Tag Archives: Welfare

How feminism is opposed to chivalry, marriage and fathers

Feminism makes women unable to relate to men in healthy ways

Here are two non-negotiable beliefs of third-wave feminists.

  1. Feminists want women to believe and act exactly like men because they think there are no sex differences
  2. Feminists believe that romantic love, chivalry and motherhood are all bad because they involve sex differences

Consider this post on how men perceive feminism as being opposed chivalry, (which is a prerequisite for romantic love).

Last summer I polled college guys from across the country and abroad at the National Young America’s Foundation Conference in Washington, D.C. Ninety-three percent of them said that chivalry has decreased in current times, and 84 percent of that group attribute this decline primarily or at least partly to the rise of radical feminism in society.

One man stated that feminism “devalued chivalry and made it seem sexist.” Another man proposed that the “‘I-don’t-need-a-man culture has crippled chivalry in the public sphere.” Yet another said that it was “difficult” to be chivalrous because some women portray chivalry as “subordinating, disrespecting, and devaluing.”

It seems that men are lodged between a rock and a hard place. If they try to be chivalrous, feminists call them sexist. Yet if they treat us the way the feminists say we want to be treated—the same as a man—we complain of not getting enough respect.

How do guys define chivalry? Three out of four responded that it had to do with respect, honor, and courtesy towards women. One man spoke openly: “Chivalry is the notion that a man has the duty to respect and serve women.”

Another man affirmed: “It is a set of manners and respect a man should show to a woman as a demonstration of respect towards her.” Another guy said women “need to understand that chivalry isn’t being put down like feminism would like you to believe, but rather is a way a woman can command respect from a man.”

Too often, however, these same men lamented that their efforts to be chivalrous were met with scorn.

If you’re wondering where all the “good men” went, and why men are so “unromantic”, blame feminism. Women in the secular feminist West have been taught to rush into physical activity, (like men), instead of being taught how to judge a good man, and how to recognize and relate to good men. This leads to fewer good men because men respond to women’s expectations of them. Today, women don’t know how to evaluate a man to see if he is capable of marriage and parenting. Feminism’s strategy of “act like a man” is an epic fail – it just produces a lot of guilt and hurt for young women.

In Theodore Dalrymple’s book “Life at the Bottom”, he explains how nurses in his hospital pursue violent men because they are physically attracted to them, only to be beaten, impregnated and abandoned by them, again and again. When he asks the women why they cannot recognize bad men, they explain that its wrong to make moral judgments about men. One nurse believed that men were all the same, and that she could not know in advance if the relationship would “work out”.

Women learn how to relate to men by watching how their father treats their mother. Are men encouraged to marry and to become involved fathers by the secular feminist state?

Feminism has resulted in children being raised without fathers

Feminists favor socialism because the higher taxes force women to leave their children and home to work, and because a massive government reduces the need for women to marry a good man. Big government is there with social programs to cover up the choice of a bad man, so that choosing a good man becomes unnecessary. Women no longer value men for their ability to protect and provide, so men stop exhibiting those behaviors and instead become lazy and aggressive. Children are born out-of-wedlock and are raised without fathers, which has terrible effects on children.

Consider this research paper from the Heritage Foundation.

Excerpt:

For decades, radical feminists depicted marriage as an oppressive institution that was injurious to women and children. In reality, facts show exactly the opposite: In general, marriage has profoundly beneficial effects on women, children, and men.

Foremost is the positive impact of marriage in alleviating poverty among mothers and children. On average, a mother who gives birth and raises a child outside of marriage is seven times more likely to live in poverty than is a mother who raises her children within a stable married family.70 Over 80 percent of long-term child poverty in the United States (where a child is poor for more than half of his or her life) occurs in never-married or broken households.71 Moreover, the economic benefits of marriage are not limited to the middle class; some 70 percent of never-married mothers would be able to escape poverty if they were married to the father of their children.72

The erosion of marriage is also a principal factor behind the growth of the current welfare state. A child born and raised outside marriage is six times more likely to receive welfare aid than is a child raised in an intact, married family. Each year, federal and state governments spend over $200 billion on means-tested aid for low-income families with children through programs such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, food stamps, public housing, the earned income tax credit, and Medicaid. Of this total, some 75 percent ($150 billion) goes to single-parent families.73

Marriage has profound positive effects on the well-being of children. Children raised by single mothers are 14 times more likely to suffer serious physical abuse than children raised in intact, married families. Children raised in single-parent homes are much more likely to be depressed and to have developmental, behavioral, and emotional problems; such children are more likely to fail in school, use drugs, and engage in early sexual activity. They are also more likely to become involved in crime and to end up in jail as adults.74

While radical feminists condemn marriage as an institution that foments domestic violence against women, in fact, the opposite is true. Domestic violence is most common in the transitory, free-form, cohabitational relationships that feminists have long celebrated as replacements for traditional marriage. Specifically, never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to suffer from domestic violence than mothers who are or have been married.

