Tag Archives: women in combat

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

What Does “Equality” Mean?

First of all, when I speak of “gender equality” it has absolutely nothing to do with the inherent worth of men and women Yet, that is precisely what most everyone I’ve ever heard justifies the idea of “gender equality” as. I have come across countless blog postings, websites and pages that talk about “gender equality” yet nobody seems to really have an idea of what this term actually means. Numerous people talk about “radical” feminists wanting abortion, obliteration of traditional gender roles, gay marriage and pushing women into combat and forcing them to register for the draft. Many people that I’ve come across that claim to be against all of these things still turn around and say something like “feminism did great things for women by giving them equality under the law” or they will say they are against all of those radical things yet say they unquestionably support “equality under the law.” My favorite is also MRAs who love the idea of patriarchy yet talk about “equality under the law for everyone.” Sheesh.

But what exactly do they think “equality under the law” means anyways? They seem to have some fairytale vision that feminism has somehow given women a status as human beings and that anyone who questions “gender equality” must think women are worth less than men (MRAs will think anyone that’s against it is an evil man-hating feminist).

Feminism has long been about the exact things they speak out against yet they say it’s done good things and praise equality. I’ve even watched pastors talk about how they are promoting “gender equality” while at the same time they are promoting men being breadwinners and speaking out against women in combat, abortion and gay marriage. Where is the reasoning here? Feminism is so pervasive in our culture that we can’t even see anything other than “equality.” And often times many will try to justify equality by saying that men and women are “different but equal.” Different? Definitely. Equal? In our inherent worth most certainly, but equal under the law? Almost entirely now. But what exactly does being equal mean anyways? Basically, equality has nothing to do with inherent worth of men and women and everything to with this:

1) Being “equal” means that women must be treated like men and men must be treated like women, no matter how logical it would be to treat us differently. Meaning:

* Women must be allowed into combat

* Women must be forced to register for the draft

* It is illegal to force upon men the sole obligation of the support of the family

* It is illegal for men to be the legal heads of their household

* It is illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a woman because of her marital status

* It is illegal to pay a man more money because he is expected to be the provider for his family

* Homosexuals must have the same rights in marriage as heterosexuals

* There can be no sex segregation in schools no matter the scientific evidence that boys and girls mature and learn differently and don’t even think about expecting that girls should be homemakers!

* Age of majority for males and females must be the same, despite the scientific fact that females mature faster than males

* Oh and don’t forget that statutory rape laws must be gender-neutralized to support political correctness and feminist theory that all laws must be sex-blind.

* Abortion must be legal under all circumstances

* Unwed fathers must be given the same rights as unwed mothers and married fathers under the law

* Yes, the vote falls under this category too (but women had the vote decades before women’s lib)

2) What equality under the law doesn’t mean

* That men and women have equal worth as human beings.

If you are a supporter of “equality under the law” or “gender equality” yet you object to any of the aforementioned policies maybe you should seriously look into the history of the theory of “gender equality.” The same radical things that feminists push for today are the same exact things they were pushing for 50 years ago (and, actually, some were pushing for these same policies long before that).

Because the concept of equality is so ingrained in our minds today anyone who dares speak out against it must justify their stance and plead that they actually do believe that men and women have equal value and worth as human beings. That is because mainstream culture and media has engrained so deeply in our heads that it took a social movement just for men to care for and respect women.

Such beliefs, however, are completely false. Our female ancestors did not have to justify their worth on the basis of whether or not they were “equal” to men. And men certainly didn’t go around defining their worth based on their status as “equal” or not to women. They would have thought such things were foolish, and for a good reason. So it’s time for us to start realizing and explaining exactly what “equality” is and exactly what it isn’t. It’s time for us to truly push feminism to the side and start re-examining the conventional wisdom of the past 50 years.

I know I have great worth equal to that of my husband but I do not want, however, for us to be “equal” to each other under the law because I believe men and women are different and the law needs to take into account those differences and men and women should have different responsibilities under the law and in the eyes of society.

