Saturday, November 12, 2022

The anti-wifely woman

There is a potential in women to develop either wifely or anti-wifely attributes.

When you observe a wifely woman, you are likely to notice an air of feminine receptivity and a higher degree of sexual modesty. She is, in marriage, more likely to focus on an ideal of "making a life together", which includes the grounded, daily, practical tasks associated with family life. Her husband is "personalised", in that he is not just there "for purpose" or as an abstracted figure of infatuation. She genuinely wants to form a family and so is less likely to hold out for an impossible list of requirements in a husband. She will often meet her future husband at a relatively young age and have children in her 20s.

The anti-wifely woman is more combative, seeing life as a struggle between men and women for power and status. She is more overtly sexual, in part, because she rejects the idea of serving a spouse in marriage and so, in the absence of daily gifts of service in marriage, relationships are based more squarely on the expression of sexuality. She is also more likely to cultivate a masculine energy in herself as she is too set apart from men to think of a husband providing this energy within a spousal union. And so she cultivates ambition, pursues masculine hobbies and interests, and creates within her own self an uneasy balance between masculine and feminine attributes.

What creates the anti-wifely woman? There are reasons to do with political ideology, such as the emphasis on individual autonomy within liberalism. But it goes beyond this to an ongoing potential within female nature to react against hierarchical forms of authority, particularly masculine authority. Anti-wifely women are often in a proud rebellion against the patriarchy, traditional Christianity and to serving (i.e. doing things for) a husband. It is a rebellion against the father and is triggered by fathers who were either absent or who did not model a loving form of paternal authority. 

In the 1800s, when Western culture was more heavily saturated with Christianity, these anti-wifely women sometimes identified with the prideful rebellion of Satan against God. Per Flaxneld has written a lengthy book on this theme, titled Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as the Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture. When you read the examples he gives, you are struck by the similarity to the anti-wifely women of today, in the sense that you have the same hostility to traditional Christianity, the same overt sexuality, and the same focus on forms of masculine and/or paternal authority in society.

Why bother to note any of this? First, I think it's important to understand that a layer of women in the modern West are not really fit for marriage and that it is misleading to suggest that there is some formula by which men might successfully partner with them. Second, there is a confirmation here of the important role that fathers play within the family. If a father is absent, or too lacking in authority, or if his authority is wielded unlovingly, this has serious repercussions down the line. Fathers do matter.


  1. A quick comment of my own. Feminists often frame their movement as desiring equality. But this is an equality in which women are relieved of a traditional wifely role, while men continue to perform the part of a traditional husbandly role most acceptable to women, i.e. working for money/status - but not the part of the role that includes masculine authority. You can see this embedded in modern family law, in which the presence of the father in his childrens' lives is not supported, in which his legal standing as a father is weak, but in which the apparatus surrounding his provisioning of money is strong. Obviously, I don't think that men should accept this version of equality, as it is pushes toward dysfunction within family life.

  2. Most anti wifely woman should be genetic dead ends. The only problem is they come close to metaphorical witches, feasting on the youth of other parents to continue their existence. They poison the minds of others in their midst. I've gone as far as limiting family members to mine because they are dangerous. Career-oriented women serve and love their corporate boyfriend more than they could ever their own and will look as children as accessories anyways. They don't deserve to reproduce and should be shunned by all to protect the next generation.

    1. You are right that these women reproduce not only by (sometimes) having children of their own, but by raising the children of others in their own outlook (e.g. as school teachers). I think their attitude to children varies. Sometimes they completely turn from the idea of having children (anti-natalism) and content themselves with fur babies - fulfilling the stereotype of a single woman with cats. But some of them do have children and are reasonably maternal - it's in their attitude to their husbands/partners that the "non-serviam"/proud independent woman attitude is fully engaged.

    2. Yes, there is a sizable proportion of women who would happily have children but want complete 'independence' from responsibility to men, particularly the father of their children.

      Instead, they are very happy to have the state (ie: Big Daddy) support and subsidize them. This is literally the story of the 20th century with socialism, and big government. It results in men still paying to support their children, and now women who aren't acocutable to them, by violent extraction of their earnings from an organized state. Its a type of slavery (for men) that many women are perfectly fine with, and/or can't really grasp the immorality of what they're enabling (this inability to understand is no excuse-- its why women should not be voting). This is how uncontrolled female hypergamy works--marry the state. Big corporations love it-- cheap labor and taxpayers dependent on the state.

    3. in the ancient pagan world, women who “sacrificed” their Babies in The Womb would buy pets and treat the pets as their children.

  3. feminists are known for being devil worshipers, and this is not accidental or acting,

    As I explained many times before, I will just quote my own blog:
    “ the devil operates by reactions. the devil cannot make direct orders, as no one would listen, and has no power to compel or do anything; therefore the devil makes groups insufferable by corrupting their weakness so that a “reactionary group” comes to destroy the former. the reactionary group is the devil’s goal (if a corpse can have a goal, that is).

    ex. feminism. the devil HATES women, more than you could imagine. therefore in an attempt to wipe out women once and for all, the devil made weak women stupid, demonic, and insufferable. the goal being that frustrated men would “react” by giving the feminists all their worst fears in revenge; which is what the devil wanted all along.”

    For context: