Women Skip Work…and Teach Us How Important Men Are

This post was originally published at ‘Return of Kings’ and can be found HERE.

On the 8th of March, 2017, a large number of Western women played hookie; indeed, in connection with the protests that were taken by women against President Donald Trump in January of 2017, the organizers of those protests called on women to skip work on the 8th of March in order to show their strength and influence in society. And so, the 8th of March came, and passed, and do you know what happened? Nothing. Or at least nothing significant. Indeed, Donald Trump stayed President, businesses kept running, and the United States still exists. Now, it is granted that, in all likelihood, relatively few women participated in this joke-of-a-protest, because a decent number of women are—thank God!—still intelligent enough to see through such a farce. Nevertheless, this whole event is still instructive as it offers us a chance to reflect on what would really happen if such an event were taken seriously.

Imagine, for a moment, that all women in the Western world really did take a day off work; all they did was stay home and watch their children (if they had any). What would happen? Oh, there would be major disruptions no doubt. Young children might lack some of their teachers. Doctors might have to take blood for the absent nurses and jerry-rig a few operations. The one lone male in human resources might get overwhelmed. And a number of men might have to get called in for some overtime. Ironically, a lot of women might also find out that they are happier in the home rather than being a corporate drone. But nevertheless, on this imaginary ‘women-less’ day, civilization would continue moving forward; a few people would seriously suffer here and there, but society as we know it would continue chugging along. Food would still be in the fridge. Traffic and deliveries would continue. And life would go on. In fact, if we knew in advance when this “Day Without Women” would be, then men could largely mitigate the effects that this would have on society. So there would be pain, but this pain would be temporary, and soon things would be back to normal.

But now imagine, just for a second, that society experienced a “Day Without Men”. Indeed, imagine that all the men in the Western world, all at the same time, truly decided not to work for a day no matter what happened. All men stopped working for one full day. And imagine that this was known in advance. You know what would happen? Well, think of what has happened in the past when the police—a largely male profession, especially on the front lines—went on strike. There would be riots, civil unrest, looting, and a serious increase in criminality. People would die in fires and car accidents due to the lack of firefighters; in fact, fires that might normally get contained would spread and cause much more devastation than normal. Deliveries of food and essentially services would cease to a trickle. Power outages and other major mechanical and electrical concerns would have almost no one to address them. Terrorist attacks would likely sky-rocket given the lack of any serious armed response to the terrorist threat. And worst of all, the Western world would likely be invaded and destroyed. Seriously! If the enemies of the West knew that men—who comprise the bulk of all fighting forces for Western militaries—were taking the day off, would they not seize the opportunity to strike. After all, who would be manning the guns on the gates of a military camp or on an aircraft carrier? Who would be piloting the fighters to repel an enemy air attack? Who would be guarding our embassies and responding to any threats? Who would be manning the command posts to launch our nuclear arsenal in case of an attack? Would not, for example, North Korea sweep through the South if it knew for sure that all the men in South Korea and Japan had taken the day off? Of course it would! Now, for sure, there are women in the military, and many of them would no doubt do a fine job trying to compensate for the lack of men, but a female soldier in a support trade is no front-line marine, and in nearly all military contests, a group of well-trained men will defeat a group of well-trained women any day of the week. So the fact remains that without men for a day, the West would be vulnerable in a potentially civilization-ending way.

So, what do these little thought-experiments show us? Well, they give us a glimpse of reality; a reality that cannot be concealed no matter how much modern feminists wish to hide it. And that reality is the following: in terms of their immediate importance, women are not indispensable to society, for everything that a woman does outside the home, a man can do as well. A man can be a nurse; he can be a teacher; he can be a day-care worker. On the other hand, men—given their greater physical strength and aggression—fill most of the roles that are needed to maintain the stability and protection of society on a day-to-day basis, and so men are indispensable to society in an immediate sense. Indeed, society could relatively easily survive a day without women, but it might not survive a day without men, for whereas the former situation would be like getting kicked in the balls, the latter would be like getting shot—you might survive, but you might also die.

