by Hawaiian Libertarian on September 2, 2010
A female reader was apparently looking through the Spearhead archives, and came across my book review for The Garbage Generation. She e-mailed me the following:
I have read part of the book and a lot of the book I agreed with. I just want this question answered by another man. Why is there a double standard? No matter what it takes two to tango.
If you agreed with a lot of the book, you really shouldn’t be even asking this question, because one of the basic premises of Dr. Amnues’ seminal work, is based on defining what comprised the original marriage contract between men and women. What men bring to the table and what women bring to the table in what we now refer to as the institution of Marriage 1.0, were two different assets to be exchanged for the mutual benefit of the children created by their union.
Men’s primary marital asset was their resources and ability to labor to acquire more resources, to support the family. Men with lesser means or abilities to provide were (and usually still are) viewed as less desirable marriage material, regardless of his sexual history.
Women’s primary martial asset was their guarantee to their husbands that children born of their union where his. Women with an openly promiscuous past are viewed as less desirable marriage material because of the greater chances of cuckoldry and infidelity, regardless of her ability to be a provider.
It’s not that there is a double standard, it’s just that there is two different standards: one for men, one for women – and the standards for each are simply based on what they each brought to the table by virtue of the formerly accepted and widely understood division of labor, which was based on gender. This was the essential paradigm of the institution we now refer to as marriage 1.0.
There cannot be this so-called sexual double-standard, because men’s contribution to the nuclear family unit was his capacity to be a provider, not his sexual purity. A woman could find a willing virgin who has no provider capacity to marry her…but her own hypergamous instincts would cause her to view him as less than adequate in terms of marriage material, his sexual purity notwithstanding.
Women complaining about this mythical double-standard, would be the equivalent to men complaining that more marriages should have the women be the providers while the men stay home, keep house and raise the kids.
Granted, such arrangements do occur nowadays…but for the most part, men & women both tend to look down on the men as somewhat less than masculine for doing so — hence the phrase “kitchen bitches” — just as women nowadays are free to be as promiscuous as the alpha males they wish to emulate…it’s just that most people will still regard them as sluts, no matter how bitterly they complain about this so-called “double-standard.”
This “double-standard” really only exists in the brainwashed minds of feminists and manginas alike.
Women who are caught up in obsessing over this so-called sexual “double-standard” are simply falling for the lies and propaganda promoted by the feminist kultural kommisars of our Brave New World Order, and reinforcing the memes that have contributed to the travesty we now know of as marriage 2.0.
No, the real double-standard that actually exists today, is the entire family court/divorce industry that enforces a system for which women have the right to withdraw their reproductive capacity and their nurturing and care giving – but men are not allowed to withdraw their provider role. In fact, they are explicitly prevented from doing that by the power of the Government and threatened with fines, imprisonment, loss of passports, professional practice and driving licenses, a permanent criminal record, and other sanctions our feminist-run Government has put into place to legalize this very real double-standard.
In other words, the only real double-standard that is in effect today in our declining civilization, is the one in which Women have no obligation or social pressure to live up to their marital vows, while men are forced to, even when the marriage is over.
My inquiring e-mailer thought she was making some kind of irrefutable point with her quip, “No matter what, it takes two to tango.” She misses the real double-standard here: it takes two to get married, but only one — which is usually instigated by the woman – to get divorced.
2 comments:
Thanks for the linkage!
That's a great explanation Socio, but the point remains that the author of that book made mostly bogus, trashy assertions about women. This whole idea is that men and women are best for the "roles" they give, provider or bearer, but they aren't; he constantly brushes aside the relationships between men and women, which cheating is EQUALLY harmful to. The idea that a man's sexual promiscuity is LESS harmful to a family than a woman's (which was this fool's assertion more than once) is a sign of idiotic and harmful thinking. As far as trust and familial relations go, that IS a double-standard, no brain-washing involved, and has been for years on end.
Post a Comment