Women in a masculine society

One of the very common objections made by feminists (of the Jizzabel stripe) and white knights to the ideas and themes of the 'Sphere is that our stated goal of promoting a society in which men are once more in charge would reduce women back to a state of chattel. Indeed, it is not unheard of to see some of the bravest of these folk charge that we would reduce women to a state not much different from the one that they would occupy under traditional Islamic sharia law. (This is actually quite rare; few Leftists are willing to risk speaking out against Islamists, since they are at some level, and despite their rainbows-and-unicorns rhetoric, aware that Islamists have exactly zero tolerance for criticism and often show this in quite nasty ways.)

Such accusations sit uncomfortably with many, I'm sure. And indeed, if one were to think in superficial terms about our beliefs, one might be compelled to agree. After all, sharia law basically states that women must be at all times subservient to men, that they have essentially no rights other than those given to them by men, and that men practically own them. How, one might ask, is this in any way different from what Neanderthals like Vox (and Athol, and Rollo, and Dalrock, and Keoni Galt, and every single other male married Manosphere blogger) want to create?

The answer should be obvious to anyone who is willing to recreate a society based on traditionalist and explicitly Christian values. There are very good reasons, by the way, why I choose to use Christian doctrine as a template for a civilised, masculine, K-selected society. It is because Christianity is, and has always been, a remarkably and consistently pro-woman religion, especially when compared with Islam and most pagan religions. Consider the fate of women under the Norse religion: when a Viking warrior died, especially if he was a great jarl or warrior of note, his thralls would be executed and buried with him- including his women- to accompany him to the afterlife. Or consider the ancient and barbaric practice of widow-burning under Hindu customs*- it was called sati, and it required that the widow ascend her husband's funeral pyre to be consumed, alive, by the flames so that she might avoid the stigma of living as a widow**. Indeed, compared to the inhumanity of sharia law, Christianity is shockingly liberal when it comes to women- and that is what makes it close to ideal as a template for moulding a masculine society in which women have rights and security, but cannot rule over men.

In almost every matter related to women, whether it be education, property rights, freedom of movement and thought, or equality before the Lord, Christianity has shown, repeatedly, that its basic doctrines are compatible both with a fecund and a male-led society. We ignore and abandon such a template to our peril.

What, then, would such a society look like? Well, unlike the Churchian feminists who insist that the Gospel of Christ was compatible with both the Old Testament (which it was) and modern feminism (which it most assuredly was not), it would not be a society of unlimited and equal rights for all. And it should be quite obvious why. Equality, in anything other than the spiritual sense of equality before the eyes of the Lord, is and has always been a complete illusion. With the single caveat of the love and mercy of the Lord, there has never been any such thing as equality- not between individuals, not between men and women, not between adults and children, not between different races, and not between different societies and civilisations. And there never will be, for if all are equal, then inevitably the nature of Man will find some twisted way to pervert that equality to ruinous ends.

The aim of such a society must be, always and forever, "the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order". The starting point of such a society MUST therefore be that there is no such thing as an unearned right- and that responsibilities are therefore mirror images of rights. These founding principles will have several logical consequences:
  • The end of universal suffrage. The passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was a very grave and terrible mistake. It extended the franchise of voting to those least qualified to wield that power. As I have said before on this blog, rights must NEVER be independent of responsibility. The right to vote should never be automatically conferred on people just because they were party to a happy accident of timing and geography; it must be earned.
  • The restriction of the franchise to male landowners and former soldiers. Note that landowners were once the only people allowed to vote in these United States, a very long time ago in its past. Note also the point about former soldiers- the reason I include them in the category of those allowed to vote is because military men who have served understand, at some level, that they are responsible for the safety and welfare of the body politic, and that ultimately that safety depends on their willingness to "place oneself between one's loved home and war's desolation". Giving the right to vote to non-soldiers is a bit like giving a home insurance policy to an arsonist and then handing him a box of matches- which is precisely why several Asian nations require that all potential citizens and permanent residents serve a term in the military. (There are exceptions to this, I will readily admit.)
  • The end of all government involvement in marriage. The role of government in marriage is very simple: it recognises that a union has taken place as legally sanctioned by a religious place of worship. That is all. It has absolutely no business in deciding who can, and cannot, get married. Note that this is NOT a call for support of gay marriage, which I categorically and completely oppose. It is merely a call for government to stop trying to actively take sides in the marriage debate. Let places of worship marry whomever they wish- and let their attendees then decide whether they wish to continue attending places of worship that glorify sin.
  • The end of the entire current structure of divorce law. Christian theology is perfectly clear about the nature of marriage: it is bloody well for life. Divorce in ancient times was incredibly rare- and indeed it remained so for millennia up until about 50 years ago. Since then we've done our damndest to turn society upside down. Now this does not mean that men and women should marry for light or transient reasons- as I will elaborate in a future post, marriage is an extremely serious commitment and should never be entered into for light or transient reasons. And Western society has made a truly awful mistake by treating marriage as nothing more than a binding legal contract, instead of what it really is- a lifelong spiritual, physical, economic, and moral commitment between one man and one woman.
  • The complete and total end of government-subsidised abortion "rights". Government has absolutely no place supporting abortion. None whatsoever. If you suffered a whoopsie and conceived a child, that's your problem and no one else's- particularly in an era of abundant, cheap, and extremely effective birth control. If you are a woman and you seek to justify abortion, know this: your "justifications" are no better, and in most ways far worse, than those used by the National Socialists of Germany to justify their extermination of entire races. Under no circumstances should any masculine society deign to subsidise the needless and awful slaughter of its future generations- not even when the life of the mother is in danger (an exceedingly rare occurrence, by the way, thanks to the miracles of modern technology.)
  • The end of all preferential governmental assistance. This means no more affirmative action, no more measures to break through the glass ceiling, and no more subsidisation of the weak and indigent. If, for instance, you can't afford to go to college as a woman, then that's your problem and not something that the wider society should have to pay for through force and compulsion. The same applies if you are a man, by the way- government should never be used as a tool to pay for what you want at the expense of your fellows. It means no more government welfare stipends, no more unemployment benefits that can be gamed to favour single mothers with bastard children, and no more excuses for men to avoid work.
  • A return to "traditional" gender roles. I grew up in a household with a mother who worked whenever she could, and who has always been highly independent in thought and action. My father actively encouraged this- he never wanted to be married to what he called a "vegetable". Yet there has never been any question, in nearly 35 years of marriage, as to who ultimately calls the shots in my household. My mother is living proof that a woman can have a career of her own, a life of her own outside the home, an education of her own, and still be a traditional wife and mum. It IS possible- indeed, it is necessary if Western society is to regenerate itself from the atomised, putrid, decaying corpse that it has become.
  • In all other respects, women should be left to live as they please. As long as these ideas above are followed- which, since they promote a society of freedom and strength within acceptable bounds of law and order, are sound- then I see absolutely no reason why women should not be allowed, encouraged even, to be independent in thought and action. I have seen for myself that no woman, no matter how Strong And Independent, can long ignore the dictates of her own nature- but by pretending that they can delay pregnancy for their careers, often subsidised at the expense of men, and by pretending that sex is meaningless in an environment of freely available contraceptives, they fool themselves into thinking that their actions have no consequences. This is the fallacy that must be destroyed, above all others.

None of these ideas are particularly controversial among red-pillers, I think. And note that not one of them reduces women to the status of property of men. An intelligent, educated (or at least inquisitive) woman who is also a loving mother and a faithful wife is a boon to society, not a hindrance. In this respect, nothing we believe is in any way compatible with the savage barbarity of shariah law, or with the repressive nature of pre-Christian male-dominated pagan societies.

This is not an easy set of prescriptions or ideas to read, I'm sure. It goes against 50 years of ingrained thinking that has destroyed our societies and weakened us spiritually, morally, and economically. It has led to the illusion of prosperity while the cold reality of depressed women and enfeebled men lurks underneath. This abyss that we call modern society is merely waiting to open up under us; given the right pressures, it will assuredly do so.

These ideas are the way back to a society that is strong, just, and masculine in nature- the very sort of civilisation that we see crumbling around our ears today.

* The single best retort against the poison of multicultural thinking that I have ever come across was uttered by one General Sir Charles Napier upon hearing from a delegation of Brahmins that the practice of widow-burning was an ancient custom in India and should not be interfered with:
Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs." 
** Western widows have absolutely no idea how good they have it in comparison to Indian ones, evcen today. If you ever meet me in person, I could tell you stories from the old days that would make you weep.


Popular Posts