Tag Archives: matriliny

The Sanctity of Marriage

As is always the way with me, I’m a thinker, a doer. Lately it has been on my mind to write a few things. Many aspects in life and including the comments I’ve received here have led me to think about these things. First off, I just want to say that it shouldn’t matter what anyone else thinks about the way you choose to live your life whenever you choose to live in a traditional way. I don’t have anyone I’m trying to please and the opinions even of my own relatives are unimportant to me. What they think about my lifestyle doesn’t matter.

Recently I had to send a formal letter to my own mother telling her that I wished no further contact with neither her nor any of my relatives. They were interfering in my life and it concerned me. It was getting completely out of hand. They would rather see my marriage ruined, they would rather see me finish college and live the life they want for me to be living[i].

But the thing is that none of that matters to me. And I’m writing and saying all of this because I know just how many young women out there are facing the same pressures from relatives[ii]. But like I told my own mother, I love her- I really do- I’ve always longed for a good relationship with her but I know that it’s just never going to happen. Ultimately, they are not what is of importance. They want me to live in a certain way but they won’t be the ones who ultimately pay the price for the life they believe I should be living- I will be.

Traditionally the law threw a cloak over marriage[iii][iv]. Even in religious beliefs, it is well established that a man and women leave the sphere of their relatives and join together. From then on out they are one and all others take second stage (or in some cases, such as is often the case with friends and acquaintances, cease to matter altogether). Only in matriarchal or tribal societies does marriage not take on such importance[v]. In these kinds of societies, even the raising of children becomes some community matter and there are no permanent and stable romantic relationships between men and women.

The existence and establishment of “gender equality” and “gay marriage” have lessened the importance and sacredness of marriage by obliterating separate rights and responsibilities between the sexes and stripping the true meaning from sex- but even here many jurisdictions still cloak marriage in various ways (such as exclusive rights to offspring within the marriage and immunity regarding testifying in criminal/civil cases). Where the last of these privileges fall by the wayside, it means that society no longer sees marriage as something worth preserving nor protecting.

This showcases what marriage traditionally meant to our society. Traditionally, the husband was head of the household. His wife and his children were his[vi]. The marriage was sacred and outsiders had no right to come in and interfere with the relationship of a man and his wife, or of parents and their legitimate offspring unless compelling circumstances necessitated the law’s interference. When you take away the foundations of the institution of marriage you also strip away all these protections.

Also keep in mind here that it doesn’t matter what the “majority” are supposedly thinking. Your average, ordinary citizen is largely ignorant of the law[vii] and the world around him (or her). Despite all our fancy technological gadgets, human beings are not any more or less ignorant than what we were thousands of years ago. Human nature doesn’t change and likewise humans tend to let emotion overwhelm them and get into a mob mentality where all common sense flies out the window. But that’s why your average, ordinary citizen doesn’t have the power to make laws or policies[viii].

It doesn’t matter what others say or do. Your best protection is to educate yourself (this can be done outside of formal settings) and marry a good man while you’re young. From there on out- no matter what the society might say right now as the society is not always right- your husband should be your everything. A young woman should start out by looking to her husband for everything. He should be your protection, your provision and your guidance that you look to. You will also hold great influence over him as well as many a man have accomplished great things when they had the guidance and support of a good and faithful woman by their side.

Relatives, in-laws, friends can all be nasty and vicious and tear apart marriages if they are allowed to. That’s why the marital relationship must be first in importance and why we need to get to the point in society once again where the husband is the head of house and responsible for his family and, absent compelling circumstances, rights are only established and defined within the state of marriage. In our world today, marriage is regarded as a mere piece of paper that is optional whenever men and women procreate with each other- but this has got to change.

The marriage protects your privacy, the marriage protects your well-being. Also realize your influence as a woman. I never felt that my mother or relatives had my best interests at heart, which is why I always rejected the things they wanted for me and I always left their side and their influence to bond with my husband. I knew that my protection was only going to be found in him. I knew that no one else could ever protect, love or understand me the same. Others will invade on your home, attempt to run your life and invade your personal sphere and privacy if they are allowed to. Marriage should block this from happening and traditionally it always did by clearing establishing rights and responsibilities that could not be obtained anywhere else[ix].

Under coverture, for instance, husband and wife were considered as one[x]. A wife could represent her husband or conduct business in his absence even if need be, as they were one. A man could take his wife, wherever he found her, and take her with him wherever he went, as he had a right to keep her by his side and nobody had a right to keep him from her (unless she had obtained a legal separation from him). This protected her, and this protected the husband as well. A wife had a right to the support and protection of her husband, as he was responsible for her[xi]. He had the obligation to support her, and this ensured her security when she left her family and had children. The idea is to leave one’s relatives and cling to one another, forsaking all others[xii]. Even where your children are concerned, teach them the sanctity of marriage as one day they will leave the home to form their own families.

When the law upholds traditional marriage, the door can be slammed in the face of outsiders and all others as what goes on inside the home is sacred, because the marital relationship is sacred. I know that my husband knows me better than anyone else, and being there under his wing keeps others from harming and harassing me. My privacy is assured, my security is assured. This is important.


[i] This is what life looks like when following the feminist plan, check out my earlier article where I discussed my thoughts regarding this: https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/why-young-women-shouldnt-listen-to-their-mothers-generation/

[ii] One recent comment (though there have been many just the same) on one of my recent postings showcases the pressures many women get, being forced into feminist lifestyles which they do not want on account of pressure from relatives https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2017/11/30/listen-to-me-victimology-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1133

[iii] For another example of the law legally cloaking marriage and protecting children and families, see The United States Supreme Court case of Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989)

[iv] There are numerous ways in which the law has done this, from spousal immunity to testifying in criminal trials, to disallowing paternity suits to children born within marriage, to protection in cases of disability and death, etc… Some states, such as California and New York, for instance, no longer regard marriage as a sacred institution, instead declaring that a child may even have as many as three legal parents in California, https://verdict.justia.com/2013/10/15/california-allows-children-two-legal-parents an unmarried father having the right to claim rights to a child being raise by a woman and her lawful husband, and New York, for instance, recognizes no protections regarding privileged communications even regarding those occurring within legal marriage before the marriage has broken down.

