Ten changes that need to happen in order to promote society-wide traditional sex roles.

The only way that it is safe for women to engage in traditional sex roles – keeping the home, nurturing the young, caring for the old, ministering to the sick and the poor – is if they can depend on the support of a husband and kin network.  And the only way it is safe for men to engage in traditional sex roles – providing for and protecting women and children – is if their investment in their families is protected from destruction and theft by corporations, governments, and the women themselves.

Egalitarian sex roles inhibit family formation; traditional sex roles enhance family formation.  Yet our current legal and social environments are set up to promote artificial egalitarianism.   In order to make it workable for men to lead, provide, and protect so that women can return to their traditional feminine sex roles of childbearing, nurturing and care-giving, here is what I believe needs to happen, in no particular order:

1. Repeal all affirmative action laws and policies.

Why: Affirmative action sets up fake egalitarianism based on the assumption that, if women are not present in a given field or earning as much money as men, it must be due to discrimination, when in fact it is due to women’s preferences and innate abilities, which are distinctly different from men’s.  Promoting less-capable women inhibits men’s ability to earn sufficient income to support a family.

2. Eliminate over-reaching domestic abuse legislation.  There should also be no more relying on a woman’s word; rather, there should be clear cut evidence of physical violence (black eye, bruise, cut, burn) before a man is arrested.

Why: Outside of cases of actual physical abuse, women mostly use these laws to rebel against male authority.  However, in order for men to protect their families and communities, they need the cooperation and obedience of the women under their protection.  Additionally, a man cannot lead a family if he has no authority over that family, including the authority to mete out discipline as needed for the purpose of maintaining an orderly home.  Refusing to buy a rebellious wife a new dishwasher is not abuse.  Telling your wife to quit being so bitchy is not abuse.  Restraining a wife who is trying to hit you is not abuse.  Losing your temper and yelling at your wife, though foolish, is also not abuse.

3. Repeal marital rape laws – not because men are just dying to rape women (they aren’t) but because these laws give women the mistaken impression that they have the right to refuse sex with their husbands.

Why: If we want men to have to marry in order to have access to sex – which is necessary if we are going to foster traditional sex roles and enhance family formation – they must have assurance that they will actually get sex after they marry.  If a woman wants to live in a man’s house and eat of his bread, she had better be willing to serve him in this way (barring illness of course); if she refuses to give it to him, he should have the option to take what is rightfully his.

4. Make fornication and adultery illegal and punishable offenses.

Why: In order to build a healthy society based on traditional sex roles, we have to lay out a foundation of incentives and disincentives – rewards and punishments.  The cheaters have to be punished if you are going to make cheating unattractive enough to keep people from doing it.

5. Remove women from the military, police, and all other first-responder positions.

Why: Protecting the tribe is a male sex role.  Not only are women bad at these jobs, but it is demoralizing to men to have to deal with women in this capacity.  It also puts an extra burden on the woman’s male colleagues, who will have a natural desire to protect her.

6. Outlaw divorce or make make divorce extremely difficult to obtain, available only in cases of long-term abandonment or severe physical abuse.

Why: Divorce is the destruction of the family.  Presently women file for the majority of divorces because they have a financial incentive to do so in the form of alimony and child support, but even if we removed these incentives, divorce would still be the destruction of the family.  The entire reason to promote traditional sex roles is to encourage family formation, and anything that leads to family destruction should be seriously curtailed.

7. End all forms of welfare immediately.  Kin should take care of kin. Community- and church-based charity will take care of those who are in need of assistance but do not have family to rely on.

Why: Welfare represents resource redistribution primarily from men to women, making men collectively responsible for women over whom they have no authority.  This gives women the mistaken belief that they are somehow able to be “independent” of men; the result is that women eschew their natural sex roles.

8. Decriminalize polygyny, by which I mean make it not illegal for men to be legally married to more than one woman.*

Why: This will be beneficial because a wife who is not living up to her traditional feminine duties will soon find herself having to share her husband’s resources with another woman.  Most men won’t want the hassle of supporting two wives if they’re getting what they want and need from one wife, so women will have an incentive to provide what their husbands want and need.  This would also improve the quality of men, who would have to compete with one another for access to wives.

*[This (probably) violates tenets of the Christian faith, but that  is irrelevant since no man will be forced to have more than one wife, only allowed to have more than one wife.  Christian men can simply choose to follow their faith on this matter.]

9. Allow for sex segregation in both the public and private spheres.  Allow boys and girls to be educated separately and allow all-male and all-female social and work spaces to exist for those who desire them.

Why: It is very difficult for men and women not to have spaces where they interact with other members of their own sex without having to worry about how they are being viewed by the opposite sex.   In particular, all-male spaces seem to be important for the development of masculinity.  Furthermore, women who spend a great deal of time around men tend to become unfeminine in behavior.

10. Repeal the Nineteenth amendment.  Do not permit women to vote at the national or state level; permit land-owning female heads of household to vote at the local level.

Why: Women tend to vote for the redistributionist policies that promote artificial egalitarianism and the abandonment of traditional sex roles.

These suggestions seem extreme to our modern liberal sensibilities, but consider this: it was only a couple of generations or so ago that all of these (except for decriminalized polygyny) were actually the law of the land.  It is not actually as remote in human history as it seems nor would it be impossible to return to these policies.  If we want to enhance family formation by returning to traditional sex roles, these are the ten major changes we would need to make as a society.

280 thoughts on “Ten changes that need to happen in order to promote society-wide traditional sex roles.

  1. theshadowedknight

    You made a serious mistake here, SSM. Legal marriage? No, not ever. The State should be specifically prohibited from any authority over marriage. Render to the State what belongs to it, but marriage was never granted to the State, nor to the Church. It is of God alone.

    Other than that, not bad.

    The Shadowed Knight

  2. Zippy

    I’ve made similar suggestions before, for example

    http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2008/05/tax_the_polluters.html

    http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2008/01/single_people_and_women_should_1.html

    [ssm: I really like the idea of paying fathers more money for equivalent work, but wouldn't that have the unintended result of companies preferentially hiring women and childless men in order to save money? Didn't it use to be the case that married men were hired preferentially over single men and women for just this reason?]

  3. TimberStJames

    Definitely no government involved in marriage. The only reason we signed paperwork was the tax benefit.

    In separate news, I suspect that Sunshine has finally finished derailing any political career with this post.

  4. Wild Man

    SSM if you decriminalize polygyny does that mean that a man may marry another man’s second wife, or just that he may marry more than one single woman at a time?

    @Theshadowedknight that is why the civil authorities must play a role in recognizing what marriage is versus what it is not – the church is powerless to enforce the contract otherwise.

    [ssm: It means a man may be married to more than one woman. Women of course would only be married to one man. Yes, that means some men might have no wives. Polygyny is not as wonderful for men as it seems at first blush. Steve Sailer has written about this a bit:

    Polygamy

    The Problem with Polygamy ]

  5. Farm Boy

    Kin should take care of kin.

    What if all of your kin are on welfare?

    “The peasants have no food? Let them eat sammiches”

  6. sunshinemary Post author

    @ TSK
    I don’t support “legal” marriage now because what currently is called legal marriage is simply not marriage. Gay “marriage” and no-fault divorce make this legal thing we are calling “legal marriage” categorically invalid, so we ought not to participate in that.

    However, I am not an anarchist. I believe the state (preferrably in a non-democratic form) has the right to govern certain aspects of our lives when it has a legitimate interest in that area. Family formation might be one of those areas.

    Having said all that, I’m not strongly wedded to the idea of state-based marriage provided the necessary social controls are in place. Marriage licenses didn’t used to be a thing that existed in this country, yet marriages were undoubtedly more stable then. I could go either way on state-based marriage, depending.

  7. Farm Boy

    These rules would really restrict the “fun” that young women can have. Thus fun appears to be the only thing that matters.

  8. Lady Virtue

    Excepting number 8, good list, SSM.

    Welcome back to blogging; your presence remains sorely needed.

  9. sunshinemary Post author

    Yeah, I went back and forth on #8, but I think there are reasons why it might benefit the development of traditional sex roles. I don’t know, though; maybe we should replace #8 with “Make artificial birth control and abortion illegal.”

  10. deti

    In my view, the only real legitimate area of state involvement in the family is to ensure children are not living in imminent, life-threatening danger. (Query whether the millions of kids living with single moms and divorced moms are in “imminent, life-threatening danger”.)

    To me, that really only means state involvement to enforce child support; and to prevent crimes known at the English common law. But, child support enforcement should be limited to cases of intentional refusal to support a child, not inability to pay for whatever reason. And, preventing crime means simply prevention of abuse, neglect and battery. Spanking is not battery. A parent’s imposition of discipline upon a child, including corporal punishment, is neither abuse nor battery.

    No legal marriage. No divorce except for her adultery, real violent physical abuse, and either’s abandonment. No “marital rape”. In cases of divorce, children remain with the father.

  11. Ton

    Paying a married man less then a snigle man for the same work? Paying higher taxes because your wife is a whore…..The state punishing folks for sex outside of marriage….

    Y’all are nucking futs or smoking the good kine. Maybe booth.

    [ssm: Ah, but we are concerned with what causes the creation of a stable, functional society, not What Makes Ton Feel Personally Fulfilled. It's hard to accept that other people don't much care about our personal preferences, isn't it.]

  12. sunshinemary Post author

    @TSJ

    I suspect that Sunshine has finally finished derailing any political career with this post.

    Ha! Since I don’t even support women voting, let alone running for political office, that’s no problem. In fact, you may have noticed that I’m not exactly democracy’s biggest advocate here…

  13. Lady Virtue

    SSM: “I went back and forth on #8, but I think there are reasons why it might benefit the development of traditional sex roles. I don’t know, though; maybe we should replace #8 with ‘Make artificial birth control and abortion illegal.’”

    I definitely couldn’t disagree with you on that as a replacement.

  14. Happyhen

    “maybe we should replace #8 with “Make artificial birth control and abortion illegal.””

    That’s a better idea as it benefits men, women, and all society. Polygyny is beneficial to women… and only a few prosperous men. Young men do not benefit from polygyny as we have seen manifest in countries and communities that practice it. The unwanted young men are abandoned or used as cannon fodder by the elder men who use their power, money, and influence to “remove” the sexual competition.

  15. Artisanal Toad

    Legal (read “licensed”) marriage is not required and cannot be required. Read Meister v Moore, the US Supreme Court case from 1877, if I recall correctly.

    The critical passage is this:

    such an enactment is a very different thing from a law requiring all marriages to be entered into in the presence of a magistrate or a clergyman, or that it be preceded by a license, or publication of banns, or be attested by witnesses. Such formal provisions may be construed as merely directory, instead of being treated as destructive of a common-law right to form the marriage relation by words of present assent.

    A marriage formed by “words of present assent” is a valid marriage and such a marriage can be controlled by a cohabitation contract. However, there’s nothing to stop a judge from declaring there was a putative marriage and exercising jurisdiction if it’s a monogamous marriage. As far as I can tell, the only way to avoid being identified as a marriage is to be something that cannot be a marriage, such as a polygynous arrangement.

    Your points #1, #4, #5 and nine #9 would require an amendment to the Constitution due to various Supreme Court rulings, along with (obviously) #10.

    As to your point #8, polygyny is not currently illegal if the marriages are not licensed because bigamy is almost universally the crime of being in a licensed marriage with two or more women at the same time. As the Supreme Court said in Meister, the law requiring a marriage license is merely directory.

  16. Ton

    SSM you know that is not the case. Don’t he silly, but think about those things. Sex outside of marriage was a stoning offense and it still happened. Think about the mission creep on that. A single man gets less pay for the same job/ out put) again think of the incentive that sets up. Pay extra money because a wrong was done to you…. Again think of the mission creep on that.

    And like I said woman. You damn well know better then to think I think like that.

    You simply want another system where individual men have no value/ lesser value unless he is harnessed like a mule to a woman.

    Thats what you and Zippy advocate. See how many young men sign up for that.

  17. Sir_Chancealot

    Bwahaha! Just wait until Jezebel/Huffpo get a hold of this!

    One more thing I would add: Mandatory paternity testing at birth. If the husband is not the father, he gets to divorce, keeps the kids and everything else, she gets nothing.

  18. Sir_Chancealot

    Oh, and I forgot to add: Everything on this list sounds good to me.

    And yes, men used to be paid more when they got married.

  19. sunshinemary Post author

    That’s a better idea as it benefits men, women, and all society. Polygyny is beneficial to women… and only a few prosperous men. Young men do not benefit from polygyny as we have seen manifest in countries and communities that practice it. The unwanted young men are abandoned or used as cannon fodder by the elder men who use their power, money, and influence to “remove” the sexual competition.

    That is true, but my point was this:

    Traditional sex roles –> family formation –> stable society

    I think legalized polygyny, though cruel to men in some ways and probably against Christian morality, does engender traditional sex roles. Now personally, I like monogamy, but it does seem like some men have a really, really hard time with monogamy. Why not allow them to marry more than one woman if they can provide for and protect more than one?

  20. freebird

    Nicely done,expect a lot of heat for writing this.

    The State has no business in private contracts,including marriage.

    One a couple wants to make a ‘civil union,’ (marriage 1.0) they have the option to make a civil contract registered with .gov for enforcement purposes,other than that,keep.gov out of running the family.

    Just as you say that removing the welfare system will be taken care of by community support,so it goes with divorced women and supposedly men,and also the handling of one;s own children,your property since you created it,.gov has no business interfering in your property there either.

    However this is all academic,the PTB will not ungrasp the clenched hand of power,money and control.

    Women like it that way as long as it benefits them,it will be some time yet before they are impinged upon directly themselves,they are worried now,but still not feeling the pain as the safety net is always there.

    (At the cost of men)

    That is why none of this talk can be allowed,any talk of men retaining the right to their won property and right of due process will lead to less benefits to women,men must be on the hook for all responsibilities and women must have all the rights.

    I will not say enjoy the decline,you seem a decent sort would simply wants a civil society in with which to raise her children,the satanic death cult known as feminism hates the nuclear family and promotes non-reproductive behaviors.

    What is the percentage of teen mother abortions these days?

    Surely they have the right to total sexual freedom without any responsibilities.

    The fact that the cost of this freedom is an erosion of the soul and spiritual center is exactly
    what the destroyers desire.

    Polygamy should not be a problem,the Old Testament has many examples.
    Matthew 5.1

  21. Artisanal Toad

    @SSM
    I have come to the conclusion that Biblically, polygyny was the ultimate threat to keep the rebellious wife in line. Actions have consequences, so a wife who decided to be a rebellious harpy could be subjected to the ultimate indignity: being replaced in the affections of her husband. Very, very publicly.

    Yes, some men (typically high-status) are capable of handling multiple wives, but women often object to the implied injustice of thinking they were getting a monogamous marriage that later turned into a polygynous marriage leaving wife #1 with the choice of stay and accept it or bail. I don’t see why the women who might appreciate such a situation can’t get together and form a pre-packaged harem in order to offer said high-status male an official version of what he will probably do anyway.

  22. Keoni Galt

    This is all well and good. While we may find disagreements on any one of these certain points, we can easily say that adopting any of these would certainly be an improvement over the current status quo.

    Here’s the real problem. For some reason, most people STILL believe in the system. They STILL think such reforms as this are possible, that the status quo is just something we’ve arrived at because liberal Democrats have won a few too many elections in the last century.

    The system is not broken. It’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. The rulers of our Brave New World Order have effected the current state of affairs quite deliberately.

    You want to “fix” this all? Nothing short of total, worldwide revolution would ever work.

    The banking system, the corporate mass media system, the federalized educational curriculum, the entire tax code, both political parties, and every branch of Government have ALL been infiltrated, subverted, co-opted and/or usurped to effect this current state of broken and/or dysfunctional marriages and families.

    There is no political party you can join or start, there is no candidate(s) nor movement you can support that will realize any of this.

    We can either join a mass uprising (not happening, too many people invested in the system, too many dependent on the system, and too many asleep and distracted by all the bread and circuses of our mass media driven culture), or simply go our own way, armed with the truth and consciously living your life accordingly.

  23. Bike Bubba

    Be careful with this, gracious hostess. What you’re recommending is implementing by law what has to happen in the hearts of men. Some specific thoughts.

    #2: domestic abuse law ought to be subject to the same standards of evidence as any other crime.

    #3; while Scriptures requires a woman to provide due comfort, that is not equivalent to saying it’s not a crime for a man to force his wife–Colossians 3:19 and 1 Peter 3:7 speak strongly to the brutal husband. Sorry, but Biblically speaking, there is such a thing as rape within marriage.

    #4: good luck with that one with courts that have legalized sodomy.

    #5: good luck with that. You’d be better to press for ONE physical fitness standard in these professions, which would achieve the same thing without overtly discriminating against women.

    #6; the spike in divorce predates no fault divorce. Restoring “may issue” divorce law, so to speak, would only make the divorce process more brutal, as New Yorkers would tell you. Hearts & minds, not law.

    #7: Good luck with that. Better to make the argument that–see “Detroit” as an example–welfare ain’t exactly helping people.

    #8: Every polygamous culture has been flat out brutal on both men and women. There is a reason Scripture prohibits polygamy to those who would become a deacon or elder, and there is a reason Scripture talks clearly about the disasters that accompany polygamy. There is therefore a very good reason to criminalize it. It’s barbarous.

    #9 & 10; again, clear place where we’ve got to change hearts and minds before laws.

  24. Janelle

    “6. Outlaw divorce or make make divorce extremely difficult to obtain, available only in cases of long-term abandonment or severe physical abuse.”

    Mild, or run of the mill physical abuse is OK?

    [ssm: Only significant physical violence is abuse. It shouldn't generally be necessary for a man to use mild physical dominance to maintain order in his home, but neither is it anyone else's business to tell him how to properly run his home. If there is some unusual situation where he needs to apply mild physical consequences, he should have that right.]

  25. Ton

    If you have heavy limits on divorce ( should be the case) polygamy is required to off set the lack of dread game. Otherwise women will not behave & they have to be compelled to do so. They have no better nature to appeal to

    Also, I worked for an outfit that paid marry men better, gave them better hours etc. The army. Created a good deal of bitterness. Which is not good for stability, but I am seeing more and more stable society is code for give me control of you.

    But lets but reality aside ( folks favorite past time around here) and say these things went into effect today. It would take two generations for things to set right. Maybe even longer

  26. Margery (The Woman)

    @Keoni Galt “We can either join a mass uprising (not happening, too many people invested in the system, too many dependent on the system, and too many asleep and distracted by all the bread and circuses of our mass media driven culture), or simply go our own way, armed with the truth and consciously living your life accordingly.”

    Agreed. Agreed to all of what you said. I can’t see how doubling down will help us in the long run. It will inevitably come back and bite us if we even manage to take it far enough to serve us to begin with.

  27. Happyhen

    “Why not allow them to marry more than one woman if they can provide for and protect more than one?”

    Without using traditional Christian teaching to address this, there is only the obvious and serious disadvantage to young, poor men and the detrimental effect on society. Using Christian teaching, the one flesh is just that, a physical representation of Christ and His one true Church… not his churches. I could easily justify divorce by this same reasoning. If a man can’t stay faithful to one wife, why not let him divorce her and get another? Both point to the sinfulness of man and his inability to control his passions. Both violate the sacrament and deny the one flesh. Salvation is a process not a moment. Theosis through the grace of the sacraments is a constant fight with passions and a constant reminder to obedience. The Church teaches 2 states for believers, Christian married and celibates who serve God. The control of the passions is an obligation REGARDLESS of our state. Marriage is not a license to fornicate… just sacramentally /wink wink. It is a Christian vocation. We recommit ourselves to Christ in the very act of marriage, all acts of marriage. Zippy has written on this much. Selfless obedience, even without understanding, yields humility. Control of passions should not be seen as an obstacle to go around but as yet another path to seeking the kingdom first.

  28. Keoni Galt

    …the spike in divorce predates no fault divorce.

    That happened when the presumption of child custody changed from Father’s to Mothers in the late 1800′s.

  29. Happyhen

    “I have come to the conclusion that Biblically, polygyny was the ultimate threat to keep the rebellious wife in line. Actions have consequences, so a wife who decided to be a rebellious harpy could be subjected to the ultimate indignity: being replaced in the affections of her husband. Very, very publicly.”

    In a polgynous society, it would simply be expected that the wealthy old man would get a new fertile pretty wife. There would be no humiliation.. there would also be no love so why does she care if a man she doesn’t love doesn’t visit her bed anymore? The only indignity was not having children. The older wife looked to her children as the object of giving and receiving love. The husband was a paycheck, security.

  30. Bike Bubba

    Keoni; actually, the spike in divorce occurred along with the sexual revolution in the 1960s, if I’m reading the data correctly. Very low in the 1930s (two can live as cheaply as one, it was the Depression), it spiked when soldiers came back from the war (marriages hastily contracted were hastily dissolved as people realized the man was different after he’d watched fellow soldiers die), dropped during the 1950s (social conformity), started to rise dramatically in the 1960s as people realized that externally imposed conformity is just no fun.

    Again, law is a poor substitute for winning hearts and minds. For that matter, so is the threat of polygyny, as Ann Eliza Denning (once a wife of Brigham Young) told the world. The Biblical remedy for a frigid wife is not found in a stick, forcing sex, or polygamy; it is found in Ephesians 5 and Matthew 18.

  31. Denise

    I was going to reply to the list, but realized that I’m not sure the premise is true–that such measures are required for it to be “safe” to be traditional. First, “traditional” in itself is not a moral ideal. But with respect to living out Christ’s commands, I don’t think we need society’s permission or necessarily its support. That is the purpose of the Christian witness–to shine a light in a dark place. It is Christians living the Gospel who are to lead the way, not the law.

    [ssm: All of what you say is true, but that is not what this post is about. The discussion is about how to create a society that is founded on traditional sex roles, given that such societies are the most stable. Now, a Christian theocracy would perhaps look rather different. But that is a separate discussion.]

  32. freebird

    There is no biblical case against polygamy.
    (not that I am for it)

    Many men in the bible had many wives *and* concubines.
    If you have a biblical case against polygamy go ahead and try to make it!

  33. freebird

    ” It is Christians living the Gospel who are to lead the way, not the law. ”

    Exactly what Christ said as they nailed him up on the cross,along with hundreds of other men.

  34. earl

    If you can support that many women…go for polygamy.

    But Solomon proved even the wisest of men can’t handle that many women. While it isn’t denonuced it isn’t necessarily a good idea.

  35. dcs

    Marital rape isn’t strictly rape (as that term refers to one’s taking of something that doesn’t belong to him), but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t wrong or that it shouldn’t be criminalized. By the way, you should make it clear that a man also has to render the marriage debt whenever his wife makes a reasonable request for it. This is the one area of marriage in which the subjection of the spouses is truly mutual.

    Also, #8 contradicts #6. Rather than divorcing my wife, I can simply get a younger one, then my original wife can sue for divorce on the grounds of abandonment.

  36. Artisanal Toad

    After thinking about it a bit more, while these points are all good ideas, they presume a population that would support such ideas. The US is so balkanized it no longer has cohesion, so I predict that the “societal reset” button will be a civil war in our case. In terms of the effect of the welfare system, the EBT card shutdown produced the first riots within 12 hours. Think about that: 12 hours. Imagine a derivatives collapse that caused a financial network shutdown (which could happen way easier than you might imagine). The US would have full-blown civil insurrection within a week and civil war within a month. Think Yugoslavia.

    Now consider that the nation’s food supply is transported around in trucks on a constant basis. Interrupt that flow of trucks and stores have no food within hours. How many OTR truckers will drive into a war zone, or down roads where they’re subjected to being shot so their truck can be looted? No way for law enforcement to use typical swarming tactics because they’d be stretched too thin. Stores would be looted and there wouldn’t be a single flash-point, every population center would be a flash-point.

    When people get hungry, they get crazy. Racial tension will boil over. If it happened in winter, I’d predict massive starvation in many areas as the food and fuel runs out. Population reduction on a massive scale as some can’t get enough food and starve and some fight over fewer and fewer available resources (with resultant casualties) to stay alive.

    All those combat vets now interspersed through the population? Well-armed and well organized criminal gangs? Hmmm… What about weaponry? The US has been manufacturing and selling over 2 million rifles and shotguns annually for the past several years and that doesn’t include numbers from 2012 and 2013 (BATF delays releasing the numbers). No figures on imports, but just on what’s being manufactured and sold in the US, we’re talking about sufficient weapons to arm a couple of infantry divisions every single day for the past several years. Every time Obama opened his mouth people went out and bought guns. The ammo shortage caused people to panic purchase ammo and keep purchasing it after it became available again. This population is now insanely well-armed and this place is simply a powder-keg waiting for the fuze to be lit.

    I don’t think anybody could realistically come up with casualty figures because nobody has ever seen the collapse of infrastructure in a nation so heavily dependent on that infrastructure. Those who live through it will certainly see the wisdom of all ten of your points, Mary, along with others just as conservative.

  37. Nathan

    This country, far from a reversal to sanity, is in a second sexual revolution. The homosexual sexual revolution. And homosexuality is the cultural result of feminism.
    If you thought obamacare would bee obama’s legacy you really bought the hype.
    Obamas legacy is gay marriage. Gays in the military. Gay equilism. Gay feminism

  38. Keoni Galt

    Toad, now you know why there is a raft of executive orders enabling the President to declare martial law and suspend the Constitution at the stroke of a pen.

    Now you know why military and police and National Guard units have all been training on establishing control in the event of civil unrest, and why FEMA camps have been established in all 50 States.

    All that you consider could very well happen. You are not the first to think on these things….

  39. Happyhen

    “We’ve had the Christian morality and polygyny debate quite a bit, and I think it’s pretty clear from those discussions that polygyny violates Christian theology. But this post is not about how to set up a theocracy, but rather how to create a society founded on traditional sex roles.”

    I got ya. And that is how I took it as well. Kind of a brainstorming list of how to fix what is broken. There are legit concerns concerning “a government big enough” to do such and such being totalitarian and repressive. It is interesting reading about the faithful in places where the government was just that. Being Orthodox, the stories from Russia are common, can at times be frightening, but also inspiring. One very common theme is that the government muckity muck who came to those monks to do the communists bidding was often, and I do NOT jest, a loud mouthed “educated” woman. Needless to say, those elderly and quite intelligent fathers did not suffer fools and more than a few of these women walked away in shocked horror. To have been a fly on the wall….

  40. Rhyneocerus

    I’m assuming this paradigm is post-collapse and most of the opposition is dead? And you are applying this to malleable, orphaned, teens? Just so we’re clear.

  41. hearthie

    I thought of this the other day – we need a social reward for being long-married once again. It USED to be a good thing to be a matron, and now it just means you’re too old to be on the market. Matron = uncool, past your prime, boring.

    It would be nice if we could go back to valuing the Prov 31 woman who runs a tight ship and has handmaidens carrying the packages instead of all wanting to be the handmaidens ’cause they look cuter in the sheer linen.

    Of course that would take a total reordering of society. But hey. It would increase motivation to stay married if there was a social reward for doing so.

    (Similar thought for the gents, but not being a gent, I won’t go there).

  42. Bike Bubba

    If you have a biblical case against polygamy go ahead and try to make it!

    As Samuel Clemens told the Mormons, Matthew 6:24. No man can serve two masters. Duh. Seriously, if you can’t find arguments against polygamy in the Scriptures, you aren’t looking. Try 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9 to start, and then ask yourself why the polygamists of the Old Testament had wives who were constantly fighting over the attention and preferences of their husband.

    Regarding the distinction of how to set up a society with traditional sex roles, versus Biblical warrant, it’s worth noting that polygamy has never been widespread among peaceful societies–the very process of “persuading” women to accept sharing a man (again, listen to the former Mrs. Young), and men to accept having no chance of marrying, is necessarily brutal.

    Our ancestors had some very good reasons for banning it, starting with the fact that polygamy has no place in any society you’d want to live in. To put it gently, most of us men would become cannon fodder in the Sheikh’s army or eunuchs tending his harem–and the women who would have been our wives would (see Esther 4:11) get to see their husband only on a very sporadic basis. For both men and women, keeping the H*** away from polygamists is good policy.

  43. Happyhen

    “But Solomon proved even the wisest of men can’t handle that many women. While it isn’t denonuced it isn’t necessarily a good idea.”

    “17 And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away;” Deut 17:17

  44. seriouslypleasedropit

    This could benefit from reading some Moldbug.

    It is all very well to write lists like these, but no one would ever go for them.

    To really get rid of welfare, you’d have to a) be rich, and b) you’d have to wait until things got so bad they were willing to sell their franchise. Then you make welfare convertible to a lump sum, pay the sum out to all eligible recipients, and end the program. You’ve eliminated welfare without causing mass starvation.

    Also, in what may seem hypocritical from an LDS guy, I strongly recommend against polygamy.

  45. Artisanal Toad

    @Keoni

    Yep, I’ve known about all that stuff for years. The problem is force projection and the lack of troops to project said force. All the executive orders and the logistics of concentration camps, that depends on either a functioning infrastructure or is simply looking forward at a cleanup afterward (after a majority of the population is dead). If the infrastructure is knocked out, and principally I’m talking about a financial network collapse, then it takes down everything else. When the plastic cards don’t work, the fuel doesn’t get pumped and the trucks come to a halt. The riots will start in the cities and martial law won’t contain them unless the supply chain could be brought up and running very, very quickly.

    Yes, others have thought about this as well, and you can’t tell me that the various US intelligence agencies and assorted think-tanks haven’t given this a great deal of consideration. In fact, anybody with a rational mind and a clear view should be able to see that US policy has been working toward putting all the pieces together to provide all the right conditions for a nasty genocidal civil war that will seriously cull the herd. Other countries have as well, consider this guy, seriously:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin

    Money Quote:

    In the summer of 1998, based on classified data about the state of the U.S. economy and society[17] supplied to him by fellow analysts at FAPSI,[2] Panarin forecast the probable disintegration of the USA into six parts in 2010 (at the end of June – start of July 2010, as he specified on 10 December 2008),[citation needed] following a civil war triggered by mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation

    He was working for Russia’s equivalent of the US’s NSA in 1998. Tom Chittum came back from the war in Bosnia and wrote a book in 1996 called “Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America” Another good resource to understand things in a general sense is “Reinventing Collapse” by Dmitry Orlov, which compares the collapse of the Soviet Union with the predictable collapse of the United States. His “5 Stages of Collapse” model is amazing.

  46. Martel

    I haven’t had time to read all the comments so these may have already been addressed.

    8 will lead to the complete dissolution of our society as lower-ranking males will have even less incentive to produce than they do now. Polygyny benefits women (who don’t mind being part of a harem all that much) and wealthy males ONLY. It’s like the formal legalization of the warped sexual market we’ve got now.

