Marriage is Not Meant to be Egalitarian

A husband should be obligated to support his wife just based on the fact that she is his wife, his dependent, and he is responsible for her. It should not be dependent on how much housework she does or whether or not they have children that she is responsible to care for. I see in the times we live in now that a lot of women are telling their husbands or live-in boyfriends that they’ll do housework if he will support her. Of course, then this leads oftentimes to the boyfriend/husband getting angry that she isn’t doing enough housework or isn’t doing her share even though he’s supporting her. Of course, men and women (who aren’t related) should not be allowed to live alone together without being married. But on a husband should fall the obligation to fully financially support his wife no matter how much housework she does or even if she does any housework at all. If a man is rich enough to afford a maid it shouldn’t affect his obligation to support his wife. As much as he provides for himself he should provide for his wife as well and any children they have together. A man shouldn’t be relieved of his obligation to support his wife just because he can afford a housekeeper and doesn’t need her to do housework. In times past men had the legal obligation to support their wives and this obligation was not dependent on the wife “doing her share” in housework or bearing a child every year.

As well, a lot of people look down on childless housewives as though they were not doing anything productive. This is only because we’ve been brainwashed to see everything in terms of money, in terms of how much money it would cost to pay someone else to do what the housewife does. We’ve been brainwashed to believe that marriages and male-female relationships should always be egalitarian. But you can’t put a price-tag on the work a woman at home does, as her work is invaluable. Even if all she does is bake a pie and invite a friend over for tea she has still done something valuable. She has still contributed to society and the family. She has contributed to society in the way of one less broken home, one less unhappy family, one less obese child and one less frustrated and angry woman.

I like to sit down and read a book and occasionally, if there’s anything good to watch, I like to watch a little tv when I get all of my chores done. Just because I sit down for a couple of hours doing something that I enjoy doesn’t mean I’m lazy or “freeloading”. If my husband is unsatisfied with the work I do around the house then he can tell me what I’m doing wrong. It is his job to straighten me out if I’m neglecting my true duties. Likewise, most married women feel they have to volunteer all of their free time or start some home business or something. I have no intentions of starting some home business or volunteering. That would make me very unhappy and no doubt be an unnecessary stress.

A husband should have the legal obligation to fully financially support his wife and any children they do or don’t have and as well he should have the legal right to be head-of-household. It is the woman’s obligation to care for the home and she will generally have her own way of doing things and her own methods. Mostly a husband should just let her do things the way she knows how to do things best. If a wife is truly neglecting her duties around the house and neglecting the kids then it is the husband’s job to keep her in line or punish her if necessary. It’s not really the business of anyone else around as it is the husband’s household and he should have the right to direct his family the way he sees fit (so long as he doesn’t cross the line into abuse and so long as he lives up to his responsibilities). It doesn’t really matter if the feminist woman down the street hates the fact that his wife doesn’t work. It doesn’t really matter if the wife is busy non-stop or what other people think. A wife should not be pressured to be on her feet running herself into the ground all day just to appease the modern-day notion of “equal” marriages. Marriage was not meant to be an “equal partnership.” Marriage is a partnership of sorts, but it should not be “equal.” The purpose of marriage is for men to protect and support women and give women security to have babies. The purpose of marriage is to protect women from having to go out and work and be on their own and to protect women from carrying double burdens.

Every year when my husband files our taxes he is barred from claiming me as a dependent. If we were not married he could do so, but since we are married our laws state that legally I cannot be a dependent and he cannot legally be head of household. Our laws state that we must jointly be head of household. That I, as his legal wife, must accept all the same burdens that are laid upon him and no consideration is given to the burdens that fall solely on a woman or to her weaker and more dependent state. That is not a choice, that is an obligation. It is the law accepting of the feminist perspective and obliging all citizens to follow it despite the fact that it is anti-God and this legally enforced equality in the family has been the primary cause of the complete destruction of the family unit and the instability in marital relationships. But this is not what marriage has historically been about. Marriage is about men protecting and supporting women and being responsible for their actions towards women. Marriage needs to return once again to being an institution about men providing for and being guardians of women and children, no matter how much work a woman is doing around the house.

Recommended Articles:

The Contribution of Traditional Wives to Society

Homemakers Should Not Be Made to Feel Guitly for Enjoying Life at Home

So You Think You Should Go To Work?

If All You Do…

Posted in Commentary, Current Events, Marriage, Opinion Pieces | Tagged , , , , , , ,

If You Want to Promote Responsible Fatherhood…

Interesting that I’ve noticed my little one’s school is always having special programs to reach out to fathers and to grandparents but never anything special for mothers specifically. Our school is now starting a new parenting program to get “male members of our community involved in our school” and it says “Moms- stay home and rest.” Oh, that’s interesting. It’s funny how everyone always screams about how poor oppressed victims fathers are yet there isn’t a program one that I’ve seen to get mothers more involved or anything anywhere to uplift the unique role a biological mother plays. There are no groups or organizations out there to protect mothers and sorry but feminists don’t want mothers protected because that would mean women might be pushed back into traditional gender roles (oh the horror!). I even had a feminist rival of mine (a “stay at home mother” nonetheless) tell me that women used to die in childbirth all the time so there is no need for a mother after birth and a father is just as good. I guarantee that if there was a program at school telling dads to just “stay home and rest” and reaching out to mothers that there would be outrage, not only from feminists and working mothers saying “how dare you think us women should just be home with babies!” “how sexist!” but also from fathers upset that somebody dared think they can’t be just as good a replacement for a mother in the home. How dare somebody exclude them!

I’ve seen a couple of studies done trying to assess an infant’s need for nurture by the mother but they always have to say that the actual natural mother can be easily replaced by someone else nurturing. There’s all kinds of studies everywhere put out by men’s groups about how fatherless children do bad. They don’t really seem to discriminate between married fathers and men who just fathered a child through casual intercourse with some random woman either. Apparently, fathers are just superior and mothers are replaceable in all ways to them just on the basis that fathers have a penis (of course mothers have to carry the babies, they can’t deny that, but after that they are expendable and replaceable.) But try to find a study about how motherless children do and you will come up empty-handed. Also, do a Google search for “do family courts favor fathers?” and Google will think you made a typo and will say “did you mean ‘do family courts favor mothers’?” So much for fathers being victims?

Our entire society has been taken over by gender neutral principles. There isn’t even a shred of common sense at all. Our laws today are based upon pure wishful thinking and fantasy instead of the common sense that prevailed for generations before us because common sense has no place in a society overtaken by political correctness that has been taken to lunatic extremes.

Also, can somebody please explain how getting more men to stay home and nurture babies and offering them paternity leave is going to make more women want to have babies? Seriously? That’s just more politically correct BS because nobody wants to talk about a solution that has been proven to work for centuries. How about if you want to promote men’s involvement in children’s lives and responsible fatherhood and get women to be interested in actually having more babies to offset declining birth rates we uplift the mother’s natural role in the nurturing of young children and make the father the head of the household? When there was strong legal and social stigma against illegitimacy and married women did not work men were more responsible and more invested in children’s lives. The male role as provider for his children and the mother of his children in marriage strengthens families and strengthens men’s role in families.

If you want to get fathers more involved and make them become more responsible how about we return to the tried and true method of the traditional male-headed patriarchal family that served our country and the Western world so well for centuries? It is men’s abandonment from the provider role and women’s abandonment from caring for the home and children that has led to the weakening of the family unit and men’s role in being responsible for their families and the children they father.

Posted in Commentary, Current Events, Feminism, MRAs, Opinion Pieces, Personal Relationships | Tagged , , , , ,

There Has Never Been an Easier Time For Women to Stay Home

Most of us today were brought up on the nonsense that it takes “two incomes” just to make ends meet. But I find it interesting how nobody ever cares to challenge this myth. In truth, that’s all it is, a myth. I’ve talked about it before here on the blog about how it was not the economy, but rather cultural and political factors, that forced large numbers of women into the workforce. It was only the middle and upper-class women that started entering the workforce during the time of women’s lib. The numbers of lower-class women working actually remained the same and they found themselves degraded in the eyes of society and their legal security ripped away from them.

The truth is, it is easier than ever before in history to live comfortably on one income. That’s not really because we make more money than we did before compared to the cost of living, but mostly because of the vast availability of cheaply produced goods. In the past some families were so poor they couldn’t even afford shoes for their children in the summertime. These days even the poorest of all families can at least afford a two dollar pair of flip-flops from Wal-Mart for all their children. I’ve had so many women try to justify their presence in the workforce based upon economic necessity yet when you look at the way they live their lives it seems outrageous. Most have high speed internet, Satellite TV, expensive cell phone plans with their smartphones, at least two different vehicles they are making payments on and their houses are more than adequate for their needs. I mean, these are things our ancestors didn’t even have in the past. They didn’t have inexpensive clothing from the store and all kinds of extra luxuries like air conditioning and clothes dryers and they lived just fine. Today the poorest among us in the Western world live like royalty compared to those in poor developing countries around the world. Our poorest today live like the middle class did only as little as 60 years ago. In truth, it’s never been easier for a man to support a family solely on his income alone.

Most married couples start out with very little at first, but over time they obtain more material goods and they become richer. My husband and I lived in a small trailer for the first two years of our marriage. It was a real eyesore but I still never worked even when the baby came along and yet we were still able to afford, on my husband’s then meager income, extra luxuries like Satellite internet, entertainment every couple of weeks (such as buying movies to watch) and air conditioning, cell phones, disposable diapers and the expenses of drying the laundry in an electric dryer. Of course, before we married we purposely picked out housing we could afford on one income. There were many places that we simply couldn’t afford to live. We also drove a couple of older vehicles but since I rarely left the house it wasn’t a problem if there was only one vehicle working. I have never had paid employment since being married (I worked as a teenager a little but I quit working several months before my marriage) and yet we have made it just fine.

Of course, we are much better off now. We live in a bigger home and have nicer vehicles to drive and can afford a few extra luxuries that we couldn’t then. My husband also has a better job as well and being married for several years has allowed us to collect more material goods than we had before. As well, I’ve learned extra tips and tricks to save money. Also, my husband has become more traditional minded as time has gone on. He’s always had traditional views on women and gender roles, as have I, but over time those beliefs have gotten stronger and even more conservative than before.

I’ve talked about this before, but men with traditional views on women tend to greatly out-earn men with more egalitarian views. This is a win for traditional women because it means we are better taken care of if our husbands have strong views in traditional gender roles. It means living on one income in a traditional male-headed family with the husband as sole breadwinner is even easier thus claiming it takes two incomes is even more illogical. It also shows what men can accomplish when their masculinity is uplifted and they are encouraged to be real men and be proud of being a man. Women need to encourage the growth of mature masculinity and uplift all of the stereotypical masculine qualities (such as physical strength, social dominance, etc…) so that men can become good providers and protectors of their families once again, so that all women can have security in the home and return to their traditional roles of wives and mothers.

Another thing I want to say to this is that sometimes a job can be unstable. Sometimes a husband loses his job. If this happens a wife shouldn’t just all of a sudden run out the door and start filling in job applications all over town the second her husband comes home unemployed. Let him pick himself back up and find new employment. He will be stronger because of it. I think it’s very important to men to be able to prove themselves and if his wife interferes and tries to help him it could actually be damaging to his ego. Her seeking employment because he has lost his job is her sending the signal to him that he has failed and she doesn’t have faith in his ability to take care of her and their family. Actually, her providing a second income also says she has no faith in him as provider. It may sound wrong in today’s world but a woman should not help her husband in this way. It’s not the wife’s job to shield her husband from the world or protect and support him. She can help by being supportive and making things more comfortable at home for him and cut back on expenses. I remember when my husband lost his job a couple of years after we were married. It never even occurred to me to look for a job, nor did he ever even give the slightest hint that he thought I should. He went off and found more work and now we are even better off than we were before. Both of us actually see his loss of the job he used to have as a blessing now. I was a little worried at the time but I knew he’d take care of us- and he did. With the wife’s constant presence in the home the husband never has to worry about who will watch the kids or do the housework, leaving him free to devote himself full-time to supporting the family or look for work if he is unemployed.

I really like what Lady Lydia has to say about a husband’s unemployment:


“There are husbands today who demand that their wives work and bring in as much income as possible. No one has the right to send a wife to work if she does not want to. God, the supreme being, has already mandated through his word, that women should guide and keep the home. Where God has already commanded, mankind cannot legislate. We do not need “permission” or “approval” from husbands or anyone else, to be the keepers at home that the Bible describes. Many women panic the minute their husbands lose a job, and start seeking employment outside the home. I lived in an era where men were often unemployed, because there were many jobs that were seasonal or temporary. Yet, women seemed to be able to adjust to this, and even expect this. Still, they didnt take matters into their own hands and get jobs. For one thing, jobs were usually available for men, and women prefered to be home.

What has happened to convince women to leave their homes to work? It has been a massive word campaign, which I called “word-ology” since the 20th century, to persuade women that they are being cheated by being “denied” jobs, or by “having” to stay home. When words are emphasised or twisted a certain way, people start believing lies.

Men need the responsibility of being providers. It gives them something to excell in, gives them pride in their families and gives them something worth living for. Work is good for them, but they need women at home helping to make that money stretch, and make a man’s work worthwhile. When he sees her doing her best to save money and be creative and resourceful, it makes his burden lighter. Yes, women can stay home, but they need to make it a lifestyle that is simple and inexpensive, so that money does not go back out of the family coffers as quickly as it comes in. The family economy is an entire skill that each generation has to learn. It requires knowing how to make things from the raw materials and how to be innovative.

What used to be the inconvenience of temporary employment for men, has now become an “emergency” and women feel they have to fill in the gap. Men are now “falling back” on their wives, wanting them to work. If a woman will work outside the home, a man will let her.”

In our world today it’s also easier for a family to live on one income because even men who are not in perfect health can still find employment to support their families, as most jobs no longer require the same level of back-breaking work as they did in the past. These days a lot of men have jobs in an air-conditioned office or building that don’t really demand any physical labor, and even those jobs that do require much physical labor are still made easier oftentimes by power-tools and machinery. They even have air-conditioned tractors with MP3 players these days. There is also social security and other welfare benefits for when men are sick or injured and can’t work. On all levels, there has never been an easier time in all of history for women to be in the home and for men to be sole providers of families.

Recommended Articles:

Yes, High Numbers of Women Working IS a New Thing

Questioning Economic Necessity

Yes, You Can Do It!

Marriage is Masculinity and Coverture

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , , , ,

No, “We” Are Not Pregnant

First off I want to give a disclaimer that I’m not a doctor so use your brain and seek your own medical advice from an actual qualified medical professional. I’m giving my opinions and beliefs based on my long hours of research and personal experiences. Second this post has some sexual talk that isn’t completely PG-rated and isn’t normally something I go into, but I feel it is important so I’m going to “go there.” Just wanted to give a quick warning about that.

I came across some comments today regarding this “we are pregnant” nonsense that men today say (which I think is ridiculous) while surfing through NYMOM’s blog (I’m a big fan of her blog and occasionally check through her postings again to lift my spirits from this broken world we live in). Anyways, I thought they were pretty good and summed up some things that were have actually been on my mind here lately and I wanted to make a blog posting to put in my own two cents on the matter.


“We Are Not Pregnant
The glory of men and women lies in their unbridgeable differences.
Mark Galli | posted 7/12/2007 08:55AM

A male friend, married to a lovely women, comes up to me beaming and says, “We’re pregnant!”

“Wow!” I reply, with inappropriate sarcasm. “When I was a young man, only women could get pregnant.”

I’ve heard this phrase—”We’re pregnant”—too much recently, but it’s time to move beyond sarcasm. The intent is as understandable as the execution is absurd. It arises out of the noble desire of men (and future fathers) to participate fully in the childrearing. And I understand that for many men, it simply means, “My wife and I are expecting a baby.”

But the first dictionary meaning of pregnant remains, “Carrying developing offspring within the body.” Whenever a word is misused, it means the speaker is unaware of the word’s meaning, or that the cultural meaning of a word is shifting, or that some ideology is demanding obeisance. Probably all three are in play, but it’s the last reality that we should pay attention to. It is not an accident that this phrase, “We’re pregnant,” has arisen in a culture that in many quarters is ponderously egalitarian and tries to deny the fundamental differences of men and women.

This phrase is most unfortunate after conception because it is an inadvertent co-opting of women by men—men using language to suggest that they share equally in the burdens and joys of pregnancy. Instead, pregnancy is one time women should flaunt their womanhood, and one time men should acknowledge the superiority of women. Men may be able to run the mile in less than four minutes and open stuck pickle jars with a twist of the wrist, but for all our physical prowess, we cannot carry new life within us and bring it into the world. To suggest that we do is a slap in the face of women.”

Anonymous #1 says:


“…My partner too has experienced many emotions since finding out I am pregnant, and although both very happy I have been very poorly due to morning sickness and nausea. To which he can never really understand how much I have been ill, and although has an idea of how depressed at times I felt through being incapacitated by the nausea, he really does not have a clue as to the extent of my suffering.

This is of course not his fault. However he has experienced symptoms of what I would call womb envy. He often says he wishes HE was the pregnant one, and that I am experiencing the baby growing, and how HE wishes he could feel it move just as I can, and how HE would rather be the one pregnant, and how he would swap places with me in a second, just to experience what I am. This actually makes me feel guilty, as he actually gets quite bitter and at times moody over the whole thing…at least that’s how he comes across. I have really tried to be sensitive to his needs, during this time, and share every aspect of how I feel and how IT feels to be the pregnant one.

It has actually brought out some strange colours in him that I never knew were there. He gets angry that most pregnancy books are female focused, and that there are only small sections dedicated to the man, which he says he finds patronising and insults his intelligence. When I suggested finding a book specific for men in pregnancy, he said, “he should not have to”, and says we are EQUAL in this process, that he is just as important as I am.”

Anonymous #2 says:


“I am a 30-year-old European married to an American. I don not have any children. Lately I have decided that I do not want to have any children from my husband because I have come to regard pregnancy as the worst Ponzi scheme out there: You go through nine months of pregnancy, through labor, etc. and suddenly someone else can claim (at least equal) legal rights over the fruit of my labour (literally)!? Over the child I gave birth to! No, thank you! I am European and moving to the (very legalistic) United States has been a huge eye-opener for me: I once told an American fellow student that I would not want my husband to be present during the birth of my child (I see it as a very private moment, and I would like to be assisted by a doula or a trusted female friend) and he became very angry, claiming that it is a father’s right to be there and see the child exit the mother’s vagina (actually, he called it “witness the child’s first moments”)!!! I am a woman, a separate free individual, and NOT a mechanical child-bearing vessel / child-birthing machine. Therefore, I will not have any children, especially from my husband (I could always go to Denmark and undergo artificial insemination). I would love to have a child from my husband, but I am too afraid to do so in this upside-down world.

Unfortunately, also many formerly feminist European countries, such as Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia, are now starting to embrace this questionable gender neutrality… When the heck did we switch from “women’s rights” to “gender equality”? Sad!”

There is so much to comment on here. The first anonymous commenter has a “partner” (she doesn’t specifically state “husband” which is a problem in itself) who is jealous of her more important role in bringing a child into this world. I personally think it really pathetic of a man to be jealous of women’s roles in any area of life- whether in childbearing or in the traditional feminine sphere of caring for the home and children. Anonymous commenter #2 has a real problem with her husband or any man claiming the same legal rights as her to a child she has suffered and worked to give birth to and also a problem with her husband insisting to be there when she gives birth.

I have to say that these ladies are right. Their feelings on these issues are not unfounded. A man should not be jealous over the role his wife has in life. Men and women are not “equal.” A father can only be made equal by the society/law and what he brings to the mother and child (as opposed to what the mother does in childbearing). I understand there is a tendency in men (that they will never admit to, of course) to be afflicted with womb envy. That is why men should have other areas in life that are unique to their sex that they can achieve in (such as providing for families and being protectors). Yes, her role is more important in childbearing. In truth, the male role in childbearing is dispensable. Only a mother is necessary during childbirth, only her role is biological. She conceives, carries, bears and nurses the child from her own body. Her maternity is certain. Paternity, however, is never completely certain. The most intense scrutiny in the world can never completely assure a man of his paternity. He must trust in a third party (whether the mother or some anonymous person in a lab coat he’s never met and who is, after all, just a human who makes mistakes, not to mention that in a bureaucracy the right hand never knows what the left hand is doing) to assure him he is the father of a child.

I also agree completely with childbirth being a private event. My husband did not in any way participate in the birth of our child. Actually, nobody really did. Nobody- friends or family- was informed at all that I was in labor and I wouldn’t have had it any other way. The midwife was specifically informed that nobody at all was to be told that I was in labor and if anyone did show up to get rid of them. My midwife only checked on me midday to make sure I was ok then left me in peace until I needed her a couple of hours later. I can’t see what good spectators do in childbirth other than make labor longer and more difficult and painful for the mother by disallowing her privacy and peace of mind to let instinct take over and I’m sorry but I can’t see how it takes five people groping a woman’s privates for a child to be delivered safely. In all societies I’ve ever studied, until recently, men were barred from being present at childbirth and a mother would either give birth alone or have a woman (or women) with her (although they often did not touch her, but were only there for support and to give assistance if needed). Male doctors only started delivering babies in the 19th century for the money, whereas before if men attempted to sneak around to see a laboring women they were shooed away. There is no need to touch a woman when she is giving birth and touching or interfering or talking to a woman (when it is not an emergency of course) can actually cause her injury and make the process more difficult. After all, animals give birth alone. They know when birth is imminent and isolate themselves. I had a midwife but she was only there pretty much after birth to make sure we were doing fine and to run an herb bath for me and the baby. As a result of my husband making himself scarce and me having complete silence and privacy labor and birth was actually relatively easy and not very painful. Labor progressed quickly and naturally with no interventions. Nobody talked to me or touched me and, while listening to the horror stories of every other woman having a hospital or home birth with lots of family, friends as well as the father in attendance, I probably had one of the best births imaginable. I never took any medications at all while pregnant nor during birth- they weren’t necessary. My body was made for this. I felt instinctively that childbirth was sexual (yes, sexual) and an intimate event that was sacred. Somehow I felt connected to something greater. It’s a beautiful feeling of vulnerability and preciousness that is unique to women. Men should not seek to undermine this and it is preposterous to think men are just as good with care-taking as women when there is not a shred of evidence to suggest such a thing. Men should respect and honor women for what only we can do.

The second thing that anonymous commenter #2 talks about is giving fathers rights when they do not give birth. I certainly think our current legal system is disgusting and I feel her sentiment exactly. I would feel the same as her if I didn’t know history. Because only women can bear the babies our laws used to place the entire burden of financial support of a family on the husband/father. Women were not responsible for their husband’s support nor should a woman be. Husbands should be responsible for their wives, but wives should not be responsible for their husbands. Men today however seem to think they are entitled to support from the mother of their child and support from their wives as well as WIC benefits and a share in the mother’s maternity leave that were intended to benefit and help mothers and infants recover from the ordeal of pregnancy and childbirth. So a woman bears your child and she owes you? I don’t think so. If anything the father is indebted to the mother. In no other scenario is the one who does work for somebody supposed to pay the one who is receiving the benefits of their work. That would be a crime. And indeed it is a crime in my book for a man not to be fully financially responsible for his wife, the woman who has given him children. This works out for the best interests of the family overall anyways as the more the responsibility for support is placed on the wife/mother the worse family breakdown overall gets. A husband should have legal rights because he should be responsible for his family. He is responsible to provide for the children he fathers with his wife and he is responsible for how those children are raised and how they turn out. He should be responsible just the same for his wife. The obligation to see to their support and protection should rest on his shoulders, not hers. The day men suffer pain and the possibility for infection, sickness, injury, disfigurement , indignity and even death (and this isn’t even mentioning the emotional/psychological side effects of childbearing) to bring forth life into this world the same as women have always suffered since the beginning of time is the day they might be justified in asking the wife/mother to carry the burden of support as well. A man not married to his children’s mother shouldn’t get the same rights because his position is not the same. A man simply wanting rights to a child he’s fathered is not in any way an example of him being responsible. Him being married to the mother and providing for her and the child and being held responsible for them is him being responsible.

A husband should do what is in the best interests of his wife and children. In many cases, as heretical as this statement is today, it is in the best interests of both mother and child for him to not be present when she gives birth. He has the right to see to their safety, support and protection. It’s not about what he wants. He has no “right” to put his wants above their needs. He should be putting the needs of his wife and child above his own and if his wife is not comfortable with him being present he should wait somewhere nearby and stay out of the way. He should also protect her and make sure nobody else interferes to cause her distress or harm while she is in labor and vulnerable.

Anonymous commenter #2 also talks about artificial insemination. I am very much against this for many reasons and think it should be outlawed, along with surrogacy. I also don’t think a lot of women realize the stresses and harms these procedures often do to women. A lot of women suffer much physical pain and psychological distress and the procedures fail often. Apart from that, women should not be left on their own with children. I am very much for patriarchy, the way the West has practiced it for centuries, as it gives great status to women. I prefer to defer to my husband’s authority because it is the surest source of protection and support for a woman- because it makes me feel secure. The more divorce and out-of-wedlock births there are the less men invest in women and support and protect them.

On the other hand, we cannot exist with gender neutral laws without a complete societal collapse. It’s either matriarchy or patriarchy. I would prefer patriarchy in a heartbeat. I don’t want to have sex with any man (or multiple men) I choose without stigma and live with my extended matrilineal kin or other women and do all the work while the men lounge in hammocks all day and run around clubbing each other over the head! That is the greatest Ponzi scheme of all time if you ask me! Patriarchy is a marvelous invention that actually took that burden out of the hands of mothers and placed it on fathers and built up civilization and I don’t want to give that up! I’d much prefer to be taken care of by one man for my life. I have always liked the idea of carrying *his* (I’m talking about my husband here) child. It is a great feeling, wrapped in safety and love by one more powerful than I, for my intimate body to be filled and invaded. It’s spiritual and romantic. Our differences are what make us unique. I’m weaker and much more vulnerable while he is stronger and in charge. Egalitarianism and women being in charge takes the beauty and life out of everything. It dulls the senses. When we are in the roles we are made for it is a beautiful thing. A woman taking her husband’s last name is actually a remnant of coverture in our culture. She and her children have the husband’s name, as she was once a “covered woman” (before the so-called “advancement” of women’s rights) being under the protection of her husband.

Women are free under a true patriarchal system- under coverture. A woman is free from being ruled by men who have no responsibility for her. She is free to have her babies and care for them and keep them by her side while the father goes out and works. She is free from the drudgery of full-time work and is free from being harassed by other men and having to carry the weight of responsibilities that rightfully belong to men. No, “we” are not pregnant, and neither should “we” carry the same responsibilities because our roles are not the same. The same rules that apply to men do not apply to women and vice versa.

Recommended Articles:

Family and Medical Leave Act Seeks to Undermine Mother’s Rights

Why Men Should Never be Present at the Birth of Their Child

Undisturbed Birth is our Genetic Heritage

Posted in History, On Being a Woman, Patriarchy, Personal Relationships | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

The Provider Role Belongs to Man


“It is sad that such a subject is even necessary to discuss, because for generations, women, whether they were single or childless, married or widowed, were protected from the pressures of earning a living, and the fathers, husbands, brothers and sons, proudly took their responsibility to be good providers and protectors of the family.” (1)

Today’s conservatives have adopted feminism although they are less liberal than what liberals are about it. Conservatives today will say women should work and go to college before marriage, stay home for a few years and then go back to work. This is a huge contrast from before when marriage was seen as a covenant lasting for a lifetime with a husband being required to financially provide for his wife for her lifetime.

The way I see it is that there is no reason for daughters to be shipped off to college or pressured to go to work before marriage. I see nothing wrong with a young women having some employment to earn some extra spending money before they are married, but young women should not be taught that they must provide for themselves. Young women should be taught to look at employment as a temporary thing, as something to do only until they are married. A young woman should learn from her mother and her father should still be required to support and protect her until she should marry and that responsibility passes to her husband. Today even preachers exclaim that they want their daughters to go off to college and secure a good job. This is considered that the young woman is doing something worthwhile and something good and holy. But I don’t see it that way. I see it as feminism being so pervasive in our culture that even the most religious and conservative and God-fearing have adopted it, even if they are still rejecting the more “radical” elements like gay marriage and abortion.


“I will not encourage my daughters to go to college or have careers. They’ll be raised as housewives. They’ll be raised to be good mothers and wives whose sole focus is their family. They can study what they want and be involved in things that interest them (other than sports), in their free time, but their main focus will be domestic activities. They’ll be taught to be kind, good, and respectful to their husbands and to men in general. They’ll live with me until they’re married. There’s no need for them to have a job. I don’t care if they can take care of themselves or not because that’s what they’ll have a husband for…There will be no “equality” in my house. My children will learn something along the lines of “mommy is supposed to cook, clean, and stay home with me. Daddy is supposed to work, pay for things, and make final decisions.” (There are other things, but this is just the basics). No shared household chores and no shared income responsibility.” (2)

I see nothing wrong with a woman’s family helping the newly married couple to get started by giving her household items or other properties. My family gave me cookware and some furniture as well as a car (albeit an old clunker that we sold within a year) when I first got married. I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with dowries either, so long as it isn’t seen as the woman providing it for herself before she gets married, as in her being expected to work to provide a large dowry so a man can instead not worry about providing and just marry a woman with a good dowry or something. Expecting a woman to work before marriage to provide for land or property or other goods to provide for the family is still pushing the burden of providing off onto women. All the necessities should be the husband’s to provide.


“In the same manner, when the law made the man the head of the family, he also had to financially support his wife… In the times of the Vikings, the government even had established the minimum bride price the man had to pay if he wished to marry, the reasoning behind it being that if a man was too poor to pay the minimum amount of money required by law he obviously wouldn’t be able to support a family and hence had no business to marry.” (3)

Even when the children are out of the home (say in school or have grown up or gotten married themselves) a woman should still have every right to be in the home. Homemaking shouldn’t be seen as some temporary thing a woman does just to take care of very young children, but a lifetime vocation. It should be the right of every woman to be financially supported by her husband. The male role as provider shouldn’t be some optional burden that he can choose to accept or not. It should be a man’s obligation to provide for his wife or daughters as well as any unmarried sisters or other closely related female family members who need his support.

Another thing that bothers me is that stay at home mothers and housewives are often pressured to take in extra money in the form of having a home business or babysitting other people’s kids for some extra money. This, in my opinion, can be just as bad and disruptive to family life as the woman simply working out side of the home. It’s one thing for a housewife to have a hobby or volunteer activity that she does in her spare time or for her to occasionally make something unique that she sells on eBay or something, but it is a different story when she has actual work-a job- that needs to be done that takes her away from the home or when she’s doing work from home because she feels she must “do her part” and help her husband provide or something. Also, babysitting other people’s kids can be a major liability for a woman’s family and also serves the purpose of enabling other mothers to go off to work and leave their kids in someone else’s care. I would say it’s OK to watch a close friend or family member’s kids on occasion for a little money unless it disrupts the home or become a normal job for the wife or, as I just said, enables another mother to leave her kids for a job. No matter if it’s in the home or not, women should not be expected to have paid employment of any kind, even if it is only part-time.

At any stage the burden of providing should not be pushed off onto women. The necessities should be the husband’s and father’s job to provide for his wife and children. It is a man’s duty to provide. Whether young, old, childless, or a mother of many, a woman’s place is in the home. A man’s responsibility is to provide. Marriage is about raising children, but it is also just as much about providing for and protecting women- about male guardianship of and responsibility for women.


“Women’s political movements have spent a century trying to be equal to men, and in doing so, men have quit regarding them as weaker vessels, creatures worth protecting and caring for. Some modern men have never seen a truly feminine woman, content with her work in the home. Growing up in institutions and schools, they saw girls and women who seemed the same as men in their purpose and activities. They have not grown up with Biblical grandmothers and mothers. They get their image of what women are supposed to be like, from what they see around them. Most men these days have female bosses and are surrounded by women in the workforce. They see nothing wrong with sending their wives to work. It looks normal to them. Men feel no shame in sending their children to daycare and their wives to work.

The women’s movement has changed the nature of men. They do not seem strong, protective, masculine and brave. Men have become weaker because they no longer have to be the sole provider for the family. They have no unique role in society; nothing to make them hold their head high or improve their dignity, when women also earn the living for the family. There are few places in the workplace where women have not invaded. Work needs to be a man’s world, and homemaking needs to be a woman’s world. Husbands and wives can be stronger in their own ways, when they do not try to be alike in their roles.

Women must return to the home and men must take on the burden of providing for their families again. Working to be a provider builds up a man, and contentedly tending to her home increases the soft femininity of a woman. These are the opposite tendencies which are the main attractions between men and women. When husbands and wives both work outside the home, the wife will suffer a greater burden. She will be suffering guilt for leaving her children, and she will suffer anxiety for not being able to manage her home. Her health will suffer, as she can not get enough rest. She will loose some of her innocent sweetness, as she tackles the job away from home.

Truly masculine men will not ask their wives to go to work. They will try harder to provide for their families, or cut down on expenses so that their wives wont have to work. Manly men will tell you that when women are not in the workplace, they get their jobs done much better. Women going to work has complicated the way things are done in the workplace, and this has not been good for the men.”(4)

Recommended Articles:

What If Something Happens to Your Husband?

A Woman’s Place

Do What God Says and Let Him Take Care of the Rest

Posted in Commentary, History, Political | Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Welfare Mothers are not Solely Responsible for the Explosion of Out-of-Wedlock Births

My father came to visit a few weeks ago. I really have had nothing to do with my father or most any of my family for many years now. If my father ever comes around it is only because my husband needs help with some construction project he is working on. Usually if he ever does come around I cry for many days afterwards or am left with a bitterness and sickness for the things he has done to me and my mother and the things he says.

My dad could be considered your typical MRA (whether he actually identifies as such or not). He’s never really been a victim or anything in his life yet somehow he still has a victim mentality and complains over and over about how “victimized” men are today. The last time he was over he ran his mouth so much my husband had to ask him to leave. He kept talking of “if I had a son” how he would tell him to watch out for! and be careful! of all these women having multiple pregnancies just for the child support and welfare money and on and on. I finally had enough and challenged him head on and told him flat out that men have gained all these rights in the last 40 years to illegitimate children yet they just don’t like the price they are now paying for it. They like getting the goods of feminism but they don’t like it when they have to actually pay the price for it. They implement policies requiring the mother to identify the father (for welfare) then turn around and complain when she does it! They want to be able to have their pleasure at the woman’s expense and then be allowed to walk completely free of the consequences of the sex act.

The truth of the matter is that it takes two to tango. It takes both a mother and a father to make a baby and it is entirely nonsensical to lay the entire blame of illegitimacy and single motherhood solely upon welfare mothers. Single motherhood is bad. Single mothers depending on welfare without a father in the home is bad. This is not even something worth arguing about because all around it is a bad thing and most everyone sees it as a bad thing to a certain extent. It is conservatives and men’s groups that implemented polices forcing unwed mothers to have to identify the father and make him pay child support in order to be eligible for welfare. Yet at the same time they turn around and complain about unwed mothers collecting child support and welfare! I’ve read plenty of conservative and anti-feminist books that talk about the explosion of illegitimacy happening at the same time unwed mothers were first allowed to collect welfare. Yet none of them ever seem to mention that unwed fathers gained unconditional rights equal to the mother’s and married father’s at the exact same time. Is it really to be believed that the entire blame for illegitimacy rests on the shoulders of the welfare mother and unwed fathers having legal custodial rights has nothing at all to do with it?

“As the laws now stand, a man who has any casual sexual encounters with a woman (even a one-night stand) that results in a pregnancy, he might not even know her last name or care, yet he is now given the exact same legal rights to a child as the mother from the moment of birth. Even though he has basically contributed, invested, risked NOTHING during the entire process, other then a recreational sperm deposit. Meanwhile a woman who has carried, nurtured, and invested herself for 9 months in producing another human being, not to mention a bloody and painful delivery at the end of the period, has her status downgraded to mirror that of a recreational sperm donor. Both have suddenly become equal in the eyes of the law.”(1)

I most certainly have known quite a few women having babies with multiple fathers. It ends bad for these mothers and for the fathers as well because legitimacy is subsidized and not marriage. A “committed relationship” is not good enough. Marriage (monogamous, heterosexual marriage) must be the only acceptable way for respectable sex or raising children. I have a distant cousin who has had three different babies out of wedlock and collects welfare and child support (two of them actually have the same father, but she didn’t even know that until the time to find him for child support). She lives in the projects and a couple of her kids even have developmental problems. Nobody has probably ever even told her that she needs to make her children legitimate and find a husband to provide for her. All she knows is that she’s entitled to welfare and child support money from the father (if she can find him). (She’s tried to get sterilized but the doctors won’t perform sterilization on her despite the fact that she’s a welfare mother with three illegitimate children. I guess we can’t complain about what we enable can we?)

I don’t really think women are out having babies just for the child support money like MRAs seem to think. I’ve never seen a woman out living high on the hog on child support money. First, she has no guarantee of even collecting even half of what she’s due and second it wouldn’t be enough money to cover the basic expenses anyways so there would be no benefit. And if the father is rich enough for it to be worth it then he would be able to wield enough influence to get out of it or get whatever he wanted in court, including taking the child away from her. Mostly I think women are taught that it’s OK to have sex with or live with a boyfriend then they end up pregnant and are stuck in bad situations. Nobody forces the issue of marriage. Also I think some women are just promiscuous and pregnancy happens as an accident so they collect welfare and support as they are “entitled” to- as they have been taught to. Whatever the case, changes need to happen.

I believe the entire system needs to be redone. The real problem with unwed mothers being allowed child support is that it creates family instability and makes men more irresponsible. It also makes it near impossible for a man to be able to financially provide for a family within the context of marriage if he has to pay for a child he had with a woman who he is not married to. This makes it harder for good women who just want to be wives and mother to find men to be providers for families. These men might have wanted to be married and provide for a wife and children at one point but it becomes a near impossibility if they have to keep shelling out money to a woman who is constantly whoring around and with whom he doesn’t even have a relationship with.

Policies need to be implemented that subsidize marriage and mothers in the home and that help unwed mothers to find husbands to provide for them and get married. Also we need strong policies that reach out to men and help them become providers and give them more opportunities to move up in their careers. Simply identifying the father of a child is not good. Giving child support to unwed mothers who are living in poverty might seem like a good and compassionate thing that is helping them but in reality it actually harms them and makes it to where even more children are born illegitimate and into poverty and makes the problem worse. It brings the father into the child’s life outside of the context of marriage and sets mother and child upon a path to be hurt and abused in many cases. It sets mother and child up for endless hassle and endless misery and heartache. Men should not have to support illegitimate children nor should they be allowed to lay any claim on them (at least not the same as the mother or married father can). Conservatives will come and say single mothers need to work for welfare, which also contributes to more children in daycare and more broken families and eliminates male responsibility-true male responsibility- from the picture. Child support is not male responsibility, it is a flight from it.

The main problem with single motherhood is that men don’t have to marry anymore to have respectable sex or paternal rights. Sex is really the only bargaining power women have. Men have bargaining power in terms of their money-making power and social status. In intimate relationships and in more primitive societies they also have the bargaining power of physical strength and most men can render a woman helpless very quickly and easily if they really wanted to. Men could control women by pure force if it came down to it or they really wanted to (and many have throughout time and still do today). But sexual bargaining power is what women have, and feminism and the sexual revolution has stripped all that bargaining power away from women. In order to counteract the problem of out of wedlock births women need to be allowed to use their sexual bargaining power to get men into marriage. Women should also refuse to put the father on the birth certificate until he marries her. Society needs to grant to single mothers the means to get married and stay home to nurture their children and care for their families. So long as women are sexually free and illegitimacy is subsidized women cannot use their sexual bargaining power. The girl who holds out for sex until she finds a man who will marry and provide for her could be waiting a long time as feminism has made masculine men willing to be providers for families nearly go extinct.


“Men’s fixation on casual sex with many women, which was enabled by feminism, places many women today at an extreme disadvantage. As women appear to be still using the age-old strategy of sex as a way to build a relationship, with a pregnancy expected to close the deal via a marriage proposal. Unfortunately it’s not working that way anymore and the result is millions of women being left high and dry with a pregnancy that does not result in a marriage. Thus either an abortion or single motherhood follows.”(2)

Men may complain about affirmative action, welfare and socialism but in the end everyone benefits from it in some way or another. We no longer care for our own and men no longer wish to support families (not without the mother “pulling her own weight” anyways) so the only other option is for women and children to be supported by the welfare system in which all citizens are collectively responsible. Men don’t want women to have any advantage via affirmative action to support themselves but they don’t want to support women so what other choice is there?

I think there are several things that can be done to rectify the current situation, none of which most feminists and MRAs will be too happy about because it entails both male authority (which feminists hate) and male responsibility (which MRAs hate).

First, unwed mothers and divorced women should not be allowed welfare. I would say there should be some exceptions in the case of women who are victims of rape or abuse though. Policies should be implemented to help and encourage unwed mothers to find a husband (instead of simply identifying/finding the father). No adult males should be allowed support or assistance to raise children. Men should be the ones providing support, not receiving it (this is how it always was before the 1960s and 1970s until feminists gender neutralized welfare and child support).

Fatherhood should not be legally recognized outside of marriage (or adoption). The marriage license should be the woman’s consent to have sex with the man she is to marry and the man’s consent to support her and be a father to her children. The marriage is a public declaration that this man, her husband, will be the one to father her children. A woman’s husband should always be the legal father of her children (except in adultery cases where the father should be given a strict time period after the child is born to divorce her for adultery, with penalties laid upon him for false accusations of adultery against his wife, or forever hold his peace on the matter). If a man has sex with a woman and/or impregnates her then he should be required to marry her. Even if there is a possibility that the child might not biologically be his it shouldn’t matter. His marriage to her should be his consent to be the father to the child, with all the rights and responsibilities it entails. The biological father should not be allowed to interfere in any way. If a woman does have an affair and commit adultery yet her husband decides to stay with her and legitimate the child anyways he should not be allowed to back out years later and abandon the child.

It is absolutely insane how bad things have gotten and I believe women and children have been hurt the worst of all. Women are not solely to blame for the prevalence of illegitimacy in our society. Men’s denial of responsibility for women, marriage, and the provider role, I believe, is at the very heart of the problem. The only answer is marriage and the de-legitimizing of illegitimacy.

Related Articles:

It’s Everybody’s Fault

The Legitimacy Principle and the Good of Patriarchy

The Wrongs of the Men’s Movement

The Case Against Illegitimacy

Posted in Commentary, Current Events, History, MRAs, Political | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

A Personal Reflection on “I Love Lucy”

Practically everyone’s heard of I Love Lucy, a 1950s TV show about a crazy red-headed housewife (played by Lucille Ball) who is married to a Cuban band leader (played by Desi Arnaz). I personally never watched the TV show until here recently when, disgusted by even the family TV shows of today’s era and exhausting historical romance books with feminist heroines, my good friend Sanne over at Adventures in Keeping House suggested the show to me. I have to say that I love it and it will forever on be a favorite show of mine.

For the first season and half of the second season Lucy is a childless housewife, as is her best friend Ethel Mertz (played by Vivian Vance). There is never any shame in the fact that they are housewives who have never had children. Women in those days were not “stay at home moms,” they were simply housewives. The ethic that men were to support their wives (as well as the legal obligation upon them to do so) still existed whether there were children in the marital union or not. Of course, halfway through the second season we find that Lucy is expecting. In the episode “Lucy is Enceinte” we see Lucy getting ready to go to the doctor. Ethel asks her what’s wrong, to which Lucy responds that she has gained some weight and has been feeling real tired here lately. Ethel thinks for a minute and then her eyes light up and she tells Lucy that maybe she’s going to have a baby. Of course, Lucy waves that aside and says “oh Ethel don’t be ridiculous I’ve been married for eleven years!” But when she comes back from the doctor she has a dreamy look on her face and exclaims that she’s going to have a baby. Lucy talks of how she’s always dreamed of how she would tell her husband the good news. She finally gets a chance to tell him by coming down to the club where Ricky works. Ricky receives a note on stage from a woman that she and her husband are going to have a “blessed event.” Ricky passes by all the couples and when he gets to Lucy she has a dreamy look and a smile on her face and nods her head. Ricky, of course, doesn’t get it right away and passes on to the next couple until it finally hits him and he realizes that him and his wife are the lucky couple! He then sings to her and for the audience “we’re having a baby, my baby and me.” The next few episodes continue on where Lucy is expecting but a big deal is not really made over her pregnancy. On the episode “Lucy Goes to the Hospital” Little Ricky is finally born and the next few episodes are pretty much memories and events that happened in the past, presumably so mother and child are not shown on TV too soon after the event of birth.

Not even family movies and shows in today’s era are as respectful as what I Love Lucy was regarding Lucy’s pregnancy and the birth of Little Ricky. The word “pregnant” is never even used. The term “expecting” is used instead. There is no talk in the show about childbirth or about pregnancy or the female body. I did think the episode “Ricky Has Labor Pains” bordered a bit on the obscene side with Lucy’s “cravings” that Ricky then gets too and also the one scene where Lucy couldn’t get out of the chair without assistance but it was still nowhere near what today’s shows are like. Today even family movies that conservative parents watch with their children have indecent talk and showing of birth and pregnancy. One that comes to mind is Cheaper by the Dozen 2 in which one of Kate and Tom’s (I believe that was their names) older daughters is very heavily pregnant. Her “water” ends up breaking when she is in a canoe competing in the competition between families and it becomes some immediate emergency that, of course, requires multiple people to help (including children). Then of course she’s shown having contractions and everything in the movie as well. Another Disney show I watched a bit was Good Luck Charlie. We watched a few episodes until the mother was pregnant with a fifth child and the family started talking about “how she gets” when she’s in her third trimester. Also in one episode the mother played sick because she was exhausted from working at work and working at home even though they had a young child at home. Even Disney these days shows nothing but the career wife and mother and children being raised by nannies. The disgusting and offensive movie Knocked Up shows the perfect example of how far things have come since the days of I Love Lucy. High powered career woman decides to go out and celebrate one night, picks up man for one-night stand, discovers she’s pregnant a few weeks later (you know by puking in a trash can, because that’s how all women discover they are pregnant, you know, by getting sick then thinking they must have the flu or something) then goes and finds the lucky guy to try to explain she’s pregnant (this is a very smart move ladies, if you get pregnant by some random guy you don’t know you should probably find him and inform him about it that way he and his family can sue you for custodial rights later). Of course, dude can’t even comprehend what on earth she’s even talking about. Pregnant? What on earth do you mean? Pregnant with and idea? Oh, a baby? Huh? Seriously, man? Of course, dude has no real job except for trying to find shots of female private parts from movies until he discovers that someone else has already had that idea. Bummer! Well, that’s ok the two get together and try to make it work. She’s a career woman who doesn’t need his money anyways (so I guess that would make him the “third wheel”). Later on of course she’s heavily pregnant and highly emotional and decides to kick his broke self out of her car on the side of the road on the way to her gynecologist appointment because she’s so crazy emotional (get out you bum and find your own ride!) then when she gives birth he brings all his perverted guy friends to the hospital to crack jokes and talk about her private parts and how gynecology is their favorite hobby and shots are shown of her privates while she’s giving birth. But, it’s Ok, the story has a happy ending because they make a *relationship*. I guess us women are supposed to feel empowered and respected because society now openly talks of and displays our bodies. And, hey, even the older generations are now cool with it. I’m sure shoving childbirth, period sex and private rituals we women do in the bathroom in men’s faces will make them respect us! (Here’s the gory details boys, now give me respect!)

In Lucy there is none of this. Ricky was not by her side and holding her hand through labor. He was out being a real man and working to support his family. Lucy was never even shown in the hospital room at all. There was no “oh honey I told you antibiotics knocked out the pill” or talk of maternity leave or shots of her peeing on a stick in the bathroom or throwing up in a trashcan or talks of “so who’s the father?” There was nothing but joy and love. Mother and child were secure in a home that Ricky had provided for them. There was never any pressure on Lucy to work even when she was childless, much less so after the arrival of Little Ricky. A baby was seen as nothing but a blessing, as was pregnancy.

As a married woman Lucy’s job was to take care of the home and a child being introduced into the union didn’t pose any threats to the ordering of their daily lives. Children being born out of wedlock wasn’t acceptable and there are no showings of unwed fathers or mothers on the show, nor was there divorce or illegitimacy. All the women she comes into contact with and all the women she is friends with are housewives who care for their homes and children. Of course, Lucy is always begging Ricky to let her into show-business to which Ricky responds that he wants a wife who will take care of the home and be a mother to his children.

Of course, even in those days society was still feminist in many ways. Lucy is often in the show doing things that put Ricky’s career in jeopardy either because she is jealous of one of the showgirls and is scared Ricky is unfaithful or because she wants in the show so badly she is willing to do anything. Even after Little Ricky is born she worms her way into one of his shows with Little Ricky on her back. In the episode “Equal Rights” Ricky is tired of her being late and declares that he is going to run the home like they do in Cuba, with the man as master of the home. Lucy obediently goes to the bedroom to get her coat then comes back out and “stands up for herself” (with Ethel cheering her on from across the room) and the girls declare they want to be treated just like men. Ricky says fine and treats her just the same as he would another man. Lucy and Ethel end up washing dishes in the restaurant because they had no money to pay for the food (they were expecting their husbands to pay), Ricky and Fred end up pushing the girls out of the way to sit down first and talking over them to order their food first and Ricky even commits an unforgivable breech of etiquette and shaves at the table! Of course, the difference between then and now is that their husbands never did abandon them, as Ricky and Fred were waiting to pick them up and bring them home when they were done. Also Lucy was able in the show to go out and buy a business in more than one episode without her husband’s knowledge or consent. Of course, she always fails at it when she tries to go into business. In one episode the men tell Lucy and Ethel that housework is easy and the women respond by telling Fred and Ricky that being the breadwinner is easy. They switch jobs and Lucy and Ethel find they are no good at bringing home the bacon and Fred and Ricky find they are no good at frying it up. So, all in all, traditional gender roles are still promoted in the show.

Often times Lucy (who can’t ever be on time, keep up with anything, manage money, display much logical thinking in various arenas nor sing, act or dance) will get herself into trouble. Instead of going to her husband and telling him the truth or getting his help she instead messes things up even worse by taking things into her own hands. A few times her schemes even land her right across Ricky’s knee, an obviously politically incorrect display of male dominance now completely written out of all TV shows, movies and even historical novels. (Just something as simple as Disney prettying up Princess Merida from the movie “Brave” these days causes boycotts from parents today who want their girls to be independent). A couple of times in the show she even manages to get Ricky fired due to her interference in his affairs. Even though she is only trying to help her husband, her interference still undermines his career and often makes things worse. Of course, she often does find a way to make everything better in the end and sometimes her schemes to insert herself into show-business actually work out for the good of Ricky’s career. When they travel to Hollywood Lucy is offered a one-year contract. It is what she has always wanted yet in the end she turns it down so that she can go back home and be with her family. She does still attempt at times to get into show-business afterwards, but not nearly so severe as in the early days of I Love Lucy.

Of course, it is Lucy’s illogical thinking and ridiculous schemes that propel the show forward and make it so hilarious and entertaining. I haven’t seen the comedies that Desi and Lucille put out after the show ended, but I Love Lucy definitely gets an A+ rating in my book. Much has changed in our culture and most of it has not been for the better. Though some things were worse in the 1950s, in the area of gender relations there is no comparison between now and then. In the show Lucy never does get a career. Another thing to note is how sexually exploited women are today compared to then. Lucille Ball was already forty years old whenever I Love Lucy began (of course she is portrayed as being in her 30s, although she claims to have stopped having birthdays at 29). Today women in movies are mere sex objects whose youth is sucked up and young women are considered old hags by about the time they hit the ripe age of 25. There is such a cult of youth in our culture today that is reflected in the media.

Interesting as well is how advanced society was even in the 1950s. Even in those days the middle class housewives had many of the conveniences we do today. In one episode Lucy and Ethel didn’t even have a clue how to make bread or churn butter.

Also, Lucy and the other housewives always tried to look pretty everyday. Sure, there were some scenes were Lucy still had her nightclothes on looking half out of it in the morning, but for the most part women strived to look good and act like ladies. In one episode Ricky even commented that Lucy thinks she’s naked (or was it niked) without lipstick on and in one episode Ethel was saying how she couldn’t get on the subway wearing jeans. Of course, Lucy belonged to the middle class. The amount of money that she threw around on the show for clothes, redecorating the house, going to get her hair done every couple of weeks, and fixing all the problems she caused with her schemes would be considered outrageous by most even in 2014 dollars. But it is nice to see a time when women actually strove to look good and take care of themselves and a time when men were in charge. Also nice is that Ricky most often wears a suit.

By now all of the main characters of the show (save for, I believe, the man who played Little Ricky) are all deceased. In fact, many were deceased before I was ever even born. Also deceased are the old ways. The saddest thing of all is the thought that the prosperity and much stabler gender relations of the past depicted in the shows and movies of yesteryear may never come back. But at least we may catch a glimpse of better times through the entertainment of old.

Posted in Commentary, Reviews, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Yes, High Numbers of Women Working IS a New Thing

On the one hand we are told that women were always oppressed in the home and never allowed to have careers. Now after the feminist movement historians have been trying to constantly convince us that women “always” worked and the 1950s were some kind of cult of domesticity where women were forced to stay in the home but before that women were always out in the workforce and plowing the fields and were always “equal partners” with their husbands so feminism wasn’t really even necessary after all because women have *always* worked. One can read a five hundred page history book today and most generally the authors will spend half the book talking about “male divorce power” and the sexual double standard and how adultery was never a crime for husbands, only for wives and so on and so on. They will spend half the book trying to convince us that women have always been forced to work and bear children (that they never had rights to) and live under the rule of men. Barely a word is ever spoken about men’s duties to their wives or the truth about hardly anything. This is what women today are fed and why so many undoubtedly turn to feminism:

“For more than five thousand years, men—fathers—were legally *entitled* to sole custody of their children. Women—mothers—were *obliged* to bear, rear, and economically support their children. No mother was ever legally entitled to custody of her own child.” (1)

This, of course, is a complete lie. See here how they first try to convince us women were never *allowed* to work and then they turn around and tell us that women *always* worked, were forced to work. Then historians will now try to convince us that all women worked in the factories and plowed the fields even when heavily pregnant, then gave birth in the fields and got right back up and went right back to plowing! Another thing undoubtedly many have heard is a story that goes something like this: First, man marries woman for dowry, then proceeds to squander it all away within a month, then man goes and gets drunk every night and heads to the local brothel to have a good time (because adultery wasn’t a crime for men!) then man comes home to beat and rape his wife. But, realistically, the husband would only really uncover the wife just enough to penetrate her to do his “duty” to procreate and have legitimate heirs (because women knew nothing about sex and were clueless about their own sexuality and body until feminists came along and sexually liberated them) and then it was back to the brothel! Of course, women had no rights and men could use and abuse their wives as they pleased. They could do anything they wanted because women were less than chattel and marriage was nothing but slavery for women. The description of the book “Love, Honor and Obey” tells a 100% accurate description of life for women before feminism:

“In 1889, women were chattel, prized solely for their physical attributes, the contents of their dowries, their skills at the helm of the family’s wood-burning cook stove, their capacity to conceive endlessly and their willingness to endure marriage and miscarriage in silence. Women could not vote or smoke in public. Motherhood was sanctified and only the whores ventured out unescorted after dark, dyed their hair and wore make-up.Blissfully young and naïve, Emma Miller nearly lost herself in Edward Richardson’s seductive blue eyes until the reality of her husband’s alcoholic rampages began to erode her cherished dream of marriage. Like the practiced coward that he was, Edward abandoned his wife and children in the dead of night, taking with him their horse and their cookie jar savings.Emma had willed herself to survive Edward’s beatings but could she survive life as a single parent with three children? At a time when women were to be seen but never heard, Emma marched boldly into the dawn of a new era for women. Emma defied polite society by embarking upon a career, taking a lover and refusing to bend in the face of personal and professional conflict.” (2)

What women wouldn’t be a feminist after listening to that? Historically the dowry was always something the groom paid to the father of the bride for her hand in marriage. Often it is called a “bride price.” Later the dowry came to be something that the bride brought into the marriage from her family. Historians don’t know why, some speculate that the absence of eligible men for marriage started the tradition of the bride’s family dowering the daughter instead of it coming from the groom. Some other historians point out that bride-price seemed to be the way in polygamous societies and dowry coming from the bride’s family the way in monogamous societies. A bride price is where the groom pays the woman’s father a sum of money for her hand in marriage or, in some societies, the money would go to the bride herself. A dowry is a sum of money, property or other goods given to the groom upon marriage for no other purpose than the maintenance of his bride. In some societies the bride still controlled the dowry and in others the groom controlled the dowry. If divorce should occur or if the bride was widowed then the dowry had to be returned intact to the bride and her family. Dowry was always a way of signaling social class and the woman’s status in society and the larger a woman’s dowry the wealthier a mate she could be expected to attract (social class was always very important to people and everyone was generally expected to marry someone of their own class). Traditionally a young woman would be dowered by her father or sometimes other male family members. Ancient Rome even had laws requiring that fathers provide dowries for daughters. A poor peasant girl whose family could not afford to dower her might either marry without a dowry or work before marriage to provide for her own dowry. In other cases sometimes donations were made to poor girls’ dowries to help them get married. The dowry, however, did not mean the husband did not have to support his wife. The dowry would help the woman get settled and start a new household. Also important was the woman’s dower, the portion of her husband’s property that the wife would inherit to be used for her support upon her husband’s death. A man could not get rid of his own property nor his wife’s dowry without her consent, which had to be given without coercion as she could reclaim her third (or in some societies half) of her husband’s property that he could not take from her.

