“JB often in her posts probably shocks many; but she is in fact merely voicing truths about men & women that were received wisdom back before 1970. You know – back when sex was so hot it was actually *desirable* – back before the worlds of sex, love, romance, relationships, and marriage got taken over by a ruling class of pussies and neurotics and liars.”
One of the comments on this article by Judgybitch:
Do some women benefit from being slapped around? @Gavin_McInnes wants to know.
I am old enough to remember the 1970s well and the 1960s fairly well. I do remember very different attitudes. There did seem to be a tacit acceptance, by most people, that a man had the right to discipline his wife. And a general acceptance that hysterical women had to be got under some kind of control. People might, for example, say of a silly young woman that she “should have her bottom spanked”.
Ordinary sitcoms reflected this. Wives would say that their husbands were in authority … even in TV programs of a secular nature. I remember girlfriends in TV dramas remarking airily that their man might hit them if they got out of line. Nobody thought anything of it. There was a play we studied at school, a contemporary Australian one, that ended with a joke about a man still having a whip. That is, a whip he might use on his girlfriend.
One of the wittiest and most admired jokes in a play by Noel Coward was that “women should be struck regularly – like gongs”.
Things have changed.
On the other hand, women back then did not buy trashy books about extremes of male dominance like 50 Shades of Grey …
Julian O'Dea 
Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 13, 2016 at 11:34 am
“Planet of Bitches.” This article also mentions the case of 50 Shades of Grey.
http://alternative-right.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/planet-of-bitches.html?m=1
Posted by Bike Bubba on May 13, 2016 at 3:06 pm
My dad voiced this view, and I see strong hints of it in some of John Wayne’s movies like The Quiet Man and McClintock!. That said, while I find plenty of evidence for female submission in the Scriptures, I do not find a pretext for a man actually enforcing it. It is as if you get that submission not by dragging your best girl from the train back to her brother’s farm, or by spanking her with a coal pan, but rather by a general masculine presence.
I personally wonder whether this is simply all about people in the fifties and sixties trying to figure out how to deal with a world where it was suddenly economically feasible for a lot of wives to leave their husbands, something of a catharsis.
Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 13, 2016 at 3:54 pm
Well I think one can argue both of those points. I would tend to say that scripture is silent on the point. There is a reference to treating one’s wife’s body as one’s own. But nothing conclusive.
While I found Judgybitch’s article surprising, it confirms my impression that quite a lot of women seem to be wistful for a firm hand from their men.
I suppose one could argue that the attitudes I recall from the 1970s were a reaction to increasing social freedoms. However I think it more likely they were simply traditional attitudes.
Posted by Bike Bubba on May 13, 2016 at 5:48 pm
Scripture’s not silent–1 Peter 3:7 and Colossians 3:19 both seem to condemn a man being harsh with his wife, the former suggesting that the cruel husband’s prayers will not be heard. I read that as a fairly strong rejection of the idea that a husband ought to discipline his wife.
Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 13, 2016 at 10:01 pm
We have had this discussion befote. Not all discipline need be harsh, especially if it is reasonable and implicitly consensual. It seems to me that Judgybitch’s argument deserves consideration.
Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 13, 2016 at 10:07 pm
“Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.”
“Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.”
It all depends on what one considers harsh. And on the woman’s actual behaviour. Judgybitch is not talking about random abuse.
Posted by Take The Red Pill on May 13, 2016 at 4:37 pm
This reminds me of a quote from the late, great comedian Sam Kenison: “I don’t approve of abusing women or slapping them around…BUT I UNDERSTAND IT!! I mean, I wouldn’t want to be the deciding member on a f***ing jury or anything!
Yeah, I don’t think that you should smack them around…but I understand what turns Mr. Hand into Mr. Fist!”
Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 14, 2016 at 1:52 am
This is the kind of problem we have today. How much longer are men going to put up with this?
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/ladies-you-need-stop-husband-shaming
Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 14, 2016 at 2:21 am
Christlike love does not have to be soft. There is a place for masculine tough love:
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/15-things-christ-said-werent-nice
Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 14, 2016 at 2:39 am
Judgybitch makes good points here too. I like her point about feminists hating to see men happy.
http://judgybitch.com/2016/05/05/there-is-nothing-wrong-with-a-paternalist-marriage/
Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 18, 2016 at 4:07 am
The constant demands in the popular culture that men respect their wives seem dangerously off-beam to me. This writer helps explain why:
Posted by Mrsktc on May 18, 2016 at 5:01 am
Interesting, I always took “respect” to mean treating a person or animal or what have you the way it should be treated according to its nature. Of course, a lot of that came from my background in dressage and training horses. You were always told to “respect” the horse, that is, to remember that you are dealing with a horse, not a dog, not cat, not a cow – a horse. And to treat it as such. But you still expected it to obey. You also expected different behavior from a mare, stallion, gelding, colt, filly and you had to “respect” those differences be prepared that their natures were different and act accordingly.
Posted by Jim on May 22, 2016 at 6:19 am
“On the other hand, women back then did not buy trashy books about extremes of male dominance like 50 Shades of Grey …”
Because they didn’t need to. They were already getting what they needed. 😉
Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 22, 2016 at 6:25 am
Well, yes.
Mind you, there seems to be a very large “silent majority” of women who are quietly getting what they really need, even today. Nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors.
Posted by Zeta on May 22, 2016 at 6:47 am
Bill Burr – no reason to hit a woman