    4 will lead to massive abuses of power and state intevention into the minutae of our lives. You can bet your bottom dollar that high-status males will be getting just as much nookie as they do today, until the day they piss off the sherriff. Then they’ll be arrested.

    Of course the sherif’s best friend getting a little on the side will be A O K. More laws mean more power and therefore more opportunity for abuse. When the State sees a chance to increase and abuse its power, it’ll take it.

  47. Elspeth

    It would be nice if we could go back to valuing the Prov 31 woman who runs a tight ship and has handmaidens carrying the packages instead of all wanting to be the handmaidens ’cause they look cuter in the sheer linen.

    Yes, it would be nice wouldn’t it? And it certainly would go a long way to encourage women to stay married because it is an honorable thing. Instead we cheer and applaud people who have the “strength” to make the “hard choice” to do what is “required” to live a “fulfilled and happy” life. And “finding yourself” and “finding your bliss” is an inherently youthful way of thinking, isn’t it?

    Unfortunately even the church has joined the cult of youth worship. We used to believe the Bible’s admonition that foolishness is part and parcel of youth and wisdom is the blessing that comes with life experience from which the young could benefit.

    However, since we have embraced adolescent culture (since the 50′s maybe?), we have what we see before us today: an unhealthy attitude towards work, duty, family, and faith. Those things are stifling you know.

  48. Elspeth

    8 will lead to the complete dissolution of our society as lower-ranking males will have even less incentive to produce than they do now. Polygyny benefits women (who don’t mind being part of a harem all that much) and wealthy males ONLY. It’s like the formal legalization of the warped sexual market we’ve got now.

    I agree and it always stuns me how few people seem to understand this when these conversations about polygyny begin. It has been documented what happens to young men who are not wealthy under such a system. Getting women under control only goes part of the way to creating a stable society, and purposefully stacking the decks against young men for the purposes of corralling young women? I don’t see how that accomplishes the desire result.

  49. Martel

    Thank you, Elspeth (I always suspected you might be smart).

    On another point I’ve seen touched on, I’m all for banning abortion, but banning birth control will serve to foster an immense international black market and enrich the mafia, street gangs, and international drug cartels. Despite the billions we’ve spent on the drug war, probably half of the people who read this comment would be able to score some coke by tomorrow if they really wanted it (and the readership here isn’t the type to run with the underclass). Banning birth control would merely increase the magnitude of our failure.

  50. Farm Boy

    It really comes down to behavior good for family formation and society needs to be rewarded; and behavior detrimental needs to be discouraged. If personal “fun” gets in the way of this, then so be it. Fun, contentment and happiness can come from many different sources.

  51. Martel

    Also, in addition to the Biblical mandate for for traditional morality, it WORKS. Unless, of course, we use the government to lessen the negative consequences of our bad behavior. Why do women not marry decent guys? Government welfare. Why do so many women who don’t need to go to college? Government student loans. Why do so many women leave their husbands? Biased government family courts.

    Less than the state coming in to make us do the right thing, we need it merely to stop paying us to do the wrong thing. Ending the welfare state and reforming family courts alone would work wonders in turning this mess around. We definitely need to increase the influence of Christianity, too. However, the state would do much better to simply stop fighting Biblical mandates than it would to try to legally mandate them.

  52. Laguna Beach Fogey

    Good Lord, this is just awesome. I like the way you think, SSM.

    This sounds like total revolution–which I wholeheartedly endorse–but it’s going to be a challenging task achieving just one of these objectives without breaking some serious eggs.

    And by ‘breaking eggs’ I mean mass conflict and bloodshed. The globalist power elites are not going to relinquish power that easily.

  53. feministhater

    Ah, infidelity! I think you forgot that.

    Anyway, best thing for all is for the State to stay out of marriage and let communities deliver their own versions of marriage.

  54. tacomaster2

    SSM,
    Here’s an article that could provide you plenty of discussion. A coworker posted this. Quite sad.

  55. Entropy is my god

    @ TACO MASTER

    Our goddess ishtar (semiramis, juno, artemis take your pick) who art in Haagendas
    Hypergamy be thy name,
    Thy abortion come,
    Thy affirmative action be done,
    All our lives as it is in our twenties.
    Give us this day our ride on the cock carousel,
    Forgive us our dalliance with lesbianism in college
    As we forgive alphas for using us as toilets and never calling us back.
    For thine is the hamster, and solipsism,
    Forever (state enforced beta chilalimony) and personal affirmation (facebook) ever,

  56. hearthie

    Farm Boy: I don’t know. Why DOES everything have to be cool and exciting? Oh, that’s because it’s all our society really values. You’ve “arrived” and “succeeded” and “won” when the world at large stares at you with interest.

    Time was, you got married when you were young and started on the journey to arriving together. And when you’d arrived and you had the children around you, the house you’d made into a home, the respect of the community – you’re not going to throw that out because you’re *bored*. You’d pity the woman who had to start over, and her MMV would be very low – maybe a widower with a pile of kids that needed a mom might marry her, or a man much older than she who wanted a nurse-wife.

    But as E said, now it’s all about “being brave” and “discovering yourself” – essentially, grabbing again for the cool and attention worthy ring.

    Time for us to revalue gravitas and take pleasure in long marriages. E had a post about marriage a couple of days back, maybe those of us getting near the two-decade mark need to do more gloating? Would that help or would that hurt? You tell me. I don’t WANT to hurt you guys who aren’t married or whose marriages imploded. Farthest thing from my heart. Same time, I adore my hubs and why should that be a secret?

    Long married women need to be noticed as possessing something of great value, in order to induce holy covetousness in the young.

  57. justme

    Honestly, it makes more sense to allow women to have multiple husbands rather than the reverse. You have a greater pool of resources & no need for pesky paternity testing as the natural state of female hypergamy would be served (remember the argument is that women are created with this nature biologically & we must bow to biology). If we want stable homes, this is the only thing that makes sense.

  58. Happyhen

    “SSM,
    Here’s an article that could provide you plenty of discussion. A coworker posted this. Quite sad.”

    These lists written by women in almost the “I would make a horrible wife/mom/coworker/friend/dinner companion/person to sit next to on the bus, affirm me and love me anyway!!!!” style seems very common. If you are indeed so horrible, become a better person or crawl back into your hole and be quiet about it.

  59. Jeremy

    I have no problem letting women vote, so long as those same women:

    1) Register with selective service, making it possible they will have to sacrifice their life for their country.
    2) Pay more taxes than they consume in used government services over the course of their lives.

    Sadly, neither one of my conditions is ever met in real life.

  60. Ton

    No polygamy, no divorce…. men must have a free and strong pimp hand then. Otherwise there is all carrot and no stick. Women only respond to the stick…. double meaning intended. In time periods where there was no divorce, men always had the ability to have women on the side and the women knew it.

    The usa has never had a civil war and most likely never will. Another war of secession and independence might occur. The sooner the better and one in which what we do to yankeeland makes Hiroshima look like Sunday school. Otherwise the seeds of our destruction are planted in our new national soil.

    There will be no liberty and no rightly ordered society as long as we are hitched to the yankee and his union. This utopian schemes have all come from north of the line and their non native allies which they have been importing for 150 years plus.

    Also know that women’s true nature has been unleashed and displayed, how do you y’all expect to get people into buying into this concept of marriage?

    Not going to happen, but I reckon folks like their mental masturbation. And big all intrusive government

  61. Chris

    I am thinking about if I post an article about how to take down the Cathedral — but it would involve non compliance (or Irish voting), disengagement, passive resistance: let the fools in the beltway make their rules but the rest of the society will shatter into no-go zones — that will probably use IEDs on the militarized police, or (Mafia style) kidnap their children and wives and hold them hostage to ensure the state leaves them alone.

    It will not be a race thing. It will be those who enjoy running their own lives against those who want the state to run theirs.

    And it will probably split the union: the question will be if Obama orders the army to pacify the midwest. (I think that is illegal, but Scalia said in an emergency anything can be made legal a couple of days ago).

    Conservatives in Hawaii and California, in particular, will have to leave, even if they are Hawaiian, as (like a lot of islands) the state is the industry there.

    I need not remind you all that the US federal state is bankrupt, and has been for a while. Most of the rest of the world avoids dealing with the USA because the federales are simply too much of a pain: it is literally easier to deal with the Chinese — NZ negoitated a free trade agreement with the Chinese a few years ago, and with Canada and Australia and SE Asia: it is the USA who are not prepared to get something workable (because your copyright, tax and patent laws are absurd).

    I hope nullification of federal laws and debt works. Because otherwise, your fate will be that of the Soviet state.

  62. Jim

    Good list but I disagree with #4 & 6. Also, I don’t want the state anywhere NEAR marriage. All it’s managed to do is destroy it. The state destroys every thing it touches like a parasite.

    BTW SSM, I have to admit that some of the ideas you put in this article will make so many people have a fatal heart attack. lol. The PC Police I’m sure are going incredibly ape shit right now. even though I don’t agree with every single point it’s still a very gutsy post.

  63. Jim

    Ton said:

    “A single man gets less pay for the same job/ out put) again think of the incentive that sets up.”

    Oh I didn’t realize she was advocating paying single men less. If so that’s ridiculous. It would require government to do this. I can’t imagine the plethora of corruption that this would cause. Also, the MARKET should decide pay not some arbitrary number decided by government.

  64. Bike Bubba

    One other thought with regards to #4, punishing adultery and fornication by law; we already have punishments for adultery and fornication that require no action by Congress to inflict. STDs. Broken relationships. Bastard children and child support payments. Violence from other lovers of the same person. Depression.

    And we are supposed to believe that those who will voluntarily risk these penalties are going to be deterred by fines or jail time? Seriously?

  65. Chris

    Jim: paying single men and women the same rate used to exist in my parent’s generation. In addition, there was an expectation that a man applying for a mortgage was married (sign of stability) and that his mortgage would be no more that a third of his post tax pay packet. He was expected to put 20% down, but you could cash in the baby benefit (Six dollars a week when a new basic car was a thousand or so) to get that deposit.

    It worked, until feminism and no fault divorce with a benefit came in (around the same time over in NZ — early 1970s).

  66. Artisanal Toad

    @Bubba
    STD’s are too random, but it reminded me of one of the old common law methods of keeping the cads in line: suits for alienation of affection. I don’t know of a single state in which such an action could be brought today, but 100 years ago if someone seduced your wife and she committed adultery with him you could sue him in court for damages. Likewise, if some cad seduced your daughter, as her father you could bring suit against him on her behalf. However, since alienation of affection laws were a holdover from the patriarchy they only applied to men.

    Problem is, if alienation of affection suits were allowed today… and given paternity testing, it would be a field-day for the lawyers. Especially if the law were re-applied to women too… she seduced your husband? Sue her.

  67. Farm Boy

    “I would make a horrible wife/mom/coworker/friend/dinner companion/person “

    While in my 20′s I was stuck by what poor mothers my age cohorts would have been. They were just so unserious, fun loving and cool. As I mentioned on the previous thread, modern women lack the concept of “preparation”

  68. Farm Boy

    You’ve “arrived” and “succeeded” and “won” when the world at large stares at you with interest.

    In the future, people will laugh at how silly this is. How did we ever get here?

  69. Hipster Racist

    suits for alienation of affection. I don’t know of a single state in which such an action could be brought today,

    Alienation of affection suits are still available in some southern states.

  70. Just Saying

    @SSM

    I’ll say that you hit it out of the ball-park on this post. Now to sit back and watch the Feminists start frothing at the mouth and going apoplectic – because they don’t realize that men like me already get around all of these laws in ways that are beneficial to ourselves and detrimental to women in general. But they are too stupid to even realize it.. Bless their foolish little harpy-hearts…

    [ssm: Exactly. All these suggestions are quite good for women, but feminists are too foolish to see that.]

  71. Happyhen

    “While in my 20′s I was stuck by what poor mothers my age cohorts would have been. They were just so unserious, fun loving and cool. As I mentioned on the previous thread, modern women lack the concept of “preparation”

    It’s a sad but true observation. I was taught womanly arts by a mom who was a married mom of 3 by the time she was 23. I knew as a young woman of 21 I had at least the basic preparation for homemaking and raising babies because my mom thought that valuable. And I had the skills to make necessary improvements. I don’t understand this unrepentant perpetual adolescence our culture promotes. It is, quite frankly, ugly… both physically and spiritually.

  72. Bike Bubba

    Toad: apparently, it’s still the law in Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah.

    But that said, STDs for fornication are virtually a certainty; the CDC estimates about 100 million people are, or have been, infected, about half of adults. Interestingly, about half of adults are married, meaning a great portion of them (minus the 30% of so who cheat on their spouse, I’d guess) are at low risk.

    So assuming a 2/3 risk for fornicators of sleeping with someone with an STD on any given encounter, it doesn’t take many encounters to get that coveted herpes, HPV, or (BONUS!) HIV infection. (20% of urban homosexuals carry the virus…..Roulette anyone?)

    Really, these things are self-punishing, I think, so what needs to be done is not to pass laws, but to remind people of reality. Mama’s in the graveyard, and Papa’s in the pen, no?

  73. Farm Boy

    they don’t realize that men like me already get around all of these laws in ways that are beneficial to ourselves and detrimental to women in general.

    Oddly enough, feminists consider every situation a zero sum game. The concept of mutual benefit does not enter into their discussions. Pretty soon we will all be fighting over table scraps. That is where this attitude leads.

  74. SirNemesis

    1. Repeal all affirmative action laws and policies. – Agreed. On affirmative action in general, I think there should be some sort of program to give lower class people access to better educational opportunities (families should not have to move to an expensive dual-income neighborhood to get access to good schools, as not everyone is capable of homeschooling). I oppose any sex-based or race-based affirmative action.

    2. Eliminate over-reaching domestic abuse legislation. There should also be no more relying on a woman’s word; rather, there should be clear cut evidence of physical violence (black eye, bruise, cut, burn) before a man is arrested. – Agreed, obviously. Innocent until proven guilty should be the norm.

    3. Repeal marital rape laws – not because men are just dying to rape women (they aren’t) but because these laws give women the mistaken impression that they have the right to refuse sex with their husbands. – Disagree. Marriage is a contract for sexual access. You can’t use violence to enforce the terms of a contract. Rather, you should be allowed to sue for damages. In this case, this would mean a favorable asset-split/alimony ruling upon filing for divorce.

    4. Make fornication and adultery illegal and punishable offenses. – Disagree again. People could socially sanction fornication, but to make it illegal is a very strong infringement on civil liberty. I’m all for infringing on civil liberties when necessary (prostitution comes to mind), but I do not believe it is necessary in this case. As for adultery, again, it is infringement of a contract and should be treated as such.

    5. Remove women from the military, police, and all other first-responder positions. – Agree on military, street police, and perhaps firefighters, but don’t see anything wrong with female paramedics. In general though, the practice of women expecting the male workplace to cater to them needs to be stopped. Work is not a place for silly social antics.

    6. Outlaw divorce or make make divorce extremely difficult to obtain, available only in cases of long-term abandonment or severe physical abuse. – Disagree again. I think filing for no-fault divorce needs to carry significant financial penalties, while filing for at-fault-divorce should cause the other spouse to suffer financial penalties (per above). My criteria for at-fault divorce seem to be much broader than your limited criteria for divorce.

    7. End all forms of welfare immediately. Kin should take care of kin. Community- and church-based charity will take care of those who are in need of assistance but do not have family to rely on. – Agree mostly. I think there should be a safety net (what social security originally was just that – security), and per above there should be class-based educational programs to allow upward mobility to those *willing to work hard and make use of it* when family and community is incapable of providing this. However, this would nevertheless entail a dramatic scaling back of the current welfare program.

    8. Decriminalize polygyny, by which I mean make it not illegal for men to be legally married to more than one woman.* Disagree. It does provide a nifty solution (to men, but not to women) for your lack of options for divorce. It also means a man doesn’t have to choose between leaving a bad relationship for the prospect of a good relationship vs. staying in the bad relationship for the sake of the children. However, it would suck for young men, as the older men would use hypergamy to their advantage and monopolize all the young women.

    9. Allow for sex segregation in both the public and private spheres. Allow boys and girls to be educated separately and allow all-male and all-female social and work spaces to exist for those who desire them. – Agree of course. It’s amazing that liberals will see elective sex-segregation as wrong.

    10. Repeal the Nineteenth amendment. Do not permit women to vote at the national or state level; permit land-owning female heads of household to vote at the local level. – ROFL disagree. “I don’t like who they vote for” is a pretty poor argument for disenfranchisement. If you want to prevent something, it makes much more sense to make it unconstitutional then to disenfranchise the people who would vote for it.

  75. Splashman

    Lots of good thoughts in this list — thank you, SSM. There are a few positions that I’m sure will evolve as wisdom increases, but that is true of all of us.

    I’m amazed at the number of folk who seem to think that the near-impossibility of accomplishing all (or any) items on the list, means that SSM wasted her time writing it.

  76. Anon

    Now that I see the finished product, our off line exchange makes more sense. I lean much more toward the “eject the government from the marriage regulation business entirely” argument.

  77. Farm Boy

    “I don’t like who they vote for” is a pretty poor argument for disenfranchisement.

    Not really. If the way that they are voting is destroying the Republic, then yes it is a good reason.

  78. Farm Boy

    I’m amazed at the number of folk who seem to think that the near-impossibility of accomplishing all (or any) items on the list,

    Many people benefit individually from the current state (or at least they think that they do). To give that up for an amorphous general benefit in the future is much to ask people with little future time orientation.

  79. Artisanal Toad

    @Ton
    This is a toast you might find useful.

    Here’s to the great bald eagle
    That Northern bird of prey
    Who spreads his wings o’er the Southland
    And sh!ts on Southern clay.

    Ah, but here’s to the Southland
    Whose soil is so fertile and rich
    So you can keep your turds
    You goddamn bird
    You Yankee son of a bitch.

  80. SirNemesis

    @ Farm Boy

    Not really. If the way that they are voting is destroying the Republic, then yes it is a good reason.

    No. That would be a good reason to write a better constitution, not to disenfranchise them.

  81. tacomaster2

    Finally read all the comments–

    I’m sure you’re going to get a lot of crazy feminists attacking you over this SSM. I agree with all of your points especially #7 and #8. Regarding welfare, pre-New Deal Roosevelt (can’t stand him) churches, communities, and families helped out tremendously with those in need. Now it seems like the government has turned into a parental figure or possibly even a husband figure for those who are single ladies with kids. Is there really an incentive to get off those programs? I don’t think so.

    There seems to be a lot of talk about revolution lately…

  82. Janelle

    “Only significant physical violence is abuse. It shouldn’t generally be necessary for a man to use mild physical dominance to maintain order in his home, but neither is it anyone else’s business to tell him how to properly run his home. If there is some unusual situation where he needs to apply mild physical consequences, he should have that right”

    You feel this way about your daughters’ (future) husbands and marriages?

  83. SirNemesis

    I think a lot of my disagreement with this article is going to be because I don’t care all that much for traditional gender roles. I care about monogamy and the two-parent family a lot more. I only support traditional gender roles inasmuch as they’re necessary to achieve a monogamous two-parent family society.

  84. tacomaster2

    @HappyHen
    “It’s a sad but true observation. I was taught womanly arts by a mom who was a married mom of 3 by the time she was 23. I knew as a young woman of 21 I had at least the basic preparation for homemaking and raising babies because my mom thought that valuable. ”

    That’s good you got received that education so early on. Recently our church asked us to fill out a piece of paper anonymously (I put my name on it anyway) asking people where they felt God was leading them to volunteer. They wanted to get feedback. I wrote that I would be interested in teaching a weekly or twice a month cooking class. We have a decent sized kitchen at our church so that would be possible. My chef buddy said he’d even come over if enough people were interested. I still haven’t heard anything back. I think they were just looking for youth group help.

  85. Chris

    Heathie — if you can get across the pacific and do not mind the fact t that I only have three bedrooms and it is old for Californians in summer here…. sure. I am told by those who surf you need a 10 mil wetsuit and the breaks are good.

    I don’t surf.

  86. Jay

    A pipe dream at best this list is. We have FAR too many sackless White Knights and betas running the guvmit. I mean look at Barry…people on YouTube are calling the State of the Union, “State of the Woman” instead.

  87. Farm Boy

    I only support traditional gender roles inasmuch as they’re necessary to achieve a monogamous two-parent family society.

    Are they inseparable?

  88. an observer

    Traditional sex roles –> family formation –> stable society

    Women have demonstrated they dont want to submit to husbands, or men in general. They vote for the fascists that massage their need for safety and security. In voting for the state, they get neither.

    The state thrives on promoting dependancy. It encourages this process with its feminised courts, affirmative action, equal access, jobs for the girls etc.

    Why would the state want a stable aociety?

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

    .H. L. Mencken

  89. an observer

    the way that they are voting is destroying the Republic, then yes it is a good reason.

    Franklin was prescient. ” A republic, if you can keep it.”

  90. Courtney

    Hi Sunshine Mary,

    I found your blog through Lori Alexander @ Always Learning, which I follow out of curiosity (I’m not a Christian or a conservative).

    You say it wouldn’t be impossible to return to these policies, but do you believe there’s a realistic chance in the U.S.? Which do you consider the most likely?

  91. FuzzieWuzzie

    Government serves society and society has yet to realize that marriage and family formation are in peril. When women demonstrate in the streets demanding that male-bashing laws be overturned, only then will action be taken. That will happen when they feel that the oppurtunity for marriage and family formation is lost. It will have to be generally percieved that men really are on strike..

  92. FuzzieWuzzie

    SSM, be glad for one thing about the “potty mouths”, they aren’t presenting themselves to you as candidates for romance. ;)

  93. JDG

    I don’t support “legal” marriage now because what currently is called legal marriage is simply not marriage. Gay “marriage” and no-fault divorce make this legal thing we are calling “legal marriage” categorically invalid, so we ought not to participate in that.

    Dito!

    I made this case to a good friend. He’s fairly red pill, but he is struggling with this one. He agrees with much of it, but he struggles with not knowing how we validate if someone is married or not.

  94. an observer

    I agree and it always stuns me how few people seem to understand this when these conversations about polygyny begin.

    It seems obviousto me. Polygyny alienates and makes outcasts of societys most productive members, its young men.

    As i said above, the govt isnt interested in promoting healthy, self reliant families with little need for an intrusive coercive force.

    Hence, i fully expect polygyny to be legalised at some point. The destabilising potential on family formation is too valuable for the state to turn down.

  95. JDG

    4 will lead to massive abuses of power and state intevention into the minutae of our lives.

    Adultery and sodomy used to be illegal at the state level. We were a better society for it. No one went prying into peoples bedrooms either. But if you came home and found another rooster in your pen, it was usually a bad day for the other rooster as well as the hen. Of course we didn’t have the big nanny government back then that we have now.

  96. JDG

    Marital rape isn’t strictly rape (as that term refers to one’s taking of something that doesn’t belong to him), but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t wrong or that it shouldn’t be criminalized.

    It may be wrong, but it should not be criminalized. Her body is under his authority, his body is under hers (1Cor 7:4). Neither one should be penalized for taking what is rightfully theirs. Furthermore, the state should not come between a man and his wife.

  97. JDG

    @justme: If we want stable homes, this is the only thing that makes sense.

    We already have something like this going on in the inner cities (except on the tax payers dime), and it is anything but stable.

  98. Pingback: Sunshine Mary nails it « Jim’s Blog

  99. fightforlove

    Polygamy laws were enacted not so much to protect women as much as they were to protect men, the common man. Of course, we’re already moving towards a Neo-polygamy what with the hookup culture and resulting 80-20 rule.

  100. alcockell

    It would appear that many of the folks promoting polygamy for the Leaders view themselves as the David in the 1 Kings sense… but what about the guys in Uriah’s position?

  101. Artisanal Toad

    @alcockel
    Everyone tends to conflate the idea of polygyny with the prediction that if “allowed” it will become widespread and they point to the various sects of Mormons who practice it as a religious ideal for their proof. Polygyny is not an ideal and I have repeatedly made it clear that I believe monogamous marriage to be the ideal, but I also pointed out that polygyny is not sinful because God does not regulate sin: He forbid and condemned it. All that was covered in the post on the headship doctrine.

    I ran across some interesting notes from 18th and 19th century studies of polygyny in the orient that stated women in polygynous marriages tended to produce a lot more girls than boys; and recently I saw a study saying that older men tend to father a higher percentage of girls than boys, so that may be the reason for the observation. Polygyny might actually be self-correcting within a generation with respect to the gender-ratio marriage problem it creates… but that assumes the men with multiple wives are putting buns in those ovens.

    However, polygyny is not an ideal, it’s simply a Biblically allowed practice for the few men who can pull it off. What is most interesting to me is your comment about people “promoting polygamy” seeing themselves as King David. You’re close, but don’t quite get it. The people who predict how bad “allowing” polygyny would be, because of all the men unable to obtain a wife… are acknowledging the fact that the vast majority of men want sexual variety and thus if offered the chance would have more than one wife. Might even be a little projection going on here… The point, however, is that very few men would be able to pull it off.

    The question but what about the guys in Uriah’s position is a little different, though. David’s sin was adultery and murder. Polygyny did not cause David to commit adultery or murder, it was his arrogance, pride, lust and the sinfulness of his nature. We will always have adultery and murder, whether the society is wrapped around monogamous marriages or whether polygyny is “legalized.”

    And, as I’ve pointed out before, polygyny is not illegal if done correctly and is actually (in the current legal environment of the US) the safest and most durable marital structure available to a man today if he wants children. That, because no family court could call it a marriage and thus there could be no divorce and division of assets. Thus, the incentive would be to remain in the marriage (higher standard of living) instead of ending it. In fact, if a woman wanted to leave, she might find it difficult to get custody of her children if the children were older and had a relationship (bond) with the other wives. If she did get custody, the only thing she could get would be child support and that would only come from the father (assuming any of the other wives worked outside the home). No prizes and very little cash, so very little incentive to bail.

  102. ramram

    One of the reasons why western civilization flourished is because of illegality of polygyny.
    You simply don’t take into consideration the effects of hypergamy and the number of disincetivised/angry men this would bring (look at muslim world).

    It’s very solipsistic of you to think only of what benefits women and completely ignore number of beta men that will be left with no woman – unless you hope for some imperialistic wars were those surplus men will have a chance to die before causing trouble at home.

  103. gaikokumaniakku

    >You want to “fix” this all? Nothing short of total, worldwide revolution would ever work.

    I think the age of revolutions is over.

    The current system would be in more danger from a breakdown in worldwide capitalism than from any number of revolutions.

    If suddenly the stock markets in Beijing, Tokyo, New York, and London have some technical glitch, THAT could destroy the status quo.

    Revolutions pose no threat, IMHO, to hypertrophied, militarized police states. Starvation poses a big threat. Lack of oil poses the biggest threat.

  104. Artisanal Toad

    @ramram
    It’s very solipsistic of you to think only of what benefits women and completely ignore number of beta men that will be left with no woman

    Benefits of polygyny to the men who want a stable marriage and children RIGHT NOW:

    -No way for a wife to punish him with sexual starvation: he has options, next bedroom over.
    -Built in dread game makes him more dominant and therefore more attractive, so more sex.
    -Can’t legally call it a marriage so there can’t be a divorce, so no loss of assets.
    -Wives can get their emotional needs met from each other, so no “emotional tampon” duty.
    -With incentives arranged to continue the marriage, less chance of being separated from kids.
    -More dominant husband means more submissive wives competing for his attention.
    -Wives competing for husband’s attention maintain their beauty and don’t get fat.
    -Submissive wives getting sex more often (competition) means happier wives.
    -A husband getting all the sex he wants from happy, submissive, beautiful wives…

    Thread after thread on this blog has discussed how much men both need sex, want a stable marriage and DON’T want to be frivorced and stripped of their assets. Yes, it benefits women, but it also robs them of their power (sex as a weapon) and builds in the dread game (fear) such that the only way to get what they want is to give the husband what he wants (submission and beauty). For a lot of both men and women, polygyny is a very frightening concept, which is why it’s such a hot-button. Why do I say frightening? My observation is that most men fear leadership because most men fear failure. Likewise, my observation is that women don’t like to share, don’t want to let go of the ability to use sex as a weapon and they fear submission.

    You simply don’t take into consideration the effects of hypergamy and the number of disincetivised/angry men this would bring (look at muslim world).

    Can they find their woman right now? Seriously: are your hapless betas getting laid right now? Are they getting married? What about the gamma’s and omegas? Isn’t it a fact that the women are busy chasing alpha and can’t even see the betas? The paradigm of Alpha Fux and Beta Bux is real, right now. Are you familiar with MGTOW? Polygyny didn’t cause it, feminism and the FI caused it.

    We are currently overrun with high-N sluts who are for all intents and purposes unfit for monogamous marriage due to their years on the carousel. I’m talking about within the church, not out in the world. Are they willing to marry the betas? Yes, now that they’re in their 30′s and have their “born-again virgin card” but are the betas willing to marry them? Are you willing to “man up” and marry that slut? Maybe, maybe not. Assuming the answer to that question is yes, are there enough betas in the church to go around? Go find someone who speaks at a lot of different churches and ask them what the ratio is. I’m willing to bet that on average it won’t be less than 3:1 single women to single men.

    Oh- and here’s an interesting observation- the more feminized the church, the fewer men. Healthy (masculine) churches tend to have something very close to the normal 1:1 ratio.

    One of the reasons why western civilization flourished is because of illegality of polygyny.

    LOL. Polygyny didn’t officially get taken off the table until the Council of Trent, although the push to do so started around 1150 if I recall correctly. You seem to be missing the point that historically, in Europe, only a very, very small group of people could afford to have more than one wife; they were called “the nobility” and they didn’t marry commoners.

  105. Ton

    The idea states can nullify the federal government was crushed by the yankees. That is no longer a legal option. I do like the passive route of not supporting the govt in any form but Christians won’t do it. Got to be good citizens after all and render unto Ceaser

    Jim it was Zippy’ s idea in a link he posted, seconded by SSM.

    There is no way to explain the reality of polygamy to those who don’t live it. It is a lot more and a lot less then folks think.

    The only way to get women to marry betas and lower tier men is to remove all economic power from them.

  106. Farm Boy

    remember the argument is that women are created with this nature biologically & we must bow to biology

    Not precisely. One tries to find a stable state where most biological desires are sated and society can effectively perpetuate itself.

    Not everybody gets everything that they want, but they get enough to be content

  107. ramram

    @Artisanal Toad
    “Isn’t it a fact that the women are busy chasing alpha and can’t even see the betas?”

    That’s exactly my point – you simply want to legalize current state of affairs. You want to extinguish the fire by adding more gasoline.

    “Are you familiar with MGTOW? Polygyny didn’t cause it, feminism and the FI caused it.”
    I am MGTOW since at least 2008, before some crooks like “bar bar” hijacked the MGTOW frame and I can tell you it’s not a life desirable for many.
    Feminine Imperative is exactly what caused it – thinking of what benefits women and ignoring the common man.
    You seem to naively think that for women sharing a men with other women is a tragedy for them (are you projecting?) that they will try to avoid at any cost (like being nice to the husband), and I can tell you it is not. Historically many more well off men had mistresses on a side and women were quite happy with that arrangement – even nowadays in countries like Japan it is encouraged by wives themselves.
    There is a subtle but very important difference between legalizing something and tolerating it.

    “You seem to be missing the point that historically, in Europe, only a very, very small group of people could afford to have more than one wife; they were called “the nobility” and they didn’t marry commoners.”
    And your point is? You seem to be missing it.

    The problem has been solved in the past by 2 approaches:
    1. Make adultery and fornication an illegal offence + legalize polygyny
    2. Discourage adultery and fornication on moral grounds with religion and shame + illegal polygyny

    You can’t look at these problems (adultery and polygyny) separately but you can look at the historical precedence and decide which solution is more beneficial. If you find 1. to be better we don’t need to do anything, islam is on its way (it’s not a value statement).

  108. Alina

    May I also suggest making IVF and such fertility procedures illegal?

    First of all, it would prevent embryos being created and then destroyed.
    It would prevent the modern woman’s strategy of riding the carousel until she has 2 years of fertility left before shacking up with a beta male.
    It would likewise make men think twice before marrying past-fertile aged women.
    Genuinely infertile couples would have to choose adoption as their own option for having children, giving life to the accidents of single mothers (who would otherwise be aborted or live off welfare)

  109. Artisanal Toad

    @ramram

    OK, let’s do this. If you really want to argue the issue of polygyny, we can discuss it on this thread. I think as polite individuals we should keep things in proper order and that’s the thread to make your argument. You might want to wade through the 400+ comments first.

  110. hurting

    1. Agreed, but never gonna happen.
    2. Made moot if marriage de-coupled from civil laws.
    3. Made moot if marriage de-coupled from civil laws.
    4. Made moot if marriage de-coupled from civil laws.
    5. Simply apply the same standard to all for public safety jobs. (On a related note, the standard should apply to all employees with no age adjustment over time. You either need to be able to carry the dummy down the stairs in full bunker gear or you don’t.) No women in the military; certainly not in combat positions for the reasons you stated. Related note: We need to stop conflating public safety with military. It’s why we have the militarized, overreaching police state we do.
    6. Made moot if marriage de-coupled from civil laws.
    7. Agreed. Should include immediate cessation of all publicly funded education.
    8. Made moot if marriage de-coupled from civil laws.
    9. Agreed. Would require rollback of a great deal of civil rights legislation. Never gonna happen.
    10. This is either the only solution (it would lead to the rest, either de jure or de facto). It will never happen.

    The only hope for societal shift is the sanctioning by church’s of the de-coupling of marriage from the state’s interference. It very simply could be done but will not be as churchianity is invested in the current state of affairs.

  111. Jefferson

    I know I’m late to the party, but this post and its discussion strikes me as somewhat moot. Our current culture makes it more difficult to have families, and so the only people who are reproducing are finding a way to get past these challenges. In a few generations, the only people around will be the ones who have found a way to propagate their culture, without top-down help. Why should we force the sorts of people who got us into this mess to reproduce, just so they can get us right back into this? Further, why wouldn’t an end to woman’s suffrage just result in a generation of respite before the betas band together to give us a new women’s suffrage?

  112. Farm Boy

    Our current culture makes it more difficult to have families, and so the only people who are reproducing are finding a way to get past these challenges

    Dunno about that. Thugs and baby mamas do not have so many challenges in this department.

  113. Farm Boy

    before the betas band together to give us a new women’s suffrage

    Dunno about that either. Perhaps they could learn. Lessons from 3000 years ago are easily forgotten. From 30 years, not as much.

  114. dholmes32

    Oh, why not just make women property of men again, like it was before the 1890s in America? That’s what you want, don’t you?

  115. Farm Boy

    Oh, why not just make women property of men again, like it was before the 1890s in America?

    That would be effective, but one does not need to go that far.

  116. sunshinemary Post author

    Oh, why not just make women property of men again, like it was before the 1890s in America? That’s what you want, don’t you?

    We can’t make women the property of men “again” because we never did so in the first place. Women weren’t the property of men after the age of 18. They were free to move about the country as they pleased, could own land, could marry or not, as they pleased. They could not, however, vote.

    Do I want women to be the legal property of men? Well, I’m not sure “want” is exactly the right word there. Do I accept that it would be beneficial for creating a stable society if women were the legal property of their fathers and then husbands? I think it could be argued that this would be a vast improvement over what we have now.

    But honestly, we really needn’t go that far. These ten changes I propose leave women as their own bosses but simply remove the support for fake egalitarianism.

  117. LK Smart

    My grandmother, who was born in 1904, was the most Godly woman I have ever known. She read her bible daily, did not drink or curse, took care of others and tolerated a terrible marriage because she felt divorce was wrong. However, she voted in every single election that she could as soon as she could because she felt her vote was important. Suggesting that we repeal the 19th amendment is an insult to her and all the women who fought hard for that right.

  118. JDG

    Suggesting that we repeal the 19th amendment is an insult to her and all the women who fought hard for that right.

    What??? Women fought for the right to vote? Women bled and died so that men would give women the right to vote? No that’s not quite how it happened. There was no war. There was no fight unless you consider women with nothing better to do parading down the street with signs to be some kind of battle.
    What actually happened is they got the vote the same way they get everything else. Men gave it to them. The family vote was better than what we have now hands down.

  119. JDG

    Oh, why not just make women property of men again

    To the best of my knowledge women were never property in a society that did not also have men as property. Can you produce any evidence that states other wise (leftist history revision doesn’t count – must be reliable evidence)?

  120. JDG

    Attention! Attention! All lurking drive by feminists report to the kitchen for sammich duty at once! All lurking drive by feminists report to the kitchen for sammich duty at once! That is all. Have a good day.

  121. Farm Boy

    Suggesting that we repeal the 19th amendment is an insult to her and all the women who fought hard for that right.

    There are many things in my life that I worked hard at that did not turn out well. The fates have insulted me everytime this has happened.

  122. LK Smart

    Men didn’t just arbitrarily give women the right to vote- women protested and campaigned for the right to vote. Also, I would be careful what I wished for; I live in the Deep South and in my state women vote more conservative.

  123. Farm Boy

    Men didn’t just arbitrarily give women the right to vote- women protested and campaigned for the right to vote.

    That’s the problem right there. Women ask for silly stuff, and men comply.

  124. JJ

    @sunshinemary

    “Now personally, I like monogamy, but it does seem like some men have a really, really hard time with monogamy. Why not allow them to marry more than one woman if they can provide for and protect more than one?”

    Two reasons. The first being simple mathematics. There are 102 men for every 100 women. For one man to take a second wife must mean that another man will get no wife at all. Now do you actually think this will lead to more stable, traditional society? The exact opposite will occur, as mateless men will be destabilizing force. You can trace back historical nations and the driving force behind wars were the losers of sexual competition. Even the Arab Spring was in part a demographic problem of having too many single men. You can also google the Lost boys of Mormons for more perspective. Young men are exiled from their families and communities simply so that other men have an easier time taking multiple wives.

    The second reason is that marriage will be even further devalued, as single men will not think anything of sleeping with the one of wives of polygamist men, and women will expect to receive MORE sexual attention from other men when theyre married than when they were single.

    Lastly, trying to save philandering men from themselves is a terrible reason for polygamy. In already existing polygamist societies, the divorce is actually higher than in Western nations! And the reason being that even if you take away the legal limit (of one) on the number of wives permitted, theres still a practical limit on how many wives a man can have, especially how many can share a home together. Therefore, men continually jettison their older wives to make room for younger ones. Doing away with monogamy will destroy marriage once and for all.

    Im actually curious why you want to go so far to bring back such a troublesome practice in the first place? Do you have a father, sibling, son, etc. that is incapable of being faithful? As someone already mentioned, remove polygamy 8. and replace it with abortion and birth control.

  125. JDG

    It was the female vote that gave us Obama. It is the female vote that has us paying for abortion and birth control with our tax dollars. It is the female vote that keeps growing the size of our government. Conservative woman = right wing feminist = last generations left wing feminist.

  126. JDG

    I here by amend the sammich duty call announced above to include left wing drive by feminists AND right wing drive by feminists for clarification.

  127. Chris

    Very simple.
    You can only vote if you were and are eligible for the draft. Your draft card serves as your voter ID.

    Now, that you can campaign for: watching the feminists (Ms Smart: I’m talking to you — and I come from the country that gave the wimmenz the vote first) squirm because that means they have to tolerate young women coming back in the body bags.

    The fact the US cannot run a fair election… because people cheat and the dead vote, we will leave to one side.

    And… women almost got booze banned in NZ. Those godly conservative ones Ms Smart likes. Fortunately, soldiers could vote, did vote, and we were spared prohibition.

  128. cassie

    “Only significant physical violence is abuse. It shouldn’t generally be necessary for a man to use mild physical dominance to maintain order in his home, but neither is it anyone else’s business to tell him how to properly run his home. If there is some unusual situation where he needs to apply mild physical consequences, he should have that right”

    We’re going to assume that the average husband is bigger/stronger than the average wife, and therefore she’d be basically helpless if he ever chose to lay a hand on her. You’re saying that if a man wants to cut his wife’s face, or punch her, or throw something at her, as long as the results aren’t too serious, it should be okay? You’re saying it’s NOBODY else’s business to decide how he should run his home, therefore if he wants her to do the laundry and she is disobedient and says no, he should have the right to use ‘mild’ physical pain to ‘maintain order’?

    People shouldn’t hurt people, especially not a husband who is supposed to protect and love his wife–not beat her. You can say that it should be up to him to decide if there’s an ‘unusual circumstance’, but men are not flawless–many are quick to anger, mentally unbalanced, or would take advantage of a law that legalized them cutting, bruising, scratching, drawing blood from, or otherwise harming their wives. And who gets to say what defines ‘mild’ abuse?

    Legalizing abuse is not the answer to your prayers. Because the second you enable men to hurt women with fewer legal repercussions is the second females end up bruised, beaten, or dead with men facing fewer repercussions than ever. Believe it or not, not all men are fit to run a household. Many are manipulative, abusive monsters.

    You are advocating that the federal government enables ALL men to run their households as they see fit, no questions asked. So if it doesn’t concern the government what goes on behind closed doors, how can you in the same breathe ask for the criminalization of adultery? Why does it concern how somebody else chooses to live their lives, or sin? You want to outlaw that, because it is sinful. Yet so is abusing your wife. You can’t trust somebody to run their home properly on the mere premise that he’s a man and he’s in charge. Women are not able to defend themselves in these situations, and if you turn the law against them, too, what’s stopping a man from taking things to far and hurting his wife?

    Imagine your daughter gets married, and she doesn’t want to do the dishes. Her husband has a problem with this, so as the head of the home he slaps her in the face. Would you really not ask questions, or support the judge when he gives the husband the A-okay? It’s one thing if the couple signs a paper or something saying they’re okay with that going on.

    Another thing you need to recognize–we don’t live in a Christian country. Just because you believe that most good Christian men wouldn’t take physical abuse too far (which may or may not be the case) a large number of men in America don’t adhere to the stipulations of a religion, who would have no problem abusing women. Likewise, there are many women who do not feel any obligation to submit to their husbands, because they aren’t all Christian. They shouldn’t be forced to do anything, or accept abuse from others simply because you do, or because you feel that Christians should.

    The other point I would like to raise is your issue with female suffrage. First of all, just because you don’t like how women vote doesn’t mean you should take away their right to vote. You cannot blame the failure of our government on female suffrage. We had problems in our nation and in other areas of the world LONG before women had a voice in politics, and no matter who you put in the voting booth, we always have had and always will have problems in our government. Also, most people who are in the government are men. So let’s remember that the LEADERS are the ones ruining the government, not the people (who include females) who vote for them. Additionally, let’s not act like female suffrage is a crazy thing. It became a constitutional amendment almost a hundred years ago. And even fifty years ago, women mostly stayed at home while men worked. Female suffrage didn’t drastically alter sex roles nor did it make women want to BE men. Female suffrage simply gave women a voice, a voice they deserve because they live in this country and are affected by what goes on in congress. Say what you want about women’s power as leaders, they surely are intelligent and important enough to vote on who they want running THEIR country. You want to repeal female suffrage because you don’t like who they’re voting for. Instead, why not reform politics–alter the people we even are ABLE to vote for.

    oh and one more thing–your assumption (from another entry) that women can’t argue respectfully because ONE person called you a name is honestly silly, and i’m pretty sure it belongs in an 8th grade social studies class debate rather than on a so-called blog. Women are educated, dignified human beings who are able to compose compelling and intelligent arguments. After all, you do so all the time, right? Well, I don’t know about intelligent, but your arguments are definitely compelling and persuasive. And while you’re definitely not tactful, you do typically remain put-together and composed (but not respectful).

    So continue ‘not advising men’, and insulting feminists with everything you have, and know i feel truly sorry for your children who are going to be brought up to be submissive, weak individuals. I truly hope they are fortunate enough to find caring husbands and friends in their lives, because you are (un)educating them out of their ability to think for themselves. You are placing religious doctrine in their minds that sends them the message that they are inferior to men, that they shouldn’t vote or work as firefighters or politicians or policewomen because they can’t. And you are simply WRONG when you say women don’t want to work or vote or be feminists, because they do. Feminism and Christianity/submissiveness as a Venn Diagram depict an awfully large ‘AND’ bubble—you can be both. Feminism is not a ‘men vs. women’ debate, nor do feminists want to be men and expect men to want to be women. Feminism is about allowing women to be a part of mainstream society, giving those who want equal employment opportunities to have them, and allowing women to think for themselves and to not depend on men for everything.

    And if you want to take the word of the bible literally, I suppose that means you never wear woven clothing composed of more than one kind of cloth? (Leviticus 19:19). i also suppose you’ve NEVER worked on the sabbath, or eaten a cheeseburger (as exodus says you can’t mix meat and dairy)? What I’m saying is–you quote the bible to justify your misogyny, but I’m willing to bet you continue to wear clothing woven from multiple cloths and and I can pretty much guarantee you will intentionally mix meat with dairy in the near future. So be consistent. The bible was written a long, long time ago and everything in it is not applicable.

    Do you really think if feminism is against the nature of women, feminists would EXIST? you’re against them because you don’t like their views. that’s fine. So go ahead and continue to sin by saying disrespectful things about them and not loving your neighbor as you love yourself. Continue wasting your time by preaching hate, and lack of acceptance instead of love. But do not lie to yourself or to anyone else by implying that women dislike feminism, because they don’t. The truth is, women may be inclined to be mothers, to be nurturing, or domestic or submissive. But not all are. And the same women can cook and clean and then go off to her job as an engineer or a political leader or a businesswomen and do a damn good job of it. Just because you don’t think women generally have the same brain-wiring to complete certain tasks as men does not mean many women are an exception to this rule. If you believe that a man in the lower third of the intelligent percentile should be an engineer because it’s in his brains ‘wiring’, then why shouldn’t a women in the top third tier of intelligent be able to do so, as she’d be better at it than him? your argument that a man may outperform a woman of equal intelligence in the field of engineering, because men are better at it, on average. but a brilliant women will outshine a dull man in EVERY area of life, from politics to engineering to leading to being an important contributor to society.