Now, does all this mean that women are not indispensable to Western civilization? Of course not. Women, being supremely well-suited to the birthing and nurturing of children, are indispensable to civilization, for children—meaning future citizens—are the fuel that keeps a civilization running. And since, without women, there would be no children, and hence no future civilization, then obviously, women are critical to the maintenance and survival of a civilization. However, unlike men, and unlike the message that the organizers of the “Day Without Women” want to convey, women are indispensable in the long-term sense, whereas men are indispensable in the short-term. And so this is the key point: men and women are both indispensable to society, but they are indispensable in complementary ways, not in the same way. So feminists need to stop trying to pretend that women are men or that women are vital to a civilization in the same way that men are. They are not, and that is just reality. And the sooner that we accept that reality, the better it will be for all of us.

Feminism is Entirely Dependent on Men

The Reconquista Initiative


Feminism is Entirely Dependent on Men

In these politically-correct times, where women are, from time-to-time, privileged and promoted at the expense of men, one of the most fascinating truths that is still sub-consciously understood by most people, yet spoken of by nearly no one, is the fact that women, in essence, are entirely dependent on men, and they very likely always will be. Indeed, it is perhaps the greatest irony of the entire feminist movement that, in-principle, that very movement—which is allegedly meant to empower women and make them equal to men—is, at the most fundamental level, a movement that is totally at the mercy of the very patriarchy that feminism despises. And to make the irony even greater, a solid case can be made that the female dependence of men can never, in-principle, be erased. And so, all the women in Western society demanding equality, protesting about sexism, and screaming about the patriarchy, are only able to do so because of the very patriarchy that they rail against. And the fact that they do not realize that this is the case simply goes to show how utterly blind and/or obtuse they are to this fundamental fact.

Now, having alleged that women, even today, are utterly dependent on men, let me explain what I mean. First, note the obvious fact that men are naturally, and thus on average, stronger, more aggressive, and more capable of serious violence than women. And lest you disagree, note that prisons are filled with a hell-of-a-lot more men than women, and also that, for example, an average male UFC fighter could easily beat even the very best female fighter, so the fact that men are more physically capable in the realm of violence and war is not really in dispute. So that is the first point to note. But also note, as a second point, that while we in the West talk quaintly about human rights, the fact is that while ‘might does not make right’, might does, in fact, make the rules. And indeed, human “rights” only remain rights because men with guns stand ready with might to enforce those rights. But without those men, it would take no more than a moment for those rights to be suppressed by whoever had the might to do so. And so again, the reality is that, ultimately, in this life, might does indeed make the rules.

And so all this brings us back to the key point of this article, which is that, since, on average, men have substantially more might than women do, it is thus men who have made the rules in the past, and they could do so again if desired. Thus, the freedom, and “rights”, and so-called equality that women in the West enjoy today only exist because Western men—who are not equal to women in might but superior to them in this respect—have permitted Western women to have these things. So without the permission of men, whether that permission is granted tacitly or overtly, women would, in practice, have none of the freedoms and rights that they currently enjoy.

Now, even in today’s modern society, where the disparity in might between the sexes has somewhat diminished due to the advent of technological equalizers, the fact is that men—for good and obvious reasons—still make up the majority of the so-called “might” professions, such as the police and the military. And so, for example, when some strapping 250-pound man starts beating his wife, the only thing, in the end, that will stop him is either another man or a women with a weapon most likely invented by a man. So again, women, in this respect, are dependent on men. And indeed, just to make the matter even more acute and ironic for today’s feminists, note that, as mentioned in the last example, even when women can defend themselves today via technology, the fact is that the very technologies that women today use to give themselves physical parity with men were nevertheless still largely invented by men, meaning that even in this respect, women are still dependent on men and still have a debt to pay to them. So even the technology that women can use to escape the need for men still show their ultimate and historical need and dependence on men.

However, in contradistinction to the main thrust of this essay, a women might object that a man is utterly dependent on a women in the sense that only a woman can give birth to a man and give him life. And in this respect, women are correct. But even here, the value of women is dependent on the kindness of men. For make no mistake, if men, as a collective, wished to do so—and, obviously, no one is condoning this, but the point is to make clear that it could, in theory, be done—men could enslave all women in such a manner that they could do nothing but give birth at the whim of men. Indeed, a society where reproduction was achieved through total female subjugation would be an absolutely abhorrent one, but the fact is that such a society could survive and even thrive to some degree, as it does in Afghanistan, for example. And so this is precisely the point: might makes the rules, and so the only reason that such an absolute female oppressing society has not been created—although certain areas in the Muslim world, as mentioned, come relatively close to doing so—is because men do not allow it, not because women could stop it.

