Redirection

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

"Women Have Rights, Men Have Duties"

OK, this one is going to be controversial.

We all know that progressives of all sorts don't believe in labour division based on sex. They basically tell you to go out and do whatever. They preach you can choose your own reality nowadays. So far so bad. Now what about the opposition?

What about the people who claim to be "traditionalist, right wing, family friendly, conservative Christians" types. How often will they say something along the lines that they are naturally pro- family and that the SAHM is "the most important job on earth" but if the woman desires to have a career, that's fine, too? But do they ever claim the same about men? Like, it's good to be a father, provider and protector, but if the dude doesn't feel like it and rather stay home, it's a valid choice?

A man without a job or the one who sends his wife to earn money while he's just hanging around playing vidya games is shamed as a loser, or a basement dweller or an incel. Hence the title of my post: the so-called right wingers, a big part of them, don't really believe in enforcing traditional feminine duties of being a caregiver to her family or even being chaste; just like feminists they think women should be allowed to do whatever they wish, but men are still expected to fulfill their traditional duties to women and society.

How often have I read an American conservative on social media saying something like: why don't men in Europe protect their women from criminal attacks? The answer is simple, they aren't their women any more, they are emancipated. They often choose to put themselves in dangerous situations/date dangerous criminals, why should a random man risk his life to save her from her own stupid choices?

The problem with social conservatives is their mentality of wanting to have the cake and eat it, too. In a traditional society both sexes have their rights and obligations. You can't free one sex without freeing the other. You can't encourage your daughter to have a high powered career and have her fun dating random men, may be, having a child or two outside wedlock and then expect a traditional, God-fearing guy come to her rescue when she's 35 and all these "adventurous types" she was running after, don't want her any more and she finally wants to settle down.

"Conservatives" have no problem with shaming men for their anti-social habits, like p*rn, alcohol or mistresses yet they are positively Victorian when it comes to women, who are, on one hand, fit to be senators and army generals but are apparently too weak-minded to withstand the appeal of "bad boys". It's always the man's fault and never the woman's.

There is really nothing at all traditional about this approach and it's unjust, too, and serves to alienate a big number of young men who perceive that so-called conservatives don't have their best interests in mind.

8 comments:

  1. A annoyed American maleNovember 13, 2018 at 10:43 AM

    I would like nothing better than to stay at home and let her work a sorry job. It's not like housework is really that difficult. Don't women want equality? I do like women who work real hard jobs like nursing or pharmacy pr maybe have a management job that actually requires some effort but even they have this stupidity about equality and a lack of sense sometimes. Most would have still voted for Hilebeast as president.

    It annoys me I have to compete with women for the same positions and when looking for work I'm at the mercy of 'Bambi' who has a marketing degree and is the 'director of talent acquisition'. I mean, it's obvious she got that job because she is smart.

    I don't want to bash religion here, but the Christian pastors are totally clueless about the situation. What's in it for men when it comes to marriage? That fact of the matter is that men are expendable pack mules for this society.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know what "women" want:) Personally I don't want equality, I want a return to the traditional society, the real kind, where both sexes have more or less to follow socially acceptable rules. It doesn't have to be a rigid one though, like in S. Arabia, but of a more relaxed type, like in the 1930s or thereabout. I don't have a problem with a single woman who desires to work, but not in a traditionally male sphere, like the army or politics. Also if a man has saved enough money to live on rent and wants to quit his job, why not? The elites often live from an inheritance, both men and women, but have the cheek to shame us lesser folks for wishing to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think most people despise men not working, because it is so deep-coded in our genes. I think double-standards exist because that's how it is with our species. Woman's sluttiness is much bigger deal to everybody than a man being "stag". It has always been like that and it will always be. It is the same with all mammals; females really don't care what males do, but oh boy, do males guard their females and fight over them!

    Same thing with work: it is natural, that women stay home, so most people are more or less ok with that. When our species developed, women were mostly pregnant or breastfeeding, so obviously they could not go to rough hunting trips. Men could. And all that is in our genes. Now in animal kingdom, for example female lions do most of the hunting. But in humans it is different, because female women and children are so much more vulnerable than lions. Women suffer from pregnancy and delivery more than animals and our children are really helpless several years.

    Feminists can whine about double-standards when it comes to sluttiness and manosphere can whine about double-standards when it comes to staying at home. And they will change nothing. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To clarify, I certainly believe a man should support his family or either not marry at all. He's also supposed to have an occupation and not being idle. An occupation doesn't necessarily mean spending every moment in money-making activities, though. A man can inherit family wealth and spend his days creating works of art, for instance, or going into politics. He can also make enough and retire early. As long as he isn't mooching off some relatives or the state, I don't see a problem with it. That's the way the upper class have lived, and what is more, they still do.

    Now about lions, feminists love the fact that the females hunt, but the reason for it is that a male can't afford being injured during hunting since it means he won't be able to defend his territory from another male who would then slaughter his cubs and mate with his female.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I didn't know that about lions. I have just thought that male lions are assholes... ;)

    I should have said that "people despise men not providing for their family". Of course not working is ok, if you still have the money to support your family. But I have noticed that even most wealthiest men usually WANT to work.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No, male lions aren't all that bad:)

    Some of my husband's colleagues used to have their own companies which they later sold for a good price so that they could retire early but they still chose to find another employment but they worked part-time.

    I think most (normal) men like to have something to do, it makes them feel important and needed, but when you really don't have to work but do it any way, it becomes much less stressful.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hear, hear!

    We have a name for such ostensible Christians who promote such heresies: Churchians. Their faith is Churchianity, not Christianity. :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cucktianity is also a good one:) I call them soys...

    ReplyDelete

No anonymous comments. Anonymous comments will be deleted.