The Guardianship of a Woman, Part VII: The Coercive Nature of Equality

[The Guardianship of a Woman FULL ARTICLE PDF here (link stays on-site)]


The Coercive Nature of Equality


Given the great insistence on a woman’s weakness and her dependence upon the male sex for her provision and protection among the ancients as well as our own ancestors, it is no wonder that the entire premise of feminism and goal of gender equality has been entirely contingent upon arbitrary, punitive and absolutist measures that would annihilate all views and thoughts in law and in the hearts and minds of the citizenry that women are ever in any way weaker than men or in need of protection and provision from them. Something that has existed since time immemorial cannot solely be wiped out overnight. It requires a constant reconditioning of the mind as well as governmental action and mainstream media propaganda to sustain the myths and the lies. In an 1860 Georgia decision, a justice declared that female honor was “…worth much more than everything, even life itself. All other contracts may be rescinded, and the parties restored to their former conditions; marriage cannot be undone.”[34] Now marriages are consistently undone in a way that Chancellor James Kent had once described as “shameful”[35] and the modern “empowered” woman, in order to maintain her emancipation from the male sex must now submit to being used by him via casual sexual intercourse, must submit herself to abortion, combat duty and civic obligations, and the wife and the mother of young children must submit herself to the workforce in order to maintain the dogma of gender equality- a dogma that has no basis in nature, reason nor common sense- in order to continue to be “empowered.”

In the House of Representatives of the United States Congress debate on the Equal Pay Act of 1963 on May 23, 1963, Representative Colmer stated

I doubt seriously, Mr. Speaker, if this bill is constitutional. I do not like the idea of pointing out women here as if they are an inferior group and that the Federal government with its strong arm must step in and try to protect them. I think they can stand on their own. They have been doing that for many, many generations.

Mr. Speaker, there are many instances where women are entitled to more pay than the opposite sex and why should we just put them on an equal basis? This strikes at the merit system…[36]

So, it was obviously doubtful even to representatives what the constitutionality of equal pay even was. An Equal Rights Amendment to the Federal Constitution might have made it constitutional (though the reach of such an amendment would probably have still been limited). Throughout the 1970s and even beyond, the Equal Rights Amendment was constantly pushed upon the states and lobbied for, though thanks to grassroots organization it never made it into the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, that did not stop the United States Supreme Court from going wild, declaring that any law whatsoever that would recognize a difference between males and females was somehow unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Only thanks to Right-leaning appointees to the Burger and Rehnquist Courts is it that all such legislation has not been deemed unconstitutional,[37] even if eradicated nonetheless by subsequent legislation. Old ways do not die easily. Even before that time it appears that women were only included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964- which initially only banned discrimination on the basis of race, not sex- because the bill, if passed into law, would unduly penalize and discriminate against white women. From the Congressional debates of 1964:

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama…I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith]. Unless this amendment is adopted, the white women of this country would be drastically discriminated against in favor of a Negro woman.

If a white woman and a Negro woman applied for the same job, and each woman had the identical qualifications, the chances are about 99 to 1 that the Negro woman would be given the job because if the employer did not give the job to the Negro woman he could be prosecuted under this bill. Failure to employ the white woman would not subject the employer to such action…

Mr. Rivers of South Carolina. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] making it possible for the white Christian woman to receive the same consideration for employment as the colored woman. It is incredible to me that the authors of this monstrosity- whomever they are- would deprive the white woman of mostly Anglo-Saxon or Christian heritage equal opportunity before the employer. I know this Congress will not be a party to such an evil.

Mr. Smith of Virginia…I put a question to you in behalf of the white women of the Untied States. Let us assume that two women apply for the same job and both of them are equally eligible, one a white woman and one a Negro woman. The first thing that employer will look at will be the provision with regard to the records he must keep. If he does not employ that colored woman and has to make that record, that employer will say, “Well, now, if I hire the colored woman I will not be in any trouble, but if I do not hire the colored woman and hire the white woman, then the Commission is going to be looking down my throat and will want to know why I did not. I may be in a lawsuit…”[38]

So, more legislation must be passed (or amended) to counter the ill effects of the first legislation, almost like successive medication for a terminal illness. The coercive and irrational nature of this cannot be understated. The feminist/egalitarian goal has been that Federal legislation and the courts must enforce that there are no fundamental differences between the sexes in any area of life that should be lawfully taken account of. Established commissions, agencies, coercive Federal legislation must be implemented to enforce “equality” so that all citizens fall in line: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act; Supreme Court cases; Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979), Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co., 446 U.S. 142 (1980), Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975), Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973). It would be wrong to think that men should not be provided for by their wives as a denial of “equality” or that they do not need benefits the same as women; There can be no discrimination against pregnant women Cleveland Board of Education v. Lafleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974), Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U.S. 136 (1977); Unlike in Muller, a woman’s childbearing capacity cannot be taken into account Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991); The courts must get involved in making sure men and women are considered equally in employment cases Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987), Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984), sexual harassment, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998)… The husband cannot be the “head of household” or “provider” Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669 (1983), Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971); Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7 (1975), Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981); Companies cannot refuse to hire mothers with young children if they would hire fathers with young children Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971); Women must be subject to the same civic obligations as men- family life or marital status notwithstanding- J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994), Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975); The courts and legislatures must go further and expand “equal protection,” as now marriage itself cannot even be defined by sex, so that no state can ever regard marriage as a privileged institution between one man and one woman, because gender cannot exist even at this most basic level United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S._ (2013), Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S._ (2015). Marriage itself must be knocked down from its once honorable pedestal and degraded.

Notice a trend? Almost all of these cases (all are either United States Supreme Court cases or Congressional legislation) occur primarily at the time of the heydays of the feminist movement. They are not based in reason, but the ever-changing whims and passions of society. It’s all about tearing down supposed “stereotypes-” stereotypes that our ancestors knew to be based in common-sense, reason, and justice. Moreover, some of the legislation and court cases appear to transfer the burden for providing onto the state or the private/public employer, as it is now unconstitutional to impose it solely upon the husband and father[39] (except the rare case, such as Orr v. Orr, because it allows the burden of spousal support to fall upon the wife[40], thereby being gender-neutral and, according to the whims of six men in robes, constitutional).

It would be absurdly unreasonable to continue to list every court case or piece of legislation out there, but the motive is clear: There is nothing special or unique about having been born either being male or female. At every level of life, all special distinctions or privileges that one might acquire based upon sex must be annihilated. Whether in day-to-day interactions, marriage, employment, military combat, sex or child-rearing…we must deny that gender exists. Such a thing has been carried so far that parents today have begun to allow their minor children (whom are yet unable to contract, marry, hold full-time employment or even lead independent lives and make any other important decisions for themselves) to choose which sex they wish to belong to, it’s being pushed recently that it’s discriminatory to have separate public restrooms for males and females (women take longer, therefore they are discriminated against or transgender individuals might not know which restroom to use), and women are no longer “women” but “non-men” or some other gender-neutral designation. Sex and gender must be obliterated by any arbitrary measures- whether Federal legislation, appellate court decisions, public policy or science and technology. Passion and love must be gone, our unique sense of humanness- of maleness or of femaleness- must be denied. Women are no longer precious (and men better not see them that way), sex and procreation are casual things, marriage is an obsolete, optional, gender-neutral institution and children belong in the custody of whoever is available and capable of taking them. And if anyone dares acknowledge that gender exists, the whole power of local, state, and federal- perhaps even international- law will put such thinking back where it belongs- in a history museum. Everyone must fall in line with the social engineering of the past several decades and nobody is to question it.


[34] Asken v. Dupree, 30 Ga. 173, 190 (1860), quoted in Grossberg, Governing the Hearth, Law and the Family in Nineteenth Century America, p. 82.

[35] Kent had exclaimed in his Commentaries on American Law, Vol II, p. 101 that “…the graver Romans permitted the liberty of divorce to a most injurious and shameful degree,” indicating his personal feelings on the matter that such liberal custom for divorce was “shameful.”

[36] Quoted in Fisher & Harriger, American Constitutional Law, Volume 2Tenth EditionCivil Rights and Civil Liberties, p. 854.

[37] See also cases Rostker v. Goldberg 453 U.S. 57 (1981); Michael H. v. Gerald D 491 U.S. 110 (1989); Michael M. v. Sonoma County Superior Court, supra, note 30.; Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998).

[38] Quoted in Fisher & Harriger, American Constitutional Law, Volume 2, Tenth Edition, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, pp. 855-56. The amendment (by Congressman Howard Smith of Virginia whom they are speaking of) to prohibit sex discrimination on top of race was apparently introduced to keep the bill from passing.

[39] Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the First, p.477, states: “And the president Montesquieu has a very just observation upon this head: that the establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children; for that ascertains and makes known the person who is bound to fulfil this obligation: whereas, in promiscuous and illicit conjunctions, the father is unknown; and the mother finds a thousand obstacles in her way;- shame, remorse, the constraint of her sex, and the rigor of laws;- that stifle her inclinations to perform this duty: and besides, she generally wants ability.”

The obvious goal of the feminist movement was to remove all of the “obstacles in her way” and the “shame, remorse” and “constraints of her sex, and the rigor of the laws,” and to remove the natural obligation arising from marriage that imposes upon the husband the obligation for provide for his wife, both enabling and forcing financial and legal independence upon the female sex, whether either sex truly wants such a thing or not. But who benefits from this new arrangement? Who loses?

[40] The Romans thought this to be unnatural and, furthermore, improper. See Frier & McGinn, A Casebook on Roman Family Law, p. 146. “Can a Wife Give Her Husband an Allowance? This is held to be an improper gift and, furthermore, ‘inconsistent with and contrary to the nature of her sex’ (Ulpian, D.”