The Royal wedding and accompanying media frenzy are finally over. The masses got to celebrate an opulent, fancy show and can now go back to their reality TV.

The Royal family has presented a fresh, modern face to the world, proving it keeps with the times… with a nice, politically correct wedding. Let’s wish the couple a long and successful marriage and hope the very modern, progressive wedding vows will not prove to have been a bad omen for their union.

Now, this may seem a silly little issue to pick on, 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?

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…

While Diana’s break of protocol caused a scandal at the time, Middleton was praised for her decision to ditch the promise to obey. We’ve become so much more enlightened and ‘progressive’ since then, after all. What modern woman could possibly accept such an offensive, oppressive, sexist, paternalistic monstrosity?

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.

Of course vows don’t mean much these days anyway, and barely anyone entering into marriage really takes them seriously. But even the symbolic value is enough to offend feminist sensibilities and so vows must be ‘fixed’ and politically corrected. Am I alone in thinking that a bride’s revolt to say traditional vows (as well as, for instance, the increasingly widespread refusal to take the husband’s surname) is a bad sign for the health and longevity of a marriage?

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!

To see to what extent our decaying society has succumbed to feminist ideas (and cultural Marxism/political correctness in general)… even the church has become completely infested with the misguided, morally bankrupt dogmas. Granted, if any church has eagerly embraced liberalism and political correctness it’s the Church of England; so one should hardly be too surprised to hear Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s views on the vow of obedience.

(In 2006 guidelines) he stated that a wife promising to ‘obey’ her husband was an outdated concept that could even justify domestic violence (!). Not surprising, I suppose, coming from a church leader who supports women- and gay clergy and gay marriages, in clear breach of Christian principles. It seems only a hopeless optimist could expect the (Anglican) church to promote traditional marriage and sound morality instead of trying to redefine Christian values to fit the moral inversion of our era. (And anyway, why should we, as the enlightened, progressive people we are, want to promote such an antiquated, oppressive institution as marriage?)

But why are modern women so scared of traditional marriage vows?

Apparently, ditching them is proof of being a strong, independent woman demanding ‘equality’ in marriage. Of course! What else? Our ever-present equality delusion! Gender is, after all, just a social construct (or so we are told) and no real differences between men and women exist; ergo, all traditional gender roles must be evil, sexist and discriminatory. Has there ever been a civilization suffering from as complete a denial of reality as we do?

Of course 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.

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. The results can be seen all around us; disintegration of family, sky-high divorce rates (over 70% of divorces are initiated by women, and nearly 90% among college-educated couples), rampant single motherhood, culture of welfare dependence, damaged children growing up without a father figure, sexual depravity (especially exhibited by young women), drug abuse, and a general lack of values and mores. It is well documented that children brought up by married parents fare considerably better in all aspects of life than those raised by single or co-habiting parents. But who cares about children? As long as women are ‘empowered’ and feel good…

Of course I don’t expect the progressive women of today to agree with any of this. After all, if they did, they would have given up one of their favorite excuses to scream ‘discrimination!’ Imagine the catastrophic consequences of admitting women have long been enjoying – and often abusing – a privileged and protected status (as the ‘oppressed sex’): less ability to blame men for any and all problems and bad outcomes, less affirmative action benefiting the undeserving, fewer rewards for ‘discrimination’ claims.

The truth is that a woman can be intelligent, independent and strong and yet find it perfectly natural and satisfying to let her husband lead and be the head of the family. You may think that traditional marriage is an oppressive, antiquated institution that should be rooted out. But if you don’t, here’s an idea: Let your man be a man, show him the respect he deserves… it will do miracles for your marriage. And, if replicated enough, it might just save our fallen society.
—-

P.S.

Isn’t it ironic that so many self-proclaimed ‘strong’ women consider themselves entitled to special treatment and privileges yet are unwilling to accept any corresponding responsibility? And what about pride of being ‘independent’ from any one specific man while demanding support (in a myriad different ways) by the state apparatus (paid for by many men – taxpayers)? How about intelligence? Would an intelligent person pursue their short term gratification at the cost of destruction of family, morality, social fabric (while dooming their own offspring to suffer the consequences)? So much for the myth of the strong, independent and intelligent modern female.