[v] The Mosuo, from China, for instance, are probably the last modern example of this kind of matriarchal family structure: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/01/the-kingdom-of-women-the-tibetan-tribe-where-a-man-is-never-the-boss https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/19/china-mosuo-tribe-matriarchy The Late Daniel Amneus also portrayed the matriarchal way in his infamous book “The Garbage Generation: On the Need for Patriarchy” which showcases that many historical societies had no concept of even the word “father” as is the custom in patriarchal societies.

[vi] See my previous article https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/the-wrongs-of-the-mens-movement/ for more info on a father’s authority under coverture

[vii] Look at this poll, for instance, as reported in an article on CNN https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/poll-constitution/index.html which states that more than 1/3 of individuals surveyed couldn’t name a single right protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, only ¼ could name all three branches of government, and 1/3 couldn’t name any branch of government.

[viii] The framers of the Constitution intentionally feared a direct democracy, as well as too strong of a central government (even though they realized a stronger centralized government was necessary as the Articles of Confederation were weak and thus had to be repealed, and ultimately replaced, with the new Constitution that called for a Republic form of government where people elect representatives but do not directly make the laws and policies), and feared putting important matters in the hands of the common people http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Why%20Our%20Founders%20Feared%20a%20Democracy.htm

[ix] The old protections of marriage are numerous and plentiful. Check out some of my earlier articles on illegitimacy, for instance, for more references to ways in which this is so: https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/tag/illegitimacy/

[x] See, for instance, William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England https://www.thoughtco.com/blackstone-commentaries-profile-3525208 ; http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/blackstone-commentaries-on-the-laws-of-england-in-four-books-vol-1 As American law is derivative of the common law of England, which was adopted by the colonists and still, to this day, remain our laws unless otherwise changed.

[xi] Consider the old English common-law “Doctrine of Necessaries” https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/doctrine-of-necessaries/

[xii] Though still treading the bounds of political correctness, consider this article which cites Biblical references about forsaking all others within marriage: Protecting Marriage from Outside Intruders: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kreitz/christian/Boundaries/09intruders.pdf


The Legitimacy Principle and the Good of Patriarchy

“With a large number of tribes, inheritance is based on maternity. Paternity is immaterial. Brothers and sisters are only the children of one mother. A man does not bequeath his property to his children, but to the children of his sister, that is to say, to his nephews and nieces, as his nearest demonstrable blood relatives. A chief of the Way people explained to me in horrible English: “My sister and I are certainly blood relatives, consequently her son is my heir; when I die, he will be the king of my town.” “And your father?” I inquired. “I don’t know what that means, ‘my father,’ answered he. Upon my putting to him the question whether he had no children, rolling on the ground with laughter, he answered that, with them, men have no children, only women.”

We were once matrilineal. We were once matriarchal. Throughout most of human history paternity was never acknowledged. It didn’t matter if women were promiscuous. It didn’t matter how many lovers or husbands they had. The family line and all inheritance was passed through the mother and fatherhood was an unknown concept. Of course, under such a system societies were very primitive. Not much progress really happened in the world. At least, not until the invention of patriarchal societies. Patriarchal societies were ushered in and the sexual freedom and promiscuity of females was brought to a halt. Inheritance was not passed down through the mother anymore, but through fathers. The legacy of feminism has been to overthrow this system. For the feminist movement, any kind of living arrangement was upheld to be acceptable. Illegitimacy was to be accepted and welcome the same as legitimacy, legally sanctioned and subsidized. “There’s no such thing as an illegitimate child” was the motto. Our laws changed in accordance. The gave the unwed father rights, they gave the unwed mother welfare and child support and the patriarchal system crumbled with easy divorces.

This system was supposed to benefit women. Alimony was “sexist” and supposedly keeping women from true fulfillment by keeping women dependent on men. The role of the housewife was making women “subordinate” and “second-class.” A social revolution ensued leading to widespread illegitimacy, broken homes, crime and poverty. Not very long after this revolution feminists panicked. Books such as “Mothers on Trial,” “The Divorce Revolution,” “The Equality Trap,” “Backlash” and “Equality with a Vengeance” started flooding the market and still flood it today. Feminism has created a backlash and ruined the security and well-being of millions of women. But they wouldn’t dare tell women they are at fault. They just want to keep pressing forward with their agenda.

The legitimacy principle is that every child must have a father- but legitimately through marriage. But to the feminist this is no so. To the feminist and our society and legal system today legitimacy no longer matters anymore. Today it would be seen as so wrong and the upmost of all politically incorrect things to declare a child as illegitimate. But this is the way a patriarchal society must work.

“The feminist will insist that the boyfriend is equally responsible with the mother for the procreation of the illegitimate child and therefore equally bound to pay for its costs. Not so in the patriarchal system. Patriarchy divides women into good and bad, those who accept the Sexual Constitution (sexual law-and-order, monogamy, the Legitimacy Principle, the double standard, etc.) and those who reject it. This woman rejects it, and she is “bad” because she denies to a man the possibility of having responsible sex with her even if he wants to. Her unchastity deprives her child of a father and deprives men of the possibility of being a father to her children. She can have a sexual relationship only with a man as irresponsible as herself. She is a sexual Typhoid Mary who has inflicted illegitimacy upon a child and seeks to ameliorate what she has done by demanding to be paid for it. She will plead as justification that “there is no such thing as an illegitimate child,” signifying there is no such thing as an unchaste woman.”

