a woman’s world

A recent post at Oz Conservative, Why can’t male sacrifice be acknowledged? included a quote from a post, Appreciation, at The Rational Male.


Even the most enlightened, appreciative woman you know still operates in a feminine-centric reality. 

For me this opens up an interesting line of thought. The observation is obviously correct. In fact it has always been true that women operate in a feminine-centric reality. Why wasn’t this a problem in the past and why is it a problem now? The answer is that the problem has been caused by the collapse of traditional sex roles.

Men and women are profoundly different. And to a large extent women should live in a feminine-centric reality. That’s the way they’re wired. They don’t view the world the way men do, they don’t want the same things out of life that men want, they don’t think or feel the same way men do, they don’t approach sex the way men do. They should not have to do any of these things. They are being forced into living their lives as if they were men. It doesn’t work.

The fact that women operate differently compared to men is not a flaw but an asset. Women operate psychologically, emotionally and sexually in a way that is ideally suited for their intended roles as wives and mothers. In a sane society based on traditional sex roles women would be allowed to live their lives in a manner to which they are biologically suited, and living their lives in that way would bring them happiness and fulfilment.

Women encounter problems because they cannot change the way they are wired but they insist on (or in many cases are pressured into) living as pretend men. They try to have high-powered careers and they end up being stressed and unfulfilled. They then try to combine their unfulfilling careers with marriage and motherhood and of course their marriages fail and their kids turn out badly because the woman is wasting her energies on her career. They then end up being bitter, angry and miserable.

They generally only succeed in their high-powered careers because they get favoured treatment. They are not equipped to be politicians or CEOs. They don’t have the cool analytical intelligence, they don’t have the mental toughness. They’re not supposed to have those qualities. Women make decisions based on emotion. That’s what they are supposed to do. It makes them good wives and mothers.

The idea of strong empowered women is a myth. Women are strong and empowered only to the extent that they have the apparatus of the state to back them up, with force if necessary. Which means that their strength and empowerment is in fact provided by men. When their feelings get hurt they stamp their feet and cry and expect a policeman to come along and arrest the bad man who made them cry. In actual fact women are supposed to get upset when their feelings are hurt. They’re supposed to be emotionally sensitive. There’s nothing wrong with a woman crying if her feelings are hurt. In a sane with traditional sex roles women are protected from situations that are likely to upset them. The problem today is that women put themselves in situations where it’s practically guaranteed that their feelings will get hurt.

Women are natural control freaks. This is a good thing. If you’re going to be a mother being a control freak will keep your kids from harm. In business or politics it’s a disaster. Women try to run corporations, and run the country, they way they’d run the nursery. Theresa May being a fine example.

The post at The Rational Male also states

I think what most men uniquely deceive themselves of is that they will ultimately be appreciated by women for their sacrifices. Learn this now, you won’t. 

This is true, but again it comes down to the abandonment of traditional sex roles. There are things that women should expect men to do without making a song and dance of it. There are certainly things a wife should expect her husband to do automatically. He should protect her, not just from physical harm but from emotional harm. He should support her financially. She should expect him to be faithful and she should not expect him to abandon her when she’s no longer young and hot. The reason for the problems today is that women have been taught that they have no reciprocal obligations whatsoever. In the saner world of the past women understand that there were certain things that a husband was entitled to expect from a wife. She should provide emotional support, she should provide sex, she should not denigrate him publicly and she should keep house for him. Neither sex considered these things to be unreasonable. Perhaps they were sacrifices in some cases but since they were reciprocal both parties ended up winning. Both parties derived a great deal of emotional satisfaction from the arrangement.

Women not only did not expect men to do housework, they would have been horrified by the idea. It meant you were a failure as a wife, and a man who agreed to do so was considered (quite rightly) to be an emasculated weakling.

As long as men and women stuck to their traditional roles there was mutual respect as well as love and affection. The mutual respect is gone. The result can only be disaster.

Advertisements

cucks by name and cucks by nature

I disliked the term cuckservsative the first time I heard it. I’m still not totally convinced by it but I find myself using it more and more often. It’s just so damned useful.
It really does perfectly capture a certain mindset. It’s especially useful when used against weak cowardly “conservative” men. There’s the implication of a lack of manhood, and a lack of manhood is one of the biggest problems we face today. It’s not just that today’s men don’t have the guts to physically contest the invasion of their own countries and their own erasure from their society. They don’t even have the guts to stand up to verbal assaults. They’ve allowed themselves to be emasculated and cuck is somehow just the right term to describe them.
Ridicule can be a potent weapon and that makes cuck an even more useful term.
It also has the advantage that cucks hate being called cucks!

in praise of slut shaming

The campaign against slut shaming is one of the sadder and more self-defeating manifestations of the social disease known as feminism.
In retrospect our civilisation has committed few greater blunders than removing the stigma from out-of-wedlock births and putting the state into the position of surrogate father for the resulting children. We are rewarding women for irresponsible, selfish and destructive behaviour. It is no surprise that there has been a huge increase in irresponsible, selfish and destructive behaviour among women.
Related to this is an interesting piece at Dalrock on “father roulette” but more interesting still is the link to an earlier article We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan.
While I’m not entirely convinced by his idea that the vast majority of out-of-wedlock pregnancies are due to such a small number of men that doesn’t diminish in any way the importance of his main points. Slut shaming is a good idea because it works. While it’s morally correct to condemn the men involved the fact is that shaming them will prove to be generally very ineffective. Shaming the sluts on the other hand has been historically demonstrated to be very effective indeed. If we wish to save our culture we need to look at solutions that will actually work in the real world.
Dalrock demolishes the tired defeatist arguments about double standards. There are double standards because men and women are radically different.
He’s also, quite rightly, contemptuous of the traditional conservatives who have been unwilling to run the risk of hurting the feelings of sluts.
This is an horrific social experiment gone wrong and it’s yet another case in which Christians have demonstrated a complete lack of backbone. Society is being trashed before their eyes but they think that if only they can sing Kumbaya a bit more loudly everything will be fine, and most importantly everything will be nice. Niceness is next to godliness.

the war on masculinity

The Social Justice war on masculinity continues unabated. Jim Goad has a good article on this subject at Taki’s Magazine, Reclaiming Toxic Masculinity. I liked his point that we hear so much in the media about “toxic masculinity” but we never hear about toxic homosexuality” or “toxic bitchiness.”
The war on masculinity doesn’t just destroy families and ruin the lives of both men and women. It destroys other things. One of the things that it has utterly destroyed is Christianity. No religion can survive once it has been entirely feminised. Not only are men driven away from the faith – without men (actual masculine men rather than emasculated girly-men) the women become increasingly prone to wallowing in emotion, and increasingly totalitarian. It’s an often overlooked point that totalitarianism is often driven by emotion rather than reason.
Politics becomes entirely driven by feelings. We have, unfortunately, already reached the point at which politics is nothing but feelings.
And just when you think our civilisation can’t sink any lower, two New York lesbians are outraged that a magazine aimed at toddlers doesn’t have enough pro-homosexual propaganda – Nothing is sacred. nothing is safe
This is why homosexuals should never be allowed to adopt children or to act as parents. They only care for their kids insofar as they can use them to advance their political agenda.
Also worth reading is the latest post at Upon Hope about the many and various ways in which liberals engage in direct and indirect child abuse.