And so, the long and short of it is this:  at present, the only reason that women enjoy any rights is because, ultimately, men, in one way or another, have allowed women to enjoy those rights, and this truism is not bound to change any time soon. And while certain men allow women to have these rights because doing so grants the men greater might and power in other areas, the fact remains that, in the end, and at a fundamental level, the gains of Western feminism exist, and only continue to exist, because Western men have granted permission, whether tacitly or otherwise, for those gains to exist; for indeed, if all men, collectively, decided to completely change their minds about feminism tomorrow, and remove all the rights from women on a whim, there is, in fact, little that women could do to stop them. And women should not forget these facts. Nor should they forget that their existence in the West is arguably the best that they could ask for, and that to push men too far may lead to a backlash that they might rather not wish to experience.

Support this original content on Patreon:  www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative

Anno Domini 2016 12 06

Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

Why Women Should Stay Out of the Abortion Debate

The Reconquista Initiative


Why Women Should Stay Out of the Abortion Debate

It has been sometimes said that men, being men, and thus being unable to get pregnant, should not have a say concerning the issue of abortion for the very reason that since they are not directly affected by it, and since they do not suffer the direct consequences of it, then they should keep their mouths shut about the whole matter—and just google this general theme to find several articles from feminists and others which argues for this point-of-view. However, in this essay, what I wish to argue is that far from men needing to be silent about assessing the morality and legality of abortion, it is, in fact, women who should butt out of the abortion debate, at least in an official or formal capacity. Indeed, if anyone should be ignored concerning the issue of abortion and concerning the assessed strength of the arguments for or against it, it is women, not men. And while such an idea, given the times that we live in, might seem radical, there is actually a very good reason for it.

Now, to understand the reason why women, rather than men, should stay out of the debate about the moral and/or legal permissibility of abortion, consider the matter of jury selection during a criminal or civil trial, specifically noting the fact that a jury’s goal and purpose is to seek the truth and follow the evidence in the most objective and fair manner possible. So, with all this in mind, imagine that we have a criminal trial where a male defendant has been accused of raping a woman. Now, in such a situation, and given that, as mentioned, the goal of a jury is to seek the truth as objectively as possible, we all understand that it would be unsound, unjust, and irrational to allow a woman on the jury for that particular trial if the woman in question had also previously been raped by a man in the same way that is alleged to have happened in the trial presently under consideration. And we know that this would be a bad and irrational idea precisely because the potential female juror who had been previously raped, due to her past history, would, understandably, not be as objective and impartial as would be required to serve on a jury where the goal is to seek the truth and to assess evidence and arguments in the most fair and objective way possible. Indeed, we all understand that the woman’s emotional and psychological proximity to the type of trial under consideration would cloud her objectivity and render her a partial, rather than an impartial, jury member. Furthermore, we all understand why this is the case, for an emotionally and psychologically clouded mind is a mind that is more susceptible to motivated reasoning and cognitive biases. In fact, the same even holds true for a trial judge, who must recuse himself if he has a conflict of interest with a case under consideration. And lest you would object to these claims, I dare say that were you or I ever accused of a crime, neither one of us would want someone on our jury, or a judge, who had suffered from the crime that we had been accused of committing for the very reason that we both realize that there would simply be too much of a chance that that person would not be fair in their assessment of the evidence at our trial.

But the examples do not end there, for we also understand that, for example, a jury member would not be allowed to be a family member of an accused individual given that no one would expect or could sufficiently guarantee that a family member would be objective in their assessment of the evidence against their relative. Or, for a different type of example, consider that we all understand that, on average, we would be quite rational to trust the assessment of a genuine political independent concerning a highly politicized and volatile topic more so than we would trust the  assessment of a lifelong partisan hack concerning the same matter; we realize that the latter’s emotional attachment, psychological investment, and direct personal consequences to the issue at hand makes his opinion less immediately trustworthy than the opinion of a person who is not so closely connected or invested in the political issue under consideration. Indeed, we understand that the political partisan, given his greater personal connection to the issue under consideration, makes him more susceptible to cognitive bias and motivated reasoning, thereby very likely making his assessment of the issue under consideration less objective than that of a more neutral party. And so we can see, via these examples, how a person’s emotional and psychological proximity to a certain situation or event actually renders them less objective about the evidence or arguments that they are considering, and it actually gives us a solid reason to be more leery of their assessment of a certain matter rather than being more trusting of their assessment.

Note as well that social science also supports the above examples. For example, in his book Righteous Minds, and specifically in his chapter “Vote for Me (Here’s Why)”, popular social psychologist Johnathan Haidt notes that when self-interest or reputational concerns are in play, people are very good at finding evidence which supports a position that they already hold, most likely for intuitive reasons. What this means is that when self-interest is involved, as well as when discussing emotionally charged topics, people are very good at confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.

Now, with the above points from Haidt in mind, and with the earlier examples in mind as well, the connection with the abortion issue should be clear. In the debate over abortion, we are seeking to objectively and fairly assess the status of the unborn human being, both in a moral and a legal sense. We are also seeking to assess, as objectively as possible, whether abortion is murder, thus establishing whether it is permissible or not. We are even assessing whether abortion is a social and cultural good or not. So these are damn serious issues, and so we should all wish that the individuals assessing these topics concerning abortion are as objective as possible. But, in all these debates, a woman is like the compromised juror who would be rejected as a jury member in a trial precisely because the juror could not be counted on to be as objective as possible about the evidence under consideration, for it is the woman’s very emotional, psychological, and self-interested proximity to these issues which makes her assessment of them less trustworthy rather than more trustworthy. And this is precisely because there would be a very good chance that a woman would be suffering from serious cognitive bias in her assessment of the evidence concerning abortion and the status of the unborn. After all, women themselves admit that they are the ones who are directly influenced by the emotional, psychological, and physical effects of pregnancy and abortion, and so, whether knowingly or not, they themselves are the ones who are tacitly acknowledging that they would have an increased susceptibility to cognitive bias and motivated reasoning concerning this topic.

By contrast to women, men are not directly affected by the issue of abortion, and they are most definitely less emotionally, psychologically, and personally invested in it, as many women themselves admit; after all, that is often why women argue that men should have no say about abortion to begin with. But because of all this, a very strong case can be made that men are actually more objective evidence assessors concerning the issue of abortion and its potential morality or immorality than women are. Indeed, men, given their ability to remain more detached about the issue of abortion, can actually be more trusted to give an impartial assessment of the evidence concerning the humanity of the unborn, and thus men can give a fairer assessment of whether abortion is murder or not. So again, far from a women’s proximity and direct personal contact with the abortion issue being an asset, it is actually the very thing which gives us a sound reason to be more skeptical concerning what women say about abortion given that their emotional and psychological investment in the issue increases their cognitive biases and motivated reasoning.

Now women will no doubt scream contemptuously concerning this argument, and they will no doubt object to the idea that they should not be listened to about the issue of abortion. And, in fact, they should be listened to. But here is the key point: if we are going to listen to women about abortion and take their arguments seriously, then men should be listened to as well. In fact, men should be listened to as much or even more so than women are! Indeed, if we are going to consider the views of a group, namely women, who we have good reason to believe are more compromised in terms of their objectivity than men are when it comes to assessing the arguments for or against abortion, then we have no rational reason to deny men the grounds to weigh in on the abortion issue as well.

And so, the long and short of it is this:  although men are sometimes told that their views about abortion should not count because they are not directly affected by it, it is actually a woman’s very emotional and psychological proximity to the issue of abortion which makes her cognitive-bias-prone opinion about abortion less objective and less trustworthy than that of a man. And so, if anyone should be ignored concerning the matter of abortion, it is women; but if they are to be listened to, as they should be, then no one should dare say that the arguments from men should not be listened to as well.

Anno Domini 2016 11 17

Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

Sexual Morality & the Prescience of the Patriarchy

The  Reconquista Initiative


Sexual Morality & the Prescience of the Patriarchy

During the last century, one of the most controversial moral documents ever written was “Humanae Vitae”, a 1968 Catholic encyclical which banned the use of contraception among faithful Catholics and reinforced the practice of orthodox Catholic sexual ethics in an increasingly secular world. Of course, at the time it was written—meaning the sexually libertine sixties—the document was widely mocked and disdained, causing a great furor against it from both within and without the Catholic Church. And while opposition to the document was not unexpected, what was unexpected, and what is particularly interesting, is just how prescient the document was in its assessment of what would follow from the widespread acceptance of contraception in Western society. Indeed, consider this quote directly from the document itself:


Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue [namely, banning contraception] if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.



Now, reading that quote, it truly is fascinating just how correct and how prescient the old Catholic patriarchs who wrote Humanae Vitae were. Indeed, in just a little more than one generation, this document, and the conclusions contained therein, has been thoroughly vindicated.

First, note how marital infidelity has publicly exploded since the advent of contraception and contraceptive abortion, evidenced by no less than the creation of popular websites literally devoted to spreading and supporting marital infidelity, sexual swinging, and spouse swapping. Frivolous divorce has greatly increased as well. And many an average woman now publicly dons the uniform of a whore and often openly acts like a stripper. Furthermore, even general moral standards concerning sexuality—at least when compared to the traditionally Christian standard of sex being bound to the confines of a faithful marriage—have sunk to a very low state of debauchery and depravity. Now you might like the fact that these standards have been lowered in this manner, but that is not the point; the point is that Humanae Vitae—a document written by a religious institution which many progressives regard as the epitome of the patriarchy—was entirely correct that the standards would lower from the Catholic norm when contraception, and last-ditch contraceptive abortion, became widespread.

Second, notice how correct the Catholic Church was when it charged that a man who becomes accustomed to the use of contraception will begin seeing women as little more than pieces of sexual meat for his use. For example, today, with “liberated” women, we have rappers and musicians acting as if the women in their videos are little more than sex toys. Furthermore, the porn industry—where “empowered” women are made to physically pleasure multiple men for the visual pleasure of multiple men—has exploded in ways readily predicted by the writers of Humanae Vitae. And women such as these are so “free” that they allow men to treat them like filth, even though they do not necessarily need to allow this to occur; but, of course, some men are quite happy to treat women in this way given that these women now readily allow men to do so. And yet these issues are not restricted to pornography, for many men now see women as little more than objects for male sexual gratification.

And note that even if someone objects that such treatment of women occurred in the past in the West, the fact is that such behavior was, at that time, understood to be morally repugnant and wrong, even if it was still practiced; indeed, the less savory sexual practices and immoralities were, in the past, done in the shadows and with shame, not proudly done in the open, as it is today. Furthermore, at least in the past, the vileness of some men was checked by the drive to be chivalrous, the unavoidable life-creating consequences of sex, and by the chastity of many women, thereby forcing men to treat women as reality dictated: namely, as the physically weaker sex, but as the sex that bears life and needs to be revered for this sacred act. But today, where many in Western society scorn the culture of life, women are still tacitly treated as the physically weaker sex—for they are—and yet they receive little of the chivalry or reverence that was previously given to them. And this is the consequence of contraception, for it has removed the consequence of sex from the man and has erased the fear in women that she might become pregnant if she has sex outside of marriage; and so now men use women as masturbatory toys and women, who think they are liberated, actually become emotionally and psychologically broken from being used in this way.

Finally, notice as well how the writers of the encyclical were also right about governments being more than willing to push, as well as force, contraceptive methods on the populace once they became accepted in society at large. A person need only think of China’s one-child policy to see the use of this force in effect. And the use of such tactics were employed by other governments as well, whether coercively or through the use of propaganda.

So the claim that Humanae Vitae was a prescient document is hard to dispute. And yet, even given all this prescience, the question might still be asked: So what? So what that some old men were right about what would happen when contraception became widespread in the culture? Well, the ‘so what’ that is important is this: if the patriarchal Catholic Church was right about the consequences that would arise from the social acceptance of contraception, especially given the ridicule that it endured for its position, then this fact gives us some grounds to trust the Church when it tells us about the potential consequences that will arise from other major social and cultural changes, such as the acceptance of so-called homosexual marriage or the decoupling of gender from biological sex. Now, while for some individuals, the degradation of our moral culture in the way that the Church warned about is exactly what they wanted to have happen, and so such people are happy that the Church was right in its prediction. But for those of us who did not wish these changes to occur, and yet who did not listen to the patriarchs in the Catholic Church, maybe, in the future, we should take the pronouncements of wise old Catholic men a little bit more seriously when they warn us of the calamities that will follow once we make a major change to the way that our culture operates.

And so, the long and short of it is this: the Catholic Church, in its encyclical Humanae Vitae, was right in its description of what would follow in the West once the contraceptive mindset permeated our culture, and the fact that such a patriarchal institution was correct should make us think twice before we dismiss the Church’s preaching on other cultural matters. And it should also make us think twice before accepting the prognostications of the academics and intellectuals who oppose the Church concerning the moral slide that our culture will endure once it drops the last vestiges of Christian morality.

Anno Domini 2016 11 16

Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam