antifeminism antifeminst women evil women MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit the spearhead vaginas western women suck

The Royal Scam

Do you like my hat? No, I do not like your hat.

I was under the impression that the most controversial thing about the recent royal wedding was Princess Beatrice’s vagina hat (later apparently adopted as the official headgear of the Obama White House*). Not to Petra Gajdosikova, a guest commenter on The Spearhead who has worked herself into a snit over  Kate Middleton’s refusal to pledge to “obey” her Prince. “Now, this may seem a silly little issue to pick on,” she says, at the start of what turns into an 1800 word rant,

but, would it have been too intolerably oppressive for Kate Middleton to have kept to the traditional vows including promising to ‘obey’ her husband? Yes, I know such a thing is not just hopelessly out of fashion but considered almost a crime against their human rights by feminists and millions of brainwashed modern women. But if the Royals won’t preserve the last remnants of tradition, who will? And what’s the point of Monarchy if not tradition?

Petra acknowledges that Lady Di also refused to say the word “obey” when she married Prince Charles, snidely remarking, “[a]nd we know just how well suited she proved to be for her role and responsibilities.” (Yeah, that was the problem with that famously troubled marriage.) She continues:

Undoubtedly the decision to modernize the vows was taken to show the Monarchy being in step with contemporary culture and to present the new Duchess of Cambridge as a thoroughly modern woman and role model for millions of young women throughout Britain. And that’s the biggest tragedy of it all… The country doesn’t need any more progressive ‘role models’ infected with feminist ideology. What we do need, if this society is ever to reverse the present degeneration, are those who stand up for traditional values and mores.

Yeah, because there’s nothing even remotely traditional about celebrating a gigantic, extravagant, broadcast-live-to-billions wedding involving about 8 hours of hymns and AN ACTUAL MOTHERFUCKING PRINCE. I mean, they might as well have had a “commitment ceremony” on a commune, or something.

But apparently making a big deal out of a wedding doesn’t mean that today’s degenerate women actually take marriage itself with any seriousness:

Marriage today is, to many women, just an extravagant social occasion and party, their very own ‘princess’ fantasy. It doesn’t seem to include any consideration on what marriage really means, much less on how to be a good wife. Undoubtedly the mere concept of a ‘good wife’ would be deemed oppressive these days. (Are you saying women should have responsibilities and not just rights?!) After all, millions of women feel entitled to ditch their marriages and perfectly decent husbands for no better reason than feeling bored or ‘unfulfilled’. The princesses deserve to be happy – and if they harm their husbands and children in their insatiable quest for fulfillment, so be it!

Damn those women and their infernal desire to not be miserable!

So why on earth could any decent woman possibly have a problem with pledging to obey her husband? Petra assures us, in all seriousness, that

promising to ‘obey’ one’s husband has nothing to do with being oppressed, a second class citizen with no power or say in a relationship, or a servant to a man. It’s a statement of trust and respect, acknowledging the authority of the man as head of family, responsible for and dedicated to his wife’s and their children’s welfare. Despite us wanting to pretend otherwise, a woman’s natural role is to be loving, nurturing and supportive in a relationship. When women usurp the masculine role (power and leadership) and emasculate men it doesn’t bode well for marriage.

Dudes, if you feel “emasculated” because your wife doesn’t unquestioningly follow your every dictate, you must have an awfully fragile sense of self – and an extreme sense of entitlement. Learning that other people have their own needs and desires, and that the world does not bend to our every whim, is one of the most basic developmental lessons we all learn in our lives. Most of us do it when we are babies.

But to Petra, the insistence of most contemporary western women that their marriages be partnerships of equals means that they’re the narcissists:

Women are deluded in thinking they have been ‘liberated’ from some imaginary shackles, when in fact they’ve only sabotaged themselves and contributed a great deal to the rotten state of our society. The anti-male bias is ever present in the West today; we are ‘empowering’ females at the expense of males and conditioning women to disparage men.

The self-absorption and sense of entitlement of today’s women make it nearly impossible to form healthy, sustainable marriages and relationships.

What follows is a by-the-numbers rant about “sky-high divorce rates,” degenerate single mothers, “welfare dependency … sexual depravity,” human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together.

Sorry, I got carried away; those last bits were from Ghostbusters.(Not the bit about “sexual depravity” – she actually did said that.)

While Petra is perfectly comfortable preaching special treatment for men – having someone literally pledge obedience to you; how much more special does it get than that? – she’s incensed at the notion that “women have long been enjoying – and often abusing – a privileged and protected status (as the ‘oppressed sex’).”

To Petra, the fact that some women choose not to pledge obedience to their husbands means that men are the real oppressed class, facing pervasive “anti-male bias” and the “emasculating” power of women … demanding to be treated the same as men. In other words:

The explicit subordination of women in marriage = not oppression.

Equality in marriage = oppression of men.

I’m sorry, but Petra’s argument here is even sillier than Princess Beatrice’s hat.

And since when do the guys on The Spearhead give a shit about marriage? I was under the impression they all thought it was some sort of evil feminist plot. .

*Note to literal-minded Obama-haters: I was making a little joke there. That picture is not real. Also, Obama was not born in Kenya.

UPDATE: Fixed the link to that not-real photo of Obama and pals in Princess Beatrice hats. Which I’ll just link to here as well.

250 replies on “The Royal Scam”

Also she does realise that William’s Mum is the Queen while his dad is not the King… He is more like the “Prince Consort” in that the official head of state is the woman. Technically she wears the pants in that household.

Probably for the best. Prince Phillip is a bit… Stupid.

Ah, submission and gender essentialism, how do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways.

Think about it: Suppose two people have a disagreement, and one person is told they should submit to the other because the other person has larger muscles. I think they would call that ‘bullying.’

Same thing. When a women is told she needs to ‘obey’ for no reason more than the fact that she is a woman and her partner is a man, she is being bullied.

Women like Petra are actually the real problem in our society.

Mothers like her are responsible for men becoming abusers and rapists. The men get to learn from the beginning that they can have everything just by whining and being manipulative, and they keep this behaviour as grown-ups. When a woman doesn’t want to serve them, they become either psychically or physically abusive. Some start to stalk their women, or even do what I’ve mentioned above. But most of them simply become horribly egocentric and self-righteous and spread their whiny misogyny via the net.

They’re nothing else than entitled spoiled grown-up babies. And Petra suffers from a deluded maternal instinct that can actually kill people.

It’s funny how the Spearhead commenters focus on the man’s traditional responsibility to protect and care for his wife as justification for obedience. Their arguments bear a striking similarity to those of slave owners in the antebellum South.

Here’s my comment from the Spearhead.

I will obey my Government, I will obey my Indoctrination Center, (public education system), I will obey my place of employment, I will obey the rules where ever I go. Obey my husband? Are you kidding me? Is that what you want? A mindless servant? A slave?

Unreal, isn’t it? The only person who actually gives a flying damn about her she won’t listen to.

Now tell me it isn’t true!

Ironically like all anti-feminist women Petra is exhibiting feminist behavior. Shouldn’t she leave the posting to the men and get back in the kitchen?

Oh sure, there is nothing oppressive about one class of people having authority, power, and leadership over another that is expected to obey, serve, and “support” them…nothing at all…

I’ve heard my parents talk about how absolutely miserable traditional marriages could be: my dad’s parents made themselves, their children and everyone else around them miserable for three decades. My parents, on the other hand, have an equal, happy, loving relationship.

Thank you, feminism.

Petra’s perspective on the lack of “obeying” echos what “Chateau” at Citizen Renegade said in this entry. Even though hardly any brides in the Western world say “obey” these days, it’s a sore point with members of the MRM.

Ahh, I see I’m on the insta-moderation list. Hardly makes for good conversation when my comment will be 50 posts behind the current conversation. Dissenters must be silenced I suppose. Continue on with the mutual admiration party. Well done Dave.

My post vanished! *gasps*

Anyway, marriage ceremonies have changed over the years. the Anglican Church changed theirs in 1928 according to Wiki.

@ Lydia: Ironically, it seems you’re letting male abusers and rapists off the hook with your comment. While I agree that perpetuation of rigid gender stereotypes creates many problems for societies, adults are responsible for their actions. They don’t get to blame their mommies.

The country doesn’t need any more progressive ‘role models’ infected with feminist ideology.
Yes. Yes it does.

Despite us wanting to pretend otherwise, a woman’s natural role is to be loving, nurturing and supportive in a relationship.
Unfortunately, being an unnatural woman doesn’t seem to give me a get-out-of-misogyny free card. Gnatpucky.

:::Of course Kate Middleton wasn’t the first to break with royal tradition. No, she had a great role model at that; Princess Diana refused to promise to obey Charles in her wedding vows thirty years ago. And we know just how well suited she proved to be for her role and responsibilities. Some example to follow…:::

Hmmmm. Petra’s reasoning leaves a little to be desired here.

Wasn’t it Charles’ refusal to give up the lovely Camilla that was the root of all the grief and breakdown of their marriage?

Is Petra suggesting that Diana should have just sucked it up and got on with it?

(And of course, Charles’ choice of someone who wasn’t out of her teens and had led a sheltered life might have had something to do with her being somewhat unprepared for her new role.)

I have close friends who clearly define their roles in their family, in fact they are quite upfront with being a practicing DS couple with the male as the dominant. I knew them quite some time before they came out to me, looking back their were some signs that I was clueless about!

But even they, who are living an expressed male dominant lifestyle have complete respect for each other. I’ve shown my friend mra sites and they disgust him.

Carswell-I thought it was the bulimia and the fact that she lacked treatment for years that caused a lot of problems. Or at least that part did not help.

Even though hardly any brides in the Western world say “obey” these days, it’s a sore point with members of the MRM.

And even though fewer and fewer women assume the role of full-time homemaker, the MRM still acts as though this arrangement is the norm. Thus, the idea that women are dependent and parasitic and that all assets in a marriage should rightfully belong to the man. I think these guys would be considered old fashioned even in the 1950s.

Apparently not PFKasLiz – it seems we’re both wrong.

LOL – commenter Opus over on the Spearhead has it all figured out:

:::Lady Di: the ultimate in Hypergamy, yet managed to sabotage her marriage – I presume she figured the queen would go on for ever (as she has) and she (di) would never be queen. From there on, every step she made was as misguided – wilfully so, I think – as it could be: divorce (how humiliating for the prince of wales); land mines, aids victims, Pavarotti, Hewitt, some egyptian play-boy, (how much lower could she go) with the possibility that the Duke of Cambridge’s step-brother might be a Muslim. I am not saying they killed her, however it was damned convenient and I thought, even at the time, that Tony Bliar was just too word-perfect.:::

Please do not shorten my name to Liz, I prefer Beth if one uses a diminutive of my name.

As for the silly theory that she was killed, it is just that silly. It is like thinking that crossing the Clintons will get you wiped out.

um…. The funny thing… the word “obey” would have to added to the vows. The Book of Common Prayer (in use since Edward VI, younger brother of Elizabeth I) has this as the vows:

The Declaration of Consent

The Celebrant says to the woman

N., will you have this man to be your husband; to live together in the covenant of marriage? Will you love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, be faithful to him as long as you both shall live?

The Woman answers

I will.

The Celebrant says to the man

N., will you have this woman to be your wife; to live together in the covenant of marriage? Will you love her, comfort her, honor and keep her, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, be faithful to her as long as you both shall live?

The Man answers

I will.

addendum: The vows were changed in… in 1928. So it’s still a bit of a stretch to say that this was a huge break with tradition… it’s older than the DH for heaven’s sake.

You of course know what happens to systems that try to stay antique (like monarchies as a whole); they fade away into the mists of time. My guess is that the only reason the royal family still exists is because they break “tradition” in all the right ways.

Funny how there seem to be only two options for married women; obey your husband, or ignore him and do whatever you want. Women have responsibilities in a marraige just like the men do, but those responsibilities do not involve unqeustioning obeyance (is that a word?) of the husband. Imagine the uproar from MRAs if someone had the gall to suggest that either men should obey their wives, otherwise they are immature children who are trying to avoid all responsibility to their wives.

Actually, isn’t that what they’re advocating? *sigh*

I sure as hell didn’t promise to obey my husband during our wedding vows, and he didn’t like the idea of that either. What kind of man wants his wife to be a doormat instead of a competent partner? Oh right, an MRA wants a doormat. I try to model my marriage after my parents, who always said marriage is a constant give and take partnership, with compromise instead of a power struggle.

In a lot of Quiverfull weddings, the preachers will describe “the transfer of authority” over the woman from her father to her husband. It was in that recent Duggar wedding. I wonder how those brides actually feel about that “transfer of authority”.

:::Please do not shorten my name to Liz, I prefer Beth if one uses a diminutive of my name.:::

Okey doke. My apologies.

@ Aydan: Sorry, I didn’t mean my comment to come across this way. No, of course abusers of any sorts are solely to be blamed for their actions, but women like Petra, who excuse any sort of bad male behaviour, DO play an important role.

Unfortunately, blaming someone else than the abuser for the abuser’s behaviour immediately comes off as rape apologism. However, crap children are almost always a result of crap parents.

@Lydia and @Aydan I think you’re both on the same side on this. Parents obviously have a profound effect on the child growing up. I’m pretty sure there’s good correlation between abusive parents and children that grow up to be abusive, say. But understanding the origins is different from forgiveness. Parents might be a reason for someone’s disposition, but the children (usually) still have free will and are thus responsible for their actions.

Basically, Petra may teach her kid that it’s right to railroad over a woman’s rights, but when they get to the age of reason and actually interact with other people, it’s up to them to examine what they’ve been taught.

By the way, by my statement, I meant that my husband didn’t want me to promise to obey him either. I realize it looks like it could be taken either way.

@ Kave:

I think that sort of D/s relationship is what most MRAs want/think should be (as long as it’s male top/female bottom – the reverse is obviously just misandry). Of course, the major difference is that the MRAs would probably think a safe word to be a human rights violation.

I like the hat.

Also, wasn’t Petra the name of the obnoxious token female character in Ender’s Game? (Valentine doesn’t count, at least not in the first book, because it is about Battle School.)

I do. What a hat! I like it! I like that party hat! (Go Dog Go! was my favorite book growing up.)

@ Kave:

Yeah, I’d agree that there can be some great D/s relationships. Or a couple can productively engage in D/s activity for mutual enjoyment from time to time (as opposed to a 24/7 arrangement).

But Victoria does make a point. I think it would be pretty much impossible to engage in D/s activity if one person actively hates the other or even honestly views them as a lesser being.

MRAs might look at male D/female s relationships as the ideal, but I doubt they’d have a clue as to what has to happen internally in order for it to work safely for everyone.

Confidential to NWOslave: I put you on moderation because you were going on about completely off-topic conspiracy shit in a really boring way the other day. You’re off moderation now.

Confidential to everyone else: There were also a batch of comments from first-time commenters that got held, so you might want to scroll up to read them.

NWO Slave, there is a big difference between not wanting to obey a husband and not listening to a husband. I want to listen to my husband and take his feelings into consideration when we come to mutual agreements. His thoughts are important to me, and mine are to him. That is much different than saying women should obey a husband. Women aren’t dogs; we are adults and we do not need someone to bark orders at us.

A lot of men don’t want a Stepford wife that blindly follows his orders anyway. I don’t see how men could enjoy having a wife meekly look at the floor saying “Your wish is my command”. That’s not a healthy relationship. Men that want that need to hurry up and build their robot wives, so that real women won’t be subjected to such abuse.

@ NWOslave:

Caring for someone isn’t a justification for having them obey you. By that logic, a husband should also be obligated to obey his wife. If a marriage is a partnership, then neither person should be expected to obey. They should instead be expected to negotiate and make accommodations for each other as equals, with neither one having greater authority than the other.

To Lady V and Kendra. If I call home and say, “while you’re out shopping pick up some beef jerky.” You do realize if you actually get that beef jerky, you’ve obeyed a man.

I guess my definition of “submitting” is actually place her welfare as a major concern in any decision on any particular suject. Where as feminist media indoctrination makes it out like, “MUHAHAHA, you will submit to my every whim, servant!!!”

Oh and Dave, When asked any questions of a political, social or economic nature I’ll try to keep things glib and non-sensical.

Heres a question, which I won’t get answered, since I’m just an answering machine. And I’d actually like an answer and not a question as the answer, strawman answer, ect, ect, ect.

Heres the question. A husband and wife both come home from work in their equal jobs where they both make the same wage. (AWW, warms my marxist heart just saying that). Anyway, the wife says I want to purchase x product. The husband says it’s a luxury we don’t need. To purchase or not to purchase? Thats the question.

Well Dave, if I”m not coming off the moderation list, theres no point in posting. Let me know when the censorship ban is lifted. CYA.

Having once attended a complementarian church, all that sounds uncannily familiar. And yes, I’ve heard my share of cringe-worthy wedding vows. Not mine though, of course.

Complementarianism is an odd phenomenon, though, worthy of its own discussion.

We answer your little queries NWOslave but since we do not agree with everything you say, you claim we do not answer your queries.

Thx for the non-answer PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth. I’ve got a penny jar out here and I toss a penny in for every time I get a question, strawman or ad hominem as an answer. I gotta tell ya, I’m starting to get copper poisoning out here.

NOW, as for your question, most couples are able to work out answers to those sorts of questions all the time without having to say that the man’s word (or the woman’s word) is the final one. People compromise. They consider the specifics of the situation. Is the “luxury” in your question a $10 million yacht, or a DVD for $3.99? Are their finances so intertwined that one of them can’t make the decision to buy a small item without checking first with the other one? ETc etc.

NWO, do you actually live amongst humans? Because these sorts of issues come up all the time, and most people can actually handle them without pledging to “obey” anyone else.

Aw, Dave, did you have to go and do that? Now he’ll come back.

Anyway, the wife says I want to purchase x product. The husband says it’s a luxury we don’t need. To purchase or not to purchase? Thats the question.

Negotiation and compromise: important skills for any marriage. Actually marriage researcher John Gottman has identified husbands failing to accept influence from their wives as a factor highly correlated with eventual divorce. In other words, husbands who insist on My Way or the Highway usually find themselves making acquaintance with the highway sooner or later. Oddly enough, it doesn’t seem to work the other way around.

I do live among humans Dave, well mostly humans. The question isn’t even about cost, the cost is irrelevant. You also avoided the question, throwing in variables and such. There are no variables in this particular scenario. I should have made that clear. So now whats your answer?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.