Discrimination is the Solution, Not the Problem

So, I get an e-mail from the American Civil Liberties Union last night asking me to help them and some other women’s organizations pass what is called the “Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.” Now, I’ve been aware of this legislation and the ACLU’s involvement for some time. However, there is something majorly wrong with this piece of legislation (as well as a lot of the very liberal legislation they push for).

The problem is that men and women are not on equal terms. They never have been and they never will be. The simple fact of life is that women get pregnant. That’s just the way life is. Our laws used to make many clear distinctions based upon sex and for very logical reasons. Now, sex discrimination is highly illegal. And what do we have as a result? Problems-and lots of them.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is unreasonable for us to go and rearrange our military, burden businesses to accommodate the differences between the sexes and reorder society just to make everything between the sexes “equal” when it is not nor ever will be equal in the first place.

Do pregnant women need to be taken care of? Absolutely. This is without question. Women have the unique task given to them by a higher power (whether you believe that to be God or evolution, whatever) to bear children. It is a biological fact of life. Women get pregnant and when they are pregnant they need medical care, nutritious food, a home to live in and a stress free environment free from toxins and other dangers. The nine months spent in the womb are the most critical times of anyones life. A woman’s well-being during pregnancy is critical. If she is stressed, if she doesn’t have adequate nutrition or medial care it will not only effect her and potentially lead to illness or death but it will also affect the child, possibly causing developmental problems or even death to the child or complications. Therefore it is absolutely critical that pregnant women have all of their basic needs met.

However, it should not be the responsibility of the woman to provide these things for herself nor the responsibility of businesses to go out of their way and accommodate her while she is pregnant. The problem is not discrimination but the lack of discrimination. Plain and simple, this is why the traditional family unit is important and this is why legitimacy is important. There needs to be a bargaining power for both sexes to ensure that marriage occurs. We need a workforce that will favor men over women in hiring and in pay that way men in turn can do their job of providing for and protecting women. We also need laws to protect the sanctity of the traditional family and legitimacy and laws that hold both men and women to traditional responsibilities- taking care of the home and the children for women and financial support for men.

The Wrongs of the Men’s Movement

“On the one hand there are real harms against men perpetuated by feminism and on the other there are real responsibilities that men owe towards women and children. The real harm done by feminism is used as an excuse to reject the real responsibilities of men towards women. The appropriate response to feminist injustices is men asserting their rightful authority; the MRA does the exact opposite in response, he instead rejects his responsibilities (Jesse Powell).”

I am not an MRA nor could I ever be. I don’t think anybody’s going to deny that there are genuinely good men out there who have been done wrong or who have been screwed over. But the MRA response is to whine and cry and plead that he’s such a victim,that society should just have more sympathy for him and that if things were just more “fair” and “equal” that somehow it would remedy all of his problems.

The original feminist war was on women. Feminists and MRAs were on the same side until feminists started seeing all the damage the movement had caused to women and started backing out. They created policies to remedy the situation by anti-male and anti-family legislation to balance out the harm being done to women. In turn men’s groups responded with legislation to harm women to try to balance out what the feminists were doing.

When a MRA is screwed over by his wife cheating on him, leaving him, taking the kids, etc. he responds by saying that society should just be more fair to him. He employs the MRA equivalent of the feminist mutilated beggar argument. The MRA hates women and encourages other men not to marry and deny responsibility, to ‘get back’ at the woman by screwing the ‘bitch’ over and he encourages other men who follow him to do the same thing. Don’t marry men, don’t marry! Don’t be the breadwinners because she’ll just screw you in the end! Nowhere does it cross his mind to assert his authority and demand that men be the heads of their homes anymore. Nowhere does it cross his mind to accept responsibility.

We have a problem with out of wedlock births in this country and increasingly in most of the Western world. MRAs are on top of it. Deny your responsibilities men, deny your responsibilities. Deny that you got the girl pregnant, run from marriage -run real fast boys-and encourage mandatory paternity testing (at some undesignated time after the child is born, of course) because all women are just a bunch of sluts looking to commit paternity fraud to get a chunk of your paycheck for the next 18 years! Make identifying the father, instead of marrying him, mandatory for the welfare! (One would think if they wanted to get out of child support obligations they would just be screwing themselves over with this policy, but never mind that). Nowhere does it cross his mind to enforce the double standard and enforce patriarchal restraints on the women or enforce the Legitimacy Principle- that men can only be responsible for legitimate children and a wife that is faithful.

The MRA hates women. He wants to literally see them dead. The average MRA wants to see women dead on the battlefield to deal with what men have always had to suffer through and he wants an MRA version of affirmative action that would ensure women are forced into dangerous jobs and die in those jobs in equal numbers to men. Never mind that women suffer the throes of pregnancy and childbirth just to bring these pathetic excuses for men into this world and always have. Caring for a woman and being chivalrous to her never crosses his mind as the appropriate thing to do.

What could MRAs do? If their movement wasn’t just a hate movement to get out of responsibility the MRA would have several options.

First, they would enforce the double standard upon women. Women would either bear legitimate children or receive no assistance and no financial support from the father. Men would marry the mother while she was pregnant or they would receive no rights and their children would not carry their name. A man would be sure of a woman’s character and have the intention of marrying her or he would not enter into a romantic relationship with her and he would not sleep with her. If he just wanted sex he could pursue the time honored male tradition of buying a prostitute. A woman’s virtue and good name would be of utmost importance (going back to a man only getting involved with a woman of honorable status) so she would reserve her body for her future husband and would not bear children outside of that union.

“Here, from John Dollard’s Caste and Class in a Southern Town, is an example of such manipulative regulation “from the outside”– males persuading females that they are really regulating themselves:

One of the rituals of the university dances is that of a fraternity of young blades entitled the Key-Ice. During the intermission the lights are turned out and these men march in carrying flaming brands. At the end of the procession four acolytes attend a long cake of ice. Wheeled in on a cart it glimmers in the torches’ flare. Then the leader, mounted on a table in the center of the big gymnasium, lifts a glass cup of water and begins a toast that runs: “To Woman, lovely woman of the Southland, as pure and as chaste as this sparkling water, as cold as this gleaming ice, we lift this cup, and we pledge our hearts and our lives to the protection of her virtue and chastity.’

For ‘protection’ Peggy Morgan would (correctly) read enforcing [1]”

To solve the divorce problem men could demand that divorce be harder to attain and demand that there be major fault involved for a divorce to be granted. To solve the problem men wouldn’t sit there begging and playing the ‘poor me’ guilt trip trying to get all of society to feel sorry for them. They would take their responsibilities in their families and assert their rightful authority. They would financially support their wives and take care of them. If we had patriarchy their wives would not leave or go anywhere because of the authority the man asserts and the responsibility he has for them. The woman would be without her social status and without her support if she was not married to him and she would be without her children as he would have the authority over them.

‘A man and wife are one person in law; the wife loses all her rights as a single woman, and her existence is entirely absorbed in that of her husband. He is civilly responsible for her acts; she lives under his protection or cover, and her condition is called coverture.

A woman’s body belongs to her husband, she is in his custody, and he can enforce his right by a writ of habeas corpus.

The legal custody of children belongs to the father. During the life-time of a sane father, the mother has no rights over her children, except a limited power over infants, and the father may take them from her and dispose of them as he thinks fit [2].’

Real men would not whine and complain that women are not taking on an ‘equal share’ of what should rightfully be the man’s sole responsibility. But, no, MRAs cannot accept anything that would actually hold them responsible for traditional male responsibilities. They whine and they cry on and on and they never do anything productive. They cause more feminist backlash which only increases their problem even more and the ones that are ultimately hurt are the millions of innocent men, women and children that get caught in the crossfire of these ongoing gender wars. The innocent men, women and children who didn’t start these wars and have never done wrong. They are the ones who end up suffering.

The MRA will bite back at any woman who claims to have been raped or abused. He will say she’s lying. She’s just trying to separate him from his children or get the upper hand because she wants his money or has her own ax to grind. Now every time a woman is abused or even claims she is abused she has no choice but to turn to feminism. They’ll help her they promise. They’ll make sure she’s believed and justice is served! The lies continue, the wars continue, the fighting continues and never ends. It never occurs to the MRA to take charge of things. He instead want to play without ever having to pay.

He could have chosen from the beginning to assert his authority. The women would have been protected by the mans responsibility and he would have been protected by being in charge of the woman’s actions. His family might have stayed together, his wife and kids might have never been impoverished. Hs children might have had a stable home to live in. But the MRA man can’t put his foot down and lay out the rules within his family. Instead he presses for laws that would just make everything a little more fair and would relieve him of responsibility. He instead runs a hate campaign against women and conducts a marriage strike. He refuses to be a man and complains that women won’t be faithful, that they won’t be women.

The MRA story is a tragic one indeed. It started with feminist harm of women, which led to lies and harm of men which led to lies and harm against all while society collapsed around all this hate and fighting. There will probably never be a happy ever after to this story and it’s a real shame. Because if the MRA hadn’t fled from responsibility in the first place this never would have happened.

1. “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus
2. Ibid.

Responding to the Rationale of Father Custody under Coverture

A while back, when former TWRA supporter ‘Edita Munoz’ decided to leave our group, she criticized every angle of our ideology and along with that being the endorsement of mother custody in the younger years as stripping away the father’s authority. It seems here we TWRAs have come full circle in having disagreements regarding the proper placement of custodial rights.

Over time I have become more knowledgeable and learned many things since I first started putting my thoughts, opinions and research out for the entire world about a year and a half ago. In the earliest drafts of the TWRA position I state that the Tender Years Doctrine, or presumption of child custody in the favor of mothers when the children are very young, should be brought back. My main reasoning behind this was to try to put a stop to what our laws are allowing the unwed father to do and to allowing the divorced father to escape his responsibilities of financial support or, even worse, allowing him to place his rightful burdens on the mother at divorce and using the children as a weapon to do so.

As part of my collaboration with Jesse Powell* on the cultural core beliefs of what a TWRA is, some minor changes have occurred in our ideology. First, in the issue of fatherhood, TWRAs do not recognize the unmarried man’s paternity as legitimate. In our ideology we state:

“Have fatherhood be only legally recognized when it arises from legal marriage to the natural mother or from adoption proceedings, unless said father should legally marry the mother and be responsible for all bills and necessities from pregnancy/birth and be liable to support the mother and child as a husband is entitled from that point on.”

This is because, in a patriarchal society, distinctions are always made between illegitimate and legitimate births. Not only is this good for women but it is good for children as well. The unmarried father does not have a valid contract of marriage with the mother and thus does not have patriarchal authority over, nor responsibility for, the mother and the children she bears. For instance, I remember reading a news report a few months ago about a mother, apparently suffering some sort of mental derangement after giving birth, who had allegedly claimed she found a newborn on a Hawaiian beach but, come to find out, it was her own child. The reports said they would “look” for the father of the child to see if he wanted rights and to be responsible for the child.

The entire time I was thinking they are going to “look” for the father? Obviously if they have to search for him he wasn’t around when all this was going on and wan’t married to the mother. If he was married to the mother then he would already be the legal father and they would know exactly who he was. On the rationale that the unwed father is not the head of any household and does not hold authority and responsibility for the actions and well-being of the mother and child, we exclude the unwed father from our discussions of fatherhood.

In the coverture that TWRAs endorse the husband is the head of the family. He has the authority, as we state,to decide where the family will live. That means his wife’s legal address and that of his children’s is wherever he lives. We also state that marriage is to be a permanent and legal binding of a man and a woman, “only to be legally severed in cases of severe abuse, infidelity or abandonment.”

Jesse Powell states:

“It should be kept in mind, when father custody prevailed that did not mean children always lived with their fathers away from their mothers, what it meant is that the father would decide where the children lived… The likely rationale for father custody after divorce was probably that marriage and family was considered to be the man’s project and the man’s responsibility and that therefore the man should decide how best to execute his family mission and family purpose, the care and upbringing of children being part of his family mission. So basically when a man married a woman the idea was that the man was choosing the woman to be the bearer and caretaker of his children. The man then was to become responsible for the welfare of his wife and his children both. This meant if at some point in the future the man and wife split up the man was still responsible for the children of the marriage as the man was always responsible for the well being of the children from the beginning. So the father would have custody of the children after a divorce because it was always the man’s responsibility to provide for the children and it continued to be the man’s responsibility to provide for the children whether he was still married to the children’s mother or not.”

Under coverture, the above story regarding the beach would not have happened. The woman would have been pressured to marry when she discovered she was pregnant (if not the biological father, then another man who would accept her and the child as his own) or her child would have been outcasted as a “bastard” and she would be shunned from civilized society. In childbearing strange things can happen to women. The coverture would have been a way to protect her and the child because the husband would have been responsible for her actions and well being and he would oversee everything that was going on. The pressure would be on him to control his wife’s behavior and provide her with the things she needed. If she was suffering psychologically after birth she and the child would still have been safe and taken care of because of his responsibilities to look out for them. In this way, coverture is guardianship of women and the guardianship of children necessarily.

Child labor was indeed common in the earliest days of American history and I do applaud the early feminists for their efforts to protect women and children from exploitation in factories. The rationale that the father had a right to the children’s labor I believe was a part of why father’s were given custody of their children but there is a much larger issue here to consider. Another reason, as Jesse Powell notes, was the large investment the husband made in the children.

Under coverture, the husband was responsible for everything. If the children or his wife had needs, he was responsible to provide them. A woman had a right to buy necessities for herself and the children on the husband’s credit. All she needed to do was prove that the goods or services were necessaries and prove that she was currently legally married to the man who’s credit the goods were being charged to. Part of his responsibility was for the wife’s actions. If she had committed some kind of criminal act or misdeed he was responsible for it and he was responsible for dealing with her behavior. His wife and his children’s behavior directly reflected upon him. This made men to make a large investment in the family. It entailed high sacrifice on his behalf, but also the high reward of having a wife and family to carry on his name and his own legacy. The intention of patriarchal societies is to get fathers to make a high investment in women and children and build civilization through their hard work of providing for families.

I do not not believe that there is actually a current “bias” against fathers in our courts today as MRAs claim, but whether there is a “bias” or not does not matter in regards to what TWRAs believe in and advocate for. Complaining about a “bias” says that one wishes or campaigns for things to be “equal.” TWRAs do not seek “equality” under the law. We believe that the father should be fully responsible for the support of his wife and children. We do not believe that support or alimony should be a two-way street. It goes one way. The father is to support the children and to support his wife. Now, if she’s done wrong and been unfaithful he should not have to pay her alimony. She should simply be on her own. However, he is still to support himself and provide all the essentials for his children and no obligation should be imposed upon the ex-wife for the support of her husband. He is a man and he is to be liable to support himself despite his wife’s actions.

Divorce was rare in coverture days so, in most cases, child custody was never an issue. Most men realized that young children needed to be nurtured by mothers. In the TWRA beliefs we do not say anything of the Tender Years Doctrine as we once did. We simply say that young children need to stay with their mothers. However, the husband has the authority and sole responsibility and should decide where the children live. He should never be allowed to impose the responsibility of support on the mother but he should be allowed to decide where they will live. Whether the children live with him or not he should still be solely responsible for the support and still have authority to make decisions regarding their lives and well-being.

This is what’s it’s about. I do believe in father custody (as in his authority to make decisions regarding the children’s lives and well-being and where they live) as long as his responsibilities remain. This ultimately does protect women as well as children. Women should have the right to expect support and guardianship from their husbands but should never be allowed to overturn the decisions he makes unless it is an extreme situation. Women having authority over men and men being allowed to evade responsibility causes society to degenerate into the mess we have now.

It is the right of the traditional woman to have guardianship and have security. Feminists told women there was no such thing as security and they should just go out and imitate male promiscuity and refuse to marry. Yet, somehow, study after study has shown that in the last 50 years women have become increasingly unhappy. Women supposedly “have it all” yet somehow are more miserable and suffer from more physical and mental illnesses than ever before. Apparently, “freedom” wasn’t quite so free after all.

TWRAs want our privileges back and we want our security. We just want men to be men again. If men would lead, women would start to follow.

* TWRAs are not longer collaborated with Jesse Powell. However, this article still remains relevant to the cause.

Sorry, I’m Not Buying the BS

My take? Men as a group have had everything handed to them because of feminism- BUT- there is always a price to pay for everything. Most men don’t have custody because they’ve never pursued it. Feminists hatred of men is definitely there but they have done more for men than any other movement ever has. Men no longer have to support a wife for life, there is no draft (and if there was they’d take young women too thanks to feminists), they’ve been given more rights to child custody now that women have abandoned their role as the caretakers to young children. Two incomes are common, they don’t have to shoulder the burden of support alone. They get free and easy sex and paternal rights to children without having to marry. And, if they live in New York, they don’t even have to pay a stripper anymore. What a paradise!

You see, though, they are no longer the leaders of their families. They chose to flee from responsibility so now they have no patriarchal authority to keep their families together and they are paying the price (or, at least, sharing it with women). All of the men I’ve ever known who didn’t have custody of children when their wives left them were ones who never fought for it. I know more women than men who’ve lost custody. We lose 3-4 women from pregnancy and childbirth deaths every day in the United States (not to discount our troops and the wonderful job they do, but this is more women each year dying from what only a woman can die from than we’ve lost soldiers the entire decade we’ve been overseas) yet women are shouldering the burdens of support of a family. Even more women are having to raise and support children alone because the father is nowhere in sight and society blames them for being single mothers by saying they’re just out for the welfare money.The interesting thing is we all think that mothers always get custody (when we’re young and naive) but there have been several studies done looking for “sex discrimination” in the family courts that showed the father usually gets custody if he wants it, especially if he is abusive (I’m not linking an article because there are many legitimate resources out there, disbelievers can do their own research).

You see feminists never cared about mother’s custody rights. Nobody does. I dare someone to name the last time they saw a “mother’s rights organization” outside of feminists advocating for “mother’s rights” to breastfeed in public (which I actually agree with) or domestic violence issues (which is just a smokescreen for what’s really going on).

Yes, there are good men who have been done wrong. The appropriate response to injustices? Men need to accept their RESPONSIBILITY and assert their AUTHORITY. These issues wouldn’t be issues if men were being men in the first place. Suzanne Venker made the remark that “women just aren’t women anymore” in an article a few months back. Well, men aren’t “men anymore” either. She’s says there’s a “war on men” then says feminism serves men well in the same posting. Pretty typical of those who hold MRA views to have selective vision.

I may sound like a feminist sometimes or tout “feminist” viewpoints and there are definitely many times where I know that feminists point out real issues for women. However, I don’t agree with the feminist solution to all of this. To the feminist,women’s problems are just a bunch of evil men coming to “steal their equality once they’ve fiinallly achieved it after thouuusands of years”- seriously who would even believe a tale like that???) But those who are informed know what’s going on.

And for those who say feminists are for “separating children from fathers” all I can say is use your damned head already. Feminists have long encouraged women to dump children off on fathers so they can go pursue a career.

Men’s rights groups use feminism and feminist ideals that are now ingrained in mainstream culture to get out of responsibility. (Notice how none of them are touting women in combat, but, hey, if feminists are promoting it then they’ll seize the opportunity and force women to be drafted. Once again, feminists are on their side and feminism has benefited them.) Then they turn around and call themselves “anti-feminists” leading to more women thinking feminism actually has been about giving women a status as “human beings” and any anti-feminist is automatically grouped in with men’s groups and is perceived as anti-woman.

I do not consider a man a victim until he has accepted his rightful responsibilities. Sorry, you can’t sit there and support women being in the home and expect that it is their place to care for the children then all of a sudden wonder “hey, where’s my support at?” when it benefits you. Either take your responsibilities or be victims. I’m not going to feel sorry for men’s groups. The way I see it is this: equal pay laws have been on the books for 50 years now and most states abolished their tender years doctrines many years ago. It’s absurd to think that somehow women are still discriminated against in the workforce just the same as it is insane to think that somehow fathers are discriminated against in family courts. The evidence generally shows that the workforce favors women and the family courts actually favor fathers. Are there men who are victims? Yes. Are men, as a group, victims? No.

But, men and women can’t live without each other. We need to form healthy relationships. If men accepted their responsibilities and asserted rightful authority and were chivalrous to women we wouldn’t be in this mess and our children wouldn’t be so bad off today and coming from broken homes. So, are you going to whine and cry or are you going to be men? And women, are you going to force men to man up or are you going to keep letting them get away with exploiting you sexually and financially?

Don’t complain if you aren’t willing to stand up and do something. MRAs have no real solutions to offer men and feminists have no real solutions for women. They all just keep talking about things being “more fair” and “equal.” They tell lies and deceive the public and take advantage of men and women in vulnerable states. Don’t let them fool you.

Anti-Feminism and Childbearing

The first words out of a lot of feminists’ mouths towards us anti-feminist women are generally something along the lines of accusing us of thinking all women are put on this Earth to be breeding machines. Quite frankly, I am quite annoyed by this. Actually, I find it quite offensive. Absolutely nowhere have I ever said that women should do nothing but marry and spend their entire lives barefoot and pregnant. In fact, I have done quite the opposite. Yes, birth rates are plunging and this is bad for our civilization. I have most certainly made mention of this. But along with making mention of this I have also defended the reasons why women today are not having babies. If a woman has grown up in a society that solely defines her worth in masculine terms then why should we expect that she will have babies or our civilization won’t experience population loss? Yes, mothers with young children are heading off to work every day and the rate of single mothers is higher than in previous times in history.

Most of society and politicians talk about the harmfulness of this. They spend all of their time trying to outlaw abortions and criticizing single mothers. Yet, when do we ever hear of them proposing legislation to protect women in our roles as mothers? The short answer is that we don’t. Liberals, as a group, don’t care a bit about our roles as mothers. They defend abortion rights and are so busy with talks of “women’s rights” that revolve around the so-called “wage gap” and forcing women into combat roles and to be subject to a military draft. Conservatives, as stated above, are all about outlawing abortions and some forms of birth control and trying to force traditional burdens onto women. Yet, conservatives aren’t even saying anything about women in combat or the very real possibility that young women will have to face a military draft for no other reason than political correctness and the faux notion of “gender equality” that really started with modern feminism. How can you conservatives sit there and criticize women for being single mothers and for not having children and criticizing feminism when you have yet to say one word or propose any legislation that would grant traditional exemptions and protections to women, wives and mothers that women had before feminism?

You can’t expect a woman to bring children into this world when she has absolutely no security whatsoever. Women are not protected in custody disputes regarding even their infant children anymore. Unwed fathers have been granted all the same legal recognition as a married father and yet you wonder why there are so many unwed mothers. Yet do you “conservatives” say anything about this? Nope. You “conservatives” go right on attacking birth control and abortion even when rapists are getting custodial rights to victims’ babies. Once again, another issue you won’t say anything about. Conservatives attack women and mothers yet fail to hold men to their responsibilities for women and the mothers of their children.

Marriage is not a safety net for women as it used to be. Women are forced to carry all the financial obligations of their husbands and are not exempt from his debts, even if he abandons her and she has to care for and support her young children alone. Before women’s lib women did not have the same financial obligations as their husbands. She did not have to worry about his debts if he abandoned her to raise her children alone. She was protected. But, the push for equality in all things has made her subject to a man’s traditional burdens and left mothers and wives everywhere without so much as any protection in any area.

Yes, feminists won several Supreme Court decisions that forced all states to gender neutralize their laws regarding unwed fathers, alimony and other laws that made traditional distinctions based on sex. Supreme Court decisions (at the instigation mainly of feminists) were won doing away with the death penalty for rape and legalizing abortion.

You conservatives note that Supreme Court decisions can and have been overturned in the past. This is without question true. So, you go straight to attacking Roe v Wade to make abortion illegal. You want to ensure that women have to carry their babies to term. Now, for those reading this, I have stated before that I absolutely refuse to go into the subject of whether or not abortion should be legal as there are way too many ethical and medical considerations. That is not the point of this post in the least. The point is that mainly conservatives are trying to attack Supreme Court decisions and legislation to hold women to traditional responsibilities yet they are completely silent on those Supreme Court decisions that overturned laws that protected women, wives and mothers and held men to their traditional responsibilities as husbands and fathers and that exempted women from her husband’s debts and responsibilities and encouraged men to marry when they got a girl pregnant. If Roe can be overturned dear conservatives, so can other Supreme Court decisions of the 1970s and 1980s and beyond. You can’t force a woman to have children or even expect that she will want to whenever we live in a world where rapists are given custodial rights, unwed fathers are given unconditional rights, women are forced to support ex-husbands and a man doesn’t even so much as have to provide the mother of his child a prenatal vitamin during her pregnancy.

Now, after all that I will now return to the original point of anti-feminist viewpoints and childbearing. Women have always had the choice to remain childless and be independent. Women are much more than just the “breeding machines” you feminists accuse us traditionalist people of believing they are. I, for one, understand the reasons why a lot of women are reluctant to have babies. We are not protected. But, I believe that deep down most of us want to have babies. Most of us will become mothers but women are choosing not to in large part to relationship issues and the fact that society defines our worth in masculine terms. Most of us women will become mothers in our lifetimes and we deserve to be protected in our natural roles. Most of us mothers would love to have more children, but the legal, cultural and economic climate is deterring us. Once again, all these things started with feminism and the equal rights movement. You conservatives and other like-minded thinkers have no right to bash women and mothers for the choices we make when you ignore our desperate need for legal protections.

And, for those traditional women who cannot have children or simply have decided against them, I still salute you. The childless housewife is of great importance and certainly has a more flexible schedule! For those childless housewives (or even housewives whose children are grown or are in school already) you are still ever important to society and your husbands and you will never hear disrespect from me.

 

 

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