Monthly Archives: February 2013

Questioning Economic Necessity

“It has been estimated that by 1960 a family wage was paid by 65 percent of all employers in the United States, and by over 80 percent of the major industrial companies. Although feminist historians today call the family-wage ideal a “myth” designed to keep married women oppressed, few myths have come closer to becoming a reality.”[1]

The feminist conviction is that the “good ole life” where married women did not work is a myth. In their view of history, married women staying home is somehow a new thing in human history that was invented in the 1950s. They also stress that it is the economy that flushed women out of the home and into the workforce during the revolution years.Today they say it is just too bad and even if married women wanted to go back home it is impossible because of the economy. Their views and assertions are, however, pretty far removed from reality. In fact, in the grand old 1950s there were even more married women in the workforce than in previous times in American history. All the way up until the year 1900, only 5.6% of married women were in the workforce. By the year 1910 that number had climbed to 10.7%. In the 1950s, 23% of married women were in the workforce. [2]

Feminists also like to chime in and tell us all about how it was only middle class white women that were able to fulfill the role of housewife. But unless 90% of married couples were middle class and white this remains to be seen. Generally, feminists like to plead economic necessity so as to ensure that married women with dependent children do not feel guilty about going off to work and leaving their children in the care of someone else. Mainstream feminists propaganda says that it “takes two incomes” just to make ends meet. Yet, in the vast majority of cases this is not, nor has it ever, been true.

“When the mother in a two-parent family chooses to work, economic necessity (as opposed to advantage) is more likely to be the rationalization than the explanation for her decision. Feminism’s effort to bring about the demise of the full-time housewife required diminishing the guilt felt by working mothers. Thus began the constant effort to depict a two-income family as economically necessary when in most instances one income would provide the basic necessities of life-food, housing, and clothing. That the best-educated and highest-paid women are the ones who return to work the soonest after birth of a child makes clear that something other than economic necessity has impelled women to abandon child care in favor of the workplace.” [3]

Moreover, it was not the economy at all that forced women out of the home. No, the influx of married women into the workforce was deliberate and the intended outcome of the women’s liberation movement. One really does not have to wonder what the word “liberation” in the phrase “women’s liberation” is referring to. It refers to nothing more than the “liberating” of women from sexual morality and the bonds of marriage and child-rearing. Women were not forced out of the home because the economy was going in the gutter. The feminist movement created the economy we have now. The influx of married women into the workforce lowered men’s wages and devalued the housewive’s role. It was the women with highly-educated husbands- the women who could least claim “economic necessity”- that left the home first. Poorer women were still in the home caring for their children.

“In 1962, only 37 percent of all wives worked for pay outside the home. The wives of high school- and college-educated men were hardly more likely to work for pay than the wives of men with only a grade school education. Between 1962 and 1978 the proportion of wives working for pay rose from 37 percent to 58 percent. This growth was concentrated among wives with highly educated husbands, for whom the economic pressures to work were lowest. Among women whose husbands had only a grade school education, 34 percent worked for pay both in 1962 and in 1978. Among women whose husbands attended college, 38 percent worked for pay in 1962, but this had grown to 65 percent by 1978…

In the 1950s, to preserve their own self-esteem, they extolled the virtues of work in the home. By 1980, they saw matters quite differently. A job once perceived as noble now seemed distinctly plebeian. Thus, homemakers suffered a tremendous loss in social prestige in two decades. Sociologists call this phenomenon “status degradation.” It happened to these homemakers through no fault of their own. As the paid labor force offered urban, educated women attractive options the more rural, less-educated women round the world judged the traditional job of homemaking less attractive. Middle-class women who chose to stay in the home began to feel déclassé. Women’s magazines began to print outraged letters from homemakers who now found that they had to describe themselves as ‘only’ a housewife, not only to men but to other women.”[4]

On top of the status degradation of the housewife’s role, feminists forced other pressures onto women to abandon homemaking. The housewife started to be seen as a “deadbeat.” Indeed, still today mothers who aren’t financially responsible for the family are seen as “deadbeats.” This is how feminists wanted women who were not in the workforce to be seen. From the traditional perspective, however, the only “deadbeat” wife or mother is the one who is not in the home caring for her young children. The only “deadbeat” mom, from the traditional point of view, is the one who IS in the workforce. But, of course, to feminists, the paycheck is all that matters. The very thrust of the woman’s movement was to flush women out of the home and into the workforce as full time homemaking was incompatible with the movement.

