Tag Archives: breadwinner husband

I Don’t Care About Money

I came home Sunday with plentiful money from work, but I didn’t care. I did nothing but cry the entire way home, in fact. I didn’t care about the money at all, because it’s not like it was making me happy. My first thought was to come home and throw all the cash to the wind. Within only a few days of having paid employment I’ve been able to put a lot of money back in savings, and while it’s nice to have, I really don’t like it.

We live in this world that tells women to go out and work and be independent. It amazes me as much as it sickens me the way our society is. It isn’t even thought that a man should be providing for his wife or that men should take care of women. Just suggest such a thing, and you have a mental disorder. Just suggest there are differences between men and women or that men should provide and you could start a damned riot (it’s happened).

If you look at family law, it makes no distinctions between sex. Instead of marriage being seen as an institution for men to provide for and protect women and children, it’s some genderless institution now were spouses provide for *each other.* The whole idea of marriage being about us providing for each other just makes me feel kind of sick. It makes me lose respect for marriage, for men, for society. Most people just cohabit these days, proving all the more that marriage has lost the deeper meaning that it once had and anyone who truly believes it has nothing to do with women having careers is retarded.

I know what I’ve always felt, that I wanted to bond with a man who would provide for me and take care of me. My senses are very dulled now. In some ways me going out and taking on paid employment (for the first time EVER in our marriage, and we’ve been married since I was practically a teenager) has helped the marriage because it’s confirmed what I’ve always felt in my heart and it’s made my husband become angry and want all the more to get up and stop acting like a wimp the way he had been acting. It’s also worth noting that I only took on paid employment to separate from him, lending further credit to the claim that women having careers is damaging relations between men and women and undermining the true meaning of marriage.

People look at me strange that I would be as old as I am with no career and little to no work experience. The good news for me is that everyone unanimously thought I was no older than 19 or 20 years old (my employer even asked if I was old enough to be serving alcohol over the phone (she didn’t have my app in front of her at the time to see my real age)).

Nobody believes I’m truly as old as I am, which also confirms that living a traditional lifestyle has preserved my youth, preserved my innocence and beauty and kept me more feminine. (It’s probably one of the best anti-aging secrets ever. Just be feminine, just be happy and joyful and full of love, depending on a man and admiring men in general and focusing on keeping fit and feminine and doing housework and helping your man and being there for him).

Guess what? I don’t care what people think. I feel no shame in not having had a career. If they reject me for that, it’s their problem. I don’t care what my mother or anyone else in the world thinks. I don’t want to live the way they do and have the disastrous relationships they’ve always had. I’m much happier being feminine. I take pride in NOT being a career woman. If anyone asks me I’ll simply tell them that I never believed women should really be out there working. We’re women, there’s no shame in being weak, or even unsuccessful for that matter. Being docile, being weaker, depending on a man, being soft and receptive are all feminine traits, and they are nothing to be ashamed of.

I think it’s better if us girls marry real young and stay under the protection and authority of a husband. It PROTECTS us. It keeps you from getting hurt by other men or swayed and it keeps women from running wild to their detriment and the detriment of families and children.

Is there really a better life to be had otherwise? So what if you marry real young and have a kid or two young and stay home? Are women really much happier screwing around and wasting their youth and beauty on men who don’t deserve them, don’t cherish or provide for them while they go pursue some meaningless career that won’t amount to anything true and real in the end?

While everyone likes and needs money, after a certain point, once your basic needs are met and you are comfortable, more money won’t make you any happier. Is the point of life really to make a six-figure salary especially when as a woman it’s not going to do anything for your sexuality or better your chances with anything other than some “weak” man who wouldn’t cherish you as a woman, for everything feminine and unique about you? And as a woman do you really want a man that needs or wants your money? A man who isn’t strong enough to provide for you or protect you, both from immediate danger and from the harshness of the world (which includes the burden of working out of the home)?

Yes, I have a paying job right now, but I don’t like the idea of it. Our daughter is moving into her preteen years (almost) so the burden of childcare isn’t what it once was, but just the simple fact that I have my own money means I don’t NEED my husband to provide. Yes, he provides for me still fully, but it feels more like I’m simply letting him do it, instead of truly relying on him and needing him to do it. I also know that I’m still needed at home. Who cares what the world thinks, a woman’s husband is supposed to be her authority. If she keeps the home and stays there, she only focuses on him. What others think doesn’t matter.

I get depressed at work. Thoughts keep running through my head that I should just go home and focus on the house and just be what I’ve always been, which is simply a wife and mother. I figure for now I’ll stay there as I’ve made friends and feel like I have a home away from home. I don’t know. I just figure I’ll stay unless or until they want to let me go or something happens in life where I know it’s truly time to quit and come home.

My husband does not like me working and does want me to come home. I’m not sure if I’m ready to come home though. I just don’t know. This is all very hard for me and very new. I just want to be the feminine woman I once was, keeping the home and loving my family with the same childlike innocence and demeanor that I always have, unconcerned about the outside world. I don’t care about independence. I don’t care about equal pay or any of the mainstream women’s rights bullshit. And I don’t give a damn what anyone thinks of me. Their comments about me “getting a job” will not sway me, because I know who I am as a woman. As odd as it might seem, I don’t get into those kinds of conversations. There is no need. I just simply smile if anyone ever makes a comment about me having a career. I just simply let my femininity shine through and speak for itself. And trust me, men really don’t give a shit about your career, but they do care about your femininity.

Advertisements

There Has Never Been an Easier Time For Women to Stay Home

Most of us today were brought up on the nonsense that it takes “two incomes” just to make ends meet. But I find it interesting how nobody ever cares to challenge this myth. In truth, that’s all it is, a myth. I’ve talked about it before here on the blog about how it was not the economy, but rather cultural and political factors, that forced large numbers of women into the workforce. It was only the middle and upper-class women that started entering the workforce during the time of women’s lib. The numbers of lower-class women working actually remained the same and they found themselves degraded in the eyes of society and their legal security ripped away from them.

The truth is, it is easier than ever before in history to live comfortably on one income. That’s not really because we make more money than we did before compared to the cost of living, but mostly because of the vast availability of cheaply produced goods. In the past some families were so poor they couldn’t even afford shoes for their children in the summertime. These days even the poorest of all families can at least afford a two dollar pair of flip-flops from Wal-Mart for all their children. I’ve had so many women try to justify their presence in the workforce based upon economic necessity yet when you look at the way they live their lives it seems outrageous. Most have high speed internet, Satellite TV, expensive cell phone plans with their smartphones, at least two different vehicles they are making payments on and their houses are more than adequate for their needs. I mean, these are things our ancestors didn’t even have in the past. They didn’t have inexpensive clothing from the store and all kinds of extra luxuries like air conditioning and clothes dryers and they lived just fine. Today the poorest among us in the Western world live like royalty compared to those in poor developing countries around the world. Our poorest today live like the middle class did only as little as 60 years ago. In truth, it’s never been easier for a man to support a family solely on his income alone.

Most married couples start out with very little at first, but over time they obtain more material goods and they become richer. My husband and I lived in a small trailer for the first two years of our marriage. It was a real eyesore but I still never worked even when the baby came along and yet we were still able to afford, on my husband’s then meager income, extra luxuries like Satellite internet, entertainment every couple of weeks (such as buying movies to watch) and air conditioning, cell phones, disposable diapers and the expenses of drying the laundry in an electric dryer. Of course, before we married we purposely picked out housing we could afford on one income. There were many places that we simply couldn’t afford to live. We also drove a couple of older vehicles but since I rarely left the house it wasn’t a problem if there was only one vehicle working. I have never had paid employment since being married (I worked as a teenager a little but I quit working several months before my marriage) and yet we have made it just fine.

Of course, we are much better off now. We live in a bigger home and have nicer vehicles to drive and can afford a few extra luxuries that we couldn’t then. My husband also has a better job as well and being married for several years has allowed us to collect more material goods than we had before. As well, I’ve learned extra tips and tricks to save money. Also, my husband has become more traditional minded as time has gone on. He’s always had traditional views on women and gender roles, as have I, but over time those beliefs have gotten stronger and even more conservative than before.

I’ve talked about this before, but men with traditional views on women tend to greatly out-earn men with more egalitarian views. This is a win for traditional women because it means we are better taken care of if our husbands have strong views in traditional gender roles. It means living on one income in a traditional male-headed family with the husband as sole breadwinner is even easier thus claiming it takes two incomes is even more illogical. It also shows what men can accomplish when their masculinity is uplifted and they are encouraged to be real men and be proud of being a man. Women need to encourage the growth of mature masculinity and uplift all of the stereotypical masculine qualities (such as physical strength, social dominance, etc…) so that men can become good providers and protectors of their families once again, so that all women can have security in the home and return to their traditional roles of wives and mothers.

Another thing I want to say to this is that sometimes a job can be unstable. Sometimes a husband loses his job. If this happens a wife shouldn’t just all of a sudden run out the door and start filling in job applications all over town the second her husband comes home unemployed. Let him pick himself back up and find new employment. He will be stronger because of it. I think it’s very important to men to be able to prove themselves and if his wife interferes and tries to help him it could actually be damaging to his ego. Her seeking employment because he has lost his job is her sending the signal to him that he has failed and she doesn’t have faith in his ability to take care of her and their family. Actually, her providing a second income also says she has no faith in him as provider. It may sound wrong in today’s world but a woman should not help her husband in this way. It’s not the wife’s job to shield her husband from the world or protect and support him. She can help by being supportive and making things more comfortable at home for him and cut back on expenses. I remember when my husband lost his job a couple of years after we were married. It never even occurred to me to look for a job, nor did he ever even give the slightest hint that he thought I should. He went off and found more work and now we are even better off than we were before. Both of us actually see his loss of the job he used to have as a blessing now. I was a little worried at the time but I knew he’d take care of us- and he did. With the wife’s constant presence in the home the husband never has to worry about who will watch the kids or do the housework, leaving him free to devote himself full-time to supporting the family or look for work if he is unemployed.

I really like what Lady Lydia has to say about a husband’s unemployment:

“There are husbands today who demand that their wives work and bring in as much income as possible. No one has the right to send a wife to work if she does not want to. God, the supreme being, has already mandated through his word, that women should guide and keep the home. Where God has already commanded, mankind cannot legislate. We do not need “permission” or “approval” from husbands or anyone else, to be the keepers at home that the Bible describes. Many women panic the minute their husbands lose a job, and start seeking employment outside the home. I lived in an era where men were often unemployed, because there were many jobs that were seasonal or temporary. Yet, women seemed to be able to adjust to this, and even expect this. Still, they didnt take matters into their own hands and get jobs. For one thing, jobs were usually available for men, and women prefered to be home.

What has happened to convince women to leave their homes to work? It has been a massive word campaign, which I called “word-ology” since the 20th century, to persuade women that they are being cheated by being “denied” jobs, or by “having” to stay home. When words are emphasised or twisted a certain way, people start believing lies.

Men need the responsibility of being providers. It gives them something to excell in, gives them pride in their families and gives them something worth living for. Work is good for them, but they need women at home helping to make that money stretch, and make a man’s work worthwhile. When he sees her doing her best to save money and be creative and resourceful, it makes his burden lighter. Yes, women can stay home, but they need to make it a lifestyle that is simple and inexpensive, so that money does not go back out of the family coffers as quickly as it comes in. The family economy is an entire skill that each generation has to learn. It requires knowing how to make things from the raw materials and how to be innovative.

What used to be the inconvenience of temporary employment for men, has now become an “emergency” and women feel they have to fill in the gap. Men are now “falling back” on their wives, wanting them to work. If a woman will work outside the home, a man will let her.”

In our world today it’s also easier for a family to live on one income because even men who are not in perfect health can still find employment to support their families, as most jobs no longer require the same level of back-breaking work as they did in the past. These days a lot of men have jobs in an air-conditioned office or building that don’t really demand any physical labor, and even those jobs that do require much physical labor are still made easier oftentimes by power-tools and machinery. They even have air-conditioned tractors with MP3 players these days. There is also social security and other welfare benefits for when men are sick or injured and can’t work. On all levels, there has never been an easier time in all of history for women to be in the home and for men to be sole providers of families.

