In the previous article How Ignoring the Bible’s Teachings Led to the United States’ Decline, I talk about the collapse of marriage and how the sexual revolution has failed. This article is a continuation of that discussion.
To recap, the collapse of marriage began with the invention of the birth control pill. Legalized abortion soon followed, and this was also a big factor. The ability to control pregnancy allowed women to enter the workforce and compete directly with men. Our culture has almost universally praised this change as progress. However, few saw or were willing to admit that the elevation of women (in the economic sense) creates a serious problem.
The problem is that women are attracted to men who are of a higher status than they are. They are attracted to men who know more than they know and make more money than they do. Women want to look up at a man, not down. This is called hypergamy.
But because women today are directly competing with men in the workforce, many women are making more money than a lot of men. This dramatically reduces the number of men that women view as suitable mates, and it makes their prospects for getting married much less likely, as the top male earners are usually either married or unwilling to settle down.
So we now have the vast majority of women competing for a very small pool of high-status men. The irony is that while the sexual revolution empowered women sexually, it also disempowered them in a very real way.
First, women now experience an enormous amount of pressure to have sex out of wedlock. If a woman wishes to remain chaste and refuses to make herself “easy,” she risks losing her man to a woman who is more willing. I remember a woman on the Dr. Phil TV show who found herself in this dilemma. Whenever she told a guy that she wanted to wait until marriage before having sex, he would quickly lose interest and leave her. Only ten percent of men are physically attractive to women, and so these men have plenty of options. If women want to be with these high-status men, they will discover that these men have the power to set the terms of the relationship.
Second, women have also been disempowered in that they no longer have the ability to get a man (or at least a high-status man) to commit to marriage. When pregnancy could not be controlled, virtually all women would never have sex out of wedlock. If men wanted sex, they had little choice but to commit to being a husband and provider. If a man got a woman pregnant out of wedlock, he was expected to marry her (i.e. the shotgun wedding). Not anymore. This is the downside of a woman having “control over her own body.” Men have now logically concluded that a woman getting pregnant is no longer their responsibility. After all, she can get an abortion.
Hopefully, you can see that the ability to control pregnancy has thrown the sexual dynamic between men and women completely out of whack. This problem has been compounded by the gutting of the institution of marriage with the introduction of no-fault divorce in the 1970s.
Divorce was now made easy, but the terms of divorce were never changed so that they would be fair to both parties. The divorce laws still dictated that the total assets would be split 50/50, the women would almost always get the kids, and the man would have to pay alimony and child support. This all made sense in the past when divorce was rare and women had few economic prospects. But this is no longer the case.
Because women almost always marry “up,” the man usually brings far more financial assets into the relationship than she does. As a result, a 50/50 split of the assets is almost always a huge economic windfall for the woman and financially devastating for the man. Add to this the emotional devastation of losing his wife and kids, and it’s clear that men are more often than not destroyed by divorce. So is it any surprise that many men are choosing to avoid such a terrible risk and not get married at all? If a man is high-status, wouldn’t it be a lot safer for him to just play the field?
It is time to admit the absolute unfairness of the divorce laws. Think about it. A woman has the power to destroy her husband, even if he has done nothing wrong! The idea that a woman can divorce her husband for no reason, take away his kids, seize half his assets, and force him to pay alimony to financially support her even though she is no longer providing any support for him is just insane. She is in fact being rewarded for committing betrayal. Where is the justice in that?
Abortion, birth control, and no-fault divorce have brought us more individual freedom, but they have come at the cost of equity and certainty. There is no longer a clear path to marriage as there was in the past, and it is much more difficult to find someone.
So how do we begin to reverse this? How can it possibly be done?
First, we need to clarify exactly who has the power to change this. Some are arguing that men are the ones that need to make this change. They say that men need to “man up”. They need to get off their butts, get a career, and earn enough money so that they are on a level that will make women want to marry them.
Alas, this is just wishful thinking. It is unrealistic to expect most men to “man up” in such a manner. Why? There is an old saying: Behind every successful man is a good woman. What this means is that a man needs a woman behind him in order to have the drive to achieve financial success. Very few men will embrace the toil of working eight hours a day without sufficient incentive. And the prospect that a man might one day get married after many years of toil is not sufficient enough incentive.
For even if a man works for many years and eventually manages to achieve success, if he doesn’t have sufficiently good looks, he still may not be able to find a wife. And even if he does, there is still the prospect that his wife one day will decide to divorce him for no other reason than she is no longer happy. If that happens, half of his financial assets that he spent years earning will be taken and given to her, and he will likely be left destitute. With these prospects, is it any wonder why most men lack the drive to work hard and succeed?
No, men do not have the power to reverse this slide. Only women do. That is why this article is called “How to Bring Back Traditional Women.” If such a revolution is to occur, women will have to be the ones to spearhead it.
So how? There are really only two ways.
The first is that women agree to “settle” for marrying a man who they consider to be of a lower status than they are. However, this is highly unlikely. Very few women will be willing to go along with this.
That leaves us with the second option.
This would be for women to lower their own status, so to speak, so that they will perceive most men as being higher. It would require women to get married young, in their late teens or early twenties, and to forgo getting a college education.
Of course, what I am proposing here is nothing less than a complete repudiation of modern-day feminism. On the surface, this also seems highly unlikely, even impossible.
But perhaps not.
There may be a way to convince women to go down this path. Appealing to them to do so out of a sense of obligation or duty certainly won’t be enough. But it might just be possible if we can appeal to their vanity.
To begin, women need to be educated as to how feminism has betrayed them with so many false promises. It has promised women that they can find happiness and fulfillment solely from their career. This is not true. It has promised women that they can put off marriage until their 30s or later and that they can still have children if they wait. For most, this is not true either. It has promised women that they can act like men, have sex with multiple partners like men, and they won’t suffer any negative consequences. This is also not true.
But feminism’s greatest betrayal is that it robs women of the most crucial thing that makes them physically attractive.
What makes women attractive more than anything else is feminine energy. It isn’t easy to describe, but all women initially have it. But they lose it when they embrace masculine values and abandon feminine values. This loss of feminine energy usually occurs when women go off to college. Why? Because in the process of getting a higher education, they basically start acting like men.
If you need convincing, simply compare pictures of Bollywood (Indian) actresses with those of American actresses. Which group is more beautiful? The Bollywood actresses are hands down more attractive. It is not even close. Why? Because they have not embraced masculine values and thus their feminine energy has not been grinded out of them.
It is hard to express just how powerful feminine energy is. It is one thing to be attractive. It is another thing to be so stunningly beautiful that it causes men’s heads to turn, that it causes men to be open-mouthed and awestruck in your presence. And feminine energy is what makes this possible.
In Christianity 2.0, I mention that the higher levels (the 500s and up) come with a price. You have to adhere to the highest standard of integrity. In other words, there are rules you must follow.
Similarly, the feminine energy that resides within a woman may be the most incredible gift that God has given her, but there are rules she must follow if she wishes to keep it. Otherwise, she will lose it.
These rules are pretty simple. A woman needs to act like a woman, not a man. This means she must stop fighting against her true inner nature, stop rebelling against God, and simply fulfill the role that God has designed her for. In other words, she must be feminine, not masculine.
Women get so caught up in their physical looks, but a woman’s beauty isn’t so much about looks, hair, or makeup. It is tied to her feminine energy. This energy really is a woman’s most powerful possession. She should guard it as if it were a treasure, because it absolutely is.
This is how we can appeal to women: Through their vanity. Because few things are more important to a woman than being physically attractive. Hopefully, they can be made to see that feminism is in fact an oxymoron as it actually rejects the feminine and makes them less attractive. And it makes them less likely to attract a masculine man.
In the end, women have a choice. They can choose to marry young or they can pursue higher education and a career.
If they are willing to marry young, finding a partner will be relatively easy, at least for most of them, because this is when their physical attractiveness is at its peak. But if they choose college and a career and put off getting married, there is a good chance they will wind up alone. It is hard to imagine a worse fate.
Of course, a change this dramatic isn’t going to happen overnight. Neither will reinstating the traditional marriage contract that only allows divorce if there is proper cause. Many women will bitterly resist any changes to the divorce laws. They need to understand that it is in a woman's nature to easily become unhappy with her marriage. Women are more emotional creatures (while men are generally more rational) and thus are more prone to extreme mood swings. They need to understand that their unhappiness is usually not their husband’s fault (as many divorced women eventually discover to their great regret). Women also need to realize that beneficial divorce laws mean little if men refuse to marry them (which is increasingly becoming the case).
It also would be beneficial for our society to have arranged marriages. Not arranged as in forced. Rather, families would help to set up matches. The church could help in this regard. With this approach, the courtship phase would be chaste and brief. A major benefit is that it would remove much of the challenge and uncertainty in finding a spouse. The individualistic approach to finding a partner that our society has embraced is brutally difficult for those of us who aren’t extroverts or among the sexually powerful.
People would marry with the idea that love comes later. The problem with our current need to “fall in love” during the courtship phase is that very few men have the ability to create that feeling in a woman, at least initially. There was a reality show called Married at First Sight in which couples would marry but wouldn’t meet each other or even know what the other person looked like until the day of the wedding. One woman was devastated on her wedding day because she didn’t find the man that she married to be physically attractive. Yet she eventually did fall in love with him (I’m referring to Jamie and Doug from the very first season of the show). Think about that. If she had met the man the regular way, she would have written him off. If only we could allow love to come later.
Of course, for this to truly work, it would require the restoration of the traditional marriage contract. Besides women, many politicians would also resist any changes that would make divorce more difficult. For it is in the government’s interest to keep people single and thus dependent on the welfare state, as the data clearly shows that single women vote Democrat (i.e. for the welfare state) in far greater numbers than married women do.
But there is reason for hope. People are finally realizing that feminism and the sexual revolution have failed. The dating market has devolved into a flaming garbage dump, and few people are happy. The situation has gotten bad enough that people desperately want change. As fewer and fewer people are able to get married, the status quo will inevitably become impossible to sustain if society is going to survive (Women are going to eventually realize that beneficial divorce laws mean little if they can’t get married).
This disastrous path our society is on cannot go on forever. And as the old saying goes, if something cannot go on forever, it won’t.
To recap, the collapse of marriage began with the invention of the birth control pill. Legalized abortion soon followed, and this was also a big factor. The ability to control pregnancy allowed women to enter the workforce and compete directly with men. Our culture has almost universally praised this change as progress. However, few saw or were willing to admit that the elevation of women (in the economic sense) creates a serious problem.
The problem is that women are attracted to men who are of a higher status than they are. They are attracted to men who know more than they know and make more money than they do. Women want to look up at a man, not down. This is called hypergamy.
But because women today are directly competing with men in the workforce, many women are making more money than a lot of men. This dramatically reduces the number of men that women view as suitable mates, and it makes their prospects for getting married much less likely, as the top male earners are usually either married or unwilling to settle down.
So we now have the vast majority of women competing for a very small pool of high-status men. The irony is that while the sexual revolution empowered women sexually, it also disempowered them in a very real way.
First, women now experience an enormous amount of pressure to have sex out of wedlock. If a woman wishes to remain chaste and refuses to make herself “easy,” she risks losing her man to a woman who is more willing. I remember a woman on the Dr. Phil TV show who found herself in this dilemma. Whenever she told a guy that she wanted to wait until marriage before having sex, he would quickly lose interest and leave her. Only ten percent of men are physically attractive to women, and so these men have plenty of options. If women want to be with these high-status men, they will discover that these men have the power to set the terms of the relationship.
Second, women have also been disempowered in that they no longer have the ability to get a man (or at least a high-status man) to commit to marriage. When pregnancy could not be controlled, virtually all women would never have sex out of wedlock. If men wanted sex, they had little choice but to commit to being a husband and provider. If a man got a woman pregnant out of wedlock, he was expected to marry her (i.e. the shotgun wedding). Not anymore. This is the downside of a woman having “control over her own body.” Men have now logically concluded that a woman getting pregnant is no longer their responsibility. After all, she can get an abortion.
Hopefully, you can see that the ability to control pregnancy has thrown the sexual dynamic between men and women completely out of whack. This problem has been compounded by the gutting of the institution of marriage with the introduction of no-fault divorce in the 1970s.
Divorce was now made easy, but the terms of divorce were never changed so that they would be fair to both parties. The divorce laws still dictated that the total assets would be split 50/50, the women would almost always get the kids, and the man would have to pay alimony and child support. This all made sense in the past when divorce was rare and women had few economic prospects. But this is no longer the case.
Because women almost always marry “up,” the man usually brings far more financial assets into the relationship than she does. As a result, a 50/50 split of the assets is almost always a huge economic windfall for the woman and financially devastating for the man. Add to this the emotional devastation of losing his wife and kids, and it’s clear that men are more often than not destroyed by divorce. So is it any surprise that many men are choosing to avoid such a terrible risk and not get married at all? If a man is high-status, wouldn’t it be a lot safer for him to just play the field?
It is time to admit the absolute unfairness of the divorce laws. Think about it. A woman has the power to destroy her husband, even if he has done nothing wrong! The idea that a woman can divorce her husband for no reason, take away his kids, seize half his assets, and force him to pay alimony to financially support her even though she is no longer providing any support for him is just insane. She is in fact being rewarded for committing betrayal. Where is the justice in that?
Abortion, birth control, and no-fault divorce have brought us more individual freedom, but they have come at the cost of equity and certainty. There is no longer a clear path to marriage as there was in the past, and it is much more difficult to find someone.
So how do we begin to reverse this? How can it possibly be done?
First, we need to clarify exactly who has the power to change this. Some are arguing that men are the ones that need to make this change. They say that men need to “man up”. They need to get off their butts, get a career, and earn enough money so that they are on a level that will make women want to marry them.
Alas, this is just wishful thinking. It is unrealistic to expect most men to “man up” in such a manner. Why? There is an old saying: Behind every successful man is a good woman. What this means is that a man needs a woman behind him in order to have the drive to achieve financial success. Very few men will embrace the toil of working eight hours a day without sufficient incentive. And the prospect that a man might one day get married after many years of toil is not sufficient enough incentive.
For even if a man works for many years and eventually manages to achieve success, if he doesn’t have sufficiently good looks, he still may not be able to find a wife. And even if he does, there is still the prospect that his wife one day will decide to divorce him for no other reason than she is no longer happy. If that happens, half of his financial assets that he spent years earning will be taken and given to her, and he will likely be left destitute. With these prospects, is it any wonder why most men lack the drive to work hard and succeed?
No, men do not have the power to reverse this slide. Only women do. That is why this article is called “How to Bring Back Traditional Women.” If such a revolution is to occur, women will have to be the ones to spearhead it.
So how? There are really only two ways.
The first is that women agree to “settle” for marrying a man who they consider to be of a lower status than they are. However, this is highly unlikely. Very few women will be willing to go along with this.
That leaves us with the second option.
This would be for women to lower their own status, so to speak, so that they will perceive most men as being higher. It would require women to get married young, in their late teens or early twenties, and to forgo getting a college education.
Of course, what I am proposing here is nothing less than a complete repudiation of modern-day feminism. On the surface, this also seems highly unlikely, even impossible.
But perhaps not.
There may be a way to convince women to go down this path. Appealing to them to do so out of a sense of obligation or duty certainly won’t be enough. But it might just be possible if we can appeal to their vanity.
To begin, women need to be educated as to how feminism has betrayed them with so many false promises. It has promised women that they can find happiness and fulfillment solely from their career. This is not true. It has promised women that they can put off marriage until their 30s or later and that they can still have children if they wait. For most, this is not true either. It has promised women that they can act like men, have sex with multiple partners like men, and they won’t suffer any negative consequences. This is also not true.
But feminism’s greatest betrayal is that it robs women of the most crucial thing that makes them physically attractive.
What makes women attractive more than anything else is feminine energy. It isn’t easy to describe, but all women initially have it. But they lose it when they embrace masculine values and abandon feminine values. This loss of feminine energy usually occurs when women go off to college. Why? Because in the process of getting a higher education, they basically start acting like men.