“…The very existence of full-time homemakers was incompatible with many goals of the women’s movement, like the equal sharing of political and economic power. Women can never hold half the economically and politically powerful positions in the country if a greater proportion of women than men withdraw from competition for those positions. More important, if even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are very young…Thus the more full-time homemakers there are, the harder it will be to break traditional expectations that homemaking ought to be a woman’s career. This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole had reasons to discourage full-time homemaking.”[5]

The period after the 1970s marked the decline in men’s wages. This too was deliberate and the intended outcome. Most protective legislation for women did not discriminate against women. But in the area of pay discrimination against women was necessary to protect wives and mothers from the harsh necessity of wage work. Unequal pay for equal work was necessary. Many women who would be shocked to work for anything less than equal pay to a man simply do not realize that, even though women now make more to the dollar than their grandmothers did, they are not keeping any more of that paycheck. The few extra cents to a dollar that women are making as the result of the feminist movement are simply going to pay for women’s newfound financial obligations in the family and to supplement her husband’s diminished paycheck. There has been nothing tangible gained for women when everything is added up. Feminists campaigned against protective legislation for women. They saw it as “sexist” and campaigned that protective legislation was simply designed to keep women “oppressed.”

Moreover, “no-fault” divorce legislation ripped away the economic security that housewives once enjoyed- financial security in their marriages that made it safe for a woman to stay in the home with her children and now women are held women equally financially responsible at divorce. Being a homemaker is a risky endeavor for a woman, as the new divorce laws made very clear:

“The economic messages of the new law are clear: it no longer ‘pays’ to invest in the marital partnership- to be a faithful breadwinner or a devoted homemaker. Ones economic ‘take’ from the marriage will be the same no matter what one has done.” [6]

Of course, feminists like Weitzman believe women’s newfound economic predicaments as the result of the new divorce laws are simply because women have not reached “full equality” yet, or the courts are not treating women “equally” yet. But it is the very essence of gender equality in our law codes that is causing women hardships and scaring them and shaming them out of the housewife’s role. Moreover, the mass media creates the image that, in order to be successful, a woman must have a full-time career and a fancy college degree. Also, modern women are pressured and made to believe that if they do not use their college degree for something “worthwhile” (ie., a fancy career outside of the home) then they are wasting their knowledge away and being unproductive.

“The female role models held up for veneration and imitation by the popular media are almost exclusively highly educated, independent, career women. Bucking the trend to devote oneself exclusively to home and family today requires extraordinary self-confidence and fortitude on the part of young women who must be prepared to endure both the censure of their culture and the disapproval of their peers. It is no wonder that most college women pursue a course of study that will put them firmly on the full-time career path when they graduate; they are simply following their culture’s prescription for success and acceptability. And since no-fault divorce, by undermining all claims of a wife to her husband’s income, has eliminated the economic security that marriage provided for women in our society, it is hard to blame young women for hedging their bets by setting out on the career path sooner rather than later.”[7]

Thus, it is not the economy that has forced women into the workforce. It was a deliberate attempt by the leaders and those who funded the women’s liberation movement to get and keep women in the workforce. Traditional divorce law protected women by ensuring her support from her ex-husband (providing she was not at fault) until she at least married another man who would become responsible for her support and almost all states protected the family home so that the mother could live there to raise her children at least when they were young. But, to feminists, this was holding women back so protective legislation had to go.

“The protections the law once afforded to women who made economic sacrifices for their families no longer exist. They were abolished when we rewrote the divorce law in the name of equality. When a marriage breaks up, as two out of five marriages now do, a wife will seldom be entitled to alimony, no matter how much less she may earn than her ex-husband. In the 1970s, feminists campaigned against alimony on the explicit grounds that its elimination would flush women out of the home and into the workforce, where they belonged…A divorced couple usually sells its home and divides to proceeds, after which the woman survives on what she can earn- not much if she’s getting on in years and has been out of the workforce for any significant amount of time.” [8]

To drive home the main point, the economy did not flush women out of the home, but the feminist movement did. This was to ensure that women did not depend upon men but instead became self-sufficient. There is nothing that women have gained from the modern feminist movement (1960s- present). Women have been the losers. Women, by nature of our biology, are different from men. We have different needs and different vulnerabilities and burdens to bear than do men. Our laws used to understand this. But now feminists have forced women into the workforce and left women vulnerable by knocking down protective legislation for women. Women’s problem today is not that we are not treated as equal to men, but that we are.

“The political rights of citizens are not properly dependent upon sex, but social and domestic relations and industrial activities are… Women cannot be made men by act of the legislature or by amendment to the Federal Constitution. The inherent differences are permanent. Women will always need many laws different than those needed by men.” [9]

As a final point, many women have learned that a second income is not all it is cracked up to be. Oftentimes, the woman keeps very little of that second income when all expenses are added up. In one conversation I had with a woman she confessed that when her and her husband added it all up, she found she was literally working for about a dollar an hour. Moreover, a woman can save a lot of money by doing things more old-fashioned around the house. She would not have the time to do all of this if she were working full time. When there are young children involved, it does not pay for a woman to be in the workforce. But, rather, the economic advantage is greater if she is at home (unless she makes a six-figure salary, which most women do not).

