The Might of Nations

 

[PDF Version]

 

But what is it that makes a nation? Barricaded away in study in the law and history books, it becomes quite easy to see that the strength and might of a nation lies in its military strength, its economy, and its political structures (of which a nation’s family patterns play a key role in all three).

Transformed as modern economies may be from agricultural-based to industrial-based, there is nothing new under the heavens. Work was outsourced even to the extent in ancient times that the Code of Hammurabi[1] outlines many economic regulations (including the regulation of worker’s wages) and even ancient Rome had a welfare system[2] where imported grains were distributed free by the government to the poorest citizens. The two-parent “nuclear” family system is also to be found in various ancient societies where international trade and a marketplace based upon coinage seem to be the hallmarks of an advancing and prosperous civilization throughout all eras of history.

In short order, political instability contributes to economic instability and the reduction in the fighting capabilities of a nation’s armed forces. Which plays the greater role or comes first in causing the disorder (declining economics, military prowess or political instability) is hard to ascertain, but all forces push and pull on one another in the creation of such disorder.

To have stability, groups of individuals have since the beginning of time developed codes of conduct- either through unwritten tribal customs or formal codification of laws in civilizations[3]– often patriarchal[4]– with more advanced political structures- that regulate how they will relate to one another and deal with any forms of disputes that arise. When the formal and civilized terms become unacceptable, the alternative is to resort to violence until one side succeeds in subduing the other, and thereby forcing the losing side’s surrender to the will of the prevailing forces, and thus securing their acceptance to abide by the terms and the customs of the rule of law of the winning side.

Civilizations are created and the story of human affairs develops (and this is, perhaps, the very reason why the whole “herstory” idea has never gained any traction) whenever one civilization overpowers the other through brute force and imposes their own rule of law over the opposing (conquered) forces and sets up their own leaders in place of the ones who formerly ruled.

Throughout history, governments are only as strong as the might of their military forces- as strong as the men of a nation. An effective government must not only have the resources (its economy) and the manpower (its military) to protect its borders from invading forces attempting to overcome it from without, but also to subdue rebellion from within. Thus, all governments depend upon the strength of their military forces, effective economic functioning, and political stability for their continued existence.

Civilizations seem to prosper in particular when diplomatic relations are stable, and thus fostering the growth of international trade. Whenever civilizations advance in such ways they then begin to form more complicated systems of government, turning from being governed in more primitive ways (as in pre-civilization under tribal rule, without formal written language or advances in agriculture/industry) to becoming stable functioning states replete with a written code of laws and formal bureaucratic administration.

Stability from within and without produces prosperous and wealthy civilizations, and historically this has also meant increases in innovation and inspiration, with changing family structures to become patriarchal with men working the land/ engaging in industry and business to directly provide for families where the paternity of their children is known. With advancing economies also comes more resources to develop technology, and thus more advanced weaponry and more advanced modes of production (whether agricultural or industrial) to further advance a nation’s military and economic forces and increase the native population (with the civilizations thus becoming more powerful than those that surround them, with these nations oftentimes even moving to conquer their surrounding neighbors and impose their will and rule of law over them).

On BBC’s website, searching through the history section, there are provided a couple of image galleries that give a brief overview and quite fascinating insight into the aforementioned military and economic forces at work throughout human history: The Art of War by Professor Daniel Moran and a War and Technology Gallery by a writer named Matthew Bennett. It’s interesting to see the timeline of how such forces have historically played out to create the societies we have today.

Aside from how civilizations are built, another important aspect of all civilizations (and whether they advance or falter and become conquered and impoverished peoples), is their family structures (as mentioned, when civilizations advance they generally become more patriarchal in their structures where the role of fathers providing and protecting in families is of paramount importance to their stability) and relationships between the sexes.

From the ancient Greek Hoplites and brutal hand-to-hand combat to the modern era where “The essence of new information technologies…have made the accuracy and effectiveness of weapons independent of the range from which they are fired,”[5] and where, “On the battlefields of the future all detectable targets will be equally at risk, while the ‘shooter’ may be literally anywhere,”[6] the entire point of warfare has been, and will always be, to annihilate or subdue one’s target and “win.”

Modern political discourse revolves around placing women in combat because brute strength is apparently not needed on account of all the new technologies. But no matter the battle strategy utilized, the end result will always be that the one pulling the trigger (even if from far away and even if the utilization of the weaponry requires little to no physical strength where females can equally do the job as well as males) will become a target in warfare. The “brains of the operation,” operating invisibly from some far away source would of necessity become the prime target for the opposing forces, as they would not be able to achieve their objective until the individual silently and invisibly taking out their forces is himself (herself) annihilated- this means killedcapturedtaken out of action and off the battlefield.

