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. 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 , , , , , , , , ,

How Can a Woman Deal With a Wayward Husband?

I’ve talked before about when women act bad. When the wife is in the wrong or acting bad then the problem is simple. The husband is the authority figure, he is in almost every case larger and stronger and his wife is obliged to obey him. If she doesn’t want to comply then the husband can use appropriate force or even discipline if necessary to force obedience from an unwilling or reluctant wife. The same holds true for the government/citizen relationship. The citizen is under the authority of the government. If the citizen should not want to obey he can be cited, given a warning and punished appropriately. It’s a straightforward thing really. The laws are laid out. If the citizen acts bad the government has the power to punish or even use appropriate force if the citizen refuses to cooperate and accept the rule of law and appropriate punishment. The rules are laid out and if the person refuses to obey then the problem can be dealt with straightforward in a no-nonsense manner and force/discipline can and will be used against the reluctant citizen to compel obedience against the person’s will to get them to act right and keep order in society. The husband is the authority in the house and if the wife is out of line the husband will tell her and if she refuses to cooperate the husband can just take her in hand then and there and straighten out the problem and put everything back in order even against the woman’s objections. It’s a simple and easy solution that can generally be dealt with quickly and easily as divine law has ordained the husband’s authority (the same with the government’s) and he is more powerful and can simply overpower the woman’s will and everything can be set straight. The home can be in order and peace can reign once again.

But what about if the husband is the one doing wrong? What if he is the one who is out of line? The solution for the woman is not so easy. She is not in authority over him. There are times when she might try to be and if he is in the wrong she might try to confront him head-on and tell him to act right. But what if he doesn’t accept that he’s in the wrong and act right? What if he refuses to change? She cannot be truly in authority over him. She cannot compel him to do something if he doesn’t want to. She has not the strength nor proper authority. Nothing can be law without authority behind it, and no authority can be a true authority without the power to compel obedience against those who are unwilling. The woman in authority over the man upsets the natural order and she, in almost every case, does not have the power nor strength to compel obedience from him. Her position can be the same as that of a citizen who lives under the rule of a tyrannical government that has gone out of control, has become abusive and is not functioning properly. When this happens the citizen cannot compel the government to get “back in line” and function properly and generally has to look for an external form of support. The citizen might find supporters, draw up a petition and look for others to show support and sign it. The citizen might then try to find those higher up the ladder in authority to show support and plead his case. If all else fails, the citizen will probably start looking for a miracle and pray to God to hear his cries.

Likewise, the woman who finds herself in a position where the one who is supposed to be protecting her (her husband) has gone out of control and refuses to perform his rightful duties towards her and/or the children ideally needs an external form of support. If she is a Christian woman or a Muslim woman she can look to what God says and show her husband where he is wrong and expect of him that he change his behaviors. A woman with no religious affiliation can still look to a form of divine law to tell the husband he is wrong and he needs to change. It is important for the woman not to just say “I want it now do it!” or make her case in such a selfishly-oriented way. This will cause the man to pull away from her and he will be less likely to want to protect her or resume his rightful duties towards her if she makes demands unilaterally in a selfish way against him. Putting her case to her husband in such a way causes her to be unfeminine and removes the man’s natural protective instinct for the woman.

I think it is very destructive for women to protect themselves unilaterally. A woman should always try to gain support from the community around her and other men in the family close to her that can deal with the man at his own level if need be (as in deal with him “man to man”). It is hard in our world today because society at large does not care if a husband supports his wife and even more abused women find it hard to find shelter and a woman can hardly count on the law to enforce that her husband perform his rightful duties or be punished. But in any case, a woman should never doubt that her feminine aspects can still draw support towards her and change the husband to be the man he should be. She can also set a good example that will help inspire cultural change.

A woman cannot and should not follow the husband if he is leading her down the wrong path. She also cannot obey when he is not acting in his rightful role as a man. Obeying him when he has truly become neglectful and abusive will cause her to be a doormat and he will continue to be irresponsible. It isn’t always easy for a woman in these situations as a man’s irresponsibility and bad behaviors towards his wife can cause a real problem when he is the one who is supposed to be in charge. I have heard women ask “well, what is a woman supposed to do if the husband won’t act right? Sit around and watch her family fall to pieces all around her?” These women make good points and pose difficult questions with no easy and straightforward answers.

In cases not so severe I believe a woman can win her husband over by still obeying him even if she doesn’t necessarily like what her husband demands or if he isn’t doing things quite the way she wants (no authority figure is ever going to operate exactly as the ones under his authority like anyways). Her feminine charms can win her more love from her husband and she can influence him thus, but unfeminine selfishness will only draw him away and she will be even more unhappy. In severe cases such as non-support, abandonment, abuse and neglect she must put her foot down and refuse to follow the man or temporarily separate and seek the shelter and the support of others and not return to the husband until he has changed his ways and accepted responsibility.

The important thing is the woman’s attitude I believe. She should always be willing to obey but make it clear that she cannot do so if he is truly in the wrong (not just because she doesn’t like a decision but because he is truly doing something wrong or stepping outside the bounds of what is moral or appropriate) and is neglecting his true duties towards her and the family. If the husband asks her to do something that he doesn’t have any moral authority to do (such as telling her to “get a job”-that is his responsibility and he has no right to push it on her- or telling her to go commit an indecent or irresponsible act) she must say no. She must tell her husband why she is refusing to make it clear she cannot obey him because what he has asked is wrong and he has no authority to command her to do which goes against God/divine law.

These issues aren’t easy to deal with and there isn’t always an easy answer. For the women who have never heard of Helen Andelin I suggest picking up a copy of her book “Fascinating Womanhood.” Mrs. Andelin taught many women in her lifetime to be feminine and she teaches a woman to embrace old-fashioned femininity and accept patriarchy, not equality. She has very good advice on how a woman can act to bring out the protective and responsible chivalrous instinct in men and how a woman can best fulfill her roles as a traditional woman. She also gives advice on how women can deal with men who won’t earn the living, how women can deal with anger in an appropriate feminine way and have a happy home life in a traditional marriage. Mr. Jesse Powell also has some good articles on how a traditional woman can assert herself with men in a hostile feminist climate and also how the submissive wife is protected under patriarchy that are very worthwhile to read.

Another thing I would like to add is that a woman should not solve the problem by taking it into her own hands when the husband is being too passive in his leadership role or is refusing to support the family. For instance, I heard a woman say that her son would stay up half the night playing on the iPad and she was very worried for her son. She had many talks with her husband about it and he would do something for a time but then would cave and let the son have the iPad back and stay up half the night. Eventually the woman had enough and her husband wouldn’t do anything so she took matters into her own hands and took the iPad and smashed it to pieces. She employed a temporary solution to what was in reality a chronic long-term problem (her husband’s reluctance to accept responsibility and his passivity in his rightful leadership role). The problem was solved for the moment but surely it was only a matter of time before something else big would come up. Her husband was glad she had done something about the problem which shows yet another danger. First she went against her husband’s authority and second she allowed him to evade responsibility so the next time if there should be a serious problem the husband might think “it’s ok, if I just do nothing my wife will eventually handle the situation.” Here a pattern of allowing the husband to evade responsibility is created. In the process she also showed the children that their father was not the ultimate authority thus possibly causing them to even act out more in the future. She upset the natural balance of authority/responsibility in her home.

A woman taking matters into her own hands when her husband doesn’t accept responsibility only worsens the problem in the long run. The same can be true for women who go and get a job because their husband won’t support the family. This may solve the problem temporarily (money’s coming in so the kids won’t starve) but the woman only creates a greater long term problem. A woman should not follow her husband into sin and should put her foot down if he is asking her to accept his responsibilities. If he is rejecting his responsibilities she should remind him what his duties are in a non-selfish way and refuse to obey until he is operating in his rightful role as a man once again.

Posted in Commentary, Marriage, On Being a Woman, Patriarchy | Tagged , , , ,