Author: Amanda Pritts
I’d like to start this by very briefly mentioning the Moynihan Report, which gives many great points about the black community and the reasons behind concentrated poverty. It also goes into depth about the all-around opportunities that are being missed out on by the residents in those communities. The Moynihan Report states that isolation and segregation from opportunity creates a culture of poverty. If not interrupted, the culture will then produce negative outcomes that produces in effect dysfunctional behavior. The government, who I personally believe thrive off of these dysfunctions administers welfare and food stamps into the community, this then furthers the community’s crime and poverty rate.
This essentially creates what psychologists call a ‘Self-fulfilling prophecy.’ This is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior. Essentially, the communities will view themselves as oppressed, the government reaffirms that belief, actually causing them to become oppressed.
This then becomes a never ending cycle for those communities. How do we stop it? According to the Moynihan Reports, someone or something has to stop the cycle. This is correct, however the communities believe the ones who are obligated to step in, is the government. Which as I explained before, is what causes the self-fulfilling prophecy. Government programs year after year have been proven ineffective. The inhabitants of the community can complain to their party of choice all day long, the party then returns to Washington D.C. where nothing is done about it. Why? Because this keeps them in control of the communities.
How do we help those communities then? We reach them the way we reach any other community - we start by telling the truth and facing the hard facts about the community in question. The solution though it seems complicated, is actually quite simple. The solution is in the people themselves.
We start by facing the fact that over 70% of kids in black communities are born out of wedlock. The single mother rate jumped from 20% to over 70% in the same time the civil rights movement made tremendous strides. Therefore, it is not a correct assessment to say single-motherhood has anything to do with racism. It has been proven in multiple studies over the years, that you cannot build a solid social structure when one of the parents is gone or in prison. The single parent is guaranteed to make significantly less than a married couple would before reproducing. This will then land them on an impoverished level of income, more than half the time resulting in welfare.
It’s an unfortunate and controversial fact that the deciding factor of income inequality does not come from racism, it comes from culture. It is a fact that less and less black kids each year are graduating high school, while at the same time shooting each other at significantly higher rates than whites are shooting each other, this then lands them in prison for felonies. If they are released, this makes it hard if not impossible to find jobs, especially ones that will pays more than minimum wage. This will then put into place a new cycle of crime and poverty. It is a fact that 13% of the population is responsible for 50% of the murder. It is absurd to think cops are walking into bad neighborhoods and rounding up the blacks who live there to fulfill the idea of racially motivated imprisonment. In fact, the number of blacks being shot by police for no reason is nowhere to be found statistically, instead what we find is white men in the same situation, are more likely to be shot by police than a young black man. The default argument, when there’s no other solution, cannot be ‘racism’. There is no solution in that.
When we take a look at the idea of institutionalized racism, the argument must be, ‘Individualized racism vs Institutionalized racism.’ This begs the question, is it an entire institution that is racist, or is it a few individuals that make it seem that way? The underlying factor when we discuss institutionalized racism, is we need to find what law is racist in intent, and what law is blanketed across the entire institution that will prove it is in fact rigged against blacks, and not just racist individuals who attend.
We cannot fight against a vague idea, you must demonstrate evidence on how an institution is racist. The idea that institutionalized racism exists, just because racism is somewhere out there in the world is not an argument. Once you narrow down what law is proven to be racist against a group of individuals, it is then possible to fight and take legal action against it. Until then, using a broad term like ‘institutionalized racism’ to justify a person’s failures, is then only a deflection to absolve all responsibility and possible blame that could be otherwise proven. To say institutionalized racism is a fact, we must make a case of if the institution has racism vs if the institution is in fact racist. To make a blanket statement as ‘institutionalized racism’ is to also say that US is racist as well, as a general rule, which is incorrect.
When we look at the example of racism is cops, are all police officers racist, or just a few? Percentage does in fact matter when we’re discussing cases like these. We have to be able to use specific instances which can be solved, again, not blanketed terms.
Let’s take a look at the Baltimore riots back in 2015, BLM called it an ‘uprising’. An uprising against what? A black police chief? A mostly black police force? A black Mayor, President, and Attorney General? How about the city council who 9/15 were black, and the others were elected Democrats? It is not useful to the cause, or community to riot, break things, or destroy local businesses. You’re essentially pissing where you live. Uprisings suggest a lack of values, not a justified revolution or movement.
From there we must then look at the idea of justified outrage. The idea of justified outrage is ridiculous. Essentially this means the more angry and outraged a person is the more justified they are. This is a recipe for disaster, and an excuse for chaos and destruction.
When we look at BLM as a whole, is it also based on a broad statement, that suggests the majority of people don’t care about blacks, which has been proven untrue not only by the laws that have been put in place against racism, but the specific scholarships, T.V. channels, programs, etc. to help black communities. BLM tries to essentially draw a trend from an anecdote. To draw a trend, we must first prove the trend exists, which has yet to be done in their favor. In fact, the trend as stated previously, has instead been proven to show that more whites are shot by cops than blacks. Therefore, the entire basis of BLM is in fact based around a false broad statement.
The problems with movements such as these, is they fail to pin down a certain statistically proven problem. Instead, as stated above, they are based around an anecdote which will begin to snowball as selected instances that support the narrative are added into the group.
Followers in this movement like to believe inequality equals inequity, which has yet to be statistically proven. When children then grow up in these environments, believing that every obstacle they will face and every problem they will have is derived from racism, not their actions, this will only continue the cycle of poverty and crime instead of uplifting these communities by automatically making the children believe they’re at a disadvantage.
To uplift these communities, the inhabitants need a step by step success plan. Of course, they would be different for everyone, but the overall broad rule consists of only three things.
In order for anyone to be able to pass blame on someone or something else in their lives, first you have to complete these three steps, otherwise you’re only disadvantaging yourself. The way to fix these communities, again, rests on the people who live there.
Everyone has the power to change their futures, their communities and themselves, but it starts with that initiative, and accepting responsibility for your actions. Without doing those, the cycle continues, and will continue for as long as the inhabitants allow it. These communities cannot be dependent on the government, they must instead be dependent on capitalism. Once that happens, there will be a light at the end of the tunnel for these communities, and the cycle will inherently stop. There communities will improve, and so will the futures for their children.
Thank you for reading,
Author: Amanda Pritts
16 And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive the mark on their right hand or on their forehead,
17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark - the name of the beast or the number of its name.
18 here is a call for wisdom. let the one who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and that number is six hundred sixty-six.
In the technologically advanced system we live in today, security concerns are on the rise, and for good reason; Identity theft is not uncommon. On the contrary, it’s more common now than it has ever been. It’s not unusual to see technology such as; facial recognition, fingerprints, and even iris scans. In fact, even the new iPhone has facial recognition, and you can purchase a fingerprint scanner for the locks on your house at your average home-improvement store. Even Iris scans are not uncommonly used at high-level security and computer jobs. These advancements have become a rather common place way of life.
Now, in 2017, a new security method is taking businesses as well as the average Joe, by storm. It’s called the RFID Microchip implant, and it comes to us from BIOHAX International in Sweden. The microchip is a glass capsule the size of a grain of rice, that is implanted into your hand between your forefinger and thumb by a professional piercer. The chip itself has the ability to contain your Driver’s License, Criminal Record, Medical Record, Passport, Wallet, Social Security Number, as well as your personal sixteen digit ID number that comes with your unique microchip.
Wisconsin Technology Company, has made headlines as being the first company to microchip its employees. The employees had the choice to get microchipped in order to gain access into the building, their computers, and even to buy food from the employee lobby. The company had a chipping-party for their employees to get them done quickly and easily free of charge, the company covered the expenses of three hundred dollars an implant. The company claims the chip does not track your whereabouts outside of work. The question that remains for the company is how long will microchipping be optional in order to be an employee? Will the company move forward and require new recruits to be chipped?
Some nightclubs in Europe have taken the chip a step further, scanning it upon entry to pull up ID’s quickly, with no way to create a fake-ID chip, it has cut back on the number of fake-ID’s. It is also used to pay bar tabs at the end of the night. With a simple scan of the chip, the tab is paid for directly from the chipee’s bank account.
The biggest argument used to further the microchip is its medical uses. If a patient is unresponsive, a simple scan of their chip will pull up their ID and medical records, potentially saving lives. The chip has been featured on shows like Dr. Oz, as well as news networks, and medical commercials. The futuristic device is being called - ‘The Way of the Future’ and ‘The Next Big Thing.’ When younger generations were asked about their opinion on the chip, 9/10 thought it was ‘Very Cool!’
Doctors are predicting in twenty years, all newborns will be receiving the chip, and it will have their birth certificate, social security number, and medical information uploaded onto it, instead of the current traditional method of paper records. Doctors are also saying they wil be as common place - if not more so - than vaccines.