What’s truly sad is that women don’t realize they have been serving as an instrument of cultural Marxism and, having swallowed its propaganda, allowed themselves to be manipulated and used to destroy society.

Gramsci and other Marxist disciples realized that the Christian culture in the West was an obstacle standing in the way of a communist conquest, and in order to succeed Marxism had to make a “long march through the culture”, discrediting and undermining all foundations and values. The culture and institutions had to be radically transformed and the social and cultural order turned upside down (Gramsci envisioned a ‘new proletariat’ of women, racial and sexual minorities and even criminals placed in power).

And indeed today our schools, colleges, academia, media, entertainment industry, civic organizations and government have been fully converted to cultural Marxism and are almost universally hostile to family, traditional sex roles, Christianity and traditional morality.

People can’t be taken over by Marxist ideas while they have refuge in their religion, families, culture and convictions; once they lose those traditional supports they only have the government to go to, and the path to socialism and communism is cleared. Family is the building block of a nation’s middle class; by destroying (family and hence) the middle class one can ruin the economic engine and capitalism itself.

Marxists clearly identified family and religion (as well as nation, property) as targets for destruction. The chief tactics – invalidating traditional gender roles and promoting dysfunctional social structures as normal (including single motherhood, same-sex marriage etc), endlessly portraying marriage and family as oppressive, painting fathers as restrictive and controlling and men as exploiters, propagating sexual revolution and ‘free love’, legalizing abortion and making it acceptable and accessible, attacking Christian institutions and values, encouraging youth and women to reject Christian morality, monogamy, parental and church authority, etc. Divorce, promoted as understandable and always justified, was made ridiculously easy (no-fault) and wives have been incentivized to leave their husbands (taking their money and children with them).

The bored baby-boomers were the first generation to really have swallowed the cultural Marxist propaganda whole. Hundreds of millions have since been indoctrinated with the new morally inverted ‘values’. Today cultural Marxism has completely overtaken Western society.

Women, who eagerly jumped on the ‘empowerment’ and ‘liberation’ bandwagon (just as Marx and his disciples foresaw), have been instrumental in the dissolution of family and traditional values. Worst of all, not only are they unaware of what’s taken place, they are seemingly proud of the hubris they helped create.

——

——

Before I sign off, here are just a few of the countless recent examples of the absurdity and intolerance of the sickening brand of feminism that has taken over life in Britain.

Glencore chairman attacked over “sexist and primitive” views (i.e. for stating perfectly obvious truths)

Sky Sports football pundit sacked over “sexist tirades” (off-air comments about female referee)

Outrage over David Cameron’s “hideously sexist and patronizing remark” (‘calm down, dear’)

The UK government has unleashed its latest weapon ready to destroy any still surviving business – as well as whatever remains of our individual freedoms. The vicious new Equality Act came into force earlier this month.

The progressive Con-LibDem coalition decided to implement the draconian equality laws proposed by Labour’s Harriet Harman and championed by current Home Secretary and minister for women and equality Theresa May. (Note: Safest way to recognize a nation is doomed? Look for things like ministries for ‘women and equality’.) Undoubtedly David Cameron, our faux-conservative leader and champion of political correctness, is feeling all warm and fuzzy for having imposed on Britain the most radical-PC law to date.

The Equality Act introduces a myriad of ‘rights’ which will allow staff to sue for any perceived offense imaginable.

It also creates the concept of ‘third party harassment’, meaning an employee can overhear a joke which was not even directed at them, perceive it to be offensive and then sue the employer. Workers can sue if they feel any comments ‘violate their dignity’, create an ‘intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’, etc. A one-off incident is enough – the ‘victim’ doesn’t need to have warned the ‘offender’ that their comments were unwelcome.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the legislation extends to everyone in the workplace; hence staff can sue their employer even if they were offended by something said by a vendor, customer or contractor.