Recommended Articles:

Yes, High Numbers of Women Working IS a New Thing

Questioning Economic Necessity

Yes, You Can Do It!

Marriage is Masculinity and Coverture

Yes, High Numbers of Women Working IS a New Thing

On the one hand we are told that women were always oppressed in the home and never allowed to have careers. Now after the feminist movement historians have been trying to constantly convince us that women “always” worked and the 1950s were some kind of cult of domesticity where women were forced to stay in the home but before that women were always out in the workforce and plowing the fields and were always “equal partners” with their husbands so feminism wasn’t really even necessary after all because women have *always* worked. One can read a five hundred page history book today and most generally the authors will spend half the book talking about “male divorce power” and the sexual double standard and how adultery was never a crime for husbands, only for wives and so on and so on. They will spend half the book trying to convince us that women have always been forced to work and bear children (that they never had rights to) and live under the rule of men. Barely a word is ever spoken about men’s duties to their wives or the truth about hardly anything. This is what women today are fed and why so many undoubtedly turn to feminism:

“For more than five thousand years, men—fathers—were legally *entitled* to sole custody of their children. Women—mothers—were *obliged* to bear, rear, and economically support their children. No mother was ever legally entitled to custody of her own child.” (1)

This, of course, is a complete lie. See here how they first try to convince us women were never *allowed* to work and then they turn around and tell us that women *always* worked, were forced to work. Then historians will now try to convince us that all women worked in the factories and plowed the fields even when heavily pregnant, then gave birth in the fields and got right back up and went right back to plowing! Another thing undoubtedly many have heard is a story that goes something like this: First, man marries woman for dowry, then proceeds to squander it all away within a month, then man goes and gets drunk every night and heads to the local brothel to have a good time (because adultery wasn’t a crime for men!) then man comes home to beat and rape his wife. But, realistically, the husband would only really uncover the wife just enough to penetrate her to do his “duty” to procreate and have legitimate heirs (because women knew nothing about sex and were clueless about their own sexuality and body until feminists came along and sexually liberated them) and then it was back to the brothel! Of course, women had no rights and men could use and abuse their wives as they pleased. They could do anything they wanted because women were less than chattel and marriage was nothing but slavery for women. The description of the book “Love, Honor and Obey” tells a 100% accurate description of life for women before feminism:

“In 1889, women were chattel, prized solely for their physical attributes, the contents of their dowries, their skills at the helm of the family’s wood-burning cook stove, their capacity to conceive endlessly and their willingness to endure marriage and miscarriage in silence. Women could not vote or smoke in public. Motherhood was sanctified and only the whores ventured out unescorted after dark, dyed their hair and wore make-up.Blissfully young and naïve, Emma Miller nearly lost herself in Edward Richardson’s seductive blue eyes until the reality of her husband’s alcoholic rampages began to erode her cherished dream of marriage. Like the practiced coward that he was, Edward abandoned his wife and children in the dead of night, taking with him their horse and their cookie jar savings.Emma had willed herself to survive Edward’s beatings but could she survive life as a single parent with three children? At a time when women were to be seen but never heard, Emma marched boldly into the dawn of a new era for women. Emma defied polite society by embarking upon a career, taking a lover and refusing to bend in the face of personal and professional conflict.” (2)

What women wouldn’t be a feminist after listening to that? Historically the dowry was always something the groom paid to the father of the bride for her hand in marriage. Often it is called a “bride price.” Later the dowry came to be something that the bride brought into the marriage from her family. Historians don’t know why, some speculate that the absence of eligible men for marriage started the tradition of the bride’s family dowering the daughter instead of it coming from the groom. Some other historians point out that bride-price seemed to be the way in polygamous societies and dowry coming from the bride’s family the way in monogamous societies. A bride price is where the groom pays the woman’s father a sum of money for her hand in marriage or, in some societies, the money would go to the bride herself. A dowry is a sum of money, property or other goods given to the groom upon marriage for no other purpose than the maintenance of his bride. In some societies the bride still controlled the dowry and in others the groom controlled the dowry. If divorce should occur or if the bride was widowed then the dowry had to be returned intact to the bride and her family. Dowry was always a way of signaling social class and the woman’s status in society and the larger a woman’s dowry the wealthier a mate she could be expected to attract (social class was always very important to people and everyone was generally expected to marry someone of their own class). Traditionally a young woman would be dowered by her father or sometimes other male family members. Ancient Rome even had laws requiring that fathers provide dowries for daughters. A poor peasant girl whose family could not afford to dower her might either marry without a dowry or work before marriage to provide for her own dowry. In other cases sometimes donations were made to poor girls’ dowries to help them get married. The dowry, however, did not mean the husband did not have to support his wife. The dowry would help the woman get settled and start a new household. Also important was the woman’s dower, the portion of her husband’s property that the wife would inherit to be used for her support upon her husband’s death. A man could not get rid of his own property nor his wife’s dowry without her consent, which had to be given without coercion as she could reclaim her third (or in some societies half) of her husband’s property that he could not take from her.

After marriage a man was by law required to provide for his wife all of her necessities. There were no obligations upon a wife to support her husband or pay the family’s bills until very recently with women’s lib where the law became bastardized as support being something both spouses “owe” each other and the egalitarian vision of the mother working equally as the father to support the family. Of course, throughout history women taking on masculine responsibilities does resurface and it always seems to correlate well with societal decline. Feminism is not a new thing. All throughout history women have tried to usurp their husband’s authority and men have tried to evade responsibility. From the fall of Rome in the fifth century to the crumbling of the monarchy in the tenth and eleventh centuries and the ending of Anglo-Saxon rule in England, women taking masculine responsibilities and husband and wife being “equals” sharing in rights and responsibilities resurfaces and usually destroys society. Usually once a great empire falls, it never regains its former power or glory.

The role of housewife for women is not new. Modern technology has made the work easier than what it used to be, but the idea that this “50s housewife” ideal is a new thing is a lie. Families have been organized in many different ways throughout time and in different societies but the modern idea of the “traditional” family of a husband, wife and their kids living in one household apart from any others is not a new thing. Speaking of the Western world specifically here, people living together with their extended kin in one household seems to resurface throughout the centuries but the nuclear family of husband, wife and kids in one household with the man standing alone as sole provider for wife and children has been around for centuries. Barbara A. Hanawalt speaks of the life of a medieval peasant woman in England in her book “The Ties that Bound; peasant families in medieval England”

“Women’s daily household routines are very well summed up in the ‘Ballad of the Tyrannical Husband.’ The goodwife of the poem had no servants and only small children, so that her day was a full one. She complained that her nights were not restful because she had to rise and nurse the babe in arms. She then milked the cows and took them to pasture and made butter and cheese while she watched the children and dried their tears. Next she fed the poultry and took the geese to the green. She baked and brewed every fortnight and worked on carding wool, spinning, and beating flax. She tells her husband that through her economy of weaving a bit of linsey woolsey during the year for the family clothes, they would be able to save money and not buy cloth from the market. Her husband insists that all this work is very easy and that she really spends her day at the neighbors’ gossiping…”

This woman sure sounds like a housewife to me, only without the modern-day convinces of an electric cookstove, washing machine and prepared food from the grocery store. Coroners’ reports reveal a clear pattern of traditional gender roles for the medieval wife and mother. The same as we see today, women who were rich in the past could afford to hire a wet-nurse and have a maid to do the household chores and watch the kids. Poor women were in the home doing all these things themselves.

In America, as well, there is no evidence to suggest women were out plowing fields or all women were out in the workforce. In America there is actual statistical and census data to show that only 5% of married women were actually engaged in “gainful occupation” (as opposed to 96% of married men) in the 19th century and single women only worked at a rate of around 45% which is much lower than the rates of even married women working today.(4) Also many left journals describing their daily lives as housewives which correlate very well with what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of American women (in 1830) in his book III of “Democracy in America:” (emphasis mine)

“In no country has such constant care been taken as in America to trace two clearly distinct lines of action for the two sexes, and to make them keep pace one with the other, but in two pathways which are always different. American women never manage the outward concerns of the family, or conduct a business, or take a part in political life; nor are they, on the other hand, ever compelled to perform the rough labor of the fields, or to make any of those laborious exertions which demand the exertion of physical strength. No families are so poor as to form an exception to this rule. If on the one hand an American woman cannot escape from the quiet circle of domestic employments, on the other hand she is never forced to go beyond it…

Nor have the Americans ever supposed that one consequence of democratic principles is the subversion of marital power, of the confusion of the natural authorities in families. They hold that every association must have a head in order to accomplish its object, and that the natural head of the conjugal association is man. They do not therefore deny him the right of directing his partner; and they maintain, that in the smaller association of husband and wife, as well as in the great social community, the object of democracy is to regulate and legalize the powers which are necessary, not to subvert all power. This opinion is not peculiar to one sex, and contested by the other: I never observed that the women of America consider conjugal authority as a fortunate usurpation of their rights, nor that they thought themselves degraded by submitting to it. It appeared to me, on the contrary, that they attach a sort of pride to the voluntary surrender of their own will, and make it their boast to bend themselves to the yoke, not to shake it off. Such at least is the feeling expressed by the most virtuous of their sex; the others are silent; and in the United States it is not the practice for a guilty wife to clamor for the rights of women, whilst she is trampling on her holiest duties…

As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that, although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply – to the superiority of their women.”

Now everyplace in the world has had their own traditions, but I speak not of every place in the world. I speak of the Western world, of Europe and the Americas and my own ancestors. High numbers of married women in the workforce is a new thing. I personally am American and American women were always sheltered from the workforce and masculine duties as well as any dangerous jobs or jobs that required hard physical labor. On the other hand, every occupation has long been open to women. The only exceptions I could find in American history were the obvious prohibitions of women to be in the military and women were prohibited from being coal miners and being bartenders unless they were the wife or daughter of the owner. I have found no other exceptions in our history. Obviously there is always going to be your amazon woman out proving she can work like a man, but she would have been the rare exception, not the rule. I know personally from those I’ve talked to how much neighbors would try to help a family who’s husband was injured or gone and could not work to take care of the family. Women were never left out on their own to fend for themselves and their children as so great was the ethic of providing for and protecting women until feminism came along.

But let’s just say those attempting to redefine history were actually right. Let’s say women have always worked in the fields and in the home and borne the babies and this housewife thing is new. Does that mean we should destroy a cultural and legal ethic that did shield women from the masculine burdens just because women in the past were in the fields? Does that justify tearing down a system that actually worked well, even if it was a supposedly new and temporary invention? What sense does that make? Surely if something better had been invented to protect women and families it would only makes sense to embrace it, not destroy it. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Suggested resources:

Women Plowing

Woman Suffrage and the Laws

Doctrine of Necessaries Law & Legal Definition

Questioning Economic Necessity

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)

Double Standards are a Good Thing

A double standard is when one group of people can get away with something that another group can’t. In modern society we like to think that double standards are so unfair and should be done away with. But what if double standards are actually a good thing? What if they serve some greater purpose to society that actually benefits everyone?

One of the biggest double standards that we all grew up with concerns sexuality. Men, in general, have always been able to sleep around without being socially shamed or called names. Women, on the other hand are generally labeled as “sluts” or “whores” if they do the same thing and are generally not considered marriage material by respectable men looking for long term relationships. A classic double standard against males is that men have only traditionally been required to go to war and register for the draft. If a man refused not only would he be labeled a “pussy,” “wimp,” and “coward” by society but more than likely he would serve some jail time as well. Women are called “whores” while men get away with sleeping around. Women are allowed to hide and be sheltered in times of war but men are jailed. Unfair, right? “Sexist,” right? Dreaded double standards that have no place in an “enlightened” society, right? But just what if these double standards might actually be good things?

In the case of war, it has always been a man’s duty. This is so for several reasons. First, women are the only ones who can bring the future generations into this world. If society is to survive females must be protected and kept safe so that there will be future generations (that’s why we fight wars in the first place, right?). Beyond keeping women safe so that they may care for and bear children, men are much bigger and stronger and must be taught to never use their strength against women unless absolutely necessary to restrain her. Sending women to war defeats the purpose of protecting women, ensuring the well-being of future generations and teaching men not to direct acts of violence against women or be OK with acts of violence against women.

In the case of sexuality, why can men sleep around and not women? Once again, this serves a fundamental purpose to all of society. This double standard does not exist against women in all societies. In many societies women slept around freely. In some societies women even took on multiple husbands and divorced them at will. Who actually fathered her children was of no concern to anyone either. In patriarchal societies men control female sexuality. They have to. There is no other way that they can support families or be fathers in the first place. All children by default are in the custody and care of their mothers. Maternity is certain, it is a fact of life. It is a bond society can depend upon. The mother-child bond is there from conception and is unquestionable. The mother’s role is biological and the same in every society that has ever existed. A man, however, can only be a father to a child if the mother declares him as such, if he is socialized into the child’s life via a third party through marriage or other cultural ties. Paternity can never be truly certain and men can never participate meaningfully in reproduction short of a long term monogamous relationship with the mother. Thus the need for men to control female sexuality and “own the womb.” Thus in every patriarchal society there is an obsession of females being chaste and shunning any female who is not or who bears children out of wedlock.

So this means the double standard only benefits men, right? It’s all about men so they can have things their way? Alas, that is not the whole story. The patriarchal family ultimately benefits women just as much as it does men. Marriage is a permanent commitment. Marriage links a man to specific children via a long-term monogamous relationship with the mother of those children. She agrees to be chaste for him and share her body only with him. In return society and the law imposes upon the man the obligation to carry the burden of financially supporting the children and the mother of those children. She shares her reproductive life and the children she bears with him and in return he protects her and provides for her. Sounds pretty beneficial to both sexes to me.

There are numerous other double standards and in most cases they serve a grand purpose for society. Men and women are not on equal grounds. The same rules do not apply to men and women because women and men are made different by way of nature, no matter what our laws say. It is easy to see what happens when laws are gender-neutralized and double standards are forgotten. How will we survive when our women are maimed and come home in body-bags from war? How are the campaigns attempting to stop violence against women going to be successful when we teach men to treat women, the weaker sex, as just “one of the boys?” We either have to lower standards and change the rules so that women can participate in a man’s world or we have to train men to just run over women and treat them without any special consideration. Both of these options are bad. And what about children? Does anybody care about this apparently forgotten group of humans who are helpless to care for themselves for many years? Wouldn’t it just make more sense to have double standards of what a man’s duties and a woman’s duties are? How else will we keep society running if we fail to discriminate and just send both men and women equally to war? And who will keep things running at home if we ship both young men and women off to war?

How will the family keep running if we fail to discriminate and lay double standards against men and women? If both men and women are held equally to support the family then what happens? Marriage becomes a competition and there is nobody to care for the home. Women don’t need husbands to support them and can walk away from marriage. Men aren’t interested in providing because they don’t have to. Grandma ends up raising the kids and picking them up from school. Divorce happens five years later and mommy and daddy play tug-a-war with the kids so they can get the upper hand against the other and equal financial responsibility between parents ups the ante. Antagonism is created between men and women; husband and wife and meaningful relationships are never formed.

And what happens when there are no double standards against the sexes when it comes to unwed mothers/fathers? An unwed mother automatically has rights for the child, but the unwed father doesn’t. How very sexist of us. We should give the poor guy rights to interfere in the child’s life or make a paternity claim to reck an intact family. And, of course, we should let women slap a paternity suit on a married man and have the full sanction of the law behind her to be a home-wrecker. We are “enlightened” after all and wouldn’t want to be unfair to anyone. Or maybe it would in the best interests of everyone to have a little sex discrimination and double standards. Just a thought.

Above all, double standards are good. They are necessary and no society is going to get very far without them. Men and women should be treated different and held to different standards in every area of life. It’s not all bad and patriarchy actually has a very romantic aspect to it. What could be more romantic that a man providing for and sheltering a woman from harm? It ultimately uplifts the family and protects it and contributes to meaningful and secure male-female relationships that benefit individual families and all of society.

Suggested Reading:

Great Quotes by George Gilder

Why Patriarchy

Women Deserve Better than Feminism

Do Women Really want to Smash the Patriarchy?

Looking Back on the Feminine Mystique