TWRA Alert

Commenting at Dalrock, poster editalm made a defensive remark to another poster, Casey, that prompted me to follow her to her own blog and see what she is about.

Then she told me that I was irrational for not realizing that because she says she supports patriarchy, she cannot be a feminist.

I hope editalm will see that advocating all sorts of reordering of gender, traditional or otherwise, and selling it bacause it benefits women… feminism.

What follows is the perfect description of how traditional conservative feminists hide in plain site by claiming to be anti-feminist.

Core TWRA Beliefs ~ Or what we seek to accomplish.

-Make it the sole obligation of the husband to support his wife and children. As long as the wife remains faithful.

-Protect mothers of young children and protect children by re-instating the Tender Years Doctrine.
-Protect a woman by making her exempt from her husband’s debt, especially if she should become widowed or divorced.
-Repeal no-fault divorce laws and reinstate alimony for ex-wives only to give security to women who opt out of the workforce to raise their children or help their husbands.
-Re-instate family wage laws.
-End affirmative action for women.
-Re-instate the husband as legal head of household with authority to make final decisions regarding finances and where the family will live.
-Encourage women to refrain from sexual activities until the male commits to marry and provide for her.
-Re-instating common law rights for women that were repealed in the name of equality, such as her right to recover damages for breach of promise to marry and seduction.

If that isn’t enough to illustrate the fem-centric nature of traditional conservative feminism, just take a look at the blog.

Its really simple, when the advocacy is sold using as features and benefits all manner of how women benefit, said advocacy is feminism, if wrapped in ribbons.

She describes herself as anti-feminist. OK. This is a point I have made over and again, that what better cover can there possibly be for feminism than to position themselves as anti-feminist?

This is, at present, the best we men can find. Venker and Co., doing what they do…..for the benefit of women. They call it traditional anti-feminism.



20 thoughts on “TWRA Alert

  1. The truly scary thing is that she probably honestly believes that she’s being anti-feminist. Scary because it shows just how far “off center” our current normal is.

  2. I don’t think this lady is really an enemy. You can’t expect people steeped in propaganda for years to change their opinions overnight. Her blog is for women, so it’s only natural that she is femocentric. She has some good articles on her site. For instance, check the one on the modern romance novels, where she writes: :”He (the hero) is the Mr. Nice Guy who literally is trampled on by the heroine. He hardly puts his foot down; he always sacrifices for the heroine and is always willing to please the heroine in sexual terms. The problem arises that there is no reciprocity from the heroine…The portrayal of the heroines in these novels is very reminiscent of today’s women. They are entitled, needy and selfish. They believe that they should receive chivalry from men even when they themselves do not act like women. These feminist women expect respect from men even when they are sleeping around with countless of men before that particular Mr. Right. ”

    In another article even though she seems to blame men for single motherhood, she says: “…the woman chose a reliable man, a man she would be able to love and whom will be able to provide for her… Feminists turned this upside down they told women not to wait for a nice husband, feminists told women to spread their legs far and wide.”

    Is it not what men keep complaining about, that modern women choose cads over dads?She also has articles telling women to stay in shape and be sexually attractive for their husbands. I


  3. Well…I think in fairness that there is little real examination of what a non-feminist Christianity looks like. She makes some decent points when she talks about how feminist romance novels in the modern age really are, for example. I think that the problem is that she’s missing the point–but so are a lot of people.

    As we’ve said, the problem isn’t women working, having ambition, or being educated. It isn’t that they have their own money. For example up till the late 19th century it still used to be okay for a man to marry up, or marry into money. The problem is that feminism while purporting to want to have greater equality and cooperation between the sexes in actuality drives them apart. So I think the woman’s blog touches upon things that trouble her, but like many people she doesn’t seem to have a really clear idea of what to do about that. What she’s saying that was quoted above, it’s a fantasy. It won’t be legislated, and the fact is as we’ve seen a woman can start out as a submissive wife only to end up kicking her husband to the curb because she feels like it. So her stuff is off the mark because it actually places no onus of conscience upon the woman.

    I find it extraordinary how often that happens–how there is such an aversion towards actually encouraging women to respect truth, fairness and justice.

  4. I think married women working outside home definitely contribute to feminism. Vox Day has written quite a number of articles on this very topic. Yes, some women always worked, however, a middle class woman in the 19th century and later wasn’t expected to go out and have a career, though it would be expected of her to support her husband in his business. The man could marry a wife with an ample dowry, however, he was supposed to have a steady income of his own. Yes, there were some poor aristocrats bought by middle class father so that the grandchildren would have a title, but it was hardly normal.