Basically, the law aims to prevent anyone being offended by anything and any person, and allows workers to sue if their fragile feelings do get hurt. And as the years of rampant political correctness have already created a nation ready to take offense at even the most trivial remark, the lawyers and employment tribunals will undoubtedly soon find themselves very busy.

But wait, there’s more. Questions about a prospective employee’s health are now banned; it is for example illegal to ask how much time off work a person has taken. ‘Discrimination’ of any sort based on health is also illegal – for instance, staff who take a large number of sick days or periodically miss work because they are looking after an elderly or disabled relative will find it easy to sue for discrimination if they feel they have been treated unfairly.

Employees will be able to claim they were discriminated against because of a disability of any nature. Worse still, they no longer have to prove they were treated less favorably than non-disabled colleagues – the employer is guilty until proven innocent! (For instance, dyslexic workers who have been barred from carrying out certain tasks because of their tendency to make spelling mistakes can sue under the legislation.)

Another new category introduced by the law is ‘discrimination by association’, which allows workers to sue if they feel they have been disadvantaged because of an employer’s perceived prejudice against a relative (e.g. a gay brother). Combined discrimination has also been introduced – workers can claim they were treated unfavorably because of a combination of factors, for instance age and gender… to make sure some will stick, in case one allegation fails.

Shocking enough? Well, we aren’t finished yet! It is also illegal to discriminate against someone for the ‘perception’ that they are one of the ‘protected’ groups (for instance gay) – even if they are not. As you can see, anyone can sue for discrimination on any ground, whether plausible or not, and the burden of proof is not on them but on the employer (who clearly has no way to prove his or her innocence in such cases.)

On top of that, employment tribunals will have power to ‘recommend’ changes to a company’s business practices, such as imposing diversity and equality standards, rather than just dealing with the case of the individual who brings a claim.

A small part of the Equality Act is yet to be implemented (but undoubtedly will soon be) – the requirements for larger companies to publish the differences in pay between male and female employees and take action to remove them; and affirmative action to recruit more female and ethnic minority staff (regardless of their suitability for the position).

Who will benefit from all this lunacy? Lawyers of course, and a (likely significant) number of people keen to extort money from their employers or exact revenge on their co-workers and bosses for perceived wrongs. One thing is certain – discrimination claims will skyrocket and the burden of red tape will increase exponentially. And if businesses – already struggling to recover from the recession – end up facing ruin, so be it. Who needs those evil, greedy capitalists anyway? (According to the British Chambers of Commerce the employment law ‘reforms’ will burden business with £11.3 billion in extra costs.)

The UK has already been one of the worst places to run a business (at least based on my experience from a handful of countries worldwide): the burden of an ever-growing stream of new rules and regulations, massive bureaucracy and red tape strangling companies of all sizes, constant changes (and rarely for the better) to the law including tax laws (which have already been among the most complex); not to mention the ever increasing tax burden (especially when one includes individual taxes).

Yet all that has not been enough for our progressive governments. And the madness will undoubtedly not end with the Equality Act either. Why would anyone in their right mind invest their money, time and hard work to build a business in such an insane anti-business environment?

One might have thought there would be some resistance to such disastrous ‘progressive’ experiments, especially at a time when we could use all the jobs and entrepreneurial activity we can get.

But, alas, it appears much of the country has been successfully infected with the equality/diversity/fairness disease and as such sees nothing wrong with the so-called Conservative party wholeheartedly embracing this highest of all ideals. Sadly, in a country that has long ago rejected and destroyed any traditional and moral values – along with last remnants of common sense – equality/diversity/fairness (i.e. the chief tenets of political correctness or, if you prefer, Cultural Marxism) have become the new, true religion.

In a culture where nobody takes any responsibility for their own actions and everyone is a victim, taking offense has become a national sport. People’s lives and livelihoods are routinely destroyed for falling foul of any of the myriad new laws, rules and regulations aimed at enforcing PC; freedom of speech and individual liberties have been stripped away.

Supposedly, this is all for our benefit – for we will create a fair and equal society and everyone will be happy in our new Utopia.

As a wise man once said: Marxism didn’t fail with the fall of the Soviet Union; it has instead been fully implemented in the West.

