Posted on 06/17/2007 10:19:57 AM PDT by wagglebee
Feminists cower in fear at the picture, the symbol, and the meaning of a strong father today. Actually atheists, Marxists, leftists, and liberals all do as well but with feminists it’s a particularly pronounced phenomenon. What a strong father represents to this time, life, and world has never been more underestimated and modern feminists have taken it upon themselves to attempt to eliminate the need for them all together.
It was one year ago this month, I sat in a hotel room in Denver before a major book seller's convention. I was preparing for a series of interviews slated that day for the pre-release of MuscleHead Revolution. As I was getting ready Fox News Channel's Gretchen Carlson came on the screen to explain how science had developed the possibility of a world without men. She promised that after the break Dr. Manny Alvarez would explain how researchers had discovered a way to create sperm like cells from another female that would successfully eliminate the need for male participation in the conception of children. She ended her tease, "imagine a world without men!"
I fell into a chair nearby and verbally asked, "Why would we want to?"
God intended fathers to play a particularly important role in the lives of their families. It is the traditional understanding of that role that modern feminists are fearful of.
God intended a father to perform two primary functions in his responsibilities for his family: provision and protection.
It is a truly manly attribute to go out and toil, to work, to provide for the sustaining means that a family is dependent upon to survive. This is not a reflection upon mothers who also have skills and who choose to work. It is no reflection upon their abilities to contribute to the prosperity of the home in general. But it is incumbent for clarity's sake to understand that the father was designed to do this. God made men physically stronger - and for many generations the need for stronger bodies with larger muscles, and thicker bones was for the express purpose of hard labor. Because men can not become pregnant and were not designed by their maker to carry unborn children within them it also seems logical that God intended them to be the steady partner of the home to work the non-stop calendar. As technology has changed the means by which provision is earned has also changed, but the designed intention of fathers has not.
It is a moral and right thing for a man in his truest essence to commit himself to being the breadwinning provider for his home. Any man who seeks the hand of a woman in marriage who is not prepared for this responsibility should not be granted that honor. Because he is not yet truly a man. And women do themselves a tremendous disservice when they are willing to tie themselves down to such a slacker.
God also designed that same physical strength in a man for the purpose of protecting one's family. In more crude times such protection was very physical and the threats were very real. Beastly predators both man and animal caused the father to take on the necessary skepticism, awareness, and wisdom that would serve as a bulwark, literally shielding his family from the horrors that awaited. With today's technology protecting one's family is easier, but no less important. Fathers can and should take all precaution necessary to know who their children are spending time with - online and in person, what curriculum the local school board is planning on teaching, and even as a general rule of thumb - something as simple as being the one to answer the door at night when an unannounced guests rings the bell.
There was a time when etiquette was actually developed from the idea of serving as one's shield. For instance it is always proper for the man to walk on the side of the woman where the greatest possibility of danger may approach. Thus when parading down a street-side walk the man should walk closest to traffic - in the event that a car was to jump the curb the man would thus absorb the blow and possibly save the woman's life.
Opening doors, allowing women to proceed in front of them, assisting a woman up a flight of stairs, across a busy street, or escorting them to their side of an automobile are also simple symbolic gestures of manly protection.
Feminists will argue that all of this shows a sign of inequality and lack of respect for mothers and daughters. They couldn't be more wrong. Such actions show a deeply humble respect and an expression of sacrifice for someone deeply loved and appreciated.
But there is another reason modern feminists reject a strong father today. It is rebellion against God - the ultimate father.
The God who made us was the first to model these aspects of provision and protection. He created this planet with the resources to keep us alive, sustained, and joyous. He created us with minds, free will, and the ability to choose in order to make wise decisions. And just like a father who loves his daughter - even when she rebels and rejects him - and sometimes returns later to apologize; God provides what we have needed - even if we reject Him.
He has also gone to great lengths to protect us from things that will harm us. In all the history of the world His wisdom and instruction still stands as the greatest protection of all. So impacting it has been in fact that every legal system on the planet has accepted his basic ideas - the Ten Commandments - as the basis for their moral, legal, and ethical codes.
Feminists wish to subvert God's plan, order, and instruction in order to create a world that they see as the ultimate reality. A reality that is made in their own image. Scripture refers to that as idolatry.
Thusly feminists have gone to great lengths to show fathers as bumbling idiot boobs in pop culture. Some have gone to great lengths to insist that fathers are completely unnecessary to the future of this world. Some scientists have gone so far as to now attempt to eliminate the need for men all together.
Which is too bad!
Because good men, strong fathers especially - want to protect and provide those they love.
Well..OF COURSE.
I’ve heard women bemoan that there are no quality, committed men around, but I like to get them to confess that in fact, there are just no quality, committed men who seem interested in them.
It’s an important distinction.
