Skip to comments.Why Feminists Fear Fathers
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 its 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.
Actually, here is why feminists fear fathers:
Who Placed American Men in a Psychic ‘Iron Cage?’
What a bunch of loving, compassionate, and God fearing people they are.
where’s the thread that tells us why we should care what feminists fear?
Great find, thanks for sharing.
>>>Some scientists have gone so far as to now attempt to eliminate the need for men all together.
My thought, every feminist I’ve met, and ones I’ve read, seem to have bipolar disorder.
They hate families because they can’t maintain a relationship.
So, no one else can have a relationship.
He is right on about feminism. Feminism brought us divorce, and with it boys who grow up without the guidance of fathers, which was what they wanted. They also brought us other breakdowns of family,. Those being homosexuality, pride in that, and most other social experiments. We now have an entire generation and a half, where a lot of children, way too many, with the help of the public education system, have grown up in a world of divorce and promiscuity with no basis for what marriage really is or what it really means. These children, now adults, haven’t experienced a true family life, (most of them) or a solid relationship with which to model their own lives after. Is it any wonder so many young people don’t understand the need to defend marriage and morals?
Feminists orchestrated all of this over a period of time, and it is time for traditional morals to take a hard stand against it, for the same of our children and our country!
>>>Because good men, strong fathers especially - want to protect and provide those they love.
Real men bump!
I wouldn't want a world without men. I feel sorry for those feminists who shun men. They are missing out on so much. (And I ain't just talking about the sex thing.)
It’s Eve in the Garden of Eden all over again.
I think there is plenty of blame to be spread around. Sure, feminists fought for women’s rights to work, which brought higher divorce rates. To blame them solely for divorce is unfair.
Had all men treated women with the care and respect demonstrated by walking to the outside of the sidewalk and opening doors, divorce would not be nearly as prevalent. It just didn’t happen that way.
My father walked out on my mom and his five children, when I was in middle school. Never paid a dime in child support. Mom worked a full time administrative job, cleaned the offices at night, and cleaned houses on the weekend to keep us from starving. My wife’s father walked out on her mom when she was 2. She ended up in foster care until her mom had a reliable job and could take care of her. Her father never contacted either his children or his wife again.
There is plenty of blame for the male gender in society’s problems. If all men treated their wives with care and respect, feminism would not have taken hold as it did. I have seen plenty of my buddies treat their wives as if they weren’t important, only to have the wife up and leave. You can say she is responsible because she left. It just isn’t very accurate.
Feminism is a bad thing for society. IMO it is worse for women. It has created a society in which the woman is almost expected to work, and where it is difficult to make ends meet without 2 incomes. After a long work day, and coming home to five kids, my wife used to swear that the feminist movement was created and advanced by men.
Narcissism is a mental disorder that is rarely treated today. In fact, it is "celebrated".
God intended a father to perform two primary functions in his responsibilities for his family: provision and protection.
The author missed a third primary function: discipline. Without it, the family has chaos. Many mothers can provide discipline, but it will never be the same as the discipline that would be administered by a father.
Did it start with feminism? I grew up in the sixties and the free love thing is what I remember first.
Just ask any Amazonian Warrior about life without men!
Oh, wait, there aren’t any.
Imagine the reaction to a "men need women like elk need roller skates" or something along those lines.
Imagine how many times your car would get keyed.
Oh, and there was also a "the only bush I trust is my own" sticker.
You know damn well the driver of this car (who was inside the store) looks like a cross between John Belushi and Lynne Stewart.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Sure, then she wouldn't have the house she lives in, no one to invent the car she drives, there would be no food in the supermarket because there wouldn't be anyone to drive the produce from market. Or to grow it for that matter.
Yes, honey, a world without men. You and your harpie friends would be sitting naked in the dark in a cave somewhere reciting bad pedantic poetry at each other.
This was excellent. I just sent it to a good number of family members.
A short while ago, I was listening to a report on the increase of infertility. The doctor, a woman, said one of the reasons for the increase is the number of women waiting for “the right time,” to conceive, then discovering they have the quality of eggs one would find in a 40 or 50 year old woman.
Obviously, the “right” time is too late for many. When will they get it?
But if thse idiots got rid of men, they’d soon miss the fun they have now of trying to psychologically castrate every male they encounter.
Feminist hate for men is rooted in their hate for God.
That's a fact. Most men I know think that women are trying to sponge off the man by wanting to stay at home to keep house and raise children, so........ they demand the women work (to hold up their financial end of things) AND keep the house/raise children. Hmm... sounds like my ex. *chuckle*
I had a job interview recently, the woman interviewing me asked me about my skills at "building consensus". I told her that consensus and scientific fact were antithetical to each other (this was a technical position), that consensus could also be described as a lack of leadership, and that I thought the entire concept was over valued.
They didn't offer me the job.
There’s also a recent report that the increase in pre-mature births is partly contributed to SINGLE motherhood....seems it helps to have a COMMITTED man around.
You didn’t by any chance mention it was a quote from a WOMAN, Lady Thatcher? “Consensus is the absence of leadership.”
Free love of the sixties WAS feminism! Remember the burning of bras? And women saying they had a right to the same standards when it came to sex? It is also when when women decided to have careers first, everything else second. They didn’t need men to be chivelrous or display manners? We have that still today, too. Feminism may not be solely to blame for how men have acted, but it sure did enable it!! In fact, reinforced it.
Why Feminists Fear Fathers
this is the base & core of the piaps!!!!
"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."
I wouldn't expect a man to this anymore, but I would consider it sweet if he did. I wouldn't be offended like the feminazis.
I don't think there is anything wrong with a woman working or making the money if the family so chooses. However, the feminazi movement has done some sad things. It has promoted free sex and turned many women into sex objects, a system of both parents working (even when it is not necessary), easy divorce, single mom families, and homosexual relationships. None of these are great for society, especially for the young children being brought up in these types of situations. I really don't see this happening unless there is some sort of cultural change, but it would be good to encourage the traditional American family, especially in areas where it is lacking like the innercity.
No kidding. But it isn't just feminists and liberals who resist this very clear concept. I've had lamebrains insist that the woman's age doesn't matter much at all. A lot of people have a lot emotionally invested in this mindset - even conservatives.
I wouldn't have been too impressed, either. It's a leader's job to lead - and that means motivate people to follow. Consensus is a part of that, in the respect of having what it takes to motivate people that you are right.
Great post. I say the same thing about feminism as your wife. My Dad was a real man. He wasn’t perfect but he was perfect to me. He was an excellent Dad as my Mom was an excellent Mom. My Mom had to eventually go to work when I was 14 (the baby).
When our youngest entered Kindergarten, well by March of that year, I went back to work full time. Hated it. I had to quit a couple years later to care for my Mom full time before she died this past year. Now I’m back to looking for a full time job. Your last paragraph says what I want to say. My husband makes decent money, but with 4 kids, it’s difficult to make ends meet just on his income.
For what it's worth, also, I think women are very overrated in this category and skillset. The rap is that they are better consensus builders, but in practice I find that they break off into small packs to consolidate power and influence, and have a difficult time coping with this aspect of leadership.
Neither sex has a discernible edge in 'consensus building.'
To be fair, it helps for a woman to be worth committing to, also. I know many, many women who just aren't worth it - what kind of nutty man would commit to someone when there are more quality women out there?
When the family breaks down, the State steps in. Today’s feminists are the useful idiots of the socialist-collectivist-Marxist axis.
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.
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.