Particularly this part (bold is mine):
“Quiverfull types, at least, recognize that sustained male supremacy requires male responsibility. They encourage men to play the role of the nuclear family patriarch, and within their own culture have reinstated many pre-60s norms, such as sex as a precious restricted resource. But they do coast a lot on the assumption that if women can only be coerced, cajoled, or shamed into making the choice to submit properly, good Christian men will just sort of naturally dominate properly. Most of their messaging is directed at women, implying that their rebellious and corrupt feminist hearts are the only things standing between now and the glorious patriarchal appearing.
But, honestly, it seems like most men out there are pretty okay with a lack of being actively dominant. They can deal with a woman who brings home the bacon, fries it up in a pan, and never-never lets him forget he’s a man. They don’t start to get pissy until she suggests that maybe he could cook the bacon sometimes.”
This is what I have noticed for years. Women have to first submit properly, and then men can lead properly. Its so clear to see how this is backwards, but many don’t get it. A woman has to submit to air, a void, before he can find his balls and lead. This naturally then makes the woman the leader. She goes first. In a nutshell, women are responsible for saving civilization, the supposedly “weaker sex” mind you. Men talk a lot about yearning for a return to patriarchy, but women are used as an excuse as to why it can’t happen. “Those unsubmissive women who just won’t let me lead, let me be a man!” Whine, Whine! They can’t just take the bull by the horns and be men. If anything feminism took over the land because the men simply let it happen. Being too afraid to be called “sexist” or “misogynist” they let the little ladies have whatever they wanted. Fear in the heart of men enables feminism immensely.
For those who don’t think women should vote, President Wilson and the men in congress made that happen. Women could have had hissy fits on the streets all day long and so what, but the men eventually hung up their balls and gave the women their way. It sure set the tone for thing to come. Women learned they could initiate a movement, be leaders, and men would easily submit and fall into line. And now maybe because men feel so embarrassed and hoodwinked, rather than taking responsibility for letting feminism get out of control, admitting they got punked and taking a ding to the ego, they keep letting women have control. The mindset now is “I can’t be free until my captor sets me free”. They are at woman’s mercy and seem OK with this, probably because as much as they don’t like it in theory it is also very comfortable (all they have ever known).
I have read in many sources that men weren’t happy with their 1950s cookie cutter roles either. They wanted freedom also and not to be saddled with the responsibility of being the breadwinner. It took men and women to make the 1960s happen, yet women get the entire blame for being the independent freedom seekers, from breaking away from their roles and duties and now women have to fix it by returning to their proper roles while men can kick back. All they give is their word that if you return to your proper role, then I will return to my proper role. They don’t really want it for its intrinsic value alone they want to see if this traditional role can benefit them first. Don’t be a leader for the sake of being a leader (because that is tough, drudgery work); only be a leader if a woman first gives you something lovely to lead. Its true most men are pretty OK without being dominant or leaders. They just have this fantasy of the supposed “good old days” and what it would be like if men were leaders again but don’t really want to take the action to make this happen. Telling women they need to submit to air, to the void of their leadership is much easier. Delays them having to do work, buys them time.