Some children are already being chipped in places like Mexico, where there is a higher kidnapping rate. The chip has the ability to track your location in exact latitude and longitude like a GPS. Other children, some in America, are being chipped as a way of paying for lunches easier, instead of dealing with cash.
All of these uses may seem like great ideas, and they would be, except for a few points. As I placed in the beginning of this article, the Bible, which was written 2,000 years ago, predicted this, as being The Mark of the Beast. This can only go one way. There won’t be a point in using either cards, paperwork or using the implant when the implant can do everything, it’s faster, easier, and safer. At some point, whether it’s in one year, five years, or twenty years, this will become the main way of doing things. At some point, you won’t be able to get a job unless you receive the chip. You won’t be able to buy groceries, or even travel without it. Even if you’re not religious, how can a book written 2,000 years ago have predicted such an advanced technology?
Some churches are saying receiving this chip is fine, because it’s not The Mark of the Beast, at least until it’s mandated. Instead, they’re claiming The Mark will be that of Cain when he killed his brother, Abel. More of a tattoo, than a chip. Still, we cannot deny that the Bible perfectly describes what this microchip is able to do. Too much of a coincidence?
As I stated in the beginning, In Revelations 13:18 were are told, “here is a call for wisdom. let the one who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and that number is six hundred sixy-six.”
Allow me to take this a step further, the chip comes to us from BIOHAX, as I mentioned previously. The chips is type NTAG216, and the first company to use this technology is Wisconsin.
For those of us who are technologically savvy, HEX - though something we may not use often - is a mode that allows you to edit the underlying byte in a file. Let’s take the letter “A” for example. “A” is in text mode aka ASCH mode - what we use daily. When put into HEX mode, the underlying bye it 41. You may do this in your spare time with the ASCH to HEX text converter, easily found on Google.
Now let’s take this a step further and look at the chip type, NTAG216. If we calculate 6x6x6 we will get an answer of 216. Why did the company choose this number in particular?
Now let’s look at all of our information. The company using this technology currently is Wisconsin.
Wis Con Sin
Wisdom HEX=666 Sin
63 6F 6E
The creater of the microchip is BIOHAX
BIO=666 HEX =666
62 69 6F 63 6F 6E
Is it possible that this RFID chip is the way of the future? Or is it also possible that it is going to be the the final step towards the end of times, as shown in The Book of Revelations?
I’ll let you be the judge of that.
Thank you for reading,
Author: Amanda Pritts
The LGB became popular in the 80’s, that expanded and turned into the LGBT by the 90’s, now in 2017, it has expanded to LGBTTQQIAAF. Some argue that it’s actually, LGBTQQIP2SSA. That’s quite a jump, as opposed to the former years.
Confused on what some of that alphabet soup stand for? So are they. In a video produced by BBC 3, members of the LGBT were tasked with the chore of trying to name the genders covered under the ancronym. It was no surprise, when not only did they struggle, but they even expressed frustration in the test.
You may ask yourself, why so many? And who are the members covered under the umbrella of this group? There are currently fifty-eight genders being recognized, however, that number according to some, is sixty-three. It seems the group itself not only can’t agree on a decided ancronym, but also can’t seem to decide how many genders there are. For most of us, that number stopped at two. The argument still remains regarding sex vs gender. I’ve provided you with the full list of genders here.
Under Obama's administration, the month of June was declared Gay Pride Month around the world. What exactly does that mean for the rest of us who aren't gay, and who also may not agree with this once optional acceptance now being forced on us? Firstly, we have to look at what also came with Gay Pride Month. With the celebratory month, also came the repeal of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which celebrated traditional marriage being between a man and a woman.
With DOMA gone, Obama was free to legalize Gay Marriage, and push it into the mainstream. This didn't seem like a huge problem to most of us, who would never have to bake a wedding cake, or join boyscouts. The problems came when the meaning of 'Tolerance' was changed. According to Webster's Dictionary, the definition of 'Tolerance' is: "The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with." To quote United Families International, "'Tolerance' today, however is a one-way street. 'Tolerance' seems to mean a free pass for those who support the gay lifestyle, but it's a muzzle for you if you don't."
Where do we see this? The one that caused the most upset, was the affect this had on our public school systems. Public schools, under Obama, were required to be "gay friendly," and provide protection and safe spaces for gay children while downplaying the safety for all children, i.e. boys who identify as girls being allowed to use the same bathrooms, or locker rooms. They were also being forced to teach homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, or risk being defunded by the state. LGBT in-school-support groups were skyrocketing, while the children who felt uncomfortable or opposed these new rules being forced on them, were being called intolerant and hateful, even being punished for expressing their views. Under the Trump Presidency, this law was reversed, and allowed the states and communities once again to exercise their rights to choose what they teach, and how to run their schools.
In 2011, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) was passed and put into action. Under this act, businesses, regardless of religious creed or morality, are not allowed to disqualify LGBT applicants from their place of business. It seems as though the rights of homosexuals have trumped the first freedoms of everyone else. If you disagree with this law, you are forced into silence or you'll be paying not only out of pocket in fines, you could face losing your business altogether.
Some of the individuals this has happened to was a doctor who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple, boy scouts who refused to hire gay scoutmasters, wedding photographers who refused to take photos of the ceremony, and cake makers who refused to bake cakes for same-sex couples, to name just a few.
Religions which were once safe from laws that jeopardized their beliefs, are no longer allowed to refuse homosexual laws. A Preacher has been arrested for reciting Bible verses stating homosexuality is a sin.
A Reverend was ordered to pay a hefty fine of $5,000 and to write a heartfelt apology after uttering negative comments regarding homosexuals. He now has a lifetime speech ban against him.
A Catholic charity had to close down their adoption program after being forced to adopt out children to same-sex couples.
In California, you could be jailed for a year, and fined up to $1,000 for "willfully, and repeatedly" miss-gendering someone in a medical, institutional, retirement, or housing environment. This new law is forced tolerance, it's not upheld by the First Amendment. Respect, is a two-way street, when the Government steps in and punishes you for using your rights, it is no longer respect.
Their religious beliefs, once protected under the First Amendment, have now been revoked under ENDA. Don't their rights still matter?
The FCC has also clamped down harder on "hate speech," as I'm sure you've noticed, Google, YouTube, Twitch, and other streaming websites have done this as well, not only in defense of the LGBT community, but in defense of other topics of discussion as well, such as mass immigration of 3rd-world men taking over Europe, the outbreeding of the Caucasian race, and the uphill fight against the PC agenda. If it seems like a lot to take in, that's because it is. These are all attempts to keep you and I quiet by forced law.
Let's continue with Sen. Ted Cruz. Sen. Cruz announced he would be reintroducing the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). This bill was first put forward back in 2015, and prevents the government from taking action against businesses that discriminate against the LGBT members based on personal religious beliefs or moral convictions. It truly is a defense for the First Amendment.
FADA also allows individuals and businesses to sue the Federal Government for interfering in their right to discriminate based on the reasons stated above. It also would mandate the Attorney General to defend the business or individual suing. President Trump vowed to pass the bill if it was presented to him during his presidency.
The LGBT community fears the bill will reverse the clock on their rights, as well as the rights on unwed mothers, because it is based around a specific set of Christian beliefs. On the contrary, I believe this is what our society needs. It would force them to stop the push of their beliefs on the general populace, and return the right of individual choice back to the people, taking away some of that control by the Government. If your arguments are strong enough, you don't need to hide behind Government Policy, and force feed people your beliefs.
What's the next step for the LGBT community?
It seems that some LGBT members, as well as the liberal left have begun accepting GSA (Genetic Sexual Attraction), or as we know it, 'Incest.' The word 'Incest,' is now being called a derogatory term and is to be classified under 'hate speech.' Adult Incest, would include all family possibilities, including: Mother and Son, Father and Daughter, Brother and Sister, Cousins, Aunts and Nephews, Uncles and Nieces, as well as all other variations.
The basis for the GSA argument, is the act being between two consenting adults, and no one is getting hurt, not including children that could be born from this resulting in congenital abnormalities. This rational, however, no longer has much ground to stand on, due to the medical advancements now available. If GSA is wrong, then a vasectomy or birth control eliminates the child bearing argument.
To quote Slate.com, "If both parties are consenting adults and the genetic rationale is bogus, why should the law get involved? Incest may seem icky, but that's what people said about homosexuality. It's all private conduct. To which conservative reply: We told you. We warned you that if laws against homosexuality were struck down, laws against polygamy and incest would follow."
This quote couldn't ring anymore true. The only reason these laws against incest are still being upheld is due to what the effects are on the family unit. The overlapping relationships mixed with the social responsibilities and rules, causes a crumbling base, causing children to struggle in finding their spot in the family, and to build trusting and meaningful relationships with their caregivers. In sum: It confuses relationships. Under the Constitution of the United States, the argument provides a rational basis for laws against incest to continue, but not same-sex marriage.