“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.”[10]

 

Notes:
[1] Roberton, B.C., “Forced Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 63. Spence, 2003.
[2] http://www.freeby50.com/2010/10/historical-look-at-womens-participation.html
[3] Graglia, F.C., “Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism,” p. 72. Spence, 1998.
[4] Mansbridge, J.J. “Why We Lost the ERA,” p. 105; 107-108. University of Chicago Press, 1986.
[5] ibid., p. 99-100
[6] Weitzman, L.J., “The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America,” p. 30. The Free Press, 1987.
[7] “Forced Labor,” p. 38-39.
[8] Crittenden, D., “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman,” p. 98-99. Touchstone, 1999.
[9] “Forced Labor,” p. 60.
[10] http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/295943/feminist-war-women/suzanne-venker#

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Advertisements

Women Deserve Better than Feminism

I feel sorry for the modern woman who was brought up in a feminist society. She has been taught nothing but lies her entire life. Her entire life the myth that women were second class citizens in our past has been fed to her and reinforced over and over. She has been taught to pursue sex as long as the man uses a condom. She has been taught that careers are the true path to fulfillment. But this is not all her fault. No, it is the fault of a culture that does not teach women their true worth. The modern woman will live with her boyfriend, split the bills and give him sex. Yet the relationship won’t last. She will probably bear him a couple of children yet he will never marry her. No, the modern emasculated man will continue to be a child. More than likely in this living arrangement he won’t bother to hold down a steady job. His girlfriend will give him sex, clean the house, have his kids, pump herself full of hormones that wreck her body, and go to work to support the family- he has nothing to worry about. She will be used and tossed aside without ever as much as receiving the prospect of marriage and a home to live in.

The modern woman will never be treated with the same courtesy and respect that her female ancestors (who according to feminists were “second class”) were given for she lives in a society where any man will readily send the mother of his children into the workforce to support the family and will readily see women sent into war. But since men are naturally stronger and more dominant than women are, this is nothing less than abusive. Men are given greater physical (and even some mental) powers over women by nature. So a man who is not chivalrous towards women is abusive. The man who does not take on the appropriate responsibilities that come along with fatherhood and manhood is abusive towards women. As Jesse Powell notes:

“In this way unconditional chivalry provided to women by men is what is fair, is what is equal, is what is just. Any burden imposed upon the woman for the chivalrous benefit is abusive, it is a form of theft against the woman, it is a violation of the woman’s natural rights as a woman, it is an abuse of the power granted to the man as the man is not using the power he is given for the purpose the power is meant to serve. When the man denies the woman chivalry he is using a power entrusted to him on behalf of the woman for his own benefit. This is outright theft.

Chivalry is a collection of powers and advantages first granted to men through inheritance. The man then creates and controls chivalry in order to then give it to the woman. Chivalry is something that men create and men control but it is something that the woman rightfully possesses.”[1]

Modern women need to discard the feminist beliefs that our mothers’ generation were taught. We have seen many in our mothers’ generation live chaotic and stressful lives. Many of them are now middle aged and still out there searching (often times for “Mr. Right” as they have run through so many “Mr. Wrongs” by living a feminist lifestyle). If women are to finally achieve happiness and prosperity we must discard the feminist teachings that are so mainstream in our society today. If a man wishes to lay claim to his children he must be required to marry the mother and take on traditional responsibilities for her and the children. The granting of rights to men without these responsibilities is an abuse of male power. Likewise, society must not tolerate sexual promiscuity and the resulting single parenthood that is so prevalent in our society. Our grandmothers were able to stay home with their children because they demanded and expected it, and also fostered an economy that supported it. We could have the same prosperity if only we too would demand it from our society and from our men.

The purpose of marriage and bringing fathers into the family should be for them to take on responsibilities for women and children so that the mother does not have to perform both the roles of child rearer and breadwinner. Men who depend on a woman to support themselves and/or their children are doing nothing more than abusing and taking advantage of women. It has been well documented all throughout history and almost every society that has ever been in existence that the male role in the family is to provide:

“Similarly, man’s ‘innate need for structure’ can be satisfied in hundreds of forms of organization. The need for structure may explain all of them or none of them, but it does not tell us why, of all possible arrangements, marriage is the one most prevalent. It does not tell us why, in most societies, marriage alone is consecrated in a religious ceremony and entails a permanent commitment.

As most anthropologists see it, however, the reason is simple. The very essence of marriage, Bronislaw Malinowski wrote, is not structure and intimacy; it is ‘parenthood and above all maternity.’ The male role in marriage, as Margaret Mead maintained, ‘in every known human society, is to provide for women and children.’ In order to marry, in fact, Malinowski says that almost every human society first requires the man ‘ to prove his capacity to maintain the woman.'”[2]

Thus it is and has always been the primary role of fathers and husbands (if paternity is to be acknowledged in society) to provide for and maintain women and children. Thus I feel sorry for the modern woman who does not demand from the man she loves and wants to be with commitment, respect, and support.