Having grown up in a formerly communist country, it seems the UK (and much of Western) population is far more brainwashed with political correctness than we ever were with communism. Worst of all, they don’t even realize it. Perhaps that’s what inevitably happens with complacent, comfortable, distracted peoples who have thrown away the values that once made them great. (Of course the mere concept of objective and true values is now rejected; everything, morality included, is relative. That which makes people feel good about themselves is good, everything else is judgmental and hence evil.)

I can see why imposing equality of outcome has proven so popular with the very many who benefit from it. And when it comes to those who are forced to pay dearly for such ‘progress’? That’s where indoctrination and coercion come into play. After all, who could ever object to the pursuit of “social justice” (code for forced equity), right?

Collectively as a society we are in complete denial of reality, having happily embraced our pretty illusion that we are all special, all equal, equally important, equally smart, equally valid.

Therefore, if some people earn more than others and wealth is not equally distributed, it is a clear sign we live in an ‘unfair’ society and some people are oppressed or discriminated against. Such injustice must therefore be rectified by government intervention. If women earn on average less than men it can only mean gender discrimination (you didn’t think the fact women take months or years off work to bear children, work far shorter hours, and tend to choose professions that are financially less lucrative could have anything to do with this, did you?). If certain groups of pupils do worse at schools than others, it must be racial discrimination, or class discrimination (how dare you think intellectual faculties, hard work or dedication could be the true reasons).

And so we have, step-by-step, legislated a perverted, delusional and coercive version of equality and increasingly made it a crime to treat (and pay) people according to their abilities, efforts and achievements.

Many consider this a good, ‘fair’ thing. As C. S. Lewis recognized, “The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept. And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation.”

Self-interest aside, for anyone who does believe such preposterous fairy-tales – it may be time to wake up from your Marxist dream. People are self-evidently unequal. Some are more virtuous, intelligent, attractive, fit, moral than others. Some are more apt for certain tasks and professions than others. Some work hard and others less so. There is nothing ‘unfair’ about them being employed and rewarded accordingly.

Everyone who wants to can be a valued member of society, in whatever role fits their God given and acquired abilities. But one can not force others to consider him or her a better man or woman than they are – it’s not something that can be legislated; it has to be earned.

When people are free, outcomes are naturally unequal. Whether you like it or not, human liberty results in economic and social inequality. You can have either equality or liberty, but not both.

And so it is of no surprise that these great ideals we like to worship are never reached by protecting individual freedoms. Quite the opposite; they are always achieved by removing rights and liberties. Equal outcome requires tyranny, forced suppression of the rights of some in order to enhance the rights of others, be it through progressive taxation and redistribution, affirmative action and special rights for certain protected groups, or rules and laws which restrict freedom of some for the benefit of others. Wherever you look, we’re enforcing equal outcomes rather than equal standards for all. (Of course this near absolute control over all aspects of life and business goes hand in hand with the creation of an ever-growing and all-powerful bureaucracy.)

And yet all that is apparently a price most people are more than willing to pay. For what were once (granted, a rather long time ago) proud, self-reliant and free people, decades of welfare state and ever expanding and intrusive government have transformed into mere slaves, dependent on the state for handouts and guidance. Indeed the only freedom many wish for now is freedom from any responsibility.

As Ben Franklin wisely said, “Those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and will lose both.”

I shall leave you with the timeless words of C. S. Lewis…

“Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose… You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal… You remember how one of the Greek Dictators (they called them “tyrants” then) sent an envoy to another Dictator to ask his advice about the principles of government. The second Dictator led the envoy into a field of grain, and there he snicked off with his cane the top of every stalk that rose an inch or so above the general level. The moral was plain. Allow no preeminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser or better or more famous or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them all down to a level: all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals. Thus Tyrants could practise, in a sense, “democracy.” But now “democracy” can do the same work without any tyranny other than her own. No one need now go through the field with a cane. The little stalks will now of themselves bite the tops off the big ones. The big ones are beginning to bite off their own in their desire to Be Like Stalks.” (C. S. Lewis; Screwtape Proposes a Toast)