Wouldn't the LGBT saying "Incest is wrong", disprove their foundation of "Love is love", or "You can't choose who you're attracted to."
This is what I meant by the title of this article. The legalization of Gay Marriage has opened the flood gates for everyone else. The problem with the possibility of GSA being included under the very wide umbrella of the LGBT community, is it also paves the way for other attractions as well, such as beastiality, and pedophilia, which is already being normalized through interviews and articles. The flood gates have indeed been opened. There was no stopping at just Same-Sex Marriage, how could there be? There’s no way to say ‘yes’ to one group and ‘no’ to another when the argument is the same everytime. That then falls under discrimination.
The moral compass needs to stop somewhere, we simply can’t keep accomodating everyones special needs, and wants. It’s not possible, not only are our communities suffering, but for society in general. For the greater good, our Government must start reversing some of these laws, if only to give the younger generations a chance.
The direction were going is Orwellian at best, a future totalitarian state comes closer to our horizons every day, anytime a new ‘special’ law is passed, or a new unrealistic expectation is expected of the populace. It’s not possible to keep this going, not for another generation, not even for another few years. This is not a sustainable way of life. We will become incapable of living with each other as a peaceful society. A police state can and will become the only alternative, the end result being a total totalitarian rule. Before you get upset at this article, you need to ask yourself from a morality stance, will this direction be good for future generations? Or was this a selfish way of serving the needs of the here and now?
Thank you for reading,
Author: Amanda Pritts
In recent years we have all seen a sudden increase in Transgenderism. However, it has become more mainstream and prevelent in the past year, and has now made its way into the Pediatric field.
Michelle Cretella M.D. who has served as not only a board member and researcher at the American College of Pediatricians for twelve years, she has also served as its President for three. She has also sat at the board of directors for the Allience for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity from 2010-2015.
Michelle has dealt with this new form of child abuse, personally. She has also explained how the transgender phenomenon has infiltrated her field of work. Cretella claims that transgender ideology is not rooted in reality. Is she correct? In a word, yes.
If transgenderism was in fact rooted in biology, then twins with identical DNA should naturally identify as transgender 100 percent of the time. However, in a study conducted by Dr. Milton Diamond in 2013, he found that only 28 percent of these identical twins identified as transgender, while the remaining 71 percent differed. The 28 percent suggests at best, there is a minimal biological impact. This means, that transgenderism will not manifest itself without outside nonbiological factors taking place and influencing how these twins identified.
Keeping that in mind, biologically, sex is chosen before birth, not assigned at birth as we are now being told. Sex, genetics, race, and age cannot be changed. They are not subjective, much to the disbelief of the left.
Children aged 3-10 engage in what’s known as, ‘fantasy play.’ Fantasy play as we know it best, includes dress-up, make believe, etc. This is completely natural as well as critical for development. It not only aids in creativity in general, it also forms the bridge for important adulthood based skills such as empathy, and social competence with peers.
Children often make themselves into something else such as animals, or the opposite gender as a form of play. However, when this is taken seriously, and parents take their children to a pediatrician, or therapist, this is when we start on step on the brink of child abuse.
According to the American Psychological Association’s Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, 75-95 percent of pre-pubertal children who were distressed by their sex, came to outgrow their distress by adolescense (ages 10-19) after passing naturally through puberty. 98 percent of boys came to accept and identify with their biological sex naturally, and 88 percent of girls did as well. This overwhelmingly proves that transgenderism is not as common as we are being told.
In the United Kingdom, the Gender Identity Development Service has seen an overwhelming 2,000 percent increase in referrals since 2009. This begs the question, “What happens to those children?” This is where we go from being on the brink of child abuse, to full on psychological and physical abuse and mutilation.
Guidlines clearly state puberty blockers are supposed to be administered to minors aged 11-12. It is important to mention here, forethought, or careful consideration of what will be necessary, or what will happen in the future, is not developed until late adolescense. From this we can conclude that the administration of puberty blockers is done without the ability of these children to comprehend what the future impact on their bodies will be.
Firstly, the long term effects of cross-sex hormones have yet to be studied, this means they are being administered with no track record of what may happen to these children’s bodies in the future. We do know, however, what they do to adults. They include impacts on memory, cardiac disease, blood clots, strokes, diabetes, cancer and disrupted cognitive ability. The idea that these hormones will not have negative long term effects on pre-pubescent children is not only false, it’s ludacris. Using these hormones on children is nothing short of child abuse, not healthcare.
The hormones disrupt the normal psychological development, and chemically castrate them, making these children sterile for life. That is then followed by the eventual mutilation of their bodies. Double mastectomy’s in transgender children is legal at age 18, but that is currently being challenged as some doctors are trying to get that age lowered. The argument being, if a teenager of 16 years old can get breast implants with parental permission, why can’t they make the decision to have their breasts removed as well. Even though it is not recommended that these hormones be administered until ages 11-12, there have been cases of children as young as 9 being put on them.
Pediatricians recommend the loving solution for parents is to nurture your children through natural pubery and late adolescense, as only .07 percent will naturally identify as transgender.
Before considering the medical route, here are some questions for you to ask yourself about your child:
Is it a phase?
Is this something we can change?
Is this normal behavior in accordance with his/her age?
Thank you for reading.
Author: Amanda Pritts
When you think of tradionalism what comes to mind? Family? Children? Hearty foods? Or do you take it a step further and think of ankle-length dresses, bonnetts, and farms? All of these are correct, depending on how you view it, and to what extreme you view it.
I, myself, am a traditionalist. I am in a traditional marriage, and hold traditional views on everything from politics, children, cooking, and even religion. However, before you get the image of Laura Ingalls from, “Little House on the Prairie,” allow me to further explain. My current views weren’t always the case. I considered myself to be a liberal feminist until I was twenty-two when I had my first son, and got married. I am twenty-six now.
I believed in women working eighty hour work weeks, having casual relations with whoever she wanted, and never slowing down. It was just a normal way of life, and nothing to be ashamed of. Life in the fast lane, I suppose is the best way to put it. It wasn’t until I found myself locked in my office at work, crying, because I missed my son that it hit me like a ton of bricks. This wasn’t the life I wanted. I didn’t want the eighty hour work weeks, I didn’t want to miss crucial points in my own life, let alone his.
This continued for a year before I made a drastic decision. I left. Crazy, I know! I had had enough of not only my high stress office job, but the food we were eating, the bills we were paying, and the all-around life we were living. I made another drastic decision. I changed it.
Understand, this didn’t happen overnight. It has taken almost a full year to rearrange finances, begin cooking from scratch, gardening, and so forth. A traditional style marriage I know seems scary to a lot of women, and that fear is taught to us. We’re taught that if you are a traditional ‘housewife’ you will be completely and utterly screwed if your husband up and leaves you. That’s not so. It’s important to of course be educated and have skills, even in the household, just in case this is something you’re concerned about.
Traditionalism has become something almost looked down upon, especially in recent years. If you live this lifestyle, often times you’re referred to as incapable of taking care of yourself, or weak minded. Nothing could be further from the truth. It takes a strong minded man and woman to live this lifestyle. It is hard work, frankly, it’s much harder than any job I’ve ever held in my life. It takes determination, strength, and the ability to not give up even when it seems bleak.
It has been grossly misrepresented in both the media, and in feminism, where we have been taught as a populace, that women should disregard their femininity to take on a more masculine-based role in society. This of course goes against 40,000 years of evolution, and has directly impacted birth rates - or lack thereof - as well as the rise of political correctness.
As I’m sure you know, this has caused a snowball effect into what society is today - a crumbling mess. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s getting brighter each day. More women are starting to realize that traditionalism isn’t at all what they thought it was. It can in fact, be for them as well.
More women are seeing that they don’t have to work at a job they can’t stand, or miss out on their children and husbands - future tense included. Some call this act, ‘red-pilling.’ Meaning, the conversion process of feminist or left-winged women returning to a traditionalist lifestyle. I was the perfect example of this.
There is absolutely no shame in taking that leap, either. Or I should say, there shouldn’t be shame in taking that leap. New York Times even reported women and men who filled traditional gender roles, have been proven to be leading a happier, healthier and more fulfilling lifestyle with more sex. Odd? Not as much as you’d think. It was also found that when men did more feminine chores such as laundry, cooking, and cleaning, and women were the bread winners, the couples had 1.5% less sex. It doesn’t sound like much, until you think of how often the average couple is having sex a week.
All of this, goes back to gender roles ingrained in our DNA. Women have always been homemakers, gatherers, and nurturers, whereas men have always been soldiers, hunters, and bread winners.
In sum, you can decide for yourself what your personal role in society should be, but there is absolutely a reason why this lifestyle is resonating so personally with both genders.
- Amanda Pritts
Author: Amanda Pritts