How women are learning to be moral from the reactions to feminism

As feminists claim, not totally unreasonably, women’s choices were constrained for many hundreds of years. Of course, some “choices” (like going to sea or down a mine to eke a living) were not too attractive.

Be that as it may, this control and protection of women had one odd side-effect. It saved women from having to make many moral choices that men had to make. With fewer rights, they also had fewer responsibilities.

Generations of not having to make as many difficult moral choices as men: of sometimes even being told which men to avoid; that things like abortion were unthinkable; that slutty clothing would attract unwanted attention; and of going directly from the authority of their father to that of their husband: all of this insulated women from the need to learn how to behave like full adults.

What we are seeing from feminist behaviour is how women behave when they are given total freedom from criticism. Freedom that most men will never experience.

But what we are also seeing is some real pushback developing; both from men exasperated by the increasing nuttiness of feminist behaviour and from other women embarrassed by the behaviour of their sisters. The online WomenAgainstFeminism movement which developed last year is a case in point.

Perhaps we are living through a huge correction. Not so much in women becoming more free. We have lived through that for decades now. But rather with women learning how to handle freedom and behave like adults.

A pessimistic thinker (like Schopenhauer or Otto Weininger) would say that women are incapable of mature moral behaviour, and this was precisely why they were kept protected from their own foolishness in the past. On the other hand, I have known women who lead me to believe that women can have good, responsible characters.

A recent article of interest perhaps:

“Men trusted us, they served us, they built our houses, fought our battles and they received our respect embodied in patriarchal structures in return. But now they have nothing. What is more they have found out that if they do give us what power they had, we deprive them of their children, we take their resources and we give them nothing, nothing in return. This time round we can’t expect them to do our bidding, as they did for so long. If we want to win back their trust and if we want them to co-operate with us, and I do, we will have to concede some of our independence and be prepared to place some dependence on them. In this, for their own security, we will have, I am afraid, to allow them to take the lead.”

This woman writer is effectively arguing that women may have to accept some level of subordination to men again. I certainly don’t disagree, although it is intriguing seeing a woman arguing something like that.


23 responses to this post.

    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 2, 2015 at 12:40 pm

      I wouldn’t have a problem if the old social contract were revived. (I think it eventually will be, inevitably, although maybe by certain ethnic and religious groups.)

      I notice a disturbing movement towards saying: yeah to women getting their freedom, now it is our turn! I don’t think men and women really want egalitarianism. Despite what they say in surveys. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no feminists under sexy men.

      But it would have to be a hard social contract. I agree that men have to stop playing by the old rules until they are reinstated for both sexes.


      • The shenanigans of our modern day originating in the courtly love movement in the 12th century should be avoided and not be allowed to return.

      • Posted by Jim on May 10, 2015 at 1:33 am

        “I don’t think men and women really want egalitarianism.”

        Deep down no. It’s a huge turn off. Most people are just too chicken to admit it to themselves. It’s almost like people are walking around in a daze. They’re not bothering to do any independent thinking. Just believe whatever some maggot bureaucrat or TV talking head tells them.

        “I agree that men have to stop playing by the old rules until they are reinstated for both sexes.”

        Yup. The hypocrisy is sickening. Us men have to play under the old contract while there are no rules at all for women. No thanks. I don’t play that game. There are so many thirsty pussy whipped men though who still don’t get it. But more have seen the light lately.

  1. The most disheartening and troublesome aspect of dealing with women has been the lack of reciprocity, and sense of entitlement.

    Women just ‘sit there’ and wait for you to do everything. No personal responsibility or accountability. Women like to ‘play coy’ but it increasingly just feels like manipulation.

    I can’t respect this. Let alone desire it. I can’t tolerate it.

    What do I need from a woman??: Beauty, goodness, obedience. There you have it.


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 2, 2015 at 7:58 pm

      I understand that somewhere in the Bible the ideal bride is described as a beautiful obedient virgin.

      A contentious fat slut doesn’t have the same appeal.


    • “…Women just ‘sit there’ and wait for you to do everything. No personal responsibility or accountability. Women like to ‘play coy’ but it increasingly just feels like manipulation.”

      True. I think that they also do it to underhandedly maintain ‘plausible deniability’.
      Too bad for them that we men are getting wise to their scams.


  2. Posted by Jim on May 2, 2015 at 5:06 pm

    “This time round we can’t expect them to do our bidding”

    That’s right Sweety. You’re going to do OUR bidding this time. You girls had your chance and so completely blew it (far beyond what I would imagined to be honest) that I’d never allow women to have any kind of power ever again. You did this to yourselves.

    “This woman writer is effectively arguing that women may have to accept some level of subordination to men again.”

    For me, they’re going to go further than becoming somewhat subordinate if they want some of us men back. As more and more men realize just how malicious these harpies can be when given any kind of freedom, the more restrictions we’re going to require. Because of feminism and how women act when they’re in power, I’ve come to the conclusion that giving them any kind of power at all is dangerous.


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 2, 2015 at 8:12 pm

      As I said, I know some good women. I am lucky enough to be married to one. So I think women can be excellent. But it may be that even these women have been moulded by good moral systems that were given to them by men.

      A onetime female blogger used to say that women were basically amoral in the absence of masculine moral and religious systems.

      I am reminded of a line from an old SF story about the “astonishing depths of depravity” to which once decent women can go in the wrong circumstances. That was decades ago but I now know what he meant.

      It was dispiriting to me as a Catholic to see the pope “white knighting” for women recently. Some women I know were complaining about his naivete. Feminism not “machismo” is the problem in Catholic family life, in the Anglosphere at least.

      It is astounding that Pope Francis cannot see that feral women aborting and divorcing are the big problem. And that many husbands lack confidence.


      • Posted by Jim on May 3, 2015 at 9:45 pm

        You must know all the good women then. They’re actually RARE these days. Either that or Aussie land is not as infected as other places like the US and Canada. From what I’ve heard Canada is a pure feminist hellhole! Even worse than the US.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 3, 2015 at 11:06 pm

        Well, the US has, I suppose,the large evangelical group, the South and the Hispanics – all socially conservative.

      • Posted by Jim on May 3, 2015 at 11:58 pm

        Don’t be fooled. The so-called “conservative women” are still feminist. It’s smashed into their heads from a very early age these days. Most of them don’t even realize it.

      • Oh yes, it is in the atmosphere. Even the conservative groups are doing daft things like “celebrating” mothers going off to fight ISIS.

        There is an unholy mixture of old-fashioned pedestalisation and modern liberationist ideals.

        I forgot to say that Australia has never been a country that cared a lot about ideology over practicality. Also, until about 1950, men were in an actual majority numerically, due I suppose to migratory patterns. And women have not been pedestalised as much. Again, in my view, it goes back to the ethnic groups that settled Australia. Croatians, Cockneys, Irish, Calabrians, etc. None of them famous for overvaluing women.

      • Posted by Jim on May 10, 2015 at 1:37 am

        “Oh yes, it is in the atmosphere. Even the conservative groups are doing daft things like “celebrating” mothers going off to fight ISIS.”

        even in the Christian churches pastors are nothing more than ass kissers to women. They’re always telling men to “man up” (so old) while not criticizing the little women at all. These so called pastors are such pathetic little beta simps. They might as well just go join the libtards and stop “playing Christian”. They’re a bunch of phoney boloney losers.

  3. Posted by b g on May 3, 2015 at 2:48 am

    Yes, my late wife was another good one…but sadly today, they are as rare as unicorns.


    • Part of it is luck. And I think women here in Australia seem to be a bit less crazy than in other parts of the English-speaking world. Australia, and perhaps South Africa, are the most masculine-friendly countries in ethos in that group.

      Many of the stranger fruit of American feminism have not transplanted well to Australia. Affirmative action for example; apart from some government appointments when the left political party (Labor) gets control of a state or the national government.

      Good family background; a good mother; a reasonably religious upbringing; all help to create a plausible wife. After that, it is luck and good management (and I would really recommend the “Red Pill” and “Game” insights to husbands.)


      • As far as I know since I live in Oz myself Feminism has as much a hold here as it is in other anglo countries

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 3, 2015 at 8:12 pm

        No. I disagree. It sounds far worse in places like America, where many of the modern ideas originated.

      • Posted by JimH on May 3, 2015 at 9:44 pm

        I agree about your comment about S Africa. Where the current govt. is all about affirmative action (such that the people with the best chances of getting work are white women), in private there’s a definite expectation of roles being filled. It’s probably got a lot to do with the fact that there’s little to no welfare state (or at least not for whites).

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 3, 2015 at 11:04 pm

        Yes, and maybe this was partly due to the socially conservative groups that made up South Africa. I have written here about the fact that most of the ethnic groups that settled Australia were socially conservative:

        Another possible explanation for the relative weakness of feminism is a lingering “colonial” or “frontier” ethos. In some ways, feminism is a luxury good of a comfortable society.

        Lastly there is geographical isolation. Many trends perhaps simply do not arrive so quickly, or at all.

  4. One of the most famous of all jokes – I think it appeared in the old British humour magazine “Punch” in 1845 – was:

    “Advice to those about to marry – Don’t”.

    Since then, men have generally ignored that advice and here is some modern advice to those men who have nevertheless married:


  5. A brief and accurate summary. It is unfortunate that just as the moment arrives for women to make moral choices, morals seem to have been thrown out with the remains of babies in the abortuaries. Both men and women today are not simply having to search for the moral guidlines that were available (even to women) several generations ago, but fight to have them recognised.

    Much of what passed for moral education yesteryear was in the general fabric of our society and emphasised at school. Morals were absorbed almost by osmosis. Now they are dismissed – where they are not spat upon.

    One could find from literature and what history has not been distorted that even 100 and 200 years ago, that even though women did, as you say, have the ‘protection’ that relieved some them of some thoughts and responsibilities for moral behaviour, many women were of fine and strong quality and actually had a positive effect on some men.


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

%d bloggers like this: