[responsibility] it might as well start with the boys

The cover of the March 1997 Fortune magazine asks, "Is Your Family Wrecking Your Career?" Inside is an article headed "Oh, Quit Whining and Get Back to Work! It's heresy to say so, but let's say it anyway: Sometimes your job is more important than your kid's Kodak moment." The article describes the demands that top-ranked corporations place on working couples trying to raise children and make time for their families.

Pressures on the family today

The Family is the single greatest obstacle to the eugenic focus of the enemies of society – that vast mish-mash of financiers, New Agers, malcontents, feminazis, atheists, politicians, humanists, socialists, Marxists, one worlders and globalists and corporations are not making it any easier.

Huge resources have been disbursed to destroy the family – from Planned Parenthood and its antecedents through to the Mentoring programmes, the State accommodation and encouragement of single mother families and the irresponsibility of males, the decades old hashing of education through the agents of socialist thought and the complete revisionism of all texts and programmes, with the concomitant “closed shop” mentality of the shutting out of dissenting thought.

They’re all at it – from the Rockefellers, old European families et al to the young university student who is attracted by the seeming force of these unsustainable ideas and the fashionable lure of Enlightenment philosophy. The gay marriage rubbish, an aping of the power of the family, a temporary aberration which is in its element at the current moment but through simple biology can not be sustained for long, in terms of world history, is yet another element.

Why has there been such a sustained attack on the institution of the family, enshrined by the insitution of marriage, itself long perverted by the imposition of Pauline notions of male authority and the necessity of the female to obey? Why are the forces of darkness so intent on destroying this institution?

Society never introduced a decree that the family would be the model – it simply became that way. Now, it seems, new constructs are set to replace it. The article in the link above mistakenly blames capitalism, thereby leaving the door wide open for the really destructive forces to come in and put the nail in the coffin and yet some of the points made are valid.

All great societies were essentially groupings of clans – you can see it in its purest form in Scotland – and the great city states were families, the great families. It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic that the great families, while dedicating trillions of dollars and euros to destroying the family unit amongst the hoi polloi, substituting the responsibility of the State for parenting instead, should, at the same time, be so jealously guarding the integrity of their own anciently corrupt and inbred family units.

The power of the family - therefore it must be destroyed

They recognize a simple truth – that where there is a heterosexual family, there can be found true power, real power. Thatcher’s “families and individuals” says it all – this is what society truly is. Not the Nanny State, aping the functions of the Family and incapable of carrying them out, not the consequent loss of the personal power of the citizen, not the twisted philosophy of the self-appointed guardians of our welfare whom I wouldn’t even give a job cleaning the toilets to.

It needs only the slightest amount of common sense to see that the Family does not need any externally imposed, dogmatic constraints, it doesn’t need religion because it is, in itself, a consequence of religion – of the beginnings of the world.

In a family, I, the father, am never going to be subordinate and yet neither is my wife because, far from the Pauline interpretation, the family transcends all boundaries of polity, philosophy and power and has its own unique dynamism, its own rules.

It is a biologically flexible and living functionality, absorbing all pressure, striking out when it needs, accommodating all its members in the matriarchal power of acceptance, tolerance and love, combined with the masculine urge to protect and defend, to provide for.

If the woman wants to work to the extent that she can combine her own desire for the wellbeing of the organization she has invested her life in, then the man and the woman work that out and together they can meet the pressure of the corporation urging the man and the woman to give their souls to the company. Together they can resist it, singly, they can't.

Money is often cited as a major factor in the breakup, often underlying other subsequent causes and money in our society is sick and tainted – it’s completely opposed to the well being of the family and the nation and serves the very people who would break up the Family by means of putting goods and services beyond the capacity of the combined income to cover and therefore sows the seeds of discontent.



The empowerment the family gives each parent

The Family is organic, it regenerates, it creates its own self-actualizing tendencies, feeds them, finds its own balance, is the prime focus of people’s thoughts. If it is well run, then there is some leisure time for all, the luxury of starting to think of where we are and our place in the universe.

