In Praise of Traditional Women

[MrNiceGuy]

In Praise of Traditional Women

May 7, 2009

donnareed.jpg(Revised from Jan. 2004)

I am grateful that I married a traditional woman.

I don't sacrifice any freedom for love. I am in charge. My wife is comfortable with that. I am twice as free as when I was single.

My wife is passive by nature. Passivity is the natural female principle. The marriage of active (male) and passive (female) is the basis of heterosexuality.

But it is heresy to say so.

Women are actually ashamed to want to be homemakers. How did this happen? How did motherhood go from being honored to being stigmatized? This change in attitude is the trajectory of Illuminist subversion of America. Obviously, the Illuminists prefer women to be corporate widgets rather than wives and mothers.
.
A woman needs a man to love her. The notion that she should be "independent" and career oriented is absurd. As if pounding a mail route is superior to making a home and caring for loved ones. As if obeying a boss is superior to assisting the man she chose to love and marry.

There is no greater blessing than a woman whose grace, beauty and love warms a home like sunshine. There is no greater gift than the precious love she gives husband and children.


THE PASSIVE (FEMALE) PRINCIPLE

The passive principle is the earth principle. The earth receives sunshine, water and seed and produces life. A woman receives a man's love and seed and performs the miracle of giving birth to a human being.

A healthy woman in love wants to recreate her husband in her children.

Carrying and nurturing the young is the essence of female psychology. The denial of this reveals the Illuminists' desire to override nature and control all human life.

Being a wife and mother is what makes a woman tick. She needs to be intensely needed and loved by her husband and children.

These roles are passive by nature. They involve a great deal of adaptation and self sacrifice. But they also require that she is not taken for granted. A wife and mother must be cherished and honored for her priceless contribution.

A woman is not going to be loved permanently for her appearance which is transitory, or for her accomplishments. Love is not like that. We love the people who sacrifice for us.

Men also sacrifice by supporting their families and providing leadership and love. Happiness can only be found in love, not self-seeking. Love is self-sacrifice. Human beings were designed to look after each other.

In contrast, Illuminism sees "freedom" as self indulgence. This is not the "truth that will make you free."

The model I am describing used to be second nature. It has become esoteric knowledge. It is not for everyone. I offer it to those looking for an alternative to feminist dysfunction. You will find your own balance.

Marriage is under constant assault. This formula has worked for centuries and still works today.

THE ACTIVE (MALE) PRINCIPLE

The Male Principle is the God Principle- energy, form and direction.

Women want to look up to their husbands. They tend to seek men who are older and more successful. Why? They want their husband to be like their father was (or should have been), strong, capable, reliable, protective and nurturing.

More than anything, they are seeking emotional and physical security. They feel most secure when they feel possessed by a strong, loving man.

A man should prepare himself for this role. He should have a clear vision of what he wants to do with his life. If he is lost, he might ask God how he can serve Him. What was I born to do?

A man's work should be his first priority and source of challenge and self-confidence. In contrast, a woman was not designed to get meaning from career. For her, career is secondary to being loved and needed.

Despite what feminists say, a man should never show weakness. The essence of masculinity is power. If he is weak, he loses a woman's respect. If he lacks confidence, he should gain it by setting goals and achieving them.

A man should never think of any woman as a sine qua non. That puts him in a position of weakness. (She has to pass your test, not vice-versa.)

A man should never succumb to emotional blackmail. If a woman is withholding love or sulking, he should give her time to get over it.

A man should know what role he wants his wife to play. A man usually chooses on the basis of sexual attraction. What else does he want? I appreciate my wife's reasonableness, intelligence, competence, and sense of humor. Think of the long haul. You need someone who is easy to live with.

Most women were meant to be wives and mothers. A man should think about becoming a father and the responsibility this entails. He is not only providing for his offspring, but also teaching them how to be human beings. He is creating a new world, a family.

A man will not care about something that doesn't belong to him. He should find a woman who is prepared to surrender power in exchange for love. A creature with two heads is a monster. A family with two heads will go in two directions. The man is the head; the woman is the heart.

Marriage is about dependence, not independence. It is about union, two people becoming one. For women, surrender of power is the essence of love. If a woman can't trust a man with her life, she doesn't love him and shouldn't marry him.

Marriage is about possession and being possessed, which most men and women crave. A successful union is the only thing that satisfies the spiritual hunger underlying the sex drive, and prevents wander lust.

The heterosexual contract is this. The husband has the power and he does his best within reason to make his wife happy. A man cannot love a woman if he doesn't have the power to grant her wishes.

But a man must keep his end of the contract, or the marriage is off. He must be loyal, and show every day how much he appreciates her.


CUTTING THROUGH THE FOG: THE STALINIZATION OF LOVE

The vast majority of people find their identity and values in family. Destroy the family and the state is in control.

Incredible as it sounds, the Illuminists are building a world police state. The international bankers finagled the right to create money out of nothing and collect interest on it. They need a police state to protect this racket and make sure no country defaults. They own the mass media, politicians, and dominate big business.

Feminism is the cover for a sophisticated illuminist propaganda program. We have been brainwashed.

Nobody has a problem with treating women as equal to men. Feminism treats women as though they were men. It portrays heterosexuality as pathology and discriminates against men. Women are favored for jobs so they will have careers instead of children and men can't support their families.

Society is being sabotaged. Alas, this is what the "war on terror" is really about, enslaving the world, not protecting it.

Bella Dodd, a former leader of the American Communist Party revealed: "The bourgeois family as a social unit was to be made obsolete." The aim was to "create a new type of human being that would conform to the world they confidently expected to control."

The bankers use Communism is to overthrow the Christian foundations of Western civilization and put themselves in charge. This is the true meaning of revolution.

The Rockefeller Foundation funds feminism. I searched RF and "Women's Studies" in Google and got 137,000 entries. They have funded population control and eugenics research for decades, here, in the USSR and in Nazi Germany.

clark.jpgWith women usurping the male role, we are becoming a homosexual society. There is a difference between accepting homosexuals as human beings, which I do, and allowing society as a whole to become homosexual.

Sound extreme? Consider this.

Homosexuality is the inability to form a permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex. It is commonly characterized by an obsession with sex and promiscuity. Sex becomes a surrogate for love. Doesn't this describe society today?

Homosexuals generally have sex but no families or children. The bankers want us to have fewer children, and indeed the birth rate has plummeted since the 1960's.

The Illuminists aren't afraid of gays, single mothers or children. They are afraid of proud strong men who have families to protect. This is behind the degradation of men.

An ad for Swanson's TV Dinners goes like this. Working mom asked for a big bowl she can eat on the run. Swanson responded. Kids wanted something for after school. Swanson responded. "Dad wanted to wear mom's frilly under things!" Picture father with a goofy smile. "We didn't know how to respond." This is an example of the ongoing corporate attack on masculinity. The Whiskas cat food ads are another. They would never portray women as cats.

"First You Get the Women, Then You've Got the Children, So Follow the
Men" -Adolph Hitler


CONCLUSION

We can fight the New World Order by having strong male-led families.

After many marital mishaps, I now have a frictionless marriage. My wife and I complement each other. She doesn't compete, criticize, complain or try to control, the four C's. She tells me if something is wrong. I try to make her happy. She's part of me.

Because of her passive nature, I don't feel like I must constantly anticipate and meet her expectations. Rather she allows me to propose. Usually, she assents. When she doesn't, we compromise. Her acquiescence empowers and completes me.

I love her. She commits the unpardonable crime. She is good to a man.

[Gigabitch]

Good luck with that.

[vashti]

Ahahahahah! This guy's a riot!

[Junket]

There are actually some valid points in there.

I don't believe this is about a man and a woman, it all comes down to family and community.

Like I said in another thread, if families and small communities do not help themselves, government is required to step in and take charge, and therefore will almost never give up that control because that would be lost power.

Though I don't care if it is a male led family or a female led family. There were some ruthless matriarchs back in the day.

Ron Paul for President.

[ecojeanne]

you have no idea what you are talkin' about little man. independence (emotional independence) is key to happiness ya ya. traditionally, historically, in ancient history, in pagan history women AND men were *emotionally* independent and understood life better than they do now, they looked after the earth and each other as communities. then christianity came and polluted the human mind into fearing life itself and put women into slavery like sacrificial lambs to the slaughter. men stupidly thought by having this power over women would make them happy, but slowly but surely men have a lack of soul and humanity for the 'joys' of the mighty monopoly money dollar. what fools, and now women have joined the ranks foolishly. slaving away without really connecting to each other anymore. lot's of my generation and the previous generation had the sense, but the younger croud (ie you) are losing your souls, you have just regurgitated someone elses ideas. you have grabbed on to this fringe info of half truths. look further, you don't understand the logic until you understand what it means to be you. and you alone.

[MrNiceGuy]

Ahahahahah! This guy's a riot!

No, you are an idiot.


PS He is jewish so you are a self hating antisemite.LOL!

[MrNiceGuy]

Good luck with that.

And you wonder why you had to go for a jerk and make a nice guy raise your kids.

Typical. You ain't no nice girl. Your mate should be told the truth about your mean girl attitude.

[Mish]

Illuminists? New World Order? I hope this isn't something you read on the daily basis MNG

Anyway, I found some valid points in there as far as the passing of the traditional woman goes. The problem as I see it is role confusion, a lot of western women out there just don't know what a woman is suppose to do and what her role is and place in society or in family. They know that they are unfairly burdened by nature having to birth children unlike men and thus they must take this unfairness out on someone. It's too bad this kind of a new woman is replacing the woman who is more comfortable with being a mother and accepts her role as a woman. Increasingly women are being taught that they need to be more masculine to be completely independent, but as far as masculine women go, I think it's completely un-natural.

[Graham Berkeley]

MrNiceGuy is about to get tazzed...

[CocoChanel]

LOL!!!!!! Too funny.

[bluesummer]

I'm comfortable with the idea of being a mother and not working to raise my children.

However, I enjoy working and educating myself. I enjoy being everything I can possibly be besides someone's wife and mother. I don't think that makes me less of a woman or a bad partner. I love and respect my man, and expect the same from him. He makes the household decisions in certain situations, I make them in others, and we share our decision-making power in most cases. We have a relationship of equality and acceptance. I think it works out a lot better for us than an authoritative/passive role.

I don't do passive, I wasn't raised in a frickin Amish colony.

[Junket]

The idea of a passive mother is silly.

How would she discipline her children?

Wait all day until daddy comes home before they decide to listen?

[bluesummer]

^ That's how it worked in my house.

"Wait until your father gets home, he'll deal with you."

[Gigabitch]

Yuck. My house too, except she was super spiteful about it, too, like she was really looking forward to it.

[Mish]

I don't do passive, I wasn't raised in a frickin Amish colony.

When I said traditional I didn't mean passive. I meant more a woman who is comfortable with being a woman, accepting of the fact that women have children, women are more feminine than men, women do certain things naturally better than men and fit into certain roles. That's what I find is missing in a quite a few women I know today. They feel confused about their role, they don't know how a woman should act, they just try to be a different version of men.