The Day Nobody Cared about Women in Combat

The other night I lay in bed restless. I told my husband how I didn’t feel much like sleeping. Something bothered me deeply. Something had me frightened and had my stomach in knots. I mentioned how I was so glad I wasn’t born just a few years later because of the fate that is fixing to befall the young women who are just now coming into adulthood and graduating. The fate that is fixing to befall them because of what their mothers and grandmothers have done (even though their mothers and grandmothers aren’t going to pay the price for it, they instead will). It wasn’t illegal immigration nor was it Obamacare that had me so disturbed that night. No, this was serious. This was much bigger. Something much bigger is tearing society apart and fixing to harm millions yet everyone I know has remained completely silent. Everyone I know just doesn’t seem to care.

I remember that fateful day back in January when I heard the news. It was outrageous to me and I had to say something! I had to do something! First I wrote my own post about it and attracted some attention. But that wasn’t enough. Surely the conservatives are on this right? Surely they are outraged? I preceded to knock on every conservative door in the online world yet nobody was saying anything. Nobody was doing anything about it. Conservatives weren’t saying anything. Not a single posting. The Ronald Reagan republicans weren’t saying anything. I moved on over to the Tea Party and managed to get one thumbs up (out of like 500,000 potential thumbs up) for my comments asking them about women in combat, but that was about it. They had more important things to worry about, such as conversing about how the abortion pill wasn’t necessary healthcare.

But, wait, I have conservative family members right? They’re always talking about their Second Amendment rights and keeping with the latest abortion news. They are conservative to the core so surely they will be of help! Sadly, I was mistaken. None of them payed me any attention. They didn’t really seem to care nor pay any attention to this issue. With a heavy heart I left once again.

I came across some men’s rights groups. They were throwing a party. Finally! Women get what’s coming to them! Finally! I told them they deserved whatever was going to come to them and whatever feminism has done to them and left.

I finally got around to some liberal groups who were playing a big part in all of this. I berated them, called them all a bunch of fools and asked them if they had any idea what the consequence of all of this was going to be. They just told me it was about time that women were being forced to “do their part” and they preceded to tell me to come out of the dark ages. Oh yes, they also told me that there wasn’t any noteworthy difference between mothers of young children and fathers of young children being sent off to war.

Seriously, I knew I would get nowhere with the liberals responsible because they can’t be reasoned with. But, the conservatives? They should be ashamed to call themselves conservatives when they can’t even speak one single word about WOMEN in COMBAT. As little as 50 years ago there would have been an outrage about young women being sent off to die. It’s bad enough when innocent women and children get caught in the crossfire in wars but to purposely and deliberately place them there? Only the most barbaric of societies take their women and place them into harms way deliberately. Yet not even the conservatives of our society care one bit about it. It’s not even worth mentioning to them.

But women in combat will have serious consequences. I’m sure our enemies will love it as they can take out the current and the future generation at once- two birds with one stone. Feminists will love it because finally women are proving they can do what men can (oops, except it probably won’t work out that way, being that all of feminist visions have been fantasies that have devastated women). Men’s groups love it because they can send women off to do their job and it gets them out of responsibility (they just hate responsibility).

What this shows is that we are a civilization in decay. It isn’t something that happened overnight. Feminists didn’t storm the halls of Congress with the Equal Rights Amendment then have the general public on board with women in combat the very next day. No, first gradual destruction of families and gender relations had to happen until one day the entire feminist vision could be achieved and nobody would even resist anymore.

Young women everywhere will pay the price for this when they are drafted and run scared for their lives. Young men will pay the price when their lives are put in unnecessary danger. Society will pay the price because our once great civilization will fall, as Rome did, and decay. The future of our civilization will be in peril because nobody cares about the potentiality of motherhood that rests only in the bodies of young women, not young men. For if we are not fighting the the future of our civilization and so that our children may live in prosperity then what is the point of fighting? Have men not always gone to war for women, for children for their families and the future generations? If men no longer fight for their families (that’s right, their families are broken and torn apart now) then what do they fight for? What is the point of fighting? Does women in combat not defeat the very point of going to war in the first place?

Maybe it’s just as simple as reality has not hit everyone yet. Maybe that they are tied up in their own little world and don’t really believe that their daughters will actually be drafted or forced to serve. Or maybe gender relations have gone so far down hill because of feminism that men just don’t care if women live or die anymore. Maybe it is just the simple belief that such things could not possibly really happen to them or the ones they love. Whatever the case, it showcases how far gone we are now and how terrible the state of affairs is today.

Women in combat- does anyone care?

The Wrongs of the Men’s Movement

“On the one hand there are real harms against men perpetuated by feminism and on the other there are real responsibilities that men owe towards women and children. The real harm done by feminism is used as an excuse to reject the real responsibilities of men towards women. The appropriate response to feminist injustices is men asserting their rightful authority; the MRA does the exact opposite in response, he instead rejects his responsibilities (Jesse Powell).”

I am not an MRA nor could I ever be. I don’t think anybody’s going to deny that there are genuinely good men out there who have been done wrong or who have been screwed over. But the MRA response is to whine and cry and plead that he’s such a victim,that society should just have more sympathy for him and that if things were just more “fair” and “equal” that somehow it would remedy all of his problems.

The original feminist war was on women. Feminists and MRAs were on the same side until feminists started seeing all the damage the movement had caused to women and started backing out. They created policies to remedy the situation by anti-male and anti-family legislation to balance out the harm being done to women. In turn men’s groups responded with legislation to harm women to try to balance out what the feminists were doing.

When a MRA is screwed over by his wife cheating on him, leaving him, taking the kids, etc. he responds by saying that society should just be more fair to him. He employs the MRA equivalent of the feminist mutilated beggar argument. The MRA hates women and encourages other men not to marry and deny responsibility, to ‘get back’ at the woman by screwing the ‘bitch’ over and he encourages other men who follow him to do the same thing. Don’t marry men, don’t marry! Don’t be the breadwinners because she’ll just screw you in the end! Nowhere does it cross his mind to assert his authority and demand that men be the heads of their homes anymore. Nowhere does it cross his mind to accept responsibility.

We have a problem with out of wedlock births in this country and increasingly in most of the Western world. MRAs are on top of it. Deny your responsibilities men, deny your responsibilities. Deny that you got the girl pregnant, run from marriage -run real fast boys-and encourage mandatory paternity testing (at some undesignated time after the child is born, of course) because all women are just a bunch of sluts looking to commit paternity fraud to get a chunk of your paycheck for the next 18 years! Make identifying the father, instead of marrying him, mandatory for the welfare! (One would think if they wanted to get out of child support obligations they would just be screwing themselves over with this policy, but never mind that). Nowhere does it cross his mind to enforce the double standard and enforce patriarchal restraints on the women or enforce the Legitimacy Principle- that men can only be responsible for legitimate children and a wife that is faithful.

The MRA hates women. He wants to literally see them dead. The average MRA wants to see women dead on the battlefield to deal with what men have always had to suffer through and he wants an MRA version of affirmative action that would ensure women are forced into dangerous jobs and die in those jobs in equal numbers to men. Never mind that women suffer the throes of pregnancy and childbirth just to bring these pathetic excuses for men into this world and always have. Caring for a woman and being chivalrous to her never crosses his mind as the appropriate thing to do.

What could MRAs do? If their movement wasn’t just a hate movement to get out of responsibility the MRA would have several options.

First, they would enforce the double standard upon women. Women would either bear legitimate children or receive no assistance and no financial support from the father. Men would marry the mother while she was pregnant or they would receive no rights and their children would not carry their name. A man would be sure of a woman’s character and have the intention of marrying her or he would not enter into a romantic relationship with her and he would not sleep with her. If he just wanted sex he could pursue the time honored male tradition of buying a prostitute. A woman’s virtue and good name would be of utmost importance (going back to a man only getting involved with a woman of honorable status) so she would reserve her body for her future husband and would not bear children outside of that union.

