I've Moved to Wordpress! Check out unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com

I have long wanted to move this site to Wordpress and change the site name to "Unmasking Feminism".  So, here you have it: 

Unmasking Feminism

It was an easier process than I thought and I am already loving all the new features. Be sure to check out the "Museum" tab as this is going to be an archive for all the historical images I have found. I would also like to add a tab of PDFs from all of the AFU series.  

Feel free to update your blogrolls to the new site and spread the word.  I realize its a hassle and is one reason why I delayed  making the switch.  Thanks for your help. I will also be leaving this site up so that readers can be rerouted. 

He who pleases God escapes her

In a recent read of Ecclesiastes a few verses jumped out:

1.  Say not, “Why were the former days better than these?”
    For it is not from wisdom that you ask this. (Eccl. 7:10)

This supports my recent posts that we should not cling to and idealize the past. 

And then this verse really, really jumped out:

2. And I find something more bitter than death: the woman whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God escapes her, but the sinner is taken by her. (Eccl. 7:26)

Could it be that those men who eschew marriage 2.0, marrying a woman "whose heart is snares" actually be pleasing God? This would be a real slap in the face to those who put marriage above all else, regardless of the woman's character. The man who escapes such a woman has wisdom.

MGTOW for Infants

Carter's

Defining Traditionalism

On my last post, Brendan provided an excellent comment on different types of traditionalists:

"One way to think about it, I think, perhaps Mary is to distinguish between "procedural traditionalism" and "substantive traditionalism". This is a common distinction to me personally, because it is a common distinction in the law, but it probably isn't that familiar to most people.

What I mean by it in this context is that procedural traditionalism is kind of what you described -- how decisions are made, who has the final say, how the decisonmaking structures work and are delegated and so on. Substantive traditionalism, by contrast, refers instead to the *content* of the decisions made, rather than the process by which they are reached.

So, to take an example, a couple may be a procedurally traditionalist couple in that the husband has the final say, the final authority, captain/first officer model with delegation and so forth. But the Captain may decide that it makes sense for the wife to work full time. He may decide that it makes sense for him to scale back his own work to tend to family life because his wife's realistic income earning options are higher for some reason or other. He may decide that he doesn't like his wife to dress like little house on the prairie, etc.

The substantive traditionalist generally takes issue with that "result" because the substance of the decision made, even if it is reached in a "procedurally traditionalist" way, does not comport with a past template which is approved by substantive traditionalists. Some examples: a wife and mother should not work outside the home, a husband should always be the main breadwinner, a woman should always dress in a certain way and so on. In other words, it isn't just about the way decisions are made, but the substantive content of the decisions reached as well which is examined and, if found lacking per substantive traditionalist sensibilities, critiqued.

Most of the trads on the internet are both procedural and substantive traditionalists. Some of us tend to think that substantive traditionalist tenets, while useful and workable for some couples, are not really a workable template in 2012 for many other couples for a long list of very pragmatic reasons. And therein lies the issue I think."