The Rule of Law

Did you vote for the president as a result of the political “issues” of the day? Did you vote for him because you are “pro-life” or pro-Second Amendment? But did you know that the president doesn’t actually control these issues? Nearly every president in history has campaigned on a promise of “hope” or “change”- but did they deliver? Do you hate a president you once endorsed because he didn’t deliver on his promises? But perhaps he never delivered on those promises, not because of some flaw or malicious intent, but rather simply because he can’t.

By far and large, apart from all of the other branches of government, the Congress was designed to be the most powerful branch of the Federal Government, holding the ability to even strip the other branches of government of their power. Congress may limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts (including the Supreme Court) for whatever reason it chooses, or if Congress simply feels the Court(s) has/have gotten out of hand and run amok too far into the arena of judicial activism, control and limit the number of justices that are to sit on the Supreme Court, abolish all of the inferior Federal courts beneath the Supreme Court and pass legislation to ordain and establish an entirely new system of Federal courts as well as outline their jurisdictional boundaries. Congress may yank the purse strings on a rogue president thereby denying him the funds he needs to carry out any operations, completely ignore him if he gets too belligerent, override any of his attempts to veto legislation that is passed and require him to cease any military operations or otherwise give a full account of his actions to Congress. Congress may also impeach, convict and remove from office any Federal judge (including Supreme Court Justices), as well as the President and Vice-President, declare war on any foreign nation, coin and print money, raise and support an army- and more.

America, in a way not seen since the days of the Civil War, however, is split in two based upon party lines, with the president being placed front and center in the eyes of the people and voted into office largely on account of the issues they believe that he can change, while Congress is barely even mentioned in any scenario- despite wielding all the power behind the scenes. The jurisdiction of a rogue Federal court can be stripped and a rogue president can be put in his place. A united- and determined- Congress, on the other hand, would be virtually unstoppable. But does the average citizen truly know how important and powerful the United States Congress truly is? Do they know, in the words of Woodrow Wilson himself, that the “Senate always has the last word?”

I am an independent, sitting somewhere on the fence of the political spectrum, but I do not vote. I do not vote for several reasons, the forefront of all of them being that I simply do not believe in the vote for women[i], because I believe that men should be taking care of women and also because I believe that it should be the purview of men alone to both have the civic rights and obligations in the arena of war and politics. With this said, I do not mention the president in this posting as a way of throwing dirt on him in an attempt to discredit him in some way on account of hating him[ii] for issues he ultimately does not have the final say over. I also realize that no amount of civics education is going to ever change the fact that democracies do not work in the long term and that the average, ordinary citizen in any country will simply never acquire the understanding of politics or deep, intellectual reasoning ability to be able to see the real issues at play behind the smokescreen. I mention the president in all of this as a way to make a point. This nation, as previously mentioned, is divided in half based largely upon political party lines and hot-button issues such as abortion, immigration, and gun rights. This is not new. Though everyone always likes to believe that new and novel ways are being devised to deprive citizens of their rights and tear down the system of government, nothing either new or novel is in actuality taking place that has not happened before throughout our history.

This nation and the rule of law has been in peril many times throughout United States history- yet the nation nonetheless survived on through it all. The reason for this is that the system of government created by the drafters of the United States Constitution- that all famed “assembly of demigods”– works. This nation has pulled through various wars, rogue citizens’ militias intent on overthrowing the established government, violent warfare between citizens and a nation so split in two that half of the states ignored the established government to completely secede from it entirely, thereby refusing to acknowledge the superiority of the Federal government to preempt State action. Consider the words, below, of Abraham Lincoln in his special address to the United States Congress on July 4, 1861. On the outset, history must be given here that the rule of law was not being followed by the nation’s citizens, the Southern and border states were rebelling, and Lincoln’s address came in part because Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Roger B. Taney had sent a letter to Lincoln declaring his order to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to be Unconstitutional, as only Congress had the power to suspend the writ[iii]:

…And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic, or democracy–a government of the people by the same people–can or can not maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration according to organic law in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask, Is there in all republics this inherent and fatal weakness? Must a government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence…? So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation… This would be disunion completed…It recognizes no fidelity to the Constitution, no obligation to maintain the Union; and while very many who have favored it are doubtless loyal citizens, it is, nevertheless, very injurious in effect… This authority [suspending habeas corpus] has purposely been exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done under it are questioned, and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who is sworn to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” should not himself violate them… The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution in nearly one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen’s liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very limited extent be violated? To state the question more directly, Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it? It was decided that we have a case of rebellion and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power; but the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it can not be believed the framers of the instrument intended that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion…Whether there shall be any legislation upon the subject, and, if any, what, is submitted entirely to the better judgment of Congress… The forbearance of this Government had been so extraordinary and so long continued as to lead some foreign nations to shape their action as if they supposed the early destruction of our National Union was probable. While this on discovery gave the Executive some concern, he is now happy to say that the sovereignty and rights of the United States are now everywhere practically respected by foreign powers, and a general sympathy with the country is manifested throughout the world… In a word, the people will save their Government if the Government itself will do its part only indifferently well… It might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the present movement at the South be called “secession” or “rebellion.” The movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation of law. They knew their people possessed as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order, and as much pride in and reverence for the history and Government of their common country as any other civilized and patriotic people. They knew they could make no advancement directly in the teeth of these strong and noble sentiments. Accordingly, they commenced by an insidious debauching of the public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism, which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps through all the incidents to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is that any State of the Union may consistently with the National Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the Union without the consent of the Union or of any other State. The little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice… This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertaining to a State–to each State of our Federal Union. Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union… Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of “State rights,” asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the “sovereignty” of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a “sovereignty” in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it “a political community without a political superior”? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty; and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to be for her the supreme law of the land. The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. By conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independence and liberty it has… This relative matter of national power and State rights, as a principle, is no other than the principle of generality and locality. Whatever concerns the whole should be confided to the whole–to the General Government–while whatever concerns only the State should be left exclusively to the State. This is all there is of original principle about it. Whether the National Constitution in defining boundaries between the two has applied the principle with exact accuracy is not to be questioned. We are all bound by that defining without question… As a private citizen the Executive could not have consented that these institutions shall perish; much less could he in betrayal of so vast and so sacred a trust as these free people had confided to him. He felt that he had no moral right to shrink, nor even to count the chances of his own life in what might follow. In full view of his great responsibility he has so far done what he has deemed his duty. You will now, according to your own judgment, perform yours. He sincerely hopes that your views and your action may so accord with his as to assure all faithful citizens who have been disturbed in their rights of a certain and speedy restoration to them under the Constitution and the laws… …And having thus chosen our course, without guile and with pure purpose, let us renew our trust in God and go forward without fear and with manly hearts. ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

Lincoln had acknowledged in his address that he had “been called upon to “‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ and not himself violate the laws.”[iv] The president is not a lawmaker; his job is rather, as the very name of the branch he heads implies, to enforce the law[v]. Notice also that Lincoln in the above scenario did not reply to Taney directly but rather called Congress into a special session to address Congress personally to explain his actions and properly seek Congressional approval (as soon as was safely possible to do so). While the Supreme Court may hand down decisions, it ultimately has little power to enforce them.

Right now something akin to what is stated above can be seen in society- the rebellion of the states, the Supreme Court refusing to reopen cases regarding issues recently decided upon. Now the Supreme Court may refuse to pick up a case for a number of reasons (it does not have to say but rather can dismiss petitions for certiorari or appeal without comment), but sometimes the Court will refuse to hear a case solely because it does not wish to create new precedent during a sensitive time where the nation is either at war (and civil liberties will naturally be restricted beyond normal boundaries) or because the nation is undergoing a form of political upheaval where the Court’s decisions are either being ignored or the rule of law is not being followed. Despite the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, the States are nonetheless passing legislation in defiance of Supreme Court case law and they are largely doing so under the pretense that the current president will simply not enforce the laws that he or his political party doesn’t like. In other words, the States (most all of which are curiously Southern) are passing legislation because they believe they have a president who is “on their side” in a rebellion of sorts against the established order.

Lincoln’s aim was to preserve the Union and the rule of law. Though many in the Union were debating simply allowing the Confederate States to secede peacefully, history teaches that the Confederate force’s attacks on Fort Sumter started the war, and Lincoln, whose entire presidency was overshadowed by war, took the actions necessary to faithfully enforce the nation’s laws, preserve the spirit of law and values embedded in the Constitution and preserve the Union along with it. Although he ended up being the final casualty in the bloodiest war to be fought on American soil, the Union was nonetheless saved, the Rebel States and their citizens welcomed back to the Union, given a permanent place in the nation’s history, and the country moved on. The Constitution was amended to protect civil liberties. The checks and balances implemented by the Framers from the beginning worked, and the rule of law prevailed.[vi]

But what happens if the system stops working? The Supreme Court may hand down decisions, but it cannot enforce them. The law is the law (although it most certainly is not always just and there are many laws that should, in fact, be struck down and new legislation crafted to overrule those laws), but what if the President refuses to enforce it or follow it? Congress may stop him, compel him through various means or pass legislation to address any grievance or serious issue that society faces, but what if Congress, split in two on account of the country’s division, is too weak to act? If Congress cannot act, the Executive must make quick and decisive action to save the Union and rule of law- but what if he won’t? What if he- and a majority of his party- believe he himself is the law?

I will make a summary here, and that summary is that there are too many people making decisions. America was created as a Republic. It was left to the individual states to decide how the electors of the Electoral College should be chosen. It was left to Congress to make the laws, an independent judiciary, set apart from popular opinion, to wisely interpret their legality and a single unitary executive– at least partially at the command of Congress- to enforce them. But what if the president doesn’t believe in an independent judiciary[vii] and political upheaval, civilian rioting and ultimately war cause the civil courts in their entirety to vacate and cease to function? The question is, what happens then? Nothing lasts forever. The very fact that the United States Constitution has held intact for over two centuries is a world record, but what would succeed it? Democracies always commit suicide in the end, because it is a fact of life that majority rule cannot for long uphold the rule of law nor can the majority of the citizens of any given population truly sit in reasoned judgement on the issues and reason rationally about them. As I have always said, there’s a reason why the number of citizens in any given population will always far outnumber the amount of wise judges-who will always be few in number.


[i] I have a tag titled “the vote” on this site, to be found here where I talk about the vote for women in numerous postings, in all of which I have rejected the idea of female suffrage on grounds explicitly stated. In particular my former posting Thoughts on Coverture, Suffrage, Chivalry, Patriarchy and the Natural Order says it all the best. More than anything, it is my belief that the involvement of women in politics and women’s “advancement” is part of the problem of this country’s division. I also should note that Republican women are by far the most feminist in my opinion, only sparring with feminists on the other side of the political spectrum as regards abortion politics yet hardly anywhere else. Far from making things better for women, the only thing that I have yet to see is women engaging in war against other women while men simply become passive bystanders, emasculated with victim complexes and a fear, hatred and distrust of women in general. I propose that the relations between the sexes in the modern era are part of the problem as to why the rule of law is ultimately breaking down and why the checks and balances in the American system of government are something that society can no longer take for granted.

[ii] I’ve talked about Trump before and how I am not a fan, but I simply understand too much about the inner workings of the law and political system to bother to get into any kind of “hot debate” over the president- no matter who holds office.

[iii] This issue is explored in depth more fully by two books by the former late Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court William H. Rehnquist: See generally, William H. Rehnquist, All The Laws But One, Civil Liberties in Wartime (Vintage, 1998); William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court (Vintage, 2001).

[iv] Quoted from The Supreme Court, supra, p. 67.

[v] See Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952). This case also demonstrates the remarkable way the rule of law still works when Truman complied with the mandates of the Supreme Court. This and other instances in United States history showcase the brilliance of the “checks and balances” built into the system of government and its remarkable ability to withstand the test of time. See also The President and the Snowflakes

[vi] There was rebellion and Congress used its remarkable powers to coerce the rebel states to fall in line with its mandates, from denying representation to the states who refused to comply, to using its Enforcement Powers!/amendments/14/essays/175/enforcement-clause to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1866 against the South. The fact that the Reconstruction Amendments were largely passed despite Southern resistance (and even resistance from president Andrew Johnson himself) also shows the inherent powers of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government whenever it is determined and united on an issue. ;

[vii] See Preserving the Courts for discussion about current president Donald Trump and former presidents who have defied the Supreme Court on the preservation of an independent judiciary.

Traditional Living for Traditional Gals: Finances

This is the second posting in the collaboration series with That Stepford Gal about traditional/domestic living advice. Part One Traditional Living Advice for Traditional Gals: Common Questions, Answers, and Myths here. That Stepford Gal’s contribution to Part II: Dare to be Domestic: Traditional Living & Financial Management here.

Part II: Finances

1. Live where you can afford to live. For us this meant, at first, living by relatives and fixing up an old house to where we didn’t have to be out the expenses of paying rent when we were first married, had no property of our own, and were just trying to start out in life. If you have to live with your relatives temporarily, there’s no shame in that. Everyone has to start out somewhere and so long as you’ve made your stable relationship and are still being responsible then there’s no harm done. Also nice was that my husband got the opportunity to use traditional masculine skills in the way of building cabinets and a front porch, etc… as the home we got wasn’t all that wonderous. Start out small and work your way up. Over time if you stay together in a stable marriage and relationship, you will acquire more resources.

2. Two incomes don’t truly help you. My heart was broken beyond repair last year and, as many know, my husband just “dropped the ball” so to speak and I went out and temporarily took on paid employment. He just simply let me go and stopped being there for me or being my husband. It had absolutely no positive effect on our finances. We spent a considerable amount of money because nobody was home. We had no relationship as we were no longer as one, working as a team, but rather two independent individuals doing their own thing. Also, work schedules had to be worked around whenever my husband went in for an outpatient surgery and needed someone to drive him, when our child was out of school or otherwise sick, etc. Also, despite all the myths and rumors floating around out there, being a two-income household doesn’t help you on taxes (if you’re American). My taking on paid employment- even if only for a few weeks- nearly took our entire state check from us, unlike in previous years where we received a lot of money back when there was only one reported income. Our tax return on the state level was almost completely garnished as a result of us being a dual income household the previous year, even if it was only a temporary thing, and there was absolutely no benefit or increase in money received on the federal level whatsoever. My husband’s exact words: “It’s all because I messed up and let you go out and work.” Lesson learned.

3. Making everything from scratch isn’t always cheaper. I know a lot of homemakers out there are big on doing everything from scratch and on the extreme level some even go “off the grid” in an attempt to live an entirely old-fashioned lifestyle. There’s nothing wrong with this, of course, but sometimes you’ll find that frozen prepared meals actually save you money on groceries, especially if you are a small family where everyone is a bit picky or doesn’t always like to eat at the same time (no shame in that). Of course, for families with a lot of children, sometimes scheduled family meals and cooking from scratch where you can buy in bulk helps. But in my experience, being a smaller family, it doesn’t always pay to cook from scratch, nor is it necessarily always healthier.

4. You can work out at home and avoid the expense of paying for a gym membership. Girls, to stay in shape, get you some measuring cups/spoons, a 50-cent notebook and a 25-cent ball-point pen and write down and measure those calories!! Also, you can exercise from home by buying an inexpensive piece of cardio equipment such as an elliptical, treadmill or stationary bike. If you live in an area where you can, go outside for a walk or run everyday or learn some form of aerobic dance or something where you can work out in the privacy of your own living room. But remember that no amount of exercise will compensate for the amount of food you shove down your throat!

5. You don’t have to eat out at fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations to have fun or spend time together. We’ve never had a vacation and it’s true that I’d like to take one someday, but when we do it will be at some point in the future when we have saved and prepared for it, and it will more than likely only be the two of us, as in a romantic type of thing without children (I know I didn’t like family vacations when I was growing up even though my mother was always dragging us along on one). Also, I find more enjoyment out of just packing up a small lunch on a sunny day and finding a nice place to sit under a shade tree by the lake or somewhere similar. There’s no need to spend huge amounts of money to attempt to entertain yourself or keep up with anyone else’s lifestyle.

6. Life is about more than just money or having “things.” Let me put it this way, imagine that you’re in the arms of your husband, your lover. You’re content and happy, perhaps even just having made love to each other. Time moves about outside, but you don’t care. You may not have as much money or as big of a house as the family down the street. But you don’t care. When you’re in love and content you don’t care what others think. Security, stability, peace and a deep contentment in your heart and the feeling of femininity deep in your core of loving and depending on a strong man. Being cherished, loved, taken care of! Isn’t life about finding love, contentment and peace? In the Western world, one income is enough to have your basic needs met plus oftentimes a little extra, plus a man has a reason to work, build and achieve whenever he has the love of a woman that’s all his, meaning you’ll even have more things to be able to enjoy life together even more as time goes on.

7. Plan ahead. As a young woman, start thinking about your future now. If you want marriage, or a family, or to find a good man, make that your number one priority. If you plan to build a life together and start out young, you’ll be ready and prepared to live off of one income because you have planned for it, in contrast to most in modern life who plan things the opposite (college, loads of debt, career, maybe a few kids later down the road and a heck of a lot of confusion over who is supposed to do what and what to do about the impossible debt hanging over your head!). Build your life up from scratch with a man when you’re young and reap the benefits of it later down the road. Let your femininity and intuition guide you and don’t let others steer you away from what you feel and believe in your heart- not even your own relatives. A woman’s real power is in her femininity. Trust and believe this with all you heart.

There are also some good tips from That Stepford Gal that I’d like to highlight as well. That Stepford Gal being as yet unmarried without children, I feel she has a very unique viewpoint, being a single gal still under the protection and support of her father. Some Tips from That Stepford Gal (in no particular order):

I. Live at Home: Living At Home – I just don’t get Australia and its odd social expectations sometimes, maybe this is just me being an immigrant again, though I just don’t understand the push for young adults to live on their own as soon as possible. If you don’t like your family and you actually like being alone or with friends, sure. If you need to move for work or study, sure. Do what you like. However aside from that, moving out and paying your own bills and rent is just money down the drain for making a ‘good social image’ of ‘independence’. Living with your family means you can serve your family and at the same time save more money for your future. You can learn ‘independence’ and being responsible by involving yourself, like I’ve said before, in the money management of your household and take on some roles for your parents/family.

II. You Don’t Have Deprive Yourself to be Frugal: Being frugal and living simply doesn’t mean literally having nothing and buying nothing. It doesn’t mean counting every dollar, not all the time (just some). I live in Australia and most of the ‘lower income’ people I see have the latest iPhone and can still eat out a lot! Having lived with a single parent since my teenage years, I’ve learned plenty about being money-smart. It doesn’t mean scrounging on everything. I have an updated phone and laptop actually, so does my sibling. It’s scrounging on everything else that you really don’t want. The key is: spend only on what you truly want and learn how to use saving systems.