“Here, from John Dollard’s Caste and Class in a Southern Town, is an example of such manipulative regulation “from the outside”– males persuading females that they are really regulating themselves:

One of the rituals of the university dances is that of a fraternity of young blades entitled the Key-Ice. During the intermission the lights are turned out and these men march in carrying flaming brands. At the end of the procession four acolytes attend a long cake of ice. Wheeled in on a cart it glimmers in the torches’ flare. Then the leader, mounted on a table in the center of the big gymnasium, lifts a glass cup of water and begins a toast that runs: “To Woman, lovely woman of the Southland, as pure and as chaste as this sparkling water, as cold as this gleaming ice, we lift this cup, and we pledge our hearts and our lives to the protection of her virtue and chastity.’

For ‘protection’ Peggy Morgan would (correctly) read enforcing [1]”

To solve the divorce problem men could demand that divorce be harder to attain and demand that there be major fault involved for a divorce to be granted. To solve the problem men wouldn’t sit there begging and playing the ‘poor me’ guilt trip trying to get all of society to feel sorry for them. They would take their responsibilities in their families and assert their rightful authority. They would financially support their wives and take care of them. If we had patriarchy their wives would not leave or go anywhere because of the authority the man asserts and the responsibility he has for them. The woman would be without her social status and without her support if she was not married to him and she would be without her children as he would have the authority over them.

‘A man and wife are one person in law; the wife loses all her rights as a single woman, and her existence is entirely absorbed in that of her husband. He is civilly responsible for her acts; she lives under his protection or cover, and her condition is called coverture.

A woman’s body belongs to her husband, she is in his custody, and he can enforce his right by a writ of habeas corpus.

The legal custody of children belongs to the father. During the life-time of a sane father, the mother has no rights over her children, except a limited power over infants, and the father may take them from her and dispose of them as he thinks fit [2].’

Real men would not whine and complain that women are not taking on an ‘equal share’ of what should rightfully be the man’s sole responsibility. But, no, MRAs cannot accept anything that would actually hold them responsible for traditional male responsibilities. They whine and they cry on and on and they never do anything productive. They cause more feminist backlash which only increases their problem even more and the ones that are ultimately hurt are the millions of innocent men, women and children that get caught in the crossfire of these ongoing gender wars. The innocent men, women and children who didn’t start these wars and have never done wrong. They are the ones who end up suffering.

The MRA will bite back at any woman who claims to have been raped or abused. He will say she’s lying. She’s just trying to separate him from his children or get the upper hand because she wants his money or has her own ax to grind. Now every time a woman is abused or even claims she is abused she has no choice but to turn to feminism. They’ll help her they promise. They’ll make sure she’s believed and justice is served! The lies continue, the wars continue, the fighting continues and never ends. It never occurs to the MRA to take charge of things. He instead want to play without ever having to pay.

He could have chosen from the beginning to assert his authority. The women would have been protected by the mans responsibility and he would have been protected by being in charge of the woman’s actions. His family might have stayed together, his wife and kids might have never been impoverished. Hs children might have had a stable home to live in. But the MRA man can’t put his foot down and lay out the rules within his family. Instead he presses for laws that would just make everything a little more fair and would relieve him of responsibility. He instead runs a hate campaign against women and conducts a marriage strike. He refuses to be a man and complains that women won’t be faithful, that they won’t be women.

The MRA story is a tragic one indeed. It started with feminist harm of women, which led to lies and harm of men which led to lies and harm against all while society collapsed around all this hate and fighting. There will probably never be a happy ever after to this story and it’s a real shame. Because if the MRA hadn’t fled from responsibility in the first place this never would have happened.

1. “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus
2. Ibid.