If you need convincing, simply compare pictures of Bollywood (Indian) actresses with those of American actresses. Which group is more beautiful? The Bollywood actresses are hands down more attractive. It is not even close. Why? Because they have not embraced masculine values and thus their feminine energy has not been grinded out of them.
It is hard to express just how powerful feminine energy is. It is one thing to be attractive. It is another thing to be so stunningly beautiful that it causes men’s heads to turn, that it causes men to be open-mouthed and awestruck in your presence. And feminine energy is what makes this possible.
In Christianity 2.0, I mention that the higher levels (the 500s and up) come with a price. You have to adhere to the highest standard of integrity. In other words, there are rules you must follow.
Similarly, the feminine energy that resides within a woman may be the most incredible gift that God has given her, but there are rules she must follow if she wishes to keep it. Otherwise, she will lose it.
These rules are pretty simple. A woman needs to act like a woman, not a man. This means she must stop fighting against her true inner nature, stop rebelling against God, and simply fulfill the role that God has designed her for. In other words, she must be feminine, not masculine.
Women get so caught up in their physical looks, but a woman’s beauty isn’t so much about looks, hair, or makeup. It is tied to her feminine energy. This energy really is a woman’s most powerful possession. She should guard it as if it were a treasure, because it absolutely is.
This is how we can appeal to women: Through their vanity. Because few things are more important to a woman than being physically attractive. Hopefully, they can be made to see that feminism is in fact an oxymoron as it actually rejects the feminine and makes them less attractive. And it makes them less likely to attract a masculine man.
In the end, women have a choice. They can choose to marry young or they can pursue higher education and a career.
If they are willing to marry young, finding a partner will be relatively easy, at least for most of them, because this is when their physical attractiveness is at its peak. But if they choose college and a career and put off getting married, there is a good chance they will wind up alone. It is hard to imagine a worse fate.
Of course, a change this dramatic isn’t going to happen overnight. Neither will reinstating the traditional marriage contract that only allows divorce if there is proper cause. Many women will bitterly resist any changes to the divorce laws. They need to understand that it is in a woman's nature to easily become unhappy with her marriage. Women are more emotional creatures (while men are generally more rational) and thus are more prone to extreme mood swings. They need to understand that their unhappiness is usually not their husband’s fault (as many divorced women eventually discover to their great regret). Women also need to realize that beneficial divorce laws mean little if men refuse to marry them (which is increasingly becoming the case).
It also would be beneficial for our society to have arranged marriages. Not arranged as in forced. Rather, families would help to set up matches. The church could help in this regard. With this approach, the courtship phase would be chaste and brief. A major benefit is that it would remove much of the challenge and uncertainty in finding a spouse. The individualistic approach to finding a partner that our society has embraced is brutally difficult for those of us who aren’t extroverts or among the sexually powerful.
People would marry with the idea that love comes later. The problem with our current need to “fall in love” during the courtship phase is that very few men have the ability to create that feeling in a woman, at least initially. There was a reality show called Married at First Sight in which couples would marry but wouldn’t meet each other or even know what the other person looked like until the day of the wedding. One woman was devastated on her wedding day because she didn’t find the man that she married to be physically attractive. Yet she eventually did fall in love with him (I’m referring to Jamie and Doug from the very first season of the show). Think about that. If she had met the man the regular way, she would have written him off. If only we could allow love to come later.
Of course, for this to truly work, it would require the restoration of the traditional marriage contract. Besides women, many politicians would also resist any changes that would make divorce more difficult. For it is in the government’s interest to keep people single and thus dependent on the welfare state, as the data clearly shows that single women vote Democrat (i.e. for the welfare state) in far greater numbers than married women do.
But there is reason for hope. People are finally realizing that feminism and the sexual revolution have failed. The dating market has devolved into a flaming garbage dump, and few people are happy. The situation has gotten bad enough that people desperately want change. As fewer and fewer people are able to get married, the status quo will inevitably become impossible to sustain if society is going to survive (Women are going to eventually realize that beneficial divorce laws mean little if they can’t get married).
This disastrous path our society is on cannot go on forever. And as the old saying goes, if something cannot go on forever, it won’t.