the basic support and protection she needs. When a woman is “out of control” it is the fault of men requiring male intervention to fix the problem just like it is the fault of parents when their children are “out of control” requiring intervention from adults to fix the problem. Just like parents are never entitled to abandon their children and deny their responsibilities towards their children and just like adults as a community are never entitled to abandon their collective responsibilities towards children overall men are never entitled to abandon women and deny their responsibilities towards women and men as a collective body are never entitled to abandon their collective responsibilities towards women overall.”(1)

If a man’s wife is acting bad, it is his responsibility to control her. It is his responsibility to protect her, even from herself. It is his duty to care for her, love her, protect and support her. If she is acting bad then most of the time it is because the husband himself has been irresponsible and not doing his job of providing for and protecting her. When one’s children act bad, the parents don’t just say “I’m outta here!” and abandon them because such a thing would be abuse, it is morally wrong. The children need the parents and if they are out of control then it is the job of parents to impose law and order upon them, including disciplining (not necessarily always physical discipline) them as appropriate to correct the misbehavior. Likewise, although women are not children, in many ways a woman’s relationship with a man is childlike. In most cases women choose men who are older than them. They like men who are more successful than them and physically stronger and taller than them. Just the same as a child might crawl up into an adult’s lap to sit or be held, so too is it common to see a woman climb into her husband’s lap in like fashion to spend time with him or so that he can comfort her. I have never seen a man crawl into a woman’s lap to be held and comforted. A woman is a creature of her emotions. Today’s society says it is just a “stereotype” but in truth it is reality; reality backed up with scientific evidence even. A man is often more stable emotionally and does not make as many decisions based solely on how he feels at the moment. Men and women reason differently. Psychological research has shown that even when men and women are performing the same tasks we use different parts of our brains. The man is often the one to comfort the woman by holding her and letting her cry and protecting her. Just as parent’s first and foremost duties are to their children, so should a husband’s first and foremost duties be to his wife (which also takes care of the children).

Modern society says women should be responsible for themselves and be “independent” and equal partners with their husbands and anything different is wrong. So for a man to control his wife in any way is “wrong,” even if it protects her and protects the marriage. The government has authority over citizens, parents over children, teachers over pupils and bosses over employees. But for a man to have authority over a woman is wrong, wrong, wrong! A man is no longer held to the responsibility of supporting his wife, of protecting her from harm, of controlling and being responsible for her actions. Domestic Violence legislation like VAWA is the inevitable consequence of man’s removal from authority and responsibility over wife and children. If women are to be left on their own then they must turn somewhere for protection from men who are in most all cases stronger and more powerful than them. And so strong has the women’s movement been that even the slightest attempt by the husband to control has wife (such as saying she can’t go somewhere or blocking the doorway) might be considered abuse. Even the highest courts in the land have ruled in favor of gender-neutral laws that prohibit the man from being authoritative and being held responsible for his wife and he must share in the rights and responsibilities in regards to his children. He cannot make any decision without also consulting his wife.


“Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void” (Numbers 30:13)

If men are victims today, it is because they have run away from responsibility. If a woman is out of control it is the responsibility of the husband to fix the problem and fix the behavior. His authority and responsibility should be set in the law codes and as a general rule others should not interfere unless he is failing in his duties. For instance, if he has done all he can to control his wife and nothing is working then the community might try to interfere and reason with her and if that too has failed then the law might have to intervene if the problem keeps continuing. But first and foremost it should be examined why the husband has failed in his duties. He is responsible and he must be held to answer.

The wife should be required to submit to her husband, unless what he has asked of her is immoral or he is attempting to impose his responsibilities upon her (such as commanding her to go to work to ease his workload or put herself in danger so he can be a wimp and hide behind her). If he has become cruel to her or truly abusive to her and is harming her then intervention might become necessary. First maybe the men closest to her (such as her father or brother or other men or even women that are friends and family of the husband) can intervene on her behalf and let the husband know what he is doing is wrong and they do not approve and will shelter the wife if necessary. If that doesn’t work then a separation might be in order where the husband must still be responsible for her support.

It is the responsibility of men to protect women and support women. If women today are out of control then it is the responsibility of men to fix the job but they are never justified in abandoning women. It makes no sense to me why a man would want to be “equal” to a woman. I mean, are you a man or are you not? The phrase “being a woman” doesn’t have near the impact that the phrase “being a man” has. Generally someone might say “stop being such a woman” implying that the person should stop acting weak or emotional. But on the other hand when someone says “be a man” it implies strength, courage and power. It implies a higher level of responsibility and expectations upon one’s conduct and accomplishments. If one were to say “be a woman” it would just sound kind of odd because generally to be a woman one need only have been a female that has reached physical maturity. On the other hand to “be a man” it does not simply imply physical maturity but carries the expectation that one must prove himself. Likewise, if a man were to yell “woman!” it would pack a heavy punch because it implies authority and commands attention. On the other hand if a woman yells “man!” she would probably only get as a response a few raised eyebrows and probably a round of laughter because there is no such underlying meaning of authority or commanding of attention there. In fact, saying “man!” has been a slang term for generations.

It takes time to really achieve societal change and change existing laws, but it is something that we must advocate for. Instead of rejecting responsibility or running off and abandoning a woman who acts bad or out of control men must instead assert their authority or the problems will just escalate.