Moral Panics and the #metoo Movement

[Editor’s note: OK folks, this is a long one so I ask for your forbearance. It’s not religious or political but it is cultural. And timely. It’s going to be a little graphic in places so I ask for your forgiveness as well.]

It’s obvious by now that the whole #metoo movement was a political ploy from the get-go. I won’t say it was a crock but it’s quickly turning into a racket. Don’t believe me? Look at the photo accompanying this essay. That’s The Oprah herself, the High Priestess of this religion. You know what she’s doing? Why, she’s procuring pretty young things for Jabba the Hutt’s younger brother, Harvey Weinstein. Word on the street is that she’s done a lot of this in the past. Regardless, Weinstein is a high-ranking demon in the cosmology of this new religion.

Oh, nobody is saying that the present moral crusade against sexual aggression isn’t justified. Far from it. This odious practice is endemic, against men as well as against women and children. Unfortunately, because it quickly degenerated into a political tactic –and because of photos like this–it is well on it’s way to losing its moral authority. As a result, this will cower women who were real victims from coming forward. Let me state this in unequivocal terms: sexual assault is not a nothing-burger. It is a serious crime. A long time ago I worked in an emergency room and saw women who had been raped. Not a pretty sight. (And yes, men get raped as well; more on that at another time.)

The question is, how did we get into this pickle?

It all started in early November, when accusations against Judge Roy Moore, the Republican contender for the Alabama Senate seat came to the fore. The accusers themselves were not without their problems but in the end, the Democrat candidate, Doug Jones, won that seat by a squeaker. This was a political earthquake because Alabama hasn’t had a Democrat Senator since the early 1990s. Ordinarily, any Alabaman with a pulse and an “R” after his name would have won that state by 20 points.

Initially, The Washington Post printed allegations that Judge Moore dated 18 and 19 year old girls while he was a 32 year old Vietnam veteran and up-and-coming district attorney. These accusations were not denied nor did they materially hurt him. However then came out more lurid allegations that he had groped a 14 year old girl and then may have done the same with a 16 year old. While it is impossible to know what happened with any certainty (and there were plenty of holes in the stories on both sides), the damage was done and Moore came up short.

A new political weapon was found: the #metoo movement.

Since the allegations against Moore came out, other prominent men became victims of the #metoo jihad. Ironically, the overwhelming number of political and professional corpses are Democrats. Yes, the political class does have a new weapon, unfortunately, it’s a double-edged sword, laying wast to Republican and Democrat alike (but so far, mostly Democrats).

We won’t catalog their names, as the list grows by the day. Two however standout: Rep John Conyers, Jr (D-MI) and Sen Al Franken (D-MN) were forced to fall on their swords for the good of the Democratic Party. What’s interesting is that these men were party stalwarts: Conyers a Civil Rights “icon” and Franken, the golden boy for 2020. I imagine many others (mostly Democrats) are having sleepless nights right about now as all this collateral damage is taking place on the left side of the aisle.

This is ironic of course and probably unintended. But then again, all collateral damage is unintended, isn’t it? Having said that, the Frankenstein monster that was to be used for political purposes against the GOP is now rampaging across the countryside, destroying all in its path. The left is now in an unenviable position of trying to chase down the monster. It’s all somewhat reminiscent of Mao’s Cultural Revolution. The best that they can hope for at this point is that it doesn’t matter who gets destroyed just as long as the Revolution proceeds.

Now let’s just lay our cards on the table: Monomakhos does not endorse, nor engage, nor encourage sexual harassment or assault against any human being, regardless of age or sex. Wherever something along these lines occurs, it needs to be adjudicated fairly and if there is a guilty party, he (or she) needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. Period. Full stop.

That being said, it is clear that the Social Justice Warriors have not thought this thing through. As noted above, literally dozens of Democrats and liberals have had their careers destroyed by this tactic. So far, only one Republican –Roy Moore–has had his political ambitions thwarted.

Worse for the party of Jefferson and Jackson, more experienced Democrats are now going to have their ambitions derailed. For example, there are several photos of Joe Biden fondling various females from 6 years old on up. Then again, there’s Hillary Clinton, who not only enabled her husband to grope, harass, molest and even rape women, but did everything in her power to destroy his many accusers. In this present moral panic, I can’t see how either Biden or Clinton survive politically.

