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.

Advertisements

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…

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)

CDD, You’ve Got it Wrong

Well, I’ve been involved in some interesting stuff here lately. I have been researching some social movements such as the christian patriarchy movement, stay at home daughters movement and the ever popular domestic discipline movement (sometimes part of the christian patriarchy movement). It’s good to at least see the culture moving towards patriarchy but i’m still seeing a lot of problems. First, some of these groups tend to be tinged with sexually explicit BDSM aspects. On some of my research adventures I’ve quite frankly felt a sudden urge to tighten up my anti-virus protection and have been really disturbed by a lot of things.

There does seem to be a lot of women out there really truly wanting to submit to their husbands and have happy homes. But the one thing I’ve seen that they are missing is that they still seem to be feminist in many aspects. For instance, I’ve gotten myself involved in a couple of conversations and following quite a few others. I’ve also been searching through blogs and websites and the one thing that I’ve noticed is that they are still feminist in the aspect of women working and nobody seems to want to talk about a husband’s responsibilities except for where keeping his wife “in line” is concerned. They promise to obey their husbands and then they march right off to work.

I responded to a posting in a group (a Christian domestic discipline group) I joined up with a week ago where a woman was talking about how her husband was disciplining her and how she can submit to him better and she was asking advice at what the other ladies and their husbands do. Then she went on to say about how she just lost her job and she was really stressed. I’ve seen this kind of conversation before and these ladies then go on to talk about how their husbands command them to do this or that before they head off to work and their husband’s discipline helps them relieve the stress they deal with at work and they will talk about having Bible studies and everything as well. I mean, something is seriously wrong here. I mean, you want your husband to spank the stress out of you that you acquired through sharing in his responsibilities? I’d rather be a feminist than deal with that! At least I could “go my own way.” I pointed out that it wasn’t her responsibility to go to work but her husband’s and his role as head of household is so that he can provide for her and their children better. So what did they say? Nothing. In fact, the group is acting like I don’t exist at all. The conversation kept on going and is still going and nobody has made mention or even cared about anything at all that I said. Some of them even wished her luck in finding a new job. But doesn’t their own Bible say it is for the man to work “by the sweat of his brow” to provide for his family and that the woman’s husband is to rule over her even though she will try to rule over him? They acknowledge the husband ruling over her part but make no mention about the man’s work to provide. Some also seem to think it’s perfectly acceptable for a boss or boyfriend to discipline a woman when only a husband (or father when she’s young) should have such a right.

Unfortunately I see these movements as some kind of game. They set out the “rules” of the game, they have names and abbreviations such as “HoH” (head of household) and things like that. They are still, however, part of the modern mainstream culture and what ultimately separates them from their BDSM loving secular egalitarian counterparts? The Bible studies where they ignore scripture and redefine it to what modern society says is right and wrong? These movements might tie in well with movements such as the men’s rights movement that wants men put in charge but still keeping the feminist ideals of women going out and holding employment regardless of their marital status.

Now I’m not going to argue about the whole men disciplining their wives thing. In truth, when it comes down to it, no authority is a real authority unless 1) it can enforce its rule with the approval of society and the law or 2) it has the power to discipline those under its rule. Everyone is disciplined by someone whether physical or not when they break a rule or law. I don’t believe that a man has any rightful authority unless he has unquestionable responsibility. I’ve seen some complain about women pressing charges for things like “marital rape” on their husbands. My thoughts? I don’t think it’s right but if men want to “go their own way” and leave women to fend for themselves then what do they expect? You can’t force yourself upon a woman and force her to bear your children when she can be forced to carry half the burden of the economic costs and you can abandon her any time you want to. You can’t put a woman “in her place” then tell her to go to work so you can sit back and and not have to worry so much. I’ve seen some women say they work full-time and then come home and cook dinner and get a beer for their husband so he can relax and watch TV! That’s insanity. That’s called exploitation. That’s called taking advantage of someone for your own benefit and to their detriment.

I think allowing men to use a little force to restrain their wives or even discipline when necessary might be appropriate and would give men both the power to protect themselves and as well protect their wives from her own foolishness and keep peace in the home. But it’s not a carte blanche to abuse a woman nor for him to push his burdens on her back so he doesn’t have as much to worry about.