    I understand a lot of men are idealistic and want women to love them just so, but it’s a modern, romantic idea. Let me give you an example, in my country the average working class girl beforeWWII earned a monthly salary 10 times LESS than a a factory worker. On his salary, he could rent a house and provide for several children, his wife didn’t have to work. It made marriage extremely attractive for those women, divorce – not so.

    To return to the lady in question, some people are gifted with a very clear vision and can go straight to the point,and can express their thoughts clearly, others need time to realise certain things. The problem with MRAs is that they often speak in code: blue pill, red pill, alpha, beta etc. It’s OK when everybody agrees to the terms, but there is danger, because people get accustomed to certain thoughts being expressed in certain code words. When the terms are not used, or used differently, it can lead to missing the point, which, I think is the case here. What the lady is trying to do with her blog, is to try and persuade women to choose beta providers over cads, which is the same thing actually, what manosphere is trying to do.

    She isn’t trying to persuade people to return to biblical Christianity, but rather to restore the middle class marriage. BTW, concerning biblical Christianity, there are verses in the BIble which state that a wife is to be a keeper at home, and a lot of men who want their wives to work seem to miss them. My church uses the wedding sermon written in 16th century, it admonishes women to be obedient to their husbands AND good housewives, and it tells men to work and provide for the wives with honour. If we want to return to biblical Christianity, let’s go for the whole package, because some men seem to want it both ways: a career woman who brings home the bacon, and a sweet, submissive doting wife. It simply doesn’t work this way in real life.

  5. “:In another article even though she seems to blame men for single motherhood, she says:”

    While I would agree with you that it may be overboard to consider her the enemy, the fact that she blames men for single motherhood is enough to treat her as neutral at the very best. Her entire list is framed in terms of men being the source of every problem. You say her blog is for women, and that’s great, but unless or until she starts calling women to account for their role in the current gender divide, she’s really no better than the wild-eyed feminists who openly attack men.

  6. Well empathological my friend, I favor patriarchal ideals but I am not a feminist. I think you should be careful about painting women who favor tradition and patriarchy with a feminist brush too quickly.

    I often disagree with the tender years doctrine, particularly if baby is a daycare and drinks formula. However there is some merit to the argument and I also think there is some merit to the argument that children aged 6 and over fare far better in the custody of their father than their mother when the couple (or the wife) decides to split.

    The truth of the matter is this: There will never be perfect equality in the treatment of men and women. It has never been so and will never be so. It’s not even Biblical to assume that it should be so.

    Traditional family models and laws do benefit women, but they also benefit men and children. Once you accept that God’s model for marriage and family is the only true and right way to do this thing, you’re left with patriarchy. The problem with most modern Christians’ understanding is that there isn’t an expectation of shared sacrifice on the part of all family members. Men are expected to sacrifice all while women are expected to have “it all” and the benefit of the husband’s sacrifice.

    Therefore, the problem is with church teaching and the absence of spiritual discipline and feminism in the church. We have to live with something, and from what I can tell, patriarchy is the best option.

  7. It was not my objective to defend her, that’s something which she must do herself, if she chooses so. The reason I commented is because I’d like to point out, that the other side keeps winning by building coalitions, sometimes using groups totally opposed to each other, who do share some common interests. This political strategy seems to work for them. Manosphere, on the other hand, is constantly engaged in fighting for ideological purity and often quick to dismiss those who agree with them on many things as enemies because there are some little differences of opinion.or because the people in question don’t use the manospherian terminology. At least, she doesn’t think that women are all pure innocent victims, but takes them to task for “spreading their legs far and wide” for bad boys, which is quite a progress compared to modern Evangelicals.

  8. But the objections to what she wrote aren’t about ideological purity. If you look at her list, it’s clear that the objective isn’t gender equality, it’s about what’s best for women, not about what’s best for everyone.

    Objecting to her isn’t about dismissing her because she’s got one little thing wrong, it’s about pointing out that although she clothes herself in “i’m not a feminist” terms, taken as a whole, with a few exceptions, what she’s saying is very much feminist rhetoric.

  9. Do you even KNOW what the feminist movement did? What we stand for is undoing women’s liberation movement. Invest in a history book please. Feminism repealed all the long-gone laws above. Feminism didn’t help women. They used male plaintiffs to invalidate laws that favored women. Literally hundreds of laws were re-written because of feminists to favor men. Want a few examples? There are several supreme court decisions even where feminists used male plaintiffs to hurt women.

  10. Yes, I know what THAT kind of feminism did. Its not a history book I lack, its an honest self assessment you/she/TWRA’s lack. IF advocacy must be motivated by “whats best for women”…..sold as such, then its not anti-feminist, its anti-an anachronistic flavor of feminism.

    Rather than us reading history that we know rather well, I suggest an honest gut check on motive.

    If feminism ostensibly WAS to benefit women, then it was fraudulent and didnt benefit women, it would appear you are fine with the ostensible part….which differs from your goals only in form and function.

    Men are but pawns in either of them, something to move from one side of the boat to the other and back until we achieve women’s notion of level

    We are not particularly interested in a new form of female superiority wrapped in ribbons of anti-feminism.

    Soft power and control is harsher than the hammer of the law…..and it still has the hammer of the law to boot!

  11. Elspeth, maybe I’m not being clear. That you or she favors Patriarchal ideals hasn’t anything to do with my assertions. Of course there is no correlation between wanting patriarchy and being a feminist, with one caveat and thats the one I’m trying to explain.
    Truthfully my objections are basically the same as those you’d see at Dalrock when they crash down on TradCons. Her stated things, superficially, do not trigger my reaction. Its the impetus behind it. In other words, if I have to sell patriarchy on its wonderful elevation of women, rather than feminisms claim that it lowers women, I am still appealing to basically a “go girl” instinct. Once the filter of is this better for women is fixed in place, its a matter of time before what gets through is actually self serving and corrupt. This is nothing less than precisely the MO of evangelical feminism. Imagine this rally cry “Women, support patriarchy because you deserve to be treated special”…..that’s what I see.

    It may seem like hair splitting but it isn’t. Its actually a massive distinction. Promoting patriarchal families and chaste behavior as better for women vs promoting it as very simply what is RIGHT. Saying that it actually allows men to BE men and when men are men, things go better. But one of the things that goes better is that men being men restrain some of the emotion driven rabbit trails a society takes in its accommodation of anything and everything female, and that doesn’t matter if its a traditional female or a wild eyed liberal feminist.

    Men pedestalizing women, in the home, as a patriarch may well do, is a very very different sort of pedestalizing than what is implied by the things on that list. That men hold women to account, and women hold women to account, not just about promiscuity as suggested, but about the whole enchilada of the Biblically ordered family is somehow messed up by the selling of it as features and benefits to women. Another way to look at it is, lets consider the features and benefits to MEN. The stuff the men do is downright hard. Its a massive responsibility to carry, that cannot be overstated. SO, there is a built in admonition to women that they afford deference to their husbands for that. And that is actually not possible to sell as simply being better for women. So much focus on how, looky here, feminists lied saying they had a better way for women, but really girls….over here….WE have the better way for women….is not an appeal to better angels, to sacrifice and compromise, to submission and cooperation.
    Its a little bit like game it occurs to me, do this and reap the benefits. Its a construct (and Ive no interest in that as a tangent) of sorts for a selling benefit.

    There is a slippery slope, one that they are already half way slid down, of finding ways within the patriarchal structure to leverage more and more special treatment AND….the kicker….AND the requisite implied right to sit in judgement of how the man is performing as the patriarch. I see zero temperance of base urges to control from the overtly supplicated position. There is a certain tone of ambition, even, buried under the patriarchal veneer. It is evangelical feminism, not feminism. It IS the man-up sermons on fathers day vs the gushing mother worship on mothers day. Where would you expect the corrective aspect of preaching and teaching to be using these seemingly good guidelines as what the goals are? ON MEN and fixing men to make men worthy of these special women who are ready to get with a program……but only when the guy performs.

    To the other poster who talks of coalitions of disparate ideologies that overlap,I agree, but we already have an ideological overlap ostensibly with the church, and hows that working out. Sure much manosphere purism is self defeating, re defining things to tedious degrees, immediately cursing at and chasing off anyone we/they see as suspicious….frankly those MRA’s, while many are very bright men, are not nor will they ever be more than intellectual comment makers. One must find common ground to inch some change, which is why I put money with mouth and work on churches one pastor at a time in my small corner. the jargon is absurd, the acronyms off putting, and all the things you say. But realize the catharsis many men require and how these writings afford them that and you can maybe understand the why behind it.

    Having said that, based on what i said to elspeth, [who I have utmost respect after getting to know her (as well as can be done on various blogs) and I take her comments very seriously], you maybe can see that simply saying we support patriarchy is not really an ideological overlap that is exploitable because the action that matters is a layer or two deeper than the expressed goals.

  12. This is nothing less than precisely the MO of evangelical feminism. Imagine this rally cry “Women, support patriarchy because you deserve to be treated special”…..that’s what I see.

    It may seem like hair splitting but it isn’t. Its actually a massive distinction. Promoting patriarchal families and chaste behavior as better for women vs promoting it as very simply what is RIGHT.

