Traditional marriage is a threat to the values of single women

Stuart Schneiderman takes a closer look at view of marriage among single women today.


You probably haven’t heard of Nicole Rodgers, editor a gender-bending feminist website called Role/Reboot.

[…]While Democratic politicos and pundits are happy to pay lip service to Mitt Romney’s sterling personal character and exemplary private life, behind the scenes many of them are surely thinking what Nicole Rodgers is thinking, namely that Romney’s life represents a counterrevolutionary, even a reactionary force in American cultural politics.

Rodgers got herself totally lathered up because Romney dared to suggest, at the last presidential debate, that there would be less gun violence if there were fewer illegitimate births.

In truth, the point is not even controversial. Everyone but Nicole Rodgers knows that children who are brought up in families that look like the Romney family do much, much better in life than children who are brought up in any other family configuration.

Here’s the research to back up his assertion about single motherhood vs marriage, but that’s not what I am interested in. I am interested in why feminists are opposed to traditional marriage and why they fear Romney’s positive example of marriage with 5 children. Do feminists really want traditional marriage at all? It depends on what you mean by marriage.

This reminds me of a fascinating article on Dalrock’s blog in which he looks at the changing definition of marriage, which he calls the “debasement” of marriage. This is a must-read post.


Feminists and their enablers have slowly shaved off the value of marriage for men.  Marriage for men no longer means:

  • Being the legally and socially recognized head of the household.
  • An expectation of regular sex.
  • Legal rights to children.
  • Lifetime commitment.

He also adds the elimination of the preservation chastity and the embrace of the hook-up culture on campus to the list, so that there are 5 debasements to marriage in total. Men liked the original version of marriage without the debasements. Do they like the new debased version as much?

It’s very important, especially for Christians, to understand that many women who say that they want marriage do not really want what marriage has always been. They want to live happily ever after. What this means is not what traditional marriage means. Traditional marriage means preparing for marriage by making good decisions – like premarital chastity. It means a separation of roles where each side performs roles that are of value to the other. Today, the majority of single women today have been influenced by feminism and they reject that view of marriage. They have been taught that marriage means happiness and full autonomy for the woman at the expense of men and children. They have been taught that there is no need to prepare for marriage with good decisions like chastity, and no need to prefer men who are good leaders, providers and protectors in the home. The moral dimension of marriage – the obligations and virtues – have been obliterated.

The majority of single women also vote for policies that will enable this new definition of marriage: social programs that make husbands dispensable, welfare subsidies for single mothers, early sex education to turn young men away from chastity and fidelity, co-ed education, recognition of cohabitation as marriage, no-fault divorce, punitive anti-male divorce courts, taxpayer-funding of contraceptives, taxpayer-funding of abortions, taxpayer-funding of day care, affirmative action in education, affirmative action in employment decisions, discrimination against male teachers in schools, and so on. The goal of all of this is to eliminate male leadership, men as main providers, and men as protectors. Many single women who choose poorly do not even want other women who prefer traditional men and traditional marriage to succeed, which is why they vote Democrat in order to tax, regulate and undermine the marriages of these more responsible married women.

Men start off chaste. We start off wanting romantic love and life-long traditional marriage. But it is drummed out of us because of a society in which feminist notions of recreational sex without consequences are on us through taxes, policies, schools and culture. Men learn that recreational sex is “normal” at very young ages, in schools that are dominated by female teachers and female administrators. The majority of these women are feminists who value careers first, and who seek to undermine traditional marriage and chastity. More and more men are being raised fatherless so there is no resistance from husband-fathers (who know better!) in the home. The result is a generation of men who trained to expect the sexual ethics of Sandra Fluke: government-funded promiscuity, irresponsibility, big government socialism and selfishness. Sandra Fluke doesn’t want marriage, and neither do single women like her who mostly vote Democrat.

Related posts

8 thoughts on “Traditional marriage is a threat to the values of single women”

  1. Great post. Also include the perspective of class differences and how feminism has features of status whoring.

    The problem is that Sandra Fluke, if she wants traditional marriage deep down, it’s for herself and the women from her social class.

    If you look at closely at upper-class marriages, about half to 2/3s of the strong independent liberal college-educated career women become housewives after the kids. And don’t work. At all. This burdens the economic system on a macro scale quite much because they don’t use their skills full-time and always demand flexibility for themselves. These women then whine about depression and how they’re oppressed in their roles (which they choose to do willingly). They go to their rich daddies and husbands and whine, whine, whine about oppression. It’s ridiculous. It’s all about the glorious Princess isn’t it?

    Basically the goal of Sandra Fluke is privileges for women like herself and everybody else pays the costs. She doesn’t care about poor women or working class women or even middle-class girls. It’s all rhethoric. Her daddy pays, her future husband will pay, the men from the lower classes will pay and the lower class girls will pay as well.

    It’s not a coincidence that family breakdown first hit Blacks, then Hispanics and now it’s hitting working class Whites. Feminism is used as a buffer to destroy class mobility and to bring down wages for everybody except the richest households.

    This may sound like a conspiracy theory but sooner or later you notice how the hardest, loudest and biggest beneficiaries of feminism are rich liberal women of European or Jewish descent.

    It’s all about them. Even if they destroy the country. Of course we have the oddballs (e.g. Michelle Obama) but mostly it’s all about Sandra Fluke, Hillary Clinton, etc.


  2. Trends such as single motherhood/divorce is not a lower class phenomenon by mistake. It’s a calculative move endorsed by creatures like Sandra Fluke to ruin other women and to insulate wealth in their social class. First the lower class women go as their male counterparts are destroyed by feminist laws and culture created by women like Fluke, then the working class cannot sustain it, now it’s hitting middle class. For Sandra Fluke it’s unconsciously female competition to secure themselves and their future alpha male mates. Remember what PUA Roissy wrote about the psychology of female competition. Feminism is used here to simultaneously support glorious intelligent rich Princess women but also to destroy anybody below them.


  3. I dunno if the likes of Sandra Fluke are smart enough to have all the intent to destroy mentioned by Huyg7i.

    Funny, though, how it doesn’t really matter. Whether intentional or not, the effect is to destroy the culture of marriage and family. This might sound theoretical, destroying a culture. I see examples everywhere though–my childless, aging peers (I am over 40), and my children’s peers who are constantly shuffled from mom’s house to school to afterschool warehousing to dad’s house and round and round again. It’s a sad state of things, and these kids seem pretty dazed and numb.

    “The moral dimension of marriage – the obligations and virtues – have been obliterated.” Perfectly stated. Great post.


    1. Thanks for saying so. I just think that we need to have more of a thought about how we make men interested in marriage. Married women know how. Maybe we should be listening to married women instead of these single women who are still in school at age 30 and demanding taxpayer-funded contraception?


  4. A single woman is threatened by my “traditional” marriage? Who the hell asks her to be threatened? I like my “traditional” marriage and have for over 54 years!!!


    1. Well, you are awesome, but today many single women view traditional marriage, with the premarital chastity and the male leadership, as a threat to their autonomy. Instead of picking a good man to lead/protect/provide, they want marriage without a manly man. And marriage only after a LONG period of drinking, partying and recreational premarital sex with scores of different guys. Is that good preparation for marriage? Is it a good value proposition to a man? Should a good chaste man with a plan, a job and lots of savings take a woman like that as a wife for him and a mother for his children?


  5. Wow. pretty judgmental group here. Anyone even bother to get to know any of these young women–they are people. Or are we just going to lump everyone together and demonize them? Way to go.


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