ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Treating the symptoms

The Weekly Standard wants to repair the failing institution of marriage. But not at the price of giving up feminism:
To restore marriage, people must again observe the two main conventions that used to support the institution. First, adults should not form intimate ties for very long without committing themselves in some formal way to remain together for life. That implies not having affairs and not divorcing except in unusual circumstances. Second, children should be born and brought up within marriage, meaning with parents in a committed relationship, rather than with single parents.

The problem, of course, is that these conventions run afoul of our modern fetish for “tolerance.” Marriage and the family are now seen as a private realm where nothing—government, the community, even the private opinions of fellow citizens—should be allowed to pass judgment, let alone intervene.

But marriage isn’t only a private concern. One reason lower-income society is falling apart is that the decline of marriage leaves too few adults who are willing and able to help each other. Spouses who cannot get along within the family also cannot contribute much to the wider society. They have little to offer others in the joint work of building strong communities. Government and nonprofit bodies attempt to fill the void, but even they cannot substitute for families based on strong adult commitments.

Because of the social costs of nonmarriage, “tolerance,” while laudable, should not be society’s only goal. Instead, we should be working to strike a balance between free choice and the promotion of the stable, supportive environments that create the best outcomes for both children and adults.

Any return to marriage norms, however, must take into account the feminist critique. Two generations ago, wives were often subordinate to their husbands or blindly deferred to them. Most advocates of marriage today recognize that the institution can be rebuilt only if it is done so on more egalitarian lines. Husbands and wives must be partners, without either ruling over the other. This does assume, however, that the spouses can work out differences more openly than they often did in the past.
It's really rather striking the way that so many observers are concerned about the symptoms while determinedly clinging to the disease. It's like watching a doctor trying to make the patient feel as comfortable as possible while refusing to give him the medicine that will cure him.

Any return to marriage norms will require rejecting feminism entirely. Destroying marriage was, and is, one of the primary goals of feminism. Destroying society and Western civilization is merely a fortuitous bonus as far as feminists are concerned.

Labels: ,

78 Comments:

Blogger Lovekraft February 14, 2018 5:51 AM  

Paraphrasing D. Sim:

modern marriage is like driving a car with your SO and both have steering wheels, brake and gas pedals.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 14, 2018 5:52 AM  

Utopians never believe in any form of nature as being immutable.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 14, 2018 5:56 AM  

"Any return to marriage norms, however, must take into account the feminist critique."

Must ignore the feminist tantrum, more like.

"Most advocates of marriage today recognize that the institution can be rebuilt only if it is done so on more egalitarian lines."

Actually, no. The people that article refers to are commonly called spinsters, single mothers, or cat ladies. Alternatively, orbiters.

"This does assume, however, that the spouses can work out differences more openly than they often did in the past."

Because gov-daddy totally incentivizes that happening. Nah, just run to gov-daddy if hubby doesn't make you happy in any way!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 14, 2018 6:01 AM  

Because gov-daddy will eliminate hubby, give you half his stuff, and make him pay child support if you've had any.

Women have less incentive to work out issues today than they ever have before, and men have more. If there's a problem here, it's clearly the women's faults. If they can't help it, they should never have had the latitude to try in the first place.

Blogger tublecane February 14, 2018 6:07 AM  

Any return to "marriage norms" requires patriarchy. It's that simple. The "feminist critique" must be radiated out of the body politic, because it is cancerous

Listen to the rhetoric, by the way. I can tell they didn't actually want to restore marriage. The way they talk about it is soooo boring. "Marriage norms." Who says that? "Norms" is the boringest word in the English language.

I'm not big on "critiques" (sorry, Kant), but "feminist critique" sounds like the Feminine Mystique. Mystique is cool.

They're clearly on the feminists' side.

Blogger TheMaleRei February 14, 2018 6:11 AM  

Another example of "Weak men ruining feminism" and "man up and wife up those sluts."

Blogger Jehu February 14, 2018 6:15 AM  

They are allergic, as is nearly all of current society, to the notions that men have rights as well as duties, and that women have duties as well as rights.
Any institution that does not accept and enforce both of those notions is doomed, especially if it is a voluntary one.

Blogger Gordon Scott February 14, 2018 6:20 AM  

As weak as it is, there is at least an acknowledgement that a two-parent hetero household is the best way to raise children. They've gone from "fish without a bicycle" to admitting that men might have a positive influence on children.

So they're not denying objective reality completely.

Anonymous Anonymous February 14, 2018 6:30 AM  

That's a lot of "musts" in that article.

As Lawrence Auster would say about tough-sounding but fundamentally pro-open borders neocon rhetoric (such as "immigrants must respect American norms") -- "or what?" he'd reply.

In other words, how do you propose enforcing all that tough-talk?

There is incoherence between the contemptuous attitude of "fetish for tolerance" and "must take into account the feminist critique".

So which one is it? And why must it be taken into account?

Like with Bush-era pro-immigration pieces that threw in some tough-sounding conservative noise to placate the reader, this is a feminist article wrapped in pretend-traditionalism.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 14, 2018 6:30 AM  

Andrea Dworkin (first of the Third Wave):The parent-child relationship is primarily erotic because all human
relationships are primarily erotic. The incest taboo is a particularized form of repression, one which functions as the bulwark of all other repressions. The incest taboo ensures that however free we become, we never become genuinely free. The incest taboo, because it denies us essential fulfillment with the parents whom we love with our primary energy, forces us to internalize those parents and constantly seek them…


Marion Zimmer Bradley was not an outlier, she was the beating heart of that movement.

Blogger Nate Winchester February 14, 2018 6:32 AM  

"In a democracy of two, one member must have the deciding vote." -CS Lewis.

Blogger The Messenjah February 14, 2018 6:37 AM  

"So they're not denying objective reality completely."

Bah, Hegelian dialectic

Blogger Looking Glass February 14, 2018 6:37 AM  

The system they use is actually quite fragile. The current one only works because Women have all of the legal leverage. When you can pick up a phone and have a Husband ejected from his family by Men with guns, you create all of the leverage for Women. This is why the "Conservatives" have to reject even the most basic of reproaches of Feminism, jumping through mental hoops to avoid that problem that would make a SJW blush.

The fragility is the key issue, though, with why pieces like this exist. The Herd understands the gyrations they have to go through to maintain the current system. It requires constant propaganda and they more violently control the narratives than even the Progressives do. It's something I've brought up a few times at Dalrock's and a few other places. When you actually subject the "System" to functional analysis, they have to keep inventing new mental & legal loops to prevent it from falling in on itself.

Since it'll come up: any American Man should never sign a Marriage License. Get "married" to a Woman that's of quality to be worth it, but never since that License. It's a de facto slave contract. However, most States have separate legal structures you can avail yourself of. Find a good lawyer and work it out. Money to the lawyer and the few hundred bucks to change your wife's last name by normal means are far & away worth the investment. It also works as a clear-cut line for a potential bride. If she isn't willing to sign on the dotted line, you can next her and move on. (There's actually potential tax benefits with this approach, along with other accounting tricks. Main thing is having children assigned to full custody to the Husband after they're born. More paperwork, but that's the major leverage point.)

It's doable if the Woman is worth the trouble, but it takes rejecting the current World to do it. Funny, that?

Anonymous Anonymous February 14, 2018 6:40 AM  

The wife and I agreed long ago that there is no marriage as we knew it after the "quickie divorce" became legal.

The legal part of "marriage" is no longer binding and most people do not see marriage as a sacrament that comes with oaths to God that are binding. In 43 years of marriage there have been a couple of rough spots that might have gone badly if we both did not believe we were bound by God to stay together.

The lack of real Christianity plays a part in this issue also.

Feminism is evil and a lie. My Grandmother was not subservient to my Grandfather. They were lifelong partners and he listened to her opinions. (perhaps he did not follow her opinions as much as a modern feminist would like)

Marriage, like Western Civilization, is badly broken. I don't know if it can be fixed.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 14, 2018 6:44 AM  

Any return to marriage norms, however, must take into account the feminist critique. Two generations ago, wives were often subordinate to their husbands or blindly deferred to them.

Yeah, that would be the Fifties. American family life really sucked then.

Blogger Resident Moron™ February 14, 2018 6:58 AM  

You can’t fix marriage without first fixing the people getting married.

You can’t fix the people getting married without first fixing the culture that produced them.

The most successful culture in human history is western civilization. The decline of marriage is a symptom of the decline of western civilization.

It's like watching a doctor trying to make the patient feel as comfortable as possible while refusing to give him the medicine that will cure him.

Western civilization is now on palliative care, labeled “not for resuscitation”. Dr Kervokian is coming and his syringe is loaded with 50mg of cultural morphine.

Do not go gentle into that good night ...

Blogger The Cooler February 14, 2018 7:17 AM  

My Grandmother was not subservient to my Grandfather.

My grandmother would not infrequently comment on how much power women gave up by leaving the home.

If you ever want to see cognitive dissonance so stalwart, so powerful as to bring a living, breathing human female to an absolutely grinding halt, try saying women gave up power by leaving the home to a 3rd+ waver.

Good times.

Blogger The Cooler February 14, 2018 7:19 AM  

My Grandmother was not subservient to my Grandfather.

My grandmother would not infrequently comment on how much power women gave up by leaving the home.

If you ever want to see cognitive dissonance so stalwart, so powerful as to bring a living, breathing human female to an absolutely grinding halt, try saying women gave up power by leaving the home to a 3rd+ waver.

Good times.

Blogger Iowahine February 14, 2018 7:33 AM  

FrontPage article by Mallory Millett, sister to one of NOW's founders, states NOW's intents quite starkly: destroy family.

Sorry; don't know how to link:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/240037/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives-mallory-millett?utm_content=buffer489ab&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Blogger Not a lefty February 14, 2018 7:42 AM  

"It's really rather striking the way that so many observers are concerned about the symptoms while determinedly clinging to the disease."

One could say they are "bitterly clinging" to feminism.

Blogger Duke Norfolk February 14, 2018 7:44 AM  

Cataline Sergius wrote:Yeah, that would be the Fifties. American family life really sucked then.

The next year Jane (pictured) started reading Cosmo (or some other similar tripe) and it all went down hill from there.

I came along a bit later ('63) but I know that one. My mother drank of that evil kool-aid and other lefty tripe and just had to go out and join a culty quasi-Christian commune and save the third world; all at the expense of her children who she pawned off on others to raise (not entirely, but for the most part). And my father was a big pussy who got completely rolled.

Yeah, I'm bitter. Funny thing is my brothers totally went Stockholm syndrome on the whole thing and live in denial about what a shit show it was.

Blogger Timmy3 February 14, 2018 7:45 AM  

Feminism must be compartmentalized since it just doesn’t work in marriage.

Blogger Rabbi B February 14, 2018 7:55 AM  

Marriage is God's idea and was established by Him. People need to foster a commitment to marriage as he designed it, COME WHAT MAY.

Subordinating one's will to the will of another is anathema in this culture. And yet, not even God Himself came to be served but to serve, while later offering up these words of prayer, "Not My will be done, but Your will be done."

Marriage is a reflection His relationship with mankind. Is it any wonder it is under relentless assault from every quarter imaginable and unimaginable?

Blogger pyrrhus February 14, 2018 8:09 AM  

Marriage is also essential to longer term happiness for most people, a fact that needs to be stressed...

Blogger CarpeOro February 14, 2018 8:13 AM  

"The problem, of course, is that these conventions run afoul of our modern fetish for “tolerance.” Marriage and the family are now seen as a private realm where nothing—government, the community, even the private opinions of fellow citizens—should be allowed to pass judgment, let alone intervene."

Not sure what drugs he is taking but it must be a pretty hefty dosage, because the root cause of the issue is government intervention in marriage. Not haaaaappy? Government will replace your hubby - oh and make sure you keep your fair share of everything (fair being the bulk). Family Services.... the list goes on. It is a case of "it takes the village idiot" to raise a child, not too much hands off.

Blogger pyrrhus February 14, 2018 8:14 AM  

@15 Why do you think that most people (in my informal polls) would rather return to living in the '50s or early '60s?

Anonymous Anonymous February 14, 2018 8:16 AM  

- End no-fault divorce : the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. Allow the women to end the marriage contract, but she gets no alimony, no splitting of assets and father keeps the children. That will put a serious dent in divorce.

- End welfare for single mothers. That will put a serious dent in single-motherhood. It's this financial release valve that allows the phenomenon. Without welfare, single-moms would be forced to find mates and trade sex for resources, and willing enter into the marriage contract. (Instead of holding up single mother's as heroes).

We could put a serious dent in the marriage problem with those two reforms. Notice that TWS offers no actual reforms, just chides society and offers harmless and wistful advice.

Blogger VD February 14, 2018 8:27 AM  

Why do you think that most people (in my informal polls) would rather return to living in the '50s or early '60s?

A population with 85 percent white people. If Americans wanted to live in Mexico or Liberia or Israel, they would have moved there. Instead, it moved in next door. And increasingly, it makes the rules by which they have to live.

Blogger marco moltisanti February 14, 2018 8:34 AM  

"Any return to marriage norms, however, must take into account the feminist critique."

Had to resist laughing hysterically at that part because I'm on the bus to work. Closest I've come to literally ROTFL in a long time though.

