The Lesson of Laura Ingalls Wilder

Post image for The Lesson of Laura Ingalls Wilder

by W.F. Price on January 24, 2011

We hear a lot about how if only men would “man up,” take the reins and stop acting like overgrown children, women would magically fall in line and reveal their inner sainthood, which is only kept corked in by those awful men all around them. This is a recent slant on the old myth of women’s inherent purity that has been floating around since the Romantics made a splash in Western thought and literature. For some time before the sexual revolution, men’s depravity was a given, and for the most part women did behave well and behave as ladies. Today, however, now that women’s liberation has been achieved through the economic and legal subjugation of men, it’s getting a lot harder to make a case for female purity and blamelessness.

Nevertheless, scores of people are still trying to do so, with ever more improbable explanations for the rampant promiscuity, lack of consideration for children and family and outright cruelty that has come to characterize Western – and particularly English speaking – women. These explanations always attempt to expose some manner in which ordinary men are responsible, and the solution is always more of the poison that got us in this mess in the first place. Christian churches will demand that men indulge their wives and daughters, never faulting them for anything and working like oxen to provide for their every appetite. In fact, if a wife goes off the rails, the husband is always considered to be at fault in some manner, and more sacrifice is demanded of him. Maybe he wasn’t “ambitious” enough, perhaps he had lust in his heart, or maybe he just failed by not being in the upper 5% of the income bracket that would allow his wife to lead the life she demands without having to take a job herself. The list goes on and on; the feminists make pretty much the same arguments, but with a different twist. There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between these social conservatives and feminists, because when the song and dance is over the finger is always pointed at the ordinary stiff.

To provide a contrast, I’m going to draw upon an American cultural icon — one that people over the age of 30 or so should all have some familiarity with. Although very young adults and children may not know who she is, Laura Ingalls Wilder, née Laura Elizabeth Ingalls, was an important chronicler of life on the frontier of the American Midwest. The popular TV series Little House on the Prairie was based on her stories, and I watched many episodes while growing up. My mother and sister both read the books written by Laura Ingalls Wilder, as did millions of other Americans, most of whom were women. Most of the stories concern life on the prairie as a farm girl, which was full of hardship and struggle with the forces of nature in the northern states of the Great Plains. Mrs. Wilder drew inspiration from her childhood, and viewed the hard work and cooperation that helped her family prosper as a source of pride.

Laura's parents

Laura’s father was a bit of a wanderer – the quintessential American pioneer – who moved from one state to the next to work the land, finally settling in the Dakota territory in 1879. She hailed from the American yeomanry, that class of sober, industrious people who lived by the word of the Good Book and formed the stable bedrock for the foundation of America’s powerful, prosperous society. These were not the wild Indian fighters, cowboys and prospectors that occupy so much of the popular imagination due to their colorful and dramatic lives, awash in whiskey, perfumed by the acrid, brimstone smell of gunsmoke and driven by a lust for gold. No, their gold grew out of the rich, black soil of the Great Plains, sowed by sober hands of husbandmen.

This was the environment Laura grew up in. It took a great deal of work, and she was expected to contribute to the household to the best of her ability. From a young age she had physically demanding chores, including milking cows, fetching water from the well, cooking, cleaning and anything else she could do to help out. Winters were bad in Kansas when she was a little girl, but in the Dakotas they were far more severe. Her father had no sons, so all the girls did their best to pitch in. Laura began teaching before the age of 16, helping children learn their reading, writing and arithmetic in a one-room schoolhouse. She didn’t particularly like it, but her family needed the help, so she did her job without complaint.

Almanzo Wilder

At about this time, a young settler named Almanzo Wilder took an interest in her. The 25-year-old farmer saw something he liked in the bright, hard-working 15-year-old girl, and when she reached the age of 18, they married.

Almanzo was a handsome man, and it looked as though the young couple had a bright future. But life is not always gentle, and shortly after the couple married both were stricken by diptheria, which left Almanzo crippled. Then their baby boy died shortly after birth, drought ruined their crops, and they sank into debt. The first years of marriage were a terrible trial, and the healthy, promising husband Laura married had become an invalid who couldn’t support a family. In 1890, five years after they married, they had to move back in with her parents so that Almanzo could recuperate and the young couple could survive. Once Almanzo recovered most of his mobility (he never fully recovered), they started over; Almanzo took jobs as a laborer and Laura worked as a seamstress to save up enough money to buy more farmland.

Laura as a young woman

Eventually, in 1894, they were able to buy 40 acres of wooded land on a hill near Mansfield, Missouri. They lived in a tiny log cabin without windows, selling wagonloads of cordwood in town to get by as they cleared the land acre by acre with axe and saw. Supplementing their income with jobs in town, the diligent work eventually started to pay off. It took nearly 20 years, but by middle age the couple had achieved a degree of prosperity and respectability, and could count themselves among the town’s middle class. It was at this point that Laura began to write, first for an enthusiastic local audience in the Ozarks, and then for the wider regional audience, which appreciated her farming expertise as well as the interesting stories and opinions she shared. Her column was titled “As a Farm Woman Thinks.”

Laura as a writer

Laura Ingalls Wilder may have been a remarkable woman, but she was far from extraordinary for the time. What really set her apart from other farm wives was not her grit or determination, but her talent for writing, particularly her skill in writing about lives they could relate to. Looking back from today, it is amazing to think that the patience and determination with which she faced her travails characterized most of society. But it is a fact that she was popular not for being a superstar of one sort or another, but rather the kind of woman that midwestern families knew and relied on. They appreciated her for her love of their way of life, and her advice in helping others succeed and prosper in the face of formidable obstacles.

For his part, Almanzo was fortunate to have a wife like Laura. But then again, he was far from alone in this blessing. She did what any man of the time would have expected of a wife. Certainly, Almanzo had no intention of falling ill and spiraling into debt in the first few years of marriage, but these things happen, and rather than guilt, he felt more appreciation for the sacrifices his wife made, and as soon as he was able he pulled the family back up from the skids. In the beginning of his marriage, Almanzo “failed” in a many ways. Because they rarely spoke about intimate matters in those days, we can only imagine the frustration and sorrow the young family faced during those hard times. From the evidence, all we can see is that they overcame it together. The young couple must have taken their wedding vows seriously — what an odd concept!

Today, despite the huge increase in comfort and prosperity, a young couple like the Wilders in their first few years of marriage would be out of luck. Preachers would be hollering at Almanzo that he “isn’t a real man” because his wife has to work to support him (oddly, preachers seem to think telling their female congregants that their husbands are losers will prevent divorce — are they stupid, or evil for that?), Laura’s friends would all be telling her to dump the loser and move on as a single mother, and even her parents might do their best to shove them apart. Laura probably would have divorced Almanzo to live an unfulfilling life as a single mother and schoolteacher, and Almanzo would have a diminished life as a noncustodial parent working lousy jobs just to pay his child support and keep himself fed and clothed — he’d certainly have no motivation to do any more. All that potential the couple had would be squandered by the combined onslaught of social conservative and feminist man-blaming, which is really nothing more than social pressure pushing women away from constructive family roles as wives and mothers. And of course, if it all finally turned out to be a big tragedy for the young family, all the righteous types would smirk and say “see, it really is your fault Almanzo, because you are an inferior man, and didn’t deserve Laura.” Then they would set about “changing” men to make them better, because something must be wrong with men for this to be such a common occurrence.

Laura at 70

If the wreckers of the modern American family had the kind of social influence they do today 200 years ago, the United States would have been stillborn. There would be no superpower with enough wealth and bounty to feed this clamorous horde of parasites. Fortunately for the Wilders, they didn’t really get going until after both were dead. Unfortunately for the rest of us, this is what we have to contend with.

After achieving prosperity and comfort, the Wilders lived long, happy lives. Almanzo died at 92, and was followed eight years later by his wife, Laura, who lived to 90, dying in 1959.

{ 177 comments… read them below or add one }

Firepower January 24, 2011 at 11:53

The comparisons of what Greatness we once possessed, and the paltry filth we have today are very good.

W.F. Price

She hailed from the American yeomanry, that class of sober, industrious people who lived by the word of the Big Book and formed the stable bedrock for the foundation of America’s powerful, prosperous society.

And, therein lies the problem: these people don’t exist any more.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 113 Thumb down 9
Dan. January 24, 2011 at 12:03

Now there was an empowered woman.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 113 Thumb down 7
zed January 24, 2011 at 12:14

Now there was an empowered woman.

No, there was an authentically strong, powerful, woman who didn’t need all this crap about “empowerment.” How strange it is that the more “power” men try to push on women by “empowering” them, the louder they scream about having no power.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 139 Thumb down 9
AntZ January 24, 2011 at 12:15

I recently made a post in Paul’s site about feminism and “pussy panic”, the novel Western inability to rationally deal with risk:

Many here bemoan the damage that feminism has done to the finances of Western nations via overly generous social programs (that men pay for and that women benefit from).

What if the financial damage were but a tiny part of a much more dangerous cancer?

If you have time, read this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/health/policy/23drug.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=homepage

As many of you know, my business is drug discovery. What the NY times article does NOT mention is that the reason drug companies have given up on developing new drugs, and instead keep re-packaging old stuff and advertising, advertising, advertising, is: litigation.

Our society has become so RISK AVERSE that developing new ideas and new products no longer makes financial sense.

I call this “Pussy Panic.” Feminist hysteria at every microscopic scratch that ever afflicts a woman has made our entire society incapable of accepting risk, and incapable of rationally reacting to tragedy.

Take the reaction of the current administration to the Gulf oil spill. Pussy Panic at its finest.

Or the carnival of stupidity every time we try to get on an air-plane. Pussy Panic.

Or the social indignation and thoughtless legislation and litigation that follows every tragic accident where even one woman is killed. Pussy Panic.

This nation was built by people who had the insight to imagine a new idea, the conviction to see it through, and the courage to face the consequences when they were wrong.

By attempting to crate a society where actions are never matched with consequences, and where every bruise or scratch provokes lawyers and politicians into more thoughtless degradation of our freedom, our society may face moral bankruptcy long before we face financial bankruptcy.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 95 Thumb down 26
Robert in Arabia January 24, 2011 at 12:17

Thank you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 8
Nemo January 24, 2011 at 12:27

Today, if her husband was unable to work, she’d be rewarded by the government with thousands of dollars per year if she divorced him.

Any society that punishes virtue and rewards vice is doomed to fail.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 92 Thumb down 9
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 24, 2011 at 12:30

Another brilliant post Welmer. Well done. Shows you what a ‘wife’ used to be like.

As a kid growing up and visiting my grandmothers, both widowed when I was 4-5, it was pretty easy to see how hard they had things when they were younger. One grandmother had the local shop in a very small community of about 500 people. There was a small house behind the shop where she (in part) raised 6 kids. My other grandmother lived in a small three bedroom fibro 10 square metre house where she raised 5 kids. The idea these women ‘had it good’ is laughable.

And, I can say, without one word of a lie, I NEVER IN MY LIFE heard either of my two grandmothers complain about anything. NOT ANYTHING. How many men can say they know a woman under 40 who has NEVER complained about anything? I don’t. They whine all the bloody time now. My mum never complained about anything either. It actually came as a surprise to me when my wife started whining about ‘needing more’ when she was clearly FAR better off than her mother and any of her sisters.

My grandmothers had a LOT of sayings they would tell the younger women:
“Be grateful for what you have, many do not have what you do”
“If you had kept your mouth shut you might have been thought wise”
“You made your bed, now lie in it”
“You have two ears and one mouth…for a reason.”

They would spank one of my girl cousins just as fast as spanking one of us boys. Of the 11 children they had between them? Two daughters (one from each) married ‘bad men’. But not before having 3 and 4 kids respectively apparently. And I wonder how ‘bad’ they were since they would have been on the bread line trying to raise a family. Something I have done. And it’s not easy to do. And I had a way better job and better prospects than those two men.

One daughter divorced amicably after 20 years of marriage. NONE of the FOUR men divorced their wives. NONE of them. Let me repeat that. NOT ONE. One uncle of mine divorced my Dads sister after 30+ years of marriage. Both kids were well established. My father characterised this as ‘abandoning’ his sister.

When my Dads mother died the old men at the funeral told me that this was the largest turn out at a funeral ever in our town. EVER. I was voted to perform the Eulogy for her. The greatest honour of my life. Women used to have great role models like my grandmothers to look up to. My wife knew both my grandmothers well. She knew perfectly well what was expected of her as a wife. Alas, our women have turned their backs on these role models. And they are getting the husbands they deserve. None.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 83 Thumb down 16
Zammo January 24, 2011 at 12:54

Said the modern American mother to her soon-to-be-wed daughter:

“If your husband is happy, then you’re both doing something wrong.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 83 Thumb down 6
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 24, 2011 at 12:55

And here is how unrealistic women are braying for ‘better husbands’ and divorcing the ones they have. My uncles jobs:
- My dad and his brother were clerks at the local council. 45+ years each.
- A driver for guvment politicians.
- A butcher
- A builder
- A taxi driver
- A road worker
- Owner of a small shop that sold fancy light fittings.

I’m pretty sure most men my age had uncles in jobs similar to these. When I was a teen and girls were saying “I want to have a career just like the men do” I would ask them if they were insane or just plain stupid. These were ‘jobs’ not ‘careers’. None of these men WANTED these jobs like they were a great thing to have. They DID these jobs because they wanted a family and this was the best they could do with the small amount of education they had.

And just look at the endless list of men who are divorced by their wives as ‘not good enough husbands’ yet. LOL! Would the likes of Laura Ingalls Wilder have liked a husband like me? One who took allowed her a life where she didn’t have to work apart from keeping house? World travel? Comfortable lifestyle despite paying for two early children? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 9
SingleDad January 24, 2011 at 12:57

@ Zed

I agree, you can’t legislate lack of character.

What we have now is lionizing of the weak and draining the strong. Everybody loses.

The feminists have been very complete in their distruction of the family and any institution that supports family.

IMO if you want children badly enough, get a surrogate. The family is now defined as you and your children.

If you go down this road you will see the truth of these feminist entitlement queens as the blood suckers they are, sucking the resources you need for your children.

I predict women will come to hate children even more in the near future as they see they are directly competing for a shrinking pool of government money from which to leach.

Hence we see the new phrase: “women and her daughters” has replaced “women and her children” in the NWO written in the United Nations literature.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 12
Hestia January 24, 2011 at 12:58

Laura Ingalls Wilder is always the example of a strong capable woman I like to bring up when arguing with feminists. Her strength of character, industrious pioneering spirit, strong work ethic, and dedication to her family are all traits that are worthy of aspiring to and she is a fine example of womanhood for young girls to grow up emulating. I did myself and even spent a brief season of childhood wearing nothing but pigtails and prairie style dresses. My parents are quick to remind me of this whenever they hear of my latest money making plan, adventures in sourdough baking, or new record for setting up house after yet another move. ;)

In some of Laura’s less popular writings she did share some insights and concerns about where society was heading. (Little House in the Ozarks: The Rediscovered Writings if I’m remembering correctly…I’d have to peek at my bookshelves to know for sure.) She thought the fast pace of modern life that was going to bring about societal and familial malaise and take our focus away from where it ought to be.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 81 Thumb down 6
Stickman January 24, 2011 at 13:00

those days are long past they may come again once the government tit runs dry. when women will be forced to stick by their men through thick and thin. because otherwise there would be no survival. if our current entitlement programs did not exist. we would solve almost all our social ills. prisons would not be over populated because we couldn’t afford to put people away for non violent crimes. population itself would start to diminish because the working poor and people on public assistance could not afford to keep breeding out of control. earmarks would vanish and along with them unnecessary regulatory control and the lobbyists that they spawn. subsides would no longer be there to prop up commodity’s that no one needs or wants. heck the more i write the more i almost wish for the coming downfall. to bad me and mine will most likely not survive it. as the millions who were given everything would come to take what i earned personally instead of having the government take it for them. ill do my best to teach them cause and effect before they get me.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 7
Rebel January 24, 2011 at 13:01

“Christian churches will demand that men indulge their wives and daughters, never faulting them for anything and working like oxen to provide for their every appetite.”

I would call that the reason number one for dropping the christian church.

We need that church like an oyster needs a toaster (paraphrase..)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 9
Lara January 24, 2011 at 13:10

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 72
Days of Broken Arrows January 24, 2011 at 13:29

This article has to be fiction. Laura Ingalls Wilder could not really have published books or worked the land because as all feminists tell us, women had no rights back then and were all chained inside the house and forced to cook and clean all day.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 127 Thumb down 8
Traveller January 24, 2011 at 13:33

I remember well the TV series with Lee Majors and Linda Evans. They did a recent remake, but for sure I will not check it.

This is a nice post. What happened in that time was already covered here, when an essay about collapsing of empires was discussed in an old article here. The stages of empires were examined, and the house of the prairie was in the expanding phase, the better.

Much land for everyone, meaning everyone willing to work can survive.
Few population density, meaning few crimes and more value for the human life.
Good work ethic (probably protestant, and not catholic).
Few interferences from the government, few taxes and no stupid endless rules like today.
Weapons and the sacred right to self defense.

All this would not be possible today anymore, notice the theme of the house in the prairie is used often in science fiction when describing the colonization of other virgin planets.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 14
silent January 24, 2011 at 13:37

She’s decent-looking in the first picture too. But I guess no one could afford to be fat back then, and long hair was the norm. Almanzo was a lucky man

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 5
il128 January 24, 2011 at 13:45

I have access to the email and computers of co-workers. Long story short.

Attractive women have sex with a lot of men. A lot of strangers. At the gym, girls night out, shopping at Walmart… The shit they tell each other in emails and but especially the diaries and calendars they keep on their lap tops. Shocking revelations. That wet time of the month? Lock her up somewhere. Seriously, they are out of control.

They do this because no one will ever know. They do this because even if their man suspects, he won’t do anything about it anyway. Short of a photo of her with another man… She’s innocent.

If men knew the truth. They probably wouldn’t do a damn thing different. At least based on the emails I’ve read.

I say this based on the number of men who actually know or suspect their wives and girlfriends of cheating yet carry on as if they don’t know.
Gentle men, she knows you know and she thinks you’re a fool and it emboldens her to take even greater risks with her sexual behavior.

It isn’t women that are the problem when it come to feminism and family. It is us men. We let them carry on with no accountability for their actions. They miss work, it’s OK. They over spend? It’s OK. They cheat? It’s OK. Women are not held accountable.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 82 Thumb down 19
pb January 24, 2011 at 14:03

I remember well the TV series with Lee Majors and Linda Evans. Lee Majors and Linda Evans? You mean Michael Landon and Melissa Gilbert? Are you thinking of Big Valley?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Keyster January 24, 2011 at 14:03

There’s a certian lineage of women with this gritty “pioneer spirit” that exists today. You’ll find them in the rural midwest, on farms. They’ll be religious and not afraid of hard work. They were the archetype of the American Woman; respectful, sturdy, devoted, with a “can do” attitude. They understood marriage to be a partnership.

Then in the early 70′s we started to see That Girl, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, One Day at a Time, etc. The sassy independent career gal became the new American Woman through our TV screens within a decade. Manahattan and Malibu infiltrated our culture with feminist propaganda.

Our women are no longer brave and forthright, (and most of our men aren’t much better).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 3
Keyster January 24, 2011 at 14:11

I have access to the email and computers of co-workers. Long story short.

I used to have a high end scanner and tapped into cordless phone frequencies when they first became common. You’d be amazed at the sh*t women talk about when it comes to sex and men. Makes most men look like Buddhist monks. They live in a secret world that they NEVER would want any man to know about. Trust me on this. I heard it all.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 6
Gunn January 24, 2011 at 14:18

AntZ wrote:

Our society has become so RISK AVERSE that developing new ideas and new products no longer makes financial sense.

I call this “Pussy Panic.” Feminist hysteria at every microscopic scratch that ever afflicts a woman has made our entire society incapable of accepting risk, and incapable of rationally reacting to tragedy.

This is an excellent point, and one that is often overlooked in the discussions around feminist wealth transfers. I notice that in my own thoughts, I rarely even think about this dimension of the problem, so systemic has the acculturation of feminsm become.

In quasi-mathematical jargon, I guess welfare and other transfers are first order effects of feminism, whilst the increasing aversion to risk is a second order effect. It causes society’s growth prospects to fall away rapidly, as it removes trial and error attempts to better the world; the very engine of the capitalist framework.

And its an excellent complement to this article; in times past, people recognised that sometimes life was good, and sometimes it was bad, but marriage was supposed to survive the ups and downs through an enduring union that was not arbitrarily cast asunder at the slightest whim of either partner, or the fashions of society.

Excellent article, and excellent comment.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2
Gunn January 24, 2011 at 14:19

Comment above didn’t format properly, the first two paragraphs are of course attributable to AntZ’s post.

(ed: You had the tags right. I have no idea why it didn’t format properly. I added tags to make it appear as you wanted it to.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Denis January 24, 2011 at 14:29

Thank you for this very interesting post. Times certainly have changed and not the better. There is no way back, we must move forward.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 23
Traveller January 24, 2011 at 14:42

“pb January 24, 2011 at 14:03

I remember well the TV series with Lee Majors and Linda Evans. Lee Majors and Linda Evans? You mean Michael Landon and Melissa Gilbert? Are you thinking of Big Valley?”

Oops I did it again. :)

Those confusing English titles… or maybe the childhood becoming too far…

Is that so much different?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Opus January 24, 2011 at 14:49

I, (I won’t say how) have had the pleasure like Keyster of listening into woman-to-woman conversations, and I concur with him: Women really would not want men to hear what they talk about. I really do not think we men are so disecting or objectifying when we speak of women. Where females acquired the reputation for delicacy or being ‘the fair sex’ beats me. Yet when one talks directly to a ‘strong and independent woman’ (as one might to a man and as they claim they want – now that we are all equal), they become haughtily offended. Strange.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 3
SingleDad January 24, 2011 at 14:57

@ Opus

Whenever I start thinking a womans behaviour to me is strange, I check to see if my money is still in my wallet.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 5
Indomitable Thoughts January 24, 2011 at 15:06

This article should be required reading for everyone.

To think…women like Laura Ingalls Wilder used to be commonplace. Now women like Lara are commonplace.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 4
Opus January 24, 2011 at 15:08

All women are strange, Single Dad. The time to start worrying is when you think the one you are talking to is normal (she ain’t). As we always say ‘funny chaps women’.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 5
stickman January 24, 2011 at 15:10

We have become a more risk adverse society. how many of us here are old enough to remember walking a mile or two to school even as youngsters or riding a bike or skateboard with out helmet ,knee pads, elbow pads, wrist brace, gloves, eye protection, spf 30 sunblock and the written consent of NBC sports and NFL.
that last part was a bit of a joke but the rest wasn’t. with the way they worry now its a wonder we all made it out of childhood alive. dont even get me started on BB guns and 22′s

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 4
stickman January 24, 2011 at 15:16

WOW did you hear Oprah had finally come clean that she has a half sister !!!

here is a picture of her

http://www.motifake.com/12887

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
Local_Ale January 24, 2011 at 15:29

It might be worth mentioning there exists some dispute as to whether Laura or her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane (eventually, one of the more famous Old Right women), should be given greater credit for the Little House series, but good post.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
Anonymous Reader January 24, 2011 at 15:33

Attractive women have sex with a lot of men. A lot of strangers. At the gym, girls night out, shopping at Walmart… The shit they tell each other in emails and but especially the diaries and calendars they keep on their lap tops. Shocking revelations. That wet time of the month? Lock her up somewhere. Seriously, they are out of control.

Hypergamy combined with the known hormonal effects of ovulation, with no social control or self control leads to the above. Since there is no downside to even being caught, there’s no reason for them not to do this stuff.

Don’t bother to tell the “thinking” housewife or other socons. They would just blame it on the husbands.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 7
SingleDad January 24, 2011 at 15:57

I saw a facinating study done in England in which 20 something women with boyfriends were asked to take the condoms they used and put them in the fridge.

The result was that during their ovulation all the women went to pick up bars and had sex with total strangers. All of them. All had steady boyfriends.

The conclusion was that women want to get pregnant with strangers when they ovulate.

Female hypergamy has been thoroughly scientifically tested and proven.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 3
Opus January 24, 2011 at 16:14

Single Dad – you can’t remember the name of that bar can you?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
SingleDad January 24, 2011 at 16:24

@ Opus

I’m pretty sure it’s every bar these days.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Carnivore January 24, 2011 at 16:24

dont even get me started on BB guns and 22?s

Forget that – don’t get me started on pocket knives. Something every boy used to carry, even to school.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3
SingleDad January 24, 2011 at 16:31

I grew up in the suburbs we all got busted for pocket knives in 6th grade. The night before was the first televised version of West Side Story. We all thought we we’re gangsta’s…lol.

That was 1972. All they did was call our parents. Mine didn’t even notice.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
Qae January 24, 2011 at 16:37

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 56
gwallan January 24, 2011 at 16:38

zed said…

How strange it is that the more “power” men try to push on women by “empowering” them, the louder they scream about having no power.

When men empower women it proves men to be the source of power.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 1
Carnivore January 24, 2011 at 16:42

There’s a certian lineage of women with this gritty “pioneer spirit” that exists today. You’ll find them in the rural midwest, on farms. They’ll be religious and not afraid of hard work. They were the archetype of the American Woman; respectful, sturdy, devoted, with a “can do” attitude. They understood marriage to be a partnership.

Yes, but the government is trying its best to destroy the family farm with all the subsidies and regulations which benefit the large agro-corporations. Can’t have too many family farms which generate people who don’t toe the line.

Then in the early 70?s we started to see That Girl, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, One Day at a Time, etc. The sassy independent career gal became the new American Woman through our TV screens within a decade. Manahattan and Malibu infiltrated our culture with feminist propaganda.

“Honey West” was a sassy, independent private eye in 1965, but I’d place the key – the absolute foundation – of the modernist propaganda engine with the premier of All in the Family in 1971.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
greyghost January 24, 2011 at 16:57

There is not one empowered shank today that can touch that woman. Outstanding article Welmer Price . I hope the femminist trolls looking to derail the conversation had a good look at what a women is.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 2
HARVEST January 24, 2011 at 16:59

OT.

-Feminists are obnoxious bigots and men have a raw deal: Tory MP calls for male equality.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350128/Tory-MP-Dominic-Raab-calls-male-equality-Feminists-bigots.html

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader January 24, 2011 at 17:15

SingleDad:
I saw a facinating study done in England in which 20 something women with boyfriends were asked to take the condoms they used and put them in the fridge.
The result was that during their ovulation all the women went to pick up bars and had sex with total strangers. All of them. All had steady boyfriends.
The conclusion was that women want to get pregnant with strangers when they ovulate.
Female hypergamy has been thoroughly scientifically tested and proven.

I recall that study, the sample set was small. It was simply amazing that they found women who would go through with it.

One thing for sure: when Alonzo wasn’t around the farm, there was no danger that Laura Ingalls Wilder was having sex with any other man.

That is what a truly strong woman looks like.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
Rebel January 24, 2011 at 17:43

@Lara said:
“Women were definitely tougher back then, no doubt about that.”

History remembers them as the “Spartan women” to indicate how strong they were.
Hardship makes strong.

We need a new Frontier.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3
Alcuin January 24, 2011 at 17:51

The article portrays a time when people worked hard and built up the social capital of the nation. Social capital is hard to define, but it includes the inherent trust among people that wealth creation needs. Banks trust that borrowers want to pay off their debt. Buyers of government bonds trust that the government will not go broke. People believe in the institution of marriage because they assume that their spouse’s “I do” means something.

Feminism simultaneously feeds on the accumulated social capital of ages past and destroys our ability to create new social capital. For instance, feminists, not gays, have destroyed marriage.

This is why feminism is a time bomb, with an expiry date not that far off in the future. The only way such an ideology can survive is through increasing totalitarianism, which we see in every Western country. he USSR finally fell apart and China embraced their version of capitalism. North Korea and Cuba have remained as historical curiosities.

What will become of the feminist West? Will we fall apart (USSR), change the system but not the leadership (China), or stubbornly cling to a system that eventually encages everyone (Cuba, N. Korea)?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1
MW January 24, 2011 at 17:58

Agree with greyghost. Pulls in to one article thoughts of mine over the last ten years or so sifting through the dating landscape.

The points about men being shamed for their “inadequacies” by various church leaders and women is especially astute. I don’t think that theology is found across the board of Christianity, only in the more virulent parts of Evangelica Americana. I doubt you’d ever find that in Orthodoxy or traditional Catholicism.

Apart from that, a magnificent article, Welmer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader January 24, 2011 at 17:59

Qae
…of course, one wonders how Laura Ingalls Wilder would have reacted to Almanzo if he used the the Sixteen Commandments of Poon or other game staples. I imagine she would have had her father toss his alpha ass right out into the pigsty.

Alonzo was competent, confident and an independent man. So he was clearly the alpha male that competent, confident, womanly Laura would submit to. Since they lived at a time when being a good provider and a faithful husband were the expected modes for men, and such qualities were universally respected, Alonzo had no need of game.

Alonzo had not been taught from birth that he was “bad” because he had a penis. Laura had not been taught from birth that she was entitled to anything she wanted because she had a vagina. Both were from humble backgrounds where the Biblical injunction “Those who do not work, shall not eat” was reality.

So the answer to your speculation is simple: the question is moot. Because Laura was a chaste young woman who had been brought up to work hard and honestly and cleave to one man, Alonzo had no need of Game.

Hope this helps.

PS: Reading 19th century books is not lame. Although it does tend to make some people happy. So I suppose in the proper sense of the word, it is indeed a gay thing to do.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 2
dragnet January 24, 2011 at 18:03

A tour de force from you, Welmer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
zed January 24, 2011 at 18:22

We need a new Frontier.

“There are no more new frontiers,
we have got to make it here.
We satifsy our endless needs and
justify our bloody deeds,
in the name of destiny and the name
of God”

The Eagles / Don Henley – Hotel California: The Last Resort

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Bob Smith January 24, 2011 at 18:55

Women really would not want men to hear what they talk about

Women are far less circumspect than men. Women has this idea in their heads that men reveal intimate details about them all the time, when in my experience it is women who are far more revealing and detailed regarding their relationships with their men, and it is women who are far more likely to reveal things that should be or are considered private.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 3
Binxton January 24, 2011 at 19:14

il128 January 24, 2011 at 13:45

It isn’t women that are the problem when it come to feminism and family. It is us men. We let them carry on with no accountability for their actions. They miss work, it’s OK. They over spend? It’s OK. They cheat? It’s OK. Women are not held accountable.

When men shirk their responsibility, and choose not to guide or discipline women, the result is lowered female standards of beauty, of fashion, and of behavior.

We see this in the now ubiquitous sight of grossly fat women. We see this in the vast numbers of women sporting these utterly disgusting tattoos on their bodies; of the flip-flops worn to work by women; of the excessive number of sick days women take off work; of the lack of modesty and inappropriately provocative dress women wear in professional settings.

Without men setting firm ground rules, women are utterly clueless about what is and is not proper behavior. Social controls must be re-imposed on women in order to raise female standards again.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 10
Cranky January 24, 2011 at 19:15

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 38
Qae January 24, 2011 at 19:24

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 48
Herbal Essence January 24, 2011 at 19:27

Bob Smith-”Women has this idea in their heads that men reveal intimate details about them all the time”

It’s more projection. Women want to enslave men for their resources, therefore “Men want to keep us as slaves in the kitchen.” Women conspire against men in the workplace, therefore “Men conspire against us in the workplace.” Women are cunfaithful (or want to be) in relationships, therefore “Men are always unfaithful.” Women know that they can get laid anytime they want, therefore “Men sleep with anything with a pulse.” Women are shallow and don’t care about men as human beings, therefore “Men are shallow and don’t care about us as human beings.”

Most of them have a very solipsistic view of the world, and whatever negative compulsion they have running around in their head, they rationalize it by projecting on men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 57 Thumb down 4
Mark Richardson January 24, 2011 at 19:59

A well-written piece, but one criticism. Again, the main blame for the declining position of men is put on social conservatives. Yes, feminists get a mention too but only in passing. I find this strange for a number of reasons.

a) The great changes in Western societies have been implemented by feminists not social conservatives. It was feminists who were catapulted into positions of influence within the political class, not social conservatives. Is it really social conservatives who called for affirmative action programmes, or who fiddled domestic violence statistics, or who set up women’s studies courses at uni?

b) The main opposition to changes affecting men negatively was led for decades by a small number of social conservatives. Look at the list of antifeminist organizations here. The Eagle Forum, the Endeavour Forum etc were all led by Christian social conservatives. I have read material from the Endeavour Forum and, believe me, it does not blame men at all. It very much blames feminists and feminist policies.

I do understand that there are some independent churches in the US which have some odd views regarding relationships between men and women. I’d point out though, that:

a) these churches have not set the larger social trends in society
b) it’s likely that most of these churches are i) stuck in an old-fashioned view of chivalry, one which assumes female innocence and the deferral of men to women, a view which has died out amongst 90% of social conservatives and ii) have been influenced as well by more modern feminist notions of male guilt for female oppression
c) such churches are very, very rare outside of the US.

A small number of US churches don’t get to define what social conservatism means. Nor are they significant enough to have influenced the lives of Western men as a whole in the way that state sponsored feminism has. Nor should we be ungrateful to those social conservatives who kept up a resistance to feminism in the 1980s and 90s.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 25
fmz January 24, 2011 at 20:32

Looky here. Its real simple. So utterly simple it hurts.

They, them, in this case wimminz are dependent slaves. They, them WILL ALWAYS B-LAME… you.

You…The one who does, who can, who will.

Their whole charade is about getting your sanction. About getting you to do for them. Carry their weight, their load, their burden, their sorry sufferance steeped existence.

Dont buy in.
Stay outta their way.
Go… Your Own Way.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 5
TFH January 24, 2011 at 21:32
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Keyster January 24, 2011 at 21:33

But I’ll tell you one thing about farm women that you probably have no clue about; they brook no nonsense or abuse from the men in their lives. You WILL respect them if you’re married to one. That would be a dealbreaker for some of you here.

A hard working woman who knows her way around a farm, would have my respect before marriage, and long after. I’ve come across a few in my time. They’re a man’s woman; real women. Forthright, resourceful and spirited with life. I’m sensing a little penile engorgement just thinking about her.

Why did I always end up with one of the neurotic skanks from Sex and the City, instead of Elly May Clampett?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4
Gorbachev January 24, 2011 at 22:21

I’ve been with so many married or taken women, women who go home to BFs, it’s actually humiliating for modern women.

There’s only a sense of personal gratification: This is not unique to feminism. It’s the toxic pill of the 1960′s. ME ME ME ME ME!

Women drank it down hard. Nothing matters – nothing – more than personal fulfillment.

I can’t tell you the curious sensation you get when listening to a woman badmouth her husband while you’re both naked. It’s a stark, shocking look at the nature of women.

I’ve never badmouthed a woman (current or past) when with another woman. Ever.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 16
Alphabeta Supe January 24, 2011 at 23:55

They’re a man’s woman; real women. Forthright, resourceful and spirited with life. I’m sensing a little penile engorgement just thinking about her.

@Keyster

Och aye, laddie. A canny man gets a tilt in his kilt over a bonnie lass like Laura Ingalls Wilder.

@Bill

Thanks for the article; your Spidey Sense over what breathes life into the weary souls of your readers is truly remarkable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
POIUYT January 25, 2011 at 00:03

It has all come to this disgusting mess in society because some men, whilst overcompensating themselves from the public treasury, have discovered that by the political process of entrenching genderism and the denial of mens natural compensations in the name of females, they are able to dodge and avoid the self sacrifices ordinarily required of men that they freely impose on others.

These crafty men in collusion with radical women have systematically gone about erroding mens natural compensations for self sacrifice in the guise of promoting equality, tackling domestic violence, giving women equal opportunity etcetera. But these liberal and humanitarian sounding themes are merely euphemisms for their wholesale destructive marxist program theyve aimed agaisnt men and mens hapless children.

And there are billions of individual and corporate stakeholders in this genderist-marxist scheme of social mal-organisation, whom alongside multiple special and professional interests, are gainfully employed and profiting off it. That is, in the political entrenchment and cultural normalisation of the supposed gender conflict off which countless useful-idiot males and females unbeknowingly serving it, are made to suffer irreversibly.

Under this system we see so much hatred and contempt being expressed for even the leading males of the land by all and sundry including females. And the reason even the beneffiting females feel this contemptuous way about all males especially the leaders, is because they know as well as ordinnary men experiencing the jackboots oppression, that its all underserved and unmerrited.

Afterall no-other people in the world have gotten themselves so hung up on matters of gender to the exclusionof all else in life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Elusive Wapiti January 25, 2011 at 00:56

Gorby,

Left unsaid in your comment is how you aided in the homewrecking.

Yes, what they did was a commentary upon them. But what you claim to have done is a commentary upon you as well.

Just sayin’.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 3
Opus January 25, 2011 at 01:21

I absolutely agree with Herbal – and I think it is very important for guys (well me, obviously) to realise this: that with women, it is all projection. If a woman makes some allegation against you, then you can be pretty certain that:

1. It is not true.

2. She would in fact probably like you to do it, and

3. She will shortly begin to do to you the very thing she accuses you of (I speak from experience).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 4
Opus January 25, 2011 at 01:42

I have just checked the Daily Mail report of the Tory M.P. and it is always interesting (as here) to see (with the Mail) what comments get the green arrows and which the red, as the Mail is middle-brow britain – and it is very encouraging. Clearly the Great British Public, are as scathing and fed up with Feminism and Equality as we are and have seen through it for what it is – a solipsistic, unsustainable, destructive, power grab.

I wonder what (perhaps Keyster or Welmer can predict) a similar article on a middle-of-the-road New York daily would produce in terms of red and green arrows?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
Bob Smith January 25, 2011 at 01:46

Women drank it down hard. Nothing matters – nothing – more than personal fulfillment.

I wonder what women would say if somebody started a men’s magazine called Self or For Men First.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2
Opus January 25, 2011 at 02:01

Re-Reading Herbal, I think he has (inexplicably) omitted the worst of female projections, which is ‘Men are violent’ which is of course, ‘violence comes from women (and where it doesn’t that is because the woman has deliberately bated the man to strike out)’.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5
greyghost January 25, 2011 at 02:04

There’s a certian lineage of women with this gritty “pioneer spirit” that exists today. You’ll find them in the rural midwest, on farms. They’ll be religious and not afraid of hard work. They were the archetype of the American Woman; respectful, sturdy, devoted, with a “can do” attitude. They understood marriage to be a partnership.”

Yup, this is true. I grew up on a farm, one of 12 kids, North Dakota. Worked hard, damned hard; glad of it too! But I’ll tell you one thing about farm women that you probably have no clue about; they brook no nonsense or abuse from the men in their lives. You WILL respect them if you’re married to one. That would be a dealbreaker for some of you here.

Farm women grow up handling sharp implements and they know what to do with them. Gritty, very gritty.

This from Cranky was meant to be an insulting post and it is. Just a bunch of conservative femmenist bullshit. This is where the so-cons,the church etc. are really wrong. What this article shows to me is a display of honor and character on the part of a woman and at one time it was normal. She honored wedding vows and did what was neccesary to maintain that honor and acheive the personal security that allowed her to write. The rural and farming setting was a coincedence as I see it and as Cranky was kind enough to point out to us also. Modern conservatives are playing house. The illusion of honor and character is still without honor and character. Left or right femmenism is still a hatred and disreguard of men as human.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4
Lara January 25, 2011 at 03:42

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 46
Lara January 25, 2011 at 05:56

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 44
zed January 25, 2011 at 05:57

Farm women grow up handling sharp implements and they know what to do with them. Gritty, very gritty.

Funny, I grew up around farm women and none of them ever seem to have to resort to threats to get “respect”. Their men respect them because they are worthy of respect, not because they fear their threats of violence.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 3
Lara January 25, 2011 at 06:03

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 57
W.F. Price January 25, 2011 at 07:04

greyghost,
You need to display honor and character also.
I would like to see an article comparing men like Almanzo to the average modern man. I bet the contrast would be a stark one.

-Lara

Probably the biggest difference would have been his hands and physique from all the work, but he used a cane to walk after the diptheria, so he couldn’t have been that impressive after the illness. I honestly don’t think there’s that much qualitative difference between contemporary men and women and their recent ancestors. It comes down to lifestyle and attitudes toward life. I think it is mainly a spiritual difference.

Lara January 25, 2011 at 07:14

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 45
Lara January 25, 2011 at 07:16

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 44
grerp January 25, 2011 at 07:28

My sister and I read the Little House books over and over and over as a child. My father was a schoolteacher and very close to his grandparents who lived a life very much on par with the Ingalls family. He read these books to his classes year after year and quizzed us, his children on the particulars.

Reading them as an adult is a bit of a different experience, however. There is significant evidence to indicate that Laura’s daughter, Rose, heavily edited (read: reworked/rewrote) the books. She was a far more “modern” woman than her mother – divorced, well-traveled, famous before her mother, and had well-known libertarian beliefs which, I think, show up in the books particularly in the characterization of Pa Ingalls. Pa was obviously courageous and tremendously hardworking, but he had his faults as well. His itchy feet lead his family into serious danger more than once. The first time was when he homesteaded in Kansas while the treaties with the local Indian tribes were still in dispute; they were actually squatting on Osage land. Not only did they have to leave after having built their house and cleared fields, it’s clear that they were a hair’s breadth away from being slaughtered by the local tribes because of their intrusion. They also all got fever and ague (malaria) and nearly died. They were so isolated; it was only by luck that a wandering doctor found the entire family sick with it and nursed them back to health.

Pa’s constant desire to move West before anyone else also put them in Dakota in the worst winter in living memory without adequate supplies or a means of procuring more. The Long Winter shows their desperate bid to survive – in constant blizzard and sub-zero temperatures – by twisting hay to burn after all other supplies were gone. The whole family nearly starved/froze to death. I don’t think it was a coincidence that DeSmet, South Dakota was their last move. Sometime in the midst of that winter, twisting that hay and seeing his girls get thinner and thinner, it must have occurred to Pa that perhaps he’d overreached this time.

Over and over it’s clear that while Pa is the heart of the family and the source of music and stories, kindness and jollity, Ma is the one who holds things together. She never complains, she never despairs. She is always working. She keeps the girls in line, refuses to brook any rebellion or accept any excuse for bad behavior, and she “makes do” constantly with almost nothing. Pa adores her for it, but he should because if they’d stayed in Lake Pepin, Wisconsin surrounded by all their relatives and friends, they would have had a far more secure life and a solid support system.

If you compare the books published while Laura was alive (and Rose was editing them) the tone is far more upbeat and “can-do.” The homesteader is presented as courageous and noble, his work blessed by God. The last Little House book, The First Four Years, was published posthumously, and it is a grim slog. As Welmer mentioned, things went truly south after Laura and Almanzo married. Almanzo, betting on good harvests, bought expensive farm equipment on credit, and they went into debt when the crops failed and lost the homestead. Their baby son died. The family got seriously ill with long-term effects. While these are terrible events and devastating in such close succession, they were not unique to Laura’s experience. Pa lost his crop and his house in On the Banks of Plum Creek when the locusts attacked and ate all his wheat. He had to leave the family and go work on the railroad to pay off his debts. Shortly after that, Laura’s little brother is born and then dies. The way these events are portrayed and interpreted is different when Laura is writing them vs. when Laura is writing them and Rose is editing them. Rose loved the adventurous nature of Laura’s childhood and idolized her grandfather. But Laura herself bore some psychological scars from all the insecurity of her past. As an adult she hated risk and loathed debt. She never spent money if she didn’t have to, and Rose had to push her hard to get her to go outside her comfort zone even a little. The two didn’t have a very peaceful relationship. Rose found her mother frustratingly stubborn and old-fashioned.

I do still love the Little House books and think that the work ethic and attitude the Ingalls family displays is a critical piece of the American history. But I would not say every homesteading family was like this or so resilient. There are numerous examples in the books of people who didn’t have the same internal fortitude – for example, the Brewster/Bouchie woman Laura boards with during her first term teaching school. She is driven mad by the terrible isolation and winter conditions on the prairie and hold her husband at knifepoint until he agrees to allow her to go back East.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 22
slwerner January 25, 2011 at 07:34

Mark Richards – ” The main opposition to changes affecting men negatively was led for decades by a small number of social conservatives. Look at the list of antifeminist organizations here. The Eagle Forum, the Endeavour Forum etc were all led by Christian social conservatives.”

Mark,

You’re a good guy, and I believe your heart is in the right place, even if your head isn’t.

Phyllis Schlafly (The Eagle Forum) had as her primary goal the defeat of the “Equal Rights Amendment” back in the 70’s. It was the only successful effort by Social Conservatives that can actually be seen as a direct confrontation to the spread of feminism. But, after that, the primary focus of SoCons has clearly shifted away from protecting the long-term interests of men, towards trying to chip away at the “evils” that they believe are associated with feminism – abortion, gay marriage, pornography, and even the effort to put prayer and the pledge back in schools. They’ve also, from time-to-time, paid “lip service” to doing something about affirmative action, but it’s not an issue they tend to actually act on.

While these may be worthwhile goals on their own, they ARE NOT fundamental to restoring the proper place of men and fathers in society. They are tangential issues, which while they may play some role in the degradation of men’s rights and roles, are not the key issues.

SoCons have been , and continue to be silent on issues such as no fault divorce, paternity testing and (financial) punishments for women who engage in paternity fraud, and legal changes that would better shield innocent men from scurrilous claims of domestic
violence, child abuse/molestation, and rape. [self described Christian Social Conservative, and lap-dog to Laura Wood Jesse Powell has even expressed a specific desire to have innocent men wrongfully imprisoned in an unexplained belief that it will serve to better protect women.]

They had opportunities to make themselves clear when there have been legislative efforts to address these issues, and they chose to remain silent. Check the archives at their sites, searching for their stated positions on any of these issues, and any lobbying efforts towards them. I think you are going to be very disappointed. I know I was.

This is largely why so many in the MRM have become hardened against SoCons and their endless chivalric white-knighting combined with their tendency to follow the feminist lead in shifting primary blame for virtually everything onto men, as a class.

MR – ” A small number of US churches don’t get to define what social conservatism means.”

This is the problem with someone looking in the window from afar and trying to tell those inside, living through it, what’s going on.

Long before I had any idea that there was a men’s rights movement, long before the creation of the Manosphere (back in the days when the internet was still in it’s formative state, and when GOPHER was the primary tool for searching out information), I was personally witnessing the capitulation to feminist-inspired thinking within main stream conservative Christian churches. And, I’m hardly alone. It’s likely that every man who posts to this forum who’s ever been a church attendee/member can tell you of their own experiences with the gynocentric Christian church.

Again, Mark, you’re a nice guy, but when it comes to the real world, you seem a bit clueless. Today, Traditionalist such as yourself are but a very small segment of those who would identify themselves as Social Conservatives, and not a particularly large proportion of those who call themselves Christians. Your values and goals may be largely in-line with the greater interests of men, but they are NOT part of the platform of the SoCons – who are much more typified by the likes of Sarah Palin than by Phyllis Schlafly.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4
paul parmenter January 25, 2011 at 07:50

Days of Broken Arrows January 24, 2011 at 13:29
This article has to be fiction. Laura Ingalls Wilder could not really have published books or worked the land because as all feminists tell us, women had no rights back then and were all chained inside the house and forced to cook and clean all day.

Good point. And where on earth did she learn to read and write, since only boys were ever educated, again according to our infallible feminist mentors?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
Hestia January 25, 2011 at 07:54

@slwerner-This is largely why so many in the MRM have become hardened against SoCons and their endless chivalric white-knighting combined with their tendency to follow the feminist lead in shifting primary blame for virtually everything onto men, as a class.
Alongside this blame there is very little expectations placed on women and precious little talk of responsibilities of a wife to her husband. I recall many sermons in my youth and young adulthood going on and on and on about responsibilities of men including keeping their wives at home with the children. There was not too much said about what wives who were at home full time ought to be doing to support their husbands and how they could add value to their families thanks to their position at home. This reality doesn’t differ too much from the focus on rights sans responsibility that is feminism in society at large.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
The Man On The Street January 25, 2011 at 07:57

Lara January 25, 2011 at 06:03
zed,
Sometimes you do have to show anger even if it isn’t ladylike. Men do need to be kept in line.
_________________________________

From the mouth of an Ameriskank for sure. And at a safe distance (the internet) from those evil men that need to be kept in line tah boot!

I’d love to see you say that to the face of one of those toughy-tough men that make your pants ooze tuna juice..

