Category Archives: Coverture

Rather be Oppressed 

Over the past weekend my husband and I went to town. I began to grow saddened again when we went into stores and I saw all of the women at work. Most of them were not very good looking women either, might I add. I just remember thinking how fortunate I was to marry young and follow all of my feminine instincts to just stay home.

Even still the thought of being independent makes me sick. I just held onto him the entire way home, wanting him to lead me and take care of me. I let him make love to me, and I clung to him and it felt so good, wonderful and right.

There’s a lot of people, including my own relatives, who hate me for who I am and for what I believe. I’ve been pushed non-stop to be the independent woman that relies on nobody but herself. But that’s just not me. I’d rather be “oppressed.” I’d rather be open and loving towards a man. I’d rather be controlled and under the authority of a man that I love and trust. I think we women are vastly unhappy when we are given too much freedom.

There’s nothing unhealthy about feeling a real and deep need to depend on a man. I believe that’s how we women are made to feel. It only seems to me that women become the most psychologically unhealthy when we stray from the protection and authority of our men.

Sitting here writing this, I’m actually in pain right now. I’m not in pain because there’s something wrong with me. On the contrary, I’m in pain because I’m a female and I’m healthy. I’m fairly weak right now simply because of the design of my biology.

I have the option of medicating myself, getting up and forgetting about this female side of me. I could make a few jokes about it, perhaps even some crude ones, and go to work and be Miss Independent- plenty of women do that. But I don’t really want to do that. I’d rather just lie down and rest and enjoy being female; enjoy being weaker and more vulnerable. Sometimes it’s hard and sometimes it’s a bit painful and messy even, but it’s who I am and how I’m made. I’m not supposed to be a man or strong in the same ways as a man. My strength is in my femininity.

It’s ingrained in men to want to take care of women, but the modern woman’s attitudes and behaviors are causing men everywhere to have a “Screw the b****” attitude.

Can you look at the man you love, or the man you think you could one day love, and tell him you are open to him? Can you tell him that you would trust and follow him and live under his authority? Some men don’t want or can’t handle that- and that’s fine. Let them pair off with the feminist women they deserve.

I don’t really believe men only want sex. Men can get sex if they want it. Men can pay for sex. I think most men just want their women to be open to them and trusting of them. They want to be acknowledged as men.

I’ve dealt with the criticism of others but it doesn’t matter. I’ve dealt with men that hate housewives and independent women trying to push me to be like them. I’m different from others and I always have been. That’s what makes me who I am and that’s why you’re reading this article right now.

I would rather be oppressed than liberated. Everyone else lives hectic lives and their families are all torn apart. Why would I want to be like them? Perhaps they just want to bring me and others like me down to their level. Perhaps they want us to fail.

Patriarchy isn’t always perfect or even fun, but it’s the best option for families and ultimately for women too. That’s why women, such as myself, have always fought for it. Plain and simple, we don’t want to leave the protection of coverture or be away from the guidance of our men. That’s why we always come running back while everyone else just shakes their heads thinking there’s something wrong with us. We don’t want to be liberated or really care about women’s “rights.” In the end, we’d rather be oppressed.

Thoughts on Coverture, Suffrage, Chivalry, Patriarchy and the Natural Order

“There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make of man and woman beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things – their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived, that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded; and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, “Deomocracy in America,” Chapter XII)

I believe it is the obligation of men to be chivalrous to women. I believe this duty to be unconditional. That means even if the woman acts bad I still believe it is the duty of men to protect and provide for women. I believe that women have special circumstances in life and the differences between the sexes warrant special consideration and protections for women. I believe it is the duty of men to elevate the interests of women above their own and the responsibility of adults to elevate the interests of children above their own. Women are inherently more vulnerable and weaker than men and are in need of special protections and guardianship in marriage. I believe it to be the duty of the husband to provide for his wife and be responsible for her. I do not believe this duty to be reciprocal. Marriage was never meant to be an “equal partnership.” The purpose of marriage is for the provision of women and children. Love is important and I believe it is good that everyone can choose who they wish to marry and spend their lives with and be happy. But marriage is more than that. It is more than how one feels at the moment and more than just “mutual benefit.” Marriage is about masculinity, femininity and the provision and guardianship of women and children. Now that society has lost sight of what the real and true purpose of marriage is the institution of the family has been destroyed and we have such perversions like “gay marriage” and cohabitation and epidemics of single parenthood and divorce and “blended” families that do nothing more than confuse children about their family identity. Once the legal obligation upon men to be providers for a wife and children (if there are any children, even if there aren’t it shouldn’t change his role to provide for the wife) was erased it didn’t take long at all for the family unit to be destroyed.

Although I’ve never come out and straightforward said much about my beliefs, I do believe in God, although I don’t have any particular religious affiliation. I never really talk about this much because I want my site to welcome those of all religious beliefs as well as atheists to the cause of traditional sex roles and traditional marriage (I don’t believe one can have a traditional marriage without traditional sex roles and the obligation of husbands and fathers to provide). I believe men and women were made for certain roles in this life and men have a moral obligation to to care for women and children and put women and children first. Man has always tried to pervert the natural order of things and go against God, there is nothing new or unusual about that. I guarantee any crazy thing one can think up of some society somewhere has tried it, somebody has done it. But that doesn’t mean that we should. We have thousands of years of history to show us the consequences (both good and bad) of different human behaviors and different laws and policies.

The sex act itself reaffirms traditional gender roles. The man is dominant, the woman submissive. The man gives, the woman receives. The man is powerful while the woman is often helpless. The man covers the woman with his body and penetrates into her most intimate places first with his own body and after the act is completed with his seed that lives inside her in the most intimate and precious place where all life begins. The man controls and leads the act while the woman follows and submits. The sex act depends upon the man’s ability to achieve. He must give to the woman, he must work to bring fulfillment to the woman and put her needs before his own or he has failed and is incompetent, impotent and dysfunctional. This is the order that traditional gender roles take, with the man giving to the woman and being dominate over the woman, while the woman receives and accepts what the man gives and submits. The woman is precious and weaker and it is the man’s job to protect and provide for her.

Although I’ve alluded to it before, I don’t believe that women should participate in politics and I am against the vote for women. The world may hate me for what I believe but I don’t care. I will not change what I believe in to fit what modern society tells me is right. Right now I may be hated and be in the minority viewpoint but in time the tables will turn. I will state what I believe no matter who is against me. If I have to change myself for someone to follow or like me then what is the point of writing? As a traditional woman I don’t want to deal with external affairs and problems in the community and society at large. I take to writing to speak out against what I see as wrong. Women have always done this, vote or no vote. If women have the right to vote then we also have the obligation to participate in politics and other duties that traditionally fell only to men. As it stands traditional women have no choice because if we back out and don’t participate in politics there will be a huge imbalance as non-traditional women will get everything they want and traditional women will be outnumbered and our voice ignored. If women have the right to participate in politics that means they also have the obligation, and a woman cannot just mind her own business at home and remain under her husband’s authority and be at peace.

“We are sometimes told by politicians who wish to press this matter on us, ‘You women will not be forced to vote.’ But our conscience speaks otherwise. If, in spite of our remonstrances, we have political obligations forced upon us, we shall feel it to be the first duty to vote every man out of place who has abused his lawmaking power thus to oppress us, and also to counteract the votes of bad women-and here is the appalling danger. While conservative women may stay at home the infamous women of our cities, numbering thousands, will be brought to the polls as a unit, and every such vote bought by some scheming politician. What legislation will this vote ask for? Surely nothing less than a social disorganization. Women of this hitherto happy land, reflect. Are you prepared for such consequences.” (1)

Under coverture the woman’s husband spoke for her. He represented her. Men cared more about the interests and well being of women because they were responsible for women. They knew they had the moral duty to elevate the interests of women above their own. They knew they had to think of women and children first. Now men don’t care about the interests of women because many modern women and the feminist movement has insisted that women can speak for themselves, protect themselves and support themselves and they have no need of the protection or support of men. But women do have need of male protection and guardianship. It is not degrading to women. It signifies that women are precious and loved, favored even. I don’t believe America has been a true patriarchy since the mid-19th century when coverture started being repealed. Patriarchy entails male headship of families and the legal dependence of wives and children as well as male guardianship of women and men in charge of the overall social order. Many societies have adopted aspects of patriarchy but if the social system does not involve chivalrous ethic on behalf of men towards women I don’t believe it to be patriarchy. For instance, I don’t believe a tribe that acknowledges fatherhood and descent through the male line yet has the women own all the property and do all the drudgery work to be a patriarchy, patrilineal perhaps, but not truly patriarchal.

“It may not be altogether easy to determine the exact difference in function between the sexes; in minor details those functions may differ in differing civilizations. But speaking broadly, it may be said that the work of battle in all its forms, and all the work that is cognate thereto, belongs to man. Physically and psychically his is the sterner and the stronger sex. His muscles are more steel-like; his heart and his flesh are alike harder; he can give knocks without compunction and receive them without shrinking. In the family, therefore, his it is to go forth and fight the battle with Nature; to compel the reluctant ground to give her riches to his use. It is not for woman to hold the plough, or handle the hoe, or dig in the mine, or fell the forest. The war with Nature is not for her to wage.” (2)

It is important to note that although men in general hold authority over women in general, a woman is not under any obligation to obey just any man. In fact, a man attempting to assert dominance over a woman where he has no authority is often subject to punishment, sometimes by the woman’s husband (or father) himself. For instance, if the man is holding out his hands wanting the woman to feed him or he is trying to order her around or he pushes himself on her sexually then he has committed a serious offense. In patriarchal societies men were often put to death for raping a woman. It was an offense not just against her but also against her husband/father because the woman was under guardianship. Even the Bible itself gave a husband the right to punish a man who brought physical harm to his wife. Not because women were “property” but because they were under guardianship and her husband was responsible to protect her. (As a side note no in the Bible and in other ancient societies women were not “damaged goods” if they weren’t virgins. Women were only punished for adultery and her lover was punished equally. Widowed and divorced women frequently remarried and the man had to marry the woman if they were intimate and she was not already engaged. In the Bible the man would have to pay the bride price (dowry) anyways if the woman’s father wouldn’t agree to the marriage).

I have been a supporter of automatic father custody, but only under the principle of coverture. I do not support men’s or father’s rights groups because these groups are abusive. They do not elevate the interests of women and children above their own interests. Their interests are purely selfish. They are about asserting their dominance over women but in a way that harms women and gets them out of responsibility. They want men’s rights without men’s responsibility attached to it. The only time they care about fatherless children is to show that they and not the mother should have custody. Family breakdown is only really a problem when they can’t get whatever they want out of divorce or when they have to support illegitimate children that they don’t want (at least that they don’t want until the child support gets to be too burdensome, at which point they all of a sudden become dad of the year and start pulling out the custody card and claim to be victims). No, I support father custody under coverture. For the father who is married to the children’s mother and is responsible to provide for them. I support this because it brings more security to women and children in ways I can’t completely explain in one posting. Under coverture the wife and children are already under the husband’s custody. Divorce should be rare in this instance but if divorce or separation does occur it should not change the rights nor the responsibilities between husband and wife (for instance, she shouldn’t automatically be responsible for being a co-provider nor should the husband’s authority now have to be shared with the wife over the children as in her getting equal rights to them over the husband’s objections). As long as she hasn’t been adulterous he should still have to support her, so him wrestling the kids away from her won’t get him out of responsibility.

This is what I believe. I’ve always felt that it was right to let my husband support and protect me and I always felt it was right to obey him. I was just innocent and naive when I first married. I had never even known the words “women’s liberation” and I knew I felt inside that men should protect women and love them, not harm them. It is particularly damaging when a man exploits, abuses and abandons a woman much more so than if he abused another man just the same as it is particularly more damaging if an adult abused or exploited a child than if an adult did the same to another adult. It is very damaging when the natural order is perverted and women are given no special consideration as being the weaker and more vulnerable of the two sexes. Men are stronger than women and always inherently more powerful. Feminists tried to put women on an equal level to men by erasing laws that protected women but doing so didn’t make women as powerful as men, it left women desperate and vulnerable and liberated men from their responsibilities. It shouldn’t be this way. It is man’s duty to protect women, not declare war on them.

“For until she had been unsexed, until she had ceased to be woman, she could not play the part which her destiny and her ambition assigned to her. For like reason society exempts woman from police functions. She is not called to be sheriff or constable or night watchman. She bears no truncheon and wears no revolver. She answers not to the summons when peace officers call for the posse comitatus. She is not received into the National Guard when bloody riot fills the city with peril and alarms. Why not? Is she not the equal of man? Is she not as loyal? as law abiding ? as patriotic? as brave? Surely. All of these is she. But it is not her function to protect the state when foreign foes attack it; it is the function of the state to protect her. It is not her function to protect the persons and property of the community against riot; it is man’s function to protect her. Here at least the functional difference between the sexes is too plain to be denied, doubted, or ignored. Here at least no man or woman from the claims of equality of character jumps to the illogical conclusion that there is an identity of function.” (2)

Coverture and the Criminalization of Pregnancy

“…You might think it would be hard to find someone who falls into the “pro-criminalizing pregnant women” camp. Sadly, you’d be wrong. A dangerous bill​ has wormed its way through the Tennessee legislature that would allow prosecutors to bring criminal assault charges against women who use drugs during pregnancy.

In all seriousness, it’s encouraging to see Cosmo publish a thorough take-down of this bill. It’s a sign that deep misgivings about the needless expansion of our criminal justice system are now so widely held that they’ve reached pop culture salience. For decades, this country has ratcheted up the number of crimes on the books and the length of time we lock people up, pushing the number of people under correctional control to about 7 million. Many of these people would be better served outside of the criminal justice system entirely.” (1)

“In the first legislative victory of its kind, the Tennessee Senate and House have now passed a measure that would allow criminal assault charges to be brought against Tennessee women who use drugs during their pregnancy. Now the legislation heads to Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam (R) for either his signature or his veto.

The bill allows women to avoid prosecution if they enroll in a rehab program and complete it, but critics say it could actually keep drug-addicted pregnant women from seeking the treatment they want and need. The law, if passed, would be the first of its kind in the nation.

“Women who are addicted will no longer go to their prenatal health appointments or if they do go, they won’t be honest with their doctors because they’re afraid to end up in jail,” Glass told Cosmopolitan.com. She also noted that the medical community has rejected this bill.

The American College of Obstetricians Gynecologists (ACOG) notes that criminalization has proved to be ineffective and it urges physicians to oppose legislation that punishes women for substance abuse during pregnancy. ACOG also decisively states that drug enforcement policies that deter women from seeking prenatal care are “contrary to the welfare of the mother and the fetus.”

This bill says nothing of fathers’ responsibility for fetal health, as this bill would only allow for punishment of the pregnant woman. The legal blame for NAS falls solely on the pregnant woman.” (2)

April 29: Tennessee governor sings SB 1391 despite widespread calls for a veto and objections from doctors.

It is an obvious fact of life that only women can get pregnant and everything the mother does and the environment she is in affects the fetus. The nine months spent in the womb affect us across our entire lifespans. Some women have problems and addictions that affect their pregnancy and unborn babies and now our government seeks to lay criminal penalties on the mother-and only the mother- for the result of her pregnancy.( And this is not the only case like this I have seen in the past few years such as punishing women for miscarriages if they act “irresponsible.”) Addiction during pregnancy is bad enough by itself but what I want to know is where is the father’s responsibility for fetal health if he wishes rights to the child the same as the mother? I believe we have a real and true problem of male irresponsibility in society today. In the past men were expected to be married to the mother in order to be legally recognized as the father of the child. As well, they were the guardians of their wives. This lessened after coverture was officially ended in the late 19th century but married women had many protections up until the 1970s and many aspects of coverture remained in law even holding the husband responsible for his wife’s actions to a certain extent.

Today there are no such protections. A sex-blind society is the rule today. But the only problem is that it is unrealistic. Men and women are not on equal terms no matter what crazy gender-neutralized laws we as a society can think up of. Now we are going to throw pregnant women in jail for being on drugs and giving birth to babies with NAS (neonatal abstinence syndrome). The responsibility for the outcome of a pregnancy falls entirely onto the woman as she is the only one who can become pregnant. Men may not get a say in abortion but they still get rights to the resulting children when they are born, even if illegitimate they are granted the same legal rights as the mother (a major historical shift of the past 40 years). (I would consider married men getting veto power in abortion if the marriage placed the wife under coverture where the husband was responsible for her as in the past). I can just see this now. Father isn’t in the picture, mother is drug-addicted. She gives birth and gets thrown in jail then daddy comes walking up playing dad of the year and takes full custody of the child while mom takes all the blame. And of course the GOP is right there saying “there’s no war on women.” But there is a war on women that’s been going on since coverture was repealed.

Something is wrong here. A drug-addicted pregnant woman needs help. It should be the father’s responsibility to make sure that she gets the help that she needs and the woman’s responsibility to submit to being taken care of and taking care of her child. Since obviously men cannot get pregnant traditionally in order to be responsible for fetal health the father is held responsible for the well-being of the mother. Take care of the mother and you take care of the child as women and children are inseparable through the entire reproductive process. This also makes sure she can nurse the child as well. But today women must “stand on their own two feet” take all the responsibilities of citizenship and be treated as equal to men in our feminist and egalitarian world. It’s a nice fantasy but one that never quite pans out in reality. Men are not required to take appropriate responsibility for women and children and can leave them completely on their own with no concern for what conditions they are living in or if the mother even has food to eat or medical care.

Another thing is women who have their children taken from them at birth because they were drug addicted. Most are required to get off the drugs and to get a job to prove they are responsible. But how about get treatment, be married and stay home to care for the child? That seems like a much better and more logical solution but nobody cares about mothers actually caring for their children or ensuring their children are legitimate and look at the damage around us as a result. If she doesn’t marry the father he won’t grow up and learn responsibility. She and her child will probably never be stable and secure or ever get out of poverty or unsafe living conditions. Marriage must matter to us as a society and coverture is an important and long-forgotten aspect of it that places women under guardianship.

Another thing that bothers me is pregnant women in jail. If she is not violent and/or dangerous then where is the father to take responsibility for her? Dating back thousands of years and in numerous civilizations marriage erased a woman’s previous debts and obligations and she became the responsibility of her husband (but, of course, she was required to accept guardianship and her husband’s authority and sexual regulation). Women are not men and have special circumstances in life. Men’s duties must be to protect women. Women are becoming more masculine and more violent and aggressive and it showcases the need of men to intervene and be authoritative once again so that women must act appropriate as ladies and accept male guardianship to protect them and their families.

Related: “When Women Act Bad”

Why Feminism is not Compatible With the Housewife’s Role

Possibly one of the saddest realities of life today is that few have any faith in marriage to last a lifetime anymore. In these times most people concentrate most on what happens when the marriage ends, rather than the marriage itself (think prenups for instance, most people go into marriage expecting it to end). Marriage consists of competition and mistrust between husband and wife. There is plenty of support for men out there who distrust women and don’t feel safe about investing in the marital relationship or investing themselves in women (as in supporting and protecting women). But what about woman’s role in marriage? Is it safe for a woman to invest herself in the marital relationship? And who is standing up for her role in marriage? The unfortunate answer to this question seems to be nobody. There is really nobody out there standing up for a woman’s role as a wife and mother. The absolute only voice for women revolves around the workforce.

As a woman it’s always my greatest joy just to be a wife and mother. Living a traditional life is what I’ve always wanted to do. It was always my dream to be a housewife and nothing else but I was always ashamed to admit it when I was younger (since we’re told it’s not a career or dependable anymore). Unfortunately as I’ve grown up over the years I no longer see life the same way. I no longer see life through rose colored glasses. Life has taught me the hard way that nobody is going to come to the rescue of a woman and force a man to be a man and do the honorable thing by marrying a woman he impregnates or who’s virginity he has taken. Nobody in our world today is going to enforce a man to be responsible for the financial support of his wife or throw shame on him for abandoning her or failing to protect her.

I still love the housewife role and in my very heart being a wife and mother is all I’ve ever wanted. It’s what I’ve always lived for. Being pregnant and nursing an infant. Even giving birth was a powerful experience. It was so empowering to know that as a woman I could do such a thing. It’s an instinct. It’s primitive, ancient and distinctly feminine. But at some point we all grow up and have to face the world for what it is. My world has for many years been torn between the longings of my heart (which are generally fantasies about being barefoot and pregnant) and the realities of modern day life that women are no longer secure in their roles as wives and mothers.

Like so many others, I too, have fears about truly investing myself in marriage. Just because I have come on here for years expressing the need for tradition and my love for it does not mean I am displaced from the society I live in. It does not mean I’m not a real wife and mother with fears and issues of my own. Occasionally I am upset and tell my husband I want nothing more than to just follow him and worry nothing about his business and the happenings in the world around me. That’s the way it should be. That’s the way it was for hundreds of years. Women knew they could just follow their husbands and depend upon their husbands for everything because the law would hold him responsible for her well being. She could safely follow him and obey him knowing that he would have to take legal responsibility as the husband and head of household. The law would even accept a woman’s explanation that she was following her husband’s orders.

But what about now? If there’s one thing that most women know in our times today it would be that depending on a husband is risky. Where once financial support of the family and chivalry was the man’s responsibility now the law has been bastardized by the feminist movement to say that it should be a woman’s responsibility as well and that instead of husband and wife being one unit they are instead supposed to be treated as barely anything more than two cohabiting individuals, with barely any more status or control over each other than what a boyfriend and girlfriend living together would have. Husbands and wives are no longer legally looked upon as one unit with one head, but as separate individuals who are supposed to be responsible for themselves.

This means that traditional women have no choice. In order to protect ourselves we have to know our husbands’ business. Because if we didn’t then we could be held responsible for what he does. He is no longer given the legal right to make decisions on behalf of his wife and children (unless there’s a very extreme case like his wife being in a coma or something) and the wife is forced to be right there equally (there’s that word again, isn’t it so gorgeously feminist?) participating in what he’s doing and the business he is conducting. Most women today know they would be fools to blindly obey and follow their husband’s orders because they know they no longer have the protection of the husband taking full legal responsibility for being the one in charge.

This is what feminists wanted and now their beliefs are enshrined in law and accepted by all of society including conservatives. So what are traditional women to do? Will we fade away? Even lurking somewhere in the minds of the most traditional among us is a feeling of unease and distrust of our spouse. Feminism and the role of the traditional woman are not compatible. The first step is that society must realize this. Women’s and men’s traditonal responsibilities within marriage must be law if they are to have any meaning. If they cannot be enforced then they are worthless. Married women cannot gain the ‘right’ of being independent from husbands and children without also compromising a woman’s traditional role. Feminism has stolen from a woman’s security and power in her traditional roles to force her to comply with feminist beliefs and grant her power in the masculine realm. And when they can’t get enough force together from women to abandon tradition on their own then they encourage men to “liberate” themselves from their duties. They betray women to get exactly what they want.

Traditional women must be vocal. We have no choice. We must insist that the traditional roles of a man and wife in marriage must be enforced by law. The husband’s responsibility to financially support his wife and take legal responsibility for her (with a few exceptions, the same as the law generally holds parents responsible for their children with exceptions when those children cannot be controlled) must be enforced as well as a woman’s submission to her husband must also be enforced by law. This is the only safe way that both husband and wife can invest in their traditional roles with peace of mind. No authority is a true authority unless it has the power to enforce it’s rule. Likewise no protection is a real protection unless it can be enforced.

As for feminist women? Nobody says you have to get married. In fact, please do us all a favor and stay single and childless. Go liberate yourself and support your own self and stop robbing traditional men and women who want to know the joys of marriage and children of their security.

Suggested Reading:

In Defense Of Coverture

Marriage is Masculinity and Coverture

Responding to the Rationale of Father Custody under Coverture

A while back, when former TWRA supporter ‘Edita Munoz’ decided to leave our group, she criticized every angle of our ideology and along with that being the endorsement of mother custody in the younger years as stripping away the father’s authority. It seems here we TWRAs have come full circle in having disagreements regarding the proper placement of custodial rights.

Over time I have become more knowledgeable and learned many things since I first started putting my thoughts, opinions and research out for the entire world about a year and a half ago. In the earliest drafts of the TWRA position I state that the Tender Years Doctrine, or presumption of child custody in the favor of mothers when the children are very young, should be brought back. My main reasoning behind this was to try to put a stop to what our laws are allowing the unwed father to do and to allowing the divorced father to escape his responsibilities of financial support or, even worse, allowing him to place his rightful burdens on the mother at divorce and using the children as a weapon to do so.

As part of my collaboration with Jesse Powell* on the cultural core beliefs of what a TWRA is, some minor changes have occurred in our ideology. First, in the issue of fatherhood, TWRAs do not recognize the unmarried man’s paternity as legitimate. In our ideology we state:

“Have fatherhood be only legally recognized when it arises from legal marriage to the natural mother or from adoption proceedings, unless said father should legally marry the mother and be responsible for all bills and necessities from pregnancy/birth and be liable to support the mother and child as a husband is entitled from that point on.”

This is because, in a patriarchal society, distinctions are always made between illegitimate and legitimate births. Not only is this good for women but it is good for children as well. The unmarried father does not have a valid contract of marriage with the mother and thus does not have patriarchal authority over, nor responsibility for, the mother and the children she bears. For instance, I remember reading a news report a few months ago about a mother, apparently suffering some sort of mental derangement after giving birth, who had allegedly claimed she found a newborn on a Hawaiian beach but, come to find out, it was her own child. The reports said they would “look” for the father of the child to see if he wanted rights and to be responsible for the child.

The entire time I was thinking they are going to “look” for the father? Obviously if they have to search for him he wasn’t around when all this was going on and wan’t married to the mother. If he was married to the mother then he would already be the legal father and they would know exactly who he was. On the rationale that the unwed father is not the head of any household and does not hold authority and responsibility for the actions and well-being of the mother and child, we exclude the unwed father from our discussions of fatherhood.

In the coverture that TWRAs endorse the husband is the head of the family. He has the authority, as we state,to decide where the family will live. That means his wife’s legal address and that of his children’s is wherever he lives. We also state that marriage is to be a permanent and legal binding of a man and a woman, “only to be legally severed in cases of severe abuse, infidelity or abandonment.”

Jesse Powell states:

“It should be kept in mind, when father custody prevailed that did not mean children always lived with their fathers away from their mothers, what it meant is that the father would decide where the children lived… The likely rationale for father custody after divorce was probably that marriage and family was considered to be the man’s project and the man’s responsibility and that therefore the man should decide how best to execute his family mission and family purpose, the care and upbringing of children being part of his family mission. So basically when a man married a woman the idea was that the man was choosing the woman to be the bearer and caretaker of his children. The man then was to become responsible for the welfare of his wife and his children both. This meant if at some point in the future the man and wife split up the man was still responsible for the children of the marriage as the man was always responsible for the well being of the children from the beginning. So the father would have custody of the children after a divorce because it was always the man’s responsibility to provide for the children and it continued to be the man’s responsibility to provide for the children whether he was still married to the children’s mother or not.”

Under coverture, the above story regarding the beach would not have happened. The woman would have been pressured to marry when she discovered she was pregnant (if not the biological father, then another man who would accept her and the child as his own) or her child would have been outcasted as a “bastard” and she would be shunned from civilized society. In childbearing strange things can happen to women. The coverture would have been a way to protect her and the child because the husband would have been responsible for her actions and well being and he would oversee everything that was going on. The pressure would be on him to control his wife’s behavior and provide her with the things she needed. If she was suffering psychologically after birth she and the child would still have been safe and taken care of because of his responsibilities to look out for them. In this way, coverture is guardianship of women and the guardianship of children necessarily.

Child labor was indeed common in the earliest days of American history and I do applaud the early feminists for their efforts to protect women and children from exploitation in factories. The rationale that the father had a right to the children’s labor I believe was a part of why father’s were given custody of their children but there is a much larger issue here to consider. Another reason, as Jesse Powell notes, was the large investment the husband made in the children.

Under coverture, the husband was responsible for everything. If the children or his wife had needs, he was responsible to provide them. A woman had a right to buy necessities for herself and the children on the husband’s credit. All she needed to do was prove that the goods or services were necessaries and prove that she was currently legally married to the man who’s credit the goods were being charged to. Part of his responsibility was for the wife’s actions. If she had committed some kind of criminal act or misdeed he was responsible for it and he was responsible for dealing with her behavior. His wife and his children’s behavior directly reflected upon him. This made men to make a large investment in the family. It entailed high sacrifice on his behalf, but also the high reward of having a wife and family to carry on his name and his own legacy. The intention of patriarchal societies is to get fathers to make a high investment in women and children and build civilization through their hard work of providing for families.

I do not not believe that there is actually a current “bias” against fathers in our courts today as MRAs claim, but whether there is a “bias” or not does not matter in regards to what TWRAs believe in and advocate for. Complaining about a “bias” says that one wishes or campaigns for things to be “equal.” TWRAs do not seek “equality” under the law. We believe that the father should be fully responsible for the support of his wife and children. We do not believe that support or alimony should be a two-way street. It goes one way. The father is to support the children and to support his wife. Now, if she’s done wrong and been unfaithful he should not have to pay her alimony. She should simply be on her own. However, he is still to support himself and provide all the essentials for his children and no obligation should be imposed upon the ex-wife for the support of her husband. He is a man and he is to be liable to support himself despite his wife’s actions.

Divorce was rare in coverture days so, in most cases, child custody was never an issue. Most men realized that young children needed to be nurtured by mothers. In the TWRA beliefs we do not say anything of the Tender Years Doctrine as we once did. We simply say that young children need to stay with their mothers. However, the husband has the authority and sole responsibility and should decide where the children live. He should never be allowed to impose the responsibility of support on the mother but he should be allowed to decide where they will live. Whether the children live with him or not he should still be solely responsible for the support and still have authority to make decisions regarding their lives and well-being.

This is what’s it’s about. I do believe in father custody (as in his authority to make decisions regarding the children’s lives and well-being and where they live) as long as his responsibilities remain. This ultimately does protect women as well as children. Women should have the right to expect support and guardianship from their husbands but should never be allowed to overturn the decisions he makes unless it is an extreme situation. Women having authority over men and men being allowed to evade responsibility causes society to degenerate into the mess we have now.

It is the right of the traditional woman to have guardianship and have security. Feminists told women there was no such thing as security and they should just go out and imitate male promiscuity and refuse to marry. Yet, somehow, study after study has shown that in the last 50 years women have become increasingly unhappy. Women supposedly “have it all” yet somehow are more miserable and suffer from more physical and mental illnesses than ever before. Apparently, “freedom” wasn’t quite so free after all.

TWRAs want our privileges back and we want our security. We just want men to be men again. If men would lead, women would start to follow.

* TWRAs are not longer collaborated with Jesse Powell. However, this article still remains relevant to the cause.