Monthly Archives: March 2013

My Review of “Domestic Tranquility”

My review of “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism” by F. Carolyn Graglia

A standing ovation for Mrs. Graglia, please. I have had this book for quite some time and refer to it often. It is only now that I am getting around to writing a review. Domestic Tranquility knocks down every mainstream belief about modern feminism. The last decade has seen divorce rates go down slightly and women’s workforce participation decline slightly and maternal death rates have increased quite a bit. These are the only things that have changed since this book was first published. But, “no-fault” divorce still exists in every state, divorce rates are still extremely high even if it has been at somewhat of a halt (they’re blaming the economy) and women’s workforce participation is still incredibly high. It matters not who actually files for the divorce, as many women file when they are the innocent party. Every last sentence of this book is completely relevant as we are still dealing with the same laws and culture that the feminist movement has brought us. Cultural change happens slowly over time and some things forever remain relevant throughout time.

The doors of opportunity were nearly all wide open decades before modern feminism, which she does an excellent job of explaining. Unlike most anti-feminist books which consist of nothing more than disgruntled men whining “where’s my equality?,” or “equity” feminists declaring a war on men, Graglia’s book actually stands up for the traditional woman. She has the courage to go against the egalitarian culture and the feminist vision of radical equality. From woman’s sexuality, workforce participation, combat service, motherhood and relations with men, she has the courage to speak the politically incorrect truth. She speaks boldly against the emasculated, androgynous culture and the de-feminizing of women as well as the male revolt from the breadwinner ethic, which, as she explains, the women’s movement has encouraged and enabled. She explains that women would have alleviated their discontent “…if they had resisted the emasculating forces in our society and encouraged the growth of mature masculinity.” (149)

To be sure, this book is not for the faint of heart. Though Graglia never states her opinion one way or the other on FGM, she does take a couple of paragraphs to showcase the extreme measures that societies will go to to curb female sexuality. She also goes to great lengths to explain why the sexual “double standard” might actually be a good thing for women. She makes it clear that female promiscuity has devalued women’s bodies, roles as mothers, emasculated and made impotent our men, and relieved men of the responsibility of financially supporting a wife and children.

The mainstream views women’s lib as a movement about women’s rights so most people naturally assume it is men that have been disadvantaged in the process. To be sure, once again, men have suffered some loss (there is , after all, a price to pay for freedom) but Graglia is one of the few courageous thinkers that has the moral fortitude to stand up and say it is women who have been the targets of the feminist movement, not men. Our laws have changed to harm women, not men. The feminist movement, as she explains, was determined to invalidate all laws that favored women because, supposedly, it would benefit working women and as a result many women find themselves in desperate situations. She attacks “no-fault” divorce and the sources of the feminization of poverty. Feminists call crisis regarding mothers and their children, but their movement supported gender neutral custody laws which, as Graglia explains, has impoverished many women and children because desperate mothers will trade away their child support or alimony to hang onto their children (not something the mainstream will report on, that’s for sure).

She explains in great detail how women throughout our culture (as well as others) have always been more aware of their sexuality and the associated pleasures than what feminists admit. She talks of the sexual experience that overwhelms and what men really want to deal with in bed. I do admit that I had to stop a couple of times when initially reading this book to wonder how much more heated this book was going to get. Graglia is definitely not shy on details.

Graglia is nobody’s fool. She was a lawyer before the feminist movement came through like a hurricane that left society in shambles and she knows her stuff. She cites plenty of feminist works so nobody can realistically say that she is one sided. I am not 100% with her on her abortion views but I understand the point she is making in the book. She speaks boldly of the feminist denial of female preciousness and the submission to combat service. Graglia is more than right when she speaks of female preciousness. No civilization can stand the loss of large numbers of their young women. Our child-bearing ability, “the one thing women possess and men lack (155),” she says, is what really counts. Women are precious and, unlike men, are not expendable to society. “If a nation must wage war, a young man’s death in combat fulfills his destiny as protector of a society the fundamental purpose of which is to reproduce itself and secure its children’s safety and well-being. A young woman’s death in combat can never fulfill, but only negate her destiny as bearer of those children.” (190)The “Awakened Brünnhilde,” she explains, is the woman who, “experiences sexual pleasure that evokes her thanks to God for having been born…” (332)

Another thing that makes this book unique is that it is written in a non-religious format. Graglia brilliantly states her case as an experienced lawyer would. Only once does she even mention the Bible, and only to quote the Song of Songs to showcase that the woman speaking knew quite a bit about her sexuality in disputing the feminist insistence that women knew nothing of their sexuality before their movement that sexually “liberated” women.

It is truly easy to write off many anti-feminists as woman haters in our society. That is because most antifeminists are not really against feminism at all and in fact are not really standing up for women. Disgruntled Men’s Rights Activists will not be pleased with this book because Graglia actually stands up for women instead of degrading them. She speaks of the feminist assault on masculinity and rightly states that women have ultimately been the biggest victims of it. While those who attempt to speak up for traditional women are shouted down even by the most conservative in our society (after all, did the conservatives say much about the recent decision to fully integrate women into combat..?) I hope, as Graglia does, that the day will come when those who support traditional women will truly be heard.

Thank you, Mrs. Graglia.

 

 

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

Advertisements

My Review of “Why We Lost the ERA”

Review of “Why We Lost the ERA” by Jane Mansbridge

I give this book five stars not because I agree with Mansbridge and the feminists (I strongly disagree), but because of the information contained in the book. Written in the late 80s, this book is 100% relevant to women today. This book finely showcases the absolute stupidity of the modern feminist movement. Though Mansbridge does state her opinion quite clearly in the book, she does attempt to keep it neutral when discussing the pros and cons of the ERA. She conveniently tells her readers to go ahead and skip to page such and such twice in the book (probably so her female audience wouldn’t read about how badly feminism has actually screwed them over- I didn’t skip ahead but read the entire thing). She goes on for nearly two hundred pages about all the ways in which the ERA could be interpreted to hurt women and goes into detail about past Supreme Court decisions that could (could being the key word here) effect how the ERA would be interpreted. Pretty much, it would offer no benefit to women the only reason the feminists wanted it was because of what it symbolized (a societal affirmation of the feminist perspective). Never mind that the amendment itself doesn’t even mention women. All it would have done is invalidate all laws that protected and favored women (alimony, child custody, child support, statutory rape, different treatment of unwed mothers and fathers, the draft, combat service, etc…). ERA or not, feminists have continuously gotten it their way, which she mentions in the book. From the book:

 

“From the beginning, ‘equal rights’ meant ending special benefits. An ERA would have made unconstitutional the protective legislation that socialists and social reformers like Florence Kelley, frustrated by the lack of a strong working-class movement in America, had struggled to erect in order to protect at least women and children from the worst ravages of capitalism…Nonetheless, the ERA never came close to passing until 1950 and 1953, when the U.S. Senate passed it, but with the ‘Hayden rider,’ which provided that the Amendment ‘shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereinafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.’ In both years the House of Representatives recessed without a vote. Because the women’s organizations supporting the ERA knew that special benefits were incompatible with equal rights, they had tried to block the amended ERA in the House and were relieved when their efforts succeeded.”

 
“The Supreme Court’s extension of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to include women meant that by 1982 the Court had declared unconstitutional, either directly or presumptively, almost all the laws that proponents in the 1972 Congressional debates had said the ERA would change. The major exceptions were all-male draft registration, which because of the ERA’s legislative history would almost certainly have been declared unconstitutional if the ERA had been ratified, and certain laws designed to benefit women rather than men.” (87)

 
“From the very beginning of the modern women’s movement in the mid-1960s, feminists had been ideologically opposed to, or at best ambivalent about, homemaking as a full time career. NOW’s founding statement of purpose, in 1966, stated:

 
‘We believe that a true partnerships between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support.’

 
While NOW’s word ‘equitable’ was not nearly as strong as the more radical groups’ demands for ‘equal’ sharing, NOW’s ‘different concept’ of marriage still implied an androgynous division of labor, in which men took half the responsibility for child care and housework and women took half the responsibility for bringing in money. This position became not just an implication but an article of faith for later feminists…

 
…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.” (99-100)

 
“The typical NOW member had not been born in Illinois and did not necessarily expect to spend her life there. In my local NOW chapter, many of the members were recent migrants to the city, at least half were under forty, several were lesbians, and many were unmarried. ” (169)

 
“Pro-ERA marches and demonstrations also provided important opportunities for autonomous action. In the early days of the ERA struggle, pro-ERA demonstrations were open to all. As a consequence, almost every demonstration had a socialist and a lesbian contingent, with banners proclaiming their identities as well as their support for the ERA. After considerable debate, NOW decided not to allow socialist and lesbian banners in its ERA demonstrations. While many disagreed with this decision, it was explicit and relatively participatory.” (131)

 
“From the point of view of the movement as a whole, each organization, as well as each individual, was also an autonomous actor…Now could not keep the president and vice-president of ERA Illinois from attending a Republican fund-raising dinner. ERA Illinois could not keep NOW from calling a demonstration in the last days of the legislative session.” (131)

 
“During this moratorium, feminists will need to discuss what would be best for all women in the realms of combat, school athletics, prisons, and sex-blind legislation generally. Since about 1980, as more women have experienced the results of gender-neutral legislation like no-fault divorce and joint custody, some feminists have begun to articulate a critique of egalitarianism that looks much like Marx’s critique of bourgeois equality. They argue that in a society where one group holds most of the power, ‘neutral’ laws usually benefit the powerful group. From this perspective, a constitutional amendment that bars women from using their electoral majority and moral leverage to pass laws explicitly redressing the traditional balance of power may actually help maintain male supremacy. Although the ERA’s direct legal mandate for gender neutrality would probably have been balanced by its indirect political mandate for legislation and judicial interpretations that benefited women, its defeat still raises, in a different form, the questions that Florence Kelley raised in the 1920s. An open discussion of these issues among feminists would probably make some feminists more aware of the concerns that motivated mainstream legislators to vote against the ERA.” (197)

 

 

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

Do Women Really Want to Smash the Patriarchy?

“Most women are neither cowards nor impotent victims. When society tells them that the rank conferred by a career is all important and that maternal child-nurturing must be sacrificed to it, many will defy society if they believe this not to be so. It has been my experience both as a market producer and mother at home that determined women in our society are very successful at getting what they want.If women want to destroy the remnants of patriarchy and become virtually fungible with men, I believe that- unless a significant number of our effete, attenuated, androgynous males undergo a rapid metamorphosis- women can do so. But before they do, I would have women consider whether their acquiescence in the feminist ideology our culture promotes does not rest solely on an intellectual evaluation of its message. If women do not defy that ideology, it is partly because they do not feel it is wrong. And they do not feel it is wrong because many of them are responding with the constricted emotions of a spiritual virgin.”[1]

Is smashing the patriarchy really what we desire to do? Has it honestly been good for women? The feminists believed that patriarchy was the cause of all their problems and even today they campaign, delivering the same message to women and the public that they were delivering 40 years ago. The revolution swept through Western society and there are no signs that feminists want to turn back now. Yes, they call crisis (conveniently forgetting and refusing to acknowledge that their movement was responsible for creating it) but still hang onto the same ideology that has put women into crisis situations. Before patriarchy forever becomes a thing of the past, maybe today’s women should take a closer look at the harm feminism has brought them. If women listen to the feminists, they will forever feel beaten down and victimized. But, if we set aside the feminist revisionist history and belief system, I believe women might finally come to see things in a different light. Maybe women should give patriarchy another chance.

Feminists’ first fatal mistake was to ignore the inherent differences between men and women- differences that are a part of our biology and cannot be changed. Ignoring these differences had done immense harm to women. Feminists deny female preciousness. They advocate putting women in combat and mothers returning to work as soon as possible after giving birth. They advocate doing away with “the rape culture” by wiping out patriarchy anywhere it can be seen. They advocate that a woman should live with her boyfriend and split the bills 50/50 and that if a woman feels like having casual sex or thinks it could be fun that she should go for it. After all, they insist, men do it so why can’t women? How unfair that there would be a double standard upon women.

Perhaps, if feminists want to get rid of the “rape culture” and the double standard upon women it would be wise to look at some matrilineal societies. In most matrilineal societies the women do all the work. In most of these societies the women may marry who they wish, including more than one man and divorce him as she wishes. Consequently, sex is not taken seriously and in some cases rape is not even a crime. Such as the Mosuos in China, who cannot understand why women in other cultures could ever see anything wrong with such a beautiful thing as sex:

“Sex is practiced freely. They only have to choose a partner to spend the night and only incest is forbidden. Typical marriage and fidelity are something like heresy. Obviously, they don’t seem to present signs of jealousy. The western love tragedies of revengeful and victimized lovers make them laugh. They think the visitor is kidding them ‘How is it possible to end your precious life for something so banal like sex?’

Otherwise, in the Mosuo language doesn’t exist the word ‘rape’ – even if rape does exist – but is less common than in other cultures.

The woman is clearly the center of this culture.”[2]

Yes, clearly. Though this is just one example, matrilineal societies have been quite common throughout human history. Most of the societies that feminists exclaim that women were equal in were not equal societies at all. In Iroquois society, for example, the women might have farmed, participated in politics and controlled their families, but there was no gender equality at all. Well defined gender roles still prevailed. There is quite a distinction between these matrilineal societies and our modern day free-for-all society where the law is blind to gender.

It is not a good thing for women at all if the law is blind to gender because this means that our laws do not protect women. It means all the protections that the law once gave to the female sex are now gone- but all in the name of “equality” and “fairness,” of course. And even when the feminists see that it doesn’t work, they still press forward with their agenda by lying to women and telling women that, if it wasn’t for them, they would be worth less than cattle and go straight back to “second-class” citizenship.

“Like the Soviet reformers, the American family law reformers of the 1960s are now reaping the economic and social consequences of their revolution. But unlike the old Bolsheviks they show no sign of turning back. The revolution in divorce law and in the culture of marriage are perhaps the best example of their intransigence. Feminist thinkers and activists in the women’s movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s assured women that the enactment of no-fault divorce laws would mean their liberation from bad marriages and their economic independence. No-fault laws were passed by nearly every state in the nation soon after 1970, largely at the instigation of feminist organizations. Although there is some dispute about their precise effect on the divorce rate due to the timing of the implementation of no-fault theory, there is now little doubt that they accelerated the cultural trend towards divorce, which only peaked in the early 1980s and has stayed at record levels ever since. What is beyond question is that no-fault has made divorce considerably easier to obtain for the spouse that wants out of a marriage, without regard for the wishes of the other spouse. It essentially transferred the right to decide when divorce is justified from society to the individual, leaving the marriage contract gutted and legally meaningless. After the institution of no-fault divorce laws, says Maggie Gallagher, marriage has turned into ‘something best described as cohabitation with insurance benefits.’

Moreover, making marriages subject to unilateral dissolution resulted in none of the economic benefits predicted by its feminist advocates. On the contrary, numerous studies have shown that divorce usually impoverishes women while enriching men. From 1970 to 1983, just as the divorce rate was going through the roof, so was the number of children living in poverty; 65 percent of that increase occurred in the fast-growing number of female-headed families. And because ‘women’s advocates’ have effectively demolished all remaining protections for women in the law on the theory that the principle of ‘equal treatment’ is essential for women’s advancement, courts are less likely to award custody of children to the wife in a divorce proceeding, which makes women more likely to agree to a reduced settlement in order to retain custody.

As the economic damage that divorce inflicts on women has become more apparent, feminists have stressed that women need divorce-on-demand so that battered wives can escape abusive husbands. The correlation of domestic violence and marriage is simply asserted. In fact, spousal abuse accounts for just 9 percent of all domestic violence. A full two-thirds of male abusers are either boyfriends or ex-husbands. Such data should lead us to strengthen the bonds of marriage, not to weaken them. Of course, the argument that legal obstacles to divorce might result in a wife’s being forced to remain in an abusive marriage is used primarily for its emotional impact. In reality, divorce for reasons of abusive conduct on the part of a spouse was easily obtainable- and was commonly granted- long before the advent of no-fault laws.” [3]

True patriarchies generally protect women greatly. When the husband is the authority figure within the family, he is given the power to protect his wife and children and provide for them. Such a system benefits women well. Women are naturally smaller and weaker than men (the average women is 5 inches- nearly half a foot- shorter than the average man and only has about 60% of the strength of the average man) and therefore are vulnerable to being taken advantage of by men. There are numerous biological differences beyond size and strength that put women at a sever disadvantage when they act and compete the same as men (fertility (including woman’s limited fertility), ability to handle alcohol and vulnerability to STDs and AIDS). Therefore a system in which women do not compete to be equal to men but instead are bound to one man who will protect and support her is a system that works the best for women.

“…Libby Anne is acting as if the concept of men protecting women from other men is an absurdity since if a man is dangerous by virtue of being a man then nothing is gained from an inherently dangerous man “protecting” women from other inherently dangerous men since the so called male “protector” is just as likely to turn around and attack the woman himself once he is given the trusted status of being the woman’s ‘protector.’ The problem with this line of thinking is that some men are more dangerous than other men. The minority sociopath man is more dangerous than the majority socially well adjusted man. The man who has made a high commitment and investment in a woman is less dangerous than the man who only has a casual relationship with a woman. A man who can act as a neutral third party whose primary interest is the well being of the woman, such as a woman’s father, is more trustworthy than a potential suitor who has the obvious self-interest of trying to gain a relationship with the woman. Women are most protected when the most trustworthy and least dangerous categories of men are empowered over the least trustworthy and most dangerous categories of men. The whole point of empowering fathers to protect their daughters from potentially harmful boyfriends and empowering husbands to protect their wives from potentially harmful relationships with other men is so that the men who are the most trustworthy and protective of women’s interests will be in charge.”[4]

When it comes to sex, should women really want to forever be done with the “double standard?” Perhaps the double standard might be a good thing for women. Part of the marriage contract in a patriarchal society is that a woman will only sleep with the man who protects and provides for her and only have children with him. Men also strongly dislike when their partner has many other men to compare his performance to. Generally, the more sexually liberated a woman is, the less interest a man will have in forming a long-term relationship with her. And the more partners she has, the less likely the woman is to have a successful marriage. Men also suffer from sexual jealousy that can, and does, lead to violence against the woman.

“On the basis of his studies of human mating behavior, David Buss concludes that American men ‘view the lack of sexual experience as desirable in a spouse.’ This is so because men ‘place a premium on fidelity’ and the single best predictor of extramarital sex is premarital sexual permissiveness.’ Men rank ‘faithfulness and sexual loyalty’ as a wife’s ‘most highly valued traits’ and ‘abhor promiscuity and infidelity in their wives.’ When a sexual relationship is threatened, claims Buss, women are more likely to feel sad and abandoned, and men to experience rage. ‘Male sexual jealousy is the single most frequent cause of all types of violence directed at wives,’ and most spousal homicide is ‘precipitated by male accusations of adultery or by the woman’s leaving or threatening to leave the husband.’

These facts of life, which are now documented by evolutionary psychologists, were always part of our cultural knowledge. They are facts that feminist sexual revolutionaries chose to ignore. While they and the women who followed their lead obtained what they viewed as sexual freedom- that is, the freedom to imitate male tom cat behavior- they jeopardized their chances of marrying and, once married, of remaining so…[5]

For some feminists, the sex act itself was a reaffirmation of “the patriarchy” as it was seen as an expression of male domination over a woman. Andrea Dworkin presented society with a rather shocking view of the subject:

“This is nihilism; or this is truth. He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied- physically, internally, in her privacy.”[6]

Some feminists responded to this view of sex by forgoing heterosexuality all together. Still some other feminists thought that simply pursing equality and sex on the same terms as men would alleviate it.Germaine Greer taught women that,

“…They must not scurry about from bed to bed in a self-deluding and pitiable search for love, but must do what they do deliberately, without false modesty, shame or emotional blackmail.”[7]

Even though insisting on sexual promiscuity to gain more respect for women, Germaine Greer went on to speak of men’s perverted sexual views of women as “cunt hatred” and insisted that:

“Women have very little idea of how much men hate them. Any boy who has grown up in an English industrial town can describe how the boys used to go to the local dance halls and stand around all night until the pressure of the simplest kind of sexual urge prompted them to score a chick. The easier this was the more they loathed them and identified them with the guilt that their squalid sexual release left them.”[8]

To the feminists sex was to be seen as a casual thing. Illegitimacy was to be de-stigmatized and divorce was to be made easily available. The patriarchy had to crumble. And in so crumbling that patriarchy came many unforeseen consequences.The laws that protected women and favored women were abolished. These laws were necessary protections for women but the feminists campaigned them all away. The consequences of their movement are grave.

Mothers, wives, widows and rape victims have all been harmed by the feminist movement. Running wild has given women no greater freedom or respect. In fact, it has had quite the opposite effect. While campaigning about how much men hated women and viewed women as sexual objects, feminists at the same time insisted that women must join men and accord men sex on male terms. It has never turned out the way they promised for women.

“Not all stallions can be kept in harness, but the feminist response was to abandon the attempt and run wild with the stallions. For women to run wild, however, can be very costly, as many have learned to their regret.”[9]

Perhaps male dominance is not a bad thing when it is directed in a way that protects women. The feminists would rather have women giving their preciousness away to just any man. To carry children casually for just any man whether he has proven himself worthy to be the father of her children or not. Modern women allow just any man to enter her most private space even when he has not proven himself worthy of being her provider and protector- whether he has proven his commitment to her or not. Even the most conservative women have adopted the feminist perspective when it comes to work, sex and motherhood. While Dworkin, in the view of a traditional woman, reaches the wrong conclusion about sex, she does, however, capture the intensity of the moment from the woman’s perspective.

“Dworkin depicts sexual intercourse as a much more momentous experience for a woman than a man…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.”[10]

There are few facts in this life that can be changed by a social revolution. When a woman loves one man and devotes herself to him, Dworkin’s descriptions actually become a positive thing for women, as does patriarchy. For, as described above, the patriarchal system at its best allows only one man who has proven himself worthy to be with the woman and guard her to have any control over her. In our world today, women allow many men (live in boyfriends, casual sex partners, bosses and the government) to have control over them. The feminists insist this is freedom and independence for women, but the facts simply do no support their assertions.

Notes:
[1] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p. 328. Spence, 1998.
[2] http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mosuo-One-of-the-Last-Matriarchal-Societies-36321.shtml
[3] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family.” Spence, 2002
[4] http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/mark-driscoll-explains-patriarchy/
[5] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 240.
[6] Dworkin, A. “Intercourse,” p.122. Secker &Warburg, 1987.
[7] Greer, G., “The Female Eunuch,” p. 300. HarperCollins, 1970, 1971
[8] Ibid., p. 279.
[9] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility, p. 241.
[10] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 173.

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