Uhuh… thought so…

There, now you’ve gotten your little girl “I need attention” fix from The Spearhead.. Now run along so the adults can talk.

TMOTS

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 8
Keyster January 25, 2011 at 08:27

SoCons want the burden to shift to or remain on men to provide for woman, as it “traditionally” once was. What happened was feminism exposed the RAW DEAL that this “burden” or responsibility is; The Manipulated Man.

It was feminists themselves that got men to question their role as provider to woman, while at the same time making it very challenging to maintain or manage the politics and balance of power in a long term male/female relationship, (previously known as “marriage”).

Without cataclysmic social upheaval, we can never go back to those times…and even then we might not. Mama Grizzlies are on their own.
Sarah Palin can hunt and fish for Kate Gosslin and the kids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
slwerner January 25, 2011 at 08:35

@ Mark Richards:

Might I suggest that you read and consider what blogger Alcuin has to say about the links between feminism and modern Christianity.

Hestia – “Alongside this blame there is very little expectations placed on women and precious little talk of responsibilities of a wife to her husband.”

Your thoughts dove-tail nicely into the discussion of the differences between “frontier woman” and most women today. You are absolutely correct that girls are not taught how they might become good wives and mother – just sluts, shopaholics, and high-end professionals (as if…).

I’d add that they are also not taught about their own sexuality (especially in most Christian churches were they are taught that it’s the guys and their voracious sexual appetites which represent the sum-total of the problem), and how they need to keep it in check as well. Even back when I was a Christian teen (late 70’s), it was already common for a “good girl” who’d carefully guarded her chastity around the nice Christian guys to one day show up with some non-Christian guy (thugs, jocks, and “playboys” from rich families were all common), hanging all over him (it was painfully obvious that they were sexually involved), who clearly did not respect those girls.

This was quite confusing and disconcerting for us “nice guys”, and it wasn’t until many years later that it made any sense (based on what I learned in the Manosphere). In retrospect, the fact that these girls all seemed to be enchanted with Debbie Boone’s You Light Up My Life should have been elucidative of what was happening. Unlike us guys, who were routinely admonished to “check” our urges and treat the girls respectfully, the girls never were. The embraced the line from that song, “It can’t be wrong, when it feels so right” to validate their choices to sexually engage with those “alphas” who got them hot and wet.

Another BIG difference from the way both boys and girls were taught to comport themselves back in the days of Laura Ingalls’ youth.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2
Robert January 25, 2011 at 09:02

Lara January 25, 2011 at 06:03
zed,
Sometimes you do have to show anger even if it isn’t ladylike. Men do need to be kept in line.

Most of us men do not need anyone to keep us in line. Most of us possess the discipline to keep ourselves in line.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
zed January 25, 2011 at 09:13

Pa was obviously courageous and tremendously hardworking, but he had his faults as well.

People have faults?!??!?! Gasp!!!!! Say it’s not so!!!! :roll:

His itchy feet lead his family into serious danger more than once.

I think someone just published a comment about “risk aversion.”

if they’d stayed in Lake Pepin, Wisconsin surrounded by all their relatives and friends, they would have had a far more secure life and a solid support system.

I think predicting alternative realities more than 100 years after the fact requires an omniscience that may be beyond even your considerable abilities, grerp. (“Balls”, said the queen, “if I had them, I’d be king!”) If cows could fly, we would all have to go around wearing hats with big wide brims… but, they don’t, so we don’t.

If Gavrilo Princip hadn’t assassinated Archduke Ferdinand, WWI might never have happened. If WWI hadn’t happened, with the punitive measures toward the German people, WWII would most likely not have happened the way it did, and even if a World War did happen, it would have been WWI and not WWII.

If men like Charles Ingalls had not had “itchy feet” and moved into the western territories before they were “pacified” by the US military, there would have been no reason for the Army to pacify them and protect settlers which were not there. The US as you know it today would not exist. Most of the land west of the Mississippi River and east of the Rocky Mountains would still probably belong to the peoples that it belonged to before the white man came.

It’s odd that a glowing portrait of an authentically strong woman always gets twisted around to focus on male faults. I wonder if the perspective might not have been quite different if the books had been written by Laurence Ingalls and then edited by his son Roscoe. Surviving the long hard winter might have been a source of real pride – given how men like challenges – and the scene in the grainery where Pa Ingalls is able to discern that the inside dimensions of the room do not match the outside dimensions and goes in and pulls out a coat peg being used to plug a knot hole and get a bucket of wheat to feed his family might have been portrayed as an example of Charles Ingalls’s native intelligence, resourcefulness, and deep commitment to taking care of his family.

All this leads to the MGTOW variation on the famous old “if a tree falls in the forest…” question.

If a man does not marry a woman so that she can point out all his faults, does it matter which ones he has?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 4
Robert January 25, 2011 at 09:20

If I met a woman like Laura Ingalls Wilder, I could consider marrying her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Migu January 25, 2011 at 09:59

Grerp or whatever.

Keep up that line of thinking and please teach it to all of your daughters, and continue to deride the sons of the world. Ohh we already got the game. We will not be supporting your daughters.

If I’m mistaken and you happen to be the product of one of these boomer women and the mangina’s who foolishly believed them, feel free to correct me, but if you think I will take the blame for your misery think again.

Play the blame game, just be noted there aren’t many that will take the blame these days. Have fun with that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
Robert January 25, 2011 at 10:05

Right on Zed!

Zed, I’m sure you have had contact with women of the “soap opera” regiment/culture. If so, please write an article about it. IMHO opinion , they have helped further warp the psychies of modern women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Robert January 25, 2011 at 10:06

” Female dreamland”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Cranky January 25, 2011 at 10:09

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 27
Zinc Oxide January 25, 2011 at 10:16

What do you mean that preachers tell women to divorce? Mine made us commit to the death.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8
Ms_Fu January 25, 2011 at 10:59

“Alongside this blame there is very little expectations placed on women and precious little talk of responsibilities of a wife to her husband. I recall many sermons in my youth and young adulthood going on and on and on about responsibilities of men including keeping their wives at home with the children. There was not too much said about what wives who were at home full time ought to be doing to support their husbands and how they could add value to their families thanks to their position at home. This reality doesn’t differ too much from the focus on rights sans responsibility that is feminism in society at large.”

These types of sermons are common in many “moderate” and “liberal” mosques. I personally haven’t heard of a sermon in several years about a wife’s responsibility to her husband from any Muslim cleric and I attend services almost every week.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8
grerp January 25, 2011 at 11:25

@zed

I think predicting alternative realities more than 100 years after the fact requires an omniscience that may be beyond even your considerable abilities, grerp.

I’m am no prognosticator, only a worrier, sadly.

When I read the Little House books as a child, Pa was my favorite character after Laura, through whose eyes we see all the stories. He was everything manly – brave, strong, courageous, gentle, funny, musical, charming, loving, and hardworking. Laura thinks he hung the moon, and the reader does as well. And when I was young I read them thinking that Pa and Ma knew what they were doing and had everything control, so their lives were like adventures and the dangers were only hurdles.

When I read them as an adult and parent I think, “Gosh, they probably were just making it up as they went along, and what were they doing going into hostile Indian Territory?!?” But then, I am very risk averse, as most women are and were. The great acts of bravery in the stories are done by men – Almanzo and Cap Garland go out into the empty prairie risking death by blizzard and with only a sort of an idea of where they might be going and they bring back the wheat that saves the town. By comparison, Ma makes a button lamp because it is a small way to beat the darkness when there is no fuel.

So, yes, you are right – the West would not have been settled without people like Charles Ingalls who took chances and overcame obstacles. But reading about those chances is a little more anxiety provoking for me now that I am a mother. And I think that I would not have measured up to Caroline Ingalls’s high example. I know I would have missed my family terribly and I would have been daunted by the prairie.

I’ve read several biographies of Laura Ingalls Wilder, and I rather wish I hadn’t. I think in real life, as opposed to fiction, she was more complex and less idealized. Those first four years apparently took a lot out of her. I still very much admire her and all the Ingalls family, though.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 15
Lara January 25, 2011 at 11:38

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 34
zed January 25, 2011 at 11:43

I think in real life, as opposed to fiction, she was more complex and less idealized.

Isn’t that always the case for those of us who do not, or cannot, live in a fantasy world?

When I read the Little House books as a child, Pa was my favorite character after Laura, through whose eyes we see all the stories. He was everything manly – brave, strong, courageous, gentle, funny, musical, charming, loving, and hardworking. Laura thinks he hung the moon, and the reader does as well.

I guess that depends on who “the reader” is. Growing up on a farm – mostly dairy – it never even entered my head that there might be such a thing as world in which some things didn’t simply have to be done. At 04:30 every morning, someone had to get up and go out and milk the cows. That is how the butter that we put on our biscuits got made. Livelihood was life, and life was livelihood. There was no room in such a world for “what if?” What if the cows milked themselves? Well, they didn’t. Life was life and people just dealt with it, and being funny, loving, and hardworking could actually make it a lot of fun at times. If you ever get a chance to watch the barn-raising scene in “Witness”, you can see that people were actually enjoying themselves as they were working. A day of hard work which has a tangible result is one of the most enjoyable experiences a person can have. Ask Hestia how it feels to watch her pantry shelves fill up with food that she has raised and preserved herself.

And when I was young I read them thinking that Pa and Ma knew what they were doing and had everything control, so their lives were like adventures and the dangers were only hurdles.

I saw them the same way. And, one message that I got from it is that they got over some pretty big hurdles. Compare a woman like Laura Ingalls Wilder with a woman like Cathy Cruz Marrero – of the famous “falling in the mall fountain while texting” fame. At first she was going to sue the mall over the security guards not coming to rescue her fast enough. Can you imagine Laura Ingalls Wilder or Carolyn Ingalls being stupid enough to fall into a fountain, and then compound her stupidity by suing someone for not rescuing her fast enough? Or, since she has a couple of felony charges pending, for not “rescuing” her from stealing her co-worker’s credit cards and running up over $5,000 in fraudulent charges?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Poester99 January 25, 2011 at 12:38

Well written Bill, another weapon in our arsenal against the forces of Misandry.

HA, this would certainly get their panties in a twist. Throw the shaming right back in their faces:

In response to where are the “good men”?
“Where are all the “good” women? Do you think you’re one of them? HA HA”

Like Laura Ingalls Wilder. She certainly wasn’t anybody’s slave or a pushover and yet she was still 10 times a better person than any of today’s women.

I can see the rationalization hamster spinning:

“How can he say something like that, he must be a creepy “bad” man!”

You may not get laid (with that particular sycophant), but at least you’ll have your self respect.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader January 25, 2011 at 12:48

Mark Richardson
A well-written piece, but one criticism. Again, the main blame for the declining position of men is put on social conservatives. Yes, feminists get a mention too but only in passing. I find this strange for a number of reasons.

I do not see that. I see equal blame laid on both the social conservatives and the feminists. There is good reason for this.

Social conservative Ronald Reagan signed into law as Governor of California the first unilateral divorce law in 1969 if I remember correctly. Over 10 years later he became President, and never lifted a finger to undo what he had done, even though the damage was obvious by then. In 1986, he signed the Bradley Amendment into law, passed by a Congress with the aid of social conservatives. Because who would not want “deadbeat dads” to pay their fair share — or unfair share, if need be — of child support? Since that time, a man can be divorced by his wife for no reason at all, other than she’s “not in love anymore”, deprived of access to his children, forced into Family Court where he won’t get to even confront his accuser in some cases, ordered to pay — and if he loses his job, through no fault of his own, either he continues to pay into poverty, or he can be thrown in jail.

When social conservatives talk about defending marriage, they almost always are discussing the issue of homosexual marriage. Very rarely will there be any discussion of divorce, and its effects. If there is discussion, it is always in terms of the effects on women and children, never the effects upon men. Social conservatives clearly do not care about what divorce does to men. Go look at Maggie Gallagher’s site, or any of the articles regarding divorce at such social conservative sites as National Review, Commentary, American Spectator and the like. They show no interest in what divorce does to men. Want to surprise a socon? Tell them that 2/3 of divorces are filed by women. It takes them aback every single time. Socons seem to live in the 1960′s, where divorce is what nasty old men do to their dutiful wives in order to get a hot young thing, not something that 30-something women do to their dutiful husband in order to keep access to his money while denying him access to his children.

Only men’s rights sites, such as this one, even broach the subject of the effects of divorce upon men.

In 1994, as part of an omnibus “crime” act, the liberal Clinton administration passed the “Violence Against Women Act”, which fully funds feminist-run “shelters” where women are counseled to divorce their husbands. VAWA defines “domestic violence” as including such dastardly actions as “shouting” or “requiring her to ask for money”. Thanks to VAWA, any woman in the US can be rid of her husband by simply picking up the phone, dialing the police (9-1-1) and saying “I’m afraid. My husband scares me”. The police are required to come. In many states they are required to arrest him. The abuses of the law under VAWA are many, wide and varied. The results of federal funding of feminism goes deep into society. VAWA came up for renewal in 2000, and it was signed into law again. In 2006, the social-conservative Republican party rubberstamped the bill again, and social-conservative darling G.W. Bush signed the law without a murmur.

Try to get a socon to discuss VAWA, it is useless. “Why are you in favor of violence against women?” is the usual response. Pointing out the one-sided nature of the law, the lack of any support for those men physically attacked by their wives, the one – sided nature of family court, the Federal funding for feminism — all useless, because in my experience socons can not, will not look beyond the superficial — “why are you in favor of violence against women?” is the sum total of any discussion.

You can always find social conservatives willing to thrash men for using porn. But good luck finding one who will even admit that women are over 1/3 of the users. And forget about any discussion why a “happily married” man might prefer looking at pictures of women engaged in sex with men to spending another frustrating evening with a shrew that never fails to point out his many faults. Just forget that entirely, because in socon land, any fault in marriage lies on the head of the husband. The tendency of social conservative men and women to put women on a pedestal is so common it really is hardly worth discussing.

Consider the ongoing maltreatment of boys and young men in schools. It’s rare to get a socon to even admit something is wrong, and when you can get over that hurdle the only response is handwringing, not any support for a solution. Young men are actively discriminated against in higher education, go look at any socon publication and see if it is even mentioned. If it is, at best there’s a parrot-like “we don’t understand! We dont’ understand!” quality to any commentary.

One-sided divorce, one sided family court, one-sided “domestic violence”, false rape charges, explicit discrimination in schools, universities and on the job — all of these and more occurred either with no resistance by social conservatives or with their active assistance.

I know, I know — all we have to do is “just man up” and all these things will go away.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3
Poester99 January 25, 2011 at 12:57

@TFH

Great News!

A British MP calls out misandry for what it is! :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350128/Tory-MP-Dominic-Raab-calls-male-equality-Feminists-bigots.html

Well done men! They closed down to comment section. Too many well reasoned, anti-feminist comments, I guess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Poester99 January 25, 2011 at 13:13

@Lara

Women reap what they have sown aka the hand that rocks the cradle controls the world.

If “nice” guys can’t procreate, then eventually they’ll be no more nice guys.
Isn’t that exciting?!?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
doclove January 25, 2011 at 13:35

This is a response to those who criticized single or married men who commited adultry wor cheating with a woman married to someone else or a girlfriend of someone else. Keep in mind that although it seems morally repugnant to have sex with a girlfriend or certainly worse a wife of someone else, these women chose to do this as well. These women would have either cheated or commited adultry with another man if the origional man said no to cheating and adultry. I have anecdotal stories to prove this.
The first happened 15 years ago. A friend of mine hadn’t had sex with a woman in a long time. He met a woman at a college dormitory party and they got along well. They had a one night stand the same night they met. The next morning she anounced that she was engaged to someone else. My friend told her that he respected and liked her as well as the sex, but he didn’t want a repeat of the sex. She asked why. He told her that he didn’t want her fiance chasing him around with a shotgun. She flatly told him that if he didn’t have sex with her, she probabaly would have had sex with someoene else. My friend asked where the fiance was and discovered he was at another college 80 miles away. My friend decided to continue the affair for 3 months as he felt it was the best way to get another sex partner. He was right because he had a 2nd female sex partner within 2 months. The female fiance woman broke it off with my friend stating she wanted to work on the relationship with her male fiance. My friend was incredulous, but she said that she would work on communicating better with her fiance and that lack of communication was why she cheated.( You’ve got to love slut and whore logic from the female hamster rationalization!)
My friend recieved an official written wedding invitation 6 months later. He never responded. She called him to ask why. He responded that he didn’t answer as he thought it was inappropriate to do so and it was doubly so for asking him. He argued bitterly with her over the phone.
He told her, ” What am I supposed to say? Whose party are you with, the bride or groom? I’m with the brides party! People would ask as to how did I get to know the bride. I would respond in the Biblical sense of course! All of the men in the grooms family would want to kill me especially the groom. Probably all of the men in your family, the bride, would want to kill me too. Never talk to me again!”
She never contacted him after that to which he was grateful. He felt the marriage was doomed before it ever got started and told her that before they broke up. He respected her right to marry whomever she wished though. This is a long post, but I hope it illustrates how many Western and in particular American women are.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5
Mikey January 25, 2011 at 13:43

Like Keyster I’ve heard women talking amongst themselves when they thought I couldn’t hear them (they thought I’d fallen asleep). The transformation is truly bonechilling when the mask slips. Women will casually backstab their best friends in ways a bloke couldn’t treat a sworn enemy. It was this conversation that finally broke any faith I had left in women and led me to find this website.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
slwerner January 25, 2011 at 14:02

doclove – “These women would have either cheated or commited adultry with another man if the origional man said no to cheating and adultry. I have anecdotal stories to prove this.”

