Monthly Archives: September 2012

Feminist Myths II

Myth: Before women’s liberation there were no laws protecting women.

Before women’s liberation there were actually hundreds of laws that benefited and protected women. Now it is important to stop right here and understand that the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s had absolutely nothing in common with the early feminists of the 19th century. These early feminists were trying to give women basic rights and protections that the feminist movement of the 60s-70s would ultimately take away from women. It is very essential to note that most of the women living at the time of the “first wave” of feminism in the 1800s probably did not see themselves as victims or “second class” in any way. Even when it came to the suffragist movement (which really should be put in a different category separate from the feminist movement) women stood on opposing sides. They were both suffragists and anti-suffragists.

“Under the old laws of coverture, the husband was held completely liable for the actions and well being of his wife.

“Under coverture rules, a woman could not make contracts; write wills; sue or be sued in court; or own property such as money, clothing, and household goods- these belonged solely to the ‘head of household,’ the husband. This meant that if the wife worked for pay for someone else, her husband owned the wages that she earned…”[i]

In the words of William Blackstone in 1765:

“By Marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything…and her condition during her marriage is called coverture.”[ii]

However, “even in the old Common Law tradition, man and wife were not so merged that women had no legal identity. The wife’s position was not that of a possession but of her husband’s ward. She could, for example, maintain property rights, though they were limited by her husband’s authority.”[iii] Also, along with being head and master of the house, “the husband is bound to provide his wife with necessaries by law, as much as himself; and if he contracts debts for them, he is obliged to pay them…..If the wife be indebted before marriage, the husband is bound afterwards to pay the debt.”[iv]

Before women’s liberation the laws that protected women were numerous. Because our society understood that the reality for women is, and always has been, different than the reality for men, our laws and customs gave women preference and protections in many areas of the law. Divorce could not be obtained just because one party wanted to walk away or got bored and yes there were laws protecting women should she need to divorce her husband because he had been abusive. Many today distort this part of our history by saying a woman was property before women’s liberation and couldn’t get away from abusive husbands. In the 1700s and early 1800s such things might occur, but, as stated above, women gained rights and protections in the mid to late 19th century. Women were protected. Family wages laws were enacted to ensure a man could easily support his wife and children on one income, the maternal preference in child custody cases was put into law to ensure that young children would not be taken from their mothers in the event of divorce (unwed fathers did not have rights, but occasionally did gain the right to visitation), and multiple other laws protecting widows, wives, mothers and women in general.

“Before the feminist movement burst on the scene in the 1970s, there were literally hundreds of laws that gave advantages or protections to women based on society’s commonsense recognition of the facts of life and human nature. These included the prohibition against statutory rape, the Mann act, the obligation of the husband to support his wife and provide her with a home, special protections for widows…and laws that made it a misdemeanor to use obscene or profane language in the presence of a woman”[v]

There were numerous protections that women had under the law and numerous rights. These rights were there before the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s. The feminist movement of the 60s and 70s was nothing more than an attempt to push women out of the home and into the workforce and destabilize society. Whether or not women actually enjoyed having careers was inconsequential.[vi] In order to get women into the workforce so there would be more workers for the government to tax the family had to be destroyed and all laws that favored and protected women abolished (all in the name of “equality” of course). Instead of wives and mothers being protected and husbands and fathers having the responsibility for supporting and protecting their wives and children, a new code was developed to make wives and mothers equally financially liable and divorce laws were liberalized. The main method of achieving this was the Equal Rights Amendment. But even though it failed, it didn’t matter. Feminist lawyers were still able to get laws gender-neutralized both on the state and federal level.

“Because of women’s rational fear that they might become comparatively destitute if they were divorced, our no-fault divorce laws exerted tremendous pressure on women to decline the housewife’s role. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would have served that same goal. By the end of the campaign for enactment, the amendment’s only real purpose was to compound further the pressures to drive all women into the work force. As Jane Mansbridge has noted, decisions of the United States Supreme Court had, by 1982, already changed almost all the laws the ERA was designed to change. The amendment’s major legal effect would have been to subject women to the draft and combat service and invalidate certain laws that benefited women; supporters could point to little else they claimed was discriminatory. But what the amendment had come to represent-and the reason its enactment seemed crucial to the women’s movement- was a societal affirmation of the feminist perspective.”[vii]

“‘What was at stake in the battle over the ERA was the legitimacy of women’s claim on men’s incomes’; the force of feminism, Ehrenreich concedes, was to ‘allow men to think they have no natural obligation to support women.’ Mary Jo Bane anticipated that the ERA would encourage reexamination of marital roles to ‘stimulate questioning and perhaps change behavior,’ thereby fostering families where wives are no more likely than husbands to take time from the workplace to rear children.”[viii]

Ultimately what the feminist movement of the 70s did was bring women’s rights back to the old days where women were not protected and their husbands could once again leave and take the kids, their wages, and property. But with corruption so rampant our laws don’t care who gets hurt or taken advantage of- in this regard the sexes are indeed equal today- just as long as families don’t stay together. If women cannot be protected because it would mean sex discrimination, women can be fined, thrown into jail, taxed and the elite can profit off of it. Broken apart families leave a civilization vulnerable. It opens the way to massive government interference in people’s private lives and the government begins to decide how children will be raised, what they will be taught, and where they will live. Women view careers as more important than simply being wives and mothers and men become unmotivated and refuse to marry and take responsibility for women and children. Women’s lib was about getting children out of the care of nurturing mothers and out from under the guidance and protection of patriarchal men.

Ultimately, women’s liberation was never about women’s rights. Women have gained in the area of reproduction and marketplace achievement but have sacrificed their happiness and security in the process. Mostly women’s liberation was about taking protections and rights away from women to achieve a gender-neutral society.

“The feminist quest for female fungibility with males has led the women’s movement to support the invalidation of laws benefiting and protecting women. This was the thrust, for example, of litigation directed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and , often using male plaintiffs, secured invalidation of laws that favored women.”[ix]

Of course, feminists see this as an example of “women’s rights.” Those such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg see protecting any group of people, particularly women, to be harmful because it locks us into stereotypes. Nothing less than complete equality would suffice for feminists.

 

Notes:

[i] Cushman, C. Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights. CQ Press, 2001.
[ii] ibid
[iii] http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/09/29/the-wrongs-of-womens-rights-ii-coverture/
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Schlafly, P., Feminist Fantasies. p.144, Spence, 2003.
[vi] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN05DHO9bJw
[vii] Graglia, C.F., Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism. P. 137, Spence, 1998.
[viii] ibid., 138.
[ix] ibid., 295.

 

© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Advertisements

Common Myths about Feminism

I would like to combat some myths about feminism. Myths fed to your average Joe through popular culture. We have been getting a lot of upset posts recently and a lot of people clicking ‘like’ on this page so that they can deliver angry speeches. I would like to do my best to try and educate as many people as I can. This is a long post and it took me a while to write. I hope that many of our visitors will take the time to read it. Don’t let popular culture influence your opinion, educate yourself before you make an decision on what to believe. Also, I would like to hear it if there are some myths anyone feels that I did not cover.

MYTH 1: Before feminism, men all beat their wives and wife beating was the norm.

This is certainly not true. It is in fact a natural instinct that most men have built into them that ensures they are not harmfully violent towards females and children and they feel an urge to shelter and protect them. This is one of the many reasons why men are larger and stronger than women, they look over them. Without this our species would not have survived more primitive periods of history.

In fact, if anything feminism aims to take away this instinct in men. Men generally become violent towards women and children when a society has been corrupted in some shape or form, or when a man is mentally ill and unbalanced and has that natural instinct missing. Humans also lived in larger communities in more primitive times and any man seen harming a woman or child would have been persecuted by the other men.

Many equalists/feminists/MRAs actually want to bring in a law that ensures that when there are calls to the police for domestic violence, both parties get put under arrest and given criminal records including a battered woman. Many members of society feel that because women are ‘equal to men now’ that they ‘should be able to take a punch like a man’ and should be able to physically protect their children without help from the authorities. Many Mothers are scrutinized by social services and society for ‘failure to protect’ when they try and remove themselves and their children from a violent situation with a man. Many women are blamed for suffering domestic violence and maimed as the perpetrators these days for ‘getting the man angry’ or ‘making the wrong choice’.

MYTH 2: Feminism is about choice.