Early sexual activity and criminal behavior are serious problems.

Why did 77% of young unmarried women vote for Obama in 2008?

Consider this analysis from a left-wing site of the 2008 election.

Excerpt:

On Tuesday, the nation made history. It made history in electing the first African American president; it made history in building a bigger margin for the first female Speaker of the House; it made history in delivering the biggest Democratic margin since 1964; it made history in sending a record number of people to the polls and the highest percentage turnout since the 1960 election.

[…]But one thing is immediately clear. Unmarried women played a pivotal role in making this history and in changing this nation. They delivered a stunning 70 to 29 percent margin to Barack Obama and delivered similarly strong margins in races for Congress and the U.S. Senate. Although unmarried women have voted Democratic consistently since marital status has been was tracked, this election represents the highest margin recorded and a 16-point net gain at the Presidential level from 2004.

In particular, note the chart that shows that younger unmarried women voted 77-22 for Obama. 77-22 for Obama. This is actually in keeping with my previous post on this topic, which documented how women have continuously voted for bigger and bigger government since they started voting. The problem with big government policies is that they drain money from the family which is then redistributed outside of the family.

To have a strong family, you need more than just money. You need independence so that you can keep your vision distinct and separate from the vision of the government. If a family depends on the government, then they are beholden to the government’s values. The government can even overrule conscience rights and religious liberty. Keeping the family strong and separate from government is especially important for Christian parents who have a specific goal of passing on their faith to their children.

Here are just a few of the things I thought of that help make a marriage strong: (there are many more)

  • low taxes so the household has more money to spend on the things we need for our plan
  • access to low cost energy provided by domestic energy production by private firms
  • access to low cost, high quality consumer goods through increased free trade
  • the ability to choose homeschooling or private schools (and the more school choice, the better)
  • the ability to fund a retirement plan that covers the family – not anyone else
  • the ability to purchase a health care plan that covers the family – not anyone else
  • the ability to own firearms for protection of the home and the family
  • the ability to pass Christian convictions on to children without interference from the state
  • the ability to speak and act as a Christian in public without reprisals from secular left special interest groups
  • low threat of being the victim of criminal activity
  • low threat of being bankrupted by the costs of divorce court
  • low threat of being arrested on a false domestic violence charge (e.g. – verbal abuse)
  • low threat of never seeing your children because of loss of custody after a divorce
  • low threat of being imprisoned due to failure to pay alimony and child support after a job loss

It seems to me that a vote for Obama is a vote against all of these things. So then why did unmarried women (especially Christian women) vote for him? It seems as thought they are less interested in marriage and family and more interested in having the government provide incentives for anti-child, anti-family behaviors like pre-marital sex, contraceptives, abortions, welfare for single mothers, divorce courts, government coercion of husbands, state-run day-care, government-run schools, in-vitro fertilization, etc. I don’t mind if people need these things, but they should pay for it themselves. but I don’t see why unmarried women should favor family money being spent on government programs that help other people to avoid the cost and consequences of their own decisions.

MUST-SEE: Megyn Kelly of Fox News exposes the truth about ACORN

Megyn “Tyrannosaurus Rex” Kelly interviews ACORN founder Wade Rathke! (H/T Nice Deb)

(This was original in 6 clips, but they were removed. Now the first video lets you click on to the second part at any time!)

Part one explores how ACORN’s goals are centered on increasing the number of welfare recipients, and making them politically active in order to pass more welfare programs. ACORN’s motto is discusses, which explicitly mentions redistributing wealth (socialism).

Part Two talks about the Community Reinvestment Act, which forces banks to make loans to people who can’t afford them. Also discusses ACORN’s support for higher minimum wage rates, which causes unemployment among the poor, and increases welfare rolls. ACORN also supports unions and also intimidates businesses to pay them money or be “protested”. ACORN’s close, long-term relationship with Obama is discussed.

Part Three explores the funding of ACORN, and the way that organizations linked to ACORN advocate for political causes. ACORN’s links to SEIU are also discussed in this episode. ACORN’s financial scandals, including embezzlement of funds by the founder’s brother, are also discussed. (No, he was NOT fired!)

Part Four talks about ACORN’s efforts to register voters in areas where voters vote mostly Democrat. The problem is that ACORN is now charged with voter fraud for turning in fraudulent voter registrations. Details about some of the trials going on right now are discussed.

Part Five explains how Democrat politicians block investigations of ACORN. ACORN is accused of being a criminal enterprise from the ground up. The new sting videos are from O’Keefe and Giles showing ACORN encouraging criminal activity are discussed.

Part Six shows the founder of ACORN and the current CEO spinning the findings from the previous episodes, taking no responsibility. The founder calls the videos “scurrilous”. ACORN is the victim, don’t you see? The series concludes by noting that ACORN has opened offices in several countries, including India.

I also note for our Canadian readers that ACORN International has opened offices in Toronto and Vancouver. It’s global communism.