    So sunshine, you’ve made it very clear your niche in life is being ‘domestic’, ‘submissive’, and a bitchy blogger. But please, for the love of all that is good and holy, do NOT try to take away MY right to vote, MY right to be whatever the hell I want to be, and MY right to make a lot of damn money doing it. don’t take away MY right to press charges if my husband physically harms me, and don’t take away those rights from posterity. Don’t take away those rights from your baby girls, or from their friends or the children or your friends or from the friends of your children. It’s fine to live however you want, but don’t take away others’ rights from them.

    Thanks! I’m interested in and awaiting your reply.

  129. JDG

    Legalizing abuse is not the answer to your prayers.

    She isn’t arguing to legalize abuse. She is making the point that mild physical discipline is in fact not abuse. As usual someone has to jump right in with “Well what if he wants to cut your head off” type of nonsense. If you hadn’t been so thoroughly indoctrinated by feminism, you would know that the system we had before produced a much more self regulated society with children able to act responsibly. What you and those like you have given us is shameful and destructive.

    i feel truly sorry for your children who are going to be brought up to be submissive, weak individuals.

    Because the children we see brought up under this feminist based system are strong? If you define arrogant, loud mouthed, inconsiderate, disrespectful, and lacking in self discipline as strong then okay. If you new anything about real history you would know about the strong yet obedient women of the past that put the modern woman to shame in what they accomplished.

    I feel sorry for your kids. What kind of a life will they live?

    And if you want to take the word of the bible literally, I suppose that means you never wear woven clothing composed of more than one kind of cloth?

    Another comment that takes the scriptures out of context (old covenant) to argue that the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally, but then –

    for the love of all that is good and holy,

    makes an end run to objective standards (good and holy) found in the same scriptures that previously were said not be taken literally.

    You go girl.
    Go straight to the kitchen.
    Do not pass go.
    Do not collect $200.
    Do not vote.
    Just go make those sammiches.

  130. Pingback: my feminist quest to have an honest conversation & exchange of ideas with sexist men (and women)!! | superflygirrrl

  131. cassie

    @JDG

    Wow, your arrogance and ignorance is actually laughable. First of all, I’m not indoctrinated with feminism, nor have I (or people ‘like me’) given you anything shameful or destructive. If you want to see shameful, or destructive, look inside your history books. You’ll find a long history of women were were oppressed in every possible manner. If women were happy with the way things were, do you think they would’ve tried to make changes? Please, even someone as brainwashed as you wouldn’t be so stupid as to try to assert that the feminist movement wasn’t wanted by anyone. But the thing is, I don’t have a problem with a woman saying, “okay, I’m Christian and have daddy problems, so it’s okay if you slap me across the face if i don’t cook your dinner fast enough”. What I have a problem with is people like Sunshine Mary saying that it should be legalized, so that the atheist with a drug problem can slap his wife across the face and then go to the courts saying he was doing it to ‘discipline’ her. Men aren’t perfect and can’t be 100% trusted by the government to ‘mildly physically abuse’ a woman as he sees ‘fit’. And as for your comment about the shameful destructive society we have now thanks to ‘people like me’ (aka intelligent women with self-respect), I would hardly call our society destructive. Like any other, it’s not flawless. But for the first time in a long time, women are able to express themselves freely, more women now than ever before are pursuing careers in science and math and EXCELLING, and women are finally gaining some footing in almost every industry in the word. And blaming WOMEN for any issues you have with the government is like blaming the president for the endangerment of the Sri Lankan Elephant–just because women’s rights took great steps while our society took a fall does not mean the two are connected in any way.

    Because the children we see brought up under this feminist based system are strong? If you define arrogant, loud mouthed, inconsiderate, disrespectful, and lacking in self discipline as strong then okay. If you new anything about real history you would know about the strong yet obedient women of the past that put the modern woman to shame in what they accomplished.

    I don’t know what children you’ve been talking to lately? Oh, right, probably your own children. You know, the ones indoctrinated with misogyny and foolishness….Well anyways, the way I see it, for a long time, young girls have been told to spoke only when spoken to. To be humble, meek, whatever. Never give an opinion, leave that to the men. Any backlash a young girl is receiving simply for speaking her mind sounds more like the grumblings of someone who prefers females to be quiet and meek rather than any ACTUAL grounds for concern. Children have been arrogant, loud mouthed, inconsiderate and disrespectful for as long as there have been human beings inhabiting this earth. Sure, they were probably better disciplined before. They wouldn’t have been allowed to act out their arrogance or their lack of self-discipline, because they would’ve been dealt with more strictly from their parents in the 60s. But what does this have to do with the feminist movement? Or more specifically, with women? You’re claiming because we have children who act out their arrogance and bad behavior, the feminist movement is somehow to blame? Unless you’re suggesting that by allowing women to be strong, independent beings ALL CHILDREN will suddenly become outspoken and disrespectful, in which case you’re just stupid, I don’t see your point there.

    And as far as taking the bible out of context–I personally believe the bible was something written by a power-hungry guy who wanted control and influence in the name of God. I don’t believe in it. So whatever you think I’m doing to contradict myself…it isn’t like that. Quote me and mock me all you want, but the point is if you’re going to assert that a women should do X, Y or Z, or that homosexuality or ANYTHING ELSE is a sin, you need to be consistent! So until you condemn anyone wearing clothing spun from multiple fabrics, shut up about people who are gay and women who don’t want to be stifled by your misogynistic crap!

    Nobody’s saying that your sex roles are totally out of line. But SOME people, both men and women, don’t like them. So do whatever you want behind closed doors, but don’t try to make it a law that everybody in the country has to deal with that a woman should be beaten by her husband as HE sees fit, or should have her right to vote taken away.

    The thing is–your entire argument and that of all ‘people like you’ is that you’re all assuming that nobody actually enjoys or benefits the feminist system. That’s not true. Nobody said, “you know what I’d HATE?! if women had equal rights. let’s fight for it”. Obviously, the person who wanted to fight for rights wanted the rights. Men, too, wanted their wives and daughters to have the opportunities that would best fit them.

    I’m not implying that every women should go become a physicist or whatever. I don’t have a problem with anybody who wishes to live in the past and pretend that they’re not capable of anything more than raising kids and cooking. If you want to half-live your half-life because some man wrote down you should in a book thousands of years ago, be my guest. But keep it the hell out of mainstream American politics and take it back to the 19th century.

  132. Farm Boy

    pretend that they’re not capable of anything more than raising kids and cooking.

    It is not so much a question of what women can do; it is a question of what they should do.

  133. Farm Boy

    Children have been arrogant, loud mouthed, inconsiderate and disrespectful for as long as there have been human beings inhabiting this earth

    Are you really so sure? In the bad old days children truly needed their parents to survive. Mistakes could be devastating. Respect followed.

  134. Farm Boy

    You’re claiming because we have children who act out their arrogance and bad behavior, the feminist movement is somehow to blame?

    Perhaps women who do not respect who they are cause their children not to respect them either.

  135. Farm Boy

    Nobody’s saying that your sex roles are totally out of line. But SOME people, both men and women, don’t like them.

    I don’t like celery. But many people do, and it is healthy besides.

  136. Farm Boy

    I personally believe the bible was something written by a power-hungry guy who wanted control and influence in the name of God

    All of the old testament and all of the new testament were written by one fella…

  137. LK Smart

    If your draft card serves as your voter ID can only men eligible for the draft vote? And I personally have no problem with signing up for the draft although I think the point is moot as the draft hasn’t been utilized in 40 years and men can, and have, sucessfully avoided the draft due to conscientious objection.
    If women in the United States are not allowed to vote do we still have to pay taxes?

  138. Farm Boy

    more women now than ever before are pursuing careers in science and math and EXCELLING

    Agreed. Presently the number of women in these fields is “slightly above miniscule”, which is an improvement compared to “miniscule”.

    Women for the most part do not have the temperment needed for these fields.

  139. Sarah's Daughter

    It is not so much a question of what women can do; it is a question of what they should do.

    Excellent.

  140. Farm Boy

    Nobody said, “you know what I’d HATE?! if women had equal rights. let’s fight for it”.

    If one hates equal rights, why would they fight for it?

  141. cassie

    You’re right–it is a question of what they SHOULD do rather than what they CAN do. But why SHOULD men do what women also CAN do? I’m not saying women can do anything men can do. I’m simply saying some of them can do some of the things men can do that traditional gender roles taught them NOT to do.

    It is not so much a question of what women can do; it is a question of what they should do.

    Are you really so sure? In the bad old days children truly needed their parents to survive. Mistakes could be devastating. Respect followed.

    Okay, so what’s your point? Children..don’t need their parents as much, and could survive without them? Yeah, a higher standard of living with less dependence on others. Wow, that sounds really really bad. Let’s blame all the feminists. Yup. Your logic = flawless

    Perhaps women who do not respect who they are cause their children not to respect them either.

    Um….yes, perhaps. Care to add any backup to that sentence? I mean you’re just throwing off-topic assumptions out there……You’re not making sense. “perhaps” it’s mens fault, and not just women’s?

    I don’t like celery. But many people do, and it is healthy besides.

    LOL yes, and that’s all well and good until the federal government tries to mandate whether or not you must consume celery! The United States is a democracy, and just because you like celery doesn’t mean you should have the right to enforce your taste on everyone else. If the general public wants something different–however healthy or unhealthy it may be for society–then that’s what should happen.

    All of the old testament and all of the new testament were written by one fella…

    Yeah, crazy, right? It’s almost as crazy as the concept that there is an all-knowing, all-seeing god out there who LOVES all his people yet will send them to burn ETERNALLY if you don’t believe in Jesus dying for your sins, but don’t worry he LOVES you and he’ll tell you he loves you as you burn for all eternity. It’s almost as crazy as the concept that there’s someone out there who GIVES a what who we choose to love, or how we choose to live. It’s almost as crazy as there being a God out there who lets people die of disease and hunger and poverty and at the hands of murderers. It’s almost as crazy as Christianity and the brainwashing doctrines that’ve been thought up to control and manipulate others while maximizing profit and power.

  142. cassie

    Agreed. Presently the number of women in these fields is “slightly above miniscule”, which is an improvement compared to “miniscule”.

    Women for the most part do not have the temperment needed for these fields.

    ^^

    Agreed. And how fabulous is it that maybe 60 or 70 women are now excelling at a field they are passionate about?! Who cares if they went from ‘miniscule’ to ‘slightly above miniscule’. Would that have been possible without the feminist movement? The point is, you’re totally right. The temperament required for being a math-this or a science-that is one that most women don’t have. But that doesn’t mean women shouldn’t have the opportunity to pursue whatever career they want.

  143. Farm Boy

    If women were happy with the way things were, do you think they would’ve tried to make changes?

    Changes are not always for the better. Women (and their men allies) did not know what they were unleashing (perhaps some of them did).

    My Mom was very happy in her wife/mother role. My feminist sisters and cousins are miserable. Was a mistake made?

  144. cassie

    If one hates equal rights, why would they fight for it?

    my point exactly! NOBODY EVER SAID THAT—the people who fight for equal rights WANT equal rights!

  145. cassie

    Changes are not always for the better. Women (and their men allies) did not know what they were unleashing (perhaps some of them did).

    My Mom was very happy in her wife/mother role. My feminist sisters and cousins are miserable. Was a mistake made?

    Wow, you know what? I stand completely corrected. Your mom was happy as a wife/mother, and your sisters weren’t. Wow. your family should publish a book about it, really. Honey, there’s a lot more than 3 or 4 women out there. I’m sure if you ever stopped trying to fight for misogyny and the oppression of women, you might be able to open your mind a little and understand that the whole reason people started a revolution (of feminism), was that they weren’t happy with how things are now. There is a TON wrong with feminism, and a TON wrong with society. That’s basically irrefutable and I am with you on that matter. But I don’t think going back to how things USED to be is the answer, because people revolted against that system for a reason, you know? It didn’t work for them. Most women and men who fought for feminism probably didn’t realize what they were unleashing but I’m sure they’re a hell of a lot better off now than they were before.

  146. Farm Boy

    it is a question of what they SHOULD do rather than what they CAN do. But why SHOULD men do what women also CAN do? I’m not saying women can do anything men can do. I’m simply saying some of them can do some of the things men can do that traditional gender roles taught them NOT to do.

    This week is next week’s last week. It won’t be next week until this week is the last week of the next week.

  147. Farm Boy

    There is scholarship that clearly shows that the old testement and new testament were written at different times.

  148. FuzzieWuzzie

    Cassie, since it is obvious that you’re a feminist, there is little that can be said to persuade you. However, you do need to work on your opinion of women of the 19th century and earlier. My personal assessment is that they are far and awy better examples because they didn’t use feminism to deny their own agency.
    For starters, you could watch Ric Burns’ Death and the Civil War on PBS American Experience. While the Federal government ponied up the money necessary to bury all their dead, Confederate women solicited donations to get their husbands, brothers, and fathers buried. Do you think that could happen today?

    Another point, the Bible was written by several men and women. Consider Ruth and Esther. The first five books are attributed to Moses. If he were power hungry, he could had stayed a Prince of Egypt and no one would know of him today.

    About considering Ruth and Esther, rather than ask you to make sandwiches, please read them. Ruth will be hard to follow in that present day mores and conventions are different-more to study.

  149. Farm Boy

    my point exactly! NOBODY EVER SAID THAT—the people who fight for equal rights WANT equal rights!

    So you use a non sequitur to prove an affirmative?

  150. cassie

    @Farmboy Umm…okay? But if women can and want to do something that men are doing without question, they should be allowed to. The only reasons for preventing the select women who choose to pursue careers and lives typically associated with men are oppression.

    @FuzzieWuzzie Since you’re an old-fashioned chauvinist, there is little that can be said to persuade you. While I could definitely use more religious-ed, that doesn’t change my basic argument: personally, I don’t believe in the bible or in christianity. there. that’s all i have to say.

    i don’t care about scholarly evidence proving that the new and old testaments were written at different times, nor do i care about whom wrote what. the point is, just because a woman helped write the bible doesn’t mean it wasn’t mainly influenced by men, or brainwashed women. And yeah, I don’t doubt that there were incredibly accomplished women in the 19th century. But you know what? They’d be all the more so if they had more rights.

    Also, I’m not a ‘feminist’ in the way you think i am. i support some traditional gender role ideals and I’m not a big fan of ‘everything you can do i can do better’ feminists. I simply think that women need to be treated like the complex, capable being they are–capable of independent thought, and career-oriented society contributions (besides child rearing/houskeeping/etc). SSM said herself she doesn’t feel that housekeeping is anything a man can’t do–what I’m saying is, of course the traditional roles a woman plays are IMPORTANT. We’d be screwed without them. But like SSM said, men could do it, too. Well, my opinion is that women should have the opportunities to do things besides the stuff ‘anyone’ can do. And since the feminist revolution (and in some cases, before it), they have been. I think that should continue, instead of people like you trying to take away constitutional amendments, and other rights (like not having husbands cause bodily harm to so-called ‘disobedient’ wives).

  151. cassie

    So you use a non sequitur to prove an affirmative?

    No. I’m saying the reason people fight for equal rights for women is because people want them. One big fallacy in your/SSM/’your people’s’ argument: “women don’t want feminism/it makes sex gross/nobody wanted it/why do we even have it?”. I’m saying the first person to say, hey, why can’t women do this, too? Wanted equal rights. So we shouldn’t go back to how things were on the grounds that nobody actually likes the new system. It isn’t true.

  152. Farm Boy

    Your mom was happy as a wife/mother, and your sisters weren’t,

    It is anecdotal evidence, but there are large numbers of people with similar anecdotal evidence. But what is not anecdotal is that studies have shown that women’s happiness has gone down throughout the years. Wit both feminism and an increased standard of living on our side, why would this be?

  153. Sarah's Daughter

    I simply think that women need to be treated like the complex, capable being they are–capable of independent thought, and career-oriented society contributions (besides child rearing/houskeeping/etc).

    They always have been.

    Wake up and look around. Look into how much this “capable of independent thought” woman relies on prescriptions to get her through her day.

    There has always been a subset of women who have pursued more male traditions, some of whom excelled notably. The huge failure of feminism is that this was sold to the masses of women who are not cut out for it. Today these women are poor, stressed, drugged up, obese, depressed, and doing nothing that feminism claims they ought be able to do. Many of which have the haunting of aborted babies and shattered families.

    But boy has our pharmaceutical industry boomed…. Wonder why that is.

  154. Farm Boy

    Women will always be better than men at being mothers.

    Women will never respect men who are.”kitchen bitches”

    If women want to be physicists, then let them.

    But women should be encoraged to be mothers, rather than career women. Following such a course almost always results in everybody being happier.

  155. FuzzieWuzzie

    Farm Boy, the two Arab mares that I brought treats to from the grocery store wouldn’t eat celery or broccoli. Hope this helps.

  156. Farm Boy

    But boy has our pharmaceutical industry boomed…. Wonder why that is.

    A local chain, Meijer’s, has just expanded its pet supplies section… Wonder why that is.

  157. FuzzieWuzzie

    Cassie, youtube doesn’t have a good production of Ruth but, they do of Esther. I found this searchig for a heroine. Superb cast with Omar Sharif finally getting to play a Persian.

  158. Ton

    Until there is a long list of combat related disabled women, women with silver stars, dsc’ s and cmh’s, women haven’t fought for any right. Running your mouth isn’t fighting.

  159. cassie

    @ton
    do your research. im not saying the fight for womens rights falls in the same category as serving in the military–it doesnt. but the womens rights movement was and continues to be SO much more than “running your mouth”

  160. cassie

    @farm boy
    lol we dont need to encourage or dissuade women to do anythig. they should find what makes them happy and do t, indvidually

    @sarahs daughter

    im awake and im looking around but all i see here is a hell of a lot of ignorance. i guess we know different women.

    @fuzziewuzzie

    thanks. ill look into it

  161. JDG

    I get back and find that some one let cassie out of the kitchen. Now look at all those PC talking points strewn about everywhere. How many times will these same fallacies have to be refuted?

  162. FuzzieWuzzie

    Cassie, I am beginning to get the impression that you like coming here and stirring up the pot with the boys.

    Ton, it is curious that you should mention the Congressional Medal of Honor. There was a woman that recieved it during the War Between the States. She diguised herself s a man and served as a surgeon. She was the only one ever to have it aken away when she got too political as a suffragette.
    That was one of the anecdotes from Ken Burns’ The Civil War.

  163. Farm Boy

    I get back and find that some one let cassie out of the kitchen

    I suppose that there were not so many tingles in making sammiches.

  164. JDG

    I suppose that there were not so many tingles in making sammiches

    But the other rewards are so much better. She doesn’t know what she is missing. But I know what I’m missing, a sammich.

  165. Hipster Racist

    cassie is obviously young and doesnt know crap about actual history. The women who made the most important contributions to science did so pre feminism or totally outside of it.

    she clearly knows nothing other than feminist talking points.

    not smart enough to know what she doesnt know.

    lame.

  166. cassie

    no i dont like stirring up trouble. actually this is the first time ive ever commented ona controversial article or post bc usually i see it leads people into pointless arguments. i find it funny that youre making the kitchen jokes because they dont offend me, not at all. theres no shame in choosing to he a housewife or a career woman. whatever makes you invididually happy. i just hate to see so many brainwashed and sexist people around today. and @sarahsdaughter–how have i been dishonest? im not following. its totally cool if you wanna insult me, but ive been pretty honest. my experience in life, though im young and am no expert, is that the career women or the housewives are the happiest. the least happy (the obese drugged up ones) tend to be those who try to combine being career women and being housewives or mothers. all im saying is there should be nothing wrong with choosing the career path over the family path. i know i will never ever convince you otherwise. thats a matter of religious differences and thats not gonna change. but i have a problem with constitutional amendments that take away what women and men earned, and i have a problem with 7 or 8 of the main points of the original argument. believe what you want. but i have not been dishonest, actually the opposite.

  167. cassie

    @hipster racist—ya im young and probably pretty ignorant but i dont care if it shows. im speaking through experience and a moral compass and thats all i need to know that women dont belong in the kitchen.

  168. Hipster Racist

    lol at calling us ignorant. I bet the typical ssm poster has more education than she does.

    whats your major doll? I would bet money ssm has a more prestigious alma mater and would whoop her ass on an iq test.

    what you got cassie? other than second hand talking point?

  169. cassie

    @hipster racist

    i said it myself. im young and uneducated. unlike you im not trying to prove myself. i can almost guarantee im about a third or fourth of your age. im not trying to sound fancy or intelligent. but i guess what im saying is, as a self-identified ignorant person, it takes one to know one…and im talking to several.

  170. FuzzieWuzzie

    Cassie, I guess that I am an old fashioned Chauvinist. I can remember Gloria Steinem looking good enough to wear the Playboy Bunny outfit.
    She really did do that!

  171. cassie

    Yeah. Gloria steinem actually regretted doing that a lot. a girl actually wrote her a letter or something asking her about how to get into playboy and steinem said it was pretty awful and that she was doing it for journalism. pretty sure she described it as degrading.

  172. Sarah's Daughter

    Cassie,
    When you have the opportunity to, as you’re around women my age – in the 35-45 year range, start asking simple questions. I’ve done this. I had heard about the prescription drug epidemic but I didn’t realize how many women I know are on them. Ask them if they know anything about anti-anxiety drugs and which ones are the best (you know for those really stressful OMG moments in life). I am being dead serious. Do this for the next several weeks. When I preformed this little experiment over 70% of the women I spoke with were either on anti-anxiety drugs and/or sleep aids and/or anti-depressants. I don’t know how much access you have to Gen X ladies but you will be blown away by their drug habits.

    If Gen X ladies look happy to you, it is because they literally can feel no emotion.

  173. FuzzieWuzzie

    Cassie, I think that she did it on very short term basis to write a story. In doing it so briefly, she never got to the point where she cloaked herself in her own dignity.

  174. Farm Boy

    youre making the kitchen jokes because they dont offend me, not at all.

    If we were trying to offend you, you would know it.

    i just hate to see so many brainwashed and sexist people

    So who brainwashed us? We have all been marinating in feminism our whole lives; almost never hearing a dissenting voice.

  175. Farm Boy

    thats a matter of religious differences and thats not gonna change

    Religion or not,it makes sense for a society to encourage women to put being a wife/mother highest on her list.

  176. cassie

    @farm boy
    I disagree. Religion plays a huge role in it. People who live religious (specifically Christian) lives believe that a woman’s main contribution to society is having children/raising them, and that she should be obedient to her husband/to men, and that she is better fit to be a housewife than to be a doctor or a politician. People who aren’t religious don’t follow that logic. And personally, I can see both sides. I simply don’t think the government or people who aren’t women should be trying to tell an individual how to live. That’s all. While I definitely see your points, there is a point where we’re never going to agree and it makes sense just to leave it there.

  177. cassie

    @fuzziewuzzie im a little confused but i think i agree with you.
    @farmboy “if we were trying to offend you, you would know it” okay congrats. i’m sure you have more than satisfactory insulting capabilities. and i doubt you’ve been marinating in feminism. you were probably born and raised with the beliefs you carry today.

  178. Novaseeker

    Of course Steinem eventually married, and to a quite wealthy man.

    I guess that at least one fish learned how to ride a bicycle.

  179. cassie

    Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think she needed any extra money at that point so she probably wasn’t marrying for money.

  180. Farm Boy

    Churches are feminist, the media is feminist, the law is feminist, the schools are feminist, women are feminist. This would be marinating.

  181. Ton

    Only women are dumb enough to think they have fought for and earned the right to something without bleeding and burying friends. What ever you think you have is a gift from a man ( or men in general) & like most women, you lack the good graces to show any appreciation for gifts/ rights you have not earned.

  182. cassie

    @farmboy you clearly don’t know what feminist means, but i don’t think you’re going to change your definition of it. ever. so let’s just agree to disagree.

    @ton Wow…It’s really sad to think you actually said, “Only women are dumb enough to think…”. I didn’t even think people like you still existed. Say what you want about my ‘good graces’, I’ve defended those who have fought for the rights I enjoy today. Pretty sure that’s considered showing appreciation. I’m not sure where you’re getting your need to talk about war/combat every five seconds from, but that’s not what we’re talking about. Believe it or not, struggle and fighting DOES ensue outside of the military. I’m sure it’s not nearly as physically trying as what a soldier goes through, but don’t downplay the incredible work our ancestors did for women’s rights because you don’t think it’s as hard as something you’ve done.

  183. FuzzieWuzzie

    The constitutionality of the draft was argued before the Supreme Court in 1916 or 17. They upheld the draft because with rights, such as voting, came responsibilities.
    The draft was real then.

  184. Farm Boy

    we dont need to encourage or dissuade women to do anythig. they should find what makes them happy and do it.

    Not necessarily. Riding the carousel can be very fun in the short term, but is often damaging to the psyche in the long term. It is best if they do not learn this through experience.

  185. Ton

    No it doesn’t. What risk have you taken? What real risk did they take? None. Go try your bull$hit in Iran or the A-Stan. Then maybe you’ll cary some weight.

  186. FuzzieWuzzie

    Cassie, to try to fill out the statement that confused you. She didn’t stay at it long enough to be confident in the outfit.

  187. FuzzieWuzzie

    One day, I had CNBC on and there was some kind of event going on outside the New York Stock Exchange. They had a National Guard band playing. It’s leader, a captain, had seven rows of ribbons. My father who served in the Pacific in WWII and Korea, had five.
    Cassie, current war vets have seen a lot.

  188. Farm Boy

    What real risk did they take?

    I am reminded of Mrs. Banks from Mary Poppins. She was a suffragette who neglected her children to the point where Mr. Banks had to hire Mary Poppins to do the mother’s job. Not much risk when you have a man covering for you.

  189. JDG

    Response to cassie – part 1

    Wow, your arrogance and ignorance is actually laughable. You can laugh while you make those sammiches.

    <em?First of all, I’m not indoctrinated with feminism,

    You are swimming in it. Does a fish know that it is in water?

    nor have I (or people ‘like me’) given you anything shameful or destructive.

    School problems used to be talking out of turn, chewing gum in class, and violating a dress code.

    Problems today range from murder, rape, and drug dealing to hookup culture and teen pregnancies. Divorce rates went form 4 or 5 percent to 50 percent. Nope nothing shameful or destructive there. /sarc

    If you want to see shameful, or destructive, look inside your history books.

    Those history books that repaint history to make everything about women and minorities, or the 1st hand documents that tell it like it is?

    You’ll find a long history of women were were oppressed in every possible manner.

    You will never find a time or a place in history where women as a group were opressed and the men were not. Of course you probably will define oppressed as ‘She had to be a mother’ or She was stuck in the kitchen’. Never mind that the husband had to work in that coal mine, sewage plant, or garbage dump. Speaking of which, where are all the women clammoring for those kinds of jobs?

    Believing that there was discrimination against women in western society is to rewrite women’s history and to ignore men’s history altogether.

    Marriage was never an institution to oppress women (as feminists like to say). In the 1700s marriage was deemed an institution designed to serve children and protect women; therefore, women were entitled to the protection of their husbands; therefor, men had to stand between their wives and the violence of world including that of the law; therefore, men needed authority over their wives and children.

    Up to the 1700s in the UK there existed laws regarding a husbands discretion to physically chastise his wife. By this law he was permitted to give his wife mild correction. This law existed because a husband was legally, financially, and socially answerable for his wifes actions.

    He had to pay her debts, he was punished for her crimes, and he was socially shamed for her misdeeds. Thus the law allowed for him to deal with that kind of legal responsibility. And it actually prohibited husbands from using violence on their wives.

    Furthermore, in the US there have been laws against wife battering since before the American Revolution. Men were prosecuted and punishments included public whippings, fines from $255 to $1000, and 1 to 5 years in prison. Vigilante justice from male family members and/or male members of religious congregations was also used to discourage wife beaters.

    While these poor oppressed women were given these protections, there were men who were actually oppressed. These men had none of the protections that Western women were afforded. Those men were slaves.

    There were, however, laws on the books to protect female slaves. Only 2/3 as many women slaves vs men slaves were brought to Western nations, yet many colonies had more female slaves than male slaves because they lived longer due to the protections given to them. As I said above, women never had it worse then their men did.

    If women were happy with the way things were, do you think they would’ve tried to make changes?
    Most woman are rarely happy, then or now. The difference is that women from the past had been taught to deal with it. And women for the most part were lead into feminism by their collective noses by a few wealthy malcontents. Most of them didn’t do anything to change anything.

    To be continued…

  190. cassie

    @fuzziewuzzie ohhh okay i see

    @ everyone else there were plenty of risks involved including jail time and being ostracized from society. nothing when compared with combat. and i’m not claiming otherwise. but yeah. I’m done and you should be too. this is just getting ridiculous. bye!

  191. cassie

    @JDG please don’t bother continuing. i see your point, but I just don’t agree. I think that women have the potential to be very happy, rather than just ‘dealing with it’, and I think that my so-called feminist views will be a lot more effective at getting women there than your views. but whatever. neither of us is going to persuade the other, so i’m pretty much done here.

  192. JDG

    Well in case any one else wants to read it:

    Reply to cassie – part 2

    Well anyways, the way I see it, for a long time, young girls have been told to spoke only when spoken to. To be humble, meek, whatever. Never give an opinion, leave that to the men.

    Have you any non-revised historical evidence (letters, records) demonstrating that this was the case?

    Children have been arrogant, loud mouthed, inconsiderate and disrespectful for as long as there have been human beings inhabiting this earth.

    A trip outside of the Western world was a real eye opener for me. Children in general have much more respect for their parents and for authority in non Western countries. Such was the past as well I strongly suspect.

    Sure, they were probably better disciplined before. They wouldn’t have been allowed to act out their arrogance or their lack of self-discipline, because they would’ve been dealt with more strictly from their parents in the 60s. But what does this have to do with the feminist movement?

    The feminist movement took the key element out of successfully training a child to be a responsible adult. The most critical element is fathers. Fatherless children are more likely to end up in prison, join street gangs, do drugs, become prostitutes, and commit suicide. And you can thank feminist driven laws for this.

    In addition, strong and independent women gave us 55 million murdered infants slain in their own mother’s womb. Strong independent women gave us frivorce and life long alimony (paying for what exactly?). Strong and independent women gave us lower standards for women in the military, law enforcement, and firefighting significantly reducing efficiency in those institutions.

    To continue, strong and independent women have laws requiring quotas to be filled ensuring that they are hired over more qualified males, reducing efficiency in the work force. Strong independent women gave us a surplus of female doctors who work less hours but absorb limited resources for training future physicians, ensuring higher medical costs and fewer doctors in the future.

    And as far as taking the bible out of context–I personally believe the bible was something written by a power-hungry guy who wanted control and influence in the name of God. I don’t believe in it.

    The Bible is not just one book, but a collection of ancient texts and letters. There are 66 writings in three different languages penned by 40 different men. These men were witnesses living at different times through out a 1500 year span. All of them converged on a single theme, the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus became a sacrifice for sins that God’s people may be redeemed. After 23,000 archaeological digs, nothing has been found to contradict the facts laid out in the scriptures.

    For the Bible to be a human collaboration would require men who didn’t even live on the earth at the same time or in the same regions, nor speak the same languages, to all collaborate together.

    So until you condemn anyone wearing clothing spun from multiple fabrics, shut up about people who are gay and women who don’t want to be stifled by your misogynistic crap!

    I’ll try to keep this simple, but this subject involves deep theological discourse to give it justice. There was an old covenant, and now there is a new covenant. The law system applying to Christians now (new covenant) is not the law system of the Old Testament (old covenant), but the law of Christ who fulfilled the requirements of the law of God. We no longer follow the written code of rules and regulations that the children of Israel were to follow. Now the law is to be written on our hearts.

  193. JDG

    Relating to the subject of oppressed women:

    From Mrs. John Adams (Abigail)
    March 31, 1776

    “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

    “Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.

    “Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.

    “That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute; but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up — the harsh tide of master for the more tender and endearing one of friend.

    “Why, then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity?

    “Men of sense in all ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the (servants) of your sex; regard us then as being placed by Providence under your protection, and in imitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness.”

    From Mr. John Adams in response
    April 14, 1776

    “As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh.

    “We have been told that our struggle has loosened the bonds of government everywhere; that children and apprentices were disobedient; that schools and colleges were grown turbulent; that Indians slighted their guardians, and negroes grew insolent to their masters.

    “But your letter was the first intimation that another tribe, more numerous and powerful than all the rest, were grown discontented.

    “This is rather too coarse a compliment, but you are so saucy, I won’t blot it out.

    “Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and, in practice, you know we are the subjects.

    “We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight.”

    There is nothing new under the sun.

  194. Hipster Racist

    @farmboy you clearly don’t know what feminist means

    OK, Cassie has gone to full blown moron territory now. The fact she’s a girl shouldn’t enter into it. We have far too many intelligent women here to put up with this crap.

    Cassie, you silly little girl, go read about the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” and get back to us when you have something interesting to say.

    Listen – sweetheart – you’re way out of your league here. You’re just making a fool of yourself now. Let’s skip this embarrassment, ok?

    This forum is full of women far, far more intelligent than you. Stop making a fool of yourself and learn something.

  195. Ton

    yankees have always been bad news, full of ridiculously bad ideas like equality, fractional reserve banking, centralized power and the like. We should never have joined a political union with them.

  196. cassie

    @hipster racist

    @hipster racist
    funny…i dont really feel embarrassed. a little embarrassed for you, maybe. because this is the second or third time youve pulled the “intelligence” card when i told you, im not trying to act smart. doesnt mean im wrong.

  197. JDG

    We will probably have to rehash all of this again when the book discussion kicks into gear. Our schools are mass producing this kind of thinking.

    Cassie if you stick around and pay attention, you could earn a few things about life. There is so much you were never told, and so many things you were lied to about.

    For all those feminists who say they just want equality, get back in the kitchen for some sammich equality.

  198. FuzzieWuzzie

    I think Cassie likes us. Could it be sommething about the feminisne being attracted to the masculine? Since we’re only exchanging words, this principle may be operating at a level deeper than the physical.

  199. Laurie

    Dear woman who writes this blog,

    You are a human being. You are worth more than your ability to satisfy a man and push out babies. I really really hope you can find self love and self esteem at some point in your life.

  200. Farm Boy

    You are worth more than your ability to satisfy a man and push out babies

    I would say that being a good mom is worth gold.

  201. FuzzieWuzzie

    Laurie, while it’s likely that you’re a “drive-by” commenter, you should be reminded that feminism is about options. The option for women that our esteemed blog mommy is promoting is one that is rapidly diminishing as a possibility courtesey of aforementioned feminism. Also, to exercise it, would require consious effort over time, thus involving preparation and education.
    Some people who might be interested in seeing this option remain viable need this little corner of the internet.

  202. FuzzieWuzzie

    Farm Boy, I do try to keep my snout out of honey jars.
    “Oh dear, oh dear, oh my, oh my, how do I get this jar of honey from my head?”

  203. JDG

    you should be reminded that feminism is about options.

    Except when it’s not (we been lied to):

    “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” ~ Gloria Steinem, “What It Would Be Like If Women Win,” Time, August 31, 1970.

    “A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism…the [housewife's] labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable…. [W]oman’s work within the home [is] not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a ‘career’ for woman.” ~ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949.

    “[The] housewife is a nobody, and [housework] is a dead-end job. It may actually have a deteriorating effect on her mind…rendering her incapable of prolonged concentration on any single task. [She] comes to seem dumb as well as dull. [B]eing a housewife makes women sick.” ~ Sociologist Jessie Bernard in The Future of Marriage, 1982.

    “The chief thing is to get women to take part in socially productive labor, to liberate them from ‘domestic slavery,’ to free them from their stupefying and humiliating subjugation to the eternal drudgery of the kitchen and the nursery. This struggle will be a long one, and it demands a radical reconstruction, both of social technique and of morale. But it will end in the complete triumph of Communism.” ~ V.I. Lenin, International Working Women’s Day Speech , 1920.

    “Women owe Frieden an incalculable debt for The Feminine Mystique…. Domesticity was not a satisfactory story of an intelligent woman’s life.” ~ Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life, 1996.

    “Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” ~ Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, “The Daily Illini,” April 25, 1981.

    “[As long as the woman] is the primary caretaker of childhood, she is prevented from being a free human being.” ~ Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, 1969.

  204. Ton

    Before feminism my grandmother was a beloved wife and mother of 5 sons, grandmother of many, many more. With feminism my mother is shunned and despised by her son’s and most of her grandchildren. Add a little more feminism and women are now nothing more then a disposable sex commodity of no lasting value

    Congratulations feminists. Be proud

  205. FuzzieWuzzie

    JDG, all those feminists out to destroy motherhood. Whatever did they think would replace it?
    Curious about the quote from Vladimir Ilyich, the early Reds talked about this but, didn’t go down this road.

  206. FuzzieWuzzie

    Farm Boy, I had heard that during the Ceausescu regime in Rumania, that was tried. Raising children in almost factory manner. It was an abysmal failure. The state will take care of them for the remainder of their lives as they are emotiaonally crippled to the point where they can’t socialize.

  207. JDG

    Fuzzie I’m no expert, but I though I read somewhere that they did start down that trail, but reversed it after some unexpected fallout.

    Add a little more feminism and women are now nothing more then a disposable sex commodity

    On the one hand they are proud to be whores (they call it something else), and on the same hand we aren’t supposed to think that women behaving like whores is a bad thing. Yet they still get mad when you tell them they are acting like whores.

    Whatever did they think would replace it?

    If they thought about it at all I suppose it was that Utopian dream we keep hearing about but never seeing.

    The state

    Big brother has become big daddy, big mama, and now the big nanny. It seems in an odd sort of way that the more wussified we become, the more feminine our government responsibilities become.

  208. FuzzieWuzzie

    JDG, it would be interesting to know what made the Red Russians not go down that road.
    Sex positive feminism seems to be even more corrosive to relations between men and women than the previous version.

  209. JDG

    I was wondering that myself Fuzzie. If I get a chance, I’ll see if I can dig anything up. Yes, the further down this road we go the more corrosive it will get until there is nothing left or it all falls apart.

  210. FuzzieWuzzie

    JDG, I think it’s falling apart right now. Here on this blog, we are getting second hand reports from women that there are no men. I don’t think they’re qualifying that. They mean NO MEN.
    Once the realization of that hits, there will be a lot of head scratching. Women have always counted on the male libido to foster patience in guys.

  211. Laurie

    Feminism is about equal rights, choices, and yes options. There is nothing wrong with choosing to be a mother, to stay at home full time, and have a partner as the primary or sole income provider if that is what works for you and your family .

    What this blog advocates however is not choice. It’s subjugation of all women. This author’s choice to be a stay at home mother is perfectly sound, but I can’t help but be baffled and concerned by her lack of value in her own worth as a person. To not allow women to vote, feel marital rape laws should be banned because married women should apparently not need to consent to sex, etc. is backwards and demeaning. I can’t imagine the kind of indoctrination and abuse that has to happen for someone to advocate against their own well being in such a manner. It concerns me.

    Sunshine: you deserve better than this.
    Much love,
    L

  212. FuzzieWuzzie

    Laurie, it would be better if a woman set you straight but, SSM is not into subjection. She is subordinate to her hasband.
    On the the other hand, she is also the bear tamer extrordinaire!

  213. JDG

    Feminism is about equal rights, choices, and yes options.

    No it never was about equal rights or anything else ‘equal’. Feminism is all about getting what feminists perceive as the best for women at the expense of everyone else (men and children). Feminism was a lie from the beginning, and it certainly is not about choices (unless the choices are the ‘correct’ choices).

    http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/ten-changes-that-need-to-happen-in-order-to-promote-society-wide-traditional-sex-roles/#comment-53317

    If you are a feminist, than you are in league with these women. You don’t get to redefine the movement after these people have influenced lawmakers to pass laws that are destroying our society to ‘benefit’ women.

    Here is a little eye opener for Laurie to watch while making sammiches (warning contains some expletives):

  214. Farm Boy

    her lack of value in her own worth as a person.

    She is very valuable to her children. What could be more important?

  215. Farm Boy

    What this blog advocates however is not choice.

    It strongly suggests that most women become wives and mothers first. If that is not for you, then you can go down a different path.

  216. Farm Boy

    Women should not vote because they really don’t care about civilization; hypegamy makes sure of this.

  217. Farm Boy

    for someone to advocate against their own well being in such a manner

    But SSM is happy. Are you? Perhaps this is what concerns you.

  218. Ton

    Women, as a rule despise happiness. Doesn’t give them the drama they crave more then life itself. Which is an important truth for men to come to grasps with and why men should provide a manageable level of drama for the women in their life. Passing shit tests is often enough to do the job

  219. Jay

    LOL Yeah, modern feminism’s all about choice all right. That’s why feminists refer to stay at home moms and submissive wives as “doormats.” I’m sure they have some convenient explanation as to how this ISN’T misogyny. Remember ladies, you can only be proud of your choices if they’re feminist ones. Add to that the fact that the definition of “equality” is bound to differ from person to person, and saying that, “Feminism is about equality!” is a meaningless platitude. But I know the futility of arguing with ideologues, so I intend to just laugh at feminists and get some use out of them, like the useful idiots they are. This sort of goes for all lefties.

  220. Laurie

    Wow. It must be so difficult watching your absolute social power wane. I’ll make a sandwich to eat while I work on my phd dissertation and revel in the fact that it’s not really worth my time to be appalled by the opinions expressed here. You are all the last remnants of a dying breed, you aren’t going quietly, but you are going and I’m sure you all know that. I suppose there will always be those who feel the need to demean others to feel powerful, but thankfully you are no longer protected by law.

  221. feministhater

    Lol, ‘social power’, haha, don’t worry there honey, the music stops when the bills come due and the tab is awfully high. Would you mind getting that, sweetums? I’ve got to go get my JAGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!

    America spent all her social and monetary capital propping up the system for femcunts. Now you and your sisters must foot the bill. Hope the debt for your PHD is worth it!

  222. Cicero

    Don’t bother with Laurie. She is just showing the symptoms of penis envy.
    Look she is trying to measure herself to men by claiming she is busy with a Phd, which is a male invention found at a university build and started by men, eating a meal enjoyed by men with products cultivated by men and transported and processed by male invention and machinery sitting in her home build by men typing on a device invented by men which is powered by electricity provided by men from a fuel source also harnessed by men and…… well I could go on and on and on however I am sure you get the Idea.
    Her coming here is like a right of passage in the hyena http://www.omgfactsonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/hyena2.jpg thiefdom.
    When she get back to the pack she can the all have a great reunion on the start looking if the Phallus (aka pseudo-penis) got bigger http://www.hyaenidae.org/uploads/images/crocuta%20pix/greeting(HEW)-cropped.jpg

  223. Cicero

    @ Farm Boy:
    Might be…….. however does it really matter? All worth while courses we first done by men. So even if she hates males with fire and brimstone in her soul she can’t escape the fact that men did it first and she had to learn from men. The irony is Shakespearean.

  224. FuzzieWuzzie

    Laurie, you have it backwards. It’s feminism that’s on the wane. At the core of the ideology, it overlooks that men and women have to live cooperatively. The consequences of that oversight are coming to the fore as fewer and fewer people self-identify as feminist. Kay Hymowitsz had a video to this effect on youtube.

  225. Pingback: A Genie Whose Release only its Master can Contain (II) Critique – As Important to Survival as Breakfast | Blue Dog Talking

  226. Jaey

    Have you heard of Saudi Arabia . They have all that. And they they throw in child marriage and not being able to drive too. I have no problem with women wanting this lifestyle. But women are trying to fight against this in other countries. It is scary in real life. Yes there are less divorces but women lives are hell. Ask the 8 year olds trying to get divorces and care for their children.

    Women have fought to be treated like human beings please stop advocating against that. If you don’t want those rights don’t use them. But I am a grown woman. I am sorry your parents never taught you critical thinking and comment sense but it is not to late to learn.

    I love the rest of your blog but reducing women to child status is cruel and unfair. If women want to follow this they should. But being forced is wrong.

    What exactly are men giving up?

  227. Jaey

    If rape is okay why wouldn’t a man just rape his wife rather than get a second wife?Wouldn’t that be less costly? If she didn’t want to sleep with him another woman fulfiling this need would take away her guilt especially if she was traumatized and resentful from his previous rapes.

    The blogs I read portray intimacy as an emotional need that men use to connect and show love. The only emotion you would get from rape is fear and hatred and probably wouldn’t lead to her enjoyment of it down the road. Not to mention the PTSD that would lead to postpartum depression leading to unhealthy babies with a greatly increased chance of depression. But as long as the men are happy.

  228. Non yah business

    This sounds excruciatingly sexist to one side. Ok, yes married men should be able to have sex with there wife but polygamy? We are over populated as it is. If one woman were w two men, they would be richer together as a family and the woman would contribute to nurture, and give sex to her men when ever needed. Does this sound fair to you? If polygamy should be legal than I guess you might as well believe in cheating. And are you serious? Oh seriously abbused wives or absent of marriage? Have you seen the woman who obeyed and her whole body is burnt??? This is one example out of sooo many. People are different from eachother regardless of sexual preference or opposite sex. I’m a single mom of four who did everything for a man who abbused and cheated on me. I went to college finished and now in debt. It is hard for a woman to succeed as it is, but to take away the only thing she has to hold onto, until she can get her kids and herself on her feet, sounds ignorant, selfish, very sad, and jus truly injustice and immoral. So let’s have the kids and the woman on the street unless she puts up with a man who controls her every move and cheats on her, and it’s okay to put her in her place? This truly is awful and I would rather turn gay than to put up with that! Obviously you have not been threw what you are trying to put out! What a sick world we live in!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s