After marriage a man was by law required to provide for his wife all of her necessities. There were no obligations upon a wife to support her husband or pay the family’s bills until very recently with women’s lib where the law became bastardized as support being something both spouses “owe” each other and the egalitarian vision of the mother working equally as the father to support the family. Of course, throughout history women taking on masculine responsibilities does resurface and it always seems to correlate well with societal decline. Feminism is not a new thing. All throughout history women have tried to usurp their husband’s authority and men have tried to evade responsibility. From the fall of Rome in the fifth century to the crumbling of the monarchy in the tenth and eleventh centuries and the ending of Anglo-Saxon rule in England, women taking masculine responsibilities and husband and wife being “equals” sharing in rights and responsibilities resurfaces and usually destroys society. Usually once a great empire falls, it never regains its former power or glory.

The role of housewife for women is not new. Modern technology has made the work easier than what it used to be, but the idea that this “50s housewife” ideal is a new thing is a lie. Families have been organized in many different ways throughout time and in different societies but the modern idea of the “traditional” family of a husband, wife and their kids living in one household apart from any others is not a new thing. Speaking of the Western world specifically here, people living together with their extended kin in one household seems to resurface throughout the centuries but the nuclear family of husband, wife and kids in one household with the man standing alone as sole provider for wife and children has been around for centuries. Barbara A. Hanawalt speaks of the life of a medieval peasant woman in England in her book “The Ties that Bound; peasant families in medieval England”

“Women’s daily household routines are very well summed up in the ‘Ballad of the Tyrannical Husband.’ The goodwife of the poem had no servants and only small children, so that her day was a full one. She complained that her nights were not restful because she had to rise and nurse the babe in arms. She then milked the cows and took them to pasture and made butter and cheese while she watched the children and dried their tears. Next she fed the poultry and took the geese to the green. She baked and brewed every fortnight and worked on carding wool, spinning, and beating flax. She tells her husband that through her economy of weaving a bit of linsey woolsey during the year for the family clothes, they would be able to save money and not buy cloth from the market. Her husband insists that all this work is very easy and that she really spends her day at the neighbors’ gossiping…”

This woman sure sounds like a housewife to me, only without the modern-day convinces of an electric cookstove, washing machine and prepared food from the grocery store. Coroners’ reports reveal a clear pattern of traditional gender roles for the medieval wife and mother. The same as we see today, women who were rich in the past could afford to hire a wet-nurse and have a maid to do the household chores and watch the kids. Poor women were in the home doing all these things themselves.

In America, as well, there is no evidence to suggest women were out plowing fields or all women were out in the workforce. In America there is actual statistical and census data to show that only 5% of married women were actually engaged in “gainful occupation” (as opposed to 96% of married men) in the 19th century and single women only worked at a rate of around 45% which is much lower than the rates of even married women working today.(4) Also many left journals describing their daily lives as housewives which correlate very well with what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of American women (in 1830) in his book III of “Democracy in America:” (emphasis mine)

“In no country has such constant care been taken as in America to trace two clearly distinct lines of action for the two sexes, and to make them keep pace one with the other, but in two pathways which are always different. American women never manage the outward concerns of the family, or conduct a business, or take a part in political life; nor are they, on the other hand, ever compelled to perform the rough labor of the fields, or to make any of those laborious exertions which demand the exertion of physical strength. No families are so poor as to form an exception to this rule. If on the one hand an American woman cannot escape from the quiet circle of domestic employments, on the other hand she is never forced to go beyond it…

Nor have the Americans ever supposed that one consequence of democratic principles is the subversion of marital power, of the confusion of the natural authorities in families. They hold that every association must have a head in order to accomplish its object, and that the natural head of the conjugal association is man. They do not therefore deny him the right of directing his partner; and they maintain, that in the smaller association of husband and wife, as well as in the great social community, the object of democracy is to regulate and legalize the powers which are necessary, not to subvert all power. This opinion is not peculiar to one sex, and contested by the other: I never observed that the women of America consider conjugal authority as a fortunate usurpation of their rights, nor that they thought themselves degraded by submitting to it. It appeared to me, on the contrary, that they attach a sort of pride to the voluntary surrender of their own will, and make it their boast to bend themselves to the yoke, not to shake it off. Such at least is the feeling expressed by the most virtuous of their sex; the others are silent; and in the United States it is not the practice for a guilty wife to clamor for the rights of women, whilst she is trampling on her holiest duties…

As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that, although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply – to the superiority of their women.”

Now everyplace in the world has had their own traditions, but I speak not of every place in the world. I speak of the Western world, of Europe and the Americas and my own ancestors. High numbers of married women in the workforce is a new thing. I personally am American and American women were always sheltered from the workforce and masculine duties as well as any dangerous jobs or jobs that required hard physical labor. On the other hand, every occupation has long been open to women. The only exceptions I could find in American history were the obvious prohibitions of women to be in the military and women were prohibited from being coal miners and being bartenders unless they were the wife or daughter of the owner. I have found no other exceptions in our history. Obviously there is always going to be your amazon woman out proving she can work like a man, but she would have been the rare exception, not the rule. I know personally from those I’ve talked to how much neighbors would try to help a family who’s husband was injured or gone and could not work to take care of the family. Women were never left out on their own to fend for themselves and their children as so great was the ethic of providing for and protecting women until feminism came along.

But let’s just say those attempting to redefine history were actually right. Let’s say women have always worked in the fields and in the home and borne the babies and this housewife thing is new. Does that mean we should destroy a cultural and legal ethic that did shield women from the masculine burdens just because women in the past were in the fields? Does that justify tearing down a system that actually worked well, even if it was a supposedly new and temporary invention? What sense does that make? Surely if something better had been invented to protect women and families it would only makes sense to embrace it, not destroy it. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Suggested resources:

Women Plowing

Woman Suffrage and the Laws

Doctrine of Necessaries Law & Legal Definition

Questioning Economic Necessity

Posted in Current Events, Feminism, History, Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Why We Need Modesty

I’m really ready to see some more modesty make it’s way back into society. I’m tired of turning on the television and being blasted with feminine product ads and and advertisements with women displaying nude and swollen pregnant bellies. Every year it seems like bikinis get smaller and smaller. I’m tired of the “who’s my baby daddy,” divorce and teenage mom shows. I’m sick of loud mouthed and vulgar women who act like men. I’m tired of female body parts and half-nude women being plastered everywhere one looks. I’m sick of pregnancy and childbirth being openly talked about even among men.

There was a time not too long ago when it was considered obscene for Lucille Ball to be shown on TV late in her pregnancy or for the word “pregnant” to even be said on television and men being present at childbirth was almost unheard of. Not too long ago couples would have said “expecting” instead of pregnant, divorce was something that just didn’t happen, and if it did happen it was considered shameful and something that wasn’t talked about. The word “divorce” itself was considered a dirty four-letter word that just wasn’t said in polite society. Having children out of wedlock was unacceptable for both the father and mother. It was something you just didn’t do, and if pregnancy happened you got married right away and men were expected to provide. Not too long ago women’s fashions were more feminine and more modest and women took pride in their appearance and wanted to look the best for their husbands.

Now women are vulgar, divorce is considered a common good when two people just can’t make things work out. It’s rare for only women to be present at childbirth these days and even conservative women drag their boyfriends and husbands into “childbirth classes” (since when did women need classes for a natural bodily function anyways?) and force them to be present at birth or else the men are looked down upon for not loving their wives or being good fathers. Used to the husband (as well as anyone else who might be in the general area) would be kicked out to wait in the barn or be sent on some errand. But today everyone in general can’t even respect a woman’s body nor privacy and everyone wants to crowd around her with absolutely no respect (is it any wonder labor today lasts an average of hours longer than it did in the 1950s?). There is no mystery anymore nor modesty regarding women’s bodies. Today instead of men respecting women they instead are turned off most of the time because there is no mystery left. Instead of being in awe over what only a woman can do they instead often just say “so glad I’m not a girl, man.” A lot of men don’t even want sex with their wives anymore after watching them give birth and most couples these days divorce after a new baby is born. Take away modesty and male-female relationships are turned upside-down.

Now when it comes to clothing I haven’t always been the most modest. Even today I can be seen sporting a tiny Victoria’s Secret bikini on the beach at times (then usually cover myself more if others come closer). I’ve been known to wear mini skirts, Daisy Dukes and five inch heels before. I’m certainly not “holier than thou” when it comes to modesty. But I do like to cover up. I like my body to be all for my husband, something other men can’t have and can’t see. I believe women would have more respect if they covered their bodies more. Part of eroticism is mystery. When there is no mystery left most of the time men are not only turned off, but they are disgusted. Interestingly enough, I’ve talked to strippers before and have been told by many of these women that they don’t make any more money (in fact sometimes they make less) when they are completely nude than when they are only half nude. Sex is everywhere yet research keeps showing (if anyone can really have dependable statistics on such a thing anyways) that we are having less sex than in previous generations when women were more modest and sex was only acceptable in marriage. Part of this is because of working wives (keep your wives at home men, you’ll get more that way!), but I believe part of it is also because there is no mystery and women are less modest. Sex being readily available and female body parts being plastered everywhere devalues what a woman’s body is worth. The more something costs and the harder it is to get, the more valuable it will be. The cheaper and more readily available something is, the less desirable it will be. I know we’ve all heard this before, but I don’t believe the full effect of what this actually means is sinking in. Many pay lip service to modesty (just the same as they do the value of the housewife’s role) but that’s about as far as it goes.

The media mocks female sexuality and childbirth. It has turned from being something precious and private that was shrouded in modesty to being something openly talked of and shown everywhere one looks. Even small children are exposed to indecent language and sexuality on shows and movies that are supposed to be family oriented and it seems even their parents do not care to shield them from it half the time. It’s no big deal, really! It’s nothing they haven’t heard or seen before! Increases in science and technology have definitely done a lot of harm to traditional morality and left the human race with lingering questions about the human soul and what is ethical and moral. With the internet especially anyone can have access to pornography and other graphic and sexual content with simply the click of a button. How degrading all of this is to women.

Who’s my baby daddy shows and shows depicting pregnancy and birth and divorce are indecent and shameful. Whether they are scripted or not, they show a society that is falling apart all around us, yet we are not shamed and horrified at it, we are entertained by it. Instead of there being outrage at such things there is only rounds of laughter and more indecent talk. Instead of female sexuality being uplifted and honored and young women being taught modesty and the saving of their bodies and wombs for their husbands and how wonderful the ability to give life is the female body is instead degraded and young women are shown that their natural bodily functions are something to abhor and ultimately fear. They should instead medicate their wombs and have careers because pregnancy and birth are only acts that humiliate and degrade them and all marriages end in divorce. These shows not only have a very harmful effect on vulnerable young women who often never had anyone to love them nor teach them right from wrong but also I have to wonder what the long-term effect is on children. It is bad enough that nearly half of children growing up these days will know that they are bastards, but even worse to know momma was a slut and daddy denied his paternity openly and was just as promiscuous. No matter how much we try to de-stigmatize illegitimacy and promiscuity the effects it ultimately has on women and children cannot be washed away. We need modesty.

We need modesty because it makes women beautiful. Modesty means that women are respected by men and respected by society. When it comes to modesty, society must always be concerned primarily with women. When speaking of sex, we generally have to focus on women. Erection and ejaculation are the only male sex acts, but everything of a woman’s body is sexual and designed for a sexual purpose. It is more beautiful to have mystery, but it is degrading for society to openly speak of woman’s sexuality. The more of a woman’s body men are used to seeing in everyday life, the more skin showing it will ultimately take for a man to be turned on by a woman. Modesty protects women. It protects men’s investment in women. It protects women from being abused and exploited and it maintains sexual law and order.

Today young women are taught just to be “ready” before having sex. It’s a new day and age after all and we must forget the old ways. I find it shameful that the older generation of women is not teaching the young women of today how to act and how to be truly modest and the importance of marriage for sex and raising children. Many scoff at the younger generations and at how “out of control” they are but did they ever teach them any different? The younger generation is only a product of how they were raised. Most men and women are never taught one word by their parents or grandparents on their responsibilities in marriage. They are taught nothing about how they should treat the opposite sex or how to get along with the opposite sex and not a word is mentioned about the preciousness of a woman’s body and sexuality and how much more vulnerable she is than a man and how much more important her sexuality actually is.

Traditional femininity is more beautiful. A woman is more beautiful when her sexuality is a secret, when everything about her exudes femininity. I feel more beautiful in a modest feminine dress with a flower in my hair, bare feet touching the grass, being at once part child and part woman than with the heels and the mini-skirt expressing my sexuality and being “empowered.” Without modesty there can be no true respect, love or protection for the female sex.

Posted in Commentary, On Being a Woman, Opinion Pieces | Tagged , , ,

Why Would Men Support Feminism?

I can tell you exactly why men supported feminism. It’s pretty simple really. They wanted a free pass out of traditional masculine responsibilities to bear the sole burden of financial support for a family and traditional male duties such as all male conscription. Feminism also promised them free and easy sex and eradication of laws that protected women and made men accept responsibility. It’s really not that hard to figure out really. Feminism promised men freedom from traditional masculine responsibility and it was just too good to pass up for them.

It’s very hard today to find true masculine men. Most have been made effeminate to some degree and few want to support families, pay for dates or protect women. A lot of men are quite content to hand over their authority to women because they are quite content for women to carry their responsibilities. MRAs seem to be divided between radical nut-jobs hating patriarchy and others that promote patriarchy with a denial of male responsibility. The groups claim to support patriarchy and they want women to be traditional yet at the same time their official policies are to promote “gender neutral laws,” eradication of all alimony and cry foul at any supposed “discrimination” against men.

Some promote chivalry, but only when a woman “deserves” it. Traditional women that fall into line with their standards are “good” and all other women are to be treated as “competition” and given exactly what they “deserve.” So what they are really saying is that they allow the actions of women to dictate their own actions. They will act “bad” if women act “bad” and they will only act “good” if a woman acts “good.” This really sounds kind of insane when you say it out loud, doesn’t it? They emasculate themselves and allow women to dictate their own behaviors.

In reality, whether a woman “deserves” chivalry or not should be irrelevant to whether or not the man gives it to her. Men’s responsibilities towards women should not change just because women act bad (based on the hierarchal relationship between the sexes, however, a woman’s obedience to men must be conditional upon the man acting appropriate). A real man would not reject his responsibilities because the woman is acting bad. He would not allow himself to be dictated to by the woman and allow her to emasculate him or control what he does (isn’t that feminism anyways? women dictating how men should act?).

Men could have stopped feminism. They could stop it now if they wanted to but most are quite content to be passive and let women run things because they don’t want the male responsibility that patriarchy entails or they live in fear that if they attempt to control their women that they will be branded as outcasts and misogynists or chauvinists and face social or legal backlash. Other men, it seems, simply don’t know how to be real men because they’ve never been shown any positive example of what it means to be a man growing up. They grew up with dominant mothers, weak fathers and the media that shows incompetent men and successful career women who can fight just as good or better than any man.

MRAs are actually feminists in their purest form. They want to emasculate all men that way they can eradicate female sexual bargaining power and superiority, unconcerned, until they are faced with child support, divorce, or the recreational sperm donor coming back to claim his “rights”, that in so doing they also compromise the security of the father in the family unit. It also doesn’t seem to bother them in the slightest that their wives, daughters and sisters could be subject to a future draft or be taken advantage of by some irresponsible man following the teachings of their movement.

MRAs are very concerned about false claims of domestic violence and rape. In fact, one could say they are obsessed to the point of mass paranoia. Let’s humor them for a moment and say that they are even remotely telling the truth (yes false claims exist for every wrongdoing under the sun but let’s say they are right in their claims of how widespread this problem is). The problem lies at the very heart of feminism and “gender equality” itself. A woman should never be left in the position where she is desperate and vulnerable and feels no other choice than to cry wolf. Women should always be under the protection and authority of men. Men should be held to their responsibilities and women should have never been deprived of their protections and rights or told that it’s OK to live with a boyfriend and that she should express her sexuality any way she chooses of that it’s OK for a married woman to pursue college and a career. If men had refused to yield their authority to women in the first place and hadn’t rejected their responsibilities none of these wrongs would be happening the way they are.

Men today just assume that if women want “equality” then they are going to give it to them and give it to them full out. It becomes an all-out war. First both feminists and men’s groups wanted to eradicate all protections for women. Once that was accomplished feminists started calling crisis and split from the men’s groups who became “antifeminists” because feminists were no longer promoting the “true equality.” To MRAs women should just “man up.” Women are not “special” to them and deserve no special protections. It’s either corrupt policies should be implemented to “empower” women to protect and support themselves or women should have no protections or support at all.

The idea that women should just “man up” is a very unworkable solution. Women may say that they can protect themselves and support themselves but when it comes down to it they will expect men to rise up in a time of crisis and expect men to protect them. These women are not bad because of this. It is only natural that women hand off the rough jobs to men and expect men to protect them. What is bad is what men and women today are being taught. It is only that the idea of treating men and women equally confuses the sexes and imposes an unreal set of expectations upon men and women. Social movements cannot erase human nature but they can cause instability, confusion and many problems. Women are told one thing and that they can “do everything a man can do” yet when it comes down to it they can’t. Then some men, who have been told to see women as their equals, get frustrated and angry at this. It’s time to face reality because gender equality is unworkable and a pure fantasy.

I find it very insulting and offensive that now, after all the decades of erasing legislation designed to protect the homemaker and to protect women in general that feminists are now turning around and promoting housewifery as a “new form” of feminism or the next “wave” of feminism. I guess now that they have done all of the damage that they can possibly do to the family unit and now that there is no legislation at all left on the books (that’s enforced anyways) to protect women they turn back around and say they stand with traditional women. My point in saying this is that women should not be making the decisions or be in authority over men as when this happens laws, policies, the family unit and the overall social structure begin to be determined by special interest groups and how groups of women “feel” at the moment.

The vote for women itself seems to have spawned the worst economic recession in American history, massive government spending, socialism and a complete destruction of sexual morality and the family unit. All this because men wanted to become emasculated wimps and give up their authority to women so they didn’t have to carry traditional male responsibilities. If men loved women they wouldn’t just sit around and do nothing while those promoting “gender equality” go out and destroy society and the well-being of themselves and everyone else around them. If a man really loved his wife he would control her and protect her despite her objections. He would say “no” to her if she was wanting to go out and work and be independent. No matter what she might say at the moment or how she might feel, in the end she will respect and love him more and she will be a lot happier and better off.

There are real and true duties that men owe to women. When men reject their responsibilities and surrender their authority to women it causes nothing but problems. Men cannot hurt women without also hurting themselves and women cannot hurt men without hurting themselves either. When women refuse to obey their husbands they compromise their security and support. When men refuse to protect women they as well compromise their authority and security and position in the family. The man that takes advantage of a woman and refuses to marry her or refuses to support her or protect her may very well find one day he has a daughter that gets taken advantage of in the same way by a man. The woman who doesn’t respect her husband’s authority and tears down her own family may very well find one day she has a son who is treated the same way by a woman one day. In this way both men and women reap from the seeds they sow and the next generation is worse off than the one before and the future generations pay the price for what their parents and grandparents have done before them. As with most things in life, gender politics are akin to the double-edged sword. The fates of men and women are intertwined together and they will forever be.

Posted in Commentary, Feminism, MRAs | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,