HA....I was at dinner with friends a few weeks ago...their daughter and 3 of her friends were there bemoaning the unavailability of men (they ranged from 21-29).....they were talking of their “Lists” of qualificiations....one saying he had to wear cowboy boots! I ALMOST said...do you THINK MAYBE guys have LISTS too? (3 out of the 4 were over weight!) I did suggest that they had to be INTERESTED in COMMITMENT if they were going to sign on to E-Harmony...when they were discussing that route. I do wish I HAD said something about MENS LISTS! Oh, well, next time. And, yes, I’m female. And, yes, I know what you mean, as I have step-granddaughters whom I would NOT set you up with - they’re mother made them into trash.
Just calling it fair & square. I know many very attractive women back in NYC who have a hard time getting 2nd dates. From where they are sitting, it appears to mostly be the men’s fault.
Frankly, I don’t blame most men for rejecting them. They just don’t bring a lot to the table.
An anthill-like society composed entirely of females and possibly a few limp-wristed males would be the ultimate feminist and collectivist paradise. Eliminating the need for fathers is all about empowering the state.
OK. English isn’t my first language. I’ll try again. If men had been respectful of women in more ways than walking on the outside of the sidewalk and opening doors, I doubt divorce would be as prevalent as it is today. It takes more than good manners. Most men these days don’t even have those. (myself included)
The Brave New World the feminists helped create is about to descend into a morass of violence and anarchy such as the world has never seen. In light of this, I would say feminazism is passe.
Well, I don’t entirely agree. As a general principle, people should treat other people well, and men should extend a higer level of conduct to women.
However, if someone doesn’t reciprocate, or demonstrates that they don’t deserve to be treated well, then I think they should be treated accordingly.
Men get in trouble when they treat rotten women very well. Women get into trouble when they treat rotten men very well.
Being gentlemanly to a rotten woman won’t lover divorce, or necessarily inspire a rotten woman to be a better quality person.
I have many friends that think their wives should work and carry half of the burden. I have one friend who has twin boys who are around 4 and his wife stays home. He truly believes that she is watching tv all day.
I worked a 24/48 shift when my kids were small, so I did my share of childcare/housework. It saved a lot of money on daycare, and my wife was happy to work, if I took care of them. I learned real quick that staying home doesn’t mean watching tv. Now, we try to split up the workload as best we can. If I suggested that my wife should do all the kids/housework, I would be an “ex” really quickly.
Not saying that being nice to someone will change how they treat you at all. Probably won’t. I meant that men are responsible for their share of the increased divorce rate too. It can’t all be blamed on feminists or women in general.
I agree 100%. That’s not to say more gentlemanly behavior would decrease divorces, though. I do think it would be a good thing in any event.
I also think gentlemanly behavior is a good thing. I tried to teach my sons to be respectful and considerate, as did my wife.
My 16 year old son was recently playing in a basketball tournament in Houston. (I wasn’t there, but his coach verified what happened). They were on a bus, when a woman got on and there were no more seats. Apparently she was fairly hefty in size. My son got up to offer her a seat, just like we taught him to do for a female of any age or condition. She hit him with her purse and said “do I look old or pregnant to you?”
I doubt he will offer his seat to anyone again, and I can’t say that I blame him.
I do that kind of stuff, too. Can’t say I ever got a negative reaction for it, though.
Boy, is THAT ever true. There has always been a tension between men and women, shown by the lines from a Randy Travis song, "As long as old men sit and talk about the weather. As long as old women sit and talk about old men."
Men and women have always bitched about the other, for whatever reasons, but feminism introduce a real bitterness and anger into the equation. Yes, there have been some men who were real jerks, and truly deserved it when their wives left them and took the kids; I have some family who fit that description. And yes, women did need some help from the government to level the playing field, or at least make the hill a little less steep for women in some fields.
But the feminists ruined it for themselves when they hung their entire reason for being on the right of women to kill their unborn children, at any stage of development for any reason, or NO reason, because motherhood was holding women back. And by bullying lawmakers into taking the father of the baby out of the equation completely, they began the wholesale push to destroy fatherhood altogether. In the minds of the rabid feminists, men are the source of all their problems, and the first men in their lives were their fathers, so naturally, that position needs to be taken down, so young women coming up won't experience the same problems with the 'patriarchy'.
I've also found that a demand for consensus leads to a dictatorship of the most obstinate. And when that happens, the most obstinate generally turns out to be a woman who has nothing better to do with her day than argue until she gets her way
Thanks for the ping.
It's good to do your best to try to build consensus, in the sense of being an effective advocate for your point of view, plus having enough humility to recognise when an approach you initially thought good is not the best solution, or when the difference between positions is just not that important
But abandoning a position you think is right and important, just to end the argument, can be cowardice
Consensus is the road to mediocrity. A leaders job is to have a vision and the way to carry out that vision. Being a team player where consensus is not voluntary, like working for a company, is to provide details that would help in arriving at the leaders vision.
The root cause is that those immature girls have unresolved stuff about their own fathers (and men in general). They don't have healthy relationships with men, and they'll be damned if other women do.
Very apt observation. The "experts" at relating are almost always whining unhappy and unfulfilled. Gee I wonder why.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.