If women and children are living in poverty today then it is because the patriarchal system is gone. The woman who bears an illegitimate child without seeking to make that child legitimate expects that she will still receive support. The feminists will point to the fact that women and children are living in poverty as a way for her to receive even more support and government assistance.

“The Promiscuity Principle entitles her to paternity suit income. It is her right to control her own sexual behavior–including the right not to use contraceptives–and to impose the economic costs upon one of her sex partners–if the District Attorney can round up her playmates, compel them to take blood tests, and identify the lucky one. Then her sexual irresponsibility will pay off and reinforce society’s acceptance of the first law of matriarchy, otherwise known as the Promiscuity Principle.”

Enforcing even more child support and demanding even more welfare creates a backlash. It creates men with a victim complex who are unmotivated and unwilling to marry. It creates more men’s rights activism which only creates even more feminism and in turn even more women and children are hurt in the process.

Ultimately these women wreck the security of good women. All patrilineal societies are fragile. They require female subordination to patriarchal authority and regulation of female sexuality. If women are unwilling to submit, then the system is ruined. Feminism has ruined that system and now, instead of the patriarchal, male-headed household we have what can be termed “rotational” and “blended” families. What we have is broken families. Families that are actually intact are rare.

“The workability of the patriarchal system requires the regulation of female sexuality, including the enforcing of the double standard. In no other way can men participate meaningfully in reproduction. A woman violates the Sexual Constitution by being promiscuous. A man violates it by refusing to provide for his family. The new feminist sexual order proposes that women shall be free to be promiscuous and that the social disruption thereby created shall be made tolerable by compelling men to provide for non-families. But men cannot be held responsible for female irresponsibility if this irresponsibility prevents them from having families to begin with; and it is for this reason that patriarchy holds a man responsible only for the subsidization of a wife, a “good” woman who accepts the Sexual Constitution and her obligation under it to bear only legitimate children”

Patriarchy provides a woman with her most surest source of fulfillment. But a woman cannot have such fulfillment unless she submits herself to patriarchal authority and the legitimacy principle. When she enters into a contract of marriage with her husband under the patriarchal system it is permanent and binding. She agrees to share her reproductive life with her husband and only him. In turn, he provides for her and places her under ‘coverture.’ Such a system is what is needed to build civilization and lift women and children out of poverty. More child support is not what is needed. Most men will evade paying it anyways and he can always just pull out the custody card anytime he objects to the amount, leading to more hardship for the mother and child and an even greater prospect of being shoved deeper into poverty.

“‘Now here’s how it is… Poor black men won’t support their families, won’t stick by their women–all they think about is the street, dope and liquor, women, a piece of ass, and their cars. That’s all that counts. Poor black women would be fools to sit up in the house with a whole lot of children and eventually go crazy, sick, heartbroken, no place to go, no sign of affection–nothing.’

Ms. Robinson’s complaint is that men won’t love, honor and protect their families–which is patriarchy. She cannot see that the first law of matriarchy has deprived these men of families and therefore of the motivation which would keep them working.”

The talk of “women’s rights” always centers around autonomy, freedom and a paycheck. Nobody ever considers that the best interests of women could be found within the traditional male-headed family. Women must make a tradeoff for such a system but they don’t like it. Our laws before feminism gave the man the authority- and responsibility- in the household. The husband controlled the property, finances and his wife as much as his children. The divorce rate was extremely low. The rate of married women working was extremely low. Everything stared to go downhill with the destruction of coverture and the destruction of the husbands ultimate authority in the household. Things got real out of control with women’s lib, ‘no-fault’ divorces , the subsidization of illegitimacy and the flooding of married women into the workforce. The word “family” can mean a million different things today. Practically anything one wants it to mean. That’s how far gone we are as a civilization.

“Providing for a woman and placing her “under coverture” in the honorable state of marriage is perceived by today’s feminists in wholly negative terms as dominance, regulation and oppression. Feminist Dr. Alice Rossi speaks of “an exchange” between a husband and a wife in which the husband confers social status on the wife and “in exchange…she assumes economic dependence on him”–permits him to pay her bills. It doesn’t occur to feminists that “their subordination in sexual matters” benefits women as much as it benefits men. It means law-and-order in the sexual realm and the creation of wealth in the economic realm. It means stable families which provide women with security and status and in which children can be decently reared and socialized.

The best thing for any movement claiming to benefit women to do would be to bring back the traditional patriarchal family with the father as it’s head. It is only the patriarchal family that can serve the best interests of mothers and children. It is only this system that can truly motivate men to be productive and care for women and children. But in order for this system to work, cohabitation, female promiscuity, divorce and illegitimacy cannot be tolerated. It may not always be ‘fair’ but it is the best way to protect women and ensure the best interests of children and the overall social order.


All quotes from “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus

Why Patriarchy?

Even regarding religion and patriarchy, why do you think these religions became so successful and dominant? The religions of non-patriarchal societies usually didn’t survive very long and those societies generally did not create prosperous civilizations. If we look at Judaism* and Christianity we see that they came from very patriarchal societies. They were born from civilizations that were patriarchal. Once the Hebrews (literally: “wanderers”) had a land of their own they were very prosperous, for a time anyways. They have a long history of building and destroying powerful civilizations. And, of course, Christianity has similar origins. Islam was born out of a land that was originally matrilineal and was turned very patriarchal. There is overwhelming evidence coming out that gender role reversal isn’t working (such as health problems in women who have high-stress jobs and high-earning careers and, of course, the rate of infant deaths at the hands of male caretakers while the mothers are off at work).

