Homosexuals like to buddy up with feminists, and both groups claim to be fighting for the equality of women and minorities and equal rights for oppressed and marginalized groups. Is that what they are actually accomplishing? No. They are both fighting for the same thing, but it’s not what they claim. Both groups are actually wittingly and unwittingly dedicated to the devaluation of womanhood.

Let’s consider the history of cultural homosexuality. By “cultural homosexuality,” I’m not talking about when a few men and women in society choose to abandon the most natural use of their gendered appendages. I’m talking about when a society decides to normalize homosexual behavior and elevate the homosexual identity.

What you will find in history is that homosexuality and misogyny exist in a vicious cycle. Misogynist cultures tend to nurture homosexuality. And cultural homosexuality tends to engender misogyny.

Consider the Greeks. Not many people know that even though homosexuality was normal and accepted in Ancient Greece, its practice had a very specific etiquette. For instance, it was generally considered bad taste to be an old practicing homosexual. By the time you started getting old, you were expected to settle down with a wife and have kids. Only after you had become older, weaker, and less beautiful did you succumb to a relationship with “lesser” beings like women, and only to do your civic duty of propagating the species. Homosexual relationships between adult males was stigmatized, especially for the “passive” partner:

Given the importance in Greek society of cultivating the masculinity of the adult male and the perceived feminizing effect of being the passive partner, relations between adult men of comparable social status were considered highly problematic, and usually associated with social stigma. . . . According to contemporary opinion, Greek males who engaged in passive homosexuality after reaching the age of manhood . . . were feminized or “made a woman” of themselves.

Right there is the root of it. There’s nothing worse in the homo-centric world than for a man to be “made a woman.” Just think about it: homosexual men love men. They act as if they really do not need women for any purposes. Homosexuals value masculine strength. They value masculine beauty. They hold exclusively masculine values. Is that any different than the classic patriarchal view? If anything, it is far worse.

It’s strange to me how intimately connected hyper-masculinity and homosexuality are in this culture. Male homosexuals don’t need women, and hyper-masculine over-compensators can’t think of anything more insulting than being called a woman. Check out this letter Mike Rowe received after Rowe wrote that “A man’s man owns a firearm”:

I recently viewed a poster for the NRA on Facebook with your image with a statement I can only assume you made. “A man’s man owns a firearm.” Why you would say something so boldly sexist, and bigoted? Implying that a man who chooses NOT to own a weapon is what? Less than a man, a WOMAN, a neuter?

I am a U.S. ARMY VETERAN who has trained on various weapons, knows how to maintain, store and use multiple firearms. Now as a civilian, I CHOOSE NOT TO OWN A WEAPON. Can you clarify what you meant in that “man’s man” statement and explain what a man such a myself is, if not a man’s man?

E.K. Billie
Veteran, conscientious citizen, and a man who chooses not to own a firearm.

Mike Rowe, whose response is worth reading, chose not to mention what most struck me about E. K. Billie’s letter:

Why you would say something so boldly sexist, and bigoted? Implying that a man who chooses NOT to own a weapon is what? Less than a man, a WOMAN, a neuter?

Did you catch that? Billie assumes that calling him less than a man is calling him a woman. This is right after he calls Rowe a sexist. This attitude is actually quite typical. In the same breath that a feminist or a homosexual or a “modern person” will be talking about equal rights or gender equality or whatever, they’ll also talk quite openly about how crappy, boring, useless, and stupid domesticity is. I recently saw a video of two homosexuals having a conversation about cultural libertarianism. In it, one of them praises the power and strength of the active homosexual and denigrates passive domesticity (it starts to happen around 8 minutes):

Guess who else also exclusively values masculine strength, masculine beauty, and masculine values? Feminists. Do you know where you can find the most vicious insults concerning childbirth, domesticity, wives, and mothers? You won’t find it with men, really (unless you’re talking about homosexual men). You find it being promulgated most harshly by feminists. Need an example? How about the profanity-laced whine piece in Jezebel entitled “‘The Feminist Housewife’ is Such Bullshit”? According to most feminists, doing the things that women really are generally best at is succumbing to “gender stereotypes.” Gender equality for feminists is about raising women up to the level of men. That’s how they view it. I don’t see it that way. They don’t just mean that in terms of opportunity either. Remember what Vice President Joe Biden said to those code-writing girls? “You’re as smart as any boy.” That presupposes that boys are the standard. Men are the standard. This kind of intellectual schizophrenia sickens my stomach. Men are not the standard. There are male standards for being a good man. And there are female standards for being a good woman.

Ever seen the bumper sticker, “Well-behaved women seldom make history”? That basically means that women who “succumb to gender norms” rarely make history, and are therefore less valuable women. Though in one sense it might be true that well-behaved women don’t fill up history books, it does raise the question: Why would one need to make history in order to be a good person? Most men who behave rarely make history, either. But you don’t hear people decrying stable, law-abiding men. We recognize that not everyone can misbehave without a collapse of society. When feminists talk about erasing gender stereotypes, what they are talking about is taking onto themselves the strengths and values that are typically associated with men. Most feminists aren’t becoming strong women. They’re just becoming average men. I think that’s a shame.

Wives and mothers are at least equal to men in the establishment and preservation of society. They may not always be in the spotlight. Not all of them may be artists, inventors, business leaders, or presidents. But if you were to ask basically any man who is in the history books what his key to success was, most of them would have one of two answers: my mom or my wife. Consider this story about Thomas Edison’s mother, Nancy Matthews Elliott:

In school, the young Edison’s mind often wandered, and his teacher, the Reverend Engle, was overheard calling him “addled.” This ended Edison’s three months of official schooling. Edison recalled later, “My mother was the making of me. She was so true, so sure of me; and I felt I had something to live for, someone I must not disappoint.” His mother taught him at home.

Thomas Edison, perhaps one of the most important figures in modern history, saw things differently. His mother understood this, removed him from official schooling, and educated him in a way that was tailored to his value. Would it have been better for the world or for society if Nancy Matthews Elliott had left Edison in school so she could pursue a middling career in some public sector? No. That would have been her right, of course. But Nancy Elliott is worthy of praise precisely because she sacrificed her right for the benefit of her son and society. She gave up her personal desires and time in order to lift her son to a place she herself would never have been able to go. She had the insight to see Edison’s value and the skill necessary to nurture it. How many inventors, engineers, presidents, and leaders has our society aborted for the sake of a woman’s personally gratifying but usually unnecessary public career? Beyond that, how many women’s easily replaceable careers have put children in the care of uninvested and thoughtless “professionals” who would rather chemically lobotomize active-minded children than work to develop their true potential? How much has our society lost by remaining silent on the power and central importance of wives and mothers?

Some might say that women could pursue careers while men took care of the children at home. Because they can do everything men can do. Sometimes that can work, and honestly, I’m not saying it’s necessarily wrong or anything. But women generally can’t do everything men can do. And men generally can’t do everything women can do. Each gender generally has unique skill sets that contribute to society in different but equally important ways. Traditional gender roles within the traditional nuclear family are typical for a reason—it’s generally not best for society for women to abandon the home for the outside world or for men to attempt to multi-task, nurture, and manage the resources of the home, among countless other things.

Men do not and can not fill the void left behind when women forsake their strengths and values in order to compete with men in generally male-dominated realms. So society as a whole suffers. That’s what we see today. For all the vehement grandstanding about equal rights and feminism, the reality is that our society completely devalues and objectifies women, forcing them to either find value by becoming like men or find value as objects of male lust. Feminine strength, beauty, and values have never been more obscured.