Monthly Archives: December 2014

How Much Authority Should a Wife Have?

The father is ultimately the head of the household, but that does not mean that the wife has no authority whatsoever. While the husband has the authority and the responsibility to rule over the family and make decisions regarding the family (including decisions about his wife and children) the mother is the one responsible for caring for her children everyday and she does have a certain level of authority over them. It is the woman’s job to care for her home, her husband and her children. She is responsible for making sure her children eat, dress and behave properly and she is responsible and has the right to punish them as well for their misbehaviors. The father, of course, does teach his children and discipline them too, but men are not always around and it would be unreasonable if a wife had no authority within the household to make day-to-day decisions regarding the running of the household and decisions regarding the children. It would be unreasonable for a child to always have to wait and ask daddy for every little thing.

A father, of course, should have the authority to overrule decisions his wife makes about the household and children, but regarding normal everyday events he should not do so unless he is really against or feels strongly about some decision the wife has made. A set amount of authority and responsibility has already been given to wives and mothers and her authority should be acknowledged. For instance, say a child wants a cookie and mother says no. It would be contrary to the best interests of the child and counterproductive if the child could then just run to daddy and have daddy say “oh it’s alright son go ahead and have a cookie.” (This is also yet another reason why divorce and family breakdown is bad because kids know they can just run back and forth between parents and between households when one parent won’t let them have their way). It is also appropriate for a father to say “ask your mother” regarding the smaller everyday life decisions (such as “can I have a cookie” and other small issues of the sort). For the most part, these kinds of small everyday issues should be mostly left to the mother as she watches and guards her children’s daily behaviors and sees what they eat and what they do everyday more than the father does and thus she would know best in most cases whether it was appropriate for the child to, say, have a cookie or if the child, for instance, does not need a cookie because the child has already consumed to many sweets or unhealthy foods. (Yes, I know I’m using the cookie example a lot but it was the first issue that popped up in my mind writing this and it’s a common everyday issue with kids as they always want treats). A husband and wife should, for the most part, be in agreement with each other about everyday issues so children cannot play one parent against the other just to get their way. A husband should already have a pretty good idea what his wife would say about an issue and vice versa. A wife has to have a certain amount of authority that is consistent with her daily responsibilities of raising up and caring for her children and the household.

Regarding the bigger events, the father should really be the one to make the decisions. This will vary some between traditionalist households. For instance, I would tell the little one it’s OK to run over and visit a friend without consulting my husband as that is a small everyday issue and is in my general domain of authority. If the husband has a problem with his child going over to visit a certain kid or family that’s a different story, however, and he should have the right to disallow his children to visit a certain household despite the wishes of his wife. I don’t really get involved in whether or not the little one can spend the day with his relatives or whether she can go on school field trips and the like. Those are bigger decisions that don’t need to be decided immediately (and if they did I would still call my husband about it).

Regarding other issues besides the children, I don’t really have a lot of authority over them. My husband controls all of our finances as he is also sole provider and makes all the money as well. I do not contribute financially as I do not believe it to be my responsibility and any spending money I do get I use for extra things for myself, the little one and the house that my husband cannot always afford. I believe my husband does have the authority to tell anyone to leave our home even if I do want them to stay and I believe he also has the authority to forbid me from going somewhere or doing something. If he ever wanted/needed to move somewhere else I’d go with him even if I wasn’t necessarily happy about moving. I think it would be going too far for him to control every tiny detail of my life, such as the smaller issues such as me wanting to wear a certain dress or pair of shoes or have a glass of tea after dinner or use a certain kind of soap to bathe with or something. Of course, sometimes he does tell me not to wear something, so,(after a lot of pouting), I won’t wear it. Usually the general intent isn’t just to micromanage my life, however, but there are instead other reasons why he might tell me not to wear or do something. There are some circumstances where a husband might tell his wife not to do some small thing, such as maybe he believes it might be harmful in some way or that she might hurt herself.

I do the things I wish to do everyday and enjoy the hobbies I love and wear things I like but I still stay overall under the control and protection of my husband. I do not believe in equally making decisions with my husband. I make some small decisions with him but most of the things he does or where he goes I don’t even really know much about. I don’t really get involved much in any of his affairs and, of course, I don’t have any control over what de does for the most part. I might not like that he doesn’t always eat healthy or something like that but there’s nothing I can really do about it and I don’t try to either. I have demanded respect or that he grow up or similar things in the past and I consider that completely appropriate for a woman to do. A man is to love, cherish, protect and support his wife and it is his role as head of household that enables him to do that. A woman can make some decisions, but her husband can overrule them. A man should rule over his wife for her protection and for the best interest of the family. If done for any other purpose or for his own selfish interests then he is in the wrong.

The Poison of Feminism is Deep in Society

After a brutal rape, I became pregnant. Doctors told me to abort. My husband and I did this instead.

What on earth is wrong with society today? This guy’s wife was out traveling abroad on a business trip, they already have two children and she gets RAPED? Wow men today are really true men aren’t they when we have married mothers traveling abroad for their career, away from their husbands, and have no male protection whatsoever? Maybe if she would have been a housewife or at least stayed under the wing and protection of her husband she wouldn’t have been raped. In our screwed up world today it’s even possible her rapist could interfere into the marital union by petitioning the courts for custody or visitation even that’s how screwed up society has gotten. Not only are women out there being independent after marriage instead of becoming one with their husbands but the laws don’t even protect the marital unit or operate in the best interests of the family. Sad though that even conservative Christians who are supposedly “pro-family” don’t even mention the harm that has been done to the family unit and don’t even give a care about marriage being about men providing for and protecting women. Also, this woman is kept practically locked away for days and her husband has no authority whatsoever over the situation nor authority to protect or be responsible for his wife. Of course, I only take whatever I read on the news half-heartedly as most is biased anyways and only tells half the truth (whether liberal or conservative news) but still this is the terrible shape society and the family is in toady nonetheless.

Should Women Have Careers Before Marriage?

What sense does it make to have a career before marriage if you plan just to be a housewife or stay at home mother? How on earth can you expect employers to not discriminate when your plan is to work for a few years and then just up and quit or plan to take a lot of time off? Of course this brings up the point of why the women’s movement had to abolish legal protections for housewives and also to degrade her role and promote full-time work for women, regardless of their marital status and regardless whether or not they have children. If society just assumed that women would quit their work after marriage then it would be unreasonable for employers not to discriminate. As it now stands, however, it’s illegal to discriminate no matter if the woman plans on getting married and no matter if she has children, which just complicates everything and honestly disrupts businesses.

What sense does it make to keep giving leave to women to take off for their menstrual cycles and for childbirth when instead companies and businesses could just hire men who would ultimately be more reliable? Besides, women in the workforce cause problems and make it hard for men to really get any work done. Also, there are the issues of sexual harassment and the like that wouldn’t even be issues if men didn’t have to work beside women so much (and if we went back to the days where a good old-fashioned slap across the face and men’s chivalrous duty to protect the honor of women took care of a man who was getting a little too fresh).

It doesn’t make any sense to me why women would waste years in college and get a career just to up and quit it. Also, I believe it is just plain awful to leave children in daycare or with babysitters/other family members just so you can go off to work or so that the parents can fight and divorce. The memories of my childhood are nothing more than warring parents and riding the bus to daycare after school. My childhood was hell because of it. We talk all the time about “the best interests of the child” but in reality this is nothing more than code speak for “don’t say anything politically incorrect” and a justification for gender-neutral policies and laws.

The feminist movement knew it was bad news if women just wanted to be housewives and if society accepted that women should be housewives because it would ruin all their plans of women becoming fungible with men. If society saw that the ideal was for women to be housewives and care for their children and love and obey their husbands after marriage then our customs would change to favor men in the workforce on the logical basis that the men would more than likely be sole providers for families one day and the logical basis that a woman would have a husband to provide for her. Society would also see that women need protections due to the vulnerability that comes along with being dependent in their traditional roles. Denying protections to women and degrading traditional women goes along with feminism’s plans to make all women independent from men and to refute any thoughts of women being potential mothers and weaker and more vulnerable than men.

If on the other hand society sees that married women should have careers then the protection of women isn’t even an issue and nobody cares. Indeed, that’s what we have today- nobody cares. But we need to care. Men need to provide for and protect women and society should impose these responsibilities upon men as it is ultimately in the best interest of all of society.

More on anti-discrimination:

Discrimination is the Solution, Not the Problem

Recommended:

My Review of “Why We Lost the ERA”

Feminism and Female Preciousness

Is Feminism Pro-Choice?

My Review of “The Female Eunuch”

This book is not new to me and I’ve quoted it many times over the years but I thought I would post it here as it is a landmark book in the women’s “liberation” movement and is a wonderful example of feminism’s assault on femininity, the traditional family unit and the role of the housewife. Feminists love to tell us they stand for our “choices” and that they’ve never in all their feminist studies seen feminists degrade the role of the housewife, but those of us who are educated know this movement has been an assault on the traditional family unit and the rights of the traditional woman from the start. My review here consists of quotes taken directly from the book. We must understand feminism and teach the next generation against it. We must educate men and women alike on the truth of this movement. Please read, understand and share with others the truth of this movement and its assault on our families and our security within our families.

————
The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer

“On these grounds we can, indeed we must reject femininity as meaning without libido, and therefore incomplete, subhuman, a cultural reduction of human possibilities, and rely upon the indefinite term female, which retains the possibility of female libido. In order to understand how a female is castrated and becomes feminine we must consider the pressures to which she is subjected from the cradle.” (79)

“So what is the beef? Maybe i couldn’t make it. Maybe I don’t have a pretty smile, good teeth, nice tits, long legs, a cheeky arse, a sexy voice. Maybe I don’t know how to handle men and increase my market value, so that the rewards due to the feminine will accrue to me. Then again, maybe I’m sick of the masquerade. I’m sick of pretending eternal youth. I’m sick of belying my own intelligence, my own will, my own sex. I’m sick of peering at the world through false eyelashes, so everything I see is mixed with a shadow of bought hairs; I’m sick off weighting my head with a dead mane, unable to move my neck freely, terrified of rain, of wind, of dancing too vigorously in case I sweat into my lacquered curls. I’m sick of the Powder Room. I’m sick of pretending that some fatuous male’s self-important pronouncements are the objects of my undivided attention, I’m sick of going to films and plays when someone else wants to, and sick of having no opinions of my own about either. I’m sick of being a transvestite. I refuse to be a female impersonator. I am a woman, not a castrate.” (70)

“April Ashley was born male. All the information supplied by genes, chromosomes, internal and external sexual organs added up to the same thing. April was a man. But he longed to be a woman. He longed for the stereotype, not to embrace, but to be…He tried to die, became a female impersonator, but eventually found a doctor in Casablanca who came up with a more acceptable alternative. He was to be castrated, and his penis used as the lining of a surgically constructed cleft, which would be a vagina…He became a model, and began to illustrate the feminine stereotype as he was perfectly qualified to do, for he was elegant, voluptuous, beautifully groomed, and in love with his own image…April’s incompetence as a woman is what we must exect from a castrate, but it is not so very different after all from the impotence of feminine women, who submit to sex without desire, with only the infantile pleasure of cuddling and affection, which is their favourite reward. As long as the feminine stereotype remains the definition of the female sex, April Ashley is a woman, regardless of the legal decision ensuing from her divorce. She is as much a casualty of the polarity of the sexes as we all are. Disgraced, unsexed Ashley is our sister and our symbol.” (71-72)

“Women do have sexual desires and it is a function of normal mental health development and good breeding to destroy it, let us try some abnormal mental development, rejecting our breeding. If marriage and family depend upon the castration of women let them change or disappear. The alternative is not a brothel, for brothels depend upon marriage and family for their existence. If we are to escape from the treadmill of sexual fantasy, voracious need of love, and obsessiveness in all its forms we will have to reinstate our libido in its rightful function. Only then will women be capable of loving.” (111)

“Womanpower means the self-determination of women, and that means that all the baggage of paternalist society will have to be thrown overboard.” (130)

“There was even mention of setting up nurseries to be run by management and unions cooperatively at factories. The intrusion of sex and children adds a tinge of frivolty to the arguments: in fact, an employer who faces problems of organizing his employees’ children as well as themselves might well be inclined to discriminate more and more…” (135)

“A secretary is a boss’s status symbol, like his wife” the more her duties are limited to his requirements the more her value.” (141)

“Feminine women chained to men in our society are in this situation. They are formed to be artificially different and fascinating to men and end by being merely different, isolated in the house of a bored and antagonistic being.” (158)

“When heredity has decayed and bureaucracy is the rule, so that the only riches are earning power and mobility, it is absurd that the family should persist in the patter of patriliny. It is absurd that people should live more densely than ever before while pretending that they are still in a cottage with a garden. It is absurd that peole should pledge themselves for life when divorce is always possible.” (266)

“If women would reject their roles in this pattern, recognizing insecurity as freedom, they would not be perceptibly worse off for it.” (274)

“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.” (300)

“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.” (300)

“A housewife’s work has no results: it simply has to be done again. Bringing up children is not a real occupation, because children come up just the same, brought or not. ” (312)

“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.” (358-359)

“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.” (359)

“In many cases, the husband is consoled by being allowed to retain the children and can afford to treat them better with less anxiety than a woman could. he is more likely to be able to pay a housekeeper or a nanny than a woman is. And so forth. Behind the divorced woman struggling to keep her children there always looms the threate of ‘taking the children into care’ which is the worst of alternatives. A woman who leaves her husband and children could offer them alimony, if society would grant her the means.” (362)

“Only by experimentation can we open up new possibilities which will indicate lines of development in which the status quo is a given term. Women’s revolution is necessarily situationist: we cannot argue that all will be well when the socialists have succeeded in abolishing private property and restoring public ownership of the means of production. We cannot wait that long. Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let’s get on with it.” (368-369)

“…But man made one grave mistake: in answer to vaguely reformist and humanitarian agitation he admitted women to politics and the professions. The conservatives who saw this as the undermining of our civilization and the end of the state and marriage were right after all; it is time for the demolition to begin…” (369)

“The first significant discovery we shall make as we racket along our female road to freedom is that men are not free, and they will seek to make this an argument why nobody should be free. We can only reply that slaves enslave their masters, and by securing our own manumission we may show men the way that they could follow when they have jumped off their own treadmill.” (371)