It is theorized that science might be changing the reality of gender, or at least might in the future. But, in all honesty I just don’t see this happening anytime soon. Women are still needed to bear children. We are the ONLY ones who can do this. There are plenty of experiments that worked well on lab rats but failed to live up to expectations for humans. I don’t really see there ever being a time where our child bearing abilities or men’s physical and mental abilities will be obsolete. I mean, what are we going to do? Require that all infant females undergo massive invasive surgery at birth so their eggs can be removed and frozen so that the future generation can grow in some artificial womb? What would we do have warehouses all around the world (taking up massive amounts of natural resources) housing these unborn infants? It is super simple to extract sperm from a man but even then artificial insemination is costly and can be quite ineffective.


So, let’s just rule out that science is going to change our lives that much. I doubt any of us will be alive if that day ever comes in the future.


Now, theoretically I believe the best environment for children is one that is stable. I believe that is the most important thing. A child that constantly goes back in forth between two different families (who often hate each other and are at war with each other) is not living in a stable environment. That is what gender equality and feminism has brought us. It treats illegitimate births the same as legitimate. It gives unwed fathers (who may only learn about the child’s existence many years in the future or may know but be unconcerned with the mother and the child) the same rights as a married father with legitimate children that has always lived with and support both mother and child. The biggest problem is that the unwed father often causes problems with the stability of the child’s life. Our society loves to pour criticism on “welfare mothers” (which are a problem in a class of their own) but never will you hear anyone mention what harm an unwed father causes. He may discover that he fathered a child only when the child is several years old and walk into that child’s life completely ripping apart the only reality the child has ever known. Or, he may refuse to marry the mother and instead assert his rights causing the child to have to be torn between the two parents. These men of course will not support the mother leaving her free to devote her time to her child because they do not have to. Instead, many deny all responsibility until it is convenient for them. Also, unwed fathers who do not live with the mother during pregnancy do not breathe in her pheromones and thus do not have their testosterone levels drop any to prepare them for settling down with the mother and child. Our modern court system does not care a man’s marital status or whether he has ever lived with the mother or child. He donates a sperm, they give him rights. I think Justices Burger and Blackmun made a perfect case against granting unwed fathers the same rights as married fathers (or for that matter, the same rights as mothers) in their dissenting opinion in Stanley v. Illionis in 1972 and why this is not a good environment for children. And, of course, our society today also faces another problem that making Unconstitutional to distinguish between unwed mothers and unwed fathers causes and doing away with the death penalty for rape: rapists are getting custody and visitation.


Now, we do have another option. Many societies have not recognized fatherhood at all. Today we have societies such as the Tuareg in Africa, the Moso in China and the Minangkabau in Indonesia. These societies practice matrilineal descent. The Moso, for instance, know no concept of paternity and the words “father” and “fatherhood” do not appear in their dictionaries (neither does the word “rape”). Generally in matrilineal societies it is the woman’s uncle who is the primary male authority figure within the family. Children belong to their mother’s family (who have sole rights and responsibility for their children) and paternity is never an issue.

Of course, many societies have survived like this. But, matrilineal societies are generally more primitive. They generally can’t compete with patriarchal societies and are usually conquered by them. Patriarchy serves to bring fathers into the family and maximize investment in children. An important aspect of patriarchy is that paternity does matter. The father will only invest in the children if they are legitimate (born to the woman he is married to). The father will only have rights and responsibilities to the child if it is legitimate. Illegitimacy is scorned and for obvious reasons. When a man has a wife and children that are “his” he has incentive to work hard for their support and protect them. Men then have incentive to build civilization and invest in their children. Thus the society becomes prosperous and civilized.

Ultimately other living arrangements could work as long as there is stability and strict gender roles. No society can withstand anarchy or an acceptance of every kind of living arrangement. I find it humorous how feminists point out these matrilineal societies and then act as if all the women in the society are “feminist” or that the society has adopted “feminist” values. Um, no, actually these societies still have strict rights, roles and responsibilities between the sexes. Feminism does not give this to society. Feminism breaks down gender roles and gives rights and responsibilities indiscriminately. This is not a sustainable practice and actually serves to do more injustice to women and children.

Personally, I prefer patriarchy. It is better for women in many ways. When a woman stays close to one man who has the legal responsibility for her support and protection then she is ultimately a lot safer. She is safer from being harassed, raped or hurt by other men as she sticks close to her husband who takes care of her. While no system is without its faults, the patriarchal system ultimately works best towards the protection of women and children. A woman is certainly much safer with a husband than with casual encounters with other men and children are certainly better off when there is a stable home life. The evidence is simply irrefutable; the damage broken homes have on children negatively effects their life span and their mental and physical health. Divorce has a domino effect. It affects not only your children but your grandchildren as well. And of course, women today are suffering from depression, anxiety and other potentially fatal medical conditions in record numbers due to the breakdown of families and gender roles.

Patriarchy works.It builds civilization and works towards the best interest of women and children.



*There are some small traces in the Bible of Jewish decent being matrilineal. However, this is not widespread in the Bible. Overwhelmingly, the monotheistic religions have always been overwhelmingly patrilineal and strongly patriarchal.



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

Do Women Really Want to Smash the Patriarchy?

“Most women are neither cowards nor impotent victims. When society tells them that the rank conferred by a career is all important and that maternal child-nurturing must be sacrificed to it, many will defy society if they believe this not to be so. It has been my experience both as a market producer and mother at home that determined women in our society are very successful at getting what they want.If women want to destroy the remnants of patriarchy and become virtually fungible with men, I believe that- unless a significant number of our effete, attenuated, androgynous males undergo a rapid metamorphosis- women can do so. But before they do, I would have women consider whether their acquiescence in the feminist ideology our culture promotes does not rest solely on an intellectual evaluation of its message. If women do not defy that ideology, it is partly because they do not feel it is wrong. And they do not feel it is wrong because many of them are responding with the constricted emotions of a spiritual virgin.”[1]

Is smashing the patriarchy really what we desire to do? Has it honestly been good for women? The feminists believed that patriarchy was the cause of all their problems and even today they campaign, delivering the same message to women and the public that they were delivering 40 years ago. The revolution swept through Western society and there are no signs that feminists want to turn back now. Yes, they call crisis (conveniently forgetting and refusing to acknowledge that their movement was responsible for creating it) but still hang onto the same ideology that has put women into crisis situations. Before patriarchy forever becomes a thing of the past, maybe today’s women should take a closer look at the harm feminism has brought them. If women listen to the feminists, they will forever feel beaten down and victimized. But, if we set aside the feminist revisionist history and belief system, I believe women might finally come to see things in a different light. Maybe women should give patriarchy another chance.

Feminists’ first fatal mistake was to ignore the inherent differences between men and women- differences that are a part of our biology and cannot be changed. Ignoring these differences had done immense harm to women. Feminists deny female preciousness. They advocate putting women in combat and mothers returning to work as soon as possible after giving birth. They advocate doing away with “the rape culture” by wiping out patriarchy anywhere it can be seen. They advocate that a woman should live with her boyfriend and split the bills 50/50 and that if a woman feels like having casual sex or thinks it could be fun that she should go for it. After all, they insist, men do it so why can’t women? How unfair that there would be a double standard upon women.

Perhaps, if feminists want to get rid of the “rape culture” and the double standard upon women it would be wise to look at some matrilineal societies. In most matrilineal societies the women do all the work. In most of these societies the women may marry who they wish, including more than one man and divorce him as she wishes. Consequently, sex is not taken seriously and in some cases rape is not even a crime. Such as the Mosuos in China, who cannot understand why women in other cultures could ever see anything wrong with such a beautiful thing as sex:

“Sex is practiced freely. They only have to choose a partner to spend the night and only incest is forbidden. Typical marriage and fidelity are something like heresy. Obviously, they don’t seem to present signs of jealousy. The western love tragedies of revengeful and victimized lovers make them laugh. They think the visitor is kidding them ‘How is it possible to end your precious life for something so banal like sex?’

Otherwise, in the Mosuo language doesn’t exist the word ‘rape’ – even if rape does exist – but is less common than in other cultures.

The woman is clearly the center of this culture.”[2]

Yes, clearly. Though this is just one example, matrilineal societies have been quite common throughout human history. Most of the societies that feminists exclaim that women were equal in were not equal societies at all. In Iroquois society, for example, the women might have farmed, participated in politics and controlled their families, but there was no gender equality at all. Well defined gender roles still prevailed. There is quite a distinction between these matrilineal societies and our modern day free-for-all society where the law is blind to gender.

It is not a good thing for women at all if the law is blind to gender because this means that our laws do not protect women. It means all the protections that the law once gave to the female sex are now gone- but all in the name of “equality” and “fairness,” of course. And even when the feminists see that it doesn’t work, they still press forward with their agenda by lying to women and telling women that, if it wasn’t for them, they would be worth less than cattle and go straight back to “second-class” citizenship.

“Like the Soviet reformers, the American family law reformers of the 1960s are now reaping the economic and social consequences of their revolution. But unlike the old Bolsheviks they show no sign of turning back. The revolution in divorce law and in the culture of marriage are perhaps the best example of their intransigence. Feminist thinkers and activists in the women’s movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s assured women that the enactment of no-fault divorce laws would mean their liberation from bad marriages and their economic independence. No-fault laws were passed by nearly every state in the nation soon after 1970, largely at the instigation of feminist organizations. Although there is some dispute about their precise effect on the divorce rate due to the timing of the implementation of no-fault theory, there is now little doubt that they accelerated the cultural trend towards divorce, which only peaked in the early 1980s and has stayed at record levels ever since. What is beyond question is that no-fault has made divorce considerably easier to obtain for the spouse that wants out of a marriage, without regard for the wishes of the other spouse. It essentially transferred the right to decide when divorce is justified from society to the individual, leaving the marriage contract gutted and legally meaningless. After the institution of no-fault divorce laws, says Maggie Gallagher, marriage has turned into ‘something best described as cohabitation with insurance benefits.’

Moreover, making marriages subject to unilateral dissolution resulted in none of the economic benefits predicted by its feminist advocates. On the contrary, numerous studies have shown that divorce usually impoverishes women while enriching men. From 1970 to 1983, just as the divorce rate was going through the roof, so was the number of children living in poverty; 65 percent of that increase occurred in the fast-growing number of female-headed families. And because ‘women’s advocates’ have effectively demolished all remaining protections for women in the law on the theory that the principle of ‘equal treatment’ is essential for women’s advancement, courts are less likely to award custody of children to the wife in a divorce proceeding, which makes women more likely to agree to a reduced settlement in order to retain custody.

As the economic damage that divorce inflicts on women has become more apparent, feminists have stressed that women need divorce-on-demand so that battered wives can escape abusive husbands. The correlation of domestic violence and marriage is simply asserted. In fact, spousal abuse accounts for just 9 percent of all domestic violence. A full two-thirds of male abusers are either boyfriends or ex-husbands. Such data should lead us to strengthen the bonds of marriage, not to weaken them. Of course, the argument that legal obstacles to divorce might result in a wife’s being forced to remain in an abusive marriage is used primarily for its emotional impact. In reality, divorce for reasons of abusive conduct on the part of a spouse was easily obtainable- and was commonly granted- long before the advent of no-fault laws.” [3]

True patriarchies generally protect women greatly. When the husband is the authority figure within the family, he is given the power to protect his wife and children and provide for them. Such a system benefits women well. Women are naturally smaller and weaker than men (the average women is 5 inches- nearly half a foot- shorter than the average man and only has about 60% of the strength of the average man) and therefore are vulnerable to being taken advantage of by men. There are numerous biological differences beyond size and strength that put women at a sever disadvantage when they act and compete the same as men (fertility (including woman’s limited fertility), ability to handle alcohol and vulnerability to STDs and AIDS). Therefore a system in which women do not compete to be equal to men but instead are bound to one man who will protect and support her is a system that works the best for women.