It’s amazing just how many men also have such ancedotes.

Mine involves a woman who was a fellow church member. She was one of two women at that church who directly propositioned me. She was married to a guy who I admired and respected (as being financially successful).

Apparently his substantial “provision” not only allowed for her to not have to work, but also to spend her day’s “playing”.

Not long after I turned her down, she was caught-out in an affair with another man.

But, that’s NOT the worst par to of the story. Her husband actually stood before the church congregation and apologized to her for his shortcomings as a husband. Fortunately, I wasn’t present to have to see the sickening display (I was physically ill when I heard about it). As for as I know, she did not publicly reciprocate, despite that fat that she was the unfaith one.

I was incredulous, wondering how this could be. It was then that I first encountered the twisted theology of a man being “responsible” for his wifes misdeeds, and a barrage of people explaining that she must have only done it because he “drove” her to it in some way. (the infamous three-way guilt split – her husband, the guy who “seduced” her, and, finally her part; with the additional implication that given that her husband hadn’t properly “protected” her, her culpability was even less than that ascribed to the men.)

Unfortunately, I was too much a coward to tell them how she had also come on to me. I’ve long regretted that I didn’t at least try to set them straight. (I guess I was more afraid of having to explain to my wife why I hadn’t told her that her good friend had propositioned me when it happened).

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4
Opus January 25, 2011 at 14:13

and my analogy concerns me – sort of. My ex gf returned to her country of origin to care for her aging parents. Yes really she does. Selfless – there are some good ones, yet what do I hear all the time from guys: ‘she is only there because you have not made it clear you want her. If you had made it clearer she would still be here.’ I told her all this and she laughed her head off, but still the guys think its MY FAULT. It is always the man’s fault whether you do or whether you don’t – apparently. The fact that most women are pretty strong willed and do exactly what they want without any concern for the feelings of a man or decency or anything is something most guys do not and do not want to understand.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
doclove January 25, 2011 at 14:16

@Slwerner
I agree that the female fiance and the female wife had full responsibility for breaking their wedding vows. The men were morally wrong for fornicating and commiting adultry according to Christian morals. My friend was in absolutely no way acquainted with the male fiance. Your fellow male parishoner seems to have been at least slightly acquainted with the husband. You certainly were acquainted with the husband and did not betray any sense of friendship even if he was an acquaintance and not a friend. You displayed moral superiority and the other man did not. I agree that the husband had nothing to apologize for concerning the adultry whatever faults he had. The wife had everything to apologize for because morally under true Christian doctorine there is no excuse for adultry by sane adults. I say this as a Christian and a Catholic myself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Tim January 25, 2011 at 14:20

I don’t see what the problem is. Laura Ingalls is so amazing and empowering.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
zed January 25, 2011 at 14:39

Unfortunately, I was too much a coward to tell them how she had also come on to me. I’ve long regretted that I didn’t at least try to set them straight.

They would have just blamed you for it, the same way they blamed the cheating woman’s husband for her cheating.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Protestant January 25, 2011 at 14:57

I think a case can be made that social conservatives and traditionalists have been confused about feminism in some ways for some time. The fight in the US over the ERA in some ways took the heat off of other feminist efforts. I’m pretty sure that social conservatives did oppose one-sided divorce more than is acknowledged, but recall that often it was presented in terms of “freeing” women and men from “loveless marriages”. There weren’t a lot of ways to oppose that within the liberal mindset that existed in the 1970′s. I also think that social conservatives and traditionalists aren’t willing to go tilt at windmills; divorce is deeply embedded into the social structure and it isn’t’ going to be casually uprooted. It’s also not a life and death issue for the most part, unlike abortion.

But there is a kind of numb resignation on the part of too many traditionalists or social conservatives on divorce. Here is a posting from Dalrock on the topic:

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/list-of-churches-which-have-taken-concrete-action-on-divorce/

Here is either an essay or a sermon on divorce. How many churchgoing Christians would sit still for this preaching on a Sunday?

http://www.peaceprc.org/MarriageAndDivorce.htm

Now, if that hasn’t made any social conservatives / traditionalists uncomfortable enough, I would like to offer a dirty little topic that nobody wants to talk about: women benefit from feminism in real ways, and socially conservative women are women. Therefore, for a lot, likely the majority of socially conservative women, feminism benefits them. For example, affirmative action hurts men as a group, and it clearly benefits women as both a group and the individual woman. The social conservative woman who works for money thus surely benefits to some degree from affirmative action. For another example, the discriminatory preferences in higher education clearly benefit young women – all young women, not just feminists, and that includes the daughters of social conservatives and traditionalists.

It is difficult for anyone to stand up and say “Take away this privilege I have, as it hurts me and others”, so perhaps it is not reasonable to expect traditionalist/ social conservative women to walk the walk. But there it is.

Here is another angle to consider: more than a few social conservative women like to be leaders. They like being “someone”. And that is hard to turn off upon returning home. So I wonder just how many socially conservative, politically active women really defer to their husbands, as the Bible commands? Here is an essay to consider:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-you-sure-you-want-husband-who.html

I don’t believe there is a conspiracy between feminists and social conservatives. But I do think that social conservative, or traditionalist, men have a habit of deferring to women – certainly it’s been obvious in the legislation mentioned up the thread that far too much deference, and far too little scrutiny, has been applied to proposals “for women” by a lot of people.

I think that social conservatives can fairly be criticized for just not paying attention enough to the effects of legislation they either didn’t oppose, or went along with because of cleverly worded press releases. And I strongly suspect that more than a few socially conservative, or traditionalist, women don’t really want to defer to men as much as they say they do.

Actions speak louder than words. The actions of social conservatives for a long time have been far too deferential to feminism. It’s time for a change. I hope this is useful.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Mark Richardson January 25, 2011 at 15:40

First, thanks to those who replied to my concern that social conservatives were being blamed for the problems facing men. One thing that it’s clarified for me is the problem of political labels. What seems to be happening is that anyone on the right of politics, or anyone associated with the churches, is being called a “social conservative”. Since the establishment right and the churches have either not done anything about the attacks on men, or have even supported these attacks, then they are being held accountable.

I don’t disagree that the right of politics has fallen into line with, or actively supported, what has happened to men. But the question to ask is why? This is where I think some people are getting things wrong. The answer being given is that the right acts the way it does because it can’t let go of white knighting or chivalry, in which men are blamed and women are deferred to. I don’t think that’s the key answer.

If you dig deeper you find that those on the right tend to support as a matter of political philosophy the same kinds of ideas that those on the left do. Even someone like Ronald Reagan, who was at the most right end of the mainstream political spectrum, still admitted that his “conservativsm” was really a species of liberalism or libertarianism:

Reagan said in 1975:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

The great distortion in politics in the West, and the reason why so many changes have gone through unopposed, is that the left and the right both support some version of a liberal politics. That is a politics which claims that what matters is that we are equally autonomous. The left and right disagree on how best to implement such a goal, but the goal itself they share.

Who then is a social conservative? It’s a broad category, but it makes sense to reserve it for those who wish to conserve the social institutions that the liberals, whether of the left or right, attack. A lot of non-political people have some socially conservative instincts. But within the political class itself, there are not a lot of social conservatives.

In Australia, for instance, Babette Francis of the Endeavour Forum, and Bill Muehlenberg have been the most prominent social conservatives defending the traditional family against feminism. And, as you would expect from social conservatives, they have certainly criticised the effect of divorce laws on men. They have done this in articles in the daily newspapers, in submissions to parliamentary inquiries and as delegates to UN conferences.

As an example of Bill Muehlenberg’s politics see here. For Babette Francis here.

These are the people who deserve the label “social conservative” because they are actually socially conservative. Being on the right isn’t enough to qualify. Some people are on the right because they are classical liberals, or economic liberals, or populists and not because they oppose the underlying political currents of society.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 16
crella January 25, 2011 at 16:01

Funny, I grew up around farm women and none of them ever seem to have to resort to threats to get “respect”. Their men respect them because they are worthy of respect, not because they fear their threats of violence.

You know that far too many women can’t stand other women being praised, Zed. It never fails…praise one woman/type of woman, and others will start knocking her/them down.

“Farm women grow up handling sharp implements and they know what to do with them. Gritty, very gritty.”

Humor, Zed.

But humor is telling….so many women’s jokes these days rely on either veiled or direct threats to men, or the threat of violence in general for their ‘humor’. How much women can kick ass, so you better watch out. I, for one, don’t find it funny.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 8
zed January 25, 2011 at 16:32

One thing that it’s clarified for me is the problem of political labels.

Since the establishment right and the churches have either not done anything about the attacks on men, or have even supported these attacks, then they are being held accountable.

The great distortion in politics in the West, and the reason why so many changes have gone through unopposed, is that the left and the right both support some version of a liberal politics.

I was going to reply to your previous comment, Mark, but slwerner and Anonymous Reader beat me to it, and put things better than I probably would have.

I agree with your assessment of the problem of labeling. For example, I consider myself in many respects very socially conservative. I simply laugh at the concept of “same sex marriage”, and recently wrote an entire post on the big difference between what something is, and what we might call it or pretend that it is.

From a man’s perspective, the issue is fairly simple. A guest columnist at Ferdinand’s blog just put it this way –

Modern society forces upon us the previous generation’s masculine duties and responsibilities, offers none of the rewards, and distracts us from our shitty deal with the soothing balm of counterfeit achievement.

To use a biblical story to illustrate – the Pharaoh in Egypt responded to one of Moses’s demands to “let my people go” by decreeing that the Israelites would still be required to produce as many bricks per day as they had been, but that they would no longer be provided with the straw to make them, and would have to gather it from the fields at night.

The past 50 years or so have been one long continuous process of passing law after law which makes the “traditional” male role harder to fulfill, at the same time the requirements and expectations of that role have been becoming greatly expanded and contradictory. In order to be a successful “breadwinner” and support a SAHM, a man must first compete on a playing field totally tilted against him by Affirmative Action. Even if he were to compete with his own wife for a job for which they had similar qualifications, she would get the job over him due to AA. And, even if he is successful, that very success will then be turned around to give women even more advantages to compete with men because “women STILL only make 77 cents for ever dollar a man makes.” One way or the other, no matter what he does, he is either victimizing one woman, or all women.

Add to that the outsourcing of most industrial jobs by the capitalist sector – also generally identified with conservatism in general – and men have gotten the message “You have to keep doing this, no matter how hard we make it for you to do it, and we don’t care how hard we make it.”

The labels are particularly problematic in that philosophical principles often cut both ways. Barbara DaFoe Whitehead, in her “The Divorce Culture: Rethinking Our Commitments to Marriage and Family” made the interesting statement that conservatives supported no-fault divorce (e.g. Reagan) based on the concepts of “lazy capital” and “under-performing marriages.” If we look at such nominal “conservatives” as Newt Gingrich, who divorced one wife after she was diagnosed with cancer, the so-called “sanctity of marriage” obviously meant nothing to him. Divesting himself of an “under-performing asset” (as Ronald Reagan did with his first wife) was simply the act of an astute capitalist.

The silence of the so-called “social conservatives” on the devastating effects of divorce on children and men has been staggering to many men. If they are so concerned about the role of fathers, for example, why have they said absolutely nothing in support of enforcing fathers’ visitation rights? When Fathers4Justice in the UK settled on the totally non-threatening strategy of dressing up like comic book superheroes to draw attention to what was being done to their children, it seemed like the social conservatives were as likely to call them “domestic terrorists” as anyone else was.

The young man’s quote above about how young men are being forced to live up to traditional masculine obligations without any of the rewards points to a theme I have been mulling over in my head for an essay. Any basic understanding of motivation understands the principle of the carrot and the stick. However, western cultures seem to have basically taken the attitude of “Screw the carrot… GIMME TWO STICKS!!!!!

No matter what men might choose to do these days, we can count on getting bashed for it. With that being the case, it pretty much boils down to choosing who we would rather be bashed by, and whether we would rather be bashed for doing something we want to do and enjoy, or something we don’t.

It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out which one of those will win.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
zed January 25, 2011 at 16:42

But humor is telling….so many women’s jokes these days rely on either veiled or direct threats to men, or the threat of violence in general for their ‘humor’. How much women can kick ass, so you better watch out. I, for one, don’t find it funny.

Lying to call veiled threats “humor” is one hallmark trick of the feminists. Of course, there is humor, and then there is “humor.”

For example –
“What do you say to a woman with two black eyes?”
“Nothing, you have already told her twice.”

“Humor”, y’know. :roll:

Nice to have your 2˘ in all this, crella. Being a farm boy, I know bullshit when I see it, but it’s nice to have a woman calling another woman on her bullshit once in a while.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3
crella January 25, 2011 at 16:55

Being a farm boy, I know bullshit when I see it

:-D

Glad to…I have little tolerance for it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8
Anonymous Reader January 25, 2011 at 17:04

As someone who has debated and argued with feminists for years, I have some familiarity with the way they go about such things. A standard feature of almost any interaction with feminists is endless redefinitions whenever and wherever needed. For example, bringing up Dworkin and MacKinnon in the 1990′s virtually guaranteed a terse “They aren’t feminists”. Ditto for any feminist position that was inconvenient to the discussion at hand. Amusingly, I once was told by some young woman on an internet forum that Germaine Greer wasn’t a “real” feminist, because the young woman didn’t agree with something or other Greer had written.

Basically, feminists in my experience define “feminism” as “all good things and no bad”. Anything “bad” is clearly not feminism. Why? Because feminism is always good.

QED, as it were.

There is a name for this: it is the No True Scotsman fallacy. You can read about it here:

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

It seems to me that’s what you are doing. You choose to define “social conservative” or “traditionalist” in such a way as to exclude anything bad that has been done, and then you ask how could anyone be opposed to it. Can you explain how your defense is not merely another exercise in No True Scotsman?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Protestant January 25, 2011 at 17:13

It looks like I have a comment in the spam trap due to links. I think they are relevant to the discussion. Please post?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
greyghost January 25, 2011 at 17:15

Just home from work and I can say i am very impressed with the comments here on this article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
zed January 25, 2011 at 17:18

Anonymous Protestant January 25, 2011 at 17:13 [edit]

It looks like I have a comment in the spam trap due to links. I think they are relevant to the discussion. Please post?

I looked and only saw one comment on this thread, which I did approve.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Protestant January 25, 2011 at 17:37

Ok, here is a shorter version of the previous attempted comment. In my opinion, too many people talk the traditionalist talk but don’t walk the walk. How many churches would tolerate a sermon or essay like this one?
http://www.peaceprc.org/MarriageAndDivorce.htm

And there is a dirty secret relationship between feminism and social conservatism: feminism benefits women. Social conservative women are women. So in a lot of cases, not all but quite a few, socially conservative women benefit from feminist laws. How many women that call themselves socially conservative have turned down a job or a promotion because it was due to affirmative action? How many socially conservative families take advantage of all the extra aid and benefits offered to their college-aged daughters, without a qualm?

To be really blunt, how many traditionalist or social conservative or whatever you call them wives really let their husbands lead the family? Here is an essay on that. I look around my church, and I know for a fact that it applies to more than one “socially conservative” family.

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-you-sure-you-want-husband-who.html

The bottom line is this: a lot of people who talk social conservatism do not live it. And so they are part of the problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Lara January 25, 2011 at 17:49

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 34
Lara January 25, 2011 at 17:52

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 33
Anonymous Protestant January 25, 2011 at 18:58

Tried the posting with links again, didn’t work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price January 25, 2011 at 19:04

Tried the posting with links again, didn’t work.

-AP

The previous one should be in there.

Anonymous Protestant January 25, 2011 at 19:53

The previous one should be in there

Well, now I see all the postings that I’ve made today. Delete the second one with links if you wish.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mark Richardson January 25, 2011 at 22:10

Can you explain how your defense is not merely another exercise in No True Scotsman?

i) The fact of Western politics being dominated by variants of liberalism, rather than social conservatism, is widely recognised by political theorists on both the left and the right. I’ve collected a few examples here. As just one example, Professor John Gray writes:

We are all liberals nowadays … It sometimes seems as if the spectrum of ideas in political life ranges from the sovereign consumer of the neo-liberal right to the sovereign chooser of the egalitarian left.

ii) Most of the right-wing liberals self-identify as liberal – they don’t even claim to be conservative. David Cameron, for instance, is currently the leader of the British Conservative Party. But he has recently stated that he wants his party to be “a champion of liberal values”.

iii) It makes sense for the term “social conservative” to relate to the conservation of social institutions. In other words, it makes sense to apply the term “social conservative” to those who wish to defend traditional social institutions. Why should someone, then, who supports feminists attacks on the traditional family be labeled a “social conservative”?

iv) It has to be remembered that many ordinary people are socially conservative, but the political class tends to be liberal. In a democracy, that means that at election time the politicians have to seek the support of socially conservative constituents. That’s especially true of the parties of the right, who traditionally have not had the support of unions or special interest groups. So there’s a kind of charade at election time in which politicians who have no intention of implementing socially conservative policies nonetheless present themselves as such to their constituents.

v) The left likes to see itself as the party of dissenting outsiders, sticking up for the marginalised and oppressed against the privileged, conservative, establishment. Therefore, the left will often exaggerate the real conservatism to be found on the right. That is part of the distortion of modern politics: there are right-wing leaders who push a radically modern line when it comes to gender, but who still get portrayed by the left as anti-woman establishment “conservatives”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16
MW January 26, 2011 at 01:42

A modern day Laura Ingalls Wilder:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Oldest+Canadian+lived+through+Russian+Revolution/4166839/story.html

They don’t make them like they used to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
nilk January 26, 2011 at 04:25

Feminism explained.

What would women say if….?

I posted these on my facebook this morning. Unsurprisingly, the only friends who “liked” them or commented are men.

What I did find surprising was that both were recommended to me today by men friends who I rarely discuss feminism with. Usually it’s religion and politics and marxism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 26, 2011 at 05:33

Opus January 24, 2011 at 14:49
“I, (I won’t say how) have had the pleasure like Keyster of listening into woman-to-woman conversations, and I concur with him”

I have not had that dubious ‘pleasure’. But, interestingly, my new lady friends are quite open as to what women think of men. Because I told them that lying to me was unacceptable and that was the driving reason behind my divorce they seem quite happy to be totally open and honest with me.

Pretty much ALL of them have noted women cheat more than men because it’s so much easier to do and to get away with it.

zed January 25, 2011 at 05:57
“Funny, I grew up around farm women and none of them ever seem to have to resort to threats to get “respect”.”

Zed, me too. Lots of women I knew were from the land or one generation removed from the land. When I was a kid a woman earned respect. And when she earned dis-respect she got it in droves as well. The older women kept the younger women in check. Saw my grandmothers do it many times in the 70s. By the 80s/90s when my mother attained the same position in society you could see how the younger women were taking no notice of the criticisms made of them.

My mum often told women who put their kids in day care to go to work that they were not doing the MOST IMPORTANT JOB of raising the kids. She recounted to me many times how young women would dismiss her as ‘old fashioned’ about the idea a womans place was in the home with the children she chose to have. I heard my mum talk hashly about such women MANY times when I would be home to visit.

One of the clear results of ‘the right to work’ for women is that it has quickly morphed into the ‘obligation to work’ for women. When I left Australia in 2001 I was losing 50% of my income to taxes and the super annuation fund. 50%. That was BEFORE paying 10% GST and the mortgage. The tax system and mortgages make it well nigh impossible for a man to be the sole income earner in Australia any more. Well done ladies.

zed January 25, 2011 at 16:32

Nail…meet hammer….excellent post Zed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
crella January 26, 2011 at 05:41

The older women kept the younger women in check. Saw my grandmothers do it many times in the 70s.

Yes, they did, quite right, great post, Peter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10
otherzed January 26, 2011 at 07:10

For this kind of woman, how many of you would sacrifice the urge to fuck around? While this type doesn’t need to be “gamed”, I don’t think she would have tolerated that from her husband.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9
Opus January 26, 2011 at 07:20

My latest theory which should please every one is as follows:

Women are as a species (yes I realise species is the wrong terminology, however) Redundant:

1. Previously most women had many children so they stayed at home to cook clean etc. A sensible division of labour!

This was both demanding and time-consuming.

Now, however many women have no children at all or few and with labour saving devices (invented exclusively by men) they are in the position of women from the old upper-middle-classes, i.e. nothing to do all day.

What are they to do therefore?

They are not as strong as men, or as intelligent or as obsessive (too much multi-tasking) and frequently indulge in emotionalism rather than thinking rationally.

They nevertheless want to be near men as that is the one thing biology had progammed them to do, (ee.g. that female referee) however they are not very good at male jobs therefore they can only do the cushier male jobs (i.e. office) and yet even so have to be given special treatment to compete effectively.

Unfortunately nature has decreed that if a woman is not a wife and mother she will be a whore (though doubtless through guilt, going – Mary Magdelene like- into periods of self denial ‘I do not need a man. I am happy with my cats . My life is so fulfilling. boohoo).

Women are thus just a nuisance in an office where they continuously sexually harrass but with their poor grasp of reason always conclude that their harrassement of men is actually harrassement of them!

As they are no longer needed in the home they are good for only one thing – sex, but unfortunately this is the one thing most of them feel guilty abou – and (sorry girls) most are not that hot anyway. Without sex however women are REDUNDANT.

The problem is, they are a drain on the world’s limited resources – always eating, or praying (imaginary male friend) so ‘what are we going to do with them’?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
slwerner January 26, 2011 at 07:42

Mark Richards – “It makes sense…”

Mark,

I think we’ve just found the point of disconnect between you traditionalists in Australia and those of us here in the US (and the UK).

We’re describing the actions of a group that is self-described, and you’re trying to make sense (“sense” and American politics are entirely incompatible).

You’re stuck using the classical definitions of those political descriptions. Here, “Liberals” are anything but. What we call Liberals are the left-wing, socialist, “progressives” who advocate for big government and increased government intrusion into everyones lives and business.

They are NOT, and the term would have you believe, “open minded” nor tolerant. Our highly intolerant “Political Correctness” is an invention of such people. The only thing that’s liberal about Liberals is their tendency to give women, and sometimes ethnic minorities, greater deference and increased privileges. Beyond that, Liberal tend to be highly illiberal.

In America, Conservatives aren’t necessarily concerned with preserving traditional culture so much as they are for preserving the status quo, especially as it concerns their ability to make money. As I mentioned on your blog, perhaps the only thing we might use as a “litmus test” for Americans who describe themselves as “Conservatives” is their opposition to abortion and gay marriage. But, even those are rather “flexible”. Perhaps a better description of those we recognize as conservatives would be to call them anti-leftists, anti-socialists, or anti-progressives. The main problem with our conservatives, as I see it, is that they truly stand for little more than maintaining systems that allow business (the bigger the better) to make lots of money. They’re not really so much against big government as they are for redirecting government efforts in a pro-(big)business way.

We’ve simply become accustomed to their chosen labels of “Liberal” and “Conservative”. Yet, they really make little sense, in terms of the original means of those words. The band Talking Heads provided us with the best advise on how to look at American politics with the title of their 1984 live album, Stop Making Sense” – which would be my advice to you as how you should address your efforts at rectifying American political labels to fit with what you understand.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
zed January 26, 2011 at 08:28

For this kind of woman, how many of you would sacrifice the urge to fuck around? While this type doesn’t need to be “gamed”, I don’t think she would have tolerated that from her husband.

Count me among the “yeas”. Somehow I can’t see either Almanzo Wilder or Charles Ingalls as being that much of “fucking around” kind of guys.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
zed January 26, 2011 at 08:35

Why should someone, then, who supports feminists attacks on the traditional family be labeled a “social conservative”?

Perhaps it is more a case of whatever defenses against the attacks on the traditional that the SoCons have mounted have been totally invisible and ineffective.

For example, what are the SoCons in your country doing about an issue that affects every married man who lives there? Doesn’t the decision that an act which was considered a normal part of marriage in 1963 can be declared after the fact to be a crime and prosecuted after 47 years rather strike at the very heart of what so-called “traditional marriage” was once understood to be by just about everyone?

What are the SoCons doing about this? And, if the answer is “nothing”, then why even bother to discuss what they do or don’t believe?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader January 26, 2011 at 08:41

Mark Richardson, I’m sure that
i) many, if not most, academics are No True Conservatives
ii) David Cameron is No True Conservative
iii) Many people who call themselves Conservative are No True Conservative
iv) There are politicians who are No True Conservative
v) The left likes to label lots of people as Conservative who are No True Conservative

So it appears that you are asserting there are No True Conservatives save for you and some, some of the people who post at your site. You seem to have provided a pretty good example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. What am I missing, here?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
otherzed January 26, 2011 at 09:11

Count me among the “yeas”. Somehow I can’t see either Almanzo Wilder or Charles Ingalls as being that much of “fucking around” kind of guys.

Neither do I, but perhaps they had it easy – living with your spouse in the middle of the wood works like a charm ( :

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9
Mark Richardson January 26, 2011 at 13:08

So it appears that you are asserting there are No True Conservatives save for you and some, some of the people who post at your site.

The Australian electorate is stubbornly conservative. But the political class is nearly entirely liberal and describes itself as so (politics here is contested between a Labor Party on the left and a Liberal Party on the right). And, unfortunately, it is the political class which determines the direction of society, regardless of conservative sentiment in the electorate.

The forces of conservatism in the Australian political class are limited. There are three or four Liberal Party MPs who could realistically be described as socially conservative. There are the pro-family social conservatives in the Endeavour Forum and the DLP. There is myself and the readership at my site. There is a magazine called Quadrant which is mostly right-liberal, but which does allow socially conservative opinion to be published. There’s a minority element within the Catholic Church which still holds to some socially conservative positions, though they have a very low public profile.

Things used to be worse. In the 1980s, if you were a young college student interested in politics, not only would you be a liberal you would be a left-liberal (or a communist). Even to be a right-liberal was considered beyond the pale. In other words, the “intellectual/artistic” class was solidly left liberal as a bloc or a tribe.

Things have improved since then. A group of more right-liberal/libertarian intellectuals emerged in the 1990s. And there are more voices speaking up now for genuinely socially conservative positions in internet forums/online comment sites. So there’s a more open debate. But formal politics and the mainstream media is still dominated by liberalism.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15
Anonymous Reader January 26, 2011 at 13:20

Mark Richardson, your report on Australian politics is interesting. But it doesn’t answer the question. You don’t like recitation of what social conservatives have done in the US, and how they have caved in to feminism over and over again. So you assert that a True Conservative would not do that. But this is the same game that feminists routinely play when the bad results of feminism are put to them: “Oh, that’s not feminism. She’s not a feminist. He’s not a feminist”.

Either your definition of “social conservative” is so narrow that it excludes the vast majority of people who call themselves that, or you are engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy rather than reason. Or again, to be charitable, there is something I am missing. If so, what is it?

Because either way, you haven’t provided anything useful to rebut the several historical points that I’ve posted above: how time after time, social conservatives have either stood idly by while feminism loaded more burdens onto men, or actually assisted and joined in.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Mark Richardson January 26, 2011 at 15:11

Either your definition of “social conservative” is so narrow that it excludes the vast majority of people who call themselves that…

But you have to go to sources. Take a look at those politicians on the right who have written articles or books outlining their political philosophy. You will nearly inevitably find that they espouse some kind of liberal, rather than conservative, philosophy.

Take Newt Gingrich. I just did a quick internet search and came up with a list he made of “basic principles” which form “the heart of our civilization”. Here they are:

In my reading, I found five basic principles that I believe form the heart of our civilization:
The common understanding we share about who we are and how we came to be
The ethic of individual responsibility
The spirit of entrepreneurial free enterprise
The spirit of invention and discovery
Pragmatism and the concern for craft and excellence.

In what meaningful sense could Gingrich be called a social conservative, based on these principles? I suppose the idea of having “a common understanding about who we are” comes closest, but he doesn’t actually spell out what the common understanding is.

He says nothing here about family, ancestry, moral virtue, manhood and womanhood or any other qualities you would expect a social conservative to focus on.

Gingrich has associated himself with the philosophy of the futurists Alvin Toffler and John Naisbitt. He is also associated with the Progress and Freedom Foundation, which states as its mission:

The Progress & Freedom Foundation is a market-oriented think tank that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy. Its mission is to educate policymakers, opinion leaders, and the public about issues associated with technological change, based on a philosophy of limited government, free markets, and individual sovereignty.

In most parts of the world, that would be immediately recognised as a philosophy of classical liberalism. It’s perhaps more difficult for it to be described that way in the US where the word “liberalism” is so often used to refer to those on the left. But it is not social conservatism. It is technological futurism combined with classical (i.e. right) liberalism.

So once again when you go to the sources you find that the right-wing politician is not a social conservative. And that’s what explains the failure to defend traditional marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 15
Anonymous Protestant January 26, 2011 at 16:52

It does not seem to me that Mark Richardson is engaging in the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, but rather pointing out that anyone can say they are a social conservative. You have to look at their actions. That means there are a lot of people who are posing, or kidding themselves, or who are just confused.

It is important to note that social conservatives are part of the Republicans for the most part, but only a part. On some religious websites it is not at all uncommon to find evangelical Christians and Catholics alike bemoaning the fact that the Republicans are always ready for social conservative votes, but never ready to put social conservative policies into effect. And I think that the total focus on abortion that has been so intense in social conservative circles for years now has had the effect of pretty much moving every other issue so far down in importance as to take it off the list. Plus the focus on abortion to the exclusion of everything else has led to coalitions that are strange. It is strange to see the existence of “Feminists for Life”, and stranger still to find Catholics who stoutly insist they are conservative to the bone working with them. But the policy of “abortion is the only issue” leads to this.

Which is why so many people regard feminist Sarah Palin as a social conservative; if opposing abortion is all it takes to be a social conservative, then by that definition it’s what she is. The same for GW Bush; he opposed abortion, so he’s considered by many to be a social conservative.

I think that the definition should be more rigorous than “opposes abortion and votes Republican”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
universe January 26, 2011 at 18:00

Been away from a computer for a number of days.

However, it is never too late to send a word of appreciation for the lead article in this thread. Well done, WF, as were many of the following commentaries.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Nergal January 27, 2011 at 01:07

It’s amazing just how many men also have such ancedotes.

I once had some dude’s wife come on to me like a drunken trailer park slut at a party where her husband was inside the house about 10 feet away from the spot where she was trying to suck my dick. I turned her down. I may be an asshole,but even I won’t cross some lines.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
chi-town January 27, 2011 at 11:33

Superior societies , and certainly the United States is one such society, tends to breed poor citizens. Its nothing new. The Romans were too corrupt and helpless against the barbarians. Yet, the same barbarians were eager to enjoy a measure of Roman leisure.

Proverbs 20:21:

21 An inheritance gained hastily at the beginning
Will not be blessed at the end.

American society and modern Americans are two different things. While, as of now, I prefer our institutions, I hold the citizen in lower and lower esteem.

Which child is an American in Charlie and the Chocolate factory? The 19th century was “work hard, don’t play”. The 20th century was “work hard, play hard”. The 21st is “don’t work, play hard”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Christopher January 27, 2011 at 16:45

With all due respect, chi-town, that is NOT the motto of the 21st century. The motto of the 21st century is “Stop allowing your boss to take advantage of you and turn you into his wage slave! Fight back, HARD!”
Need I remind that most people today are being paid LESS than people 20-60 years ago were paid for their work? When that is happening, there are some severe problems in American society and THAT is the reason why so many people, both women and men, are having problems today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Nicole January 28, 2011 at 00:30

Firepower says, “these people don’t exist any more.”

Yes they do. You just don’t find us hot, and you think we’re trying to tie you down and take away your freedom by being loyal to you.

I had to leave the U.S. to find a guy who found industriousness, resourcefulness, loyalty that would outlast even sexual incompatibility, and fierce survival instinct attractive.

…and yet even I wouldn’t go as far as to say there are no men in the U.S. like this. I just wasn’t lucky enough to find one who was available but not related to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 15
Observer January 28, 2011 at 02:12

“We hear a lot about how if only men would “man up,” take the reins and stop acting like overgrown children, women would magically fall in line and reveal their inner sainthood”

That statement reveals the inherent leadership role that men have in society. Like it or not, it is always assumed and expected. Even feminism follows it (though wrongly) by holding men accountable for the sins of their women.

“Christian churches will demand that men indulge their wives and daughters, never faulting them for anything and working like oxen to provide for their every appetite…”

“Preachers would be hollering at Almanzo that he “isn’t a real man” because his wife has to work to support him (oddly, preachers seem to think telling their female congregants that their husbands are losers will prevent divorce — are they stupid, or evil for that?”

Will, I kinda see what your getting at here, but I think it’s a mistake to assume that churches are the source for that kind of pressure. I think it’s much more generalized and something that men put on each other as an easy measure of character and success. Of course women have used it as a gauge of eligibility for as long as there have been women, but that’s beside the point. Since men aren’t allowed to be the head of the family anymore, all that’s left is the paycheck as a substitute man card. We’re never going to be able to shake it as long there lies a desire to fulfill it.

It doesn’t mean it’s okay to put unrealistic expectations on ourselves but considering the social experiment bubble we’re riding on, it’s bound to happen. Alot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Frederico January 28, 2011 at 12:11

Laura was not even close to as good looking as Almonzo and yet he was smitten with her and she him.

I guess at one time, men didn’t look only for someone who was “pretty” or a “10″. When all men go after is “looks”, is it any wonder they end up with a conniving whore?

Men need to get their own priories straight if things are going to ever change. Settle down with the hard-working plain Jane who will be faithful, bear your children and do anything to keep you happy and your marriage in tact. Chasing bimbos sends a message to women that that’s all men want and voila, more of the same. It’s a vicious cycle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Anonymous Reader January 28, 2011 at 13:40

Frederico, Alonzo (note spelling) and Laura lived in the time of marriage 1.0, just for a start. His value to her was not in his looks per se, but in his ability to provide for her and any children. Her value to him was not in how “hot” she was, but in her dutiful, loyal submission as a wife. There was a great deal of social pressure on both of them to remain faithful to each other. Without him, her life would have been pretty crummy.

Contrast that with today. Girls are raised with the message they are “special” just for being female. Not just in the media, but in school, where feminized “educators” make sure any boys who are too boyish get drugged into submission. In college, where Title IX ensures that men’s athletics will be constantly shrinking, while women’s athletics are artificially pumped up. In college, where special women’s only grants, women’s only scholarships, women’s only mentoring programs ensure that the already privileged women get more privileges. In employment, where Affirmative Action ensures that women will get jobs, at the expense of men. In medical and law programs, where “outreach” ensures that 50% of each class will be women, no matter what the qualifications.

So 20-something women, at the peak of their beauty, having been catered to all their lives, just know they are something special. They know they don’t have to settle for second best. They know that they can surely “land a man” who makes their ‘gina tingle, and that ain’t any ordinary, boring old Alonzo. Nope. It’s the guys on the Duke F*ck list.

So they spend their 20′s riding that carousel. Laura didn’t do that. She didn’t have the option to do that. Alonzo didn’t have to learn Game to get a wife, he didn’t have to marry a woman who’d already ridden 10 or 20 other men, either.

Plenty of men have their priorities straight. They want a woman who will be part of a team, not a special snowflake princess who demands that everyone make her haaaapy.

Chasing bimbos is pretty much all many men can do. Because most women are bimbos.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6
Anonymous Reader January 28, 2011 at 13:43

Oh, and one more thing, “Frederico”, when Alonzo and Laura had difficult times in their marriage, they stuck it out. There wasn’t a whole vampiric industry waiting to profit from Laura getting bored with Alonzo, deciding that she “loved him, but wasn’t in love with him anymore”. There wasn’t a whole army of divorce shysters waiting for a nice cut out of Alonzo’s hide, there wasn’t a whole phalanx of feminist “counselors” waiting to “raise” Laura’s “consciousness” by explaining what a horrible, abusive man Alonzo was. There wasn’t a whole family “court” system waiting to process Alonzo like a sausage machine, and then demand more Federal funding because of the “increased caseload”. There wasn’t a whole state-run apparatus ready to chop away at Alonzo’s income and hand it over to Laura tax-free.

Just so you know.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
Anonymous Reader January 28, 2011 at 14:48

Any chance of my two replies to Frederico being posted?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
DaveC January 28, 2011 at 15:36

I’m currently reading the “Little House” series to my five-year-old daughter. For comparison, we also watched some of the TV pilot. I hate to speak ill of the dead, but Michael Landon is a pussy!! He has no fiddle, he’s always clean-shaven (the real Pa wore a foot-long beard), and he gets all weepy at the slightest adversity. The real Pa probably cried once in his life, when his only son Freddy (not mentioned in the TV series or any of Laura’s books) died at the age of ten months.

Even as a child, Laura knew that if the family didn’t grow, gather, hunt, and stockpile enough food, they might all starve to death, as almost happened in “The Long Winter”. That’s why you can’t find women like her today, at least not in any country with a “social safety net”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Spell-Checker January 28, 2011 at 16:45

Hey, geniuses, it’s Almanzo Wilder.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12
Anonymous January 28, 2011 at 16:55

Anonymous Reader:

Just because your mother or every girlfriend you’ve chosen in life was a bimbo doesn’t mean all women are bimbos.

Pathetic.

Please, do the world a favor and invest in a “real doll”.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 17
Anonymous Reader January 28, 2011 at 18:47

Spell Checker
Hey, geniuses, it’s Almanzo Wilder.

Yes, that’s right, you are absolutely correct. Thanks for pointing that out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader January 28, 2011 at 19:50

Anonymous
Just because your mother or every girlfriend you’ve chosen in life was a bimbo doesn’t mean all women are bimbos.

Hmm. Code Gold?

Pathetic
Please, do the world a favor and invest in a “real doll”.

Ah. Definitely Code Purple.

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

Ok, Anonymous, you’ve delivered your required load of feminist shaming language. Now run along back to your manbooby and tell him he needs to send a better quality of troll over here.

There’s a good girl…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
David K. Meller January 30, 2011 at 15:33

I was as moved by the account of this truly remarkable woman as anyone here, yet I can’t avoid wondering if she–and women like her–inadvertantly played a part in the spreading of the feminist plague that has characterised our society–or what is left of it–since around 1970.

I refer specifically to the XIX amendment, giving women the vote.

There was, and is, certainly no harm giving the franchise to women like Laura I. Wilder. Any republic would be strengthened by an electorate composed of such resolute, upstanding, and hard-working people. There obviously were enough women like Mrs. Wilder so that critics of the feminine franchise could have their objections answered that women’s sufferage would not corrupt or endanger the republic.

They had no awareness of , and could have no awareness of, the KIND of worthless, spiteful, greedy, narcissistic sluts who would dominate society less than a century later!

If they could have understood that votes for women would lead not to the likes of Laura Ingalls Wilder, but to the likes of Nancy Pilosi, Sarah Palin, Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters, Gloria Allred, Paris Hilton, Lorena Bobbitt…
(Okay, that last one was a little ‘over the top’ but I HAD to get it in), the entire sufferagette agenda would have been stillborn in the 19th century!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
Doug1 February 5, 2011 at 11:33

Gorbachev–

I can’t tell you the curious sensation you get when listening to a woman badmouth her husband while you’re both naked. It’s a stark, shocking look at the nature of women.

I’ve never badmouthed a woman (current or past) when with another woman. Ever.

I think partly this is the instinct of the sexually submissive partner. She’s conveying the message that you are her true dominant, both to make you feel puffed up and hence more dominant with her but also to make herself feel more submissive and therefore attracted to you. That’s putting it in what are usually exaggerated terms for clarity.

However to be sure, this wouldn’t have been so openly expressed by very many married women in more genuinely patriarchal culture times and places. Well there also wasn’t so much rampant cheating by married women.

Does S. Korea now have similar divorce laws to those of the US?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Out on the Prarie February 13, 2011 at 05:41

Lots of comments mention submission, but Laura was actively anti-submission. She refuses to say obey in her wedding vows because she couldn’t obey someone against her own judgement. This was fine with Almanzo because he didn’t think any decent man would want a woman who promised to obey him. Even the minister who was marrying them didn’t believe in wifely submission.

Laura was loyal, but she was also very confident and independent minded. Almanzo was the kind of man who genuinely liked women beyond his mother and grandmother.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
S February 20, 2011 at 17:21

What sort of site is this? What sort of article? Have noticed that most of the posters are men anyway – and quite naturally I suppose. What are you so afraid of? What is this mumbo jumbo of feminism as the root of society’s evils?

Take a look around, guys – what does this world look like? Who’s going to war? Who’s owning the big guns and the big dollars? Still the men, last time I checked. Can you not just get over your selves and start seeing women as other human beings…or is that an outrageous thought on some level?

Didn’t realise so many of you wanted to be married by the way – or maybe you´re just getting old and in need of a carer? A lot of young men shun the idea of marriage like the plague – and not because women are so horrid, but because they CAN. Because there are completely different choices available today, than 150 years ago, for both men and women.

Don’t feel so threatened by everything. Who is risk averse here!?

It’s human nature to blame outside forces for everything, instead of looking inwards into the own abyss.

Start supporting the other half of the global population (not just the US) and you might benefit from some support back.

If it’s not ok for women to moan – how come you, as men, are allowed to do so here?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6
David K. Meller February 22, 2011 at 11:25

I don’t give the opinions of women the time of day, and I think that anybody who does is an ass and an ignoramus, but I shall make an exception here in your case, S. This reply is an exercise in “getting in touch with my feelings” that you women have been prattling about since the late ’60s! I don’t think that you, or any other like-minded feminist, however, will take these words to the wise sufficiently.

If the majority of men (on this website) are appalled at the consequences of feminism–female empowerment OUTSIDE THE HOME–it is because those consequences have impacted us disproportionately and enormously in a negative way!

Our lives, as men, are WORSE because women infest many areas today (and for the past two generations) that have always been effectively, humanely, and prosperously MALE ! Every aspect of the world in which we live–to say nothing about the lives of those women and children whom we CARE DEEPLY about–is similarly deformed and corrupted!!

If feminism had been at all beneficial to humanity, as the sisterhood from hell (e.g. Betty Friedan, Gloria Allred, Germaine Greer, Helen Gurley Browne,Susan Brownmiller, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem and other women(?) like yourself suggested, then life for everyone–even men–would have been clearly BETTER today than it was then, especially given the enormous male originated technological advances during the period in question)

No such improvements exist!.

Divorces–mostly initiated by women–is much higher today than it has been ever before! Bastardy–even with women having vastly more choices to bear and rear children, or not, is destroying the up and coming generation, not only among the lowest kinds of women who would know no better, but among women of the late “middle class” as well! The spread of STDs in many areas has turned what were originally personal scandals into a global pandemic; two-income households are unable to maintain the standard of living today that our grandfathers were able to do with one breadwinner working outside the home, and his mate–the housewife, working in and around the home, street crime, violence, and mayhem have become almost routine in “middle class” neighborhoods that were unthinkable in slums two or three generations ago, and a too thoroughly feminized law enforcement and police apparatus is utterly overwhelmed by, and (increasingly female) lawmakers and educators have no answers!

The men (and the women who love us) here on the-Spearhead.com are not blind, deaf, and dumb, and we are all FINALLY are waking up to the tyranny and barbarism that your egalitarian, feminist, New World Order has in store for us!

What will keep you overindulged, spoiled rotten, narcissistic, utterly self-absorbed, “empowered” princesses alive, still less living in the manner that you ‘liberated’ bitches have become accustomed, once OUR male intellect, judgement, and capacity for hard work has totally left, (or been expelled) from the system is something you moronic women haven’t the foresight, nor the self-possession, to even think about! If you even could, your post would have been replete with abject apology, along with a question of what can you do to help?

S–
We are NOT frightened of yuor so-called “strong women”. we are DISGUSTED with you! You all are useless to us, useless to us as sex-objects, useless to us as employees, useless to us for entertainment, useless for the domestic and nurturant work that has so often defined womanhood (at its best) in the past, and utterly, pointlessly, and COMPLETELY worthless and destructive in any positions of authority, decision making, or–your favorite word–”empowerment”!! It is only my opinion, and MY feelings, but a lot of modern women today have a long way to go to approach a common level as human beings, much less as “goddesses” or “princesses”!

I hate to sound so offensive, but there doesn’t seem, after three or four decades, any other way of getting through!

We want QUALITY–especially in women and children–not Equality! We want our women to COMPLEMENT us and our lives, NOT to compete with us!! We want our future–and our childrens’ futures–to be better than our past, and count on the women in our lives to help us with that! You harridans from hell have fallen down on the job, you’ve become part of the problems, not the solution, and become hateful in the eyes of men as a result!

As far as marriage goes, it was not intended to enslave women–it was intended, largely at the behest of women, to provide a safe and nourishing environment for two people, along with their families–or households–to unite in the raising and teaching of a new generation. It was there to provide a link through time between the elderly and the young, and to–when possible, sustain a business through which young men become productive, and prosperous contributors of society– NOT LIABILITIES–and the daughters, upon their marriage, act to project their household’s and family’s name and property down through the future!

By turning marraige into a nightmare for far too many of us in the name of ‘women’s liberation’ and fighting ‘patriarchy’ it was the strain of modern women like YOU who destroyed men’s interest in marriage. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of posts here can document this to your satisfaction if you ever took the time to read them!

Bottom line! We won’t marry you because you can’t–for all your “education” and “independence”– be trusted to raise goldfish or turtles, or other low-maintainance pets, much less raise our children, you accursed modern women can’t even run a children’s lemonade stand in summertime,much less a household, and won’t even offer your husband “a pipe and slippers” after work, much less help him cope with a family crisis such as business reversals, or a death in the family!

We HAVE BEEN supporting the ‘other half” of the human race, in ways that were appropraite for men, for the past 100,000 years, genius! Until a half-century or so ago, with the dubious exception of freaks like sufferagettes, so have MOST of you women, in ways appropriate for women! You wretched, overeducated, and useless women from the bowels of hell walked out on US! You thought that you could do better! You thought, in the humerous words of one of your “matron saints” Gloria Steinem, “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”. I hope that you’re happy with the consequences!

Very funny. He who laughs last, laughs best!
HA HA HA HA !

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6
iamwomanhearmeroar February 28, 2011 at 13:55

S o you all have valid points but what’s with. The women bashing? I ain’t no feminist but I do stand mutual on both halves. laura wanted more out od life that’s why she wrote these books some women are bad seeds some are good seeds just keep in mind what you would want if you were a woman and you had a man telling You your place is in the kitchen it works both ways marriage is a give and take you both contribute. To the relationship and that does not mean a woman stays in the home while man is the breadwinner so think about that

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Eva March 17, 2011 at 07:28

You sound really angry at women. I’m getting married in June and me and my fiance are both honest, faithful and serious about marriage for life. That’s why we both waited a long time to get married (I’m 36 and he’s 39). We’re both fit, working people and there’s nothing wrong with us, I was asked to marry twice prior but knew it wouldn’t last so didn’t want to take vows lightly, same for my fiance. Regardless, we both have integrity as do many people. I deeply admire Laura Ingalls. But I do wonder why you seem so infuriated about women. True many women are hardly women these days, they’re little more than materialistic girls. But many men are lazy or cheaters or porn addicts so go figure. It’s the way people are raised that’s the problem, if parents raised children with love, guidance, and boundaries, they would grow into people of character.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Freya L. March 29, 2011 at 20:02

Oh man. I could of course start talking about everything that is wrong with men, but its better not to. Why? Because even if I am a female, I must agree with lots of stuff said here, even if it hurts. But truth hurts.
I, for example agree that these modern days the society is made so that both parents must work, man alone cannot support the whole family, not in town anyway. Sadly so. I understand women who wish to educate themselves and become something ‘more’ than just a home wife.