Whatever way one wants to put it, placing women in any kind of combat situations where they engage the enemy either directly or indirectly is still placing women in danger. It is the hallmark of an ever-increasing degenerating culture where the rule of law has utterly broken down.[7] It is also a very dangerous proposition for society overall whenever men stop seeing women as weaker vessels whom it is their duty to provide for and protect. Men will also- no matter the consequences- desert both battlefield and workplace when morale sinks and they simply see no point in continuing on working or fighting anymore: when they simply no longer have anything to work or fight for.

On an interpersonal level, it is a very dangerous proposition indeed whenever males in society overall become aggressive against their women, and see no problem engaging in face-to-face competition with females and don’t even flinch at the idea of females being called into military service to be captured and killed by the enemy and will themselves attack and get in a woman’s face at only the smallest slight. When reality hits in the real world, men and women are not equal.

In sexual encounters, it is females who become pregnant and bear the disabilities associated with pregnancy and childbirth. In violent confrontations and domestic violence situations, few females are actually on equal footing with males. The rule of law may impose anti-discrimination legislation upon citizens and describe penalties for socially perceived wrongdoing- it may even become totalitarian with arbitrary domestic violence legislation- but the law is mere words on a piece of paper whenever its terms become unacceptable by individuals or groups of individuals who do not wish to abide by it.[8] Violence is the alternative to adherence to the rule of law, and out in the real world women are never- or rarely- equal under such circumstances. Therefore, it is imperative that the males of a civilization (and civilization in general) see the placing of women in harm’s way- no matter the circumstances- as utterly repugnant and unacceptable.[9]

On a personal note, we must always think of our children. When they are younger it is easy to see the world through selfish eyes and focus on oneself. But as they grow older the game shifts from simply caring for incompetent young and infant children to attempting to guide and instill necessary wisdom in the minds of young individuals- our offspring whom we once nurtured before they could do for themselves- and protect them from a world they are at once too young to truly understand even as they are yet beginning to enter into it as autonomous individuals seeking their own independence.

I have a preteen daughter, and I worry every single day about what this world is going to look like in a few short years when she begins to go out in the world and begins to interact romantically with the opposite sex. If I had a son I would want to know that the law would be on his side if he chose to invest in a woman, but it is absurd to truly believe that the same rules apply to women (or girls) as to men (or boys) or that I would have the same fears and concerns over a son as I do my own daughter.

Relationships between the sexes matter and they always will. It is, of necessity, the role and function of the men of society to provide for and protect their women and children, which will also produce the by-product of more feminine and less aggressive women, thereby resulting in a more prosperous, wealthy, and stable civilization where the people are free due to the rule of law being upheld.

—————————————————————————————–

 

 

[1] The Avalon Project, Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, Babylonian Law– The Code of Hammurabi, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hammpre.asp (Last Visited, September 10, 2018).

[2] See Generally, TimeMaps, The Roman Republic: Government and Societyhttps://www.timemaps.com/civilizations/roman-republic/ (Last Visited, September 10, 2018); Hans Julius Wolff, Roman Law: An Historical Introduction 12-13 (9th ed. 1951). “Ever larger masses of the former free rural population moved into the city where they formed, together with great numbers of freedmen of foreign origin, a proletariat maintained by grains imported from the provinces, chiefly Africa; part of these grains were distributed free by the state.” Id.

[3] Even Rome itself developed as an insignificant city-state around the Tiber river region of Central Italy. Its original political system before the Republic is not as well known, though Rome was under a monarchy before the beginnings of the Roman Republic around 500 B.C. See generally Wolff, note 2, supra; TimeMaps, The Rise of the Roman Empirehttps://www.timemaps.com/encyclopedia/rise-of-the-roman-empire#republic, (Last Visited September 10, 2018).

[4] See generally Daniel Amneus, The Garbage Generation (1990). Still the best classic resource on the need for patriarchy. This book is also available online at: https://www.fisheaters.com/gb1.html (Last Visited, March 13, 2018). For a review of Amneus’ work, see B.A. Hunter, My Review of The Garbage Generationhttps://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/my-review-of-the-garbage-generation/, (Last Visited September 11, 2018). Victimology is not a theme in Amneus’ classic work. The solution for mothers- whether divorced, widowed or never married- is not the workforce, but marriage. Though paternal authority can at times be somewhat harsh-seeming on the outside of things, patriarchy is- in its truest sense- about love. Amneus doesn’t speak of love, but he does cite the English and Anglo-American common- law system of Coverture as the ideal. For the traditional girl, the heart and spirit softens and the mind is put at ease at his insistence on the male dominance and protection to be found under a truly patriarchal system such as Coverture. For more on Coverture, see generally What’s Wrong With Equal Rights, William Blackstone on Coverture Taghttps://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/tag/william-blackstone-on-coverture/, (Last Visited September 11, 2018).

[5] Daniel Moran, The Art of War, Future of Warhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/art_war_gallery_09.shtml, (Last Visited September 11, 2018).

[6] Ibid.

[7] A great historical example to this effect- though there are many- is the fall of the Western Roman Empire to “barbarian” Huns and the Germanic tribes of the Angles, Jutes and Saxons which plunged Western civilization into a period of lawlessness and ignorance. “When the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons first migrated to England, life was brutal. They came in small clans and tribes and every member of the tribe had to contribute to the defense of the tribe. Women had to fight. These tribes slowly coalesced into kingdoms, which gradually formed the kingdom of England.” Christine G. Clark, Women’s Rights in Early England, Brigham Young University Law Review 1 (1995). Available at  http://constitution.org/lrev/eng/womens_rights_early_england.pdf. The author then goes on to lament about the supposed taking away of women’s rights when law and order was restored and society was brought out of the Dark Ages in particular when William the Conqueror, at the time of The Conquest (1066), restored law and order with his Feudalism and code of chivalry. The author then ends the article with bright-eyed hope that women will return to combat now that less brute strength is needed as a result of ever increasing technology in warfare.

[8] See for instance, Lyman Abbot, The Atlantic, Why Women Do Not Wish the Suffrage (1903), Available at https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1903/09/why-women-do-not-wish-the-suffrage/306616/:   “It is this power to compel which distinguishes law from advice. Behind every law stands the sheriff, and behind the sheriff the militia, and behind the militia the whole military power of the Federal government. No legislature ever ought to enact a statute unless it is ready to pledge all the power of government- local, state, and Federal- to its enforcement, if the statute is disregarded. A ballot is not a mere expression of opinion; it is an act of the will; and behind this act of the will must be power to compel obedience…The great elections are called, and not improperly called, campaigns. For they are more than a great debate. A debate is a clash of opinions. But an election is a clash of wills… Will sets itself against will in what is essentially a masculine encounter. And if the defeated will refuses to accept the decision…war is the necessary result.” Id.

[9] Perhaps there is yet still hope with the as of yet very weak cries at restoring a sense of chivalry and duty for the protection of women and children back to society. See for instance, Emily Esfahani Smith, The Atlantic, Let’s Give Chivalry Another Chance (2012). https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/lets-give-chivalry-another-chance/266085/, (Last Visited September 11, 2018).

Advertisements

They are Men’s Issues

There is no issue, there is no complex

As I told you before; I am feminine, I am female, I am woman

We uplift the masculine because it protects us. The women today they would rather degrade themselves and live in filth with men that don’t respect them- to give their bodies away easily as if it gives them autonomy or power in some way. They might find a temporary happiness in this existence, but they will never have true and lasting contentment.

Oh, but I could show you contentment! I could show you fulfillment. Fulfillment and contentment like you’ve never known, never seen.

The world today has become so vulgar because there is no regulation on sexuality; there are no rules. So many are gender-confused and androgynous and we express ourselves in however the individual sees fit. But we must uplift the feminine, uplift the masculine. Not all men are good, but not all men are bad. Look to the men that love you and put your trust in them. Encourage them to be the men they were designed to be, trust in them to speak for you, trust that God or nature has given them that natural authority. Obey that authority and listen to it.

It’s not necessarily that we put our trust in a human being that has faults, but rather a divine authority that has granted to males greater strength and ability. They were designed that way for a purpose. Yes, men might be superior, but isn’t that the way we want them to be? But a woman being under the protection and covering of a man, such as her husband, shows that she as well is favored and beloved and worthy of being given the world.

We were meant to live together as male and as female. We were made for each other. We were not made to be the equals of each other but rather to be as one. There is but one leader, and that is the man. There is but one that carries life and brings it into this world, sometimes suffering severe hardships in the process, and that is woman. And yes, we women are vulnerable when we depend upon a man, but by nature we were designed vulnerable. When we take a man inside of us we make ourselves vulnerable. We were designed to be dependent and weaker by nature.

But letting go, trusting, opening our hearts and our bodies and making ourselves vulnerable, we free ourselves. There is a passion that I cannot explain. It can only be understood by living it. Free yourself to be a woman, to be feminine. If we as women have an issue, the state cannot protect us. Women’s rights are no protection, instead it is about distrust in our men. But we have to trust them. Let them be who they are as men. If we do have problems, the first ones we should confide in are our men for protection or the things we need.

Domestic violence, rape, and single motherhood are things that feminists had no business getting involved in; that the state has no business getting involved in except in special circumstances. They are real and serious issues, but they are ultimately men’s issues as our sexuality and our welfare should be the business of our husbands, our fathers and our brothers.

This doesn’t take away our freedom. On the contrary, it grants to us women the greatest freedoms we have ever known. There is a joy and a peace that I cannot explain. But I know we women today have severe issues. Nearly every woman that I know has suffered some mental illness, even if only temporarily. We have rejected our true natures to pursue independence and shallow relationships with men, if we pursue relationships at all.

When I was younger, I stayed in the home to care for a child. It was work that needed to be done. But the first issue was my bonding with my husband. I lived under his protection, depending on him for the things I needed, listening to what he told me to do and trusting him to protect me. It created an atmosphere of passion and love, where I would wait for him to come home and deeply long for him. Being in the home allowed me to live as one with him.

Having the husband fulfill the breadwinner role was about us being one. It was never, and has never been, about being a “stay-at-home mother” as in some androgynous role that either sex could fulfill or that could be outsourced. It was about contentment and fulfillment that had nothing to do with housework or childcare. There is no “going back to work,” nor has this ever been an issue or in question. Being home is not some temporary thing that I did only because there was work to do in the home and then I would leave to pursue work elsewhere when it dwindled down in a couple of years.

Hate me, love me, but I am who I am. And yes, I have been rejected. But I have been rejected all my life. I care not whether they accept or love me. I can see myself standing there before him as we are to be wed. I can picture him as he lifts the veil from my face to gently kiss me. I can see him standing tall and strong over me. In my mind, how I see it, is that I’m giving myself over to him, to live under his authority, as he is giving himself to me, to cherish, love and be responsible for me. He covers me with his love and strength and I lovingly accept him. And yes, I know that it might come with pain and hardship at times. What life doesn’t? I know that I am vulnerable in depending upon him and submitting to him, but he is also vulnerable in investing in me. But we are one, made for different purposes in life, but each purpose works together towards a common destiny.

But what happens if something happens to him is irrelevant. A man who is in love with a woman and has committed himself to her is very unlikely to leave her, and we as women must trust overall in our men and in the divine authority that has made men our protectors and providers in the event that we are left alone. That is the way life goes sometimes, and we have no way of seeing into the future to know what might happen even when the sun rises the very next morning, but we must trust that a way will be provided for us always.

How is it degrading to be protect or provided for by a man? You women of today will reject any notion of patriarchy, coverture or genuine male authority from the men in your lives yet you will engage in games and role play literally begging for men to beat you, call you names and choke you until you’re blue in the face and do things that I can’t even fathom just in the hopes of feeling some temporary sexual pleasure.

Yet I need no games. I am not degraded. I feel that my body was made beautiful and precious and what a joy it brings. There is no sexual repression, but on the other hand overwhelming feelings of sexuality and sexual pleasure that make all other pleasures pale in comparison. Sexuality that is deep, that is real, flowing through my veins and defining me as female, distinct from any and all characteristics that are male.

Love is overwhelming, femininity is overwhelming. Love and passion are what makes life worth living, of what humans have spent centuries pursuing and writing about. I know who I am as a woman and I don’t need to compete with any man. I know he’s stronger. I know that, yes, he could hurt me. But when that masculine and feminine polarity is felt, I know inside that he won’t.

And the ways of our modern world oftentimes make me cry. I cry that no man will rise up to defend a woman. I cry at the horrific thought that any man would think it OK to see their women sent off to war or expect them to be, that men no longer cherish their women or think to provide for them or protect them; that women would reject any attempts by men to do so, or worse that any man would be OK with being provided for or led by a woman. It is a passion killer that leaves but a coldness and an emptiness inside.

My first instinct has always been to acknowledge a man as a man, to look up to and admire men in general. I am ever glad that in my life I have had very little workplace experience and that I have never been put in the position of being in authority over any man. It would not be right, and indeed, the concept of women’s rights is wrong on a fundamental level. The concept of female empowerment is not right, it is misguided.

We must uplift our men first. Our issues are men’s issues. It has always been men that have made the laws and policies to give us any protections, rights, or freedoms that we seek. I believe that we can trust them to speak on our behalf. I believe that men want to be acknowledged as men and for the things that are distinct to manhood and masculinity and that a man will love a woman who acknowledges him as such.

Because this is not right. It has become an issue of us vs. them. But there should be no separation between us. Was it not men who legislated that a man should pay for the crimes of harming or raping a woman? Was it not men that always went to war to keep us safe? Was it not men who legislated that a man should provide for his wife, his children? I have seen it with my own eyes how a man, even one hardened against women, will soften and become protective towards a traditional woman who embraces patriarchal and anti-feminist ways.

As women we must let go and trust in the masculine. We must be genuine, authentic and trusting in our femininity. If we do that, things will fall into place as they were designed and meant to be.

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?