I have identified with the TWRAs for a very long time now. In fact, it is approaching a year since I first started this cause. Although I have written many times about history and law, I have yet to truly take the TWRA cause and break it down.
Do TWRA principles take away freedom of choice? I would say not. Have we Americans not been slowly having our freedoms taken away since the 1970s? Most everyone, even if they are not for traditional gender roles, would say yes. By saying that traditional family law takes away freedom of choice you are saying that women’s liberation was necessary because, before then, men and women had no choices. TWRA principles are not just something I pulled out of my rear one day. They are the product of my careful and insightful research into our legal history and family law through the ages. TWRA principles are based on traditional English and American family law before the 1960s.
“ERA will invalidate all state laws which require a husband to support his wife. These laws, designed to protect the most important unit of society, the FAMILY, will be replaced by a new principle making women EQUALLY liable for financial responsibilities. The stability of families will be undermined by this drastic change in wives’ legal status.”[1]
TWRA belief number one:
“Make it the sole obligation of the husband to support his wife so long as she remains faithful and the father to support his children.”
What this is saying is twofold: First, men should support themselves. There is no reason for a wife to have to be held legally responsible to support her husband and there is absolutely no reason for a man to be receiving alimony checks from his ex-wife.
Second, this is saying that it should be the father’s obligation to provide the necessary and most basic needs of his wife and of his children. That is the point of marriage in the first place. Women are the ones who bear the babies and if the fathers are to be brought into the families then they need to take upon the obligation to make sure that mother and child are cared for. It should be their obligation and theirs alone. Not only is this justified, since men don’t bear the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth but it also serves a much larger purpose for the welfare of all of society. If the man does not do his job of financially supporting the wife and children, then the mother cannot devote herself to the children and instead they must be bottle-fed and lose the health benefits and bonding from the mother but it also means they must be raised by other relatives or even the state. This also serves the purpose for fathers who only marry the mother after the child is born, to ensure that their original denial of responsibility does not relieve them of their obligations for mother and child by simply being absent until convenient.
Whether anyone likes it or not, mothers are the ones who were made to be the nurturers, not fathers. Nature, or God, gave children to the mothers to nurture. It is a role that is rooted deep within the biology of who we are as women. Oxytocin, the nurturing hormone, surges within a woman’s very being during labor so that that contractions can open the cervix and so that the mother can bond with her child immediately (indeed, as many women who have had home births can testify that immediately after birth she can hold her child within her arms and begin to nurse) and Oxytocin surges once again so that her body can release milk to nurse her infants. Fathers bring a stability to the family and, when not emasculated by an egalitarian society that tells him he shouldn’t lead his family, it is fathers who are best at keeping order. However, nature did not design them nor equip them with the necessary tools to be the nurturers of an infant. Society never forced women to stay home. Women have always had that choice. However, a man did have the legal right to prevent his wife from working for wages and I believe this is justified. If men are not properly given authority to lead their families then they lose the power to enforce stability within the home. More working wives leads to higher rates of divorce. Study after study has shown this same pattern (I trust I don’t need to write an exhausting list of resources here, but anyone in denial can do the research themselves, plenty of scholarly resources out there). When divorce occurs, individual freedoms are lost and the power to dictate family life is then completely left in the hands of lawyers and judges-who are the only winners in divorce. This increases the power of the government and even more laws are generated to try to get control of the massive breakdown of our families.
“ERA will wipe out state laws that exempt a wife from her husband’s debts even if the husband has deserted her and she has children to support.”[2]
TWRA belief number two:
“Protect a woman by making her exempt from her husband’s debt, especially if she should become widowed or divorced.”
Once again, this goes back to the issue of men being liable for their own support. As men, society should certainly expect them to be responsible for themselves as should the law. If you wish to treat husband and wife as individuals then what is the point of the marriage contract in the first place? These laws also protected the most fundamental foundation of civilized society, which is the family. If a woman must be held responsible for her husband’s debts then that means she is legally forced into the workforce under penalty of law even if she has been abandoned or widowed and has young children she must care for and support. This is traditional family law and it worked well as divorce rates were low and society was relatively stable. Invalidating these laws, designed to promote family stability, has led to the complete moral collapse of society and led to many social ills that have destructed society and the loss of individual freedoms.
