Welmer

Exploring the East, Revisiting the West

Welmer header image 2

How-To Guide for Enslaving Neutered Husbands

September 12th, 2009 · 7 Comments

Carin Rubenstein, author of The Superior Wife Syndrome, argues that in two out of three marriages the wife is “superior” to the husband; that is, she works harder and does more around the house, drives better, is smarter, etc. She suggests that the Homer/Marge Simpson marriage is the norm, and many husbands could never survive without wives doing everything for them.

Mrs. Rubenstein’s solution (poor Mr. Rubenstein), is to force the man to do more of the jobs she wants him to do. As she complains about how he doesn’t handle the endless activities and chores she engages in, it becomes quite clear that Mrs. Rubenstein – and not Mr. Rubenstein – is the one who sees these things as important. He doesn’t do these chores or take on these projects because they were not his idea in the first place. But to Mrs. Rubenstein, and to millions of wives around America, that is not the point. Actually, they are totally missing the point.

Rubenstein’s proposed solution is an expansion of the wife’s authority and dominance to deal with the problems that very dominance has created. This is just another “women take charge” push like all the others we have come to be so familiar with. Is it any wonder that men drop out of family life when women start calling all the shots?

Women are frustrated that men won’t do everything the women want, and all they can see is men being lazy, incompetent and immature. Here is a very illuminating comment on Rubenstein’s website:

Loren

what the heck happened?!

my husband was a bachelor for 7 years. he took care of his household, children, bills, decisions, meals, all by himself and took much pride in it. when he came along in my life i was so impressed with his “take charge” attitude! i was so grateful! finally, a man who didn’t mind being a MAN! we’ve been married two years and everything has stopped. he makes no decisions, asks me if he can have something to eat everytime he goes to the kitchen, no longer takes me out. if we go out i have to plan it and yes, i have to drive! i am so disillusioned right now. this man planned our honeymoon! i didn’t encourage this behavior either! everytime he asks me if he can “eat something” i look at him and say, “i can’t believe you’re asking me this, you’re a grown man.” he still does it! what happened?! women (at least this woman) need their men to be MEN!!!

Someone should tell Loren that this is her fault, since she apparently has deficient logical faculties. If he was independent and in charge before she came along, and then shortly after she came into his life he became defeatist and passive, Loren herself is the obvious reason for the change. But does anyone believe Mrs. Rubenstein would ever hold Loren accountable for this? I hope not, because she is trying to sell books and I seriously doubt any woman would pay for advice that blamed them for anything (it isn’t in their nature to seek anything but validation of their behavior, no matter how bad it may have been).

Another revealing comment that happens to be fairly amusing follows:

Carol Austin

Are you kidding?

Shoes? She is being told to “ask” before she buys a pair of shoes? This is not nagging, this is controlling, and destined to get worse. If he doesn’t trust her to make a good decision about shoes (of any price) than they really need to sit down and have a serious heart to heart about the deeper issues here.

This is in response to another comment, written by a man, that brings up the problems his wife’s expenditures have introduced into the marriage. It is amusing to me, because my ex had enough shoes to fill a hefty bag when we separated. I always did wonder where all that money was going, and when I cleared out and packed up her wardrobe it became pretty obvious. Nevertheless, women like Carol Austin see spending on shoes as a sacred rite. No wonder men give up. When women place the importance of their footwear on such a high priority what can a man do these days?

This women’s empowerment movement is becoming a farce of itself. Women are superior, so they need to be even more superior, and don’t even think about messing with their shoe budget!

Men, if this is what you want to deal with, by all means be a social conservative and continue to believe the outrageous lies about female virtue. However, if you want true happiness and freedom, don’t even try to cooperate. Set your boundaries and don’t budge one inch. Remember: it is a big world out there, and despite the illusion of endless female opportunity, men can have a great deal of autonomy and choice if they only reject dependence.

Tags: Men

7 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Tarl // Sep 12, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    Obvious question is why Mr. Rubinstein needs this shit. Why does he want to be around this crazy nagging virago?

  • 2 Amateur Strategist // Sep 12, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    Like was said earlier, a LOT of women aren’t going to wake up before it’s too late, and their screaming agony will be the wake up call for the tiny portion left that can still mend their ways out of oppressing Men.

  • 3 Justin // Sep 12, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    Am I missing something about social conservatism? I see it getting a lot of blame in the mensphere for pedestal-ing the chicks, but I don’t see why? Are conservatives MORE blind about women than liberals?

  • 4 Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech // Sep 12, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    Yes, Justin you are missing something about social conservatism. I don’t know if conservatives are more blind than liberals about women as much as conservatives are blind for different reasons.

    Too often its assumed that feminism is a problem of lesbians and other extreme leftist women. While they are the core of feminism, even socon women are part of the problem too. I have said before that arguments between feminists and “anti-feminist” women are really all about how best to extract money and resources from men (i.e. marriage vs. the state). “Anti-feminist” women complaints/fights with feminism involve subjects such as abortion, clothes, and non-existent attacks on motherhood. Notice how in this there is nothing about what feminists are doing to men. Everything MRAs are talking about are completely absent from what “anti-feminist” women talk about. In other words, “anti-feminist” women agree with 99% of the feminist agenda making “anti-feminist” women just as big a problem as feminist women.

    On top of this there is the marriage mandate nonsense other anti-male/pro-female nonsense in the Churches. Lots of priests/ministers/pastors refuse to take on female sin at all and constantly blame men for everything. This is why the socon side of things isn’t trusted to be good for men in any way.

  • 5 Welmer // Sep 12, 2009 at 11:14 pm

    For some of us, the issue with social conservatives is pretty personal. After my ex told a bunch of lies about me and put on her crying act, a number of “conservative” men laid into me in a brutal, vicious manner. When I tried to defend myself, and pointed out the facts, I was called a liar — and much worse.

    Some conservative guys I knew who really saw what was going on didn’t go after me, but they sure didn’t stand up for me either. They pretty much abandoned me. Now that it’s all over and it’s impossible to deny what actually happened, I haven’t received one single apology.

    It is these guys who reflexively stand by young women and have an apparently sadistic desire to dish out punishment to young men that I am thinking of when I write about social conservatives. There are legions of them out there — mainly guys over 50. It’s become pretty clear to me that they’ve got it in for younger men, and I’m not about to pull my punches where they’re concerned.

    I am most definitely not thinking of younger guys like you, Justin, or Elusive Wapiti, who have what some would call “conservative” values. In fact, I have these values, and given today’s social norms, I’d argue that they make me more of a radical than a “conservative.”

  • 6 novaseeker // Sep 13, 2009 at 5:22 am

    Am I missing something about social conservatism? I see it getting a lot of blame in the mensphere for pedestal-ing the chicks, but I don’t see why? Are conservatives MORE blind about women than liberals?

    I think they’re reading from different scripts, but the end result is the same for each, which means that they reinforce each other on men’s issues.

    For the liberals, men are viewed either through the lens of (1) patriarchal oppressor class or, more mildly, (2) group that has been historically in power. For people of ilk (1), of course men are inherently evil to a substantial degree, and unless they are morphed into something else, everyone will suffer. Category (1) types tend to see men as suffering from “testosterone poisoning” or in other ways see masculinity and masculine ways of behaving as being inherently oppressive, violent, domineering and primitive. For these people, men are in the short-term, to be sidelined so as to control the damage they do, and in the long-term, to be remade into “new men” (either some kind of “post masculine man” or a man who has “evolved into a new masculine consciousness” or who embraces “new kinds of masculinities” and so on). For people of ilk (2), masculinity is not necessarily seen as inherently toxic, but men, being the “class in power”, are seen as standing in the way of progress, where progress is defined as the increasing dispersal of political and social power throughout society. In the view of group (2), it’s to be expected that men will resist being relatively dis-empowered (on the theory that no rational actor gives up power without resistance), and that in the process of this power re-allocation, men will need to be oppressed, to some degree, to combat this inherent resistance, for the benefit of everyone else who will be the beneficiaries of the resulting dispersal of political, social, and economic power.

    Both groups (1) and (2) therefore see men as mostly, outside of a handful of “enlightened, evolved, post-feminist men”, being in need of strict control (to minimize the backlash against their dis-empowerment), and even oppression, to the extent that they are standing in the way of “progress”. And, some of group (1) think that men need a radical re-programming in order to be fully accepted as empowered participants in an evolved, enlightened, post-patriarchal world.

    For the conservatives, there are also two main springs of thinking about men. The first is based on a type of Christian idea (held by many non-Christians, too) that men are ultimately “responsible” for everything that happens, either because men are, in the end, “in charge” (in a curious agreement with the liberal perspectives above) or because, if they were not de facto in charge, it’s their fault for having not been in charge and having failed to lead. According to this view, no matter what happens, men are responsible for it – whether it’s something they have done themselves, or something women have done, men are responsible for all of it, in the end, either because of poor male leadership or the failure of men to exercise leadership. The second, and still quite subtly powerful, line of conservative thought about men is the Victorian view that women are superior, morally, to men, and that men need to be channelled, controlled and so on so that their naturally more base and evil instincts are subordinated, in practice, to the virtues of caring for women, who are the morally superior sex. The Victorians themselves called this “woman worship”, and it had a profound influence of how men and women viewed each other throughout the Anglosphere. It doesn’t exist to nearly the same degree in non-Anglo countries, but in the Anglo world, it remains a deeply influential paradigm. In truth, it impacts both conservatives and liberals because it is such a powerful underlying societal assumption about men and women, but it endears conservatives more, precisely because it is “traditional”, in their minds. So when you put these two strands together, what you often get from conservatives is the following: whatever is wrong between men and women today cannot really be the fault of women, because women are naturally virtuous and good, and in any case, even if some women have done bad things, this is only because the men are failing to exercise responsible male leadership – in this view, if men were behaving as they should, there would be no problem, because women are naturally virtuous, and will only get screwed up as a result of poor male leadership and behavior. So, in the end, social ills ultimately lie at the doorstep of men, and not women, regardless of who is in fact doing what.

    As a result of this, one can see that even though liberals and conservatives have very different world views, and very different conclusions about “what is wrong about men and women in society”, both of them ultimately blame men for the current state of affairs, for different reasons. It’s this de facto alignment between right and left on these issues that has propelled feminist goals far beyond what the 60s radicals would have thought possible. The left and the right fight about issues like abortion and gay marriage, but the much larger issues of the overall relationship between men and women, family formation and stability, legal treatment in family and criminal courts and so on remain off the agenda and of little interest to conservatives, at least not in political terms. In fact, looking at the last 40 years or so, as feminism has steadily marched forward, if much more quietly since the early 80s, it seems clear that this degree of substantial progress in transforming society in feminism’s image was made possible because the right was mute on most of the issues at hand, simply because it did not see them as liberal/conservative issues, but rather as garden variety bad behavior by men. In this way, the radical left completely hoodwinked the right, watching (with glee, no doubt) the right to spend most of its political energy and capital in this area on abortion and gay marriage, while the right ceded most of the rest of the field to the left, which took advantage of that to press forward with truly massive social change across the board when it comes to families, children, gender relations, education and the like. As we know, the left won this culture war, in a big way. But the reason why it won so decisively is because the right had, and still has, its head firmly thrust up its collective ass when it comes to men and women. The nostalgic traditionalism of the right in terms of its views of men and women has virtually crippled it as a political force in this area – and the ironic thing is that most of the right still refuse to see it this way, despite the obvious signs in the culture around them.

    So, yes, I hold the right more responsible for what has happened than the left. The left was open and obvious about what they were doing – they are reformers, progressives and, to a lesser extent, radical revolutionaries. They never shut up about wanting things to “change”. They are quite transparent. The right, however, should have been fighting this war, and instead lay down its arms, for the most part, and blamed men for what was happening. That abject failure is what created the beast we see today.

  • 7 Tupac Chopra // Sep 13, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    Great summary, Nova. You should make it a blog entry.

Leave a Comment