Why? I have seen how little value or apprechiation MEN give to women who are ‘just’ homewifes. I have tried that. I have been a homewife and had to be ashamed when in some parties people, MEN, asked:”So, what do you do?” and if you say you are at-home-mom, you are being looked down at. Sorry, men, but its your own fault that young women do not wish to be that. Get the apprechiation for simple values up, and some women would be content to stay at home, if it would be economically possible. Let me tell you, I would have been more than happy to be at home, taking care of my family and make more kids, had it been possible.

Then, to the subject family. There are plenty of women and girls in the countryside who still have the ‘good’ values, who can cook, make clothes, take care of the farm or house. But….they dont look like you MEN want us to look: barbie dolls with double D’s! Seriously! From the birth the girls are being told that they are not good enough if they dont have the DD cup or if they are not thin like makaroni. The wishes of men, the industry and society is putting impossible and outrageous expectations to girls to fill and if they cannot, then they at least can have education to guarantee theri survival when MEN will not look at them if they look ‘just normal’. I am one of those women.

To learn from my own mistakes, or supposed mistakes after crushed relationship, I kept the friendship up with my exes and years later I went back to the man, asking why it did not work out, what I could have done better to prevent it from falling. You know what the answer was time after time? “You were the best woman they have ever met, pretty, hard working and loyal.” Then, why it did not work out? Well they wanted to have a woman with better looks and double D’s, was the answer. Every time. So, men, you cannot say its only us women who makes things in the society fall or that we complain. You cannot hear me complain about anything else but this: good virtue and good nature cannot win over the good looks. So, whining men in here: you made your bed, now sleep in it. If you prefer an empty-headed barbie doll instead of a good woman without DD’s, then you deserve the no-good spoiled whining bitches you get. You do not deserve the good loyal women who would make your life worth living.
Think about it a moment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Anonymous April 22, 2011 at 07:27

yo Lur

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
beckie brant May 4, 2011 at 16:57

hi i am 11 years old and i am doing this living museum at my school and i am her for it i like being her because it is very interesting i am so happy to be her

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sal May 13, 2011 at 17:29

There are many unscrupulous women on earth but there are many good women here too. Please don’t throw all women in the bin because of the bad ones.
I’m not personally familiar with feminism; I don’t understand how women who don’t enjoy being feminine can call their movement ‘feminism’. Seems a contradiction in terms.
I’m also not personally familiar with women leaving their husbands for any reason and then milking them dry. I’m only familiar with domestic violence. When I finally decided to leave my husband because of his bad treatment of me, I didn’t take any of his furniture or money, I didn’t even make him move out. He still lives in ‘our’ house while I rent privately and pay more in rent than he does in mortgage. But I prefer to be financially disadvantaged than to live with my husband.
I can’t work because of the damage my husband inflicted on me, so I’m on a disability pension. I am SO grateful for social security! I know many women abuse the system, but I don’t!
I also don’t believe the entire male population is bad because my husband treated me so badly. I see many good men who are obviously good husband to their wives; it is truely beautiful to see a healthy marriage.
My details: I’ve only been with one man, my husband. I was married for 15 years. I have not been with a man since leaving my husband three years ago.
And, although my abusive husband told me for years, in many different ways that I was useless and worthless, I am gradually learning that I AM a human being and I AM useful and worthwhile.
My children and I LOVE Laura Ingalls Wilder! We love the morals and values of her time. I encourage my children to copy those.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Ted August 5, 2011 at 03:55

This blog just goes to show people love to read in things to someone famous that wern’t there.

Laura Ingalls Wilder was old when she wrote her books and she used them as a vehicle to attempt to train children to what she felt was best. Her books are no different than a Bernstain Bears books, they are filled with preaching. And the themes are plain to see – do what your “betters” (parents teachers, etc.) tell you at all times without question. Farmers are God’s gift, the government is bad, etc. etc. On and on and on.

It was Laura’s farmers, not the agribusinesses, that got all the farm subsidies going, while at the same time constantly harping on how bad government is.

Both Laura’s parents grew up in the North before and during the Civil War, and would have been profoundly influenced by the debate over the evils of enslaving someone based on their race. Yet nothing at all is mentioned in any of the Little House books about the Civil War, or any war veterans, or Reconstruction. Instead when race is mentioned at all it’s Ma disparaging no-good Indians – even though in real life, Caroline’s family was fed by Indians for a time when her own father died.

The Laura in the Little House books was NOT the real thing, and indeed it is unlikely that ANY pioneer woman of the day acted at all like Laura or Ma did in the books. Do not forget that it wasn’t until the Mann act in 1910 that the United States began closing brothels, and during Laura’s day Victorian prudence taught that the sex act was solely for bearing children – and as they had no birth control, it was convenient for the wives to have their menfolk frequent the town brothel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
elindseys December 14, 2011 at 14:18

Wow…I’m not sure I’m allowed to write on here, as I’m a) a female, b) educated, c) a feminist, and d) not insane, but I’m sure you’ll all have fun trying to raise a collective stink over how ugly and pushy I am, so here goes. You all sound so smart with your hearsay and your creepy habits of peeping in on women’s conversations, but do any of you have a clue what feminism (not extremism) looks like? Seriously, ignore the word itself and give it some thought. You guys must have had some serious trauma as children, because you sure are looking HARD for a scapegoat—anything to ease your discomfort at the notion that women are now allowed to talk back when you “guide” them, or escape terrible marriages with you. I’m sure that blaming the maybe six or seven shrieking feminists in the world for all of humanity’s problems must seem like a jackpot to someone who’s too ignorant to figure out what’s really pissing him off.

I could explain the basic tenets of feminism and how its practice differs wildly from the childish caricature you’ve tried to paint here, but I gather from your posts that none of you has ever read a book or a newspaper (probably not even Little House on the Prairie). You’re just not big readers. Or thinkers. So I’ll close with this humble sentiment: I know that I believe in what’s right, that men are not evil (I adore just about all the men in my life), but that the world is sometimes unfairly skewed in their favor. I have an obligation to help make life better for my sons and daughters, and for the whole world, and that—like much of the world’s progress thus far—involves feminism, whether you like it or not.

You can pretend that ignorance and false ideals of yesteryear spell “the way things ought to be,” but in the end, 90% of the industrialized world thinks you’re insane, and they are absolutely correct in that assumption.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Alena January 18, 2012 at 20:53

Wow, I’ve heard so much cynicism here it’s very hard to ignore it. The statement that these days women are REWARDED by the government for divorcing is such a perverted interpretation of what generally happens. Many women never live on government assistance and are strong single parent mother’s. Having to use assistance isn’t something most people would ever want to with the exception of lazy, spoiled and ignorant women, growing up in uneducated irresponsible homes. And to say that christian churches teach men to cater to women is absolute hogwash. I’ve been in churches all of my life and that was never remotely taught or embraced. I find some of these comments very inaccurate and offensive, to say the least. It’s a gross generalization of women these days.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
willyxz January 25, 2012 at 11:50

Good reading, yeah. Too bad you only see the faults of women, and not of men. There are awful people in both genders. Cheating, lazy, lying manipulative men–I’ve met as many as the good ones. Now, wouldn’t you like to meet that david keller? What a dipshit. Bet he ain’t married. Either a very small penis, or an ugly one, or just lousy at sex. That could account for the misplaced FURY. Love it, baby; bring it ON to mama!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
NottheNorm January 26, 2012 at 20:12

I found this article to be extremely interesting. And reading all the comments as well. It’s nice to hear from the other side for a change.
I am a 20 year old woman, grew up in the city, dad had a very good job, mom stayed at home (raising 6 kids). But despite that I was always taught to work hard for what I wanted. I was/am very privileged but I understand the meaning of a hard days work.

I got a job in the country at a grain facility. I worked in the back loading bags of seed and boxes of chemical on to farmers trucks, I drove the machinery, shipped out fertilizer, worked hard, got dirty and sweaty; and sure it may not be the “norm” for girls, but it felt good to work hard.

What was unfortunate was that I had to go the extra mile to prove I was worthy of working in the back with the guys. Many farmers said demeaning things about me, didn’t like having me back there, thought I would slow things down. That was until they saw me on the machinery and just how fast I could work.

It’s a great feeling to prove someone wrong. But it also takes a lot of backbone to go into something like that knowing full well what people (mostly men) think of you being there.
After awhile everyone was much more accepting and the guys I worked with were amazing. They tell me how surprising it is to find girls that work the way I worked.
But I do know a few more girls like me. So I just want to say, guys, don’t totally give up on us. There are a few who still hold true to those “old school” ideals.

But you also have to pick yourselves up and realize that if a woman isn’t appreciating what you do and who you are, then leave em! Because it doesn’t do much for us to see great guys waste away with women who don’t appreciate them. Doesn’t give us much hope.

Majority of the time I feel like more of a man than most of the guys I know. So buck up! And don’t settle. Because then you might have a chance of finding girls who do appreciate you and in turn you will appreciate them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Mom of Three April 11, 2012 at 14:27

Upstairs in my daughter’s bookcase is my yellowed, brittle complete set of the Little House books that I got when I was 10. My parents are hard workers, but my mother is a habitual complainer and shopaholic. It was the Little House books that showed me the kind of PERSON I wanted to be. I don’t look at the issue so much as a male/female issue, since it seemed to me that everyone in those books worked themselves as much as they could. They contributed their all for the other people in their lives. The sacrificed in the same manner. My question isn’t are there women like Laura anymore, my question is are there people like her contemporaries anymore? Yes, there are, but not as many as before.

My husband, because of the depressed housing market, has to commute four hours a day to work, as we cannot sell nor rent our current house. In the meantime, everything in the household, including care of our three children, falls to me. I keep a tidy house, keep the children on track as far as their schoolwork, exercise, baths, etc. Since the IRS is currently taking a large chunk of money out of my husband’s pay check (to pay for things that didn’t exist in Laura’s time) he has taken on ADDITIONAL jobs, and will be headed back to the city on Sunday to work an extra eight-hour day.

I clean houses, type, whatever work I can fit in without putting the children into day care. I also do some professional photography. I will be taking on another cleaning job soon, and am looking to possibly start teaching voice lessons. From the other end, I spend time couponing and organizing sales information from local stores in order to not spend money in the first time. In the spring, on our very small lot, I will have my garden.

My eldest daughter already earns her own money at 13, and is very sought after as a babysitter. All my kids have some very nice friends. But I do worry about the culture of the Jersey Shore, where a lot of the kids my children go to school with seem to glorify being stupid and uneducated, scantily dressed and lazy. I remind my kids to look around, that those kids will be on public assistance later on as my kids will be doing useful work.

Things are hard here, now. But the lessons I learned from Laura’s books are with me at all times, and I know that this is how life just is. We were guaranteed the PURSUIT of happiness, not happiness itself, and pursuing takes effort.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
SBT810 September 5, 2012 at 19:48

WF Price writes that the following characterizes Western women: “rampant promiscuity, lack of consideration for children and family and outright cruelty.” What an untrue and grossly unfair characterization! Any cursory familiarity with crime stats reveals who commits more crimes toward others, and its not women. The homicide rate is falling in the US overall, but the decline for female perps is steeper than even for male perpetrators.

The deeply pathological David K. Keller proudly proclaims, “I don’t give the opinions of women the time of day, and I think that anybody who does is an ass and an ignoramus.” Then David Keller, I wish that your mother had not given the time of day to gestate, birth you and clean up your baby poop, you ungrateful misogynist.

The Little House books were co-written by Laura Ingalls Wilder and her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane. Both were strong women, ahead of their times in many ways. Laura asked that the vow “to obey” her husband not be included in her marriage ceremony way back in 1885. Rose was a women’s suffrage activist. They both are rolling over in their graves being associated with this woman-blaming website.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price September 5, 2012 at 19:55

Any cursory familiarity with crime stats reveals who commits more crimes toward others, and its not women.

-SBT810

Well, that’s only because killing your own children has been changed from a crime to a “right.”

But I’m sure if you resurrected Wilder she’d be at the DNC as we speak cheering on Sandra Fluke…

Athena October 23, 2012 at 18:20

You are all so stupid. I wasted my time reading this article. Why should the definition of a good wife or WOMAN mean she is married? Why does the man have to be the dominant one? He doesn’t. Laura Ingalls is one of my role models because she was a hard worker and a good person, not to metion an amazing storyteller, NOT be ause she was a good wife who DIDN’T LEAVE HER HUSBAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She didn’t leave hiim because she LOVED him, is love a forgien concept to you all? Is there something hard to believe about a woman loving a man even if she has to work hard? I’ve got news for ALL of you, WOMEN AREN’T LAZY ASSES WHO’S ONLY PURPOSE IN LIFE IS TO RUIN THE LIVES OF THEIR SPOUCES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There are many women who live happy sucessful lives with children, careers and husbands/wives. Yes, wives. Are you all homophobic as well as sexist? Women are NOT the domestic slaves of men, Laura Ingalls INCLUDED! She would be ashaimed of all of you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
pissed March 7, 2013 at 16:33

ekem i gots some news for y’all YOUR A BUNCH OF LAZY ASSES WHO DON’T DO CRAP now from my perspective L.I.W loved her family and she was happy. she was happy she is happy so lay off it aint smart to talk crap bout the dead and if laura was alive today she would happily be living her life writing amazing books and loving her family. now i suggest that al of you just do somthin else nstead of waste time on this junky stuff you call internet btw im 58

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
S Derrida September 26, 2013 at 20:35

I see that this discussion is several years old, but I’m wondering if any of the original participants would be interested in reviving this topic. I am a 2nd generation Ukrainian American via Patrilineality, when my great Grandparents fled Austria and came to New York in 1909. My Matrilinear fled Eastern Europe arrived in the 1870s/1880s. When my mother began reading the Little House Books to my sister and I when we were 4 or 5 years old, we instantly loved Mary and Laura. We felt like these little girls were parts of us. The storie

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lo November 10, 2013 at 08:41

You make a few good points about how people used to have to work harder back in the day, but I think you have a big chip on your shoulder. I know some men think feminism to blame for greedy women, but I guess you do not realize there are also a lot of lazy men who do work in this era either, or even back in Laura’s era. I read the books, so I remember the story when Laura got a job as a teenager helping a seamstress, and there were two men at the local saloon and they were singing about how they were drunk, and Laura chuckled at that, and the seamstress told her not too because it was not appropriate. So the premise of your article is feminism has made women weak and they expect to do next to nothing and not be blamed for being lazy when their fathers and husbands support them, but that is not really true at all. There were lots of men Laura described in her books that were a bit lazy hanging out at saloons drinking their money away, but there were also hard working people as well. As for feminist women who hate men, I think you need to get over that. Laws have become more equitable for reason because there was a time where bad men could beat women and get away with it because “they were their husbands and fathers, and when you decry all of feminism, you might be harkening back into going back to this era. Even today I know women who are very hard working and nicer than I would be when it comes to lazy guys who take advantage of them and will not get jobs. Just look at all the young guys who sit around playing video games in the summer while their moms support them. Back in Inglass day some of those boys would be expected to be working manual jobs, so before you get confrontational in your opening, maybe it is time to dispense with the chip on your shoulder. The truth is there have been hard working people in every era, and your good points are undermined by the rigidity of your opening to this post.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
vivien December 21, 2013 at 20:12

just a correction laura ingalls wilderdied at the age of 90 in 1957.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous February 22, 2014 at 12:18

Being a strong and independent woman does not mean being subjected to locker-room talk. When your husband or wife gets sick, you do not walk out. That is how I was raised. Those days are not long gone. It is up to the individuals to bring it back. My cousin was a newlywed , in her 20′s , in 2008 when her husband became ill. She spent 8 hours in the hospital daily and in hospice’ until he passed away in 2011. .I have given many modern women the story of Laura’s unspeakable tragedies as a source of inspiration. It is my understanding they lived with almanzo’s family in 1890, not with Laura’s. They did not recover financially and make a farm profit until they were in their 40′s or 50′s. Marriage vows are to bet taken very, very seriously by ALL. You better be thinking about your cute, young husband getting sick or your wife gaining 100-200 lbs., etc. when you are standing up there on your wedding day, and not be in fantasy land.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 7 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: