He Was My Choice: The Male Duty to Provide (The Ethos of Civilization, Part II)

[The Ethos of Civilization PDF VERSION full article]

 

II. He Was My Choice: The Male Duty to Provide

 

I see nothing but devastation around me. I don’t see anything even remotely resembling family no matter where I look. Me and my husband went to my daughter’s choir performance a few months back and I noted when I looked around me that I couldn’t find any male-female couples in attendance. There was a group of three women sitting in front of us, a bunch of elderly people and otherwise just a bunch of scattered out single individuals of both sexes scattered around the auditorium. There was nothing that even remotely resembled family or close relationships between men and women, and it’s doubtful that anyone in attendance was actually married. My perception was that the environment seemed very cold and very lonely.

Society has tried so hard to push gender-role reversal and obliteration of traditional marriage. Increasingly, social programs and legislative policies designed to get fathers to become more “involved” are pushed along with their counterparts of promoting women as being hard-lined independent money-makers. Mothers are not just pushed out of their children’s lives; increasingly, every effort is directed to completely locking mothers out of their lives, barring women from being the primary nurturers and caretakers of their young children.

While plunging into tub after tub of books looking for that one book that is (naturally) impossible to find right when it is needed, I came across the original album of my wedding pictures instead. They had been stored away for so long I’d nearly forgotten about their existence. But right in time they aligned themselves with my current thoughts. They bring to mind old memories- both pleasant and troubling on the verge of painful. And I have often wondered this: Am I so well-adjusted (in contrast to many modern women), because of his love? Because of his protection and provision and guardianship over me and our family? I would say in many ways, yes, I am. I rejected with all my might my mother’s hostile attempts to get me to put a career first. I put my husband and child first. And isn’t this something that modern society should be promoting? Wouldn’t children and families and the lives of men and women do better, wouldn’t society prosper better overall, with a civilization of women who surrendered to their feminine instincts? It is not my purpose to talk about life’s exceptions and hardships here. I only speak in generalities: My belief in my own heart, in his love, in his power to watch over and guard our family, and the ways in which society was better off whenever mothers and wives made it their first priority to carefully and tenderly nurture their homes, children, and love their husbands.

The main problem with fatherhood in modern society is that the notion of paternal involvement in children’s lives and “father’s rights” revolves wholly around egalitarian theories and modern notions of “equality,” when it should rest upon a notion of male responsibility and authority. When I placed our child in his arms and surrendered authority to him, I did not do so because I believed in “equality” or because I believed that he was so wonderful at changing diapers (I didn’t) or that we were co-equals sharing rights and responsibility (I didn’t). On the contrary, I did everything I did because I believed that we were not equals, believing that he should be our provider and protector, and as such my actions were one of placing my trust in him to assume those responsibilities; and, likewise, that those same responsibilities would not fall upon my shoulders. On the contrary, I established a close and intimate relationship with him (more intimate and closer than all others except for perhaps the initial months of mother and child bonding) where I made myself one with him. I saw it as his duty to provide for us. I had no desire to be in the workforce or be independent. I loved him more than anything in this world and my willingness to depend on him and trust him and give my whole self to him (both body and heart) showed that love in the strongest way that I could show it. It is upon this notion of oneness of man and wife that any notion of the rights of fatherhood should rest, and there is much precedent (now wholly ignored by legislators, judges and society alike) for this viewpoint:

A Massachusetts lawyer published and anonymous pamphlet in protest [of recent judicial decisions giving custody of young children to mothers]…[attacking] the contention that a wife could be granted custody without proving her husband had violated his spousal or fatherly duties. The unity of the husband and wife, he claimed, blocked such an outcome. Married women had no separate custody rights, just as they had none to sue or make a contract. Questioning the judiciary’s growing authority over child placement, the attorney charged that the Pennsylvania decision represented “nothing less than an assumption of power by a court…to determine the domestic arrangements of a man’s family.” Michael Grossberg, Governing the Hearth: Law and the Family in Nineteenth-Century America 241-42 (1985).

But when a man doesn’t understand a woman and fails to protect her; when a man won’t listen and fails to understand, most women become angry and frustrated, wishing instead that, if he just doesn’t get it, that he’d just simply leave. But of course, when women hurt and suffer it is easy for a man to walk away; it is easy for him to ignore the things she is genuinely trying to tell him. It is easy for him not to listen, but it takes a different kind of strength altogether for a man to stay, to understand, and to console her when feminine hormones, emotion, and feeling overwhelm her and spin out of control. And as for our children, in the modern world, they are all too often utilized by men as a last-ditch effort to gain control over a woman, especially if she has left him (and especially if he has NPD). In particular where the unwed father or otherwise irresponsible man is concerned, this is damaging, destructive, and obviously runs contrary to any policy goals purporting to support the formation of stable marriages, stable family units, and well-adjusted offspring. But when it comes to a husband, what cannot be lost in the conversation is that marriage is a choice- and a woman’s consent has always been necessary for a valid marriage under our laws since the earliest times:

But, where the offence is directly against the person of the wife, this rule [that husband and wife may not be witness against each other] has been usually dispensed with: and therefore, by statute 3 Hen. VII. C.2. in case a woman be forcibly taken away, and married, she may be a witness against such her husband, in order to convict him of felony. For in this case she can with no propriety be reckoned his wife; because a main ingredient, her consent, was wanting to the contract: and also there is another maxim of law, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong: which the ravisher here would do, if by forcibly marrying a woman, he could prevent her from being a witness, who is perhaps the only witness, to that very fact. William Blackstone 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 443-44 (11thed.1791).

Indeed, consent itself is at the very heart of contract law; that is, that by their mutual consent, individuals are bound to legally enforceable promises. The woman who enters into marriage with a man (as opposed to the unwed mother, who may or may not fully and intelligently consent to the father’s involvement in her and the child’s life) historically consented that she would come under his power and control, be supported and protected by him, and that the husband would share in the joys of having legitimate offspring. The initial idea at the heart of paternal authority was to advance the stability of marriages and give greater incentive for fathers to provide. In Nickerson’s Case (1837), the court stated: “In this country, the hopes of the child in respect to its education and future advancement, is mainly dependent upon the father; for this he struggles and toils through life; the desire of its accomplishment operating as one of the most powerful incentives to industry and thrift.” Quoted in Melvin I. Urofsky & Paul Finkelman Documents of American Constitutional and Legal History, Vol I: From the Founding Through the Age of Industrialization 293-94 (2d ed. 2002). Chief Justice Nelson in the case cited instances where the courts would intervene if a man abused his authority (they always could) and placed emphasis upon cases and circumstances where a woman had “withdrawn herself from the protection of her husband” without authorization, the entire point being that the husband’s role of providing and protecting was central to his authority (the wife being entitled to protection and provision from him and expected to accept it). Three years later, in Mercein v. People Ex. Rel. Barry (1840), it was held that “…The father’s right to his child is not absolute and inalienable. In those American cases which uphold to the greatest extent the right of the father, it is conceded that it may be lost by his ill usage, immoral principles or habits, or by his inability to provide for his children.” Quoted in Urofsky & Finkelman, Documents of American Constitutional and Legal History, Vol I at 298-99 (cited supra) (emphasis added).

Similarly, in an 1848 decision from the Cincinnati Superior Court “Judge William Johnston argued that the right to custody flowed from the parental responsibility to provide, feed, and educate a child. ‘Separate from the duty of providing,’ he sternly lectured, ‘the right to custody does not exist.’”  Grossberg, Governing the Hearth, at 256 (cited supra). The concept of husbands and fathers being primarily responsible for the financial support and protection of their wives and children is abundant in the historical records. As a backlash against these standards, early feminists- contrary to the post-1970s feminists- routinely championed women’s nurturing abilities and agitated for greater maternal custody rights to break free of the chains of patriarchy. Initially, these demands were met with hostility for threatening the security of the family:

Demands for formal custody rights secured by statute often met a far cooler public response, as was evident in an 1854 New York Tribune account of a women’s rights rally. When a woman demanded statutory custody and guardianship rights, male hecklers greeted her with cries of “Oh dry up!,” “Bow-wow!,” “Hiss-s-s-s!,” “Get out!” a more reasoned expression of the same sentiments appeared in lawyer-historian James Schouler’s 1870 treatise on domestic relations. Discussing legislative changes in married women’s legal status, he argued: “The danger to be apprehended from all legislation of this sort is that it will weaken the ties of marriage by forcing both sexes into an unnatural antagonism; teaching them to be independent of one another, and to earn their own living apart; whereas God’s law points to the family and the mutual intercourse of man and woman as among the strongest safeguards of human happiness.” Schouler declared that the law should provide “honorably, faithfully, and generously against all possible misfortune,” and teach a wife to “lean upon the stronger arm of her husband, and to look to man for guidance.” Grossberg, Governing the Hearth, at 245-46 (cited supra).

Now the hostility is towards anyone who would speak in favor of tradition and the mother’s irreplaceable role as nurturer and caregiver. Today the hostility is towards any thoughts or policies that would promote the security of the marital unit and stability of families. Not a soul would dare to tell a woman today to lean “on the strong arm of her husband,” and otherwise thoughts of a woman being soft and nurturing are met with outcry and backlash. But surely a society that cared about the state of the nation’s families and the welfare of its youth would be concerned primarily with keeping the monogamous, traditional, patriarchal family intact, not breaking it up.

Advertisements

Those Popular Myths: Mainstream Belief and the Founding Fathers’ Fear of Popular Sovereignty (The Ethos of Civilization, Part I)

[The Ethos of Civilization PDF VERSION full article]

 

I. Those Popular Myths: Mainstream Belief and the Founding Fathers’ Fear of Popular Sovereignty

 

How many times have I heard this remark from a man, that he broke up with a woman or had a relationship end because she just “went crazy?” If there is one thing readily observable to even the most uninformed layman- which needs no official “statistics” for its confirmation- it is that the prevalence of psychiatric problems, drug use/abuse and use of antidepressants and other psychiatric medications is on the rise. (see, eg., By the numbers: Antidepressant use on the risehttps://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/11/numbers ( Last Visited February 15, 2019); Astounding increase in antidepressant use by Americans https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/astounding-increase-in-antidepressant-use-by-americans-201110203624 (Last Visited February 15, 2019); Antidepressant use in U.S. soars by 65 percent in 15 years https://www.cbsnews.com/news/antidepressant-use-soars-65-percent-in-15-years/ (Last Visited February 15, 2019))  Attempts to explain away this phenomenon are always met with comments somewhere within the vicinity of the increase in the use of these meds as a good thing: As in, it is a good thing because society has become so “progressive” that individuals no longer need to fear the “stigma” of seeking treatment. But what cannot ever be said is that perhaps there is something much more fundamental involved here that cannot be talked about because it would violate egalitarian policies and beliefs.

Practically every man has a story about a woman going “crazy,” and in my own experience I hardly have ever known a woman one that hasn’t been on antidepressants or suffered psychological problems of some sort. And even I am no exception to this. There is something deeper that is going on here, in that modern men simply do not understand women nor know how to deal with women. They are taught to treat and see women as “equals” and have been raised wholly on egalitarian principles. But women are not men. Psychologically, physically, there is a world of difference. It is a world of difference that modern society simply refuses to acknowledge- no matter the consequences.

Contrary to the myths still prevalent in the mainstream, modern society goes to any lengths to actively push women out of the home and lock them out of their children’s lives. No legislative or judicial bias exists against fathers- quite the contrary, actually, as courts and relevant statutes are hostile against mothers (see, eg., Sessions v. Morales-Santana 582 U.S._ (2017) (“Relying on this Court’s post-1970 construction of the equal protection principle as it bears on gender-based classifications, the court held unconstitutional the differential treatment of unwed mothers and fathers…Sections 1401 and 1409 date from an era when the Nation’s lawbooks were rife with overbroad generalizations about the way men and women are…At the time § 1409 was enacted…In marriage husband is dominant, wife subordinate; unwed mother is the sole guardian of a non-marital child…For close to a half century, this Court has viewed with suspicion laws that rely on ‘overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females’…(Justice Ruth Ginsburg herself wrote the opinion for the majority in this last line of cases on the trail end of the ACLU’s “Women’s Rights Project.” Those interested can see for themselves the truth of women’s lib, borne out in the ACLU’s Timeline of Major Supreme Court Decisions on Women’s Rights https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/101917a-wrptimeline_0.pdf Though there were more legal issues involved, and the Court largely deferred to the power of the legislature, the decision revolved wholly around the “now-untenable assumption that an unwed mother is the ‘natural and sole guardian of non-marital children.” The obvious idea is that feminist goals have been 100% achieved up to the highest level, traversing through all ideological and partisan-party lines. Indeed, dare anyone dissent?) If bias does still exist anywhere in favor of women, then it is only because a sense of it still lingers on in the hearts and minds of the citizenry at large, not because of any institutionalized “discrimination.”

This point is an important one to make on two accounts. On the outset, it is important to emphasize this one point, that point being that “patriarchal” societies are not male supremacist societies; rather, patriarchal societies are male dominate societies (as all societies have been) in the way that men hold primary political and social power. Yet, in a true patriarchal society male dominance revolves around the welfare of women and children. True patriarchal societies are “gynocentric” at their core. The primary hallmarks of patriarchal societies are patrilineal descent, differentiation between legitimate and illegitimate born offspring, the financial support of and guardianship of women and children by father/husbands. Patriarchal societies are also- contrary to popular myth- nearly exclusively monogamous. Looking at the above timeline of “women’s rights” it becomes obvious that the goal of “equality” and ultimate aims of all “waves” of the feminist movement has been to obliterate all of the above (monogamy, legitimacy, and family stability with males as central providers).

The second point I would like to make is that popular beliefs in the mainstream oftentimes run counter to reality and fact- as can be seen in the differences between the common perceptions and beliefs about feminism and the real facts and truth about its history, legislative agenda, and continued prevalence in society. This also has implications for the political system as a whole- which hopefully will become obvious later in this article- and exemplifies the very real fears and concerns of the founding fathers, who- contrary to popular beliefs about the United States Constitution- distrusted democracy and popular sovereignty. Though holding to the principles that government exists to serve the people, the Constitution itself was meant to limit popular sovereignty- even though many of the protections the Founding Fathers embedded in the Constitution have already been washed away (eg., the election of Senators and electors during presidential elections were not originally subject to the popular vote; see U.S. Const. art. I,§3 (subsequently repealed by Amendment XVII in 1913); and see U.S. Const. art. II,§1, cl. 2: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…” (emphasis added) No subsequent amendments have repealed the right of the state legislatures to appoint electors in contravention of popular vote).

The Guardianship of a Woman, Part VIII: Conclusion

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

 

Conclusion

 

The results of all this have been to lock all those in modern society into a box. Even if we are unhappy, nobody is to question the dogma of “gender equality” as some kind of humane aspiration and social good. But has it done good? When the Federal Government first got involved in the civil rights game after the Civil War, they ran into opposition from president Andrew Johnson, who had succeeded Lincoln after his assassination. Despite Johnson’s loyalty to the union, he could not support such a broad extension of Federal power and clung to his Jeffersonian and Jacksonian beliefs in a limited Federal government. Despite modern beliefs about racism and civil rights, Johnson’s veto of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (easily and promptly overridden by Congress) gives a chilling premonition in light of modern circumstances and the absurd ways in which the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment[41] has been expanded far beyond the intentions of its framers:

I do not propose to consider the policy of this bill…Capital, it is true, has more intelligence, but labor is never so ignorant as not to understand its own interests, not to know its own value, and not to see that capital must pay that value.

This bill frustrates this adjustment. It intervenes between capital and labor and attempts to settle questions of political economy through the agency of numerous officials whose interest it will be to foment discord…

In all our history, in all our experience as a people living under Federal and State law, no such system as that contemplated by the details of this bill has ever before been proposed or adopted…[It] interfere[s] with the municipal legislation of the States, with the relations existing exclusively between a State and its citizens, or between inhabitants of the same State- an absorption and assumption of power by the General Government which, if acquiesced in, must sap and destroy our federative system of limited powers and break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States. It is another step, or rather stride, toward centralization and the concentration of all legislative powers in the National Government. The tendency of the bill must be to resuscitate the spirit of rebellion and to arrest the progress of those influences which are more closely drawing around the states the bonds of union and peace.[42]

But our Founding Fathers left to the American people the right to appeal to our legislators and to appeal to the courts to redress any wrongs and grievances. I do here and now so appeal. I appeal to the legislators of the states, I appeal to the courts of competent jurisdiction, and I appeal to the Representatives and Senators of the United States Congress that feminism has been a mistake since its very inception, and that the distinctiveness of the natures of the male and female sexes must be acknowledged, upheld, and- at the most personal level- delighted in for all the ways in which nature has so carefully designed them. It must also be considered why we continue to indulge in and be obsessed with “equality” of the sexes. Do we do so only because we have been taught to do so? Do we do so only because of what was once the beliefs of a radical minority that pushed and prodded and campaigned until legislators and the courts finally caved in to their demands? Is it blind adherence to dogma without reason or critical reflection? For the liberty and welfare of the people, for the safeguarding of our families to ensure to our offspring their best chances of succeeding in life, and to truly find peace and happiness, I appeal– unless we are to conceded that we are all slaves to the state and are to be ruled by a tiny and vocal minority while our happiness and humanity is thrust aside in the name of a fictitious and fanciful view of fairness and equality.


 

[41] U. S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1-2 states, (emphasis added) “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

So why is an amendment that itself clearly discriminates on the basis of sex being used to hold that discrimination based upon sex is unconstitutional, according to that very same amendment? This amendment was clearly intended to protect African-American males from the tyranny of the Southern states. So what happened? Perhaps the answer can be found in the words of the late Supreme Court justice William J. Brennan, Jr.: “Five votes. Five votes can do anything around here.” The Constitutionalist by Nat Hentoff, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1990/03/12/the-constitutionalist (Last Visited December 5, 2018).

[42] Quoted in Urofsky & Finkelman, Documents of American Constitutional and Legal History, Volume I, p. 472

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

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

 

The Coercive Nature of Equality

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[40] The Romans thought this to be unnatural and, furthermore, improper. See Frier & McGinn, A Casebook on Roman Family Law, p. 146. “Can a Wife Give Her Husband an Allowance? This is held to be an improper gift and, furthermore, ‘inconsistent with and contrary to the nature of her sex’ (Ulpian, D.24.1.33.1).”

The Guardianship of a Woman, Part VI: The Weakness of Her Sex

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

 

The Weakness of Her Sex

 

If one looks at all of the writings of the ancients, and indeed, even down well into the twentieth century, it is found that there is always great emphasis on a woman’s “weakness-” both physical and mental- and on the duty of the male sex to provide for and protect women. The Romans had called a woman’s weakness infirmitas sexus and levitas animi. As the jurist Gaius says of the perpetual tutelage of women: “For the ancestors (veteres) wanted women, even adult women, to be in tutelage because of their levitas animi.”[24] And likewise, Cicero, “Our ancestors wanted all women to be under a tutor’s power because of the weakness of their judgment.”[25]

Guardianship of women was an ancient custom oftentimes even among unmarried women after they had reached adulthood. As Blackstone had explained it,

Among the ancient Greeks and Romans women were never of age but subject to perpetual guardianship, unless when married “nisi convenissent in manum viri:” and, when that perpetual tutelage wore away in process of time, we find that, in females as well as males, full age was not till twenty-five years.[26]

Though the laws and customs of England and America had no guardianship of adult unmarried women, women in Rome (even in the classical and post-classical period), were subject to perpetual tutelage. The Romans also held many of the same common-sense notions that our own traditional laws of England and America had held until arbitrary anti-sex discrimination legislation began to be forcibly pushed through Congress, state legislatures, and the courts:

In the early Roman Empire, as in most Western societies until the success of the women’s suffrage movement in the early twentieth century, women were citizens but were nonetheless legally barred from voting, holding magistracies, serving as jurors, and generally performing what were thought of as public duties.

(Ulpian in the first book on Sabinus)

Women are excluded from all civic and public duties (official civilia vel publica), and so they cannot be judges (iudices), hold magistracies, bring legal claims for others (postulare), represent others in court, or act as procurators (for others in lawsuits).

(Paul in the seventeenth book on the Edict)

Moreover, not everyone can be appointed a judge (iudex) by those who have the right to appoint judges. Certain kinds of persons are prevented from acting as judges by statute, by nature, or by convention…By convention, there are women and slaves, not because they do not possess judgment, but because it is traditional that they do not preform civic duties (civilia official).[27]

A “son-in-power” (in other words, a son who was still under the authority of his father (or grandfather if he was still living), as all children were perpetually under the authority of the male head-of-household, or pater familias, even in adulthood until he either died or they were emancipated) was also in a different position than a daughter-in power, as Roman law did not conceive that a daughter could be competent enough to truly enter into contracts or be held liable the same as her brother might be:

…if sons are otherwise qualified (of adult age, sane, and so on), they possess full capacity to contract with a third party. By contrast, as Gaius says, daughters-in-power (and also wives in archaic manus marriages), cannot be obligated to anyone; that is, they lack the capacity to make a contract that is binding upon themselves…Suppose that a daughter-in-power borrows from a neighbor a piece of jewelry which she then carelessly damages. According to Ulpian (D. 13.6.3.4), she herself cannot be sued on the contract for damaging the jewelry, and her pater familias can be sued only up to the value of her peculium, if she has one…[28]

The Romans, not only placing great emphasis on feminine weakness, also placed a great deal of value upon female sexuality. In particular, the Romans (as in all civilizations, including our own until recently), implemented protective legislation into their laws to protect especially virtuous women in their sexuality and placed great weight upon a woman’s fidelity in marriage. As Frier & McGinn describe it (and as described by the late classical Roman jurist Ulpian), Roman law protected women and adolescent males- but not adult males- from the sexual harassment of predatory males who make their advances “contrary to good morals.” Frier & McGinn further ask the question: “Is it fair to argue that…Roman law was based on a policy goal of difference between the sexes (where harassment undermines the ‘privileged status’ of women)?”[29]

Our own historical laws can be referred to, as well as the opinions of judges and learned men of ages past, to see that our laws and social values have always (again, until very recently) acknowledged that male and female sexuality are completely different things, and that men and women oftentimes have special circumstances not shared by the opposite sex. Not too far gone in history, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against the male plaintiff in the case of Michael M. V. Sonoma County Superior Court 450 U.S. 464 (1981), who contended that California’s statutory rape law “…unlawfully discriminated on the basis of gender since men alone were criminally liable.”[30] But Justice William H. Rehnquist and four other of his contemporaries weren’t buying it:

 But because the Equal Protection Clause does not “demand that a statute necessarily apply equally to all persons” or require “things which are different in fact . . . to be treated in law as though they were the same…'” This Court has consistently upheld statutes where the gender classification is not invidious, but rather realistically reflects the fact that the sexes are not similarly situated in certain circumstances. As the Court has stated, a legislature may “provide for the special problems of women.”

We need not be medical doctors to discern that young men and young women are not similarly situated with respect to the problems and the risks of sexual intercourse. Only women may become pregnant, and they suffer disproportionately the profound physical, emotional, and psychological consequences of sexual activity. The statute at issue here protects women from sexual intercourse at an age when those consequences are particularly severe.

The question thus boils down to whether a State may attack the problem of sexual intercourse and teenage pregnancy directly by prohibiting a male from having sexual intercourse with a minor female. We hold that such a statute is sufficiently related to the State’s objectives to pass constitutional muster.

Because virtually all of the significant harmful and inescapably identifiable consequences of teenage pregnancy fall on the young female, a legislature acts well within its authority when it elects to punish only the participant who, by nature, suffers few of the consequences of his conduct. It is hardly unreasonable for a legislature acting to protect minor females to exclude them from punishment. Moreover, the risk of pregnancy itself constitutes a substantial deterrence to young females. No similar natural sanctions deter males. A criminal sanction imposed solely on males thus serves to roughly “equalize” the deterrents on the sexes…

In upholding the California statute, we also recognize that this is not a case where a statute is being challenged on the grounds that it “invidiously discriminates” against females.

To the contrary, the statute places a burden on males which is not shared by females. But we find nothing to suggest that men, because of past discrimination or peculiar disadvantages, are in need of the special solicitude of the courts. Nor is this a case where the gender classification is made “solely for . . . administrative convenience…” or rests on “the baggage of sexual stereotypes.” As we have held, the statute instead reasonably reflects the fact that the consequences of sexual intercourse and pregnancy fall more heavily on the female than on the male…[31]

Other cases may be referred to, and there is certainly evidence that the Founding Fathers did not envision the society that we have today. Not only does the Constitution of the United States forbid either Congress or the states from “impairing the obligation of contracts”[32] and thereby calling into question the entire constitutionality of all legislation attempting to make men and women equal out in the working world, but it can never be supposed that they meant for the Constitution to impose all of the same rights and duties upon both sexes in every sphere of life either. Consider the infamous instance of Abigail Adams, when writing to her husband -arguably among the most famous of the Founding Fathers-, John Adams, that he “remember the ladies:”

On March 31, 1776, Abigail Adams appealed to her husband, John Adams, who was busily engaged with the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. She urged that “in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies…” His curt reply mirrored the attitude of the times: “As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh.”[33]

Significantly, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908), Radice v. New York, 264 U.S. 292 (1924), Goesart v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948); Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961), and other peculiar state cases such as the Oregon Supreme Court case of State v. Hunter, 300 P.2d 455 (Ore. 1956). Cases such as MullerRadice, and Goesart upheld protective legislation for women, on the grounds of female weakness, women’s role as the bearer of the children, and of man’s duty to safeguard female sexuality and be the providers of women and children, with the justices issuing what I would consider very beautiful- if paternalistic and romantic- opinions.

These cases have since been overturned, of course, leaving no room for either Congress or the states to enact any kind of legislation- no matter how much it might appeal to the common sense and reason of mankind nor how necessary a legislature might deem it to protect the family- that would treat the sexes differently, leading to many arbitrary abuses, confusion, instability, and injustice as a result.


 

[24] Frier & MgGinn, A Casebook on Roman Family Law, p. 450.

[25] Ibid.

[26] James Stewart, The Rights of Persons, According to the Text of Blackstone, Incorporating the Alterations Down To the Present Time (London, 1839), p. 499.

[27] Frier & McGinn, A Casebook on Roman Family Law, p. 457.

[28] Ibid., p. 251.

[29] Ibid., p. 469.

[30] Fisher & Harriger, American Constitutional Law, Volume 2, Tenth Edition: Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, p. 869.

[31] Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464, 469-76 (1981).

[32] U.S. Const. art.I, §10. “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

[33] Fisher & Harriger, American Constitutional Law, Volume 2, Tenth Edition, Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, p. 845.