Tag Archives: forefathers

238. From feminine mystique to feminist mistakes — Part 3


        Patriarchy is natural. Throughout history no matriarchy ever arose, but our American foremothers came closest. Our forebears converted and integrated immigrant patriarchies into a female-friendly, family-centered society.

Our Judeo-Christian value system empowered husbands to dominate workplace and society and enabled wives to dominate home and culture. This empowered our foremothers to promote manly significance and indirectly shape the future without violating the natural dominance of men.

Single men were minor players in cultural development, because most men married or sought marriage. Single women adopted, upheld, and even uplifted the virtues of Womanhood as spreader of all that is good.

Husbands fulfilled wifely expectations for a more civilized life. They tamed Nature, built wealth, managed single male excesses, observed rule of law, customized family-friendliness, and brightened the future for children.

Our American foremothers knew themselves and the male nature; they honored and exploited both. They pursued separate but equal genders.

Generation after generation made the USA more female-friendly. More law and order, security, generosity, compassion, wealth accumulation. Less male aggression, abuse, violence. Greater individual responsibility for family, fathering, husbanding.     

Women harnessed masculine energies to favor female-friendly and family-centered life. Without such wifely leadership, men don’t settle down to help women fulfill female hopes and dreams. As women go, so goes society.

Our foremothers never let up. Mothers tamed boys, girls civilized teen boys, and wives domesticated husbands. And that’s missing today.

[More on old school America appears in posts 218 and 204 below. Scroll down or search by the number with dot and space following it.]

1 Comment

Filed under Sociology 101, Uncategorized

135. Do women know jack about Jack? —Part 6


A man’s love is founded on respect. And men respect women that persistently uphold values and standards that uplift women relative to men but not at the expense of men. It includes what men would not initiate on their own.

Femininity builds such respect, but Feminism discourages it.

One woman describes one way that men respond to feminine infusions: “Men need femininity. They call it ‘color in a black and white world.’ It heals their wounds, soothes their spirits and recharges their batteries. It is one of the things men look for in their wives; someone who makes them more powerful by feeding them with their femininity.” [‘Claudia’ as quoted in Keys to the Kingdom by Alison A. Armstrong, PAX Programs, Inc., p. 151]

Femininity reflects intense femaleness. It includes values, standards, and expectations on feminine mystique, female modesty, religious morality, faithful monogamy, female-defined manners, female-friendly social standards, holy matrimony, and with emphasis against offense to a woman’s sensibilities. It generates personal power dealing with men. Such individual, social, and cultural values weaken the hormone hurricane winds of male dominance into either submission or toleration.

When the female gender institutionalizes the options just cited, men learn to respect females more than males. Such unconditional respect for women generally undergirds the conditional respect for one woman that eventually transmutes into enduring love after romantic love fades.

Our old school mothers made it work, and our forefathers tamed Nature and built American greatness out of wifely inspirations, expectations, encouragements, gratefulness, and appropriate ‘color’.

Our foremothers did two things very differently than modern women. First, they competed with other women for a man with sex removed from the equation. Second, they cooperated with their husband and returned sex to the relationship. They knew male dominance has to be outsmarted and outmaneuvered and not blatantly squelched.

Further, they exploited their femaleness to clarify two very different and cooperative roles as a couple—separate responsibilities for each. With such purposely built personal advantages, our foremothers balanced relationship power themselves.

Ask your grandmother!

[More jack about Jack appear at posts 129, 114, 97, 91, and 7.]

2 Comments

Filed under feminine, Uncategorized

105. LOVE 102


 

His love is one-sided. It depends more on what he does than what she does or says. He even separates love from appreciation. She does not. His heart dispenses actions that he determines will or ought to please her. Such actions rather than words reinforce his feelings and enlarge his love.

One husband told by wife to do the spring cleaning while she worked, turned the leaf blower on the house with front and back doors open. (I know the wife.) Another, told to show more affection for his wife by a counselor, went home and washed her car. That’s how men show affection, although these examples may be unusual.

Our forefathers showed affection with actions that endorsed his masculinity. They honored her wishes for social stature, such as opening her car door, seating her at the table, repairing broken things, and especially bringing home the bacon.

Today, women discourage displays of affection. They expect their man to do things that demean his masculinity by appearing to follow female orders, such as doing the dishes and changing diapers. It is not the doing that offends, it is the squeeze on his manliness from having to do it because she demands it.

She can be more respectful, and he expects it. When not shown, he responds with less affection. 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under sex differences, Uncategorized