“…Libby Anne is acting as if the concept of men protecting women from other men is an absurdity since if a man is dangerous by virtue of being a man then nothing is gained from an inherently dangerous man “protecting” women from other inherently dangerous men since the so called male “protector” is just as likely to turn around and attack the woman himself once he is given the trusted status of being the woman’s ‘protector.’ The problem with this line of thinking is that some men are more dangerous than other men. The minority sociopath man is more dangerous than the majority socially well adjusted man. The man who has made a high commitment and investment in a woman is less dangerous than the man who only has a casual relationship with a woman. A man who can act as a neutral third party whose primary interest is the well being of the woman, such as a woman’s father, is more trustworthy than a potential suitor who has the obvious self-interest of trying to gain a relationship with the woman. Women are most protected when the most trustworthy and least dangerous categories of men are empowered over the least trustworthy and most dangerous categories of men. The whole point of empowering fathers to protect their daughters from potentially harmful boyfriends and empowering husbands to protect their wives from potentially harmful relationships with other men is so that the men who are the most trustworthy and protective of women’s interests will be in charge.”[4]

When it comes to sex, should women really want to forever be done with the “double standard?” Perhaps the double standard might be a good thing for women. Part of the marriage contract in a patriarchal society is that a woman will only sleep with the man who protects and provides for her and only have children with him. Men also strongly dislike when their partner has many other men to compare his performance to. Generally, the more sexually liberated a woman is, the less interest a man will have in forming a long-term relationship with her. And the more partners she has, the less likely the woman is to have a successful marriage. Men also suffer from sexual jealousy that can, and does, lead to violence against the woman.

“On the basis of his studies of human mating behavior, David Buss concludes that American men ‘view the lack of sexual experience as desirable in a spouse.’ This is so because men ‘place a premium on fidelity’ and the single best predictor of extramarital sex is premarital sexual permissiveness.’ Men rank ‘faithfulness and sexual loyalty’ as a wife’s ‘most highly valued traits’ and ‘abhor promiscuity and infidelity in their wives.’ When a sexual relationship is threatened, claims Buss, women are more likely to feel sad and abandoned, and men to experience rage. ‘Male sexual jealousy is the single most frequent cause of all types of violence directed at wives,’ and most spousal homicide is ‘precipitated by male accusations of adultery or by the woman’s leaving or threatening to leave the husband.’

These facts of life, which are now documented by evolutionary psychologists, were always part of our cultural knowledge. They are facts that feminist sexual revolutionaries chose to ignore. While they and the women who followed their lead obtained what they viewed as sexual freedom- that is, the freedom to imitate male tom cat behavior- they jeopardized their chances of marrying and, once married, of remaining so…[5]

For some feminists, the sex act itself was a reaffirmation of “the patriarchy” as it was seen as an expression of male domination over a woman. Andrea Dworkin presented society with a rather shocking view of the subject:

“This is nihilism; or this is truth. He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied- physically, internally, in her privacy.”[6]

Some feminists responded to this view of sex by forgoing heterosexuality all together. Still some other feminists thought that simply pursing equality and sex on the same terms as men would alleviate it.Germaine Greer taught women that,

“…They must not scurry about from bed to bed in a self-deluding and pitiable search for love, but must do what they do deliberately, without false modesty, shame or emotional blackmail.”[7]

Even though insisting on sexual promiscuity to gain more respect for women, Germaine Greer went on to speak of men’s perverted sexual views of women as “cunt hatred” and insisted that:

“Women have very little idea of how much men hate them. Any boy who has grown up in an English industrial town can describe how the boys used to go to the local dance halls and stand around all night until the pressure of the simplest kind of sexual urge prompted them to score a chick. The easier this was the more they loathed them and identified them with the guilt that their squalid sexual release left them.”[8]

To the feminists sex was to be seen as a casual thing. Illegitimacy was to be de-stigmatized and divorce was to be made easily available. The patriarchy had to crumble. And in so crumbling that patriarchy came many unforeseen consequences.The laws that protected women and favored women were abolished. These laws were necessary protections for women but the feminists campaigned them all away. The consequences of their movement are grave.

Mothers, wives, widows and rape victims have all been harmed by the feminist movement. Running wild has given women no greater freedom or respect. In fact, it has had quite the opposite effect. While campaigning about how much men hated women and viewed women as sexual objects, feminists at the same time insisted that women must join men and accord men sex on male terms. It has never turned out the way they promised for women.

“Not all stallions can be kept in harness, but the feminist response was to abandon the attempt and run wild with the stallions. For women to run wild, however, can be very costly, as many have learned to their regret.”[9]

Perhaps male dominance is not a bad thing when it is directed in a way that protects women. The feminists would rather have women giving their preciousness away to just any man. To carry children casually for just any man whether he has proven himself worthy to be the father of her children or not. Modern women allow just any man to enter her most private space even when he has not proven himself worthy of being her provider and protector- whether he has proven his commitment to her or not. Even the most conservative women have adopted the feminist perspective when it comes to work, sex and motherhood. While Dworkin, in the view of a traditional woman, reaches the wrong conclusion about sex, she does, however, capture the intensity of the moment from the woman’s perspective.

“Dworkin depicts sexual intercourse as a much more momentous experience for a woman than a man…Her depiction might be considered an outrageous exaggeration (many of Dworkin’s critics so characterize it), but I find it a dramatic portrayal-from the woman’s, but not necessarily from the man’s perspective- of sexual intercourse at its best. Dworkin describes an overwhelmingly personal, a truly awe-inspiring, event in which a woman should shrink in horror from participating on any basis even remotely casual. One might think that in her lifetime a woman would meet few men that she considers worthy of exercising such power over her. This may explain why women often invest their romantic relationships with a meaning the facts do not support, endeavoring to convince themselves that the man is what he is not and that the woman means much more to him than she truly does.”[10]

There are few facts in this life that can be changed by a social revolution. When a woman loves one man and devotes herself to him, Dworkin’s descriptions actually become a positive thing for women, as does patriarchy. For, as described above, the patriarchal system at its best allows only one man who has proven himself worthy to be with the woman and guard her to have any control over her. In our world today, women allow many men (live in boyfriends, casual sex partners, bosses and the government) to have control over them. The feminists insist this is freedom and independence for women, but the facts simply do no support their assertions.

[1] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p. 328. Spence, 1998.
[2] http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mosuo-One-of-the-Last-Matriarchal-Societies-36321.shtml
[3] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family.” Spence, 2002
[4] http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/mark-driscoll-explains-patriarchy/
[5] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 240.
[6] Dworkin, A. “Intercourse,” p.122. Secker &Warburg, 1987.
[7] Greer, G., “The Female Eunuch,” p. 300. HarperCollins, 1970, 1971
[8] Ibid., p. 279.
[9] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility, p. 241.
[10] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 173.

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

Women Deserve Better than Feminism

I feel sorry for the modern woman who was brought up in a feminist society. She has been taught nothing but lies her entire life. Her entire life the myth that women were second class citizens in our past has been fed to her and reinforced over and over. She has been taught to pursue sex as long as the man uses a condom. She has been taught that careers are the true path to fulfillment. But this is not all her fault. No, it is the fault of a culture that does not teach women their true worth. The modern woman will live with her boyfriend, split the bills and give him sex. Yet the relationship won’t last. She will probably bear him a couple of children yet he will never marry her. No, the modern emasculated man will continue to be a child. More than likely in this living arrangement he won’t bother to hold down a steady job. His girlfriend will give him sex, clean the house, have his kids, pump herself full of hormones that wreck her body, and go to work to support the family- he has nothing to worry about. She will be used and tossed aside without ever as much as receiving the prospect of marriage and a home to live in.

The modern woman will never be treated with the same courtesy and respect that her female ancestors (who according to feminists were “second class”) were given for she lives in a society where any man will readily send the mother of his children into the workforce to support the family and will readily see women sent into war. But since men are naturally stronger and more dominant than women are, this is nothing less than abusive. Men are given greater physical (and even some mental) powers over women by nature. So a man who is not chivalrous towards women is abusive. The man who does not take on the appropriate responsibilities that come along with fatherhood and manhood is abusive towards women. As Jesse Powell notes:

“In this way unconditional chivalry provided to women by men is what is fair, is what is equal, is what is just. Any burden imposed upon the woman for the chivalrous benefit is abusive, it is a form of theft against the woman, it is a violation of the woman’s natural rights as a woman, it is an abuse of the power granted to the man as the man is not using the power he is given for the purpose the power is meant to serve. When the man denies the woman chivalry he is using a power entrusted to him on behalf of the woman for his own benefit. This is outright theft.

Chivalry is a collection of powers and advantages first granted to men through inheritance. The man then creates and controls chivalry in order to then give it to the woman. Chivalry is something that men create and men control but it is something that the woman rightfully possesses.”[1]

Modern women need to discard the feminist beliefs that our mothers’ generation were taught. We have seen many in our mothers’ generation live chaotic and stressful lives. Many of them are now middle aged and still out there searching (often times for “Mr. Right” as they have run through so many “Mr. Wrongs” by living a feminist lifestyle). If women are to finally achieve happiness and prosperity we must discard the feminist teachings that are so mainstream in our society today. If a man wishes to lay claim to his children he must be required to marry the mother and take on traditional responsibilities for her and the children. The granting of rights to men without these responsibilities is an abuse of male power. Likewise, society must not tolerate sexual promiscuity and the resulting single parenthood that is so prevalent in our society. Our grandmothers were able to stay home with their children because they demanded and expected it, and also fostered an economy that supported it. We could have the same prosperity if only we too would demand it from our society and from our men.

The purpose of marriage and bringing fathers into the family should be for them to take on responsibilities for women and children so that the mother does not have to perform both the roles of child rearer and breadwinner. Men who depend on a woman to support themselves and/or their children are doing nothing more than abusing and taking advantage of women. It has been well documented all throughout history and almost every society that has ever been in existence that the male role in the family is to provide:

“Similarly, man’s ‘innate need for structure’ can be satisfied in hundreds of forms of organization. The need for structure may explain all of them or none of them, but it does not tell us why, of all possible arrangements, marriage is the one most prevalent. It does not tell us why, in most societies, marriage alone is consecrated in a religious ceremony and entails a permanent commitment.

As most anthropologists see it, however, the reason is simple. The very essence of marriage, Bronislaw Malinowski wrote, is not structure and intimacy; it is ‘parenthood and above all maternity.’ The male role in marriage, as Margaret Mead maintained, ‘in every known human society, is to provide for women and children.’ In order to marry, in fact, Malinowski says that almost every human society first requires the man ‘ to prove his capacity to maintain the woman.'”[2]

Thus it is and has always been the primary role of fathers and husbands (if paternity is to be acknowledged in society) to provide for and maintain women and children. Thus I feel sorry for the modern woman who does not demand from the man she loves and wants to be with commitment, respect, and support.

Many feminists laugh at us for standing up for the “rights” of traditional women. In their view, traditional women have no rights. But they are wrong. Traditional women have many rights, and chief among them is the right to expect support from our husbands and to be protected from the man’s burden of military duty. Traditional women have the right to demand protection and support from the senior men in their lives (namely husbands and when they are younger fathers). Feminists see guardianship of women and patriarchy as oppression of women, yet for the traditional women it is a right. We can look to Saudi women for a magnificent 21st century example. Many of their women do not want to give up their guardianship laws and consider it a right of women:

“In Saudi culture, women have their integrity and a special life that is separate from men. As a Saudi woman, I demand to have a guardian. My work requires me to go to different regions of Saudi Arabia, and during my business trips I always bring my husband or my brother. They ask nothing in return—they only want to be with me. The image in the West is that we are dominated by men, but they always forget the aspect of love.”[3]

Western women used to have such rights as well before feminism swept through and destructed our entire society and ruined male-female relationships. English and American women used to have the right of coverture which was the ultimate act of a husband assuming responsibility for his wife:

“Patriarchal institutions are a two-way street, and if men ever supposed they had the power to control the lives of their womenfolk, they were, in so thinking, obliged to support and protect them. Anyone may choose to dislike the terms of this division of labor, but the consistent misrepresentation of sex roles as as a one-sided tyranny is a myth or, rather, a barefaced lie…

…The husband is bound to provide his wife with necessaries by law, as much as himself; and if he contracts debts for them, he is obliged to pay them…..If the wife be indebted before marriage, the husband is bound afterwards to pay the debt…The husband, at least in law, was the presumed master of the house and, consequently, could be held liable for his wife’s torts, including those to which she had been liable before marriage, and for misdemeanors and certain felonies that were performed in his presence and could thus be presumed to be done under his orders. In criminal cases the husband’s complicity did not have to be proved, and he, rather than the wife, was subject to punishment.” [4]

Calling our female ancestors “second-class” is the biggest lie of our time. Women in our past were cherished and loved. That doesn’t mean things were perfect. No, life is never perfect nor is it ever fair. But feminists set out to destroy any rights the traditional women had. The only rights women have now are the “rights” to work, have casual sex, abortions and be sent into combat to face rape, injury and death. So I feel sorry for the modern woman who believes that these are all good things. Why would the modern woman be so stupid as to trade away everything that makes her beautiful and precious and trade away the chivalry that has guarded women for centuries and the very legal rights that protected her position within the family? A woman does not need “equality” with men to be of great worth. She is already of great worth. Men conquer and they dominate institutions because that is how they prove their worth as men, but a woman already has an innate worth that no man can claim.

“The prime fact of life is the sexual superiority of women. Sexual love, intercourse, marriage, conception of a child, childbearing- even breastfeeding- are all critical experiences psychologically. They are times when our emotions are most intense, our lives are most deeply changed, and society is perpetuated in our own image. And they all entail sexual roles that demonstrate the primacy of women.

The central roles are mother and father, husband and wife. They form neat and apparently balanced pairs. But appearances are deceptive. In sexual terms there is little balance at all. In most of these key sexual events, the male role is trivial, even easily dispensable. Although the man is needed in intercourse…Otherwise, the man is altogether unnecessary. It is the woman who conceives, bears and suckles the child. Those activities that are most deeply sexual are mostly female; they comprise the mother’s role, a role that is defined biologically.

The nominally equivalent role of father is in fact a product of marriage and other cultural contrivances. There is no biological need for the father to be anywhere around when the baby is born and nurtured. In many societies the father has no special responsibility to support the specific children he sires. In some societies, paternity is not even acknowledged. The father is neither inherently equal to the mother within the family, nor necessarily inclined to remain with it. In one way or another, the man must be made equal by society.”[5]

So I feel sorry for the modern woman who would trade away protection, love and superiority to join men in the workforce and in combat. I feel sorry for the modern woman that will give her body to any man outside of the confines and commitments entailed in marriage. The modern woman has been duped to believe that equality with men is the only way that she achieves worth. A woman’s paycheck need not define her worth, nor should her financial contributions to the family. The financial support should be the man’s burden and the man’s alone. If a man cannot step up and assume such burdens then he is not worthy to be called either a man or a father. And similarly modern women are not equipping our men with the tools to be our providers. There are plenty of single women and men to fill up the necessary jobs needed in the market. There is no reason for a married woman to fill those positions.

Most of our mothers are still teaching us the feminist teachings that they were taught. Yet a smart woman can look and see that these things are not good for us. We must marry and we must not waste our youth. Once married we must stay in that marriage until death parts us. We must not give our youth and maiden beauty to a man without demanding that he remain with us even long after it is gone. The giving of our bodies to men should be done within marriage and should entail a life-long commitment. If we married women are set on having a career then we can do it when we are older and the kids are long grown and out of the house. But, even then married woman’s participation in the paid work force should be limited. Only in the most extreme of circumstances will a second or third marriage actually turn out better than the original man that a woman has pledged to spend her life with, no matter how awful or inconsiderate he is. In time he can and will change if the woman demands it of him. We must not leave our husbands even when the marriage is dull or there are marital spats that we seem to be unable to overcome. If we stick it out, we will be better off for it and happier in the end. As women we must always remember that we are precious and our physical and mental attributes greatly separate us from men. Let’s put our marriages first and demand the respect, commitment and support we deserve. Let’s not make the mistakes that our own mothers made and let’s teach our daughters to expect better and our sons to be better.


[1] http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/dominance-belongs-to-men-and-chivalry-belongs-to-women/
[2] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage.” Pelican, 1993
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
[4] http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/09/29/the-wrongs-of-womens-rights-ii-coverture/#_edn8
[5] “Men and Marriage”

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