Women As Property

According to politically correct thought the world was brutally sexist, patriarchal, and oppressive towards women until a matter of decades ago. From this viewpoint, women were debased and traded around like property. Indeed women were given over to a suitable bidder when they came of age, but this system certainly was not oppressive to women. It was not oppressive to women because now, in the 21st century they prefer to make themselves into property of their own free wills.

When one examines surveys of what women want in a mate and observes the mates women actually choose, the answer is always the same. They want a provider who has the means to protect and support their children. Universally, women bring to opposite sex relations an agenda of calculation that the opposite sex can scarcely comprehend. From the female objective of acquiring support and protection it follows that it is in her interest to become property with a price tag attached to it. Those who can pay the price are potential providers.

Every aspect of traditional courting revolves around the need of the man to demonstrate value. In spite of the platitudes of popular sentiment, nothing has changed. A man is expected to buy gifts, flowers, meals for any woman he hopes to be seriously involved with. Less directly, he must be dressed in the right clothes, he must have enough money to get into the public places where women congregate. Few people seem to realize that after schooling is completed, a man must be prepared to pay to even be in the same room with potential mates—and it is no coincidence that women choose to congregate in places(clubs, restaurants, bars) where men must either pay money to get into or must spend money once inside of.

When it comes to marriage, a man who fails to buy a diamond ring would be rejected outright as ‘cheap.’ In other words, he has failed to pay the sale price for his bride. He has failed to purchase the decorative band that publicly announces his contractual ownership of the product. A diamond ring is a girl’s best friend because it is a final flaming hoop a man must jump through to prove his ability and motivation to provide. The female’s self reduction to property is her last, best defense against ending up with children in an insecure, dangerous situation.

The old system far from being oppressive towards women was the greatest of allies. She did not have to look for a suitable mate herself. Her parents and community did it for her. While she had no need to put in any effort, suitors went through great difficulties trying to sway her parents enough even to have the privilege of showering her with gifts. Once given permission to demonstrate value, a man had to outcompete other suitors and in some cultures and circumstances he would even have had to do all this while ingratiating himself with the girl as well. The system worked in the favor of women then and nothing has changed. It is still true in romance and indeed in most opposite sex dealings that men must earn while women deserve.

If women were victims of being made into property by a ‘patriarchy’, it is inconceivable that they would gleefully provide the wrapping paper and ribbons themselves. Whenever I have glimpsed the interior of a young woman’s bathroom, I could not but be taken aback by the wide array of beauty products. I have long been amazed by the variety and expense of female self-decoration. It is of course, a form of advertising. Every woman understands that her body is quite likely to be the greatest source of wealth she will ever possess and invests considerable time and effort maximizing its potential. It is both a source of immense satisfaction for her and a source of shame that her inner merits will be perpetually overshadowed. It is a source of pure power that no woman is able to resist tapping into for whether she is considered ugly or beautiful only concerns a measure of degree. Every woman has considerable power from the fact of her sex while men without the customary pieces of plastic and paper are essentially worthless in any tally of social value. The fact that women frequently rail against men of privilege only illustrates how the vast majority of men living lives as expendable laborers are not only unsuitable for these women, they are actually invisible.

It is understandable that one might point out that women have many considerations in choosing a mate, many of them based on guileless affection and emotional attachment, but before a man can ever enter the arena as a candidate for her affection, he must first be worth something. Without enough value to be a suitor, she must be a desirable product on the other side of a store window, forever beyond his reach. And in this case it is the product that put itself for sale.

Women’s status as property is a result of typical female behavior and expectations. When one pays for his date’s meal, he is hiring a stranger to eat in his presence. He is buying his date. The man does so because female companionship is a product that must be bought whether one is looking in a brothel or searching for a bride.

Here we come to the question of equality. Part of the reason why the idea of women as property is reviled under the politically correct circumstances is because it becomes quite difficult to conceive of the sexes as equal when one earns and the other deserves. Females have historically been compelled into the condition that women now typically choose of their own free will.

Women are now free to stop being property, and by so doing stop dehumanizing both themselves and their suitors. Yet, the old pattern continues. Even women who become wealthy from careers simply raise the bar of worthiness to men even richer than themselves. The search for a provider of superior means seems to be the fundamental female instinct when it comes to selecting a mate, but perhaps society can find ways of channeling their nature that are not destructive. To even begin to consider such changes, both men and women must be made aware of the truth—that romance is not romantic. There is a deeply rooted drive in most men to protect women, but until men begin to act against the property system, little can be done to move towards any true or meaningful measure of equality between the sexes. After all, women’s incredible power is product of the male drives to desire and protect. Women have always had some idea of this reality—far more than most men—but until men become powerful enough to challenge this system, women will continue to abuse the extraordinary corrupting powers that men have given them—all while being told by tradition that they are virtuous for doing so. Until then, both men and women will be caught in a brutal mutually sustained cycle that reduces both the expendable enabling earners and the privileged exploitative deservers within it to their monetary values.

Gender feminism, the notorious lobby for females(particularly the wealthy, educated ones) has successfully eliminated almost everything men once got in exchange for playing the part of the buyer. Children and family, domestic security, domestic labor, child care, an assured outlet for sexuality have all been destroyed by feminist laws in the West. The prices on the age old market have become so inflated by reckless feminist activity that the bubble is bursting. Greedily, they are killing the golden goose that is the male population and by so doing, inadvertently bringing about an opportunity for some modicum of true equality and unity between the vastly different fundamental characters and biological imperatives of men and women. It would be wise to prepare for such an opportunity so that it is not squandered or worse—gives rise to a new, even more crass and degrading system.

Entitlement and Prejudice: Abuse of Female Advantage

While Elizabeth Bennet, the female protagonist of Pride and Prejudice, is a kind, witty, and intelligent girl, I see in her some very familiar behaviors. In spite of her overall good character, she has a tendency shared by many women to judge people quickly based on the first impression that comes across in a social situation.

It is said that women are more emotional than men. This is not true, but it seems that women do have a far greater sensitivity to social situations and subtle cues than do men. It is not only one of their strongest abilities, it forms the basis by which they judge others. When women say they want an ‘intelligent’ man, they of course mean socially intelligent.

This certainly holds true in a book written by a woman in the 18^th century. The female main character perceives the socially awkward Mr. Darcy to be stiff, hateful, arrogant, and rude. Meanwhile she instantly believes the best in the silver-tongued and charming Mr. Wickham and falls at once for his every deception. The lies she accepts without question poison her opinion of Mr. Darcy still further and when the time comes to speak with him, she is simmering with resentment; all potential for seeing good in him is extinguished.

Women for all their ability to catch nuances often go awry when it comes to men. To say that women are good communicators is quite simply untrue. Socially adept is nearly the opposite of direct communication. Men are far more likely to be direct about what they’re after, so direct that neither gender can mistake their intent. Direct statements in female society, unfortunately, are a sure recipe for hurting feelings and creating enemies. Yet most women are unable to realize that the direct approach is how men normally do things. There is not necessarily any intent to hurt or be aggressive in such behavior. Furthermore, what is being said in female conversation is of secondary importance. The real message is in tone of voice and body language. Women are taken aback when they meet men who do not wear their mood on their sleeve and who have little interest in nuances. They frequently perceive this sort of behavior as hostile, rude, and anti-social. In fact, this is how men normally do things. From the mistaken female perception arises the well worn sentiments that men have less emotions, can’t communicate, are slow minded etc. From these wrong conclusions arises a certain deeply ingrained sort of female entitlement. If men are to be thought of as lesser emotional beings, certainly female needs outweigh those of the male. From this misunderstanding derives a mindset that entails female license to engage in all manner of aggressive, rude, and cruel behavior. Ethically, it opens the way for them to use their biologically endowed advantages without restriction to achieve their aims or to gain retribution for any offense, imagined or real.

Although Elizabeth Bennett is generally a well-meaning person, even she subscribes to this pervasive philosophy. When a socially inept rector shows up in her parents’ household, she relentlessly runs little circles of wit around him, mocking him in front of the entire family without his even realizing it. The rector certainly comes across as bombastic, conceited, and venal but that does not mean it is right to take advantage of his sex based weaknesses and publicly humiliate him. Just because she personally dislikes the guy and doesn’t want to marry him does not mean she’s entitled to take out her unrestrained aggression on him.

In the end, Mr. Darcy should perhaps have married a woman who understood men have their own strengths, strengths that usually they choose not to abuse. Men are by no means perfect but are in no position to convince themselves that they are entitled to take advantage of the weaknesses inherent in the other sex. When men cross a certain line, they go to prison. It is not men who have the reputation for ‘using sex as a weapon’ or taking men for ‘all they’re worth.’

Women seem generally better suited to perceiving the subtleties of human interaction, but it is wrong that so many of them feel they have license to abuse this strength or any other that is specific to their sex. It is no better for women to act in such a way than it is for men to get what they want through superior physical force.

Eye of the Cougar: Reaching True Equality Between Men and Women

There was a news article that filled me with admiration and delight earlier this year about a 65 year old woman who successfully saved her 70 year old husband’s life from an attacking cougar. She bashed the animal over the head repeatedly with a log and even took a pen from her husband’s person and jammed it into the animal’s eye socket. Then she continued to bash with the log and scream until the animal finally let go of her husband’s head and went away. The bravery and fierceness of her action was an inspiration to me. That’s my kind of woman. Throughout human civilization it has historically been the duty of a man to protect women and it remains so to this day. Very few feminists have shown initiative in adopting any of the obligations of male citizens that involve personal risk or which are generally disagreeable. Among those duties is military service. Every young man is compelled by United States law to sign up for selective service, an act that puts their life on the line to protect their country should they be called upon. Women now stand equal to men under the law, yet face no similar obligation.

Feminist groups are inclined to insist that injustices wrought by their imaginary ‘patriarchy’ continue but in turn act with little to no sense of justice. They do nothing against and have even supported an existing system in which women get drastically less severe prison sentences than men, get preferential treatment in divorce courts, and are able to send men to prison based on word alone in cases of sexual misconduct. In the schools, new disorder labels are appearing seemingly every year and the group to which they are applied is overwhelmingly male. In the workforce, jobs that involve personal danger are almost unanimously filled by men. Perhaps most importantly, if there is a war that requires more than the nation’s volunteer force, men too young to have an alcoholic drink will be drafted and sent out to die in combat. Women will be able to stay safely at home if they like.

The case of the woman against the cougar brings me feelings of optimism that the system must eventually change and a new equality be reached. So too do the women fighting in Iraq even though their country is divided over whether they even belong in the line of fire. As the cause of feminism becomes ever more reactionary and isolated, women are showing that they are able and willing to stand alongside men as partners and equals under a system based on fairness and shared duties as citizens. However, there is not yet any major organized female movement to help bridge the gap. It seems, unfortunately, that men will be largely responsible for taking the final steps to true equality.