You make good points as always.
Ron Collins
1

Yes: The OP posted a list of things that she believes a man ought to do. I found that list to be rather simplistic and a little naive. But in her defence I must be fair. She made a point of linking this to another post she had written which listed the things she believes a woman ought to do in return. I did not read it so I cannot say if I agree with it or not, but I don’t think she was seeing it as a one way street at all.

I am not “doing the same thing here.” I do not believe that any man or woman had any obligation to do anything. I was simply talking about characteristics, self evident to anyone with their eyes open, which will tend to make a man more attractive to women. I attempt to make no demands or moral judgements on anyone based on my views. I can also list characteristics that tend to make women more attractive to men. But if a woman prefers to get fat and dye her hair blue and go about denigrating men as dysfunctional, well then that is her choice and her problem. I don’t care. I do believe she will in the end though.

So I am certainly not telling men to “go hunt.” I have no right to do that and they have no obligation to listen even if I did.

But in terms of hunters and gatherers you are now going down the feminist / MRA route. You claim that you are expected to go hunt, with no mention as to what you can expect to see gathered. That is as one sided a way of looking at it as any feminist could dream up. You could expect to see at least as much gathered as you would bring from the hunt. This MRA idea that women traditionally sat around all day fixing their hair and reading magazines, is as ridiculous as the feminist idea that the tiny minority of women who were lucky enough to be able to do that were oppressed.

Most women worked hard all their lives and made a valuable contribution. The men of the middle ages sought out a loyal, skilful and industrious wife. She was expected to work the fields when she was not pregnant or nursing and she would have also been expected to make clothes, prepare food, look after livestock, raise children and keep the house. And she didn’t have a washing machine or an electric cooker or a vacuum cleaner. Women, for most of human history carried their weight. They only stopped carrying their weight in the urban centres of the most prosperous corners of the world in recent years because they became “empowered” apparently. Nobody was shouting “you go girl” and the wives of those farmers, out in all weathers labouring under sacks of vegetables they were harvesting. And those farmers understood exactly what they were getting in return for that hunting. They were getting a loyal and industrious wife, mother of their children and partner, co-worker, companion and confidant.

Do you really think that those woman who rode with their husbands on those covered wagons across the American prairies were just dead weight; just passengers along for the ride who had nothing to contribute but sex? Those women were the epitome of skilful and industrious. They could teach any feminist a thing or two about strong women, and their husbands could give the MRAs a lesson or two in doing manhood too I bet.

And I am pretty sure that the matriarchy was working on those wagon trains like everywhere else. But there was also the balancing effect of the patriarchy; not the sinister conspiracy of feminist folklore, but simply the understanding of how the gender roles worked both ways for the benefit of all. It was a combination of technology and feminism that upset that balance in the end, exaggerating the matriarchy and neutering the patriarchy. As you know I have always looked upon feminism as the matriarchy on steroids and with added and particularly poisonous mutations. And I hate to break it to you but I view the ascendency of the matriarchy in its latest feminist manifestation mostly on men. It is the limp-wristed cowardice of the effete urban “good man” that is the power behind feminism.

And maybe underneath it all it is all just down to too much prosperity and urban decadence. Seems Khrushchev was right after all, when he said that the west will bury itself in its own excesses.

I know that this is an issue that cuts deeply in your own experiences and I do not dismiss those experiences. But I do not wish to make the personal political. I have my experiences too and if I were to use them as the only guide to my world view then I would have to believe that men are just over-grown children, disloyal, selfish and manipulative. I do not believe that men in general are like that. I am lucky to have other much better examples. In fact I think most men that I have spoken too dream of the same thing; a decent life with one loyal and industrious woman to share it with; a few kids, and a future of growing old with the same woman and a cluster of grand-children. The problem is that the unleashed matriarchy / feminism have made that dream increasingly unrealistic for both men and women.

I do speak of gender roles a lot, but not what feminists claim are traditional gender roles; but what really were traditional gender roles. Traditional gender roles were not complicated and not oppressive either. They were just common sense and they did not in any way undervalue the woman. They were simply a system of dividing up the labours according to the physical strengths and weakness of each sex. The men went hunting for obvious reasons. The women took care of the children and gathered for obvious reasons. A tribe that became feminist and decided to send the women hunting and the men gathering would not have lasted a generation.

When those pioneers crossed American prairies (or Russian steppes) the men did the hunting, wood cutting and fighting off hostile tribes if necessary. The woman mended clothes, gathered berries, milked the goats and took care of the children. And had the dinner cooking on the campfire when the men came back.

Today my father cuts the wood and my mother harvests the vegetables and makes the preserves. Our winter supply of preserved or frozen food was always as important as the wood and meat. My mother has never heard of the Ophra Winfrey Show. She spent her early married life following her husband around the largest country on earth and living sometimes in some of the harshest climates on the planet and she has stuck with her man through thick and thin all her life, and she would be absolutely baffled at any suggestion that she was giving nothing back or that her contribution was somehow just a token. It is this constant slur against women like her that makes her think feminists are just a bunch of spoiled stupid girls who have never seen the real world.

When you say that folks don’t do a lot of hunting and gathering these days you are simply wrong. Hunting and gathering along with making things and planting were a way of life when I grew up. But hunting and gathering is just a metaphor for resource recognition. You hunt and gather all the time Ron. You have told many stories about it. The average blue collar men going to work everyday is just the modern day hunter. The only difference is that gathering has been industrialised and commercialised and then cast as oppression.

“I wonder how traditional any woman is ever going to agree to being, in exchange for protection or whatever other traits of manliness-according-to-her she gets from him. That she has dinner waiting?”

About 80% of women would embrace that lifestyle if they could afford to is my guess; complete with yellow dresses and apple pies and not a tattoo or a plunging neckline in sight. Society is being engineered to remove that choice. That is not an accident, it is a social engineering project and feminism is its vanguard. I rarely meet a woman who does not yearn to be able to prioritise family over career.

The “oppressive” gender roles that that idiot Betty Freidman wrote about in the “Feminine Mystique” in which she shamelessly plagiarised Simone de Beauvoir’s re-writing of reality; are something most women want. At least de Beauvoir was honest. She called for society to be reorganised in order to remove the choice from women in order to deny them their aspirations to pursue those traditional gender roles. That is basically the essence of feminism. She understood quite correctly that the vast majority of women will chose marriage and family over career if given the choice.

And today the women’s shows and women’s magazines are all full of middle aged women, who all call themselves feminists, bemoaning the collapse of the family and

the loss of opportunity for most women to have the marriage and family and home that most of us dream of. They are basically festivals of cognitive dissonance.

So what’s in it for you? In this brave new feminist world not a lot. There isn’t a lot in it for me either. But you are right in my opinion to point out that this collapse in gender roles and the subsequent collapse of the family will lead to extinction. It already is leading to extinction. The populations in all of the countries where this feminist culture has taken hold is aging and shrinking rapidly. It is being replaced by more traditional cultures which are very much centred on the traditional family. They are the future. Not feminism.

Any society that declares war on Mother Nature is always going to lose.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Svetlana Voreskova’s story.