Many feminists laugh at us for standing up for the “rights” of traditional women. In their view, traditional women have no rights. But they are wrong. Traditional women have many rights, and chief among them is the right to expect support from our husbands and to be protected from the man’s burden of military duty. Traditional women have the right to demand protection and support from the senior men in their lives (namely husbands and when they are younger fathers). Feminists see guardianship of women and patriarchy as oppression of women, yet for the traditional women it is a right. We can look to Saudi women for a magnificent 21st century example. Many of their women do not want to give up their guardianship laws and consider it a right of women:

“In Saudi culture, women have their integrity and a special life that is separate from men. As a Saudi woman, I demand to have a guardian. My work requires me to go to different regions of Saudi Arabia, and during my business trips I always bring my husband or my brother. They ask nothing in return—they only want to be with me. The image in the West is that we are dominated by men, but they always forget the aspect of love.”[3]

Western women used to have such rights as well before feminism swept through and destructed our entire society and ruined male-female relationships. English and American women used to have the right of coverture which was the ultimate act of a husband assuming responsibility for his wife:

“Patriarchal institutions are a two-way street, and if men ever supposed they had the power to control the lives of their womenfolk, they were, in so thinking, obliged to support and protect them. Anyone may choose to dislike the terms of this division of labor, but the consistent misrepresentation of sex roles as as a one-sided tyranny is a myth or, rather, a barefaced lie…

…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…The husband, at least in law, was the presumed master of the house and, consequently, could be held liable for his wife’s torts, including those to which she had been liable before marriage, and for misdemeanors and certain felonies that were performed in his presence and could thus be presumed to be done under his orders. In criminal cases the husband’s complicity did not have to be proved, and he, rather than the wife, was subject to punishment.” [4]

Calling our female ancestors “second-class” is the biggest lie of our time. Women in our past were cherished and loved. That doesn’t mean things were perfect. No, life is never perfect nor is it ever fair. But feminists set out to destroy any rights the traditional women had. The only rights women have now are the “rights” to work, have casual sex, abortions and be sent into combat to face rape, injury and death. So I feel sorry for the modern woman who believes that these are all good things. Why would the modern woman be so stupid as to trade away everything that makes her beautiful and precious and trade away the chivalry that has guarded women for centuries and the very legal rights that protected her position within the family? A woman does not need “equality” with men to be of great worth. She is already of great worth. Men conquer and they dominate institutions because that is how they prove their worth as men, but a woman already has an innate worth that no man can claim.

“The prime fact of life is the sexual superiority of women. Sexual love, intercourse, marriage, conception of a child, childbearing- even breastfeeding- are all critical experiences psychologically. They are times when our emotions are most intense, our lives are most deeply changed, and society is perpetuated in our own image. And they all entail sexual roles that demonstrate the primacy of women.

The central roles are mother and father, husband and wife. They form neat and apparently balanced pairs. But appearances are deceptive. In sexual terms there is little balance at all. In most of these key sexual events, the male role is trivial, even easily dispensable. Although the man is needed in intercourse…Otherwise, the man is altogether unnecessary. It is the woman who conceives, bears and suckles the child. Those activities that are most deeply sexual are mostly female; they comprise the mother’s role, a role that is defined biologically.

The nominally equivalent role of father is in fact a product of marriage and other cultural contrivances. There is no biological need for the father to be anywhere around when the baby is born and nurtured. In many societies the father has no special responsibility to support the specific children he sires. In some societies, paternity is not even acknowledged. The father is neither inherently equal to the mother within the family, nor necessarily inclined to remain with it. In one way or another, the man must be made equal by society.”[5]

So I feel sorry for the modern woman who would trade away protection, love and superiority to join men in the workforce and in combat. I feel sorry for the modern woman that will give her body to any man outside of the confines and commitments entailed in marriage. The modern woman has been duped to believe that equality with men is the only way that she achieves worth. A woman’s paycheck need not define her worth, nor should her financial contributions to the family. The financial support should be the man’s burden and the man’s alone. If a man cannot step up and assume such burdens then he is not worthy to be called either a man or a father. And similarly modern women are not equipping our men with the tools to be our providers. There are plenty of single women and men to fill up the necessary jobs needed in the market. There is no reason for a married woman to fill those positions.

Most of our mothers are still teaching us the feminist teachings that they were taught. Yet a smart woman can look and see that these things are not good for us. We must marry and we must not waste our youth. Once married we must stay in that marriage until death parts us. We must not give our youth and maiden beauty to a man without demanding that he remain with us even long after it is gone. The giving of our bodies to men should be done within marriage and should entail a life-long commitment. If we married women are set on having a career then we can do it when we are older and the kids are long grown and out of the house. But, even then married woman’s participation in the paid work force should be limited. Only in the most extreme of circumstances will a second or third marriage actually turn out better than the original man that a woman has pledged to spend her life with, no matter how awful or inconsiderate he is. In time he can and will change if the woman demands it of him. We must not leave our husbands even when the marriage is dull or there are marital spats that we seem to be unable to overcome. If we stick it out, we will be better off for it and happier in the end. As women we must always remember that we are precious and our physical and mental attributes greatly separate us from men. Let’s put our marriages first and demand the respect, commitment and support we deserve. Let’s not make the mistakes that our own mothers made and let’s teach our daughters to expect better and our sons to be better.

Notes:

[1] http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/dominance-belongs-to-men-and-chivalry-belongs-to-women/
[2] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage.” Pelican, 1993
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
[4] http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/09/29/the-wrongs-of-womens-rights-ii-coverture/#_edn8
[5] “Men and Marriage”

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

The Case Against Illegitimacy

“In regard to the only issue that I consider properly before the Court, I agree with the State’s argument that the Equal Protection Clause is not violated when Illinois gives full recognition only to those father-child relationships that arise in the context of family units bound together by legal obligations arising from marriage or from adoption proceedings. Quite apart from the religious or quasi-religious connotations that marriage has – and has historically enjoyed – for a large proportion of this Nation’s citizens, it is in law an essentially contractual relationship, the parties to which have legally enforceable rights and duties, with respect both to each other and to any children born to them. Stanley and the mother of these children never entered such a relationship. The record is silent as to whether they ever privately exchanged such promises as would have bound them in marriage under the common law. See Cartwright v. McGown, 121 Ill. 388, 398, 12 N. E. 737, 739 (1887). In [405 U.S. 645, 664] any event, Illinois has not recognized common-law marriages since 1905. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 89, 4. Stanley did not seek the burdens when he could have freely assumed them.

Where there is a valid contract of marriage, the law of Illinois presumes that the husband is the father of any child born to the wife during the marriage; as the father, he has legally enforceable rights and duties with respect to that child. When a child is born to an unmarried woman, Illinois recognizes the readily identifiable mother, but makes no presumption as to the identity of the biological father. It does, however, provide two ways, one voluntary and one involuntary, in which that father may be identified. First, he may marry the mother and acknowledge the child as his own; this has the legal effect of legitimating the child and gaining for the father full recognition as a parent. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 3, 12-8. Second, a man may be found to be the biological father of the child pursuant to a paternity suit initiated by the mother; in this case, the child remains illegitimate, but the adjudicated father is made liable for the support of the child until the latter attains age 18 or is legally adopted by another. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 106 3/4, 52…

The Illinois Supreme Court correctly held that the State may constitutionally distinguish between unwed fathers and unwed mothers. Here, Illinois’ different treatment of the two is part of that State’s statutory scheme for protecting the welfare of illegitimate children. In almost all cases, the unwed mother is readily identifiable, generally from hospital records, and alternatively by physicians or others attending the child’s birth. Unwed fathers, as a class, are not traditionally quite so easy to identify and locate. Many of them either deny all responsibility or exhibit no interest in the child or its welfare; and, of course, many unwed fathers are simply not aware of their parenthood.

Furthermore, I believe that a State is fully justified in concluding, on the basis of common human experience, that the biological role of the mother in carrying and nursing an infant creates stronger bonds between her and the child than the bonds resulting from the male’s often casual encounter. This view is reinforced by the observable fact that most unwed mothers exhibit a concern for their offspring either permanently or at least until [405 U.S. 645, 666] they are safely placed for adoption, while unwed fathers rarely burden either the mother or the child with their attentions or loyalties. Centuries of human experience buttress this view of the realities of human conditions and suggest that unwed mothers of illegitimate children are generally more dependable protectors of their children than are unwed fathers. While these, like most generalizations, are not without exceptions, they nevertheless provide a sufficient basis to sustain a statutory classification whose objective is not to penalize unwed parents but to further the welfare of illegitimate children in fulfillment of the State’s obligations as parens patriae. 4

Stanley depicts himself as a somewhat unusual unwed father, namely, as one who has always acknowledged and never doubted his fatherhood of these children. He alleges that he loved, cared for, and supported these children from the time of their birth until the death of their mother. He contends that he consequently must be treated the same as a married father of legitimate children. Even assuming the truth of Stanley’s allegations, I am unable to construe the Equal Protection Clause as requiring Illinois to tailor its statutory definition of “parents” so meticulously as to include such unusual unwed fathers, while at the same time excluding those unwed, and generally unidentified, biological fathers who in no way share Stanley’s professed desires. [405 U.S. 645, 667]

As Mr. Justice Frankfurter once observed, “Invalidating legislation is serious business . . . .” Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457, 474 (1957) (dissenting opinion). The [405 U.S. 645, 668] Court today pursues that serious business by expanding its legitimate jurisdiction beyond what I read in 28 U.S.C. 1257 as the permissible limits contemplated by Congress. In doing so, it invalidates a provision of critical importance to Illinois carefully drawn statutory system governing family relationships and the welfare of the minor children of the State. And in so invalidating that provision, it ascribes to that statutory system a presumption that is simply not there and embarks on a novel concept of the natural law for unwed fathers that could well have strange boundaries as yet undiscernible…”[i]

“By excluding unmarried mothers and divorced mothers (for the most part) from eligibility, the framers of the mothers’ pension laws made it quite clear that their primary concern was to support traditional families when those families suffer financial difficulties from the loss of the husband’s income. They were also concerned to take no action that would encourage illegitimacy or divorce. In addition to the criteria excluding certain categories of recipients, there were behavioral criteria as well…Only much later, with the welfare legislation of the Great Society were moral criteria abandoned in administering AFDC programs- the direct successor of mothers’ pensions. The subsequent explosion of the illegitimacy rate is a persuasive argument that the concerns of mothers’ pension proponents were justified.”[ii]

————————

Because of the feminist movement and the sexual revolution (which was a product of the feminist movement), we now have a welfare system and a legal system that rewards illegitimacy and punishes marriage. The result is a society that is wrecked. Our legal system is corrupt, our schools are dangerous, children are failing school and turning to crime, and the happiness of women is at the lowest point in our history. In this article I consider one of the main reasons that I believe all these problems are occurring. The main problem, I believe, is the breakdown of our families.

The word “family” is indeed very diverse if we consider all of the cultures throughout history. Every society has had its own customs regarding marriage. Some societies were matrilineal with the fathers (if paternity was ever even acknowledged at all) being occasional visitors with no necessary obligation to support the children and having no claim to them. The most successful and civilized societies have generally been strictly patriarchal, with men having the responsibility to support, protect and lead their families and, of course, the resulting rights that come along with it. Many societies have had homosexual marriages and polygamy/polyandry and a whole host of other living arrangements. In the view of feminists, all of these living arrangements can exist simultaneously. Indeed, their entire movement was about changing our laws and customs to reflect any family arrangement one can think of. All stigma concerning illegitimacy and unwed mothers had to go because, of course, it was “discrimination” and an attack on personal freedoms. The stigma of illegitimacy was one of the first things that had to go in the eyes of feminists because, of course, women must be sexually free and marriage was the enslavement of both men and women in their view. As Germaine Greer stated in 1970:

“Even though there are more problems attendant upon bringing up an illegitimate child, and even friendly cohabitation can meet with outrage and prosecution from more orthodox citizens, marrying to avoid these inconveniences is a meaningless evasion.”[iii]

Yet, after a few decades we see the results of these policies and no true analysis of the cultural and legal climate today can reasonably conclude that all has changed for the better. The prime leaders of the women’s liberation movement claimed that women would be better off if they were sexually free and postponed marriage to pursue their careers first. They championed easier divorces and abolition of all the laws that protected wives, mothers, widows and all women in general on the grounds that it was making women second class citizens. In their eyes, if women could leave their families to pursue careers and enjoy equality with men by being sexually promiscuous all would be better. The prominent feminist leaders of the time believed that housework and the care of young children was holding women back. If only society would do away with the “terrible” protective legislation and treat women like men then, they claimed, would women truly be free. Quoting Germaine Greer once again:

“Men argue that alimony laws can cripple them, and this is obviously true, but they have only themselves to blame for the fact that alimony is necessary, largely because of the pattern of granting custody of the children to the mother. The alimonized wife bringing up the children without father is no more free than she ever was…If independence is a necessary concomitant of freedom, women must not marry.”[iv]

The feminists have now secured almost every single legal and cultural change they sought, and men’s groups jumped on board to exploit it all to their advantage. Yet, in looking around today at the situation young women, older women, wives and mothers find themselves in it does not look good. I have yet to see a case where the feminist way has actually made women free. Quite the contrary.- feminism has given away a woman’s bargaining power in every area of life. In the old days, many babies were not conceived in marriage but most were at least born into it because of the social and legal pressures on BOTH parties. If a marriage did not take place after a pregnancy occurred the unwed mother would not be entitled to benefits and the unwed father would have no claim to the child. Now that illegitimacy is accepted both culturally and legally, women have lost their power to demand commitment and support from men. Today’s men know they do not have to marry a girl once she becomes pregnant for all the rights and pleasures that were once reserved solely for married men who took on traditional responsibilities for a wife and children are now freely given to them.

Feminism and the sexual revolution has really messed women and girls up real bad. They are pressured into sex by their boyfriends and then forever regret it. Because of feminists the common law rights that once protected young women from male pressure to engage in sex are gone. Traditional laws protected women and sent a clear message to the male that he was responsible. For instance, traditional statutory rape laws punished the man (as he was the only party who would walk free from basically all of the consequences of the sexual act) but protected the young woman. But, of course, this was “sex discrimination” and feminists did not stop until every jurisdiction gender-neutralized these laws.

Another problem we have as a result of widespread illegitimacy is the welfare culture that is turning us into a socialist state where everyone eventually becomes equally poor and equally bad off. For a young woman whose life at home is bad she knows an option available to her is to have a child and collect the resulting welfare that is freely given to her. One can hardly blame a woman for wanting to get out on her own and have a family. I myself understand as I had a child very young. The only difference is that I married the father and now many years later am still married to him and living a very stable life where our children can be raised. But the majority of young women today do not get these options. Generally when a young woman becomes pregnant today the father denies all responsibility or the two simply cohabit for a time and collect welfare as our tax laws penalize marriage and the welfare benefits are greater when couples cohabit and unwed fathers can claim rights at any time they want to regardless of whether they marry the mother or not.

 
It is the old saying of “if you subsidize something you will get more of it. “With a tax system that rewards marriage and strict laws against illegitimacy a young woman could marry the father of her child without losing anything. Moreover, taking away the free pass that unwed fathers get today would lead many to consider heavily the decision to marry the mother and take responsibility for her and the child.

 

 

Now unwed fathers do not have a complete “free pass” as they still are responsible for some child support, but very few actually pay their dues. Men evading responsibility is not a new thing but the feminist movement has stripped women’s bargaining power greatly in this area. The maternal preference that protected mothers of young children in custody disputes no longer exists. A man wishing to evade responsibility today has many options at his disposal that his male ancestors did not. Joint custody laws allow him to completely be off the hook for child support as our laws now assume both parents will then equally assume responsibility for both the care and support of the child (another feminist fantasy that simply has not panned out in reality). Men’s groups were the most adamant about joint custody laws in the late 70s and 80s, often disguising their intentions so as not to arouse opposition from the public, but feminists championed them too as it would “free” women from the responsibility of caring for children all the time so they could pursue their careers and gain equal economic power to men. Also, the threat of a custody battle (where the outcome can never be known as there are no clear guidelines and both parents have an equal shot at custody and even support thanks to the feminist movement) causes many women to decide it is best to just support the child alone.

 
To restore stability to society and protect the sanctity of the family, the current legal and cultural climate must be changed. Illegitimate births must be de-legitimized once again. Promiscuity and divorce is not freedom. Cohabitation is not freedom. A woman will be used and tossed aside. She will waste her youth on a career and cohabiting with several lovers only to find in the end that she is not on equal terms with men and while his desirability may increase with time, hers will not. If a society is to be civilized and prosperous, stigma and penalties must be attached to sexual promiscuity and illegitimacy.

 

 

Notes:

[i] STANLEY v. ILLINOIS, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) 405 U.S. 645

[ii] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 19;28. Spence, 2002.
[iii] Greer, G., “The Female Eunuch,” p. 359. HarperCollins, 1970, 1971.
[iv] ibid., p. 358-359

 

 

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Why I, as a Woman, Do Not Want to Engage in Politics

“I love peace and quiet, I hate politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, we must dislike these masculine occupations.”
~ Queen Victoria

As a woman, I do not wish to engage in politics. I know this may be very shocking to our modern post-feminist world. But I just do not believe that women were meant for this job. In reality, where has engaging in politics gotten women? We are certainly not better off than our ancestors were in previous generations. It’s a common belief today that more women in the higher paid jobs and more women in in politics will guarantee women greater rights, protections or status in society and lift women and children out of poverty. But this is just not the reality. The more women move up in the career world and engage in politics the worse off we are. Treating a married women the same as a single woman is causing hardships within our marriages. It is no coincidence that as soon as married women started entering the workforce in record numbers that divorce rates started rising. This was true even before the advent of the first “no-fault” divorce laws. The feminists say that education and better employment opportunities will lift women out of poverty, as if it is the solution to all of society’s problems to push women into the workforce. Yet, they are never concerned about the causes of poverty among women and children. The biggest cause of poverty is broken apart families yet even the most conservative of lawmakers and individuals become hostile at the thought of strengthening the bonds of marriage, making divorce harder to obtain and making the husband the authority figure within the family. Men and women are so confused over their roles today. They have so many problems coming together in marriage and staying together. If women would look more to find our identities within our families instead of competing with men in the job market, we might find greater happiness. For even the woman who does stay home feels the pull of society on her to get up and enter the workforce and society does not value her contributions and her unique abilities. As such she is no more happy than the woman who works. It’s a common thought that women lawyers, judges and politicians will be more sensitive to the needs of women. Yet, oftentimes the exact opposite has been proven to be true. A woman would often do better if it were a man to decide her fate than if it were to be a woman. The end result of women making political decisions is that it becomes a war between married women and single women, or more realistically, traditional women versus non-traditional women. Single women are now the largest growing voting bloc thus the woman who is a wife and mother gets disadvantaged once more as the needs she has are never considered. Women have no voice within our families today, the only voice for women is centered around the workforce. Once more this leaves traditional women in an even greater bind. For if she lets go of current events and depends upon her husband to act on her behalf, the career-minded feminist woman gains even greater power, and thus the needs of the traditional woman are pushed even further into the background. I do not wish to be here engaging in political discussions. I wish to live a happy, normal and peaceful life only concentrating on the needs of my husband and children and caring for the home. But I feel as if I have no other choice. For if I do not speak up on behalf of traditional women (and really speak up, as in work to change the law) then will anybody ever?

 

 

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

On Teenage Pregnancy and Marriage

This is an older article I found from one of the websites I used to own with an ex blogging partner. I thought I would post it. I don’t know the original publication date, I just kind of guessed given the time period we had the site.

Well, of course girls want to get pregnant young! It’s a natural thing. The only problem is that we live in a FEMINIST society that tells girls to never marry until they are at least 30, to never depend on a man and to always use a condom. Teenage pregnancies have actually been on the decline and the reason is that MARRIED teenagers are not having babies. Also, they count “teenage pregnancy” as all the way up to 24 years old! That is the entire bulk of a woman’s prime child-bearing years. Also, why should men marry when the woman gets pregnant? He can just say “it ain’t mine” and know that he can walk in and claim his rights at any point down the road, as there is no time limit on when he can claim rights. Used to men had to marry the mother to be able to claim custodial rights, but now they don’t. So most men just deny the child when the woman gets pregnant and refuse to marry her. Also, most parents encourage this behavior in their sons. They encourage their sons to let the woman go through pregnancy alone even when they know good and well he’s the father and he’s been screwing with her.

A woman can also get food stamps and other benefits even if she refuses to marry the father. I read somewhere (when researching and I don’t take into account suspect material or sloppy research) that half of all women reported that they had abortions because of relationship issues. In all honesty, who could blame them? Feminists have effectively wiped out all the security women once had in the name of “gender equality” and “equal rights.” Even if the woman has been brutally raped by the father she knows if she keeps the child she will constantly be looking over her shoulder terrified of a custody battle at any point. Even if the father has been absent and never seen the child for 5 or 6 years he can petition the court for rights.

Now I know a little something about absent fathers, as my brother’s biological dad walked out when he was a baby and abandoned him and my mother. Feminism has allowed this to happen and neither society nor law holds immoral men responsible for their actions. Now he lives with another woman and has a child with her. My brother is grown now and it really messed him up for a while that his dad treated him like crap. Most of the men I’ve known don’t care about the children they father. The women don’t either. They can have children with multiple different men and get welfare without ever marrying. The men can run around impregnating women and claim rights without every marrying any of them. Most of them don’t care much about the kids until the mother asks for support. As soon as she does this she all of a sudden finds herself in a custody battle whereas before the father didn’t really care. Indeed, most of the women I’ve known either collect support without marrying the father because they know he is a decent guy that doesn’t want to hurt her or the child or they are terrified to ask for support because they know he’ll threaten a custody battle so they support the child alone.

Today, it is more profitable for men and women not to marry when they procreate. My own husband can’t even claim me as a dependent despite the fact that I’ve never worked! They expect me to be self-sufficient of him. I mean, our laws don’t view marriage as special or a privileged institution. I had one sorry woman tell me that we shouldn’t end “no-fault” divorces because she would want to marry for the insurance benefits someday, but would keep working and would like to get out of the marriage at any point since she and her future husband didn’t plan on ever having any kids. The point of marriage is supposed to be to create a stable institution where children can be born and raised!! At some point there are going to have to be some rules set down. Right now, family law is a freak show. It’s a complete circus.

Women were made to have babies young. Our prime years are our late teenage years through our mid-twenties. If our modern day society doesn’t like this then they can take it up with nature or their god because that is BIOLOGY and no amount of social engineering is going to change the fact that younger women are simply better suited for childbearing. There is less risk involved to both mother and child. Instead of handing out condoms, our society needs to be promoting marriage or lay penalties on BOTH father and mother. If the mother refuses to marry the father she should not be entitled to welfare benefits or support. If the father refuses to marry the mother then the law should not grant him full legal recognition and he should have no claim at all to the child. This is the way patriarchal societies work.

All successful civilized societies have been patriarchal and for the same reason why the major world religions are patriarchal. There is so much instability because there are no rules within our families. There are no rules, no well-defined roles, rights or responsibilities and there is no clear leader. I mean, what do you expect when you attempt to have two leaders of a single institution? Well, they will fight each other. The institution will break down. If there are no rules, chaos will result. As much as I might like to drive on the other side of the road and as much as that path might suit me better, I cannot do so because doing so would hurt other people and create chaos in society. The same applies with the family. There must be rules and there must be ONE party with the final authority to make decisions. it cannot work any other way. Thus the word for the family today is “anarchy.”