There’s a worse problem looming on the horizon and it is this: moral panics, guided as they are by hysteria, are like wild fires. Competent arborists can manage a controlled forest fire and minimize the damage; arsonists, not so much. In the first scenario, damage is minimal, in the second, anybody can be burned. There literally is no telling who will be caught up in the next lurid accusation. (I mean, could anyone imagine milquetoasts like Charlie Rose and Garrison Keillor having their careers destroyed over decades-old allegations of sexual harassment?)

As things continue to heat up people will be turning on their friends and family in order to save their own hides. This is exactly what happened during the Cultural Revolution in Red China. They will do so even if this means making up false allegations. And the more lurid the better. No one will be safe: even women in positions of authority will be subject to smear campaigns. (That too has happened by the way with a Democratic woman office-seeker in Kansas and another one in California.) The lesson of Robespierre is one that progressives never seem to learn. And that is this: revolutions always devour their young.

That’s where this is all going to lead. That was not the original point however. The intent of this panic was to take down Moore and then to concentrate this new feminist firepower on the GOP. This was because everybody thought that Moore would win and he would be an albatross around the neck of the Republican Party. And this would make it easier to go against the really big target, which is President Trump. He is the real enemy.

Think of it: every stick of dynamite that the Democrats have pulled out of the ACME ammo kit to use against President Road Runner has blown up in their faces a la Wile E Coyote. Nobody’s talking about Russian hacking or collusion or obstruction of justice any more. They’ve all come up empty. The sexual improprieties associated with Donald Trump on the other hand are legendary.

In my opinion, the tsunami of allegations has not crested –yet. But it will. Sooner rather than later in my opinion. Moral panics always dissipate and once the wake of destruction becomes apparent, moral reticence takes over. Think of Prohibition; as a nation we ran away from that social experiment like a scalded dog. Oh sure, it was a good idea on paper and all the right-thinking people were for it but eighty years later, nobody in their right mind has suggested that we give it another go. No one. Not even the most abstemious, prune-faced church ladies who sit on the front pew.

The same will happen here. And because this panic is politically motivated, it will redound to the detriment of real victims. Think of it as a national frenzy of boys (or in this case, girls) crying “Wolf!” at the drop of a hat. Eventually, this accusation will lose its sting and ultimately, its credibility. This is inevitable. Once it becomes clear that this movement was merely a political tactic and not executed in good faith then it will lose its power, it’s only a matter of time. And this is the really sad part: real victims will have nowhere to go. And when they see that they have nowhere to go, they will suffer in silence and real predators will continue to go free.

We saw this with the Civil Rights movement. Once it became clear that it was not about “equality before the law” but a racial shakedown program used by hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, it likewise lost its moral authority. As a result, African-Americans were herded into electoral ghettos with special set-asides tossed to them to keep them quiet. Materially, they are worse off than they were before the Civil Rights Acts were passed because these two jokers turned King’s movement into a protection racket. (If you don’t believe me just look at the FBI crime statistics for any given year since then.)

If things keep going this way with the #metoo movement, the cons will outweigh the pros soon enough. Given the fact that it’s mainly a political tactic, it’s easy to see the downsides. When this present panic subsides, four things will stand out in the wreckage: (1) the destroyed careers of innocent men (and some women), (2) the loss of opportunities for women in the workplace, (3) a toxic inter-sexual dynamic and (4) an inevitable backlash against victims –even credible ones–when the destruction of innocent men (and some women) becomes too big to ignore.

The only positive side-effect might be the re-institution of the sexual segregation that obtained in most pre-industrial societies. You see this in traditional Orthodox countries where men and women stand at opposite sides in the nave and the women still wear headscarves. And of course you see it in Islamic countries. You see it there in spades.

This cannot last forever, not among white, European-derived countries. For one thing, in these countries there was always a rough parity between the sexes; “boy-meets-girl-boy-loses-girl-boy-reunites-with-girl” is the oldest story in the book. Monogamy based on romantic love is a mainstay of Western Civilization. If you don’t believe me, go re-read Homer’s Odyssey. Secondly (and this applies for all cultures), the heterosexual dynamic is normal, –it’s part of human nature. It cannot be suppressed.

This is in fact the Achilles’ heel of the #metoo movement. It can only succeed if women in the workplace uniformly and without exception “dress down” and make every effort to work like drones in their otherwise soul-less cubicles. This will prove unworkable in rather short order as it’s never been the wont of women to make themselves unattractive or to not engage in idle conversation any more than it is for men to do so.

Therefore in order for this movement to succeed, that is to say for women to be permanently protected from male predators and for men to be permanently protected from false allegations, a type of Sharia law must be implemented and women will have to be relegated to the hearth and home. Just as our grandmothers were. And men will never be allowed to have any interaction with women other than their wives, mothers and sisters. But I don’t see this happening. I rather doubt anybody else does either.

So when will we know that this movement has crested? When one of two things occurs: (1) when it becomes obvious that it’s affecting mostly Democrats and (2) when its firepower is not working against the Republicans. With Roy Moore out of the way, it’s not going to be possible to hold him up as the poster boy of the GOP.

And this is where it gets interesting: Sen Kirsten Gillebrand (D-NY) has taken it upon herself to lead the #metoo charge. To do this with any credibility however, she had to throw the legacy of Bill Clinton under the bus. Whatever could be said about Moore, worse –infinitely worse–things could be proven about Clinton. This however, was a big no-no. Politically it’s unwise because whatever his moral failings were (and there were many), Clinton single-handedly saved the Democrat Party from extinction in the 1990s. Worse, Gillebrand owes her entire political existence to the Clintons. This was a treason of the worst sort and I imagine that the Clintons are quietly laying plans for her political demise as these words are being written. (Warning to Sen Gillebrand: don’t drive by Ft Marcy Park.)

This is all political however. Most of us aren’t involved in politics nor do we derive our salaries from serving as public figures. What about those of us who are working stiffs? What is the result of this moral panic for us, particular for women who by necessity have to work outside the home?

I don’t know the answer to that. My earlier prediction of some Sharia type of sexual segregation appearing on the horizon was not meant to be prescriptive but only to mention a possibility. And, like I said, I don’t see it coming to fruition anytime soon.

As for the workplace, I suppose cameras can be installed everywhere but that’s only feasible for large corporations who have the capital to undertake such a massive surveillance program. (In the meantime, if you wonder why you haven’t received a raise, it might be because your company has to shift a significant share of their resources to becoming Big Brother.)

In my own workplace, there is a poster in the break-room which states that sexual harassment is not tolerated under any circumstances. Unfortunately, the explanation as to what constitutes sexual harassment runs a spectrum from the obvious to the vague. The key word is “unwanted”. Think about that for a minute. How does a man know that his advances are “unwanted” unless he asks in the first place? In other words, some type of harassment must occur in the first place to find out if harassment has taken place.

This is not law, it is caprice. It’s a tautology. And yet it’s clear that inter-office dating occurs and that it affects all aspects of the workplace, including scheduling, work-placement, advancement and so on. If the great totalitarians of the past could not suppress human nature, what make SJWs think that the US Code can?

Like the Jacobins who believed in the “Cult of Reason” or the Bolsheviks who believed in “scientific socialism”, there is no real thing called “feminism”. It’s an ideology based on magical thinking (at best). In living memory there have been at least three waves of feminism. The first wave (back in the 60s), the hairy-legged, masculine bra-burners phase, lasted for a couple of years. At the tender age of fourteen, I thought that they were the wave of the future and as a result, I suffered many sleepless nights. I envisioned butch brownshirts burning tens of thousand of copies of Playboy Magazine on massive bonfires and that the pretty cheerleaders who sat on either side of me in Geography class were going to be forced to wear Mao-style pajamas.

Playboy however survived, and first-wave and then second-wave feminism came and went. Human nature survived. And, like the rest of the world, I did not want for feminine companionship. As for women in general, the smarter ones continued acting like women while the butch man-haters relegated themselves to nothing-burger jobs in academia and are now barren cat-ladies who volunteer at the local Unitarian church.

That being said, the collateral damage that occurs during moralist crusades has a way of backfiring and making that which was to be scorned, inevitable. In this case we have real reason to worry that paedophilia –like homosexuality–will become normative.

The allegation against Roy Moore was that he fondled two underage girls. Unfortunately, because that became the war-cry against him, it’s going to have to be the war-cry against all who may have engaged in such depravity. And it will continue to work, that is until it doesn’t. And it will stop working when liberal office-seekers and homosexuals face these accusations in numbers that outpace conservatives and Christian candidates. Then it will become normative. Just as homosexuality is now considered to be normal.

Why is this you may ask? Permit me to explain: the problem is that there is a cultural paradox that operates in society which leads to the unintended result once the dust has settled. That is, that thing which one side used as a weapon against an enemy then becomes accepted. This is very true of sexual morality. At one time, virginity in females was prized and women who were not virgins saw their life-prospects diminish. Likewise homosexuality was scorned. Men accused of this sin were relegated to the fringes of society. In some cultures, they were imprisoned. And all this was in living memory, not in the dim, antediluvian past.

By way of example, I ask those of you who have Netflix, to watch Season One of The Crown. One of its story lines involves the scandalous affair of Princess Margaret Rose and Group Captain Peter Townsend. This was during the fifties and it rocked British society to core, almost to the same extent that King Edward VIII’s dalliance with the American divorcee Wallis Warfield Simpson did back in 1935. Townsend was a divorced, much older man and the Church of England refused to countenance the possibility of the two ever marrying. It was simply impossible given the canons of the Anglican Communion. (And here’s where it gets was really complicated: Townsend had been cuckolded by his wife who left him for her lover.) Nevertheless, every angle was looked at in order to find some accommodation for Margaret and Townsend to marry but all came up short. It violated every moral convention of that time. There simply was no way out for the lovers. In the end, they went their separate ways finding other partners.

The irony of course is that divorce in England is now commonplace. Three of Queen Elizabeth’s children have had disastrous marriages. Though there were scandals associated with these divorces, the monarchy survived and the scandals dissipated. It could be said that all the ammunition that was used by the Establishment against the two lovers dissipated; the arsenal was exhausted. Divorce in England is now all rather humdrum and marriage all but extinct. Consider that even now, the Church of England has clerics who openly wish that Prince George grows up to be a homosexual. And his parents, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, are going to put him in a pre-school where “gender” is optional.

What I am saying is simply this: the impropriety which felled Moore will eventually become normative, of this there can be no doubt. Don’t believe me? Consider the case of Milo Yiannopoulos. Back in February of 2016, a tape was found of him bragging how much he enjoyed being seduced by an older man when he himself was fourteen years old. A scandal erupted and Yiannopoulos lost his job and a lucrative writing contract. He went into virtual seclusion for the better part of a year.

Well, he has resurfaced none worse for the wear. Why? Because as illegal, immoral and scandalous as it is to seduce a teenage boy, it is not looked down upon in homosexual circles. And homosexuality is now accepted. It’s no longer polite to criticize this sin or to state that it is immoral and if you do you will be labeled as a “homophobe”. And you may very well lose your job.

You may ask at this point: am I proposing that the seduction of teenage girls will likewise be considered normative in due time? That’s exactly what I’m predicting. And make no mistake: it is immoral but then again, so is homosexuality. And like the normalization of homosexuality it is inevitable. Politics, as Andrew Breitbart said, is downstream of culture.

Still don’t believe me? In most European countries, the age of consent is [drum-roll please] fourteen. And if we look to the culture to the south of our border –Mexico–we might very well ask what will be our future in this regard? Well, I hate to tell you this but in Mexico, the age of consent is twelve. Plan accordingly.

As for the hypocrisy underlying the entire #metoo crusade, please take a look at this short YouTube of Meryl Streep, the Conscience our Nation. La Streep was one of the loudest mouths during the entire Moore affair, at the ever-ready to heap obloquy on Trump, Republicans and any other person who dared to raise questions about the holes in Moore’s accusers’ story. Clearly, she is one of great actresses of our time. For proof, please watch this short video in which she praises notorious child-molester/rapist Roman Polanski.

So yeah, it looks like the #metoo movement is a racket. It shouldn’t be. And that’s too bad.

Comments

  1. Michael Bauman says:

    George, you left out one real possibility: men are relegated to the at home people and women run everything turning what used to be male vices into female virtue.

    That was the goal stated by Gloria Steinem at an appearance I witnessed back in the late sixties. It was also notible for the frequency of the f-word.

    The reward she held out to men: more sex. Sex means power and we control it. We will use it like a weapon and if you men are docile enough you will get it.

    Not quite that direct but close.

    Then recently the woman who came out early and specifically said she did not care whether allegations against men were true or not the goal was to destroy the patriarchy (men). Islam is excepted if only tacitly.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the promotion of other sexual deviance is related. Misha is not entirely wrong.

    In either case when the back lash comes it will be brutal.

    Sex cannot be uncontrolled in any civilization.

    • George Michalopulos says:

      All that true, Michael. The problem with Steinem’s solution is it is not based on physical reality (which is based on patriarchy). There are no true matriarchies anywhere on the planet. And the matriarchies that do exist, such as in the inner cities, are sustained by the tax receipts in the form of Welfare which extorted from working men.

      This is not to say that Godly women in good marriages don’t carry the day –they most definitely do–it’s just that they are doing what is right, which is allowing men to be productive and thereby create and sustain a civilization. In this sense, women are not equal to men, they are more than equal.

      And you’re right, sex cannot be uncontrolled in any civilization. That’s why I think it’s only a matter of time before the homosexuals start devouring each other. We’re seeing this for instance within Third-wave feminism, which has latched on to Islam. It’s as if it’s a reaction to the “soy-boys” who orbit around them in typical gamma-male fashion.

      • Michael Bauman says:

        The fact that it is delusion does not mean it will not be tried. Social Revolutionaries will kill anybody to achieve their goals.

  2. George, A feminist, and hypocrite such as Mrs. Streep, and the rest of the cream of the crop of Hollywood applaud a man, no a piece of Sh!t, demon, who tells a gullible mother of a 13 year old child, to leave the child for a photo shoot. No problem for mommy, she is blinded by dollar signs and fame, lived thru her daughter, so what if she might be sacrificed to the wolves. WARNING FOLLOWING MAY BE DISTURBING FOR SOME.

    The front rows of the Oscars applauded a man who:

    Lured a 13 year old girl, Samantha Geimer for a photo shoot, Roman Polanski, was 43, alone he told her to pose topless.

    Roman then gives the 13 year old child booze, and a quaalude.

    Samantha then testified that Roman raped her with oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her, even though she told him, no, every time, no, again under the influence of booze, and drugs.

    During vaginal intercourse, he asked this 13 year child if she was on ‘The Pill’, to which she said no. He then, asked her when her last period was, after that he quit vaginal intercourse, and began to have anal intercourse with, so that she would not get pregnant. What a gentleman!

    Roman’s defense was the sex was consensual, as if that matters.

    Roman Polanski was charged by Grand Jury of: Rape by use of drugs; Perversion, Sodomy; Lewd and lascivious act upon child under 14; Furnishing a controlled substance to a minor

    After a Plea Bargain, Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

    In 1979 in a interview with novelist Martin Amis, Roman Polanski stated, ”If I had killed someone it wouldn’t have so much appeal to the press, you see? But…Fu___ing, you see and, the young girls. Judges want to f__k young girls. Juries want t f__k young girls. Everyone wants to f__k young girls.”

    Imagine how many times this celebrated, demon of Hollywood, has raped children, all over the world.

    Mrs. Streep feels bad for this piece of…..

    This is the type of man the front rows of the Oscars applauded, and some even standing ovations. Demons will always, applaud other demons. These demons want to influence us with their Satanic ‘wisdom’. Whatever they preach, I usually run the other way!

  3. Ok, deep breath, we still have OUR wits about us.

    “There are no true matriarchies anywhere on the planet.”

    Yes there are. You’re living in one. I know it sound Orwellian but it is absolutely true. Power is binary, zero sum. And power has decisively been reapportioned to women in this society and in Western Europe. Angela Merkel, Theresa May and Hilary Clinton. That is no accident. Hilary would simply have been the final dot on the “i” or final cross on the “t”.

    The West is a feminist matriarchy. Face it. That is why it is so murderous (the unborn, et al). The West and Islam are Gog and Magog, of a sort. Neither a hero, each a villain in its own right. And if the West is not the “Whore of Babylon”, then it is trying very hard to attain such a fate.

    God is love. Men should love women, and vice versa. There are rules, of course. And there is hierarchy. Men are above women in the hierarchy. That does not mean that woman is nothing. That does not mean that we are imposing “sharia”. God forbid that we should emulate that satanic cult.

    Women are created in the image of God, but to be secondary authorities, not primaries – lieutenants, not slaves. It is only in contrast with the present Western paradigm that Islam seems more godly. It is not. Islam is straight from the bowels of hell.

    The difference is love.

    Despite their protestations to the contrary, “the Compassionate, the Merciful”, there is simply a deficit of love in Islam. They simply cannot believe that God so loved the world, that He gave His Only Begotten Son . . .

    Domination need not be domineering. Physical authority need not be abuse. There are degrees of coercion. It is not black and white.

    Really, it is the same as with parents and children. A father loves his daughters and sons. They get off the chain, he will correct them. It may be physical, depending on how old they are. It is not meanness. It is the simple realization that human beings are not glass vases and sometimes a jerk of the hair is necessary to get someone’s attention when they are being naughty.

    Same with husbands and wives. No abuse, no punching (unless there is a true self defense situation), no coercion beyond what is necessary to keep order. If it comes to real violence, then the resort should be to the authorities.

    We’re all adults here. Hopefully were are not so superstitious as to believe that all physical coercion is inherently evil. That is the natural end stage of Enlightenment Libertarianism, but it has nothing to do with Christianity. That is what I have been trying to get across, perhaps clumsily.

    Anyway, it will all sort itself out, perhaps more abrasively, perhaps more smoothly.

    Trump is definitely an alpha male in a matriarchal pond. That is why he gets so much blowback. But I don’t know if he has the means to institutionalize the patriarchy, slowly or quickly. One has to deconstruct the feminist matriarchy first and he is not a rocket scientist.

    • George Michalopulos says:

      Misha, in the main, you are right. However here is where you are wrong: America is no more a “matriarchy” than the Great Britain is a “monarchy”. Even less so when you add up the tangibles that constitute America.

      Permit me to explain. Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy. That means that the monarch has no right to rule and in fact, cannot rule. He/she reigns instead. The speech that the monarch gives at the opening of Parliament is written for him by the Prime Minister. That’s not power in any meaningful sense of the word.

      Now, on to America. Yes, the popular paradigm is both anti-Traditionalist, anti-Christian and anti-patriarchal. Of this there can be no doubt. But the matriarchies that do exist only do so at the sufferance of the tax dollars which are expropriated from working men (and women). Once those dry up –watch out! It’s going to be non-stop rioting in the cities.

      Let me go further in my explanation of what I mean by matriarchy and/or any type of societal hierarchy, community, what-have-you. A sustainable, viable hierarchy/community exists on its own merits and is able to be passed down from generation to generation with minimal disruption. In sub-Saharan Africa and other tropical climes, you will see genuine, sustainable matriarchies. However, they are invariable sh!tholes. Literally. Feces is everywhere on the ground and once it turns hard, its dust is carried hither and yon, infecting the food chain and water supply. There is no provision for the future. At all. The wheel was never invented, for instance. Livestock is minimal. The only agriculture that exists is scratch-and-burn. Hunting-gathering exists but it’s mostly gathering (as in nuts and berries).

      Still, despite this dire economic picture, this is the norm and has been for millennia. It thus passes the test of “sustainability” and “viability”. There is no exogenous financial system or subsidies; or there wasn’t until the mid-twentieth century. (Things like the Red Cross, Oxfam, the Green Revolution, etc.) So yes, there are true matriarchies extant in the world today.

      What obtains in the inner city and increasingly the trailer-park is not sustainable. An informal matriarchy exists to be sure but again, without exogenous financial assistance in the form of Welfare, Section 8, AFDC, SSI, etc., it’s nowhere near viable. Hence, my assertion that America is not a matriarchy. Yet. When it approaches this tipping point (and we may very well be on the way to do so), it will collapse. Simply put there will be too many people in the wagon and too few pulling it.

      • We only disagree on the semantics, not the substance, George.

        And I agree with you that it is not sustainable. If you look at power, it is geared toward women. When men and women are single and autonomous without children, there isn’t that big of a problem. There is still the harassment canard in which men sometimes get caught, but that is manageable, or at least it has been, hard to say where it is going.

        But when men and women couple, mix money and have children, then all the power passes to the woman. She can force the man out of the house, keeping the children at least half the time and taxing him for child support. Just on a whim, mood swing, whatever. That power denatures marriage. It is not marriage, really.

        And that’s where all the problems come from.

        That is an aggressively evil arrangement.

Speak Your Mind

*