Monthly Archives: May 2013

Explaining the Traditional Women’s Rights Activists Cause

 

I have identified with the TWRAs for a very long time now. In fact, it is approaching a year since I first started this cause. Although I have written many times about history and law, I have yet to truly take the TWRA cause and break it down.

Do TWRA principles take away freedom of choice? I would say not. Have we Americans not been slowly having our freedoms taken away since the 1970s? Most everyone, even if they are not for traditional gender roles, would say yes. By saying that traditional family law takes away freedom of choice you are saying that women’s liberation was necessary because, before then, men and women had no choices. TWRA principles are not just something I pulled out of my rear one day. They are the product of my careful and insightful research into our legal history and family law through the ages. TWRA principles are based on traditional English and American family law before the 1960s.

“ERA will invalidate all state laws which require a husband to support his wife. These laws, designed to protect the most important unit of society, the FAMILY, will be replaced by a new principle making women EQUALLY liable for financial responsibilities. The stability of families will be undermined by this drastic change in wives’ legal status.”[1]

TWRA belief number one:

“Make it the sole obligation of the husband to support his wife so long as she remains faithful and the father to support his children.”

What this is saying is twofold: First, men should support themselves. There is no reason for a wife to have to be held legally responsible to support her husband and there is absolutely no reason for a man to be receiving alimony checks from his ex-wife.

Second, this is saying that it should be the father’s obligation to provide the necessary and most basic needs of his wife and of his children. That is the point of marriage in the first place. Women are the ones who bear the babies and if the fathers are to be brought into the families then they need to take upon the obligation to make sure that mother and child are cared for. It should be their obligation and theirs alone. Not only is this justified, since men don’t bear the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth but it also serves a much larger purpose for the welfare of all of society. If the man does not do his job of financially supporting the wife and children, then the mother cannot devote herself to the children and instead they must be bottle-fed and lose the health benefits and bonding from the mother but it also means they must be raised by other relatives or even the state. This also serves the purpose for fathers who only marry the mother after the child is born, to ensure that their original denial of responsibility does not relieve them of their obligations for mother and child by simply being absent until convenient.

Whether anyone likes it or not, mothers are the ones who were made to be the nurturers, not fathers. Nature, or God, gave children to the mothers to nurture. It is a role that is rooted deep within the biology of who we are as women. Oxytocin, the nurturing hormone, surges within a woman’s very being during labor so that that contractions can open the cervix and so that the mother can bond with her child immediately (indeed, as many women who have had home births can testify that immediately after birth she can hold her child within her arms and begin to nurse) and Oxytocin surges once again so that her body can release milk to nurse her infants. Fathers bring a stability to the family and, when not emasculated by an egalitarian society that tells him he shouldn’t lead his family, it is fathers who are best at keeping order. However, nature did not design them nor equip them with the necessary tools to be the nurturers of an infant. Society never forced women to stay home. Women have always had that choice. However, a man did have the legal right to prevent his wife from working for wages and I believe this is justified. If men are not properly given authority to lead their families then they lose the power to enforce stability within the home. More working wives leads to higher rates of divorce. Study after study has shown this same pattern (I trust I don’t need to write an exhausting list of resources here, but anyone in denial can do the research themselves, plenty of scholarly resources out there). When divorce occurs, individual freedoms are lost and the power to dictate family life is then completely left in the hands of lawyers and judges-who are the only winners in divorce. This increases the power of the government and even more laws are generated to try to get control of the massive breakdown of our families.

“ERA will wipe out state laws that exempt a wife from her husband’s debts even if the husband has deserted her and she has children to support.”[2]

TWRA belief number two:

“Protect a woman by making her exempt from her husband’s debt, especially if she should become widowed or divorced.”

Once again, this goes back to the issue of men being liable for their own support. As men, society should certainly expect them to be responsible for themselves as should the law. If you wish to treat husband and wife as individuals then what is the point of the marriage contract in the first place? These laws also protected the most fundamental foundation of civilized society, which is the family. If a woman must be held responsible for her husband’s debts then that means she is legally forced into the workforce under penalty of law even if she has been abandoned or widowed and has young children she must care for and support. This is traditional family law and it worked well as divorce rates were low and society was relatively stable. Invalidating these laws, designed to promote family stability, has led to the complete moral collapse of society and led to many social ills that have destructed society and the loss of individual freedoms.

Nobody in their right mind would say the condition of families today is all well and good. Plain and simple, rules must be enforced. There has to be laws enforcing stability in society or else you have anarchy and the society will self destruct within a couple of generations, which is what Western society is witnessing now as the traditional family unit has become unrecognizable.

“Women in the home are not performing some optional role that can be more efficiently fulfilled by the welfare state. Women in the home are not ‘wasting’ their human resources. The role of the mother is the paramount support of civilized human society. It is essential to the socialization both of men and of children. The maternal love and nurture of small children is an asset that can be replaced, if at all, only at vastly greater cost. Such attention is crucial to raising children into healthy and productive citizens. Moreover, the link of men through marriage to the support of particular children is crucial to male motivation and productivity.

The provider role of men not only gives the society the benefit of a lifetime of hard work oriented toward long-term goals. It also channels and disciplines male energies and aggressions that otherwise turn against that society. By contrast, full-time work by mothers of small children comes at a serious twofold cost: first, the loss of the immeasurable social benefit of the mother’s loving care for her child; second, the frequent loss of the husband’s full-time concentration on his career. The yield of the mother’s job to the economy or the man’s help in the home only rarely can offset the costs of her employment. The society will pay the costs on way or another: not only through tremendous outlays for day care but also through economic declines, population loss, juvenile delinquency, crime, mental illness, alcoholism, addiction, and divorce.”[3]

Yes, the husband should be liable for his wife’s debts and support unless she does a wrong against him such to invalidate the marriage contract (such as adultery). In such a case, the man should still be responsible for his own and his children’s support (although she should not be allowed to just take off with the kids if she is in the wrong, which I’ll explain later) but, since the contract is broken, he should be held liable no longer for her support. That is traditional family law. So long as the wife has committed no wrong he should support her but if she breaks the contract and is no longer faithful then she also waives her right to support from him. That’s how it works.

“It was precisely upon the conclusion that marriage cannot be a viable career for women that Time magazine rested its Fall 1990 special issue on “Women: The Road Ahead,” a survey of contemporary women’s lives. While noting that the ‘cozy, limited roles of the past are still clearly remembered, sometimes fondly,’ during the past thirty years ‘all that was orthodox has become negotiable.’ One thing negotiated away has been the economic security of the homemaker, and Time advised young women that ‘the job of full-time homemaker may be the riskiest profession to choose’ because ‘the advent of no-fault and equitable-distribution divorce laws’ reflect, in the words of one judge, the fact that ‘[society] no longer believes that a husband should support his wife.’

No-fault divorce laws did not, however, result from an edict of the gods of some force of nature, but from sustained political efforts, particularly by the feminist movement. As a cornerstone of their drive to make women exchange home for workplace, and thereby secure their independence from men, the availability of no-fault divorce (like the availability of abortion) was sacrosanct to the movement. Time shed crocodile tears for displaced homemakers, for it made clear that women must canter down the road ahead with the spur of no-fault divorce urging them into the workplace. Of all Time’s recommendations for ameliorating women’s lot, divorce reform- the most crying need in our country today- was not among them. Whatever hardships may be endured by women who would resist a divorce, Time’s allegiance, like that of most feminists, is clearly to the divorce- seekers who, it was please to note, will not be hindered in their pursuit of self-realization b the barriers to divorce that their own mothers had faced.”[4]

TWRA belief number three:

“Repeal no-fault divorce laws and reinstate alimony for ex-wives to give security to women who opt out of the workforce to raise their children or help their husbands”

Without security for the housewife in knowing that her husband will be liable to provide for her basic needs for her life, women are driven into the workforce, which further increases the divorce rates and puts distrust between husband and wife. It tells women there is only one reliable choice in life: full-time work because neither society nor law sees that the obligation to provide for the wife should be upon the man. No-fault divorce legally guts the marriage contract and leaves it meaningless and family stability, and along with it the rights of parents to govern their children’s lives, unenforceable.

“As one court put it, ‘a marriage license is not a ticket to a perpetual pension,’ but that is precisely what it must be to give a housewife security. In denying that security, society has rejected traditional marriage.”[5]

TWRA belief number four:

“Re-instate a family wage for married fathers”

This is not meant to be an assault on a free market economy. I do not mean there should be a law telling employers what they should be paying their employees. Rather, this is meant to strike down existing legislation that is actually imposing more restrictions on the economy. Equal pay laws must go that way employers may be free once again to favor married men in hiring and pay, thus furthermore protecting the family, the most important unit of society.

TWRA belief number five:

“End Affirmative Action for women”

This furthermore illustrates the need for employers to be free to hire married men, or hire men in general, instead of being forced to keep an even number of women. Affirmative action further undermines the family and the ability of men to be providers. Affirmative Action also forces women to remain in the workforce as the women cannot be legally replaced by men without employers facing a lawsuit.

TWRA belief number six:

“Re-instate the husband as legal head of household with authority to make final decisions regarding finances and where the family will live”

Once again, this serves the purpose of family stability. If the wife is independent from her husband and can feel free to move away from him then the family unit is shattered. Nobody has ever forced women or men to marry in American society. Independent lives are for single individuals, not married couples. And since the husband should be legally obligated to pay the bills and provide the necessaries for his wife and children, it goes without saying that he should be given the authority to make the decisions in that area as well. The law cannot impose upon a man the ultimate obligation of the support of his wife and children without giving him the ultimate authority to manage what his wife and children are doing. He cannot be held responsible for something that he has no control over.

TWRA belief number seven:

“Encourage women to refrain from sexual activities until the male commits to marry and provide for her”

Now here TWRA beliefs deviate from our legal goals for a minute. This is a cultural goal. Sex before marriage is most damaging to women, the child bearers, as we are mentally and physically different from men.Sexual intercourse for a woman involves pain and messiness and a penetration into the most deepest and intimate areas of her body and being. Also by its very nature, the physiological demands of the sex act itself is dependent upon the man’s ability to completely overtake the woman and dominate her. There is not a shred of fungibility in sexual terms between males and females. Male sexual patterns really haven’t changed any at all since women’s lib, it is women’s sexual behavior that has been dramatically altered. TWRA goals are not about bashing women, but about encouraging and protecting women. Fathers should protect their daughters and mothers should instill within their daughters values that currently mothers are not teaching them. It is our responsibility as women to teach the younger women to love themselves, so that they may ultimately love their husbands and their children and have a fulfilled life. Yes, it is our responsibility to teach women of their preciousness. When society no longer values the preciousness of women, which stems from our sexuality, it effects all of us as it is the women that can either build up or tear down society. Divorce, falling birth rates, women in combat, illegitimacy and a whole host of other problems occur as a result. It is the most deepest and scandalous of all politically incorrect truths -something that has always been understood but never said out loud- that women should never trade superiority for equality.

TWRA belief number eight:

“Re-instating common law right for women that were repealed in the name of equality, such as her right to recover damages for breach of promise to marry and seduction.”

Far from a flight from personal responsibility, this indicates that sexual morality is important to society and that, not only should a woman be expected by society to conduct herself as a lady, but also that men are held to a chivalrous responsibility to not take advantage of women. It indicates that society sees marriage as the only appropriate way for sex and childbearing to occur. We do not need a scientific study (although there are plenty available) to tell us that the male sex drive is a man’s prime governing passion and that a man will say or do anything to get a woman into bed. We also don’t need scientific studies to understand what has always been the common knowledge of our ancestors, that women can easily be swayed by men and will even give into his sexual desires because she believes he will remain with her and she will be loved. It shows clearly that men are responsible for women and ultimately in charge and are to be required to conduct themselves appropriately. With authority comes responsibility. It also shows that a woman’s body is valued and should only belong to the man who is committed to her and that society imposes upon her the responsibility to remain pure and only have children once married. This also serves a larger purpose to society as a whole, as out-of-wedlock births decrease and children are raised in a stable home with both a mother and a father, as sexual morality is of prime concern to society.

About Coverture and father’s rights:

First and foremost, I am talking about married fathers. Although I have not specifically stated a difference before, I am right now. I do not believe-for the welfare of women, children, society and even men- that an unwed father should be given the same legal rights and responsibilities of a married father. Where there is a valid contract of marriage, the husband should be the legal father of any and all children born to the wife. If his wife has been unfaithful he needs to make a choice right away when the child is born whether to stay with her, raise the child to adulthood and continue to be the legal father or divorce her- no waiting around for years or months and creating instability and confusion in the child’s life.

When an unwed mother has a child, she should be the sole legal parent of the child (with sole rights and responsibilities for the child) unless she should marry the father and he assume responsibility as provider and head of the family or until she gives that child up for adoption. It is only since the 1970s that unwed fathers have been granted rights like a married father. I believe this, along with our current welfare system and sexual liberation, has served to undermine stability of families and society. Many children are confused and families are torn apart when there is no stable family life.

The husband should be the head of the house, with sole authority and responsibility for the wife and children.

We believe in eliminating no-fault divorces. This alone does away with the problem of one spouse deciding to take off and rip the children away from the other parent without justification. Unless there is a clear showing of abuse or adultery so bad as to make it unsafe or unreasonable to stay in the marriage, divorce should not be granted. However, we do not believe that fault between husband and wife should be used to determine a child’s fate. We believe that the husband’s responsibilities for the child should remain the same no matter where the children live and no matter if he is still married to the mother. Therefore, as the authority in the family he holds the responsibility to place his children where he sees fit.

Traditional marriage is a contract between the man and the woman that basically states that he is held liable for her provision and protection and she will be faithful and only bear his children, not some other man’s. Unless one party has broken this contract, divorce should not be granted and the children should remain in the home with both parents.

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws!”
Tacitus (A.D. 55-130)

The abolition of the nuclear family has led to the rise of societal disintegration. The case for traditional family law does not impose an entire set of unjust laws on the people . Quite the contrary, abolition of traditional family law has led to the rise of numerous laws that must govern our every action and control our families- because the families are no longer being governed from within themselves as there is no prime authority figure. Once divorce occurs the government and the law gets their hands on your property, your money, your children and ultimately your very life. Only in the most extreme of circumstances should this ever be allowed to happen.

In the twentieth century Lewis Termin conducted the only known psychological study where the participants were observed from early childhood until their deaths. What he found was that those participants whose parents divorced before they reached adulthood (or to the age of 21) lived an average of 5 years less than those whose parents stayed together until the children at least reached adulthood. This held true even when controlled for other factors and also held steady even when sex was taken into account (women generally live longer than men, but the lifespans of both the males and females suffered equally negatively under divorce). Many studies today conclude negative health effects in both the husband and wife after divorce and a whole host of other negative problems that are too numerous to continue to name off in this posting.

No, TWRA supporters are not “living in fear” or simply afraid. But we are very concerned. We are concerned for our civilization and the welfare of our families because we live in a society that has been trying relentlessly for the past 50 years to destruct traditional morality and family values. Traditional men and women have been taking this for long enough. If we are to save our civilization and secure the freedom of our children and future generations, we must act now because freedom is never more than a generation away from going extinct.

We are witnessing the rise of every liberal cause under the sun from women in combat to women going bare-breasted in public. These can only be the signs of a civilization in decay.

“Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women… The decay and the ruin of a nation has always lain in the hands of its women. So does its life and strength, its reverence for beauty, its mercy and kindness. And, above all, its men.”[6]

Notes:

[1] http://www.eagleforum.org/era/2003/ERA-Brochure.shtml
[2] Ibid.
[3] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage.” Pelican, 1993.
[4] Graglia, C.F. “Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism,” p.9-10. Spence, 1998.
[5] Ibid., p. 137.
[6] http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/Women_s_Lib_They_re_Spoiling_Eve_s_Great_Con_Game_5010050.shtml

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

Advertisements

The Problem with Republicans

I have often found myself in the last year quite disgusted with the conservatives of today’s era. In fact, I have been so disgusted that I didn’t even vote in the last election (I don’t think women should participate in politics anyways but in today’s world we have no choice) because I simply could not come to terms with which political party is out to hurt women the most. First the conservatives, who wish to bring back the harsh traditions of yesteryear without any of the traditional protections for women and families that went along with it, or the liberals who are in favor of everything from working mothers to instating a draft for women and putting 18 year old females straight in the front lines of combat. This is more than just the lesser of two evils here. This is simply women having to choose which way the want to get screwed over, because with either party they are going to get a raw deal.

Republicans have been accused of waging a “war on women” and I cannot entirely say that this accusation is entirely without justification. I think both parties are waging a war on women and we would be better off letting our husbands represent us and care for us, as they would care much more for our needs than any politician ever will. But, at present, we women have to play the hand we’re dealt. Conservatives have gone so far off track that even conservative women have been abandoning their party. As some Republican women put it:

“There is no way on God’s green earth that I would consider voting Republican.”[1]

So, why are these conservative women feeling this way? Well, that is what I want to talk about. The women go on to say;

“The Republican Party’s abortion platform is so anti women that it makes no exception, even in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother. Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan said when asked if it should it be legal for a woman to be able to get an abortion if she’s been raped, “the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.”

The Republican Party has doubled down on their radical personhood agenda, which is the only way they can justify the cruel, draconian policies that they’ve been pushing for years now. Todd Akin only exposed the issue to the public, who may have missed the mountain of Republican legislation criminalizing contraception, in vitro fertilization, abortion under all circumstances and in some cases miscarriages.

The Republican Party’s policy empowers rapists to choose the mother of their children by physically overtaking her and raping her, forcing her into being in his life for the life of the child. Rapists have legal rights to the children conceived via rape.

Freedom under the Republican party looks like forcing women to give birth after being raped, and even when a young girl has been molested by a family member.”[2]

Abortion is generally something that Conservatives are against. I generally take a neutral position when writing on issues of abortion as it is a very complicated thing and there are all kinds of moral, legal and medical considerations but I have long felt that life might be better for women and men might treat us differently and be willing to take on traditional responsibilities for women and children if it was illegal; mostly because society would be more likely to shift more responsibility to the men to marry the woman. But this is not what the crusading Republicans today are about. There is nothing on their platform that wants to actually protect women and children. I took up a tiny poll from some of my supporters to get an idea of their thoughts on abortion. The vast majority believed it should always be illegal. One of the comments I received was:

“The rapist should get the death penalty, not the child.”

The problem is that a rapist cannot legally be given the death penalty in the United States nor in much of the Western world -not even in the case of child rape (see Coker v Georgia; Kennedy v Louisiana). Feminist lawyers and liberal justices are mostly to blame for this. But what do conservatives do about it? Nothing. They are so busy wanting to impose harsh restrictions and laws on the public, mainly women, yet they do nothing and say nothing about the laws that hurt women and children. Do the Republicans of today even have any morality left at all? The majority of them claim to have a strong belief in God and traditional morality rooted in Biblical law, yet absolutely none of this morality is seen in their actions. Even women in Biblical days had more protections from immoral men than what women in our “modern” and so-called “progressive” society do now.

Let’s take a look at these Biblical laws and contrast them with today’s laws.

Judeo-Christian tradition has it that the first five books of the Bible, the Torah, are to be found the Biblical laws. In Deuteronomy 22 we read:

“But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is the matter:

For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was noone to save her.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”[3]

So, basically what these age-old laws are saying his this: if a man rapes a woman that is to be married he will die. If he rapes a woman who is not engaged to any other man, he will be fined and forced to marry and provide for her. And there won’t be any “no-fault” divorces either. He has committed a wrong against her and must pay the price for her for the rest of his life. Being that most women were dependent upon husbands for their survival and she could very easily end up pregnant, I see this as a way of actually protecting her. Why put him to death? Instead he should pay for his crimes against her and she should never have to worry about anything for the rest of her life.

Now let’s take a look at today’s laws!

“David Ward, Legal & Legislative Counsel of Legal Voice, a nonprofit organization that secures and protects women’s legal rights in America, confirmed in a phone interview with The Christian Post that many states do indeed currently allow rapists to hold the same custody and visitation rights as any other father. Ward could not confirm the total number of states that grant rapists such rights.

Sara Ainsworth, a former staff attorney for Legal Voice, wrote in 2008 a paper titled “Parental Rights for Rapists?” which talked about the controversial topic in depth.

“But for the thousands of women in the United States who become pregnant and bear children as a result of rape each year, the need to ensure that they can raise their children without further threat from the rapist is a critical – and largely unacknowledged – concern,” Ainsworth notes.

The paper explains that 32,000 women in the Unites States become pregnant as a result of rape each year, half of whom decide to end their pregnancies while the other half decide to keep their babies.

Highlighting the legal obstacles they face in most states, Ainsworth shares a number of stories of raped women who were forced under law to cooperate with their rapists over their children.

“Another survivor, a 14-year-old girl, decided to give up her baby for adoption. She was required by law to give notice of the adoption to the rapist, an adult man. While she was permitted by a court to give up her rights to the child, the rapist retained his and then sought child support payments from her,” the lawyer writes. “Another survivor, who gave birth to twins after a date rape, raised them peacefully with her intimate partner until they were five years old, at which time the rapist learned of their existence and filed a lawsuit to establish his paternity and gain visitation rights, and attempted to use the mother’s sexual orientation against her in the legal proceedings.”[4]

So, what this is basically saying is this: a man who brutally rapes a woman is to be treated the same as a married father or (since we grant rights to sperm donors now) any other father who is not a criminal. Not only that, but there will be no payments to the woman or her family for the wrongs committed against her nor will the man be put to death. Instead, these victimized women can and often will be forced to pay support to the man! And it does not matter if the female is underage or not. Many of these women will even avoid reporting the rape because if the biological father finds out of the child’s existence (cases can take a long time to make it to trial- if they ever make it to trial- and pregnancy only lasts nine months and should be evident long before then) he can sue for rights at any time, regardless of how much time has passed. It is also liberalism and feminism that has relieved fathers and husbands of the sole obligation for the support of their families, thus allowing a man to lay claim to the mother of his children’s paycheck.

And what about the recreational sperm donors who refuse to man up and marry the mother and instead slander her name and deny all responsibility? Absolutely nothing. Once again, they are granted all the same legal rights as a married father who is a devoted and committed provider for his family. All this as a product of liberalism and the feminist movement. Mary Ann Mason (a feminist-or former feminist, I’m not sure her exact position-who writes and admits the faults of women’s lib and its harm to women and families) explains:

“But it is in the case of new rights for unwed fathers that Mason finds the most egregious examples of a legal system that disregards the welfare of the child.

Until a Supreme Court decision in 1971, unwed fathers had no rights to child custody based on the genetic relationship. Now, most states have given unwed fathers all the rights of a married father.

“In the case of unwed fathers,” said Mason, “states have abandoned the child-centered ‘best interests’ test.

Today, it must be shown only that it would be harmful to the child to live with the biological parent, not merely in that child’s best interest.” She said this means that a young child can be taken from an adoptive parent with whom he or she has a strong attachment, as in the celebrated case of Baby Jessica, because the biological rights of the father have become paramount.

In Michigan, four-year-old Baby Jessica was raised by adoptive parents only to be given in a custody dispute to her biological father. The father was not married to Jessica’s biological mother and the child had never seen him.

“If our first concern was truly the best interests of children, we would look at unwed fathers in a different light,” said Mason. “We would look, first of all, to whom is performing the actual parenting.”

In a current California case, an unwed father was allowed to make a paternity claim for a child being raised by his former girlfriend and her husband.

In the past, such a claim would not have been tolerated by courts because their primary intent was to preserve family stability. This time-honored tradition, in which the married father was always the legal father, also protected the child.

But no more, said Mason.

By allowing this paternity claim, the California court “paid little attention to the rights of Brian, now age four, or even to his needs. His best interests were not considered at all,” she said.

If paternity tests bear him out, said Mason, the unwed father may sue for custody and sink that family into dispute, with serious psychological risks for Brian.”[5]

How does this contrast with the ancient Biblical law that most conservatives believe in and endorse (yet don’t follow)? Let’s take a look.

“If a man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

And give occasions of speech against her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsels’ virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city

And the elders of the city shall take that man and chastise him;

And they shall amerce him in an hundred skekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.”[6]

So, what this is saying is that if a man falsely lies about his new wife committing adultery against him he will be fined. Now, once again, there won’t by any “no-fault” divorces. Nope, he is responsible for her provision for the rest of their lives.

Obviously most people today realize that virginity isn’t foolproof but the point here is that Republicans believe in the harshness of tradition and most claim a strong belief in the Bible and policies based upon it- at least when it suits them. But not a word from the Republican side about protecting women. Nope, let’s just criticize welfare mothers and continue on with the anti-abortion crusades while all of this other nasty business is allowed to happen to women and children.

What about the traditional common law rights that women once possessed? In the past our courts would not have acknowledged or stood for unwed fathers claiming the same rights as a married father. They would not have stood for no-fault divorces or allowing a pregnant woman to be divorced or without recourse to sue for breach of promise to marry. Society would not have stood for men getting a woman pregnant and not marrying her. If pregnancy occurred, you got married- or else. This following quote is from a former fan of mine (whom I am deeply sorry to have lost as a fan):

“B.H., you are my new heroine. I’m a 76 year-old mother/grandmother/great-grandmother and can vouch for the absolute truth of everything you say. The women & girls were respected & fiercely protected, rape was at least as serious a crime as murder, no one ever challenged a woman’s right to custody of her children or right to her own property, and if you got a girl pregnant you by G_d married her or else (which had a wonderful chilling effect on the romantic ardor of both parties.)

The finest exposition on the all-around stupidity of the”third wave of feminism” is George Gilder’s Men & Marriage.

Thank you…”

And furthermore, Phyllis Schlafly (who, unfortunately, is also one of those conservatives who no longer cares about women or children and instead panders to MRAs) drove home the main point in her book “Feminist Fantasies,” where she acknowledges that it is within the family that feminism has inflicted the deepest pain:

“Ginsburg was vehement in her desire to abolish any legal preference or protection that women might have…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.”[7]

 

Notes:

[1] http://www.politicususa.com/personal-now-republican-women-explain-voting-obama.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] Deuteronomy 22:25-29. KJV
[4] http://global.christianpost.com/news/rapists-can-claim-custody-visitation-rights-for-victims-babies-80656/
[5] http://womenasmothers.blogspot.com/2013/04/follow-money.html
[6] Deuteronomy 22:13-19. KJV
[7] Schlafly,P. “Feminist Fantasies,” p.144. Spence, 2003.

 

 

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

Feminist Indoctrination as Seen Through Disney Princess Merida

Parents Score As Disney Pulls Sexy New Merida

“The original Merida was hailed as a positive role model for girls because she was independent, active and outdoorsy. She also was an ace with her trusty bow and arrow, which were removed in her princess makeover, much to parents’ dismay. ”

OK not normally something I engage in conversation on  but if anyone notices this is how deeply ingrained feminism is in our society. Notice carefully the words “independent” “active” “outdoorsy” and notice how that contrasts to the more traditional characters Disney has had where the princesses marry princes who show chivalry towards them and are protective of them. The words “independent” “active” “outdoorsy” are traditionally more masculine words and in the movie princess Merida rejected her marriage proposals to be “independent” the way feminism has taught that girls should be. In other words, “sexist” men are bad and women should put self-fulfillment over finding a good man to marry. Even conservatives are praising this. This is how deeply ingrained feminism is in our society today and how the media pushes the feminist message on the public.

BTW I didn’t see anything “sexy” in the sense of her being a sex object. It only appears that she looks traditionally feminine and beautiful in the traditional sense instead of the tomboyish character she was originally portrayed as. There is more to beauty than what we look like on the outside but the fact that Disney changing Merida’s look to be more traditional and feminine has caused outrage just shows how feminist principles have prevailed in Western society.

 

Women Should Look Very Carefully at What Feminism Has Done

Unlike the feminists who are constantly concerned with lesbian issues, the “wage gap” and pushing women further into combat. This site is concerned with the every-day issues that most heterosexual women actually care about. No woman, if she knew what feminism was about, would actually support it. Especially those housewives who defend feminism. Feminism has wiped out the legal safeguards and laws that sheltered a woman from her husband’s burdens and easy divorces. In order to force women into the workforce the feminists campaigned against alimony and child custody protections for women because, in their delusional minds, these protections were “holding women back.” But, holding us back from what? From whom? How many women would actually be happy with losing their children for a career? Now that this is becoming more common in our society I don’t see any evidence that women are happy about this. How many women would really want to remain in the home with no protections should she be abandoned by her husband? How many women or men would want their pregnant daughter to be threatened with a custody battle as soon as she gives birth by a man that refuses to marry and support her and the child? As this has become more common since women’s lib women have been forced to abandon their homes for the workforce and even abandon any support they might have otherwise gotten for themselves and their children. Women used to have a choice to work, but now they do not. Women used to have various legal rights and protections that now they do not. Men’s groups are just a product of the feminist movement. Feminists more often than not supported their issues in the 1960s through the 1980s but when they saw how much “equal treatment” was quickly harming women a lot of feminists backed out. Of course, mainstream feminism apparently hasn’t gotten the message as they are still ignoring the issues that real women face everyday. As normal, they do not speak for ordinary, everyday women.

And for those women, especially housewives, who still think feminism has been good for them. I encourage you to look carefully into the history of this movement and what has happened in the last 40 years. The best all-around example of feminist stupidity can be found in feminist Jane Mansbridge’s book “Why We Lost the ERA.”

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

Anti-Feminism and Childbearing

The first words out of a lot of feminists’ mouths towards us anti-feminist women are generally something along the lines of accusing us of thinking all women are put on this Earth to be breeding machines. Quite frankly, I am quite annoyed by this. Actually, I find it quite offensive. Absolutely nowhere have I ever said that women should do nothing but marry and spend their entire lives barefoot and pregnant. In fact, I have done quite the opposite. Yes, birth rates are plunging and this is bad for our civilization. I have most certainly made mention of this. But along with making mention of this I have also defended the reasons why women today are not having babies. If a woman has grown up in a society that solely defines her worth in masculine terms then why should we expect that she will have babies or our civilization won’t experience population loss? Yes, mothers with young children are heading off to work every day and the rate of single mothers is higher than in previous times in history.

Most of society and politicians talk about the harmfulness of this. They spend all of their time trying to outlaw abortions and criticizing single mothers. Yet, when do we ever hear of them proposing legislation to protect women in our roles as mothers? The short answer is that we don’t. Liberals, as a group, don’t care a bit about our roles as mothers. They defend abortion rights and are so busy with talks of “women’s rights” that revolve around the so-called “wage gap” and forcing women into combat roles and to be subject to a military draft. Conservatives, as stated above, are all about outlawing abortions and some forms of birth control and trying to force traditional burdens onto women. Yet, conservatives aren’t even saying anything about women in combat or the very real possibility that young women will have to face a military draft for no other reason than political correctness and the faux notion of “gender equality” that really started with modern feminism. How can you conservatives sit there and criticize women for being single mothers and for not having children and criticizing feminism when you have yet to say one word or propose any legislation that would grant traditional exemptions and protections to women, wives and mothers that women had before feminism?

You can’t expect a woman to bring children into this world when she has absolutely no security whatsoever. Women are not protected in custody disputes regarding even their infant children anymore. Unwed fathers have been granted all the same legal recognition as a married father and yet you wonder why there are so many unwed mothers. Yet do you “conservatives” say anything about this? Nope. You “conservatives” go right on attacking birth control and abortion even when rapists are getting custodial rights to victims’ babies. Once again, another issue you won’t say anything about. Conservatives attack women and mothers yet fail to hold men to their responsibilities for women and the mothers of their children.

Marriage is not a safety net for women as it used to be. Women are forced to carry all the financial obligations of their husbands and are not exempt from his debts, even if he abandons her and she has to care for and support her young children alone. Before women’s lib women did not have the same financial obligations as their husbands. She did not have to worry about his debts if he abandoned her to raise her children alone. She was protected. But, the push for equality in all things has made her subject to a man’s traditional burdens and left mothers and wives everywhere without so much as any protection in any area.

Yes, feminists won several Supreme Court decisions that forced all states to gender neutralize their laws regarding unwed fathers, alimony and other laws that made traditional distinctions based on sex. Supreme Court decisions (at the instigation mainly of feminists) were won doing away with the death penalty for rape and legalizing abortion.

You conservatives note that Supreme Court decisions can and have been overturned in the past. This is without question true. So, you go straight to attacking Roe v Wade to make abortion illegal. You want to ensure that women have to carry their babies to term. Now, for those reading this, I have stated before that I absolutely refuse to go into the subject of whether or not abortion should be legal as there are way too many ethical and medical considerations. That is not the point of this post in the least. The point is that mainly conservatives are trying to attack Supreme Court decisions and legislation to hold women to traditional responsibilities yet they are completely silent on those Supreme Court decisions that overturned laws that protected women, wives and mothers and held men to their traditional responsibilities as husbands and fathers and that exempted women from her husband’s debts and responsibilities and encouraged men to marry when they got a girl pregnant. If Roe can be overturned dear conservatives, so can other Supreme Court decisions of the 1970s and 1980s and beyond. You can’t force a woman to have children or even expect that she will want to whenever we live in a world where rapists are given custodial rights, unwed fathers are given unconditional rights, women are forced to support ex-husbands and a man doesn’t even so much as have to provide the mother of his child a prenatal vitamin during her pregnancy.

Now, after all that I will now return to the original point of anti-feminist viewpoints and childbearing. Women have always had the choice to remain childless and be independent. Women are much more than just the “breeding machines” you feminists accuse us traditionalist people of believing they are. I, for one, understand the reasons why a lot of women are reluctant to have babies. We are not protected. But, I believe that deep down most of us want to have babies. Most of us will become mothers but women are choosing not to in large part to relationship issues and the fact that society defines our worth in masculine terms. Most of us women will become mothers in our lifetimes and we deserve to be protected in our natural roles. Most of us mothers would love to have more children, but the legal, cultural and economic climate is deterring us. Once again, all these things started with feminism and the equal rights movement. You conservatives and other like-minded thinkers have no right to bash women and mothers for the choices we make when you ignore our desperate need for legal protections.

And, for those traditional women who cannot have children or simply have decided against them, I still salute you. The childless housewife is of great importance and certainly has a more flexible schedule! For those childless housewives (or even housewives whose children are grown or are in school already) you are still ever important to society and your husbands and you will never hear disrespect from me.

 

 

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