    I fully agree with your comments, empathological. There has been something of a backlash against patriarchy in the ‘sphere precisely because women derive a benefit from it that was lost in the sexual revolution. Opposing a thing simply because a group you hate might be positively affected by it was the mindset I was concerned about.

    The reality is that women benefit from a patriarchy of a different sort today. At lest under the old style, there was responsibility, sacrifice, and accountability for all involved parties.

  13. What the lady is trying to do with her blog, is to try and persuade women to choose beta providers over cads, which is the same thing actually, what manosphere is trying to do.
    Tiny Mouse
    This is not at all what the manosphere is trying to do. That the sphere decries the choices of alpha tingle driven women doesnt mean its so simple that its whining about the poor betas and please pick me pick me though I am unworthy pick me
    In fact the gamesters would directly contradict you saying they want to teach betas to not be betas hence addressing the subscribed desires of the hypergamous women.

  14. “Opposing a thing simply because a group you hate might be positively affected by it was the mindset I was concerned about.”

    I have a slight difficulty with this in that VERY few in the ‘sphere’ actually hate women or even hate radical feminists. Many hate some of their ideology and thought process, and what that ideology has done to society though.

  15. Well, I can come across angry…..hateful? I suppose. I dislike that when it happens, yet it slips through, and is passion, dogged belief, and frustration, not hate.
    Where the scars of evangelical feminism impact me, and maybe a post about this is worth writing…something about blow back… when I hear about the single mom who is needy, I now reflexively do not feel compassion, I am so guarded its near jaded.

  16. Empathological, I see your point and I agree with you. It’s true that people should behave in a certain way because it’s right and honourable, and not because they personally profit from it. However, in practise people are more often than not motivated by self-interest.

    I guess it all comes down to what manosphere is really trying to achieve. Is it to help individual men with their personal choices or is it to reform the political system. I understand that you find the motives of the aforementioned ladies distasteful, but politically they are on the same side, at least in some things, like abolishing child support for unwed mothers, no-fault divorce and positive discrimination. It’s how the left keeps winning, they are pragmatic and build coalitions uniting different groups of population with very different motives but sharing the same goals. On the right, however, there is constant infighting and we keep losing. We should use the same tactic. It took the other site years to achieve their objectives, and the damage can’t be undone in one day.

  17. c) “a help meet”

    At the time of creation of woman, the suitable companion for Adam, it should be noted that woman is to be man’s helper. The one is the complement of the other, therefore they are a perfect unity, under Divine direction.

    But after their act of disobedience, that unity is lost; the harmony between them becomes discord, and they no longer have confidence in each other. The man blames the woman for his state, and she blames the power that tempted her. But, it could well be that in time; rather than acknowledge her crime and accept her own responsibility for it; she would blame the man for not preventing her action, so that a growing tension between them is inevitable.

    Divine intervention with Law for this new condition of the sinning creatures, places authority in the man, and the woman hears the pronouncement, “thy desire [shall be subject] to thy husband, and HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE”. (Gen. 3:16)

    A supreme authority there must be to maintain order. When the unity of man and woman was obedient to the “I AM”, there was peace on Earth, the ultimate authority resting on the One Source.

    But in discord between man and woman and between that unit in separation from the “I AM”, restoration of law and order must be movement from the Godhead to the creatures. So the demonstration of this is set up by the “I AM” proclaiming that in the first being (man) remains Authority, whether in Divine Presence or degraded, sinful humanity.

    Obedience then to Divine Law is the means whereby the man and woman recover their contact with the “I AM”, and is also the means of bringing peace between themselves. Thus unity, harmony and peace are again shown to be in obedience to Divine Authority.

  18. I have just followed your links. I found your blog/site to be extremely provocative in a good way, though admittedly I have not taken anywhere near time to effectively discern it.

    I like your comment here, and with your permission I intend to borrow some small snippets of your content as I am writing future posts.

    Thank you for posting here.

  19. I want to ask you about evangelical feminism. It, like most terms, is made up to accommodate something that doesnt fit other terms, and regardless if you like it or not, you can see that simply “feminism” leads people away from what is happening at ground zero because of the imagery it calls to mind.
    I am fine with assigning blame to feminism, because ultimately that is the cultural root of the evil, its encroachment into the church is wide spread and the church affords it not just cover, but succor.
    Your blog is written, it seems, for Christian women. I’ve been around long enough to know that by saying “feminism” they mainly will ignore it or if they read it, jump on the bandwagon of accusing feminism when all they while they are doing the same insidious thing under cover of the church, and worse, under cover of the men in church corrupted by it as you so aptly lay out (the dynamics of same) in your writing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s