But I don't know how someone like me, who wants to implement a system wherein marriages are arranged between the prospective husband and his future bride's father could be a "feminist" in any real sense.
...the number of ways the ship has sailed and the cat has left the bag on anything
vaguely approaching this makes your self-proclaimed title of
nutjob quite accurate. You are fundamentally misunderstanding damn near
everything about actual historic contexts, because arranged marriages have very nearly always, with only one exception to my knowledge, been extreme upper class economic considerations, those attempting to imitate them, or hideously oppressive and generally highly
unstable social hierarchies with virtually zero social mobility and/or extreme commonplace violence.
The "gilded cage" mentality has massively usually had the women hold a considerable say in her husband among the vast majority of the population, only when you have hardened and comprehensive caste systems like the fractal shitshow of India or extremely violent Thar cultures like the Middle East do the general populace of women get deprived spousal choice outside the upper classes. And the "homemaker" you so desperately want being
the norm was a peculiar feature of the 1950s, a time when no small amount of women sought out their future husbands rather than being passive objects of desire. If they didn't want a particular man, he
could not get her hand in marriage.
Could you elaborate on this logic? It doesn't make sense.
You're never getting the
general population of women in gilded cages like that, because they
never have been. Because they
flat out can't in any example of a long-term system. Economics, in the bluntest and most primitive resource acquisition senses, doesn't work that way, you can't have things function anything approaching sensibly with nearly half the adult population being nothing but people-makers. And you're not back-tracking anything approaching a majority of the gains in self-reliance without exploiting a downright civilizational collapse that has cruel brute force be the
only meaningful political determinant.
Reducing the
expectation of female labor is somewhat doable, altering the priorities so the family has some degree of primacy might be doable with a relatively mild economic breakdown, but you're not getting back the 1950s. The history of industrialization is
covered in breaking traditional labor practices as
economic requirements. Women went in the factories because there weren't enough men spare in the workforce, and they became the "homemakers" you idolize because there was such a bounty that the lower classes could
afford to have the woman not earn anything. The story of the breakdown in, and many cases
creation of, all the norms you want to claw back is the story of tradition not working in a contemporary context, on a basic
economic level.
So unless you want to convert the world to a peculiar variant of Mormonism by the sword, you're not getting those extremely narrow historic contexts back (and they're a bizarre hodgepodge of them rather bluntly contradictory, anyways), and if you do you're going to get rolled over by China, Russia, or literally anyone who doesn't as they surge ahead and end up with a greater sword than yours.
If there is a spectrum of political philosophy along which some kind of admixture is valid, it is between Libertarianism and Patriotism, but the only valid political position left-to-right is affixed to the furthest point right. This sounds daunting to those who don't understand what the right is.
Congrats for managing to completely miss a solid third of the roots of political drives, while simultaneously forgetting the fact that history has been, and
still is, dominated by multicultural empires. In the past, those empires beat down those outside the ruling culture, while today the ruling culture is fundamentally divorced from the lower classes in new ways. You can't have patriotism in a genuinely mutlicultural system, and even today the one real claim to a
potentially self-sufficient culturally-cohesive developed region is the
politically irrelevant stretch of Appalatia, the Great Plains, and the Great Lakes. Civic nationalism needs
built and only works fully in the United States of America, because nowhere else has the resources needed to even attempt to slow immigration enough.
That third root is
stability. As we've seen many times in the last hundred years, people will accept astonishingly horrific shit to try and get the trains running on time and food on the table. Often, the ones promising it fail to deliver, or are replaced by brutal strongmen. Liberty and Fraternity are firmly in the trash when things get rough, and this is a key to how historic multicultural empires
worked. Because all the subordinate cultures would usually sit and be good little subjects because the alternative in successful revolt was being brutally conquered by somebody else.
The Right generally rejects stability as a priority
axiomatically, but you see people like TNOL who are willing to promptly burn the entirety of modern industry to the ground to try and reclaim the systems that held "stable" for several centuries if that's what it takes. The reason the American Right rejects that priority is because stability has usually been a lie in all but the most primitive senses of avoiding the sword, but this does not mean that human nature does not yearn for it. Food on the table and avoiding the sword beat
every other thing in the world when you have to choose between them, and we see this in how the Left holds its strongholds. Welfare handouts, attempts at special protections, all manner of things to buy loyalty of that root we desperately tried to move past in the 1700s and still fight with today.
It's not bluntly incorrect to prioritize stability over liberty or fraternity. Damn near everyone does, even if everything they believe ideologically says otherwise. Because people are instinctively wired to
personally survive. A person starving to death literally has large portions of their capacity for higher reason
completely shut down. That's how cannibalism usually happens, because the parts of the mind responsible for morality are disabled as instinct determines the nature of the life-or-death struggle and
every restriction is eventually discarded in the attempt to survive. Stability of needs is the
first priority that needs met before anything else
can matter.