Blogger Sillon Bono February 14, 2018 8:37 AM  

They want to have their cake and eat it.

Sure, that's going to work.

Blogger marco moltisanti February 14, 2018 8:43 AM  

Nice idea in theory about never signing the marriage license, but you are aware of common law marriage and paternity laws, aren't you?I once found out I'd been unknowingly married to a Ukrainian girl for years due to the former (common law apparently takes effect after three months in Ukraine).

Anonymous Anonymous February 14, 2018 8:54 AM  

"To restore marriage, people must again observe the two main conventions that used to support the institution. First, adults should not form intimate ties for very long without committing themselves in some formal way to remain together for life. That implies not having affairs and not divorcing except in unusual circumstances. Second, children should be born and brought up within marriage, meaning with parents in a committed relationship, rather than with single parents."

Regarding his view on divorce how about you don't divorce, period? Even if your spouse is a beater, separate. With regards to single parenting (unless it's confirmed the person is a widow), what about slut shaming?

"Any return to marriage norms, however, must take into account the feminist critique. Two generations ago, wives were often subordinate to their husbands or blindly deferred to them. Most advocates of marriage today recognize that the institution can be rebuilt only if it is done so on more egalitarian lines. Husbands and wives must be partners, without either ruling over the other. This does assume, however, that the spouses can work out differences more openly than they often did in the past."

Here we go with "mutual submission" etc. Ephesians 5: 21 is pretty clear on this one. Wives be subordinate to your husbands and husbands love your wife like Christ loves the Church (rough paraphrase).

"Any return to marriage norms will require rejecting feminism entirely."

Bingo! On that note, where oh where did feminism come from? Oh that's right, Lenin!

The Cooler wrote:My Grandmother was not subservient to my Grandfather.

My grandmother would not infrequently comment on how much power women gave up by leaving the home.

If you ever want to see cognitive dissonance so stalwart, so powerful as to bring a living, breathing human female to an absolutely grinding halt, try saying women gave up power by leaving the home to a 3rd+ waver.

Good times.


@17 I WILL have to use that. Thanks!

Anonymous Anonymous February 14, 2018 8:55 AM  

Duke Norfolk wrote:Cataline Sergius wrote:Yeah, that would be the Fifties. American family life really sucked then.

The next year Jane (pictured) started reading Cosmo (or some other similar tripe) and it all went down hill from there.

I came along a bit later ('63) but I know that one. My mother drank of that evil kool-aid and other lefty tripe and just had to go out and join a culty quasi-Christian commune and save the third world; all at the expense of her children who she pawned off on others to raise (not entirely, but for the most part). And my father was a big pussy who got completely rolled.

Yeah, I'm bitter. Funny thing is my brothers totally went Stockholm syndrome on the whole thing and live in denial about what a shit show it was.


@20 That's too bad about your mom. That sucks.

VD wrote:Why do you think that most people (in my informal polls) would rather return to living in the '50s or early '60s?

A population with 85 percent white people. If Americans wanted to live in Mexico or Liberia or Israel, they would have moved there. Instead, it moved in next door. And increasingly, it makes the rules by which they have to live.


@26 Exactly. I always tell people which shocks them, given my excellent Spanish and ok Mandarin, that I favor reduced immigration. Since that may seem to fly over their heads, I'll just start saying if I wanted to live in Mexico or any of Spain's former colonies or China I'd move there.

marco moltisanti wrote:Nice idea in theory about never signing the marriage license, but you are aware of common law marriage and paternity laws, aren't you?I once found out I'd been unknowingly married to a Ukrainian girl for years due to the former (common law apparently takes effect after three months in Ukraine).

@29 Does that apply to Ukrainian churches Stateside?

Blogger Steve February 14, 2018 8:55 AM  

Husbands and wives must be partners, without either ruling over the other.

Go ahead, name a country that doesn't have two presidents. A boat that sets sail without two captains. Where would Catholicism be without the popes?

Blogger McChuck February 14, 2018 8:57 AM  

And that's why the communists were the first feminists. It's almost like they're related.

Blogger tz February 14, 2018 9:00 AM  

I've been advocating for the God Emperor, or his prince Pence propose a Federal "Covenant Marriage" law so couples could voluntarily enter into a binding agreement where it would return to the pre-no-fault requirements for divorce, having to show abuse (felony battery, not harsh words), abandonment (filing for a civil divorce included), or adultery. The aggrieved spouse gets everything including alimony. There might be a "mutual agreement" escape but it should be difficult and only apply after a year or two.

Or as I've put it elsewhere, why should marriages be easier to get out of than student loan debt.

Beyond that, the error of feminism is listening to the serpent "you shall surely not die". When you see a fence, it may be there to keep bad things out, not keep you in. But they threw down the fence, so Fathers don't protect daughters, who go out looking for Mr. Goodbar, but find themselves in a series of Mr. Badboys, and ultimately can't find a husband or regrets it when they do when they get the baby rabies. The sex is consensual, but unwanted or regretted, leading to #MeToo. The actual sex drive might be lower in women, but the emotional needs are higher.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 14, 2018 9:25 AM  

Feminism is now down to sadists trying to convince other women to engage in bad breeding so their offspring are not competitors to the feminist propagandists' children.

A woman's life is the hierarchy and if she climbs, remains stationary or heaven forbid falls down the hierarchy, feminism is just the call for other women to cut their hair off.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 14, 2018 9:39 AM  

"It's this financial release valve that allows the phenomenon."

Ding!

As brutal as it sounds, chosen single motherhood needs to be the next the next best thing to a fatal mistake in the most optimal circumstances.

"It's this financial release valve that allows the phenomenon."

Indeed. Unfortunately the problem can't be sidestepped by such a simple clever fix. Prenups aren't going to get you anywhere either, seeing as courts have a tendency to treat them like enthusiastic consent.

"The woman didn't know what she was doing, you can't hold her to these terms!" *Cue facepalm.* This is exactly why the woman didn't have any say in the matter in the first place for so much of history in so many places. If you want to argue that she's not responsible, then she's not responsible, and she doesn't get any rights to be responsible with.

Anonymous Anonymous February 14, 2018 9:45 AM  

Sott.net just had two articles on this very subject

https://www.sott.net/article/377196-The-destructive-radical-feminist-legacy-of-Kate-Millett

https://www.sott.net/article/377111-How-radical-feminism-ruined-lives

Both worth reading.

Blogger Anchorman February 14, 2018 9:46 AM  

Weekly Standard also wants marriage to return the option for divorce for "unusual circumstances."

Keep feminism and divorce for any reason.

Yumpin yimminy. It is sad they think this is a winning strategy.

Blogger tuberman February 14, 2018 9:53 AM  

Feminism = war of everyone against everyone, after destruction of family. Prime target for culture wars. THANKS!

Blogger dvdivx February 14, 2018 9:54 AM  

"Destroying marriage was, and is, one of the primary goals of feminism."

I'd say thats wrong. Destroying Christianity and especially white christian marriage was the primary goal. Feminists seem to capitulate readily to Islam. Its a movement about white old skanks, fat lesbians and the tribe. None of them win in the long run due to their very poor choice of allies.

Blogger VD February 14, 2018 10:03 AM  

I'd say thats wrong.


You're both ignorant and incorrect. What the feminists have been saying and writing for over 100 years trumps your opinion on the matter.

Blogger Akulkis February 14, 2018 10:05 AM  

(((Communism))), (((feminism))), Weekly Standard = (((William Kristol)))

Any questions?

Blogger The Observer February 14, 2018 10:12 AM  

When you leave religion out of it (I know, I know), marriage is at its heart forcing both men and women into a cooperate-cooperate equilibrium for the raising of children. The man's defect option of abandonment is removed, and so is the woman's defect option of cuckoldry. The other reason for marriage is simply to cement alliances between families.

Eros was not, and should never be, the premise of the institution. It can certainly help in its proper place and often comes eventually with the package, but it shouldn't be the reason. Once you do that, blowing things up just because one's "unhappy" or "doesn't feel loved anymore" is a perfectly valid thing. After all, the sexual thrill is gone, so there's no reason for it anymore, i there?

Today, the state still enforces the prohibition of abandonment, but closes its eyes to cuckoldry.

Blogger c0pperheaded February 14, 2018 10:13 AM  

"Any return to marriage norms will require rejecting feminism entirely."

I am not even a good dad, but my boys are going to have it so much better than I did. This is such an easy lesson to teach my boys that I wish someone would've taught me. Could've saved me a lot of time and trouble.

Blogger dvdivx February 14, 2018 10:19 AM  

Feminism and Marxism have always been anti-christian. Yes that is part of history and pretty much the entire history of both movements. I have yet to see feminists lashing out against Islam.

Blogger Patrick Kelly February 14, 2018 10:47 AM  

"where nothing—government, the community, even the private opinions of fellow citizens—should be allowed to pass judgment, let alone intervene."

Except to force a man to move out of his home, give a woman money and stay away from his children. You get hella' intervening then.

Blogger The Remnant February 14, 2018 10:56 AM  

It's a stunning paradox of modern times that we are not allowed to criticize people for their sexual excess, but at the same time we are compelled to subsidize it.

Blogger VD February 14, 2018 10:57 AM  

Feminism and Marxism have always been anti-christian. Yes that is part of history and pretty much the entire history of both movements. I have yet to see feminists lashing out against Islam.

You're still wrong. Stop doubling down and rationalizing. They are anti-Christian. But they are anti-family first and foremost.

You've never read their writers. I have. So stop trying to correct me out of ignorance.

Blogger Dire Badger February 14, 2018 11:09 AM  

"Husbands and wives must be partners, without either ruling over the other."

This is actually completely wrong. Moloch literally has the easiest job in hell.

Let's put it this way.

A society decides slavery is evil.
The first slavery they notice is wives serving and obeying husbands.
they 'free' women.
Within a generation, EVERY TIME, these free and empowered women start murdering their babies... Every time. And every society that murders their own babies crashes and burns... every time.

So, if you want a civilization that works and doesn't murder babies, Husbands have to have absolute responsibility and power over their wives... and there has to be harsh social and possibly even criminal consequences for any woman that violates this bond.

Because they LOVE sacrificing babies to Moloch.

Blogger The Cooler February 14, 2018 11:10 AM  

@30 I WILL have to use that. Thanks!

Take this with you:

Blessings on the hand of women!
Angels guard its strength and grace.
In the palace, cottage, hovel,
Oh, no matter where the place;
Would that never storms assailed it,
Rainbows ever gently curled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Infancy's the tender fountain,
Power may with beauty flow,
Mothers first to guide the streamlets,
From them souls unresting grow —
Grow on for the good or evil,
Sunshine streamed or evil hurled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Woman, how divine your mission,
Here upon our natal sod;
Keep – oh, keep the young heart open
Always to the breath of God!
All true trophies of the ages
Are from mother-love impearled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Blessings on the hand of women!
Fathers, sons, and daughters cry,
And the sacred song is mingled
With the worship in the sky —
Mingles where no tempest darkens,
Rainbows evermore are hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.


(William Ross Wallace)

Blogger The Cooler February 14, 2018 11:10 AM  

@30 I WILL have to use that. Thanks!

Take this with you:

Blessings on the hand of women!
Angels guard its strength and grace.
In the palace, cottage, hovel,
Oh, no matter where the place;
Would that never storms assailed it,
Rainbows ever gently curled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Infancy's the tender fountain,
Power may with beauty flow,
Mothers first to guide the streamlets,
From them souls unresting grow —
Grow on for the good or evil,
Sunshine streamed or evil hurled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Woman, how divine your mission,
Here upon our natal sod;
Keep – oh, keep the young heart open
Always to the breath of God!
All true trophies of the ages
Are from mother-love impearled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Blessings on the hand of women!
Fathers, sons, and daughters cry,
And the sacred song is mingled
With the worship in the sky —
Mingles where no tempest darkens,
Rainbows evermore are hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.


(William Ross Wallace)

Blogger Dire Badger February 14, 2018 11:27 AM  

Feminism has ALWAYS been about inflating the rank of the feminists themselves without them having to do any of that icky 'producing value' or 'meritocracy' stuff. Not even the value of an attractive figure or feminine demeanor.

As such, the first goal is to reduce any strongholds of female meritocracy, where actual production and value take place, starting with the family.

And they just keep pushing each other saying, "This time, we can finally make men prefer ugly, fat, vicious women like us!"

Blogger marco moltisanti February 14, 2018 11:42 AM  

"Does that apply to Ukrainian churches Stateside?"

Not a church thing, a civil law thing in Ukraine.

Blogger Akulkis February 14, 2018 12:01 PM  

The state only prohibits abandonment whenen do it. When women abandon their families, they suffer no legal consequences.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 14, 2018 12:27 PM  

marco moltisanti wrote:... you are aware of common law marriage and paternity laws, aren't you?I

I believe that most US states have abolished common law marriages. Child support is still an issue in every state, though.

Blogger Lance E February 14, 2018 12:28 PM  

Another Conservative preaching to his flock about how much nicer the world would be if only everyone outside the flock were as moral and upstanding as they were. If only the whole world were just like us!

They really are a lot like progressives in that respect. No concept of institutions, systems, incentives, culture, human nature... anything tangible at all. Just a nebulous bogeyman ("tolerance") that's causing all the problems.

You know you're reading from a bowtie-con when there's a "should" in every paragraph.

Blogger DonReynolds February 14, 2018 12:46 PM  

We may never know who wrote this dribble, but having sniffed it a few times, my nose detects a female member of the clergy....either Catholic or Episcopalian. Since the Catholics have not started to ordain women into the priesthood, that narrows it down pretty fast. (Presbyterian would be my third choice, but in that case she would be more likely to be talking about same-sex marriage, i.e. lesbian marriage.)

In the US, only 15 percent of young men under 30 are married...which is a huge sea-change from the forty-someodd years ago when I was in that cohort.

The feminists in the Family Courts, including many of the judges, the feminist attorneys, the avenging angels in Child Protective Services, the feminist Dickless Traceys on the police departments, and the feminist social workers have all worked tirelessly to make marriage as difficult as possible for men for several decades. Apparently, the young men have gotten the message, probably from seeing their male relatives and friends broken on the wheel of feminist justice and want nothing to do with it.

With the lure of puss, this might have worked to force men to accept the new reality. But men are slow learners and are keen on pain avoidance. Love is not the only consideration. Women are the ones with the biological clock ticking in their belly, so THEY are the ones to cross the picket line.

If they cannot have all that they were promised....the white dress and wedding event, the ring, the husband and provider, two perfectly normal above-average children, home life and regular sex....they seem to be willing to settle for what they can get, which is a gamer sperm donor, a share of his marijuana, tattoos, EBT card, Medicaid account, and Section 8 housing. The crummy neighborhood is all part of the deal.

Oh yeah....Happy Valentines Day.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 14, 2018 1:02 PM  

Cucks gonna cuck.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 14, 2018 1:06 PM  

"have all worked tirelessly to make marriage as difficult as possible for men for several decades"

Also by ruining the young women's attitudes and making them less interested in marriage themselves. One huge reason, of course, is the unspoken convention among employers to quickly hire young women while making men (especially white men) jump through a 463-bullet point checklist.

Blogger Dire Badger February 14, 2018 1:07 PM  

" Women are the ones with the biological clock ticking in their belly, so THEY are the ones to cross the picket line."

SJW's always double down. Women are the original SJWs.
Not going to happen. What IS going to happen is that men are going to take back the privileges they have given women. Or they are going to Die and whatever people replace us won't give their women 'freedom' (and doom themselves) for at least a couple of generations.

So, our best bet is on convincing people that women are not human. Or converting to islam. If your are christian, and want to stay that way, you need to fight a lot harder.

Blogger DonReynolds February 14, 2018 1:08 PM  

@34 tz

"Or as I've put it elsewhere, why should marriages be easier to get out of than student loan debt."

There are four things that should be much more difficult to obtain in the first place...a marriage license, a drivers license, a checking account, and a voter registration card. If I had to have a fifth thing much too easy to obtain, it would be military enlistment. If these things were more difficult to obtain, then people would be more reluctant to trash them and walk away. Yes, I agree completely.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 14, 2018 1:47 PM  

Dire Badger wrote:So, our best bet is on convincing people that women are not human. Or converting to islam.

Number two is just a special case of number one, right?

Anonymous Anonymous February 14, 2018 2:17 PM  

The abject blindness of the whole "feminist" movement amazes me. They obviously don't realize it, but they will be the authors of their own destruction.Should they succeed in destroying the Western cultures the world will be dominated by Islam and other such ilk that could not give two damns about how women feel about things. They will (and do) dominate women completely and ruthlessly.

Blogger James Dixon February 14, 2018 3:04 PM  

> In 43 years of marriage there have been a couple of rough spots that might have gone badly if we both did not believe we were bound by God to stay together.

The old Jack Benny line seems apropos: "My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce; murder, yes, but divorce, never."

At one time most people actually felt that way. Some of us still do. We're up to 28 years and counting.

Anonymous Anonymous February 14, 2018 3:28 PM  

@ James Dixon

Thanks. I had forgotten that old line. Love it. I tweeted it out just now so others can see it. :-)

As an aside, there are few funny comics left. All the late night men do is attack the right-wing and call that humor.

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club February 14, 2018 4:01 PM  

Husbands and wives must be partners, without either ruling over the other

"The hierarchical model of social interaction that is so basic it even applies to insects must be overthrown! Everybody's just not wishing it away hard enough!"

Blogger kurt9 February 14, 2018 5:00 PM  

Marriage is necessary for having and raising kids. Marriage many not be necessary for those who do not want kids. Many proponents of marriage seem to ignore this last point.

Blogger peppermint88 February 14, 2018 5:29 PM  

The parent-child relationship is primarily erotic

It is the telos of the erotic. This telos sneaks back in to erotic acts that ostensibly deny it, as when gay men talk of breeding their strain of HIV, or the song "I gave you a UTI".

because all human
relationships are primarily erotic.


This is what single women and faggots actually believe.

because it denies us essential fulfillment with the parents whom we love with our primary energy, forces us to internalize those parents

Parents are already internal to our DNA and every organelle. There can be no greater intimacy.

Pairbonding for life occurs between penguins, and Whites from the beginning of recorded history until around 50 years ago. With the loss of pairbonding for life, we have also lost social trust and table manners.

Blogger peppermint88 February 14, 2018 5:30 PM  

If you want to know what women really think about having a man to tell them what to do, don't look at the respectable whaargarbl they repost on Facebook, look at the porn they repost on Tumblr.

Blogger The Observer February 14, 2018 6:31 PM  

So, our best bet is on convincing people that women are not human.

That's not strictly necessary. Remember, this assumes that humans are all equal, for example, that they all have moral agency.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 14, 2018 11:08 PM  

"our best bet is on convincing people that women are not human"

Easier and more honest to say that they're not adults in the way that men are.

Can they be adults? Certainly, but they can't be men, even in the psychological or social aspects.

Blogger L. Jagi Lamplighter Wright February 14, 2018 11:20 PM  

John and I keep talking about: Giving up being home with your kids for a career is one thing. Maybe it's worth it.

But giving up all that...for a job?

A job that probably sucks?

What a horrible bill of goods we gals have all been sold.

Blogger L. Jagi Lamplighter Wright February 14, 2018 11:25 PM  

> What IS going to happen is that men are going to take back the privileges they have given women.

I don't think that will work. Modern men have been raised to be so weak--rabbity, as you guys call it.

What is needed is for women to wake up and realize how much this gig sucks, how we were tricked and brain-washed...

And willingly step back into our proper roles as wives and mothers.

A friend of mine once confided to me how she learned to cede certain decision-making to her husband, so that he grew into his proper role. Enough of that and we can raise some boys who understand what a proper man is like.

Blogger Dire Badger February 14, 2018 11:47 PM  

"What is needed is for women to wake up and realize how much this gig sucks, how we were tricked and brain-washed..."

Not going to happen. Maybe on an individual basis, but en masse? Women NEVER take personal responsibility. They cannot 'wake up to reality' because reality hates them... They are designed to let men interface with reality FOR them. They are not made that way, for very good reasons.

No. There is only one choice. Women are property. Any time this paradigm is disrupted by weak and pathetic men, they destroy everything... Free women are Shiva the Destroyer, They are Kali, they are Lilith and Eve and Delilah. They hate themselves, they hate their 'freedom', they hate the men that failed to keep them in line, they hate their children, and the society that was foolish enough to give them the freedom they despise so much.
They are the force that drives human evolution, by destroying the men who become too weak to keep them in their place, that become too soft to enslave them, that become too nice to kill to possess them.

No, women can no more change themselves than they can wish away reality. Men are the active principal. We are left with only two choices. We put you in your place or you replace us with men that will.

This is our fight. stop trying to pretend that you are anything other than loot. ESPECIALLY stop lying to yourselves and pretending that you'd have it any other way.

Blogger James Dixon February 14, 2018 11:48 PM  

> A friend of mine once confided to me how she learned to cede certain decision-making to her husband,

As usual, they get it completely wrong. Marriage has always been a partnership between the husband and the wife. But the areas of authority were different. It's somewhat of a simplification, but in general the old code was that internal affairs of the household were the wife's domain and external affairs were the husband's. Thus, to all outside observers the husband ran things. But in fact in most day to day matters within the household the wife had more say.

Blogger Damaris Tighe February 15, 2018 3:49 AM  

my view is that feminism was actually strangled at birth by cultural marxism.

many women find the official feminists so cringingly embarrassing that they reject the label. support for third wave feminism among women is heading down to ten percent among Englishwomen.

if feminists were concerned about women
they would act against little children being gelded and engage with the most important question of how the family and the relations between the sexes can be remediated.

that said, the 'make me a sandwich' guys should consider whether they deserve a sandwich.

- it's not e.e.cummings, my keyboard's stuffed.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts