Tag Archives: a woman’s right to be supported by her husband

Male Dominance Should Protect Women

Warning: some sexual/feminine content

What a sickening world it is that we live in today. Men are supposed to be the ones protecting and supporting women, not the other way around. It is not a woman’s job to support a man or protect him.

I think about the way I’m made and I always think that’s it’s wonderful, but when I look at the world around me I begin to think differently. It makes me want to think the functions of my body are sick and disgusting and degrading, instead of wonderful and precious the way they were meant to be.

One of the biggest facts of life is the differences between men and women. It is a fundamental difference defining the relationship between a man and a woman. I love the way my body is made and I love who and what I am as a woman but it is so degraded by the laws and the culture around us.

Men are more powerful than women. Women are weaker, both physically and emotionally, than what men are. Women are the ones who carry the burdens of bearing the children. It is the woman who receives the man into her body during sex. Women do not penetrate nor impregnate men and it takes quite a woman indeed who can overpower a man (without help anyways).

I find this all very beautiful and wonderful, the idea that I take the man I love inside of me and receive his seed within me. It is the feeling of his body covering mine and weighing me down and the feeling of him filling me physically within that gives such pleasure and wonder. I could never find any pleasure from lesbianism nor masturbation nor any other deviation from the natural order of life. It is only in the acknowledgment of the way my body is made as a female that peace or pleasure can be found.

Every month when my cycle comes around I find it precious and wonderful. I’m not really one to reach for the bottle of Midol. I would feel somehow that I’m being robbed. I’m not trying to be like a man nor compete out in the world and I recognize that I need to rest a bit more and simply can’t handle as much stress due to being female. I don’t view my female bodily functions as holding me back or keeping me from achieving. My body does go through phases that would make it very hard to keep on going like a man would. Oftentimes I just can’t see how I could do it. I always have one day every month where I am faint and can’t hardly stand up without falling over. The sleep deprivation comes on schedule every month. Usually when the day arrives I do have some pains but I’m not generally eager to get rid of them. Any other pains in life I would want to rid myself of but there is something special about the pains and discomforts that are distinctly feminine. I know it makes me a little weaker but it makes me feel special and wonderful. I want to delight in what makes me different from a man.

He knows the cycles that my body goes through. I know he views me as weaker and more emotional than him. I love that he sees me differently and doesn’t just see me as another man. He would never treat me as a man. He doesn’t see me as “equal” nor does he see me as some kind of business partner. He sees me as his wife. He sees me as a precious gem to be guarded and cared for and sheltered. He would never let me support him or go out and work. He would never allow me to be the one to protect him. How could that ever be right?

How could I be with a man who didn’t see my weaknesses and peculiarities as a woman as special? Why on earth should it ever be thought that he would need my protection or support? A real man is one who sees it as his duty to support and protect women. But look at the decaying society all around us. Men live off of the support of women. Nearly half of all families have wives and mothers as the main breadwinner and in nearly every other case she is at least a co-provider. The genderless institution of marriage says I could very well be equally responsible to support him, a man. Should I also go off to war to die as if I were a man? What are the men in this society even doing?

I feel a protection and peace in submitting to his dominance. I feel safe when he’s inside me. Is that not how it’s supposed to be? Shouldn’t a woman feel safe under a man’s dominance, which should read as protection? But what happens when men use that dominance for the exploitation of a woman? His dominance should protect me. It is not for men to overpower women to hurt them.

Sex for a woman should be precious. It is a bigger event for a woman. He might hurt her. He might impregnate her. He’s stronger than her. She’s letting him inside of her in a most intimate way. Her body is messy and sometimes bloody. It should be special. It should all be for her husband. He should be responsible for her, to fully protect her and provide for her. It is the woman that brings this uniqueness to the relationship and marriage. She should be able to trust him and depend upon him. Emphasis should be put on her body and her sexuality. It should be a serious matter of great importance.

Why would anyone with half a brain cell think a woman should be responsible for a man? Even if she does become the breadwinner the laws of nature, of God, still apply. Short of using science to manipulate nature (which would still put more stress and pain on a woman and put her health in jeopardy) there is no changing that.

Advertisements

A Woman Should Not Get Involved In Her Husband’s Business

A wife getting involved in her husband’s business should ultimately be looked upon as a bad thing. Men used to be shamed if their wives worked and a married woman getting involved in business was frowned upon. I see a lot of women whose husbands have home businesses and in almost every case the wife is working full-time in the business (most generally by sitting in an office all day). But a wife getting involved in her husband’s business is still engaging in paid employment. She is not dependent upon her husband but rather she is a business partner with him, and this removes her from her traditional role. It is a husband’s job to fully financially support his wife. A husband asking his wife to work in his business or contribute to it full or part-time in a significant way is an assault against her traditional role and an assault against her right to be supported by her husband. It is one thing to ask the wife about something she may be skilled in occasionally but another for her to be involved fully or partially in his business. Any activity or work that goes towards the provision for a family is the husband’s responsibility or the responsibility of the adult males in the household (say if there was an older or adult son of working age still at home).

For the most part, a wife should stay out of her husband’s business. Under coverture, husbands controlled property and money and were fully responsible. For the most part, what the husband does is his own business and he should not be obligated to explain himself to his wife. He should be held fully financially responsible for whatever occurs or whatever he does. It is his responsibility to support the family and he should be called to answer and be held responsible for whatever the outcome. The working world should be seen as “men’s business,” as should political affairs and, although single women have always been able to have their careers and independence if they so chose, women should, as a general principle, stay out of it. The wife can spend her time engaging in feminine pursuits, chores around the house, caring for children and others, being social (or not), engaging in hobbies that interest her, and being there for her husband, children, family and friends when they need her.

A woman should leave the working world to her husband and a husband should not involve his wife in his business and affairs. A man asking his wife to engage in productive work which goes towards the provision of the family is asking for his wife to help provide for his household, which is also to say he is asking his wife to help provide for him. Truly masculine men do not need the protection and support of women.

Related:

married women and home businesses (tag)

The Provider Role Belongs to Man

Recommended:

Alexis de Toqueville on American Women

William Blackstone on Coverture

Security Must Be a Prerequisite to Childbearing

“For, at present, the law protects the persons and the weakness of women to an extent far beyond anything they might legislate for themselves.

Public opinion, almost chivalric in its courtesy among Americans, goes even further, and gracefully yields privileges, which will be best understood when lost. Will suffrage preserve this? Deprive women of such protection, and place them on a sheer equality with men, to struggle for their rights at the ballot-box, and they cannot but suffer by a direct competition, which would create an antagonism…”(1)

Young men need direction and young women need protection. These are the facts of life that the egalitarian culture refuses to acknowledge. Most view those that believe in traditional gender roles as being extremely religious and view anyone pro-patriarchal as believing that women should bear as many children as possible and as being extreme right-wing and conservative. But that does not describe us all. Though I am conservative on a lot of issues I am also liberal in many ways and though I do love children I will never have anymore.

Once upon a time my greatest dream and fantasy was to have children. My head was filled with thoughts of nursing an infant from my breast and being married to a man who would take care of me for the rest of my life. I was a starry-eyed innocent teenage girl who still believed the good in the world. I was innocent and naive about anything outside of the box that I lived in. But I am no longer that little girl. The thing about innocence is that once it’s lost it can never be regained. It is simply gone forever.

I am married. I am a mother. I married young and only had one child before discovering the realities of life in the post-feminist world. I learned I was not safe. My marriage and child was in no way a mistake, but I knew it could never happen again. I need security. I need to know that I will be safe. But since I know I am neither secure nor safe my womb will forever remain scarred closed and barren. It’s not the way it was supposed to be, but then again the fantasies of a young girl are generally far removed from reality. That’s why they’re called fantasies. Security must be a prerequisite for childbearing. It isn’t just a selfish issue either. Not only do women need that security but the children do as well. My mind simply cannot reconcile the capabilities of the womb with the egalitarian culture. I will not bear female burdens if I will be treated like a man. I cannot bring children into this world unless I know that marriage is to last a lifetime and that I will have a home to live in and financial support to raise my children to adulthood. The average marriage today doesn’t even last half as long as the time it takes to raise a child to adulthood.

Even if I know I can trust my husband I cannot trust that I will be secure if anything ever happened to him. We live in a time where everyone thinks they have rights to a child (all in the *best interest* of children, of course) and even married couples have lost custody of their children to outsiders. Mothers have even lost custody of their children to roommates. Everyone from sperm donors, roommates, grandparents and customers victims of IVF mix-ups think they have rights to a child (and are commonly granted them) these days.

I need to know I’m secure if I am ever to bring another child into this world. I know I am not and so I cannot have them. A man can even walk out and divorce his pregnant wife (even if she’s pregnant with his child) these days. If I was ever widowed or abandoned what would become of me and my children? Men do not collectively protect and support women as a general moral principle these days so it is unlikely any man will step up to take responsibility for me and marry me if I ever was left alone for some reason.

“…The ballot will substitute for this tenderness equal rights; then must all else be equal and common…”(1)

I will be a faithful wife and mother but it doesn’t matter. I am guaranteed no financial support from an ex-husband even if I’ve done nothing wrong. At best I might get some temporary support for a year or two just for the sole purpose of “rehabilitating” myself and going back to the workforce (because apparently being a housewife is akin to having some problem and at divorce I will be expected to get treatment- like an education- to cure the problem and live a normal healthy life by having a career). Not only am I guaranteed no support but I’m expect to provide support. I am not even guaranteed that my infant children will not be ripped from my arms just because my husband wants to abandon me, or, if I’m widowed, that some other in-law or anyone with a connection to my children won’t make some claim to them. Society already sees housewives as deadbeats contributing nothing so my financial dependence will be seen as yet another a strike against me as a mother.

These are serious issues. Families are in a bad way right now. If I am ever to have children I need to be assured that they will grow up in a secure environment. It is true that under coverture a husband held sole rights to the children, yet he also was responsible. He could not obtain a divorce anytime “just because” and he had the legal obligation to provide support for an innocent ex-wife for her entire lifetime, or at least until she remarried to another man that would support her. He also had to be solely responsible to provide for his legitimate children whether he was still married to their mother or not. He had rights because he had responsibilities. Now it is an “anything goes” situation and there is no security for women and children. Even if we take out the gender issues this is still a bad time to have children (not that there’s ever been a perfect time to have them).

Only within security and love could I ever bear children and since it is unlikely that women will ever have security during my reproductive years I will not have them. And it’s true, a woman’s husband doesn’t have a choice in the matter. If she is not guaranteed security from him and support and protection then the flip-side is that he doesn’t get a right over her womb. He does not have to support her and neither does he have rights over her. It goes both ways.

Feminism and MRAism exist for no other purpose than to put antagonism between the sexes and make men and women distrustful of each other. And what a good job it does! In our world today every woman is a slut until proven chaste, so a good girl never has half a chance. Men don’t have to be responsible for women they impregnate. Men don’t support and love women anymore. Even many married men are distrustful of their wife’s chastity, and probably with good reason. Words cannot describe the damage, anguish and suffering this does to women who only want to be wives and mothers.

“The feminist campaign to do away with the double standard is an attempt to remove this class distinction and make all women “good.” Instead, it is making all women “bad,” creating the Garbage Generation in the process. The predicament lamented in “Thanks for My Child” has the consequence that women can no longer trust men and men can no longer trust women.”(2)

There is not a shred of security left for women and children. By the time I was born feminists had already insisted they spoke for what I really wanted and had already removed any security I might have had. By the time I was born there was nothing left. Things will change one day but who knows if it will be for the better or if women will have to live under some kind of third-world male tyranny the way MRAs want. I cannot take that chance. I cannot gamble that me and my children will be OK. Having children is serious business that nobody is taking very serious. Even if our laws and attitudes changed tomorrow, ours is a lost generation as we cannot turn back the hands of time to undo what has already been done.

Enough of This Home Business Business

Being a traditional woman means to be financially dependent on one’s husband. Traditionally, the working world was seen as “men’s business” and married women were shielded from the necessities of earning a living. I see women all the time who just simply cannot leave well enough alone. They simply cannot understand anything other than earning a paycheck. Even conservative Christians try to interpret the Bible to something pleasing to modern-day standards. For instance, I see all the time stay at home mothers who are Christians interpreting the Proverbs 31 woman as the ideal and saying that, if applied to the modern day, it means a woman should start a home business (as well as bear children and take care of the house!). A woman making her own money would be a financially independent woman no matter where that money is made. That would make her consistent with the feminist ideal for women. Also, a woman working everyday at her husband’s business would make her a business partner with him and not dependent upon him. Even conservatives promote the feminist ideal for gender relations and this has been going on for a while now. As George Gilder observed in his book “Men and Marriage:”

“As a critique of the feminist movement and its politics, Sexual Suicide now seems less telling. But the central themes of the book remain vitally important. Though rejecting feminist politics and lesbian posturing, American culture has absorbed the underlying ideology like a sponge. The principle tenets of sexual liberation or sexual liberalism-the obsolescence of masculinity and femininity, of sex role, and of heterosexual monogamy as the moral norm- have diffused through the system and become part of America’s conventional wisdom. Taught in most of the nation’s schools and colleges and proclaimed insistently in the media, sexual liberalism prevails even where feminism- at least in its antimale rhetoric- seems increasingly irrelevant.”

Sanne at Adventures in Keeping House, also sums it up perfectly in this post (comments section):

“As I see it, the problem often is that nowadays people see men and women as interchangeable. They are supposed to have the same interests and fulfill the same roles in society. Often, even conservatives who claim that they are pro-family will state that as long as one of the parents has to stay home, it’s O.K. and it doesn’t matter whether it is the father or the mother. On the other hand, the fathers who work long hours are criticized by the same conservatives for not contributing to raising the children. Excuse me, but the father who works hard and enables his wife to stay home is contributing enough, even though he doesn’t change the diapers!

I say men and women are different, and should be judged according to a different standard to some point. Long live sexual dimorphism!”

Before feminism men were required to financially support their wives. It was a man’s duty as well as a legal obligation. Our culture has lost this ethic entirely as the breadwinner ethic has been entirely eroded. A lot of women today are trying to gain respect for stay-at-home wives and mothers yet they are still focusing on teaching women how to make money from home. It’s still egalitarian; it’s still feminist. The point of marriage is for men to provide for and protect women; to take a woman out of the workforce so that she may be home and care for her children and others.

Also another thing that has gone out of our culture is that men, not women, are supposed to head households. When the provider ethic was the strongest (before the 20th century) it was also the oldest son, not the mother, who took over temporarily as being the head of household if the father was absent or away on business (assuming he had reached a certain age of maturity). It seems so odd and strange to us today (indeed it might even seem a little twisted and backwards) but the idea was that men had an obligation to protect and support women and that men should be in charge and take financial responsibility unless there was simply no other choice and those burdens had to fall to women. A woman’s closest male family members were also charged with her protection. This included her brothers and close cousins as well and it was not unusual for a woman to be financially supported by her adult brother if she was unmarried or widowed or for her brothers to take an avid interest in any man who might come calling on her with romantic interests.

It is clear to see that family breakdown began to be the norm at around the 1970s, when equal support obligations began to be laid upon wives and mothers and sexual promiscuity and divorce became common and accepted. Even conservatives do not promote sex roles anymore. A home business is still a business. A woman making money from home (unless it’s an occasional thing) is still being a co-provider. She is still adopting feminist ideology for her and her family. That is not traditional, it is egalitarian. We need to return to the cultural ethic of men being providers and protectors of families, not women. Being a traditional woman means depending on your husband, not finding ways to still be a co-provider while changing diapers and mopping floors.

Recommended:

Proverbs 31 Feminist Woman

Marriage is Not Meant to be Egalitarian

A husband should be obligated to support his wife just based on the fact that she is his wife, his dependent, and he is responsible for her. It should not be dependent on how much housework she does or whether or not they have children that she is responsible to care for. I see in the times we live in now that a lot of women are telling their husbands or live-in boyfriends that they’ll do housework if he will support her. Of course, then this leads oftentimes to the boyfriend/husband getting angry that she isn’t doing enough housework or isn’t doing her share even though he’s supporting her. Of course, men and women (who aren’t related) should not be allowed to live alone together without being married. But on a husband should fall the obligation to fully financially support his wife no matter how much housework she does or even if she does any housework at all. If a man is rich enough to afford a maid it shouldn’t affect his obligation to support his wife. As much as he provides for himself he should provide for his wife as well and any children they have together. A man shouldn’t be relieved of his obligation to support his wife just because he can afford a housekeeper and doesn’t need her to do housework. In times past men had the legal obligation to support their wives and this obligation was not dependent on the wife “doing her share” in housework or bearing a child every year.

As well, a lot of people look down on childless housewives as though they were not doing anything productive. This is only because we’ve been brainwashed to see everything in terms of money, in terms of how much money it would cost to pay someone else to do what the housewife does. We’ve been brainwashed to believe that marriages and male-female relationships should always be egalitarian. But you can’t put a price-tag on the work a woman at home does, as her work is invaluable. Even if all she does is bake a pie and invite a friend over for tea she has still done something valuable. She has still contributed to society and the family. She has contributed to society in the way of one less broken home, one less unhappy family, one less obese child and one less frustrated and angry woman.

I like to sit down and read a book and occasionally, if there’s anything good to watch, I like to watch a little tv when I get all of my chores done. Just because I sit down for a couple of hours doing something that I enjoy doesn’t mean I’m lazy or “freeloading”. If my husband is unsatisfied with the work I do around the house then he can tell me what I’m doing wrong. It is his job to straighten me out if I’m neglecting my true duties. Likewise, most married women feel they have to volunteer all of their free time or start some home business or something. I have no intentions of starting some home business or volunteering. That would make me very unhappy and no doubt be an unnecessary stress.

A husband should have the legal obligation to fully financially support his wife and any children they do or don’t have and as well he should have the legal right to be head-of-household. It is the woman’s obligation to care for the home and she will generally have her own way of doing things and her own methods. Mostly a husband should just let her do things the way she knows how to do things best. If a wife is truly neglecting her duties around the house and neglecting the kids then it is the husband’s job to keep her in line or punish her if necessary. It’s not really the business of anyone else around as it is the husband’s household and he should have the right to direct his family the way he sees fit (so long as he doesn’t cross the line into abuse and so long as he lives up to his responsibilities). It doesn’t really matter if the feminist woman down the street hates the fact that his wife doesn’t work. It doesn’t really matter if the wife is busy non-stop or what other people think. A wife should not be pressured to be on her feet running herself into the ground all day just to appease the modern-day notion of “equal” marriages. Marriage was not meant to be an “equal partnership.” Marriage is a partnership of sorts, but it should not be “equal.” The purpose of marriage is for men to protect and support women and give women security to have babies. The purpose of marriage is to protect women from having to go out and work and be on their own and to protect women from carrying double burdens.

Every year when my husband files our taxes he is barred from claiming me as a dependent. If we were not married he could do so, but since we are married our laws state that legally I cannot be a dependent and he cannot legally be head of household. Our laws state that we must jointly be head of household. That I, as his legal wife, must accept all the same burdens that are laid upon him and no consideration is given to the burdens that fall solely on a woman or to her weaker and more dependent state. That is not a choice, that is an obligation. It is the law accepting of the feminist perspective and obliging all citizens to follow it despite the fact that it is anti-God and this legally enforced equality in the family has been the primary cause of the complete destruction of the family unit and the instability in marital relationships. But this is not what marriage has historically been about. Marriage is about men protecting and supporting women and being responsible for their actions towards women. Marriage needs to return once again to being an institution about men providing for and being guardians of women and children, no matter how much work a woman is doing around the house.

Recommended Articles:

The Contribution of Traditional Wives to Society

Homemakers Should Not Be Made to Feel Guitly for Enjoying Life at Home

So You Think You Should Go To Work?

If All You Do…