Tag Archives: sexual double standard

Double Standards are a Good Thing

A double standard is when one group of people can get away with something that another group can’t. In modern society we like to think that double standards are so unfair and should be done away with. But what if double standards are actually a good thing? What if they serve some greater purpose to society that actually benefits everyone?

One of the biggest double standards that we all grew up with concerns sexuality. Men, in general, have always been able to sleep around without being socially shamed or called names. Women, on the other hand are generally labeled as “sluts” or “whores” if they do the same thing and are generally not considered marriage material by respectable men looking for long term relationships. A classic double standard against males is that men have only traditionally been required to go to war and register for the draft. If a man refused not only would he be labeled a “pussy,” “wimp,” and “coward” by society but more than likely he would serve some jail time as well. Women are called “whores” while men get away with sleeping around. Women are allowed to hide and be sheltered in times of war but men are jailed. Unfair, right? “Sexist,” right? Dreaded double standards that have no place in an “enlightened” society, right? But just what if these double standards might actually be good things?

In the case of war, it has always been a man’s duty. This is so for several reasons. First, women are the only ones who can bring the future generations into this world. If society is to survive females must be protected and kept safe so that there will be future generations (that’s why we fight wars in the first place, right?). Beyond keeping women safe so that they may care for and bear children, men are much bigger and stronger and must be taught to never use their strength against women unless absolutely necessary to restrain her. Sending women to war defeats the purpose of protecting women, ensuring the well-being of future generations and teaching men not to direct acts of violence against women or be OK with acts of violence against women.

In the case of sexuality, why can men sleep around and not women? Once again, this serves a fundamental purpose to all of society. This double standard does not exist against women in all societies. In many societies women slept around freely. In some societies women even took on multiple husbands and divorced them at will. Who actually fathered her children was of no concern to anyone either. In patriarchal societies men control female sexuality. They have to. There is no other way that they can support families or be fathers in the first place. All children by default are in the custody and care of their mothers. Maternity is certain, it is a fact of life. It is a bond society can depend upon. The mother-child bond is there from conception and is unquestionable. The mother’s role is biological and the same in every society that has ever existed. A man, however, can only be a father to a child if the mother declares him as such, if he is socialized into the child’s life via a third party through marriage or other cultural ties. Paternity can never be truly certain and men can never participate meaningfully in reproduction short of a long term monogamous relationship with the mother. Thus the need for men to control female sexuality and “own the womb.” Thus in every patriarchal society there is an obsession of females being chaste and shunning any female who is not or who bears children out of wedlock.

So this means the double standard only benefits men, right? It’s all about men so they can have things their way? Alas, that is not the whole story. The patriarchal family ultimately benefits women just as much as it does men. Marriage is a permanent commitment. Marriage links a man to specific children via a long-term monogamous relationship with the mother of those children. She agrees to be chaste for him and share her body only with him. In return society and the law imposes upon the man the obligation to carry the burden of financially supporting the children and the mother of those children. She shares her reproductive life and the children she bears with him and in return he protects her and provides for her. Sounds pretty beneficial to both sexes to me.

There are numerous other double standards and in most cases they serve a grand purpose for society. Men and women are not on equal grounds. The same rules do not apply to men and women because women and men are made different by way of nature, no matter what our laws say. It is easy to see what happens when laws are gender-neutralized and double standards are forgotten. How will we survive when our women are maimed and come home in body-bags from war? How are the campaigns attempting to stop violence against women going to be successful when we teach men to treat women, the weaker sex, as just “one of the boys?” We either have to lower standards and change the rules so that women can participate in a man’s world or we have to train men to just run over women and treat them without any special consideration. Both of these options are bad. And what about children? Does anybody care about this apparently forgotten group of humans who are helpless to care for themselves for many years? Wouldn’t it just make more sense to have double standards of what a man’s duties and a woman’s duties are? How else will we keep society running if we fail to discriminate and just send both men and women equally to war? And who will keep things running at home if we ship both young men and women off to war?

How will the family keep running if we fail to discriminate and lay double standards against men and women? If both men and women are held equally to support the family then what happens? Marriage becomes a competition and there is nobody to care for the home. Women don’t need husbands to support them and can walk away from marriage. Men aren’t interested in providing because they don’t have to. Grandma ends up raising the kids and picking them up from school. Divorce happens five years later and mommy and daddy play tug-a-war with the kids so they can get the upper hand against the other and equal financial responsibility between parents ups the ante. Antagonism is created between men and women; husband and wife and meaningful relationships are never formed.

And what happens when there are no double standards against the sexes when it comes to unwed mothers/fathers? An unwed mother automatically has rights for the child, but the unwed father doesn’t. How very sexist of us. We should give the poor guy rights to interfere in the child’s life or make a paternity claim to reck an intact family. And, of course, we should let women slap a paternity suit on a married man and have the full sanction of the law behind her to be a home-wrecker. We are “enlightened” after all and wouldn’t want to be unfair to anyone. Or maybe it would in the best interests of everyone to have a little sex discrimination and double standards. Just a thought.

Above all, double standards are good. They are necessary and no society is going to get very far without them. Men and women should be treated different and held to different standards in every area of life. It’s not all bad and patriarchy actually has a very romantic aspect to it. What could be more romantic that a man providing for and sheltering a woman from harm? It ultimately uplifts the family and protects it and contributes to meaningful and secure male-female relationships that benefit individual families and all of society.

Suggested Reading:

Great Quotes by George Gilder

Why Patriarchy

Women Deserve Better than Feminism

Do Women Really want to Smash the Patriarchy?

Looking Back on the Feminine Mystique

Advertisements

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.

References:

All quotes from “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus

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.

Notes:
[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.

The Corruptions of Feminism Part I: The Sexual Double Standard

“Unless she is selling sex, a woman will usually attempt to intertwine it with romance. The sex act will somehow be part of a romantic story, whether that story was fashioned long ago and now lives only in the recesses of her memory, or it is still sharply etched in her immediate perceptions. Nonetheless, feminists sexual revolutionaries told women to forget romance, spread their legs like whores, and enjoy equality with men by experiencing sheer sexual lust unenhanced by the mystery and magic of love.”[i]

Sexuality has long been a key concern of feminists and egalitarians. Most notably, they have long insisted that female sexuality is no different than male sexuality and that a woman should have the exact same right to choose not to marry, and instead engage in casual sex while pursuing a rewarding career that will secure her a (supposedly) much better future than the lifestyles of past generations of women afforded them. What has long been a major proponent of patriarchal societies is the inhibition on female sexuality. The “double standard” in sexuality is to overlook male sexual promiscuity and focus solely on attaching stigma to female sexuality. Stigma against female sexual promiscuity is characterized by labeling a promiscuous female as dirty and undesirable and outcasting her from respectable society; generally by imposing undesirable labels upon her such as “slut” and “whore.” Despite feminists convincing women it is men who are the ones inhibiting women’s sexual “freedom,” most of the pressure on women to not be promiscuous has always came from other women.

“In the view of many women, acquiescence in this double standard which feminists attacked for inhibiting women’s sexual freedom always served women’s interests by helping them resist male pressure to engage in sexual activity they wished to avoid or postpone.”[ii]

Women have a much greater stake in sexual activities on many levels than what men do. Obviously, women are the only ones who can get pregnant from the encounter and a woman only has a limited amount of children that she can have in her lifetime and, of course, her fertility will peak at a much younger age. On this basis alone she must choose carefully about letting a man into her most private space. But, beyond these obvious biological differences that set her apart from males, she need also think about her own future.

“[The] gift of easy sex impairs the long-term interests of both men and women by catering to the male’s adolescent pursuit of sex without responsibility. Because it guaranteed men success in this pursuit, the sexual revolution further undermined the breadwinner ethic by inhibiting development of the mature masculinity which fosters the willingness to assume responsibility for a wife and family”[iii]

Eventually, having a committed husband and father for her children will be a priority for most women. And beyond getting the man to commit to her it will also become imperative to get him to stick around long-term and be dependable. But, so long as sex is easily available to men without the commitments and responsibilities that marriage entails and there is a constant pool of sexually available- at least minimally-attractive- women, securing his devotion for a lifetime will be even harder for her. On this basis, there is a great need among women to ensure sexual rules, and thus the sexual double standard.

“Men and women, by the very nature of their biology, have different, and often opposing, sexual agendas. Eventually most women want children and, with them, committed husband and father. Yet so long as there is no readily understood and accepted way for women to say no to men they like and hope to see again, women lose their power to demand commitment from men. In that sense, as women, we are all equal-in our powerlessness. The woman who holds back from sex, waiting for the right one to come along, will find that no right man does-because he can get what he needs elsewhere-just as the woman who gives herself freely discovers that she holds no firmer grasp over him, either. The sexual revolution, from a male point of view, could be summed up as, ‘You mean I get to do whatever I want-and then leave? Great!'”[iv]

Beyond the general need of a woman to initially secure a faithful husband is to ensure that he remains so. Sexual promiscuity on behalf of females (much more than males) drastically undermines the security of marriages already in existence. As George Gilder observed: “This is what sexual liberation chiefly accomplishes-it liberates young women to pursue married men.”[v] And so long as society approves of divorce and there is no stigma attached to it as there once was, the security of marriages will continue to be drastically compromised by sexual promiscuity.

“The effect on marriage is evident. In Britain, as in America, nearly half of all marriages now embarked on will end in divorce, and in the kind of polite society inhabited by our urban elite, marriage has no more legitimacy and invites no greater public respect than a casual liaison. Official documents have been revised to put “partner” in the place of “spouse,” removing marriage from its privileged position in the official culture. Marriage is no longer the socially accepted norm marking the true conclusion of sexual development, but an individual choice, the business of no one save the couple who embark on it.

Hence no shame now attaches to divorce. Serial polygamy is the norm among successful men, and those who lose out from this state of affairs—the women and children whom they abandon—have been deprived of their most important protection, which was the social penalties suffered by the malefactor. Our society lavishes much sentimental sympathy on imaginary victims, whose feckless behavior is the real cause of their misfortune, but it is utterly indifferent to the real victims, such as illegitimate or abandoned children, whose misfortune results from its own refusal to cast judgment on the wrongdoers”[vi].

The double standard is a woman’s biggest bargaining power for ensuring security within marriage and ensuring that she can get the man she wants to be with to marry and commit to her. When women give away sex easily, it tells men that they do not have to take on responsibility in order to have sex or become fathers. “The freer women are sexually, the less interest men have in marriage…[vii] if it is harder to drag men to the altar today than it used to be, one reason is that they don’t have to stop there on the way to the bedroom.”[viii] Thus it serves the best interests of women to ensure that there is stigma against women who are promiscuous and would engage in sex outside of the confines of marriage. It serves women well to ensure that other women do not give away sex easily to men. “To serve the interests of traditional women, therefore, it is necessary to revive the eroded breadwinner ethic, and the primary tool is man’s sexual need.” [ix]

But, feminists, egalitarians and MRAs alike insist that this ensuring of a sexual double standard in order to “trap” men in marriage is evil manipulation. But that is precisely what it must be in order to ensure stable families and thus a stable and prosperous society. Feminists have always insisted that male and female sexuality are fungible with each other, as this fits well within their agenda of obliterating traditional gender roles and getting –and keeping- an equal amount of women in the workforce, specifically in traditional male jobs and higher paying jobs. It is nothing less than a political agenda on their part to rip apart the very foundations of civilized society. But regulating of male sexuality through the regulating of female sexuality is the process through which civilized societies are created:

“In Sexual Suicide and its revision, Men and Marriage, George Gilder describes with keen insight how woman uses man’s sexual need to bind him to her and their offspring, socializing him to work and provide for them; thereby is created the ‘sexual constitution’ of society.”[x] “The crucial process of civilization is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality”[xi]

Many feminists, and women who have never identified with the feminists, have found out the hard way the consequences of affording men easy sex and doing away with stigma against female sexual promiscuity. Not only do young women find that men will not commit and stick around for the children they father, but many women also find that their husbands can easily abandon them when their physical beauty has peaked and their reproductive years are over.

“Many men have enjoyed the fact of women’s increased sexual availability, they have sloughed off old wives and acquired young “trophies” under the sanction of no-fault divorce, they have encouraged abortions–thus avoiding responsibility for children they have bred–and they will willingly see women sent into combat to face the inevitable rape, injury, and death. In the eyes of such men, women are not uniquely precious individuals but only easily disposable sex objects. Contemporary feminism taught that lesson to men.”[xii]

Thus the sexual revolution has ripped up the fabric of civilized society, undermined the security and dignity of millions of women and even changed the way men view women. Feminists denied- and still deny to this day- female preciousness. Sexually liberated women have destroyed the marriages of other women and in so doing have also ripped up their own security for the future. When stigma disappears and society begins to see women as fungible with men, it is the women who ultimately lose out.

Notes:
[i] Graglia, F.C., “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p. 182, Spence, 1998.
[ii] Ibid., 157.
[iii] Ibid., 149.
[iv] Crittendon, D. “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us: why happiness eludes the modern woman,” p. 35. Touchstone, 1999.
[v] http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/antifeminism_quotes.htm
[vi] http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_bring_back_stigma.html
[vii] Graglia, F.C., “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p. 198, Spence, 1998.
[viii] ibid., 162.
[ix] Ibid., 157.
[x] Ibid., 148
[xi] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage.” Pelican, 1993.
[xii] http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar85.htm

© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.