Nobody in their right mind would say the condition of families today is all well and good. Plain and simple, rules must be enforced. There has to be laws enforcing stability in society or else you have anarchy and the society will self destruct within a couple of generations, which is what Western society is witnessing now as the traditional family unit has become unrecognizable.
“Women in the home are not performing some optional role that can be more efficiently fulfilled by the welfare state. Women in the home are not ‘wasting’ their human resources. The role of the mother is the paramount support of civilized human society. It is essential to the socialization both of men and of children. The maternal love and nurture of small children is an asset that can be replaced, if at all, only at vastly greater cost. Such attention is crucial to raising children into healthy and productive citizens. Moreover, the link of men through marriage to the support of particular children is crucial to male motivation and productivity.
The provider role of men not only gives the society the benefit of a lifetime of hard work oriented toward long-term goals. It also channels and disciplines male energies and aggressions that otherwise turn against that society. By contrast, full-time work by mothers of small children comes at a serious twofold cost: first, the loss of the immeasurable social benefit of the mother’s loving care for her child; second, the frequent loss of the husband’s full-time concentration on his career. The yield of the mother’s job to the economy or the man’s help in the home only rarely can offset the costs of her employment. The society will pay the costs on way or another: not only through tremendous outlays for day care but also through economic declines, population loss, juvenile delinquency, crime, mental illness, alcoholism, addiction, and divorce.”[3]
Yes, the husband should be liable for his wife’s debts and support unless she does a wrong against him such to invalidate the marriage contract (such as adultery). In such a case, the man should still be responsible for his own and his children’s support (although she should not be allowed to just take off with the kids if she is in the wrong, which I’ll explain later) but, since the contract is broken, he should be held liable no longer for her support. That is traditional family law. So long as the wife has committed no wrong he should support her but if she breaks the contract and is no longer faithful then she also waives her right to support from him. That’s how it works.
“It was precisely upon the conclusion that marriage cannot be a viable career for women that Time magazine rested its Fall 1990 special issue on “Women: The Road Ahead,” a survey of contemporary women’s lives. While noting that the ‘cozy, limited roles of the past are still clearly remembered, sometimes fondly,’ during the past thirty years ‘all that was orthodox has become negotiable.’ One thing negotiated away has been the economic security of the homemaker, and Time advised young women that ‘the job of full-time homemaker may be the riskiest profession to choose’ because ‘the advent of no-fault and equitable-distribution divorce laws’ reflect, in the words of one judge, the fact that ‘[society] no longer believes that a husband should support his wife.’
No-fault divorce laws did not, however, result from an edict of the gods of some force of nature, but from sustained political efforts, particularly by the feminist movement. As a cornerstone of their drive to make women exchange home for workplace, and thereby secure their independence from men, the availability of no-fault divorce (like the availability of abortion) was sacrosanct to the movement. Time shed crocodile tears for displaced homemakers, for it made clear that women must canter down the road ahead with the spur of no-fault divorce urging them into the workplace. Of all Time’s recommendations for ameliorating women’s lot, divorce reform- the most crying need in our country today- was not among them. Whatever hardships may be endured by women who would resist a divorce, Time’s allegiance, like that of most feminists, is clearly to the divorce- seekers who, it was please to note, will not be hindered in their pursuit of self-realization b the barriers to divorce that their own mothers had faced.”[4]
TWRA belief number three:
“Repeal no-fault divorce laws and reinstate alimony for ex-wives to give security to women who opt out of the workforce to raise their children or help their husbands”
Without security for the housewife in knowing that her husband will be liable to provide for her basic needs for her life, women are driven into the workforce, which further increases the divorce rates and puts distrust between husband and wife. It tells women there is only one reliable choice in life: full-time work because neither society nor law sees that the obligation to provide for the wife should be upon the man. No-fault divorce legally guts the marriage contract and leaves it meaningless and family stability, and along with it the rights of parents to govern their children’s lives, unenforceable.
“As one court put it, ‘a marriage license is not a ticket to a perpetual pension,’ but that is precisely what it must be to give a housewife security. In denying that security, society has rejected traditional marriage.”[5]
TWRA belief number four:
“Re-instate a family wage for married fathers”
This is not meant to be an assault on a free market economy. I do not mean there should be a law telling employers what they should be paying their employees. Rather, this is meant to strike down existing legislation that is actually imposing more restrictions on the economy. Equal pay laws must go that way employers may be free once again to favor married men in hiring and pay, thus furthermore protecting the family, the most important unit of society.
TWRA belief number five:
“End Affirmative Action for women”
This furthermore illustrates the need for employers to be free to hire married men, or hire men in general, instead of being forced to keep an even number of women. Affirmative action further undermines the family and the ability of men to be providers. Affirmative Action also forces women to remain in the workforce as the women cannot be legally replaced by men without employers facing a lawsuit.
TWRA belief number six:
“Re-instate the husband as legal head of household with authority to make final decisions regarding finances and where the family will live”
Once again, this serves the purpose of family stability. If the wife is independent from her husband and can feel free to move away from him then the family unit is shattered. Nobody has ever forced women or men to marry in American society. Independent lives are for single individuals, not married couples. And since the husband should be legally obligated to pay the bills and provide the necessaries for his wife and children, it goes without saying that he should be given the authority to make the decisions in that area as well. The law cannot impose upon a man the ultimate obligation of the support of his wife and children without giving him the ultimate authority to manage what his wife and children are doing. He cannot be held responsible for something that he has no control over.
TWRA belief number seven:
“Encourage women to refrain from sexual activities until the male commits to marry and provide for her”
Now here TWRA beliefs deviate from our legal goals for a minute. This is a cultural goal. Sex before marriage is most damaging to women, the child bearers, as we are mentally and physically different from men.Sexual intercourse for a woman involves pain and messiness and a penetration into the most deepest and intimate areas of her body and being. Also by its very nature, the physiological demands of the sex act itself is dependent upon the man’s ability to completely overtake the woman and dominate her. There is not a shred of fungibility in sexual terms between males and females. Male sexual patterns really haven’t changed any at all since women’s lib, it is women’s sexual behavior that has been dramatically altered. TWRA goals are not about bashing women, but about encouraging and protecting women. Fathers should protect their daughters and mothers should instill within their daughters values that currently mothers are not teaching them. It is our responsibility as women to teach the younger women to love themselves, so that they may ultimately love their husbands and their children and have a fulfilled life. Yes, it is our responsibility to teach women of their preciousness. When society no longer values the preciousness of women, which stems from our sexuality, it effects all of us as it is the women that can either build up or tear down society. Divorce, falling birth rates, women in combat, illegitimacy and a whole host of other problems occur as a result. It is the most deepest and scandalous of all politically incorrect truths -something that has always been understood but never said out loud- that women should never trade superiority for equality.
TWRA belief number eight:
“Re-instating common law right for women that were repealed in the name of equality, such as her right to recover damages for breach of promise to marry and seduction.”
Far from a flight from personal responsibility, this indicates that sexual morality is important to society and that, not only should a woman be expected by society to conduct herself as a lady, but also that men are held to a chivalrous responsibility to not take advantage of women. It indicates that society sees marriage as the only appropriate way for sex and childbearing to occur. We do not need a scientific study (although there are plenty available) to tell us that the male sex drive is a man’s prime governing passion and that a man will say or do anything to get a woman into bed. We also don’t need scientific studies to understand what has always been the common knowledge of our ancestors, that women can easily be swayed by men and will even give into his sexual desires because she believes he will remain with her and she will be loved. It shows clearly that men are responsible for women and ultimately in charge and are to be required to conduct themselves appropriately. With authority comes responsibility. It also shows that a woman’s body is valued and should only belong to the man who is committed to her and that society imposes upon her the responsibility to remain pure and only have children once married. This also serves a larger purpose to society as a whole, as out-of-wedlock births decrease and children are raised in a stable home with both a mother and a father, as sexual morality is of prime concern to society.
About Coverture and father’s rights:
First and foremost, I am talking about married fathers. Although I have not specifically stated a difference before, I am right now. I do not believe-for the welfare of women, children, society and even men- that an unwed father should be given the same legal rights and responsibilities of a married father. Where there is a valid contract of marriage, the husband should be the legal father of any and all children born to the wife. If his wife has been unfaithful he needs to make a choice right away when the child is born whether to stay with her, raise the child to adulthood and continue to be the legal father or divorce her- no waiting around for years or months and creating instability and confusion in the child’s life.
When an unwed mother has a child, she should be the sole legal parent of the child (with sole rights and responsibilities for the child) unless she should marry the father and he assume responsibility as provider and head of the family or until she gives that child up for adoption. It is only since the 1970s that unwed fathers have been granted rights like a married father. I believe this, along with our current welfare system and sexual liberation, has served to undermine stability of families and society. Many children are confused and families are torn apart when there is no stable family life.
The husband should be the head of the house, with sole authority and responsibility for the wife and children.
We believe in eliminating no-fault divorces. This alone does away with the problem of one spouse deciding to take off and rip the children away from the other parent without justification. Unless there is a clear showing of abuse or adultery so bad as to make it unsafe or unreasonable to stay in the marriage, divorce should not be granted. However, we do not believe that fault between husband and wife should be used to determine a child’s fate. We believe that the husband’s responsibilities for the child should remain the same no matter where the children live and no matter if he is still married to the mother. Therefore, as the authority in the family he holds the responsibility to place his children where he sees fit.
Traditional marriage is a contract between the man and the woman that basically states that he is held liable for her provision and protection and she will be faithful and only bear his children, not some other man’s. Unless one party has broken this contract, divorce should not be granted and the children should remain in the home with both parents.
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws!”
Tacitus (A.D. 55-130)
The abolition of the nuclear family has led to the rise of societal disintegration. The case for traditional family law does not impose an entire set of unjust laws on the people . Quite the contrary, abolition of traditional family law has led to the rise of numerous laws that must govern our every action and control our families- because the families are no longer being governed from within themselves as there is no prime authority figure. Once divorce occurs the government and the law gets their hands on your property, your money, your children and ultimately your very life. Only in the most extreme of circumstances should this ever be allowed to happen.
In the twentieth century Lewis Termin conducted the only known psychological study where the participants were observed from early childhood until their deaths. What he found was that those participants whose parents divorced before they reached adulthood (or to the age of 21) lived an average of 5 years less than those whose parents stayed together until the children at least reached adulthood. This held true even when controlled for other factors and also held steady even when sex was taken into account (women generally live longer than men, but the lifespans of both the males and females suffered equally negatively under divorce). Many studies today conclude negative health effects in both the husband and wife after divorce and a whole host of other negative problems that are too numerous to continue to name off in this posting.
No, TWRA supporters are not “living in fear” or simply afraid. But we are very concerned. We are concerned for our civilization and the welfare of our families because we live in a society that has been trying relentlessly for the past 50 years to destruct traditional morality and family values. Traditional men and women have been taking this for long enough. If we are to save our civilization and secure the freedom of our children and future generations, we must act now because freedom is never more than a generation away from going extinct.
We are witnessing the rise of every liberal cause under the sun from women in combat to women going bare-breasted in public. These can only be the signs of a civilization in decay.
“Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women… The decay and the ruin of a nation has always lain in the hands of its women. So does its life and strength, its reverence for beauty, its mercy and kindness. And, above all, its men.”[6]
Notes:
[1] http://www.eagleforum.org/era/2003/ERA-Brochure.shtml
[2] Ibid.
[3] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage.” Pelican, 1993.
[4] Graglia, C.F. “Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism,” p.9-10. Spence, 1998.
[5] Ibid., p. 137.
[6] http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/Women_s_Lib_They_re_Spoiling_Eve_s_Great_Con_Game_5010050.shtml
© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.
B. A. Hunter 