Wintery Knight has a great post recently about some of the same old controversial topics that have plagued the manosphere for years. Specifically, should women who get pregnant after premarital sex expect the men to marry them?
The irony is that this topic plagues conservatives because they are blinded to the answer of their own question, or they just flat out refuse to accept actual solutions that work because they favor the status quo. In regard to abortion and politics, I think it is willful blindness coupled with the fact that an unpopular sentiment will literally destroy their position with most of the voting base.
Even a poster Lynn cannot see the answer, and she has worked at a crisis pregnancy center:
Hey, long time reader first time commenter. Greetings!
I have worked at a crisis pregnancy center as a volunteer counselor, and I can confirm mike’s sentiment and reasoning. Most of the women that I worked with told me that they did not expect the father to remain in the picture. Occasionally we would have a couple who would show up together and go through the process together, but that was a rare (and refreshing) occasion. Men were designed to be leaders. When you leave a woman alone in an unplanned pregnancy situation, logic leaves, and fear takes over. I have NEVER had a client who wanted to abort. Those that moved towards abortion, in spite of our efforts, did so because they saw it as their only option. If they had a man in the picture, I believe their cases could have turned out differently. But men nowadays have been programmed to see abortion as a woman’s decision – as in they don’t have the right to get involved. If that changed, and men stepped up, I believe we would see fewer abortions.
Ultimately, men were designed to be leaders, and women were designed to be responders. You can preach at women all you want, but any positive changes in this culture, on that front, are going to have to start with the men, not the women.
Also, I should add that I don’t actually believe that 80% of the abortions would have been prevented by male involvement. That sounds like blame shifting to me. But, maybe half that number?
Here’s my comment that I posted over there with some additional analysis.
Praytell. How would you convince these immoral men (e.g. non-Christians) to act morally?
Immoral men won’t suddenly become moral and “take responsibility” and neither will immoral women. This is like asking a dog not to bark or a cow not to moo. It ain’t gonna happen.
In fact, do you know what worked prior to the 1960s:
- There was no such thing as no-fault divorce.
- If you divorced you were shunned.
- Virginity was prized.
- Women policed women on sex: keep your legs shut until marriage because giving men sex before marriage decreases the incentive for men to be married.
- Women and their bastard children were shunned.
- I’m sure there are some I’ve missed.
All of these things actually led to stable families, men getting married to women and staying married, the vast majority of women were virgins at marriage or had less than 1-2 partners, less unhappiness, etc.
How many women would actually want to go back to this model? Very few. Most women now want to have their cake and eat it too: pre-marital sex galore and lots of fun. Then marriage, children, and settling down. They don’t want to go back to “antiquated and outdated values.”
The majority of actual Christian men who practice what they preach keep it in their pants and won’t pressure a woman into sex. Yet, like our blog host Wintery Knight here no women want to marry someone like that, and they will even go out of their way to have sex with cads and players and so-called “Christian” men.
There are precisely two models that work:
- Societal standard — where women police other women and shun those that do not comply.
- Biblical standard — the daughter is the possession of the father, and all suitors must go through him to his daughter. The daughter is kept safe from making mistakes when she is blinded by her attraction to cads and palyers. Subsequently, this is why the father gives away the daugher to the man at marriage which models Genesis 2.
As you can see in the two models that work, it is both men and women that are involved in the marriage process so as to not allow cads and players to violate their daughters. Fathers are responsible for their daughters, and women police the women who want to get out of line and break the status quo.
Incentivizing divorce ensures that less men want to marry because women can take their stuff, and men that do get married may be robbed of half their stuff and lose the children anyway. Fathers are not there to protect and teach daughters what masculinity is and it’s proven in the statistics that fathers without daughters are substantially more promiscuous. Likewise, no one but Christians and Muslims would say that daughters are the possession of their fathers.
Women policing other women is obvious. Social stigmas are there for a reason, and the reason that “slut”, “whore” and other now-called “sex-negative” names exist for women is because they were used to enforce compliance of non-sex onto women who were not married.
Galatians 5:9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.”
Nothing will work except reversion of everything the feminists have done since the 1960s, and a society wide acceptance of the societal standard of women policing women, and fathers protecting daughters. Good luck getting all of those laws repealed and for that morality to happen.
We’re past the point of societal wide changes happening. Yet, we can still make prescriptions to individual women who are willing to accept advice.
Thus, the best advice to an individual woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant outside of marriage — keep your legs shut.
No amount of shaming is going to make a man stick around in a pregnancy if he doesn’t want to. The best way to ensure that a man sticks around for a pregnancy is actual marriage prior to sex and the pregnancy.