III. Take Advantage of Prolonged Interest Items: [I know most people look down on buying anything on credit, but if done smartly and wisely and you don’t go overboard, I agree with That Stepford Gal that it can be a vital asset to a well-managed budget] If you want to buy good gadgets, it’s actually not that hard to afford them in Australia, I find. Phone plans are actually affordable, even for the latest phones. Don’t get the latest gadget every year, seriously, though every couple to three years, you can upgrade your gear and still keep to your budget through plans and prolonged interest. What is prolonged interest? It is when an item has 20+ months interest free on credit card. Don’t be an idiot and pay the minimum, divide the price by the amount of months minus one, so you will have an allowance of finishing your payments a month early (in case anything happens) and PAY it. Seriously, set a reminder on your phone or calendar and pay things off properly per month, Not only does this do wonders for your budget, it increases your credit rating and the maximum credit it can have. More credit, more shopping? No! This is just so you can get other gadgets on prolonged interest (once your current purchase is finished and you want to upgrade) or if you ever need a loan for an emergency.

Traditional Living Advice for Traditional Gals: Common Questions, Answers and Myths

This is part of a series of posts about being domestic and living traditionally for all interested ladies (or curious gentlemen) out there. Companion Q& A piece from That Stepford Gal to this article here. 

Q: Domestic women are stagnant and dependent just being at home. Don’t you want to use your talents in a career?

There’s nothing wrong with a female being dependent upon and serving her family. So what if it’s not normal to society? What is normal to society? Being obese, watching hours of television every day, being stressed, being in debt and having poor-quality or nonexistent romantic relationships with the opposite sex? A woman depending on her man breeds a closer, deeper relationship and makes families stable. Why would a man work at all or fight at all out there in the world if not for a woman or family that he loves? It gives a man purpose and meaning in life and makes women less stressed and more feminine. A career is not the only way to use one’s talents. It is only seen as the only way because of the emphasis put on women having careers in the post-feminist society.

Q: Domestic women are lazy and don’t want to work. Why do you just want to be at home and do nothing?

Most people are lazy. Period. Most housewives I know are not lazy, unless they are really career women on temporary leave, or as fellow traditionalist blogger That Stepford Gal likes to call it, “a three-year nanny for hire.” True traditional women love to be feminine and keep a good home. Anyone can come home and toss the laundry in the wash and throw a microwave dinner in the oven and throw some dishes in the dishwasher with food still caked all over them, but truly making a home and doing it right is exhausting, time-consuming and draining work- even with all the modern technology a housewife has in the 21st century. Have you seen most people’s houses where both partners/spouses work? Case closed. Unless they hire someone to clean it, you probably wouldn’t even want to eat there. But traditional women make homemaking an art to cherish and do with delight.

Q: Domestic women cannot afford to be at home. What about getting a house and saving? You’ll have nothing.

Most people are in debt. When you destroy marriage you also destroy property and inheritance as well. The idea that women can’t “afford” to be home has no basis in reality. You make do with what you have and over time you gain more assets. Husband and wife are a team. Attacks on marriage are also attacks on property as property cannot be passed down through the generations so that one’s children and grandchildren can have something to start out with to build a life on their own. But anyone can live on one income. Historically, women with husbands who earned the most money went out to work while poor women stayed home. It’s still the same today. What I’ve found as I’ve gotten a bit older is that the majority of commonly quoted mainstream beliefs are untrue and unfounded, if not plain-out false, and I’ve found this to be the same with the idea that women can’t afford to be housewives. The only women who can’t afford to be housewives are either women who’ve made extremely poor choices in life or women who simply don’t want to be housewives.

Related Postings:

The Sanctity of Marriage

As is always the way with me, I’m a thinker, a doer. Lately it has been on my mind to write a few things. Many aspects in life and including the comments I’ve received here have led me to think about these things. First off, I just want to say that it shouldn’t matter what anyone else thinks about the way you choose to live your life whenever you choose to live in a traditional way. I don’t have anyone I’m trying to please and the opinions even of my own relatives are unimportant to me. What they think about my lifestyle doesn’t matter.

Recently I had to send a formal letter to my own mother telling her that I wished no further contact with neither her nor any of my relatives. They were interfering in my life and it concerned me. It was getting completely out of hand. They would rather see my marriage ruined, they would rather see me finish college and live the life they want for me to be living[i].

But the thing is that none of that matters to me. And I’m writing and saying all of this because I know just how many young women out there are facing the same pressures from relatives[ii]. But like I told my own mother, I love her- I really do- I’ve always longed for a good relationship with her but I know that it’s just never going to happen. Ultimately, they are not what is of importance. They want me to live in a certain way but they won’t be the ones who ultimately pay the price for the life they believe I should be living- I will be.

Traditionally the law threw a cloak over marriage[iii][iv]. Even in religious beliefs, it is well established that a man and women leave the sphere of their relatives and join together. From then on out they are one and all others take second stage (or in some cases, such as is often the case with friends and acquaintances, cease to matter altogether). Only in matriarchal or tribal societies does marriage not take on such importance[v]. In these kinds of societies, even the raising of children becomes some community matter and there are no permanent and stable romantic relationships between men and women.

The existence and establishment of “gender equality” and “gay marriage” have lessened the importance and sacredness of marriage by obliterating separate rights and responsibilities between the sexes and stripping the true meaning from sex- but even here many jurisdictions still cloak marriage in various ways (such as exclusive rights to offspring within the marriage and immunity regarding testifying in criminal/civil cases). Where the last of these privileges fall by the wayside, it means that society no longer sees marriage as something worth preserving nor protecting.

This showcases what marriage traditionally meant to our society. Traditionally, the husband was head of the household. His wife and his children were his[vi]. The marriage was sacred and outsiders had no right to come in and interfere with the relationship of a man and his wife, or of parents and their legitimate offspring unless compelling circumstances necessitated the law’s interference. When you take away the foundations of the institution of marriage you also strip away all these protections.

Also keep in mind here that it doesn’t matter what the “majority” are supposedly thinking. Your average, ordinary citizen is largely ignorant of the law[vii] and the world around him (or her). Despite all our fancy technological gadgets, human beings are not any more or less ignorant than what we were thousands of years ago. Human nature doesn’t change and likewise humans tend to let emotion overwhelm them and get into a mob mentality where all common sense flies out the window. But that’s why your average, ordinary citizen doesn’t have the power to make laws or policies[viii].

It doesn’t matter what others say or do. Your best protection is to educate yourself (this can be done outside of formal settings) and marry a good man while you’re young. From there on out- no matter what the society might say right now as the society is not always right- your husband should be your everything. A young woman should start out by looking to her husband for everything. He should be your protection, your provision and your guidance that you look to. You will also hold great influence over him as well as many a man have accomplished great things when they had the guidance and support of a good and faithful woman by their side.

Relatives, in-laws, friends can all be nasty and vicious and tear apart marriages if they are allowed to. That’s why the marital relationship must be first in importance and why we need to get to the point in society once again where the husband is the head of house and responsible for his family and, absent compelling circumstances, rights are only established and defined within the state of marriage. In our world today, marriage is regarded as a mere piece of paper that is optional whenever men and women procreate with each other- but this has got to change.

The marriage protects your privacy, the marriage protects your well-being. Also realize your influence as a woman. I never felt that my mother or relatives had my best interests at heart, which is why I always rejected the things they wanted for me and I always left their side and their influence to bond with my husband. I knew that my protection was only going to be found in him. I knew that no one else could ever protect, love or understand me the same. Others will invade on your home, attempt to run your life and invade your personal sphere and privacy if they are allowed to. Marriage should block this from happening and traditionally it always did by clearing establishing rights and responsibilities that could not be obtained anywhere else[ix].

Under coverture, for instance, husband and wife were considered as one[x]. A wife could represent her husband or conduct business in his absence even if need be, as they were one. A man could take his wife, wherever he found her, and take her with him wherever he went, as he had a right to keep her by his side and nobody had a right to keep him from her (unless she had obtained a legal separation from him). This protected her, and this protected the husband as well. A wife had a right to the support and protection of her husband, as he was responsible for her[xi]. He had the obligation to support her, and this ensured her security when she left her family and had children. The idea is to leave one’s relatives and cling to one another, forsaking all others[xii]. Even where your children are concerned, teach them the sanctity of marriage as one day they will leave the home to form their own families.

When the law upholds traditional marriage, the door can be slammed in the face of outsiders and all others as what goes on inside the home is sacred, because the marital relationship is sacred. I know that my husband knows me better than anyone else, and being there under his wing keeps others from harming and harassing me. My privacy is assured, my security is assured. This is important.


[i] This is what life looks like when following the feminist plan, check out my earlier article where I discussed my thoughts regarding this:

[ii] One recent comment (though there have been many just the same) on one of my recent postings showcases the pressures many women get, being forced into feminist lifestyles which they do not want on account of pressure from relatives

[iii] For another example of the law legally cloaking marriage and protecting children and families, see The United States Supreme Court case of Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989)

[iv] There are numerous ways in which the law has done this, from spousal immunity to testifying in criminal trials, to disallowing paternity suits to children born within marriage, to protection in cases of disability and death, etc… Some states, such as California and New York, for instance, no longer regard marriage as a sacred institution, instead declaring that a child may even have as many as three legal parents in California, an unmarried father having the right to claim rights to a child being raise by a woman and her lawful husband, and New York, for instance, recognizes no protections regarding privileged communications even regarding those occurring within legal marriage before the marriage has broken down.

[v] The Mosuo, from China, for instance, are probably the last modern example of this kind of matriarchal family structure: The Late Daniel Amneus also portrayed the matriarchal way in his infamous book “The Garbage Generation: On the Need for Patriarchy” which showcases that many historical societies had no concept of even the word “father” as is the custom in patriarchal societies.

[vi] See my previous article for more info on a father’s authority under coverture

[vii] Look at this poll, for instance, as reported in an article on CNN which states that more than 1/3 of individuals surveyed couldn’t name a single right protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, only ¼ could name all three branches of government, and 1/3 couldn’t name any branch of government.

[viii] The framers of the Constitution intentionally feared a direct democracy, as well as too strong of a central government (even though they realized a stronger centralized government was necessary as the Articles of Confederation were weak and thus had to be repealed, and ultimately replaced, with the new Constitution that called for a Republic form of government where people elect representatives but do not directly make the laws and policies), and feared putting important matters in the hands of the common people

[ix] The old protections of marriage are numerous and plentiful. Check out some of my earlier articles on illegitimacy, for instance, for more references to ways in which this is so:

[x] See, for instance, William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England ; As American law is derivative of the common law of England, which was adopted by the colonists and still, to this day, remain our laws unless otherwise changed.

[xi] Consider the old English common-law “Doctrine of Necessaries”

[xii] Though still treading the bounds of political correctness, consider this article which cites Biblical references about forsaking all others within marriage: Protecting Marriage from Outside Intruders:

The Wake-Up Call

Sometimes in my spare time I like to watch old classic and vintage movies and TV shows. A while back I was watching a show called The Real McCoys. In one of the episodes, Grandpa and all of the guys were sitting around talking and one of the men starts chiming in about how he “runs his house” while all the men praise him as some sort of hero for it and it seems, at least on the outside, that what he’s saying might be true as it appears that his wife is doing what he’s telling her to do. Then one evening, however, the men are sitting around at his house (the guy who was doing all the talking about how he “ran his house” and “ran” his wife) drinking beer and playing cards when his wife comes home and they go in the bedroom and start arguing, with the wife complaining about the men being there and the husband then apologizing to her and everything. Meanwhile, all of the guys have their ears pressed up against the door listening to the whole conversation and hearing the wife berate the husband for having the guys there so late at night in the house. The guys then back off when they hear the couple coming out of the bedroom, look at each other kind of disappointed-like and say they better be getting home. Later on in the episode when they’re all alone, Grandpa tells his grandson, Luke, that all that talk about him “running” his grandmother was a load of hogwash. He then confesses that it was only true half of the time, and the other half of the time she “ran” him. Not only that, but he also confesses to his grandson that “…The truth is, I guess I just kinda miss it.” He says all this to his grandson and tells his grandson that he has a good and sweet wife, and he just didn’t want to see him go and ruin his relationship with her.

The truth of the matter is, a man’s authority is never 100%. A man is only given authority to fulfill his responsibilities to provide for and protect his wife and children or anyone else that is depending on him. A man also must have standing in order to assert authority; meaning, a man must be operating in his rightful role and fulfilling his responsibilities in order to be able to claim any kind of genuine authority over a woman (or anyone else).

To put it another way, consider how the courts consider if a person’s “rights” have been violated. A person must first have some sort of standing to be able to make a claim to some sort of rights or violation of rights. Take the instance of, say, a claim of an “unreasonable search or seizure.” An example would be when law enforcement come and search you or any property you have in your possession or a place where you are staying. An individual would first have to make a showing to the court that they not only had a right to be in the place that they were at, but also that they had a legitimate interest in or right of ownership to the property. If the individual doesn’t own the property, live there and maintain it, isn’t lawfully occupying it (long-term or temporarily), or has simply disposed of the property and shown no further interest in it, then the individual has no standing in regards to the property and thus there has been no violation of rights- because the individual had no right to the property in the first place or was only using or occupying it for unlawful and illegitimate purposes.

A woman is under no obligation to obey her husband if he is in the wrong. Also, sometimes a man may not realize the consequences of his actions and sometimes he falters, as well. In such a case it is up to his wife (or in some cases perhaps even his children) to tell him that he’s in the wrong and that he’s hurting them or depriving them of some legitimate need that they have a right to (a “legitimate need” being any physical need that is his responsibility to provide- food, shelter, clothing- or, in some instances, a true psychological need such as affection or love). As well, sometimes a man simply doesn’t realize that his actions are harming his family, harming his wife, or even that there’s a problem in the first place. In this case, if a woman never stands up for herself then nothing is ever going to change. No matter what men like to say, the truth of the matter is that most women have to make men grow up and take responsibility or else they never really will.

I think there was a true wake-up call for my husband yesterday. I didn’t go out and take on paid employment or anything like that, but I have been doing a lot of work to help my husband with activities and responsibilities that rightfully fall within his domain. Last night, however, the stress of it all was just getting to me too badly and my husband sat there at the table and watched me cry my eyes out. I was stressed, I was hurting, I was deprived of rest, angry towards him, and simply couldn’t take any more. Not only that, I’m a woman and deal with female issues too that were hitting me pretty hard. It was at that point that things changed, especially after a text message that was taken the wrong way. I was telling him how stressed I was and then the next thing I know I had a message come across with him telling me how he was going to come home and pop the cork on a bottle of wine and have a drink.

I began to get belligerently angry at that point and told him he was an idiot (YES I said those exact words), slammed down the phone, dropped everything I had been doing to help him and went right back to what I should have been doing all along- my duties as a wife and as a mother.

When he came home he said that it was taken out of context and that he just intended for us to relax together that evening, but nonetheless, I took it as him saying he was going to come home and start drinking while I sat there doing work that he rightfully should have been doing. I told him, plain and simple, that I had duties to fulfill as a wife and mother and those duties did not include fulfilling his responsibilities while he came home and sat around drinking! Though that was never his intention to do and it only came out wrong, it nonetheless got me thinking that there are a lot of women who deal with this exact same thing (as well as many other issues with their men). And guess what? Things will never change unless a woman makes it clear to a man that his behavior is not acceptable and refuses to go along with it. After I went off on him and refused to touch his responsibilities, guess who stopped watching television and started doing what he should have been doing in the first place?

Inside of marriage or outside, men just simply aren’t going to grow up if women are not making them do so. They aren’t going to marry, they aren’t going to be responsible husbands or fathers or ANYTHING unless women start demanding it of them. And it doesn’t matter one bit what men say. There’s such a thing called “talking shit”- and men- all men- do a lot of it. But in the end, women DO have the power to make men act better and change their ways. A woman does this with her love, a woman does this by being chaste and being a dutiful wife and mother and clearly communicating her needs to a man. Most of all, a woman does this by refusing to participate in activities that harm her, that go against what is right, and by refusing to submit to a man who is not operating within his rightful role or assuming his rightful responsibilities.

Also, a wife and mother has authority over her children as well as certain aspects of the household, which also means she has certain responsibilities therein. If she must do the man’s duties, then she must neglect her own responsibilities or else do both while her health and well-being suffers and the man is given free rein to act immature and irresponsible. I put down what I was doing for him, refused to touch it again as it had been consuming too much of my time and putting unnecessary stress on me and went to do my own duties. Ultimately, most men would probably much prefer it this way anyway, as it means the feminine things are taken care of.

I relaxed this morning. Even though I didn’t get all that much sleep, I still oddly felt like I had rested enough (probably because a lot of the strain was gone) and I laid in bed a bit longer while my daughter was up getting ready for school until it was time for her to leave. If nothing else, I was psychologically more at peace. It’s unreasonable, especially when I already deal with feminine issues that really hit me hard to also deal with male responsibilities. (My husband used to think things like “PMS” and the like were just women exaggerating- until he got married. Now he sees first hand, EVERY MONTH in symptoms that last for at least one to two weeks, how hard those things really do hit women and how much of a stress it is and what women actually go through- including a lot of physical pain and emotional strain- on account of our biology.)

I spent the morning doing all the girly things I do and taking care of the home. Nothing is neglected in the home now as it’s all pretty and clean and smells nice. He bought me a pretty shaded up-lamp yesterday and I put it in the kitchen for decoration and to give some soft lighting and I like to light up candles, spray freshener in the room and keep some flowers on the counter-top to make things all pretty, as well as make sure the floors are freshly swept and mopped. I like to take my time in making my own home in my own soft and feminine ways and always smiling while I do so.  As a wife and mother, even after many years, I’ve still kept my beautiful figure, pretty long hair, still stay freshly showered and wear makeup and pretty clothes, still act feminine and girly, and keep the house fresh and clean and everything organized. I like all the girly feminine things. He keeps me, loves me, protects me and has sheltered me for all these years so I get to remain all soft and fragile-like and feminine. It’s also the best anti-aging regimen one could ask for.

There’s nothing more wonderful than keeping a beautiful (even if only a simple) home and having a loving family. So always pass such wisdom on to your daughters and teach them the ways to be feminine, chaste, and keep a good home and love their husbands and family with all their hearts.