Tag Archives: alimony

Yet Another Reason Why MRAs Are Full of S***

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/10/27/are-you-a-stay-at-home-mom-facing-divorce-dont-expect-alimony/

A fan of mine (a MAN as yes there are actually traditionalist men left) just sent this article to me and it made me very sad (he expressed the same opinion as well). For centuries women could count on lifetime financial support (unless they were unfaithful) and the primary aspect of marriage was men providing for their wives and women caring for their home and children (if there were any but childless women were still provided for regardless) and now it’s regressed to such a point because of feminism that women at home are looked at as lazy bums who just won’t “get a job.” It’s been bad for a while but unfortunately is getting worse. This is also yet more evidence that MRAs are full of BS and make outlandish claims about courts favoring women that can’t be backed up by a shred of evidence. Sure, you know someone who knows someone who… Yeah, OK. As NYMOM said in one of her posts a few years back “a man has a better chance of getting struck by LIGHTNING than ever paying a dime of alimony.” Almost all married women are either co-providers or primary providers and how is it “divorce theft” when she’s been paying the bills, birthing the kids and paying for the home, car, food, etc..??? She paid for it yet it’s not her stuff too? Get real. Men aren’t victims and the courts aren’t stacked against them because of feminism. Not only are most men not paying any support, how many are ******* RECEIVING it (which, in my opinion, is beyond absurd)? NEWS FLASH if your wife has a job and is paying the bills then she is providing for YOU- at least partially. So, no, men aren’t providing for women. You aren’t being providers so stop acting like victims and like women are the enemy because neither of those things is true. Women are providing for themselves, their children AND for men- which is why marriage is seen as obsolete today. This is what feminists have ALWAYS wanted- the complete eradication of the provider ethic so women will be forced to have careers and be forced out of the home despite the desire to stay home, as Graglia explained so well in her book “Domestic Tranquility.” But women CAN change this and the primary way is to use man’s sexual need. No financial support, no marriage, no p****.

Advertisements

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.

Women are Still Under Male Control More Than Ever

The reality of the matter is that women are more under the control of men now than ever before. The reason is that feminism is built upon pure fantasy, and not reality. It is men’s organizations that are currently using feminism to force women to register for the draft (with the support of feminists and ‘women’s rights’ of course!). It is men (along with feminist lawyers) that decided that rape wasn’t worthy of the death penalty. It is male Justices who enforced upon women the obligation of alimony (used to be the husband’s responsibility- but feminists lawyers took up the case for men). It is men that decided men should be allowed rights to illegitimate children. If there’s ever a draft it will be men deciding women should be taken (as Congress is less than 20% female it will be men – old men at that- deciding to send women to war).

Women used to be under the control and authority of husbands- one man- or fathers -again only one man- who was also legally obligated to ensure all her needs were provided for and protect her. He was held to moral obligations and responsibilities by society and they were enforced by the law. Now, women are liberated! Empowered! Free! Yeah! Now no more control by husbands, no more sexual restraint, no more being forced to remain in a marriage or remain in the home. Yeah!

Trust me, feminists, men don’t want to oppress you by keeping you home to do housework. Why would they want that? That would then mean they would have to actually take some responsibility for you. The modern man doesn’t have to take responsibility for you as he can assert authority over you without all the chains of responsibility. He can leave you anytime he wants. Society won’t pour disdain on him. He won’t have to support you for the rest of your life. In fact, hey, why not just order you to support him? Sound like fun! If you refuse he’ll just have you thrown in jail (freedom, yea!).

As for sex? Ha! Forget having to marry! Why, we can’t make any sex distinctions or treat the traditional family with any higher regard under the law. Why he can impregnate you, refuse to marry, then come back around and harass you in court and take the child away from you (his mom will do a fine job of raising the child!). If you try to resist, he’ll just have you arrested (what freedom and liberation!) and your paycheck garnished (hey, at least you’re not making 50 cents to every dollar that a man makes anymore).

As for the rapist? Well, everyone uses the roadway anyways. The poor guy is just guilty of reckless driving, that’s all. He probably should have offered to go Dutch on a dinner date and move in with you to split the bills 50/50 before screwing you but we can’t give him the death penalty for that because that would be unfair discrimination against women by assuming women are weaker than men and in need of special protections. And since the feminists insisted illegitimacy was no big deal and there should be no discrimination it would be so wrong for us to deny the guy custodial rights. Marriage? So obsolete these days.

What fools. Liberation? Empowerment? Women are more oppressed than ever before because feminism has destroyed families and through the guise of “equal rights” women are impoverished, harassed and left destitute and men have no obligation to be truly responsible. Sorry, but a little bit of temporary spousal support that women could be ordered to pay as well or a little child support that most women will never see is not male responsibility- nowhere close to it.

Women are always under the control of men. Only today women are under the control of immoral and irresponsible men who have absolutely no obligation to be responsible for their support or well being. In the past a woman was under the control of one man- a husband or father- who was under legal obligation to provide her with all of her needs and protect her. He could not force her to carry his obligations. If she or the children had needs, he would be responsible to provide for all of them. There would be no splitting it all 50/50 as he was called upon to perform his duties as the head of the household. Since sex outside of marriage and legitimacy was taken seriously a man could make absolutely no claim to an illegitimate child and the rapist would have been put to death. Even if he evaded prosecution (as is unavoidable sometimes) he would have had no claim to the child which protected women and children.

It was men who were called to war. They were called on by other men. Now, if there is a draft it will be old men forcing women off to war to die. If they refuse, they will of course face being arrested (what freedom of choice!). Before women’s lib forcing women into war (at least to be anywhere near combat) would have been unthinkable. But now men are asserting their authority over women without having to take the responsibility for them that they would have in times past.

Feminism is pure fantasy. Men’s rights groups are just a response to feminism. Feminism is the real problem here. It is based upon an illusion. Feminists wanted for women something that simply isn’t ever going to happen. The fact of the matter is that women need protections, men are stronger and have certain advantages over women. The fact of the matter is that women will never make up 50% of Congress or be able to compete on the same level as men. They will never hold up in combat or in war the same as men. Taking away protections from women and coercing women into the workforce and out of the home has not made women any more powerful. It has done absolutely nothing to make men respect women more (in fact, it’s had the exact opposite effect). It has left millions of women with no security or protection. Drop the fantasies, drop the illusions and let’s come back to reality here. Millions of innocent women are now paying the price for their grandmothers’ “liberation” that is still ingrained into our laws up to the highest level.

The Legitimacy Principle and the Good of Patriarchy

“With a large number of tribes, inheritance is based on maternity. Paternity is immaterial. Brothers and sisters are only the children of one mother. A man does not bequeath his property to his children, but to the children of his sister, that is to say, to his nephews and nieces, as his nearest demonstrable blood relatives. A chief of the Way people explained to me in horrible English: “My sister and I are certainly blood relatives, consequently her son is my heir; when I die, he will be the king of my town.” “And your father?” I inquired. “I don’t know what that means, ‘my father,’ answered he. Upon my putting to him the question whether he had no children, rolling on the ground with laughter, he answered that, with them, men have no children, only women.”

We were once matrilineal. We were once matriarchal. Throughout most of human history paternity was never acknowledged. It didn’t matter if women were promiscuous. It didn’t matter how many lovers or husbands they had. The family line and all inheritance was passed through the mother and fatherhood was an unknown concept. Of course, under such a system societies were very primitive. Not much progress really happened in the world. At least, not until the invention of patriarchal societies. Patriarchal societies were ushered in and the sexual freedom and promiscuity of females was brought to a halt. Inheritance was not passed down through the mother anymore, but through fathers. The legacy of feminism has been to overthrow this system. For the feminist movement, any kind of living arrangement was upheld to be acceptable. Illegitimacy was to be accepted and welcome the same as legitimacy, legally sanctioned and subsidized. “There’s no such thing as an illegitimate child” was the motto. Our laws changed in accordance. The gave the unwed father rights, they gave the unwed mother welfare and child support and the patriarchal system crumbled with easy divorces.

This system was supposed to benefit women. Alimony was “sexist” and supposedly keeping women from true fulfillment by keeping women dependent on men. The role of the housewife was making women “subordinate” and “second-class.” A social revolution ensued leading to widespread illegitimacy, broken homes, crime and poverty. Not very long after this revolution feminists panicked. Books such as “Mothers on Trial,” “The Divorce Revolution,” “The Equality Trap,” “Backlash” and “Equality with a Vengeance” started flooding the market and still flood it today. Feminism has created a backlash and ruined the security and well-being of millions of women. But they wouldn’t dare tell women they are at fault. They just want to keep pressing forward with their agenda.

The legitimacy principle is that every child must have a father- but legitimately through marriage. But to the feminist this is no so. To the feminist and our society and legal system today legitimacy no longer matters anymore. Today it would be seen as so wrong and the upmost of all politically incorrect things to declare a child as illegitimate. But this is the way a patriarchal society must work.

“The feminist will insist that the boyfriend is equally responsible with the mother for the procreation of the illegitimate child and therefore equally bound to pay for its costs. Not so in the patriarchal system. Patriarchy divides women into good and bad, those who accept the Sexual Constitution (sexual law-and-order, monogamy, the Legitimacy Principle, the double standard, etc.) and those who reject it. This woman rejects it, and she is “bad” because she denies to a man the possibility of having responsible sex with her even if he wants to. Her unchastity deprives her child of a father and deprives men of the possibility of being a father to her children. She can have a sexual relationship only with a man as irresponsible as herself. She is a sexual Typhoid Mary who has inflicted illegitimacy upon a child and seeks to ameliorate what she has done by demanding to be paid for it. She will plead as justification that “there is no such thing as an illegitimate child,” signifying there is no such thing as an unchaste woman.”

If women and children are living in poverty today then it is because the patriarchal system is gone. The woman who bears an illegitimate child without seeking to make that child legitimate expects that she will still receive support. The feminists will point to the fact that women and children are living in poverty as a way for her to receive even more support and government assistance.

“The Promiscuity Principle entitles her to paternity suit income. It is her right to control her own sexual behavior–including the right not to use contraceptives–and to impose the economic costs upon one of her sex partners–if the District Attorney can round up her playmates, compel them to take blood tests, and identify the lucky one. Then her sexual irresponsibility will pay off and reinforce society’s acceptance of the first law of matriarchy, otherwise known as the Promiscuity Principle.”

Enforcing even more child support and demanding even more welfare creates a backlash. It creates men with a victim complex who are unmotivated and unwilling to marry. It creates more men’s rights activism which only creates even more feminism and in turn even more women and children are hurt in the process.

Ultimately these women wreck the security of good women. All patrilineal societies are fragile. They require female subordination to patriarchal authority and regulation of female sexuality. If women are unwilling to submit, then the system is ruined. Feminism has ruined that system and now, instead of the patriarchal, male-headed household we have what can be termed “rotational” and “blended” families. What we have is broken families. Families that are actually intact are rare.

“The workability of the patriarchal system requires the regulation of female sexuality, including the enforcing of the double standard. In no other way can men participate meaningfully in reproduction. A woman violates the Sexual Constitution by being promiscuous. A man violates it by refusing to provide for his family. The new feminist sexual order proposes that women shall be free to be promiscuous and that the social disruption thereby created shall be made tolerable by compelling men to provide for non-families. But men cannot be held responsible for female irresponsibility if this irresponsibility prevents them from having families to begin with; and it is for this reason that patriarchy holds a man responsible only for the subsidization of a wife, a “good” woman who accepts the Sexual Constitution and her obligation under it to bear only legitimate children”

Patriarchy provides a woman with her most surest source of fulfillment. But a woman cannot have such fulfillment unless she submits herself to patriarchal authority and the legitimacy principle. When she enters into a contract of marriage with her husband under the patriarchal system it is permanent and binding. She agrees to share her reproductive life with her husband and only him. In turn, he provides for her and places her under ‘coverture.’ Such a system is what is needed to build civilization and lift women and children out of poverty. More child support is not what is needed. Most men will evade paying it anyways and he can always just pull out the custody card anytime he objects to the amount, leading to more hardship for the mother and child and an even greater prospect of being shoved deeper into poverty.

“‘Now here’s how it is… Poor black men won’t support their families, won’t stick by their women–all they think about is the street, dope and liquor, women, a piece of ass, and their cars. That’s all that counts. Poor black women would be fools to sit up in the house with a whole lot of children and eventually go crazy, sick, heartbroken, no place to go, no sign of affection–nothing.’

Ms. Robinson’s complaint is that men won’t love, honor and protect their families–which is patriarchy. She cannot see that the first law of matriarchy has deprived these men of families and therefore of the motivation which would keep them working.”

The talk of “women’s rights” always centers around autonomy, freedom and a paycheck. Nobody ever considers that the best interests of women could be found within the traditional male-headed family. Women must make a tradeoff for such a system but they don’t like it. Our laws before feminism gave the man the authority- and responsibility- in the household. The husband controlled the property, finances and his wife as much as his children. The divorce rate was extremely low. The rate of married women working was extremely low. Everything stared to go downhill with the destruction of coverture and the destruction of the husbands ultimate authority in the household. Things got real out of control with women’s lib, ‘no-fault’ divorces , the subsidization of illegitimacy and the flooding of married women into the workforce. The word “family” can mean a million different things today. Practically anything one wants it to mean. That’s how far gone we are as a civilization.

“Providing for a woman and placing her “under coverture” in the honorable state of marriage is perceived by today’s feminists in wholly negative terms as dominance, regulation and oppression. Feminist Dr. Alice Rossi speaks of “an exchange” between a husband and a wife in which the husband confers social status on the wife and “in exchange…she assumes economic dependence on him”–permits him to pay her bills. It doesn’t occur to feminists that “their subordination in sexual matters” benefits women as much as it benefits men. It means law-and-order in the sexual realm and the creation of wealth in the economic realm. It means stable families which provide women with security and status and in which children can be decently reared and socialized.

The best thing for any movement claiming to benefit women to do would be to bring back the traditional patriarchal family with the father as it’s head. It is only the patriarchal family that can serve the best interests of mothers and children. It is only this system that can truly motivate men to be productive and care for women and children. But in order for this system to work, cohabitation, female promiscuity, divorce and illegitimacy cannot be tolerated. It may not always be ‘fair’ but it is the best way to protect women and ensure the best interests of children and the overall social order.

References:

All quotes from “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus

Questioning Economic Necessity

“It has been estimated that by 1960 a family wage was paid by 65 percent of all employers in the United States, and by over 80 percent of the major industrial companies. Although feminist historians today call the family-wage ideal a “myth” designed to keep married women oppressed, few myths have come closer to becoming a reality.”[1]

The feminist conviction is that the “good ole life” where married women did not work is a myth. In their view of history, married women staying home is somehow a new thing in human history that was invented in the 1950s. They also stress that it is the economy that flushed women out of the home and into the workforce during the revolution years.Today they say it is just too bad and even if married women wanted to go back home it is impossible because of the economy. Their views and assertions are, however, pretty far removed from reality. In fact, in the grand old 1950s there were even more married women in the workforce than in previous times in American history. All the way up until the year 1900, only 5.6% of married women were in the workforce. By the year 1910 that number had climbed to 10.7%. In the 1950s, 23% of married women were in the workforce. [2]

Feminists also like to chime in and tell us all about how it was only middle class white women that were able to fulfill the role of housewife. But unless 90% of married couples were middle class and white this remains to be seen. Generally, feminists like to plead economic necessity so as to ensure that married women with dependent children do not feel guilty about going off to work and leaving their children in the care of someone else. Mainstream feminists propaganda says that it “takes two incomes” just to make ends meet. Yet, in the vast majority of cases this is not, nor has it ever, been true.

“When the mother in a two-parent family chooses to work, economic necessity (as opposed to advantage) is more likely to be the rationalization than the explanation for her decision. Feminism’s effort to bring about the demise of the full-time housewife required diminishing the guilt felt by working mothers. Thus began the constant effort to depict a two-income family as economically necessary when in most instances one income would provide the basic necessities of life-food, housing, and clothing. That the best-educated and highest-paid women are the ones who return to work the soonest after birth of a child makes clear that something other than economic necessity has impelled women to abandon child care in favor of the workplace.” [3]

Moreover, it was not the economy at all that forced women out of the home. No, the influx of married women into the workforce was deliberate and the intended outcome of the women’s liberation movement. One really does not have to wonder what the word “liberation” in the phrase “women’s liberation” is referring to. It refers to nothing more than the “liberating” of women from sexual morality and the bonds of marriage and child-rearing. Women were not forced out of the home because the economy was going in the gutter. The feminist movement created the economy we have now. The influx of married women into the workforce lowered men’s wages and devalued the housewive’s role. It was the women with highly-educated husbands- the women who could least claim “economic necessity”- that left the home first. Poorer women were still in the home caring for their children.

“In 1962, only 37 percent of all wives worked for pay outside the home. The wives of high school- and college-educated men were hardly more likely to work for pay than the wives of men with only a grade school education. Between 1962 and 1978 the proportion of wives working for pay rose from 37 percent to 58 percent. This growth was concentrated among wives with highly educated husbands, for whom the economic pressures to work were lowest. Among women whose husbands had only a grade school education, 34 percent worked for pay both in 1962 and in 1978. Among women whose husbands attended college, 38 percent worked for pay in 1962, but this had grown to 65 percent by 1978…

In the 1950s, to preserve their own self-esteem, they extolled the virtues of work in the home. By 1980, they saw matters quite differently. A job once perceived as noble now seemed distinctly plebeian. Thus, homemakers suffered a tremendous loss in social prestige in two decades. Sociologists call this phenomenon “status degradation.” It happened to these homemakers through no fault of their own. As the paid labor force offered urban, educated women attractive options the more rural, less-educated women round the world judged the traditional job of homemaking less attractive. Middle-class women who chose to stay in the home began to feel déclassé. Women’s magazines began to print outraged letters from homemakers who now found that they had to describe themselves as ‘only’ a housewife, not only to men but to other women.”[4]

On top of the status degradation of the housewife’s role, feminists forced other pressures onto women to abandon homemaking. The housewife started to be seen as a “deadbeat.” Indeed, still today mothers who aren’t financially responsible for the family are seen as “deadbeats.” This is how feminists wanted women who were not in the workforce to be seen. From the traditional perspective, however, the only “deadbeat” wife or mother is the one who is not in the home caring for her young children. The only “deadbeat” mom, from the traditional point of view, is the one who IS in the workforce. But, of course, to feminists, the paycheck is all that matters. The very thrust of the woman’s movement was to flush women out of the home and into the workforce as full time homemaking was incompatible with the movement.

“…The very existence of full-time homemakers was incompatible with many goals of the women’s movement, like the equal sharing of political and economic power. Women can never hold half the economically and politically powerful positions in the country if a greater proportion of women than men withdraw from competition for those positions. More important, if even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are very young…Thus the more full-time homemakers there are, the harder it will be to break traditional expectations that homemaking ought to be a woman’s career. This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole had reasons to discourage full-time homemaking.”[5]

The period after the 1970s marked the decline in men’s wages. This too was deliberate and the intended outcome. Most protective legislation for women did not discriminate against women. But in the area of pay discrimination against women was necessary to protect wives and mothers from the harsh necessity of wage work. Unequal pay for equal work was necessary. Many women who would be shocked to work for anything less than equal pay to a man simply do not realize that, even though women now make more to the dollar than their grandmothers did, they are not keeping any more of that paycheck. The few extra cents to a dollar that women are making as the result of the feminist movement are simply going to pay for women’s newfound financial obligations in the family and to supplement her husband’s diminished paycheck. There has been nothing tangible gained for women when everything is added up. Feminists campaigned against protective legislation for women. They saw it as “sexist” and campaigned that protective legislation was simply designed to keep women “oppressed.”

Moreover, “no-fault” divorce legislation ripped away the economic security that housewives once enjoyed- financial security in their marriages that made it safe for a woman to stay in the home with her children and now women are held women equally financially responsible at divorce. Being a homemaker is a risky endeavor for a woman, as the new divorce laws made very clear:

“The economic messages of the new law are clear: it no longer ‘pays’ to invest in the marital partnership- to be a faithful breadwinner or a devoted homemaker. Ones economic ‘take’ from the marriage will be the same no matter what one has done.” [6]

Of course, feminists like Weitzman believe women’s newfound economic predicaments as the result of the new divorce laws are simply because women have not reached “full equality” yet, or the courts are not treating women “equally” yet. But it is the very essence of gender equality in our law codes that is causing women hardships and scaring them and shaming them out of the housewife’s role. Moreover, the mass media creates the image that, in order to be successful, a woman must have a full-time career and a fancy college degree. Also, modern women are pressured and made to believe that if they do not use their college degree for something “worthwhile” (ie., a fancy career outside of the home) then they are wasting their knowledge away and being unproductive.

“The female role models held up for veneration and imitation by the popular media are almost exclusively highly educated, independent, career women. Bucking the trend to devote oneself exclusively to home and family today requires extraordinary self-confidence and fortitude on the part of young women who must be prepared to endure both the censure of their culture and the disapproval of their peers. It is no wonder that most college women pursue a course of study that will put them firmly on the full-time career path when they graduate; they are simply following their culture’s prescription for success and acceptability. And since no-fault divorce, by undermining all claims of a wife to her husband’s income, has eliminated the economic security that marriage provided for women in our society, it is hard to blame young women for hedging their bets by setting out on the career path sooner rather than later.”[7]

Thus, it is not the economy that has forced women into the workforce. It was a deliberate attempt by the leaders and those who funded the women’s liberation movement to get and keep women in the workforce. Traditional divorce law protected women by ensuring her support from her ex-husband (providing she was not at fault) until she at least married another man who would become responsible for her support and almost all states protected the family home so that the mother could live there to raise her children at least when they were young. But, to feminists, this was holding women back so protective legislation had to go.

“The protections the law once afforded to women who made economic sacrifices for their families no longer exist. They were abolished when we rewrote the divorce law in the name of equality. When a marriage breaks up, as two out of five marriages now do, a wife will seldom be entitled to alimony, no matter how much less she may earn than her ex-husband. In the 1970s, feminists campaigned against alimony on the explicit grounds that its elimination would flush women out of the home and into the workforce, where they belonged…A divorced couple usually sells its home and divides to proceeds, after which the woman survives on what she can earn- not much if she’s getting on in years and has been out of the workforce for any significant amount of time.” [8]

To drive home the main point, the economy did not flush women out of the home, but the feminist movement did. This was to ensure that women did not depend upon men but instead became self-sufficient. There is nothing that women have gained from the modern feminist movement (1960s- present). Women have been the losers. Women, by nature of our biology, are different from men. We have different needs and different vulnerabilities and burdens to bear than do men. Our laws used to understand this. But now feminists have forced women into the workforce and left women vulnerable by knocking down protective legislation for women. Women’s problem today is not that we are not treated as equal to men, but that we are.

“The political rights of citizens are not properly dependent upon sex, but social and domestic relations and industrial activities are… Women cannot be made men by act of the legislature or by amendment to the Federal Constitution. The inherent differences are permanent. Women will always need many laws different than those needed by men.” [9]

As a final point, many women have learned that a second income is not all it is cracked up to be. Oftentimes, the woman keeps very little of that second income when all expenses are added up. In one conversation I had with a woman she confessed that when her and her husband added it all up, she found she was literally working for about a dollar an hour. Moreover, a woman can save a lot of money by doing things more old-fashioned around the house. She would not have the time to do all of this if she were working full time. When there are young children involved, it does not pay for a woman to be in the workforce. But, rather, the economic advantage is greater if she is at home (unless she makes a six-figure salary, which most women do not).

“Most women make clear and purposeful choices — regarding sex, whom to marry (that’s a biggie), work, geography, etc. — that allow them to be the primary caregiver in their children’s lives. Others learn the hard way that it costs to have both parents work. The money from a second income — unless it’s a six-figure salary — is usually eaten up by commuting costs, child care, eating out, work attire, dry cleaning, convenience foods, and, of course, taxes. By the time you add it all up, there isn’t much left.”[10]

 

Notes:
[1] Roberton, B.C., “Forced Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 63. Spence, 2003.
[2] http://www.freeby50.com/2010/10/historical-look-at-womens-participation.html
[3] Graglia, F.C., “Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism,” p. 72. Spence, 1998.
[4] Mansbridge, J.J. “Why We Lost the ERA,” p. 105; 107-108. University of Chicago Press, 1986.
[5] ibid., p. 99-100
[6] Weitzman, L.J., “The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America,” p. 30. The Free Press, 1987.
[7] “Forced Labor,” p. 38-39.
[8] Crittenden, D., “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman,” p. 98-99. Touchstone, 1999.
[9] “Forced Labor,” p. 60.
[10] http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/295943/feminist-war-women/suzanne-venker#

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.