It’s a complete unit in itself and society is merely a collection of families and those who were in their family but now find themselves outside the protective arms of that unit. People such as myself, for whom everyone seems to have died or passed out of sight.

I was looking at the legend of the Amazonian women and thought this significant:

Matrifocality refers to societies in which women, especially mothers, occupy a central position, and the term does necessarily imply domination by women or mothers.

Yes, yes, yes. But within a functioning family, the mother also has immense power to approve, condone, oppose and prevent. It’s close to the New Age idea of the great mother – she is great and in that small frame lies enormous power, more power than any human should want to have, within the confines of her own territory - her family.

Any sane man who once went down on his knee and begged her to marry him, remember, offering respect and reverence along with the lust [and if he didn’t lust for her – why marry her?] needs to treat his wife with respect and recognize, even if he might not say as much, that it is she who keeps everything running smoothly while his job is to take care of the protection and provision side. Yes, she can do it all on her own if she has to and work too. Yes, he can do that too, at a pinch but it works best together.

The woman has this attention to detail. She’s the lioness and heaven help anyone who crosses her. She’s also vulnerable, no matter what any Feminazi says and is entitled to take her share of comfort and support, as and when she needs it.

And what does he get out of it? He gets an absolute honey, a steady supply of nooky, kids he loves and much, more – he’s happier. Which studies would you like me to quote? Studies also abound that though it might be true that she is far happier in a single situation compared to a bad marriage and an uncaring father, she is certainly not as happy as in a loving, functioning marriage with someone who’s in it for her and for her family.

So let’s turn the focus onto the boys, onto the men.

Sexual prowess is satisfying one woman ... for decades

We’re effing idiots if we think that having nooky on the side is an affirmation of our sexual prowess. Far better to keep your own woman happy, without the need for externals.

That’s real power – a man who can satisfy his wife and keep her happy should be a hero of society, an achiever. A wife of mine, were she, hypothetically, to be interviewed and who answered that I had my faults but I was enough for her for the present is a much better advertisement for my power than a dozen chicks I claim to have bonked.

To me, a womanizer [such as Hugh Jensen in my novel] is a far lower person in my estimation and when he finally stops doing those things and starts accepting his responsibilities towards one woman, the bliss begins and he becomes a person a woman might conceivably want.

Because a woman who is treated right needs no feminism or this –ism or that –ism. She knows which side her bread’s buttered and so does he. Good arrangement all round. The secretary who turns you on might be a total honey but so is your wife if you’ve treated her as the object of reverence you started out doing when you asked her to marry you.

Sexual prowess, to me, is satisfying one woman and keeping her happy. And when she finds out [not from your lips, mind] that you rebuffed your secretary or maybe just never came on to her, that he keeps himself in check, imagine what that does for the self-esteem of your wife?

It’s a complete win-win and feeds on itself in keeping everything ticking over nicely.



Why two dozen rapists in a bar would do it

Now this is where men must stand tall and boys who wish to be men should learn. Let’s go to that situation Alison mentioned of the two dozen rapists in a bar. Why are they potential rapists? For many reasons and let me list some of them. Because:

1. They have been taught by reality that they can do this, that it’s all right to act this way towards a woman. The internet games, the porn which displays women as fuckable meat and continues to reinforce this in men’s minds, the feminism which has turned women from desirable people into whingy, whiny harpies, the philosophy they were indoctrinated into from kindergarten up which rejects the Judaeo-Christian ethic of respect for women and focuses instead on men’s supposedly diabolical need to oppress women, which pisses guys off no end – this, plus the natural arrogance of the male, particularly in packs, all goes to create an attitude to girls of getting the bang without any of the responsibility. Hey, we’re onto a good thing here, so let’s not knock it.

2. The ridiculous attitude of the female which jumps onto the Feminazi bandwagon, liberates itself so that “No” is not a word heard in its vocabulary, which dresses lewdly and walks into bars with two dozen potential rapists and then, on the strength of the twisted social cosntructs people sprout these days with a straight face, about women’s “rights” and how the law is on their side, she thinks she’s going to be completely safe and feels absolutely no need to take any responsibility for her own actions.

It’s a disaster waiting to happen.

3. Phil McGraw’s Lifelaw 8 - We teach people how to treat us, through our reactions.

Whether we like it or not, people treat us as they do because we have unconsciously, by our reactions, taught them which types of behaviour get results and which don't.

If they get what they want, then they keep that behaviour in their repertoire; if they don’t get it, they drop that behaviour and start a new one. The good news is that we can re-teach people how to treat us by changing our reactions to them.

4. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese wrote:

In practice, the sexual liberation of women has realized men's most predatory sexual fantasies. As women shook themselves free from the norms and conventions of sexual conduct, men did the same.

Stand up the real men

So where are the real men in our hypothetical? For a start, they’re not hanging about in a pack of two dozen potential rapists, leering at a slutternly woman, herself half drunk and less able to defend herself. If he is in that bar, he leads her out of it because, no matter how heroically inclined, two dozen big boys is not going to be overcome by one hero.

Does she deserve to be led out and defended? No – for the simple reason that she thinks she has the “right” to protection which she simply doesn’t. So why? Why would he defend her and do this?

Because he’s a man and a man is someone who can rise above the whys and wherefores, who knows she’s wrong in this but defends her anyway. And when she is right, he has the manhood to admit it. And when she goes on and on with her shopping list of his faults, he listens, kisses her and takes her out for a meal.

It’s a raging storm outside. Someone has to walk to the corner shop and get the milk. In this era of equality, he can ask her to go out and get it. But how is he going to feel when she is out in the storm and he’s snug as a bug in a rug in front of the fire? He’s going to feel a heel. It’s his job to go out and do the tough things because if he wants to call himself a man, then there are things he needs to do. Inconvenience is one of them.

But if she’d turned on him instead and ordered him to go or manipulated him or claimed her right as a woman or appealed to his chivalry, then he should sit in that armchair and mutter under his breath, to himself, “Bugger off. Go and get it yourself.”

All associations are voluntary. Anything someone does for another is voluntary. If you make love with me, it’s your voluntary decision. If I go to the shop for us to get the milk, it’s my business and any pressure form you or manipulation is going to see me dig my heels in. Associations and actions are voluntary.

If I do get off my butt and go and get that milk, the rain and sleet are hardly a problem and when I get back, it’s likely that though she says nothing, my stocks have gone up and when I see that, I’ll improve my chances of a nice night of love by offering to do something else again. That’s manipulation too but good manipulation.

That’s psychology, sister.



In summary

We are in a mess in society. Many men hate women and despite their protestations otherwise, many women hate men, single families abound, single predatory males combine and become packs to beat down the temerity of the female in whining about rights.

A bit of psychology would set all to rights. A bit of reasonableness. Legislating for me to treat you right is going to make me only keep within the letter of the law to avoid incarceration but treat you abominably whenever I can and leave you holding the baby.

And as for respect? [Hollow laugh]

You have to give someone an incentive to treat you right. This is what Lord Nazh meant by giving her the respect she deserves. Vice versa too. Phil McGraw’s lifelaws again.

Right now, not tomorrow

1. Fathers need to get their own act in order and stop putting their pecker about, praising this in conversation and tacitly teaching their sons that this is quite OK. Without the market for indiscriminate pecker poking, the women will also get the message that the real men are keeping it for their wives.

2. Fathers then need to get hold of their sons, swallow their own mistreatment by women backed by the government ... and lay down the law to the boys. You impregnate a girl and you pay for it for the rest of your life, not necessarily through marriage because that produces a hate filled home for the child but through being close by and providing.

I’m not speaking of what the girl is demanding or the bloody CSA – they can go and get knotted, particularly the CSA, the homewrecking agency. No, I mean doing what is right to do and if enough fathers do this, sons get the message too and after the second or third pregnancy he's casued, the boy begins to see that this thing is getting expensive, particularly if father refuses to fork out.

This is not the morally acceptable alternative but it is efficacious. It also helps us start to reassert societal disdain over the antics of the young male. The women, with their government backing, have no chance of turning the young male around but fathers can achieve it with each and every son. However, if you've alienated the fathers through your feminism and using the government to beat the man down, he's hardly likely to join you in curbing the boys.

You need to present a united front and do it together.

3. Now the mothers get hold of the girls and lay down the law about using pregnancy to get onto the dole and about being loose and slutternly. Mothers show daughters the lives of the best women in the world and impart some very feminine advice in the way mothers used to teach their daughters.

Loose girls who put it about now gradually fall into disdain from the other girls and it is seen, not only as low to sleep around but also ultimately disempowering because to do so frees up the boys to treat the girls without respect.

Once girls grasp the principle that to sleep around frees up the boys to treat them as sluts, they're on the way to empowering themselves again and in consequence, the society gets behind them again and defends the very thing they wanted all along - choice. Choice only comes from a society which recognizes your right to say no. If you never say no, that right, by definition, diminishes.

Thus are solved the problems of massive numbers of teenage pregnancies [there’ll always be some], family relations, hugely expensive state control of private lives, the drug issue and lots of other benefits.

Kids like feeling parameters – they’ll always kick against the boundaries but at least the boundaries will be back now, to be kicked against.

One of the nicest pics ever

Finally

Someone has to start this process. If men wish to claim the titular role of head of the family, then it needs to start with them. They need to give the lead or heed the call to help women and just get in and start doing what they should, starting with re-educating the boys.get back some of their safety, not from government assurances but from the genuine wish of the male to respect them.

Once more, that respect is never going to come form whinging about rights or getting the government to beat the men down. It can only come from the men wishing to respect the woman and the only way that is going to happen is for the woman to make the choice to respect the man again.

It only needs the reestablishment of a culture of respect where the boys generally look down their noses at loose girls and don’t employ double standards themselves, for the girls to fall in line very quickly. If the boys will keep friendships just this side of openly sexual, give or take some kissing but go all out for one particular girl the way they used to, learning that there is a cost to nooky, if a culture of restraint reestablishes itself, then we are someway along the path.

The men have to shoulder the lion’s share of the burden of getting this going and there are forces arrayed against achieving this, those forces listed at the top of this post. Those forces are formidable but are only there to be overcome. Hell, what's a man for, after all?

Any fear we men have of our authority in society slipping away thanks to the nanny state and feminism now disappears once we take the bull by the horns and start by accepting our responsibilities in our own backyard.

We only ever need one woman to admire us – our own woman and she’s more than enough. End of story.

Call me old-fashioned, call me out of touch with today’s realities and the new culture. Call me anything you like and it’s like water off a duck’s back. Look, people, we will come back to a position of sanity in this society whether the malcontents and destroyers want it or not. There are things which are quite clearly right and things quite clearly wrong, irrespective of religion.

Let’s set our face against the storm and go for the things which are right. Starting with us, the men.

Hypocrisy

14:28 A comment's just been made that it's all well and fine me having had my fun and now I'm getting out of the eligible age range [it was put in different words :)], I turn around and tell men what to do. Let's put it this way, lads - just because we've been a bit naughty in the past and can now see the error of our ways, shouldn't we blog on that?

There seems to me a simple logic:

If you spend all that time and money getting a wife, then presumably [and I'm directing this at the men with partners], we're hot for that girl., right? OK, so we have her with us, according to the theory, for the rest of our procreative life and what do we do? Go off with another one on the side. Seems illogical to me. Wouldn't it be best to work on the one we've got and keep her happy?