A Scene that Captures the Truth of Motherhood

In anticipation of Mother’s Day, here is a scene from the movie “Evening”, which beautifully captures the stresses and joy of motherhood all at the same time.

The Modern American Girl Dolls

This is such a great reflection for the cultural deterioration of women/girls.  The American Girl Dolls, which were once models of strong, feminine characters are getting replaced with the modern version of strong. The new dolls depict the new American, modern girl/woman—boring, shallow, weak, unoriginal, yet so sassy and cool that she deserves the world.

The Atlantic reports that the company’s three original girls – World War II patriot Molly, Scandinavian farmer Kirsten and Victorian aristocrat Samantha – have been archived, and dolls like Lanie the amateur gardener and McKenna the gymnast have been shifted into center stage.

Journalist Amy Schiller argues that the company has shifted to more neutral present-day dolls with watered-down back stories.

That is exactly the modern woman–one with a “watered-down back story”. Sad, really. Watered-down and washed-up. There is nothing that really makes her stick out–she is neutral at best. Fluffy skills and loaded resumes are nothing compared to a girl/characters of yesteryear.

Rather than characters who face adversity and trying times, the modern dolls have “….a bake sale to help save the arts program in a local school, while another scores a victory for the organic food movement when she persuades a neighbor to stop using pesticides.”

Contrast that all with dolls that use to have back stories that dealt with real problems like war and slavery.  The problem is obvious–the modern girl has no problems, at least not problems that build character.  These are luxurious times.

The Penniless Family

I found this photo to be quite striking. Especially when reading the background:

“November 1936. “Young family, penniless, hitchhiking on U.S. Highway 99 in California. The father, 24, and the mother, 17, came from Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Early in 1935 their baby was born in the Imperial Valley, California, where they were working as field laborers.” Photo by Dorothea Lange for the Resettlement Administration.”

Photo - Shorpy

Why do I find it so striking? Because it captures reality. Not the fantasy version of the “good old days”. For those who insist that a husband must always be a provider and the wife stay home, even in tough economic times, I have to wonder what they think of this fellow who drifts his family around from state to state, searching for any kind of work for them. Yes, “them”. As the description states, it looks like they both were field laborers.  Is this fellow not a “real man” for making his wife work? For not providing a stable roof over her head? Should the wife divorce this loser and trade-up?  I seriously want to know what the good traditional gal should do in this situation.

The penniless family strongly exists today, we just don’t see stark realistic images like this one. Instead, everything is behind a veil of fakeness and show. Is it better for women of today to still marry if they know they will be penniless drifters or to stay single? The traditional answer seems to be to still marry, but a life of anything but staying in the comforts of a stable home is presented as being unacceptable. Confusing.

A Realistic Rockwellian Life

Most traditional minded folks probably at one time or another admired or made a reference to living a picturesque Rockwellian life.  Norman Rockwell paintings have set a standard for capturing perfect everyday moments. With that said, I was surprised and a bit relieved to find the following Norman Rockwell painting, titled “Marriage Counselor”:

Click on the image to see more detail.  I think the manosphere connections to this painting are clear.  If not, here is some more info from the Rockwell Center:

“In the final painting, Rockwell created a rather different and distinctive pin for the wife. At first glance the pin looks like a flower-form piece of costume jewelry. Upon closer inspection the pin ceases to look like a flower and instead looks like the form of a Japanese samurai warrior. And wouldn’t that little bit of fun make the real point of this illustration—that the wife, as contrite as she seems to appear, sitting quietly beside her rather stuffed-shirt husband, holding his hat and waiting for their appointment with the marriage counselor is really finding all of it rather funny. Indeed Rockwell’s final choice for the wife has her head tilted up so that she can look up from under her brows at the shiner she gave him. The right side of her mouth is slightly lifted as though she is smirking. Notice also that as she hold’s her husband’s derby hat, her right index finger is wrapped in a bandage–like a valiant samurai honorably wounded in battle.”

This painting deals with real life, which is not the picturesque life we customarily think of when we hear “Norman Rockwell”.  Not only is domestic abuse pictured, but female on male abuse.  Something we are typically led to believe special snowflakes have no capacity for doing. Besides the black eye on the husband, it gets all that much more interesting when learning about the samurai warrior looking pin the wife is wearing.

This painting was apparently never published per the Rockwell Center–”Illustration intended for The Saturday Evening Post, c. 1963 but unpublished; offered to Ladies Home Journal, 1972, but unpublished”.

Is it any wonder why the Ladies Home Journal never published this? It would give too much away. It would shine some light on the subtle, yet stealth wolf-like nature of modern women.

As usual, when women are the abusers it is all “rather funny”, but were this a painting of a wife with a black eye and the husband sitting there with the same smirk, I don’t doubt Ladies Home Journal would have published this in an instant (especially in 1972 during the height of feminism) to raise awareness for domestic violence.

Guest Post: “Potential Wife Value” and “The Good Man Store” by Lyn87

The following is a guest post submitted by Lyn87:

It seems that people in general – and women in particular – have unrealistic ideas about what they can expect in a mate.  Most guys I knew when I was single in the 1980′s didn’t have a long list of “must haves” for prospective wives.  They dated around until they found somebody they liked, and things progressed (or not). If they did they got married.

I can’t speak with any authority about how things were before feminism, but women today tend to have long lists of “must haves” for men they will consider for marriage.  There’s nothing particularly wrong with that – as long as the list is reasonable and the woman is “in the same league” as the men who have those attributes.

And therein lies the problem.  Feminism and the church have taught women that they are all special snowflakes who deserve the very best.  After all, if you are a smart, sassy, “Daughter of the King,” then nobody is out of your league.  But there are a finite number of Prince Charmings to go around, and not every girl gets to be Cinderella.  The heretical “prosperity gospel” has spilled over into the mating dance, too, and they think that it is God’s will that they meet and marry a man who will make them deliriously happy for the rest of their lives.  I don’t see anywhere in scripture where God wants us to be unhappy, but in the grand scheme of things God cares a lot more about our holiness than our happiness.

Today’s Churchian woman feels that she should be able to go to the “Good Man Store” and pick out a husband like she would pick out a pair of shoes.  A lifetime of consumerism has taught her that, when she wants something, she can just go to a store or a website, find exactly what she wants, and effortlessly acquire it.  If it costs more than she can afford today she can just swipe the plastic.  Almost nothing she wants is really out of her reach.  There’s little thought that the best things cost more, because cost rarely figures into her day-to-day calculus of living.  She gets what she wants and the link between showing up at her job and the ability to swipe the plastic is, at best, tenuous in her mind.

She think husbands should be like that: a wide variety of desirable men sitting on a shelf waiting for her to decide that she wants one; readily available for her to choose the one she wants – with a half-conscious thought that she will have to give something in return… maybe a little bit over the next fifty paydays:  so little she’ll hardly notice it.

But marriage is more like a cash-and-carry transaction.  What she brings to the table today largely limits what she can get today – and there is no “Good Man Store” with every make and model for her to choose from.  It’s much more like an auction, and the auctioneer is less interested in what she wants than in what she can spend today.

What she can spend today is just a way of approximating a woman’s value as a potential wife.  If she has low “potential wife value” she’s not going to be in contention for the highest quality husbands.  Those men will go to higher bidders – i.e., women with higher “potential wife value” than she has.  Feminism and the church have done young women no favors by convincing them that they deserve the very best of everything – and that getting the perfect husband is a realistic expectation for every one of them – no matter what she has done or failed to do herself.  God wills it! after all, or so they have been led to believe.

The constant lament has been that there are simply not enough suitable men to go around for all the wonderful women just ready to scoop them up.  Since it is impossible to contemplate that young women just miiiiight be part of the problem, it must be that the current generation of young men is comprised of basement-dwelling, beer-swilling, porn-addled, video game junkies.  Leaving aside the fact that this is the result of 50 years of feminism, single motherhood, no-fault divorce, heresy, and legal misandry, so what?   Wishing things were different doesn’t make them so – and telling them to “Man up!” is a chump’s game – they have learned that the rules have changed by watching their fathers, uncles, brothers, and friends go through the meat grinder (in court and in church) and they want no part of it.  They may be ready some day – but not today: and they have no desire to sit on a shelf (unattached) waiting for some smart, sassy, “Daughter of the King” to stop shagging bad boys just before her fertility grinds to a halt and she decides that she wants to be June Cleaver for a while.

Think of “potential wife value” (and, for that matter, “potential husband value”) as bell curves.  Most people fall in the middle, and the farther you go toward the extremes the fewer people there are.  A woman of average “potential wife value” is in contention for a man of average “potential husband value.”  She is no more likely to marry the perfect man than he is to marry the perfect woman.

The difference is that most guys know they aren’t going to marry a perfect woman.  Churchian girls – “Daughters of the King” – expect better for themselves.  No average beta chump for her: she has a list, and the guys who are her peers on the bell curve don’t measure up. So she sets her sights on the men at the upper end of the scale.  Most of us here are familiar with the “Apex Fallacy” so I won’t go into it here, but most guys are invisible to her, and she actually thinks she’s in the same league as the top men who can pick nearly any woman they want.

How skewed is their outlook?  Let’s do the math.

Women frequently say that they want a “nice guy.”  They don’t – but they think they do.  We know they don’t because most of us were nice guys who watched most of them go for dirt-bags, druggies, players, and thugs while we played Dungeons and Dragons with our friends because we didn’t have dates – until we got savvy to the actual, unwritten rules of the game, anyway.

But let’s say that these women have been played out enough to have outgrown their fascination with unsuitable men and really do want a nice guy.  What percentage of guys is “nice?”  Since they always complain that they are rare, let’s be generous and say that 30% of unattached guys are “nice”- whatever that means.

But “nice” alone won’t cut it for a smart, sassy, “Daughter of the King.”  He has to be overtly attractive or she won’t even notice him.  By definition, half of the people are average or above, so it cannot be more than 50% of those left.  There was a study a while back about preferences in internet dating, and women only considered about 20% of men to be attractive.  Let’s go with that number:  20 % of men are physically attractive to women.

Of course he has to be a Christian, too, or at least not overtly anti-Christian.  Let’s be generous and say 20% of men are at least nominally Christian.  I pulled that number out of the air, and I suspect it’s probably high, but let’s give the girls a break on that one.

He also needs to make decent money.  Middle class at least, and college-educated is preferable.  Shall we say 40% make enough money to support a “Daughter of the King?” Again, that may be generous.

Where does that leave our pining princesses?  30% x 20% x 20% x 40% is just a hair under ½ of 1%.  In other words, assuming the traits are spread evenly among all available men, only one single man in 200 will possess all four of those “must-have” traits.

There’s another problem, of course: Christian men who are in the top half-percentile of “potential husband value” tend to be taken off the market by high-value marriage-minded Christian women.  (Non-Christian men with very high mate value tend to become man-whores and thus unsuitable for Christian women anyway.)  So the real number is not one in 200, but even lower than that – perhaps a lot lower.

And we have not even talked about height.

The numbers don’t lie:  this is going to get ugly, and a bunch of Churchian Cinderellas-in-training are going to have to cash a reality check before it’s over.  Since Christians and the legal system frown on polygamy, the vast majority of women are not going to get the man they have been led to believe is sitting on a shelf (next to the perfect matching shoes and handbag) waiting for her to choose him.

If a woman wants that, and truly will not settle for less, she needs to ensure that she is in the top half percentile of eligible women:   otherwise the men she wants can – and will – pair off with better women (if they choose to pair off at all).  Being a smart, sassy “Daughter of the King” by itself won’t cut it:  churches are colleges are filled to overflowing with women like that.  (A lot of them let the “one non-negotiable” attribute – Christianity – go by the wayside, and up, Up, UP goes her N-count.)

Men and women with high potential mate value can be pretty choosy, because there are always people who want them.  Churchian girls are taught that they get to choose but not that the top men (the ones they think are waiting for them) also get to choose – and if they want to be chosen they have to possess the attributes that the top men seek in potential wives.

What sort of things do choosy men generally select for?  I’m undoubtedly going to inject some personal bias here.  Once I learned the rules of the game I became the kind of guy that women say they want, and I married VERY well – my wife of 25 years is easily in the top 1% of the top 1% in “wife value.”  When I was 18 I couldn’t get a date to save my life – at 24 I was swatting away all but relatively high-quality women like flies at a picnic.

Attractiveness.  There’s not much you can do about that, but at a minimum don’t be fat.  And yes, Ladies, “fat” is a choice.

Pleasant demeanor.  Learn to smile and banish our inner shrew.  Be a good feminine companion – he already has guy friends.

Not a slut, or a “reformed” slut.  Your N-count ought to be zero, especially if the guy waited.  HE didn’t have to wait for you, but if he did, you better have waited too.  And if you have a lot of emotional or physical baggage from that (lack of pair-bonding ability or illegitimate children), you’re almost certainly going to have to adjust your self-assessment of your “potential wife value” downward.

Christianity.  Non-negotiable if he’s a serious Christian himself.

Youth.  Relatively speaking, of course.  Few men marry women who are more than a year or two older than they are, and if he wants children you should be young enough to bear them safely.

What don’t they care about?

Your education.  Really ladies, most men don’t really care a lot about that, unless you’re going to be working and you have a degree in something useful.

Your accomplishments.  First chair flute in the college band, you say?  Yawn.

______________

The bottom line is that a Churchian woman who has swallowed the line that she can do as she pleases during her 20’s – when she is at the height of her lifetime Sexual Market Value – who expects to find an attractive, successful, nice, tall, Christian man just waiting to wife her up in her late-20’s when she decides to hop off the carousel is very likely to be disappointed with the quality of men who take an interest in her.  Despite her high opinion of her desirability, she is well to the left side of the bell curve, and the best men who are interested in her are similarly situated on the male version of the bell curve.  If she finds her male peers unsuitable, it is probably because she has rendered herself unsuitable for the better men she thinks she deserves.

Women Failing to Step Down

This is just another “where have all the good Christian men gone” article, but nonetheless, I have some commentary:

While part of the lack of marriage-ready graduates can be attributed to social changes, including less pressure on women to marry young, Gallagher says it’s not exactly an even playing field for singles. Girls open to relationships are naturally at a disadvantage because they simply outnumber and outperform men in ministry. Regular attendance, volunteer events and small groups all serve as testimony to the overwhelmingly female majority in ministry, Gallagher says.

Yeah, so, what you going to do about it?

While it’s easy to assume men would rather stay home and watch football than drag themselves to church, Greg Belcher, singles pastor at Hope Community Church in Raleigh, N.C., says the church could do more to meet young men where they are and encourage them. Perpetual adolescence — men failing to step up — “is exactly the problem, but are we doing anything to help these guys out?” Belcher wonders.

Aw, I see, that is what you will do about it–point out that men are failing to step up, without identifying the real problem — women failing to step down. Men can’t rise up to the number one spot on the podium if women are crowding it.

Belcher says the slow economy and lack of job prospects leaves many recent college graduates feeling shaken and unable to fulfill the role of provider. Until their financial situation stabilizes, “these guys know they’re just playing a game until they get there. It’s unfortunate, too,” Belcher says.

Is it unfortunate or is it the best thing that could ever happen to men? Depending upon your manosphere lens, some might see this as a good safeguard to preventing financial doom. A devastating divorce can make a bad economy seem like prosperous times.

Overall, I believe most men and women are in survival mode right now. Nothing is certain anymore and everyone is looking out for themselves. Women are realizing a provider husband is not a bad deal for their survival. Men are realizing staying single is a better deal for their survival. And there we reach an impasse.

Belcher’s church is challenging young men to “go against the grain,” stand with courage and walk with humility. The church calls its 20-something men’s ministry “Man Up.”

How original. Of course the courage they want is the courage to marry young Christian women, whether or not they can afford them or even want them. The courage to dive into the unknown–the ultimate leap of “faith”.

“They have to see the church as an institution that doesn’t emasculate them but rather as a movement of God that emboldens them,” Belcher says.

Talk is cheap.

The soon-to-be female graduates sympathize with the tough job market facing men who desire to provide for a family after college. But when job applications go unanswered, too many Christian men throw in the towel and revert to the carefree teenage years of living in their parents’ basement, replacing independence and responsibility with a live-in-maid (their mother) and video games, the women say.

One of the women asks of these men, “Why aren’t you doing anything? Find a job, do some work, do something.”

I just have to ask–why? Where is the incentive for men? There is also probably a mild element of depression here, which can easily go unnoticed as it presents itself differently in men than women, but does anyone even care?

I also suspect a good deal of women are in the same situation–back living at home and rather than playing video games they are reading Fifty Shades or Grey or facebooking.  The difference is it is more socially acceptable for women to bum off their parents.

These women and those in Belcher’s and Gallagher’s ministries seem to have reached a consensus: All the good Christian men are taken.

But that mindset, no matter how accurate, can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, Belcher says. Christian women who are exhausted and exasperated with the current lack of eligible men risk becoming so independent and self-reliant they scare men off or give the wrong impression. And being single for years can leave women jaded, prompting them to post disparaging Facebook updates decrying everything related to men.

Aw, circle back to my facebook comment. Posting disparaging facebook remarks are OK, but video games–not so much.  After all, what is a poor girl to do.

Overall, its a sad situation and I have no clear answers, except to accept the reality of the situation.

My Precious Feminism

The analogy is so obvious, yet it just occurred to me now. Feminism is the Ring from  “The Lord of the Rings”.  Think about it– the legend for the Ring goes…

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

When women or the culture wears this Ring as they do symbolically when they subscribe to feminist philosophies, everyone and everything is at their mercy.  This is the power women have so longed for and call “precious”.  Some may have suspicions that its bad for them, but still….”my precious”.   The Ring of feminism corrupts any woman who wears it.  It may corrupt some sooner than others depending on their heart and this is why Christian feminists or tradcon feminists don’t seem to be as corrupted as secular feminists.  They may have certain guards up that protect them better to a point, but eventually they all succumb to the power of the Ring.  Those in my blog circle have all seen this well. The nice tradcon girl who claims to be against feminism and then turns on a dime and out of nowhere makes a clear feminist statement. This is the power of the Ring. If you open you heart to any feminist philosophy whatsoever, you are wearing the Ring.

By donning the feminist philosophy or any of its offshoots, as the culture has most certainly done, it has the power to “rule them all”. What’s worse is it brings those members of the culture, men and women, into a darkness that binds them.  The average man or woman is completely oblivious to the effects of the Ring on their life, yet it steers their path and binds them regardless.  The Church is also under the power of the Ring.

“The Ring appears as a symbol of hope, offering the power to defeat Sauron and bring peace to the world. Yet in the end, its inherent malevolence would twist its bearer into another Dark Lord as evil as Sauron, regardless of one’s intentions at the outset.”

Again, this is the nature of feminism. It presents itself by offering hope to women, hope in that they will obtain the power to fight the evil patriarchy and can be free to bestow upon the world their peaceful feminine charms.  Yet in the process of doing so, of using the Ring to defeat what they see as one evil, they create another evil–themselves.  Their heart becomes hardened, bitter, cruel, hateful, and vindictive.  Their appearance also changes. What was once a beautiful, innocent little girl becomes worn and ragged. They may not think so, but those free of the Ring’s influence can spot its handiwork a mile away. As always, the path is paved with good intentions. Think suffragettes.

This is what a feminist looks like

In the process, women become so dark that men no longer want to marry. And perhaps this is why men don’t “put a ring on it”.  Women have instead sold their soul for another sort of Ring.   Wintery Knight writes:

“Maybe women can get men to be more interested in marriage if they think about why men would want to get married, and then make marriage more like what men want. That might involve rolling back feminism and socialism, and it might involve women changing who they are.”

Aw , but rolling back feminism would require relinquishing the Ring and at the end of the day is this a choice women really want to make? For as much as they claim to want marriage how can they just cast aside “precious”?  Women have traded in the ring of marriage for a darker Ring. One that men can’t possibly compete with or should even want to.  The lesson that men in the manosphere are learning the hard way is just because a woman does not wear a visible ring, it does not mean her heart is not already betrothed in another form– betrothed to the Ring of Feminism.

Reigniting Dominance and Submission

I haven’t posted in awhile for various reasons; one being, I have been absorbed in reading The Violet Collar by Samuel Solomon ( a once frequent commenter of the manosphere). I was familiar with his comments, so thought I should explore one of his books.  What I found was one of the most beautiful stories ever written.  It is a story of Dominance and submission, without corrupting the beauty by being overly sexual. It gets to the core of the sort of love intended between man and woman, a love that is marked by God.

It reawakens the debate I have had here many time before on the nature of submission. Why do some see it as a beautiful gift from God and others as abuse?  No topic seems to bring out such polar opposites as this one. There seems to be a conspiracy (for lack of better word) and an undercurrent in our culture that doesn’t want us to know this sort of love. Why do so many go from relationship to relationship? Why do so many seek self-help and relationship books and blogs?  Why do so many young men and women remain single for so long? This last one I will attempt to answer.

Could it be that women remain single not because there are careers and independence to win, but because she has never been loved by a dominant man?  A love that will make her fall to her feet in adoration and make all these silly worldly pursuits seem meaningless.   On the same token, could it be for all the talk of men not wanting to marry, is it  just that they have never been truly loved by a submissive woman?  Neither sex has experienced a love that is so all consuming that makes the “battle of the sexes” seem obsolete and petty. And this is what I find so sad. Would there be relationship hopping, delaying/eschewing of marriage, divorces, if men and woman wore the Dominant/submissive spirit from the get-go?   I am not saying this to lay the problem all with  men for not being dominant or all with women for not being submissive–the problem lies with feminism and all the other lies that rode in with it and for making us all one confused mess.

You will see small things here and there where it seems the culture is trying to get back to Dominant/submissive roles (although never would admit it), but it flat out fails because it is just that–culture driven, not God driven. Attempts to make men more dominant by manning them up is tragic comedy. It doesn’t work that way. The Dominant spirit is placed and reignited only by God.  For women, we see cultural attempts in books like Fifty Shades of Grey, but this is cheap and trashy submission, not the sort ordained by God.  Yet, oddly enough, women eat that stuff up, which speaks something about her true nature, a little morsel lies within, waiting for God to reignite.

So, for all my talk on women should be submissive, blah, blah, blah–it matters not one whit. I am no better persuader than pop culture.  If a return to Dominant/submissive relationships is ever to gain strength, it will only be because of God’s Will.

Are Men Allowed Leisure?

From Homemaker, Lady Lydia (homeliving.blogspot.com/2013/03/protecting-your-time.html):

Husbands can take a big role in providing peace and safety for their wives by helping to protect their time. They can reassure their wives that they are perfectly happy to have them at home and that there is no need to feel they have to fill up their time with projects for other people, or pressure filled home businesses. The most helpful thing a man can do is reassure his wife that she is acceptable and important if she has energy only for house work and if she wants to spend some time baking a cake, sewing a dress, or reading a book. As long as she is home, she is not obligated to full up her time with causes and things that rob her of rest and relaxation. Men can also create things to make life easier in the home for their wives, from building needed organizational shelves, to installing convenient things to make kitchen and laundry room work easier. They can also keep the home in good repair and add things that make life comfortable, to take the stress of the woman at home.

Notice the goal is to be home. What a woman does once in the home is not so important, just as long as she is is home. Not obligated to fill up time with things that rob her of rest? Yet men are obligated to do this every minute of every day.

Any man who has worked a day in the real world with a real boss will tell you there isn’t the luxury for rest and relaxation. But that is okay, because you are a man. You go out into the real world and toil so women can have a leisurely life at home. Even a day of the most rigorous modern housework does not compare to the stresses of a real world job.

Rather than a woman recognizing she carries the lesser burden, she imposes demands (remember, “deserving and demanding”) on top of the work men are already forced to do. It is not enough that he provides financially, he also needs to provide for her leisure time; time, that he probably won’t even get himself. Not having to work in the real world should be leisure enough and women should fall at their husband’s feet for being blessed with such a luxury.

Regarding building organizational shelves, perhaps some women, when they are done having tea, should widen the interstate so they can spare their husband time from sitting in traffic.

Sadly, there are men who do not understand the value of a woman just being home, even if she is sitting down and reading, or sewing, or baking a cake. The pressure of the world to make money and pay your own way is upon them, and they think women should always be making money or they have no value.

Don’t certain women think the same thing about men?  That men should always be making money, always slaving away for them, or they have no value.

“IF a man truly cherishes his wife he will insist that she take time out to rest and to pursue things she loves, just for the pleasure of them, such as sewing or decorating or watching her favorite movies.”

Do men get the luxury to rest and pursue things they love? Not usually–its work, work, work until the day they die.
I know the bible places heavy emphasis on a life of toil and labor, in fact, it is  man’s curse, but I am unfamiliar with any verses that say men should toil his life away for women. 1 Timothy 5:8 might come close, but it is not explicit.

It is too bad that many young women at home think that they cannot do anything unless it is work, but it is an important part of life to have some leisure. It strengthens you for doing your work more energetically. Women will find they are much more productive in housekeeping when they give themselves time to take tea and read the mail.

I am still baffled about what makes a life at home so stressful. Of course, I have the benefit of knowing what the working world is like and in comparison the home is a relaxing haven, no matter how many hours of  housework or child rearing it entails.

Are these the Women Men are Suppose to Marry?

Just wondering….

How the TWRAs Describe my Blog

The sister site of the TWRAs, Oppose the MRM, has a blacklist in which this blog is described as:

“A feminist pandering the egalitarian Marxist agenda and furthering the war between the genders. (This guy REALLY hates women).”

See here for other blacklisted blogs –

http://opposethemrm.wordpress.com/femicadism/

This is what happens when you don’t agree with the lovely, well-mannered, mystique-filled,  traditional ladies at TWRAs.  No room for respectful debate. You are either on their side 110% and have to believe everything they believe or you are on their hate list.

As my dear readers know, “this guy” (lol, yes I will run with that) does not hate women. Because I refuse to put women on a pedestal and hold women equally accountable for sin and responsibility, I will be called a feminist.

I wonder if “Oppose the MRM” is going to be the traditionalist version of “Manboobz”.

The Stick Test

If you are against feminism, then most likely you are against equality and egalitarian relationships (assuming equality is the goal of feminism).  That leaves you under the umbrella of inequality and from there it splits two ways. You can hold View “A” and believe women should get the larger end of the stick or View “B” and believe men get the larger end of the stick. There is no other way around it unless you want to get back to some form of feminism.

This is why it can sometimes be mind-boggling when someone says they are against feminism, but then continue to put women on a pedestal. This is because their interests are still vested in women having the larger, better share of the stick. In that case, inequality (the larger share) is a great thing for women. The interests and welfare of the sisterhood is paramount. Feminism is bad to to them because it seeks to make women like men and being like men is a step down from the awesome superiority women already have.

View “B” puts the interests and welfare of men above women, recognizing men are the backbone of society and their success is paramount. Without a thriving male force , we have nothing.  Women are suppose to help men, not be men, or be better than men.

So, when someone says they are against feminism (again, assuming equality feminism) that really doesn’t say much. Apply the “stick test” and ask who do you think should get the larger, better side of inequality? Either you support women or you support men getting the larger end of the stick. It cannot be both.  The answers can be:

1. Women —–> circle back to feminism (particularly the breed of feminism that says women are superior)

2. Men and Women ——> circle back to equality feminism

3. Men —–> patriarchy

Equality is a tenuous concept in a fallen world as fallen beings will always be in a power struggle.*  My insignificant opinion is to yield the larger share of the stick to men and let men do what they do best. Without women or big government meddling, they can do great things where we all benefit.

*Note- there is equality in Christ and there only. Not in our modern, tangible world.

Death of “The Arrangement”

Good article by John Hawkins on how our modern world has ruined men. Here is the key section:

The Arrangement

But the biggest changes have occurred in the nexus between economics and relationships.

For most of American history an uneducated but hardworking man could get a job that would support him, his wife, and a family. He might not be rich or have the best of the best, but he could get by. Since few women were educated or able to earn a good living, their surest path to success was to find a man who could provide for them. This led to an implicit arrangement: The woman stayed home, took care of the kids and the house, and treated the man as the king of the castle. In return, he was expected to work as much as necessary to provide for his family.

This is the history that traditionalists continue to live in–believing that any hardworking man can still get a job with the snap of a finger and provide.

“The arrangement” has been shattered beyond repair in recent decades by a number of factors.

This is the arrangement traditionalists have deluded themselves into thinking still exists.

For one, as America has become more prosperous and wages have risen, international shipping has become more practical, and technology has advanced, many low-skill, high-paying jobs have either been replaced by technology or gone overseas. This means that a hard-working but unskilled and uneducated man who could have once supported a family can often now barely support himself.

Additionally, as educational and job opportunities for women became prevalent, suddenly most women found that they didn’t “need” to marry a man or even stay married to support themselves. In fact, if worse comes to worse, the government steps into the role as the father and provides welfare, food stamps, school lunches, and so many other benefits. Indeed, in some cases today “a single mom is better off with a $29,000 job and welfare than taking a $69,000 job.“

What this means is that there are tens of millions of men who would have been desirable mates with good jobs whose value as men on the dating market has dropped precipitously. They’re no longer as valued; so if they get married, they’re not going to be the “king of the castle” they would have been 50 years ago.

Men not marrying cause they know full well they can’t support a family are doing the correct, moral choice.  Much better than signing up for a liability you can’t afford. And yes, at its core,  a liability is what a family is for a man as the sole provider—sorry for the lack of feeeeeel good romantic imagery.

Moreover, divorce is now very common and the system is heavily slanted against men. The woman is much more likely to get custody of the kids, while the father is also likely to be hit with punitive child support payments, even if his former wife is doing better financially. While improved economic status has made a potential divorce much more attractive for women in bad marriages, it has paradoxically made marriage a much less attractive option for men overall.

Delighting without Debasing

For all the talk on chivalry, the following article poses and interesting observation (emphasis mine): The Kansas City Star, 1922 – Are Women Lacking in Chivalry?

Why should not chivalry be a feminine as well as a masculine trait? For, what is chivalry but the generous consideration and courtesy of the stronger toward the weaker? If men are courteous to women, generous toward them in their weaknesses, why should not women be especially generous toward men in theirs? If it is right for men to protect  and shield women because they possess greater physical strength and courage than women, have not women a similar obligation toward men, because of their superior moral strength?

HER MORAL STANDARDS HIGHER?

This superiority in the realm of morals always has been conceded to women. Women have prided themselves on it and when they talk about a double standard of morals, the assumption always is that woman’s is the higher and nobler standard. Women today are discussing as never before how they are going to lift men up to their standard. Yet, do they feel the same obligation of sex chivalry in the field of morals, that men have felt toward women and to a great extent still do hold toward women in the range of superior physical strength?

A young girl, when somebody suggests that she is pretty daring in her flirtation, often will reply “I know what I am doing – I can take care of myself.” Perhaps she can take care of herself —girls these days are amazingly self sufficient—but what about taking care of the man who is the object of her clever wiles?

Of course women certainly don’t hold the moral high ground these days (no one does); yet, modern women still operate to some degree on superiority over men, be it moral or otherwise.  The world is full of modern women who are keen to employ their “clever wiles” on men whether they are conscious of it or not. When under the charms of a pretty face, the man is in a weaker position and women use this weakness to extract what they want. So, who is looking out for the men? Reminding men all that  glitters is not gold and while she may be pretty and charming, underneath it she still has the capacity for sin like anyone else. The church isn’t looking out for them nor is any mainstream secular counterpart. The only ones reminding and enlightening men on the “clever wiles” of women are those that make up the “manosphere”.

A DANGEROUS TEST OF POWER

Does she feel no sense of womanly chivalry toward him? Does it not occur to her that, even at the expense of her vanity, she might make it easier for him always to be a gentleman? Certain girls and women take an almost fiendish delight in tempting men to the limits of endurance, and putting the greatest possible strain upon their efforts at self-control. They play upon a man’s weakness in order to secure flattering attention and gay entertainment, to win a man’s homage and stage a demonstration of their power. They know, as the daughters of Eve always have known, that when a man is attracted to a woman he will do anything to please her, that he will buy her anything that he believes will give her delight. It may be only a box of chocolates or a trip to the movies. Or, she may demand to live in a motor car and dine in a different café every night. Up to a certain point the desire of the man to give and the desire of the woman to enjoy his gifts, are harmless. But when a man’s heart becomes involved, and the woman who is the object of his attentions has no intention of reciprocating when she simply is exploiting him, knowing that she is protected, not so much by her convictions as by the unresponsiveness of her temperament the whole affair becomes detestable.

Key here is “knowing that she is protected”. Knowing that she has the unconditional protection of chivalry or a man under her charms, she can easily exploit the situation to get what she wants.

There is a type of woman, who like the salamander, can pass unscathed through a fire that would destroy her sisters of sensitive and emotional temperament. In a harum-scarum fashion, she dabbles with danger. She adores perilous adventure and the sampling of new excitements. Ruled by her brain rather than by her heart, she plays on men for the sheer fun of it. Daring only so far as it may be safe for her, she forgets about the danger to the man. She knows that the man, in his infatuation for her, will not see through her clever acting, that he is not likely to discover that she is subtler than she is innocent.

PEGGY JOYCE A TYPE

The spirit of the temptress is not unlike that of the savage Indian brave who decorated his belt with the scalps of his enemies. Peggy Joyce, for instance, seems to have been this kind of heart hunter. The more men at her feet, the merrier. And, like other fair charmers of her type, she is outraged at the very suggestion that she could have done anything wrong. Those who condemn her, who see anything in her flirtations other than innocent amusement in the lavish attentions of men, anything other than a proper tribute of wealth to youth and beauty, are unjust and cruel creatures. How can she help it if men will kill themselves for love of her? Such is the cry of the woman who is lacking in the fine chivalry of sex.

In all her associations with men the chivalrous woman expresses something of the mother instinct. Never ill she play the parasite, giving nothing while taking all. Deeply rooted in the innermost recesses of her heart is the desire for all men’s welfare and happiness. She longs for no vow, no protestation of love on which to feed her vanity—only that which she can return. She finds almost as great a happiness in inspiring men as in loving or in being loved. She delights without debasing. When she charms, it is not to destroy.

This right here is the difference between a modern woman and a traditional woman (I use “traditional” broadly and for lack of a better word–not to be confused with twras and traditionalists).   Traditionally speaking, women desired all men’s welfare and happiness as it was recognized they are the backbone of a thriving society. Women have now redirected all that welfare and happiness into themselves and demand that men do the same while also giving them unconditional chivalry.  Society has told them its the “end of men” and that it is better to invest in themselves.

A woman who can be a delight to men without debasing men is the sort of rare gem that men are seeking.  She is an alternative, positive version of the DD woman.

Since women are having larger opportunities than ever before and freer association with men, there is all the more need for their having a sense of sex chivalry, all the more reason for their refraining from that thrilling game of matching their wits against men’s appetites. Edith Johnson.

Deserving and Demanding – The Double “D” Women

Two words that describe the modern woman (or traditional woman, as the case may be). They either demand respect, independence, equality, careers, the vote, etc., OR they demand respect, men to protect and provide, to be a housewife, a pedestal, etc. They demand all these things because of course they deserve it all. Deserve is synonymous with entitled. Modern women and traditional women share in common their sense of entitlement. They have opposite means to reach the end, but the end is the same–obtaining the life they deserve or are entitled to. Nothing tells them they deserve such and such a life but their own hamster-driven reasoning and having that reasoning inflated by sisterhood sheeple. These are DD women.

It is fascinating to watch both groups think they have it all figured out–that they can get the life they want by a swift move of “I deserve, therefore, I demand”. The truth is it is a “quiet and meek” spirit that win’s not only the heart of God, but the heart of men. Of course if God and/or men are not your objective, act however you want. I maintain though, if there is any hope in getting women back to their proper role (and I seriously doubt this at times), then they have to take on the “quiet and meek” spirit. A woman with this demeanor does not think she is entitled to anything and therefore does not demand anything. What she gets in life are gifts bestowed upon her by men and God for being worthy. The gifts of staying at home is one such example. And lets not forget, staying at home is just that–a gift. It is not a “right” or something women can demand and impose upon men. If women truly lived life as a “quiet and meek” spirit, I don’t doubt men will then want to reward her pleasantness however they can.

Unmasking the “Mystique”

The use of the word “mystique” to define the traditionalist women’s cause is fitting and illuminating at the same time. From google dictionary “mystique” is defined:

1. A fascinating aura of mystery, awe, and power surrounding someone or something.

It is one thing to be admired for femininity, good manners, and a quiet spirit. I think most men want that, but do they want to marry someone who comes with an “aura of mystery”? Mystique is not as romantic as it sounds. The manonsphere men have been taking down the veil of mystery that surrounds women, leaving tradcon feminists nowhere to hide.  On the surface, the tradcon women fight a common enemy–garden variety feminists, but there is an enemy that is worse to the tradcon woman and her dreams of finding a provider husband—enter the MRA or any other person in the manosphere.  This person can do what the garden variety feminists can’t (because they still rely on mystique too, to some extent)–unveil or unmask the mystery surrounding women. I can only think this is because they are 110% anti-feminist. There are no loyalties to women just because they are women.

2. An air of secrecy surrounding a particular activity or subject that makes it impressive or baffling to those without specialized knowledge.

This definition can also explain why traditionalists hate the manaosphere so much–the majority of men that make up the manosphere have decoded and unleashed to the public, via blogs, the specialized knowledge that only women use to know; that is, how women use their feminine powers to subtly control men. One of the arguments of the anti-suffragists was it doesn’t matter if women vote, because they have more power by swaying their husbands behind the scenes than they do at any ballot box. Traditionalist women want their secret power back, or in other words, their “not all like that” power back. They want to be able to say NAWALT to make it OK and have men fall at their feet. The power that let them bask in moral superiority upon a pedestal. Too many men have figured women out and thus aren’t marrying and falling for their mystique. They have realized that women, despite PC opinion, are also capable of sin and not the angelic creatures years of mystique marketing has told them they are. Feminism has not lifted the aura of mystery surrounding women as much as some of the manosphere men have. This is threatening because in order to get men to marry and provide, women need to get their mystique groove back on in order to convince men to marry them.

I have noticed at “Feminine Mystique” (femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com) there is some heavy moderating going on and most of a manospherian mind are not getting pass no matter how courteous their comment.  It is obvious they hate the manosphere more than the feminists and it all makes so much sense–feminists are easy to debate, they bring out the same old tired points whereas the men actually see through the mystique and are not blown away in awe at their feminine goddess like power.

I can’t complete this post without calling attention to this comment exchange from “Feminine Mystique” (femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gynocentrism-explained/#comment-1158):

1. Wudang

   February 14, 2013

   You should check out these if you haven`t found them before:

   Links removed See Comment Policy

   Also see Femicadism Dalrock is a Femicadeist who hates traditional women. This site is not affiliated with the MRM movement because unlike the MRA’s we are against equality, see our About and Traditional Women’s Rights Activists pages.

   Reply
2. fidelbogen

   February 14, 2013

   You have described me as a “men’s rights activist”, which is customarily abbreviated as “MRA”.

   I do not self-appellate as either a “men’s rights activist” or an “MRA”.

   I most commonly refer to myself as a “non-feminist”.

   Reply
   • Edita TWRA

     February 14, 2013

     I don’t appreciate you calling me a traditionalist Conservative. As I am not even a Conservative. So deal with it! You are an MRA feminist who believes in equality. You are a femicadeist who hates women. See “Femicadism.”

From the small amount that was left unedited in the original comment from Wudang, it looks like he was just trying to help Mrs. Edita better understand where some men are coming from by offering links to Dalrock. Dalrock is probably one of the most mild, level-minded men in the manosphere. To say he hates traditional women and is guilty of her made up term-femicadeist is an outrageous attack.

Further, notice fidelbogen was just trying to correct Mrs. Edita and he got a finger-waggin snarky response.  She is not a conservative, which is VERY interesting.  I noticed on her facebook she doesn’t even identify as Christian, but rather “spiritual”. This is a textbook case of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
She is even starting to use her made-up term “femicadeist” as the new traditional woman’s version of “misogynist”.  Just call “misogynist/femicadeist” to someone, you win, and there is no need to debate them. Shut it down cold.

I am thinking that site is soon going to me no comments or carefully selected comments like at “Thinking Housewife”, because otherwise, they can’t keep up the “mystique”.

On Traditional Women’s Rights Activists (TWRAs)

It may or may not be a surprise to some that while I support traditional values and believe they are the foundation to a stable society, I do not consider myself a traditionalist; at least not as it is defined in my blogging world. I don’t neatly fit into any group and if anything the best way to describe myself after being Christian is a realist/red pill thinker.

With that said, the traditionalistwomen and men have organized a new movement based at Feminine Mystique (eerie name for being against feminism) and while I want to agree with their mission there is something that just doesn’t sit right as I will point out in my commentary of the following piece by Jesse Powell at Feminine Mystique (http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/why-i-am-a-twra/).

I am a TWRA, a Traditional Women’s Rights Activist, because I strongly believe that women should be granted the rights and privileges of the Traditional Woman; the rights and privileges that women were commonly granted traditionally, before feminism came on the scene. I will further add that the rights of Traditional Women should be granted to women generally simply on the basis of their being women whether a particular woman identifies as being a “Traditional Woman” or not.

I am opposed to “women’s rights” in the modern feminist sense. “Women’s rights” as the phrase is typically used today is a manipulative and misleading term implying that women have the “right” to do whatever they want regardless of how it harms others and regardless of how it undermines women’s rightful and traditional role in society. “Women’s rights” in the feminist sense is abusive and selfish as such “rights” are disconnected from any moral obligations or higher duty of the woman to her family and to society at large. The rights of the Traditional Woman however are honorable and noble and must be supported by men since the rights of the Traditional Woman are necessary for the woman to be able to fulfill her traditional role in society.

So, in other words, ALL women are honorable and noble and must be supported by men, whether she holds traditional values or not.   A woman who does whatever she wants and harms society is still a traditional woman who should be honored. I have no doubt a feminist will walk all over a man who holds those beliefs and will end up using that man for her own misguided purpose.

Men owe women chivalry; the ethic that men should provide for and protect women. Creating a secure environment for women comes first. Men have to signal their trustworthiness before women can be expected to give men trust. Granting to women the rights of the Traditional Woman is the primary way that men signal to women that they are trustworthy. Only after men signal their trustworthiness will women trust men and only after there is mutual trust between men and women can a healthy and stable foundation for family life be established.

It is not a lack of women seeing men as trustworthy that is the problem. The problem is rebellion and this is a sin that women will have to address on their own (with God’s hand of course). No man can help them there. A secure environment was always there and women rebelled against this. Creating a secure environment now is not going to change a rebellious spirit. Also, what is with men having to do something first before women? This seems at odds with submission.  Such as men have to be trustworthy, before women can trust. This is like saying men have to be worthy of a woman’s submission, before she submits.

Men must be the first ones to take the risk of abuse and harm in order to establish trust between the sexes.

Pause here for a moment. Yes, read it again. Women break the trust and yet men are the ones to take the abuse and harm. There is no responsibility for women’s collective past decisions and actions. Women get a free pass. A free pass to break the societal contract and have the men clean up the mess. Trust won’t be reestablished until women first humbly apologize and take the submissive position and repent.

In other words in a situation where men don’t trust women and women don’t trust men men must be the first to offer trust and vulnerability to establish trustworthiness in women’s eyes and break the cycle of mutual hostility and distrust between men and women.

The reason why men must go first is because it is the man’s role to provide for and protect women, not the other way around. Men are the ones who must take risks so that the environment for women is secure and predictable. The role of a woman requires safety and predictability. The role of the man confronts danger head on and creates for the woman the safety and predictability that she needs. In the context of mutual distrust between the sexes that feminism has created where neither side feels it can trust the other it is the man who has to face the danger of betrayal in order to reestablish the mutual trust that has been lost.

So I as a man support chivalry and the rights of the Traditional Woman because it is my duty as a man to create a secure environment for women and to support women in their traditional role and to signal to women that men are trustworthy.

Again, why? Why do men have to be the first to offer trust when they weren’t the ones who broke the trust? An answer of “because it is the man’s role to provide for and protect women” does not pass here.  Men were doing that just fine and women rebelled, so what’s to stop them from continuing to rebel? Talk of a man’s role or man’s duty certainly won’t. Also, should men be showing women vulnerability? That seems more a trait of the submissive woman.

One of the most basic and fundamental rights of the Traditional Woman is the right to be financially provided for by one’s husband.

I wouldn’t call this a right. Being financially provided for is a privilege bestowed upon those worthy of a man committing to them; those worthy of being seen as an asset rather than a liability. Marriage and financial provisions are not rights and not something women deserve just for being women.

Married women should not work. Working to earn money is a specifically male role; it is a specifically masculine activity. It is not a general activity everyone should participate in, it is something that particularly fits with the strengths and the role of men. A woman being forced into the workforce is being displaced from her domestic role where she has the highest value to her family and to society and put into a situation where she is naturally disadvantaged compared to the man, where her family related duties will necessarily be harmed, and where she will create a disruption to the work environment she has been forced into that will harm others.

I suggest that the husband determines how he can maximize his wife’s skills and attain the highest value for the family at any given time.  If he feels it is in the home, then she stays home. If he feels at work, then she works.  And all along the wife should respect his decision and trust that he knows what is best for the family.  It took much internal conflict for me to realize that just because my husband thought I should work from time to time before we had kids, doesn’t mean he is not a real man. He felt my time and skills were better spent adding to our savings than having a meticulously clean house.  I trust his judgment and enjoy knowing that by helping him where he needs help (helpmate) will lessen his stress down the road when another bout of lay-offs come as it no doubt will in this brave new world.

What causes harm when a woman is forced into a work environment is not the actual situation, but the woman’s response to that situation. If I followed traditionalist thinking, I would feel resent and hostility towards my husband for not keeping me in the gilded housewife role.  Much easier to yield, take comfort in knowing you are helping your husband feel less stressed, and pray for God’s will.

Looking at historical statistics only 2.2% of white married women worked in the United States in 1890. The earnings of men were far lower in 1890 than they are today but such a high priority was placed on protecting married women from having to work that even in such an overall materially deprived environment white married women were successfully protected from the necessity of paid work 98% of the time.

I don’t doubt those statistics and those certainly were better times, but this doesn’t deal with reality. The reality is women rebelled against all that. Collectively women have decided they don’t want to be protected and choices must have consequences. If it means the end of a stable society, so be it. I and many others are prepared for that.  They only way modern women will learn their lesson, of their part in the fall of a great nation, is to watch it burn for themselves. A rebellious spirit cannot be reasoned or romanced with talks of the greater good.

I said at the beginning that women in general should be granted the rights of the Traditional Woman simply because they are women regardless of how a particular woman identifies herself.This is because the virtue and desirability of the Traditional Woman is universal and because women in general need to be able to trust men in general.

A woman has the duties of a Traditional Woman whether a woman sees herself as a Traditional Woman or not. In the same way a man has the duties of a Traditional Man whether a man sees himself as a Traditional Man or not. This then means that women should be granted the rights and privileges of the Traditional Woman regardless of the details of their self-identification because all women share a role and a purpose in common whether women accept this reality or not.

I don’t see how there is any other way to read this than to say that feminists, modern women, and the common slut should all be treated like traditional women just because they are still women underneath it all. No need to act like a lady, you will be treated like a lady simply by being born with female parts. That is one sweet deal.  Women need to get their act together and get a grasp on the invaluable role they play in society before men start handing out rights and privileges. As I recall men handed out the “right to vote” and that has just done wonders for the traditional cause.

What does it matter if women all share a role in common if most of them are not willing to accept this in their real, day to day lives?

Since the standard operating assumption of society should be to favor and promote the virtues of the Traditional Woman for this reason society should grant to women the rights and privileges of the Traditional Woman on principle universally.

Here is where we deal with fantasy world versus real world.  Yes, that SHOULD be how society operates, but is isn’t–that is the ugly truth.  This is where the line is drawn–living based on how things SHOULD be and living based on how things actually are.  Living a life planted in how the world actually operates does not lessen one’s traditional beliefs or vision, but rather gives a better awareness of how to make changes to get back to how they SHOULD be; which is not by merely treating women and men as traditional women and men just because they are women and men.

So I encourage all the men out there to step up to their manly duties as men and support the cause of Traditional Women’s Rights.

On the same token, it seems then men should be treated as traditional men regardless in how they identify themselves.  Therefore, women all over should treat gamers/PUAs, MRAs, “bad boys”, abusive men, etc., as traditional men because their sex dictates that you do so. Step up to your womanly duty and support Traditional Men’s Rights because whether or not the PUAs acknowledge it, they are Traditional Men. Although then again, that’s right–women don’t have duties, just “rights and privileges”.

If Women Could Vote, Titanic Would Have Never Happened

I am surprised I have not come across this story before. Here are the interesting parts:

The chivalry displayed on the Titanic, which proved to many people that women didn’t need the vote, demonstrated precisely the opposite to suffragists. From their perspective, it was women who were best equipped to enact the self-sacrificing behavior that surfaced in men only in extraordinary circumstances. “There was no need that a single life should have been lost upon the Titanic,” Alice Stone Blackwell wrote. “There will be far fewer lost by preventable accidents, either on land or sea, when the mothers of men have the right to vote.” Women, in other words, would have made sure there was legislation requiring enough lifeboats to save everyone on board.

Here we go again with the superiority claim. Women, with their amazing foresight would have planned better. This all stems from the belief that women would purify and soften politics. I have not received a good answer yet, or any answer, as to why politics is no better today (more likely worse) now that women are voting?

In a letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun, a writer who identified herself only as “A Woman” pointed out that letting women and children into the lifeboats wasn’t especially chivalrous. It was the least the men could have done, since the sinking was their fault. “After all, the women on the boat were not responsible for the disaster,” and it would have been “gross injustice to decree that the women, who have no voice in making and enforcing law on land or sea, should be left aboard a sinking ship, victims of man’s cupidity.”

I suppose that is one good thing about women voting today is they are forced to own it. When the country collapses, can’t blame it on the men.

What a Real Gentleman Does

Stands up regardless if there are any women sitting down as ladies. At least that is how it is according to commenter Jo, who left the following on an older post:

I love your site and you are right, but I am so sick of people in general, even women, continuously blaming women and defending/excusing men. As generalizing women has become a commonly acceptable thing, I shall also generalize men for asecond. Men and boys have such bitterness toward the female gender with little reason to be for the most part- expecting sex and such then pouting/throwing a tantrum when they dont get it. Feminism helped this happen but I myself as a female did nothing to deserve the hatred my gender gets. when will people wake up and realize feminists of then and now are not holding a gun to the head of every American man and forcing them to succumb to their demands? Nope, men are not perfect either, nor are they helpless. Men need to stand up and be gentlemen regardless if there are any women sitting down as ladies- in fact, that is exactly what a real gentlemen does. some women who are like this do indeed need to quit it, but many of us are not like that and we deserve respect and sympathy as men get too. Nothing’s stopping that but society’s pet hobby of dumping failure and blame onto women, then shouting self righteously when women do exactly that to men.

I can’t let such a gem of modern woman logic go unnoticed. So, while I am sure Jo probably has good intentions, I have to call out her remarks on what makes a man a gentleman, which as it boils down is a man who overlooks holding women to any standards.

What Jo needs to learn and it is perhaps one of the most depressing lessons is it doesn’t matter if you personally did nothing to contribute to feminism, man’s collective lost faith in the goodness of women is just too strong and it doesn’t matter how special or how “not like that” you think you are.  To gain a husband these days a woman has to prove she is an asset and not a liability. She has to have a value far above rubies, not a value of cubic zirconia; which is shiny and alluring on the outside but at its core is fake.

Also, remember it was women who first turned their back on men. Deeming the protection of patriarchy to be oppressive and insisting that they, as women, can not only make their own way, but make it better. Men in their chivalry granted women the right  privilege to vote and from there the demands never ended.  Those were the real gentlemen (by Jo’s definition), who gave women the distinguished privilege to vote despite women acting like crazed animals in their protests. Men stepped up and yielded, while women made fools of themselves. An important lesson was learned here for the sisterhood–create a scene, be provocative and get what you want (think slutwalks-they wanted attention and they got it). Men have thus learned if you give a woman an inch, they take a mile. And women are free to take a mile all they want these days, just not at the expense of men or via tax dollars paid by men.

To be able to honestly say you are “not like that”, you have to take some serious steps in speaking against the sisterhood and Team Women and stomping on feminism everywhere you see it, no matter how many friends or personal gains you lose. If you are truly anti-feminism, most people aren’t going to like you and in this age when likeability is valued more than standing values, most will fail at fighting feminism. I am by no means a perfect example and have commented before that I believe all women “are like that” (myself included) because being “like that” is only one lapse of judgment away. We are all capable of sin and hence all sinners. Women are all capable of being “like that” and hence they are all “like that”.  To not be aware and constantly grounded in this ugly truth, is to open the door for unhealthy airs about yourself.

I will also reiterate that this blog is not about equality. My focus is not to write 10 posts about women and then 10 posts about men. The focus is about unmasking feminism and not surprisingly it is usually the women that are predominantly behind feminism. I do hold that men and women are both equal sinners and both fall woefully short of God’s glory. However, this postmodern fallen world, does not see it that way. In much of modern Christianity and secularism, the woman gets a pass. Especially as it relates to her behavior and morals. As Jo said, it doesn’t matter if women are ladies, men are suppose to be gentlemen-regardless. This very broad philosophy leaves an open door to what women can get away with it. “It doesn’t matter if women sleep around, a true gentleman should still step up and marry her.”  “It doesn’t matter if I submit to my husband as he is suppose to be a gentleman”.

anyway, I hope you dont think I’m a feminazi myself- I’m very much against that! I was so pleased to find your blog and was so encouraged by it (I’m 21, a Christian, and possibly a future homemaker BTW). however, I’d just enjoy seeing more posts about men- they also need to know what to do because, again, men arent perfect and they sure arent the only victims here.

I suppose she wants to see more posts about how men should bow before women, regardless of women’s behavior.  Not going to happen. Are women still ladies regardless if men have no morals, make bad choices, live a wild life? No, in fact, in the name of equality and in doing everything men do they too have loosened their morals and embrace the permissive modern life. Rather than be the better example, women devalued themselves to the worst of men.

Not sure why Jo felt the need to tell me she is a Christian with homemaker inclinations.  It is almost as if that is to make me gloss over her crazy statement about gentlemen.  You know, throw in those parts so I automatically assume she can’t possibly be “like that” for she is a good Christian girl.

“Hitler Decided we Should Have Equal Rights for Women”

A few things to say about this story:
1. Anyone who does not see the creepy similarities with modern day America has their head in the sand and is part of the 98%.
2. If equal rights is your thing, Hitler is your guy:

“Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn’t support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

“It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps,” remembers Kitty. “During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys.”

There is true equality for you.

More Entitled than Ever

Today’s college students thinks they are one heck of a special lot.  The entitlement mentality is stronger than ever before. This isn’t all that surprising and I probably wouldn’t even be writing about it, except this section from the linked article caught my eye:

‘What’s really become prevalent over the last two decades is the idea that being highly self-confident – loving yourself, believing in yourself – is the key to success,’ Twenge said. ‘Now the interesting thing about that belief is it’s widely held, it’s very deeply held, and it’s also untrue.’

This. This. This! This is the heart of the feminist, liberated woman message and its untrue.  The measure of a liberated life being “highly self-confident – loving yourself, believing in yourself”.  The question that is never asked though is how did this message get so prevalent and where did it come from? The unspoken thinking is that we as a culture just “found ourselves there” much in the same way a single mom finds herself pregnant for the fourth time with a bad guy “finds herself there”.

Despite a library’s worth of self-help books promoting the idea we can achieve anything if we believe we can, there’s very little evidence that raising self-esteem produces positive, real-world outcomes.

‘If there is any effect at all, it is quite small,’ said Roy Baumeister of Florida State University, who authored a 2003 paper on self-esteem studies.

Baumeister found that while successful people did have high-self esteem in many cases, it was unclear what actual caused their success if the first place.

Both self-esteem and success were often influenced by another factor.

‘Coming from a good family might lead to both high self-esteem and personal success.’ Baumeister said. ‘Self-control is much more powerful and well-supported as a cause of personal success. Despite my years invested in research on self-esteem, I reluctantly advise people to forget about it.

Self-control is probably the one thing the modern woman lacks the most and ironically its the one thing that may make them the most successful. Most obvious is the lack of self-control in sexual matters and reveling in the slut culture. Other areas are lack of control in spending and lack of control of the mouth.

I contend that self-confidence comes from self-control.When you resist the hot Alpha guy and when you resist the hot designer handbag you can’t afford, what comes is confidence in your ability resist temptation, which is no small feat.  This is an authentic self-confidence that comes from actual work, rather than feel-good fluff messages that inflate your value.

The Feminization of Rhetoric

A reader requested I turn these quotes that I posted long ago on The Spearhead  into a post.

From the book Composition-Rhetoric: Background, Theory, and Pedagogy:

“Let us start with this question: Who owns rhetoric? Throughout most of Western history, the answer has been clear: rhetoric was the property of men, particularly of men of property. The continuing discipline of rhetoric was shaped by male rituals, male contests, male ideals, and masculine agendas. Women were definitively excluded from all that rhetoric implied. In the nineteenth century, however, higher education was opened slowly, partially, grudgingly to women, and at that same time the theretofore closed field of rhetoric began to shift and change.”

“Rhetoric may have had its inception in the necessity of defending oneself, but as soon as it was rationalized into technical form it became a powerful psychological tool and a disciplinary refuge for men the Boys’ Clubhouse where no girls were allowed and where men could thus work out their contests in private.”

Rhetoric as it used to be is the “powerful psychological tool” that can defeat feminism. Women have taken this tool away from men. Rhetoric has become so feminized that even men shame other men by saying “Such anger does not contribute to a meaningful dialogue” or “if you cant have a civil conversation, please leave”. These are all attempts to take away one of man’s most natural and powerful tools. Feminists are betting that men will all just sit back and be shamed into ‘polite’, feminine conversation, while they hijack Rhetoric. BUT something created by men and for men, does not work the same for women. Oh how she tries, but she just can’t debate like a man and then often has to resort to the ever famous “shaming language”. Emotions get in the way.

“And what happened to this agonistic educational culture? After over two thousand years as the central element in education, public verbal contest died out almost completely in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Instead of the oral, argument-based, male-dominated education of the pre-1870 period, education post-1870 was much more interiorized, irenic, negotiative, explanatory. The older methods of academic defense and attack died out with startling rapidity, says Ong, because of the entrance of women into higher education. Contestive, combative educational methods that had worked satisfactorily for all-male schooling now came to seem violent, vulgar, silly. A man could attack another man verbally, and was expected to do so, but to attack a woman, either physically or intellectually, was thought ignoble. As more women entered colleges, their influence both tacit and explicit caused the abandonment of the agonistic tradition and the evolution of less overtly contestive educational methods. Thus the educational structure we inherit, an amalgam of newer irenic values and half-understood survivals from a more agonistic time in education.”

This particular quote is so important. It captures how everything changed to acquiesce  to women. It should have been if women want to be part of a man’s world, then she plays by their rules. Duke it out with the rest of the boys. Rather, and probably in the name of chivalry, men surrendered to feminine sensitivities.  There seem to be two groups of thought about what makes a real man and it can be divided up by this issue. The one group sees a real man as one who is chivalrous and acquiesce to women in the name of honor and duty. The other group sees a real man as one who holds their ground and is not moved by the whims of women.

“From no women in colleges in 1830 to three-quarters of all American colleges admitting women by 1900 was a change in educational culture that was unprecedented in modern history. We see, within seventy years, an absolute revision of the all-male enclaves that colleges had been for over a millennium. There were, of course, schools that remained all-male some even to the present day but the college experience was ineluctably changed by the gradual influx of young women. This is not the place to detail the horrified objections, the often frantic attempts to safeguard the portals, the manifold arguments advanced against coeducation (see Woody). Women were on the move and would not be denied. And where women and men went to college together, the atmosphere and curricula changed as a result the atmosphere and tone of life with startling rapidity, and the curriculum more slowly but just as certainly.”

“Before women came onto the scene, Education in all-male institutions was set up as a struggle for dominance; one had to wrest authority from the teacher by proving one could “master” the subject and the proof was by ordeal. There was no sense in which student and teacher were assumed to be friends. That is a modern concept. For students of most colleges before 1850, the faculty had one clear definition. It was the enemy.
Traditional rhetorical training was harsh, competitive, filled with public testing, and often brutal and humiliating. But the entry of women into colleges changed the most basic rhetorical rules of engagement, and from cold, distanced, demanding lecture-recitation teaching and agonistic competition, rhetoric after 1900 became at its most typical a personalized editorial relationship, critical but not usually antagonistic. At its most progressive, it became a partnership between teacher and student. The very experience of student and teacher coming together to study discourse had after 1900 an ethos radically different from that of a hundred years before.”

“This, then, was college and university culture, from medieval times through and past the Civil War. It was man against man in a constant series of ritual tests of worthiness in the classroom, on the platform, in the debate hall, in the dormitory. In Latin or in English, the agonism was always present. It existed in the argumentative rhetorical theory stretching from Cicero to Whately, in the forms of thesis and defense, lecture and recitation, in the purring slash of the professor’s oral rebuke, in the barking give and take of the debate club’s hall, in the silky logical entrapment of the perspiring bachelor’s candidate, and in the roaring denunciation of backsliding that issued from the pulpit. College was a man’s world, and it was a world red in tooth and claw.”

“If classrooms and lecture-halls were more orderly, other elements of college life changed radically as well. The change can most clearly be seen in specialization of function by gender. The decline of public agonistic contest as a way of college life led to a resulting canalization of that agonistic impulse into a variety of more private arenas. Male contest cannot be done away with, and after coeducation it continued as an underground phenomenon. We can note after 1870, for instance, the decline of general interest in college debate; at school after school one sees the gradual breakdown of the older literary and debating societies. At least part of the reason for this decline was the public nature of the debate clubs. Women could not easily be kept out of them, and to debate with women was unnatural, demoralizing, demeaning to the men whose private enclaves the club halls had been. Stripped of much of their psychological rationale, literary and debating clubs languished and were abandoned; their houses and halls some of them quite elaborate were usually bought by the institution or by fraternities.”

“Just as it seemed Aristotelian argumentative rhetoric was picking up steam, however, teachers began to find themselves facing classes of women. Such a rhetoric was dangerous, and it could be fed to women only in harmless bits and pieces, stripped of its popular uses. The situation of rhetorical instruction for women mirrored the attitude that women’s proper sphere was private, minimizing traditional agonistic oral forms and maximizing analysis and composition.”

“A new sort of rhetorical instruction was needed, one that minimized the agonistic tendency inherent in oral rhetoric. Women’s colleges and the coeducational schools turned increasingly to a form of discourse that no one found threatening from women: written composition. Composition had been a subject in both grammar schools and academies since the early part of the century, but around 1820 we begin to see it given strong impetus in colleges as well.’6 Composition was an important element of Blairian belletristic instruction, and at the same time rhetoric needed purging of its public and oratorical elements in order for it to become a safe subject for both men and women. That is what happened between 1840 and 1890, as rhetoric became composition and rhetorical practice became composition- rhetoric.
By 1885, even the term “rhetoric” had begun to give way to “composition” at most schools, and after 1895 we seldom see it in textbook titles.”

“In a space of less than forty years, however, all this agonistic rhetorical culture was swept away, and rhetoric itself was changed forever. The primary effect of coeducation was the quick decline of public contest as a staple of college life. As Ong argues, the agonistic impulse is purely a male-against- male phenomenon. Males perceive it as noble to struggle ritually either physically or verbally with other males. Even to be bested in such contests preserves honor, if one has obeyed the rules of the contest. The winner and the loser have established a hierarchy they agree on and can shake hands. But to struggle in ritual contest with a woman? It was unthinkable. There was no precedent for it, and no psychological rationale. Fighting with a woman, to the agonistically charged male, is ignoble on the face of it. To be victorious in such a contest would confer only slightly less shame and loss of face than to be defeated. Real men do not fight women. And thus, when women entered the educational equation in colleges, the whole edifice built on ritual contest between teacher and student, and between student and student, came crashing down.”

“Real men don’t fight women”. How many times have we heard that?! This is how it all started; women coming into college and eliminating Rhetoric and in turn the heart of being male. Once stripped of that key tool, women could beat men into submission however they wanted to, all they had to say was “be nice to the ‘ladies’”. Women think they engage in Rhetoric, but all it is, is a “dumbed down, preetified” version.

Real Rhetoric hasn’t been seen in some 200 years. No one knows what it looks like anymore;  all we know is feminized Rhetoric.  The closest we come is to some of the male defined spaces that make up the manosphere and even there it is probably mild compared to what I imagine the full glory of what unfeminized Rhetoric can be. Women will often complain of all the “mean, nasty” men on various sites (who really are just saying what women don’t want to hear); yet they should be reminded that this was life before women came onto the scene and demanded entrance in male spaces. If women don’t like it,  they can go back to baking, knitting , blogging, or their career in the safety of a feminized zone. Men once protected women from this ‘harsh’ world, but they demanded to be included in it (starting with higher education) and with that comes a world that may not always be how women want it.  Men changed their rules for women, as a courtesy, and now that women are ‘educated’, ‘independent’, and have conquered the world over (they are no more sensitive, delicate beings that need to be protected), the least they can do is let men regain what they have lost and respect the value of male Rhetoric and male spaces.

What do you See?

Allow for an exercise. What emotions to the below images provoke? Positive or negative? Please include your religion, if any, when commenting.

Thanks to Double Minded Man for finding the images.

Women are the Height of Creation

Seriously??  Here we go again…

Unhappy People Don’t Listen to Scripture

This story needs to get more attention. It is shocking, yet predictable at the same time.

A Pastor has admitted that it is not scripture the matters, but church politics and in turn part of those politics are keeping women happy–no matter what. Women rule the churches by persuasion, not the Pastor and certainly not God.

This is the most compelling quote: “People are unhappy, and unhappy people don’t listen to Scripture.” I think that one line succinctly addressing the whole problem with modern churches. They won’t listen to scripture anyway, so let’s focus on making them happy.

Staring at Submission Head On

My last post has been quite a useful learning exercise. From the comments, I have gleaned women have difficulty staring at submission head on, as in a material representation. They all have a vision of submission in their head, but see no need to actually commit to that vision by way of pictorial depiction. Could that be because submission is a relative state, ever in flux depending on the man or situation? This all reminded me of a popular comment that floated around the manosphere awhile back. A woman commenter stated that she does indeed stand up for men—she stands up for them in her head. Likewise, perhaps women just submit in their heads too. What happens in the real world doesn’t matter as long as the picture in her head is accurate to her understanding. Actions speaks louder than words, no? Actions also speaks louder than thought.

I have google imaged every which way images that would turn up biblical submission and the ones I find of couples are just that-couples, perhaps in a wedding pose or holding hands,etc., but what does that really show? It shows a man, woman, love, commitment perhaps, but it does not show submission. I’ll admit its a hard thing to capture, yet it needs to be captured in the best way a fallen being in a fallen world can capture it. Of course it will not be perfect as nothing in this world is, but we render our best anyway. The Adam and Eve images, for example, there are thousands of variations (in physical appearance, etc. iow, they are not perfect), but they all capture the essence of who Adam and Eve were –the first man and woman. A visual depiction of submission needs to be there to stare women in the face and to provide a reminder of its role in marriage. Images of the Cross are used all the time to remind us (often harsh reminder, as is the more bloody images of Christ on the Cross) of Christ’s crucifixion for our sins and this is a meaningful and very important tool to bridge the meaning of Christ with our human psyche. Images are concrete and help us to pin an abstract concept down, otherwise it stays abstract and open to vast interpretation, never knowing how one person to the next sees the concept in their head.

I did find more vintage images that capture submission better, but isn’t it interesting that there are no modern pictures. Perhaps this is just a sign of the times and a sign of the absolute fear submission brings today.

I prefer not to use images such as I posted, but the Christian community has a great problem visually depicting the essence of submission. It can be done in a very tasteful and conservative manner; however, it isn’t being done and I am really starting to think this is because it will create a concrete reminder that our modern Christian world does not want to see — women submitting. We can talk about it all, but just don’t make us look at it.

This is What Submission Looks Like

Commenter and former blogger, CL, has made this photo her new profile image.

It is absolutely stunning and in no words captures what I believe a lot of my blog followers see submission as being. It amounts to vulnerability and trust. There is nothing forceful or doormatish about it. You could say it does not boast and is not self-seeking. It always trusts, always protects, and always perseveres. Submission is love.

Manning Up and Cleaning Up

We have all probably seen the new Tide Pods. Well, who knew they were created so ‘stupid’ men could figure out how to do the laundry and so the oh-so burdened wives could stop worrying over their men not doing laundry to their standards.

“Procter & Gamble (PG) this year introduced Tide Pods, partly to address the stress women say they feel about delegating responsibility for the laundry to husbands and other family members. The pods, single-dose pouches of detergent, eliminate the need for pouring and measuring—easing worries some women have that others will use too much or too little. Another delegating tool is P&G’s Bounce dryer bar, a fabric softener installed in the dryer that lasts for months.”

Pouring and measuring is apparently a skill that is beyond men. Seriously, it is stuff like this that pushes men away from marriage.

And then there is this:

P&G recently introduced a campaign dubbed “Man Up, Clean Up” for Swiffer mops and dusters.

Take a look on youtube for these Swiffer Commercials. I only looked at one and it said (directed to men) “dusting isn’t that hard”.  No kidding. So, why again can’t the women do it? If it only takes a few minutes with Swiffers nifty products, then women should be able to get the job done and have more time for other things.  Its not that men can’t clean, men can’t clean to a woman’s standards; thus, a whole market is open to creating products with the intent to tell men they aren’t real men unless they clean like their women want them to.

Condom Command Training

Everywhere I turn, it just get worse and worse. The latest – teaching young girls the fine art of condom negotiations.

According to Danielle Parish, the assistant professor at the school’s Graduate College of Social Work who is conducting the NIH-funded effort, one of the big problems young girls need to learn is how to talk their boyfriends into using condoms.

Of course the biggest problem isn’t teaching young girls to abstain, but rather lay it on their boyfriends to do the semi-responsible thing.  I am not giving boys a pass in this, but seriously can we just teach our young girls to keep it shut or is that oppressive and too much responsibility?

And since negotiating is a two-way street, perhaps the boys should learn how to negotiate back? But, nah, what this really is, is condom command training. It goes like this: “we are sexually empowered young girls who are going to have sex no matter what, so you [to boyfiend] better be the responsible one.”  The truth of this whole operation is really revealed in the quote above–”…girls need to learn how to talk their boyfriends into…”.  There is no negotiating here, its about how to talk boys into something.

According to the school’s release, “Parrish notes one of the big issues for this population of adolescent girls is condom negotiation. They may have a boyfriend who says it isn’t ‘cool’ to use a condom. To prepare the girls for these types of situations, the counselors and pediatricians will teach them how to negotiate condom use with their partner. The intervention also helps empower and motivate girls to make healthier choices regarding their alcohol use, smoking and prevention of unplanned pregnancy.”

Since it is always about empowering, choosing to abstain all together is pretty darn empowering. It takes a brave and very strong girl to do that in this culture.

This program says it is about fostering “better life decisions”. Naturally, the better life decision is one where all responsibility is in the hands of boys.

Pregnant Four Times before Age 19? Solution: Start a Single Mom’s Ministry

I heard the other day on the Today show about buying some gold piece of jewelry to support single mom ministries. I didn’t catch the full story, so I googled to learn more and did not find the exact story, but had other hits that are comment worthy.

See Five Reasons Your Church Should Have a Single Mom’s Ministry.

2. The single parent family is the modern-day widow and orphan. The Lord has a heart for the fatherless. Single Moms Ministries do NOT endorse divorce or unwed pregnancy. It merely provides support for the 15 million mothers who find themselves there.

Like that makes any sense. Women just magically find themselves there, I guess. I understand those in truly abusive situations, but have 15 millions moms really been truly abused?  Back in the day, did we have special set-aside ministries for widows (if one even wants to consider that analogy)? I don’t think so, the church cared for them as they should care for them as a person, not as a special interest group.

I went to the author’s website of that fine quote (google Jennifer Maggio) and  I found this in her bio:

At 19, Maggio found herself pregnant for the fourth time, living in government housing on food stamps and welfare.

For a Christian woman, she really out does the modern woman with those numbers. Granted, she could have led a wild lifestyle and then found Christ later on, but her bio say nothing specifically about being a Christian or how she came to Faith.  It is assumed she is though, because of the frequent use of the word “ministries” and “church” throughout the website.

I could just be terribly wrong about all this, but how do you not have pause when hearing the woman starting all these single mom ministries was pregnant four times by age 19.  Things that make you go hmmmmm…..

The Spirit of Women has Changed

As expected, there was an explosion of feminist/modern women outcry over the Venker article I previously commented on. What they all have in common is a beef that because Venker said “women are no longer women” this must mean that women are not 1950s subservient housewives and should get back into their proper doormat role. I don’t believe this is what Venker is saying at all. Rather, she is trying to say that women use to be nice, pleasant, good-humored, had manners, etc., but now women are callous, competitive, spiteful, and to be blunt–bitches.

Men are not marrying because women refuse to be cute, submissive, homemakers, they are not marrying because the spirit of women has changed. The modern woman has sold her soul to feminism. There are few pure hearts to be found. In short, most modern women are simply mean and to them that is a strength.  Just browse any of the Venker response articles/comments and it doesn’t take long to find quotes like this:
“Also, Mommy makes his favorite Hamburger Helper whenever he asks and does not charge any rent for sleeping on that old couch in her basement. And she has no idea all that porn he’s downloaded is the reason why her computer is running so slow.”

I saw another exchange where women were discussing why a certain male commenter was no longer commenting and to them this was  because his mom must have called him away from the basement for dinner.

This is why men are not marrying!  Snotty, snide, shaming remarks are not something a man wants to devote his life to.

Women Given Gift Cards for Disclosing Whether a Man ever Poked Holes in a Condom to get them Pregnant

Here is something for men to watch out for. Florida is offering young women gifts cards for answering a survey with very intimate questions. For example:

Participants were asked how many men they had sex with over the last year, whether a man ever poked holes in a condom to get them pregnant and how they felt emotionally the last time they had unprotected sex.

Of course, because women would never poke their own holes, right? Absolutely Amazing.  To suggest a man is the one who would do that especially when there is no benefit to do so, shows that this survey is not about learning about young women, but rather wants to get the nitty-gritty on how men are treating these pure snowflakes.

Suppose a woman answers yes; a man has poked holes and after the hook-up she felt emotionally abandoned or raped, will there then be further investigations of who this man was and all the woman has to do is a give a name, any name. And she probably would, if they just give her another gift card!

 

 

Women Continue to Want Marriage, But Men are Saying No

Great article found here. So great that I am reposting the entire piece below with my comments mixed in:

From Suzanne Venker:

The battle of the sexes is alive and well. According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.

Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.

Cause, meet effect. Modern women are the cause and men are choosing not to marry, the effect. Mind you, its not just women as women in the traditional sense, but “modern women”, who by my own observations probably count for 9 out of 10 women I come across.  This is probably a good time to clarify how I see the difference between a “modern woman” and a feminist (as I realize it can be confusing). Broadly speaking, there is no difference.  Technically, there is. Fewer and fewer women are identifying with feminism as it has become a loaded term, but that does not mean they are  free from feminist ideas or have not been molded by a feminist driven culture; therefore, I find the term “modern women” as more inclusive to include any woman who is motivated by wordliness, trends, pop culture, opinions of the sisterhood, etc.  If I strictly referred to ‘feminists’ when writing, it would miss the largest, most important, and even dangerous segment of women–those who are feminists, but don’t realize it.

The so-called dearth of good men (read: marriageable men) has been a hot subject in the media as of late. Much of the coverage has been in response to the fact that for the first time in history, women have become the majority of the U.S. workforce. They’re also getting most of the college degrees. The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women.

As the author of three books on the American family and its intersection with pop culture, I’ve spent thirteen years examining social agendas as they pertain to sex, parenting, and gender roles. During this time, I’ve spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.

Women aren’t women anymore.

To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.

In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.

Now the men have nowhere to go.

It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.

But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault?

You’ll never hear that in the media. All the articles and books (and television programs, for that matter) put women front and center, while men and children sit in the back seat. But after decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.

Rightfully so, and this is why I support the MGTOW movement and understand when men do not see marriage as a personal goal or a moral duty.

Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them.

I like how she is very clear –”it has pissed them off” and suggests men have good reason to feel that way.

“They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.”

This is how men haven’t changed. There hasn’t been a movement (until recently) that convinces or reassures men to shrug off their instincts as there was for women. For the record, I don’t think it is good thing that men or women are straying from their roles, but what I think or feel doesn’t matter–reality matters and in reality causes have effects.  Modern women cannot tip the scales between the sexes and expect there to be no consequences.

Interestingly enough, women are the ones who see marriage as being important, yet I think what is key is that it is marriage as defined by them and on their terms, which is not a marriage where men primarily provide and protect. They have a ‘brave new world’ vision of marriage or ‘marriage 2.0′ and it does not mesh with the ‘marriage 1.0′ vision that most men grew up picturing.  Marriage is a relative term and is no longer an institution with expected behaviors and guideline to follow. I’d like to suggest a good question for a man to ask a woman is –”what does marriage mean to you”?  However, the problem with that is you only get an answer of what marriage means to that woman at that particular instance in time.  With the flux of woman’s emotions and the tendency to follow sisterhood think, her views on marriage can change the day after the wedding, two years after the wedding, or 10 years and 2 children after the wedding.

It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.

It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.

Here is the response I suspect will occur—”it wasn’t me”! ( a variant of NAWALT or Not All Women Are Like That). Then this–”it was the radical feminists with their man hating messages that screwed things up, I’m not like that, so what role have I played?”   So, the solution for today’s modern women is to do nothing, rather than try to change the negative view of women.  Doing nothing is playing a role.

Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.

“I need men’s rights because….” tumblr page

The “I need men’s rights because….” tumblr page is up for anyone interested in contributing. A reader started it and sent me the link.

An Email from Satan

Evil is alive and well. And seems to have got a jolt of energy from the election. I almost did not publish, but evil needs to be exposed and this person is obviously a coward for not posting this as a comment. I fear we are at war. Odd too, given liberals won and are going to get everything they want. Why does someone like me bother them so?  Hmmmmm…..I appreciate these emails as they strengthen my faith and keep me ever mindful that evil exists and is on the prowl like never before.

Your views on women are abhorrent and disgusting.

There is no way you are happier as a subserviant housewife than I am.  I have a college degree, I make my own decisions, have a job, and control my future.  I see you used to do that at one point.  Then you decided to get married, but I am not sure how you translated that into becoming second class and subserviant?  Lots of married people are happy with the wife having equal say in the relationship.  You will always be second class, and place yourself there.  If you really think women were happier before feminism you are sorely mistaken- or do you think that women are so sinful and awful we do not deserve to be happy?  Or do you think that women, yourself included, are so stupid that we need a man to make choices for us?  That he needs to be my Captain because i cannot do it myself, because YOU cannot do it yourself?  Do you think yourself that stupid?  Or is it some “God’s way” bullshit?  Oh herp derp the bible says I should be subserviant so let me just do everything the Bible says?  Its good at least that you think women shouldnt have the right to vote- I hope that you yourself practice this and do not vote.  Obviously i disagree with you about women voting, but if all women like you didn’t vote, that would be less of you influencing our lawmakers, so you not voting works in my favor!

One day, when I am 30-35 (I’m 24), have a nice job with a fat salary, and decide to have children with my husband, we will be making joint decisions where we both decide together.  His word will not be final, it will be the decision we both make.  Why?  Because I am capable and able to make choices.  Clearly you do not think you are able to, and that is terrribly pathetic that you think so lowly of yourself.  Gain some self confidence and shut down your terrible blog.  Believe in yourself.

My children will end up more educated, worldly and intelligent than yours ever will.  Why?  Because they have a mother who thinks for herself, and a father who respects that.  I dont know how you can possibly call yourself a self respecting individual yet do not believe you should have the right to vote.  How you can consider yourself that inept and stupid is beyond me.  I am not saying men are bad and I hate them, but I do not consider them my leader, and I never will.  I feel they are just as capable of making their own decisions as I am, and I feel that together with a man we can work to make decisions that we both agree with.

I think you should consider suicide, if I thought that lowly of myself I most certainly would!

 

CMDN Under Fire

Please support  bskillet at Christian Men’s Defense Network as I just discovered why his blog is probably now private—

See here

A Taste of “The Real World”

Here is an excellent comment by The Root ’83:

A Local hysterical lesbian columnist said it best:
“Romeney would set women back DECADES” and I asked her how many…like, say, 3 maybe?
She said yes. OK, so thats 1983. Contraceptives were available in every Drug Store, abortion available on demand, and no “restrictions” of either were realistically forthcoming
So what gives with women voters, particularly SINGLE WORKING women?
What gives is, Single Working Women (with kids, or the chance of having them) realize what “the real world” has been like for MEN all these decades… working hard AND being taxed to the hilt, AND supporting more than their own mouth to feed…all with little or no “leisure time”, no real “days off” without yard work, house/property repairs, planning and maintenance, errands, and bill paying and everything else, after completing a 40 or 50 or 90 hour work week when you add in all the commuting time. Sweating out skillset/career ladder/economy slumps to keep “the family” fed, warm and dry.
A real Rat Race, made ever MORE difficult by the kinds of Leftist Government Theologies that Confiscate and Squander the wealth they DO earn while ALONE (with children!) because they encouraged them to sleep around and “not need a man” for the last 40 years.
Single women have gotten a taste of “the real world”, subsidizing with THEIR earnings the voracious appetite of a corrupt Government that sells the lazy culture of the Entitlement Dream in exchange for votes to key demographics…and they are more vulnerable BEING single working (and sometimes, moms on top of it) than a typical man their age in that reality, so….
They are freaked out by it. They’re not afraid of what Republicans will “take away” they want a SOMETHING like the security a partnership USED to provide… a place where their, genuine, valuable and necessary efforts of SHARING the load can bear 100% “efficiency” by keeping it within “the family” instead of forking over 50% of their labor/dollars to The State…..Being Mother AND Breadwinner, Mother AND Head of Household, Mother AND Chief Financial Officer, Maintenance Supervisor etc etc…..
But the Feminists have effectively destroyed the Nuclear Family Model, so the only “male” or “family” these working women now have to turn to for support is…
(wait for it!)
The State.
The State that they are trying actually trying to FLEE in the first place.
They arent afraid of “losing” anything, they just cant handle all the Crap the Government has heaped on them, and ironically, whichever “lifeline” gets sold the most effectively, is the one they grab for.
And the Democrats have perfected the duplicitous nature of their lies.
No one can sell the kind of self-destructive Snake Oil (abortion, needle exchange programs, taxes, spending, sexualizing children, censorship as tolerance, etc etc) and call it “goodness” and “progress” like them.

Luvs Breastfeeding Commercial

I hesitate to open the can of worms that is breastfeeding, but this Luvs commercial is really something:

Besides the obvious controversy, note the look the little boy gave to the waiter.

In other controversial breastfeeding news is this article.

Women’s Suffrage Meets Lady Gaga

Creepy. To say the least.

This is not really an unlikely pairing as Lady Gaga is the epitome of feminism’s end result. The irony is striking.

What’s more disturbing is from the comments on the youtube page and the publisher’s blurb, videos such as these are being used in schools as “next generation learning resources”.

Feminism Killed Women’s “Old-Fashioned” Sense of Responsibility to Other Women

In discussing the rise of “the single girl” in the sixties, the book “For Her Own Good” discusses “assertiveness training” as a tool to, in theory, make women come out of their shells and be equal with men, but in practice, and as you will see, it looks more like one of the millions of building blocks that made the modern women the heartless women they are today.

Assertiveness training, like popular psychology generally, is meant to be applied to all situations–work, sexual relationships, friendships. One assertiveness-training book opens with the following illustration of how to be “assertive” with a woman friend: In the story, “you” are at home alone, the housework done. You have some free time-two hours “just for yourself.” Then the phone rings. It’s a friend asking if you would please, as a very special favor, watch her two-year old daughter Alison for the morning while she goes out to a meeting. You have a “familiar sinking feeling in your stomach.” You really wanted those two hours for yourself:

If you were non-assertive you could simply deny your own wishes, and agree to care for Alison: “Well, I was going to do something else, but it really doesn’t matter. O.K., bring her over.”

Or you could say, assertively, “I know it’s a drag to take Alison with you, but I’ve set aside two hours for myself this morning, so I won’t be able to take her today.”

The book promises to help you learn to do what you want to do. Neatly evaded is the annoying question of what is right to do. There is no room here for you to balance Alison’s mother’s need to go to the meeting against your need to have two hours alone; nor of Alison’s mother’s relative hardships against your own. The only possible reason to take are of Alison is because you want to do it (which in fact the author assumes you don’t). The acknowledgement, “I know its a drag to take Alison with you” is nothing but a psychological “technique” intended to make the friend feel that you sympathize, even as you refuse to help. One is left to wonder what will become of Alison’s mother when she arrives at her meeting, child in tow, only to be told–assertively–that they really don’t want children at meetings any more.

But in the dog-eat-dog sexual marketplace no woman can afford an old-fashioned sense of responsibility to other women.

The sentence I made bold says it all. This is why women don’t get along, why there are catfights, caddiness, competition, backstabbing, gossiping, you name it–women no longer have a sense of “old-fashioned” responsibility to other women. Above all else the self matters.  Assertiveness training wiped out or masked that annoying voice that says “what is right to do” and replaced it with “what I want to do”. I think women are masters of the technique that pretends to sympathize when they really don’t care–its called being fake.   The new, modern version of responsibility to other women is wrapped up in feminism, through domestic violence and rape awareness, the right to “choose” and birth control, convincing other women there is a “war on women”. This is how women are responsible to other women and if they can convince a woman that there is a “war on women”, that they are oppressed, to sign up for a women’s studies course, or to be weary of men, then they pat themselves on the back and feel they did their moral duty.

Furthermore, if women can’t acknowledge or act on “old-fashioned” duty to other women (meaning simply lending a helping hand; selflessness), then what sort of responsibility do they feel they owe to men?