Feminism was never about choice. Feminism was about removing women and men from their natural roles and destabilizing the family unit as a means of population and capitalist control. Many feminists believe housewives to be nothing but ‘parasites’ who ‘contribute nothing to society’. Feminism was also about having more workers for the government to tax and politicians getting more votes. It’s easier to appeal to a female audience, many women voted for Obama because they had a crush on him, not for his abilities as a leader. Polls and surveys taken suggest that the common woman is actually more stressed today than she was in the 1950s and that over half of women begrudge having a demanding job and not being able to put their home and family first all the time. Also, women in the work place has caused a change to men’s wages. Men are no longer seen as the main breadwinners anymore and are not given priority over women when it comes to being given jobs. If society still viewed men as breadwinners, and more women stayed out of the work force men with even pretty menial jobs would still be able to support their families on one income. This would benefit everyone.

MYTH 3: Gender equality makes us a more civilized and makes women and men get along better.

In fact, it does the opposite. Women love men for being men, men love women for being women. If you observe species where the genders are supposed to be egalitarian, the males and females are about the same size or they are asexual (worms for example have two sets of genitals). Not only are human males in general built larger and stronger than the females to be the leaders and to protect women and children and their communities, they also think differently and have different abilities. We cannot take this away, and if we try and take it away society will become corrupted and confused and we will not operate the way that we were designed to but at the same time we will still try. Have you ever tried to use a TV as a toaster? Tried to wear your gloves as socks? It doesn’t work. The same with gender equality.

MYTH 4: Before feminism, women were objectified more and they became less valuable to men as they aged.

Actually, AFTER feminism women were objectified more and they became less valuable to many men as they aged. Feminism bought on the sexual liberation which has not liberated women at all. In fact, before the sexual liberation viewing women as objects was less commonplace. Sure, you have always had men who have visited prostitutes, etc but this was shameful. Women and men admired each other because they were a team that offered their different abilities, roles and input into a family. As women aged, their value as human beings did not decrease because their value was not placed so much on their bodies or their sexual worth. They were valued as wives, mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmas etc. The sexual liberation has also freed men from the responsibility of Fatherhood if they so choose to opt out, leaving many single Mothers and their children exposed to crime and poverty. Without the protection and guidance of a reliable patriarch, women and children have no lead and no safety net. Since the sexual liberation, both men and women have viewed one another more as disposable, thinking that they can just replace one partner with another or leave a marriage once it gets a little repetitive or boring. The sexual liberation is nothing but hedonism. Hedonism is one of the most destructive traits known to man and WILL lead us to our demise.

As I said, anyone with anymore myths to point out is more than welcome to contribute to this post. I would also like to point out that the creators of this page do not look at the past with rose tinted spectacles. We are all aware that there were problems in society pre feminism and women’s lib. However, women’s lib was not the way to solve these problems and it has done nothing but destabilize society even further and create a whole new set of problems.

I am open to answering any questions. I am not here to argue or to belittle anyone.

Contributor: Sarah

 

© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Why Economic Discrimination?

It is so ingrained in our society to believe that anything less that complete equality is bad for women and absolutely harmful. However, there are some instances where gender equality should not be sought. Despite feminist efforts to trivialize sexual differences, the sexes are not equal. Feminists have done such a good job at indoctrinating our entire society that even the most conservative among us are freaked at even the thought of anything but gender equality as if we wanted to slap a chastity belt on them and send them back to the dark ages (otherwise known as the 1950s) or lock them up in the kitchen to forever be barefoot and pregnant. As Danielle Crittendon observed at the turn of the century:

“Ideas that once seemed radical- whether it was equal pay for equal work, or rebelling against housework and marriage, or storming boardrooms and military academies- have been so completely absorbed by our society and accepted by its institutions all the way up to the Supreme Court that the only way left to be truly radical is to become a nut.”[1]

Of course, anytime I try to explain why complete equality and fungibility between the sexes may not be in the best interests of women, I get bombarded with remarks about equality as if I was talking to a brick wall. Many even become very hostile in their remarks to anything that could even be considered remotely traditional, “sexist” or against women’s full time participation in the paid work force (because obviously that is the most important thing to women, how many hours they work). Feminism has been absorbed so readily by our culture that the amount of women in the workforce is used to determine who will be the better president and which side is the bigger champion of women’s rights. Yet, despite the constant ramblings about equality and equal pay that bombard news stories here lately, many women are expressing their desires to stay home and let men be the breadwinners:

At a moment in history when the American conversation seems to be obsessed with bringing attention to women in the workplace (check out “The End of Men,” or Google “gender paygap” for a primer), it seems a remarkable chasm between what we’d like to see (more women in the corporate ranks) and what we’d like for ourselves (getting out of Dodge). But it’s true: according to our survey, 84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.[2]

It is often largely ignored that staying at home is indeed not a luxury, but often times a necessity. As Suzanne Venker writes:

Most women make clear and purposeful choices — regarding sex, whom to marry (that’s a biggie), work, geography, etc. — that allow them to be the primary caregiver in their children’s lives. Others learn the hard way that it costs to have both parents work. The money from a second income — unless it’s a six-figure salary — is usually eaten up by commuting costs, child care, eating out, work attire, dry cleaning, convenience foods, and, of course, taxes. By the time you add it all up, there isn’t much left.[3]

Obviously one income still buys the necessities but many women feel like it just isn’t enough for them to stay home and raise their children. Home is where many want to be, but they feel it is an option far out of their reach. But, as everything else in life, we cannot have things both ways. Either we want to have complete equality with men and continue to carry extra burdens that do not rightly belong to us, or we must realize that there are some areas where men must be given preference so that women can be free to truly choose the lifestyle that we want. In other words, if many of us are wanting to be home and not in full-time work (as indeed constant research keeps showing), then we cannot be adamant about complete equality and fairness in our relationships. We must support policies that allow our husbands to be given preference so they can assume responsibility for supporting a family. For, after all, it was the feminist movement that impaired men’s earning ability so that women would take on full time work.

“We need ultimately to reverse existing laws and practices. First and foremost, we must restore customary economic discrimination in favor of men. America’s businesses and institutions must be free once again to favor men over women in hiring. If they are not, family life will never return to a reasonable state of health; the happiness of women and children will continue to decline; and men will fail to flourish and prosper.”[4]

Along with economic discrimination in favor of men where it is necessary, we must also reverse our attitudes. Instead of insisting on fairness and equality, splitting the check 50/50 on dates, engaging in casual sexual activities and insisting our husbands assume half of the domestic chores, we must reinforce their masculinity (watch now our society will be confused about what masculinity even is in our modern day society). We must give our men the pride and tools necessary so that they can assume responsibility for us. This goal cannot be achieved as long as we follow feminist/egalitarian teachings.

“The result of women’s abandonment of their sexual bargaining power that the double standard has assured them has been a decline in marriage rates, an increase in divorce rates, and a surge in the number of women entering the workforce. And thus women have relinquished their role as the civilizers of men, who teach them to become responsible job holders, husbands, and fathers. Instead, women now bestow sexual rewards on men without requiring that they work in the hairpin factory to support women and their children.”[5]

Notes:

1. Crittenden, D., What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us. Touchstone, 1999.
2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/
3. http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/295943/feminist-war-women/suzanne-venker#
4. http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2009/07/why-we-must-discriminate/
5. Graglia, C.F., Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism. Spence, 1998.

 

© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Why I am an Anti-Feminist Woman Part II

Why am I an anti-feminist woman?

1) I want my man to be chivalrous: My man has always paid for our dates and held doors open for me. He doesn’t expect a woman to pay because he knows that is his job. He is not the type of man who believes women and men are equal because he believes women should be protected and taken care of. He does not throw our society’s mainstream vision of equality back in my face by telling me to pay my own way, open my own doors, and fight our wars. “Of course, when you wipe out masculine men, you also eliminate gentlemen, the kind of men who would defend and protect a lady-like the gentlemen who remained on the Titanic. Of the ship’s survivors, 94 percent of those in first-class and 81 percent of those in second class were women.”[1]

2) I don’t want to be “equal”: I know as a woman I am already of great worth. I don’t have to go out into the workforce to prove myself. It does not make me inferior if my husband pays the bills and has all the money because that means he is assuming responsibility as a father and husband and providing our needs. I don’t want the burdens that have been forced upon wives and mothers because of feminism. I want my husband to have the legal obligation to provide my needs and the needs of our child and I want him to be the head of household. I do not want to be treated like a man. “Different but equal” is a term that contradicts itself.

To ameliorate the problems caused by society’s overvaluation of male marketplace activities and women’s dissatisfactions with a traditional female role, masculinity must be reinforced. Only a man secure in his masculinity will place a high value on the traditional female role and exert himself to make that role viable. The fiber of effete, attenuated, androgynous males must be shored up so that they can happily marry, reproduce, and assume responsibility for supporting a family. A man secure in his masculinity will not usually believe himself suited to the female role, but he will respect the woman who assumes it and take pride in providing for her and their children. Such a man will afford his wife the security and affirmation that enable her to deal with the troubling aspects of her role and perform it with satisfaction.[2]

A sea of change had occurred in men who only two decades before had taken pride in their ability to provide for wife and children. With scarcely a whimper, many males accepted the new androgyny and capitulated to the very feminist demands which have impaired their earning ability. Then, they too encouraged their wives to leave children hostage to the vagaries of surrogate care and pursue the economic opportunities which would spare husbands from assuming the now apparently overwhelming role of breadwinner.[3]

3) I want to be valued for the natural work I do: Our society does not see woman’s natural work of pregnancy, birth and child nurturing as work or as worthwhile. They tell us we do not do our part unless we are held to all the responsibilities of men. This is simply not true. As women we naturally do our part for we are the ones that bring life into this world. I want to be valued and cherished for the work I naturally do. We spend months and years of our lives to bring the next generation forth and it should be counted as more than just doing our part and respected. Feminists have never seen us as doing our part and have forced us to take on the man’s burden of supporting the family and have tried many times to get Congress to draft us. “But if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship…”[4]

…While androgyny advances the feminist cause, it is for the traditional person the ultimate perversion. Because of its essential elimination of what is singularly masculine or feminine, an ideology of androgyny is an attack on the biological constitution of society, a muting of the excitement created by that sexual distinctiveness and complementarity most conducive to satisfying heterosexuality. The widespread desexualization of our lives through a proliferation of androgynous styles has created fallow soil for growth of contemporary feminism. Societal acceptance of androgyny has validated feminist efforts to trivialize sexual differences. When androgyny becomes fashionable, women will become diffident about, even somewhat ashamed of, the sexual differentiation announced by their reproductive capability. Striving to become more like men, they will eschew the distinctively feminine satisfaction inherent in being female.[5]

4) I treasure my sexuality and my body: Feminists have for decades told us to pursue sex on the same terms as men and that double standards are holding us back. We are pressured from a young age to have sex and to be ashamed if we have not had sex. I remember being so ashamed of being a virgin that I had to lie to everyone I knew about sexual encounters that never even happened. It’s a pitiful thing when young women don’t understand their inherent worth and feel they must participate in sexual activity in order to feel accepted and loved. Sex for a woman will never be the same as sex for a man.

“ In the past, men had to commit before they could have sex. As a result, women were cherished for themselves and given a lifelong role that satisfied their deepest emotional needs.

Both mothers and daughters are victims of deliberate social subversion. A woman’s career used to be wife and mother. She consecrated her sexuality for the man she loved, the father of her children, her protector and provider.”[6]

Dworkin depicts sexual intercourse as a much more momentous experience for a woman than a man, because it is ‘an act of possession in which…a man inhabits a woman, physically covering her and overwhelming her and at the same time penetrating her…By thrusting into her, he takes her over. His thrusting into her is taken to be her capitulation to him as a conqueror; it is a physical surrender of herself to him; he occupies and rules her, expresses his elemental dominance over her…’ In intercourse, says Dworkin, a woman ‘is occupied- physically, internally, in her privacy.'” Her depiction might be considered an outrageous exaggeration (many of Dworkin’s critics so characterize it), but I find it a dramatic portrayal-from the woman’s, but not necessarily from the man’s perspective- of sexual intercourse at its best. Dworkin describes an overwhelmingly personal, a truly awe-inspiring, event in which a woman should shrink in horror from participating on any basis even remotely casual. One might think that in her lifetime a woman would meet few men that she considers worthy of exercising such power over her. This may explain why women often invest their romantic relationships with a meaning the facts do not support, endeavoring to convince themselves that the man is what he is not and that the woman means much more to him than she truly does.[7]

Notes:

1. Schlafly, P., Feminist Fantasies. Spence, 2003.
2. Graglia, C.F., Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism. p.151. Spence, 1998.
3. ibid., p.40.
4. http://www.amazon.com/Firing-William-Buckley-Rights-Amendment/dp/B007Q3QMEW/ref=pd_ybh_1
5. “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 61.
6. http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/feminists-surprised-their-daughters-are-sluts/
7. “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 173.

© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.