Tag Archives: childless housewives

Marriage is Not Meant to be Egalitarian

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended Articles:

The Contribution of Traditional Wives to Society

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

So You Think You Should Go To Work?

If All You Do…

Advertisements

The Provider Role Belongs to Man

“It is sad that such a subject is even necessary to discuss, because for generations, women, whether they were single or childless, married or widowed, were protected from the pressures of earning a living, and the fathers, husbands, brothers and sons, proudly took their responsibility to be good providers and protectors of the family.” (1)

Today’s conservatives have adopted feminism although they are less liberal than what liberals are about it. Conservatives today will say women should work and go to college before marriage, stay home for a few years and then go back to work. This is a huge contrast from before when marriage was seen as a covenant lasting for a lifetime with a husband being required to financially provide for his wife for her lifetime.

The way I see it is that there is no reason for daughters to be shipped off to college or pressured to go to work before marriage. I see nothing wrong with a young women having some employment to earn some extra spending money before they are married, but young women should not be taught that they must provide for themselves. Young women should be taught to look at employment as a temporary thing, as something to do only until they are married. A young woman should learn from her mother and her father should still be required to support and protect her until she should marry and that responsibility passes to her husband. Today even preachers exclaim that they want their daughters to go off to college and secure a good job. This is considered that the young woman is doing something worthwhile and something good and holy. But I don’t see it that way. I see it as feminism being so pervasive in our culture that even the most religious and conservative and God-fearing have adopted it, even if they are still rejecting the more “radical” elements like gay marriage and abortion.

“I will not encourage my daughters to go to college or have careers. They’ll be raised as housewives. They’ll be raised to be good mothers and wives whose sole focus is their family. They can study what they want and be involved in things that interest them (other than sports), in their free time, but their main focus will be domestic activities. They’ll be taught to be kind, good, and respectful to their husbands and to men in general. They’ll live with me until they’re married. There’s no need for them to have a job. I don’t care if they can take care of themselves or not because that’s what they’ll have a husband for…There will be no “equality” in my house. My children will learn something along the lines of “mommy is supposed to cook, clean, and stay home with me. Daddy is supposed to work, pay for things, and make final decisions.” (There are other things, but this is just the basics). No shared household chores and no shared income responsibility.” (2)

I see nothing wrong with a woman’s family helping the newly married couple to get started by giving her household items or other properties. My family gave me cookware and some furniture as well as a car (albeit an old clunker that we sold within a year) when I first got married. I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with dowries either, so long as it isn’t seen as the woman providing it for herself before she gets married, as in her being expected to work to provide a large dowry so a man can instead not worry about providing and just marry a woman with a good dowry or something. Expecting a woman to work before marriage to provide for land or property or other goods to provide for the family is still pushing the burden of providing off onto women. All the necessities should be the husband’s to provide.

“In the same manner, when the law made the man the head of the family, he also had to financially support his wife… In the times of the Vikings, the government even had established the minimum bride price the man had to pay if he wished to marry, the reasoning behind it being that if a man was too poor to pay the minimum amount of money required by law he obviously wouldn’t be able to support a family and hence had no business to marry.” (3)

Even when the children are out of the home (say in school or have grown up or gotten married themselves) a woman should still have every right to be in the home. Homemaking shouldn’t be seen as some temporary thing a woman does just to take care of very young children, but a lifetime vocation. It should be the right of every woman to be financially supported by her husband. The male role as provider shouldn’t be some optional burden that he can choose to accept or not. It should be a man’s obligation to provide for his wife or daughters as well as any unmarried sisters or other closely related female family members who need his support.

Another thing that bothers me is that stay at home mothers and housewives are often pressured to take in extra money in the form of having a home business or babysitting other people’s kids for some extra money. This, in my opinion, can be just as bad and disruptive to family life as the woman simply working out side of the home. It’s one thing for a housewife to have a hobby or volunteer activity that she does in her spare time or for her to occasionally make something unique that she sells on eBay or something, but it is a different story when she has actual work-a job- that needs to be done that takes her away from the home or when she’s doing work from home because she feels she must “do her part” and help her husband provide or something. Also, babysitting other people’s kids can be a major liability for a woman’s family and also serves the purpose of enabling other mothers to go off to work and leave their kids in someone else’s care. I would say it’s OK to watch a close friend or family member’s kids on occasion for a little money unless it disrupts the home or become a normal job for the wife or, as I just said, enables another mother to leave her kids for a job. No matter if it’s in the home or not, women should not be expected to have paid employment of any kind, even if it is only part-time.

At any stage the burden of providing should not be pushed off onto women. The necessities should be the husband’s and father’s job to provide for his wife and children. It is a man’s duty to provide. Whether young, old, childless, or a mother of many, a woman’s place is in the home. A man’s responsibility is to provide. Marriage is about raising children, but it is also just as much about providing for and protecting women- about male guardianship of and responsibility for women.

“Women’s political movements have spent a century trying to be equal to men, and in doing so, men have quit regarding them as weaker vessels, creatures worth protecting and caring for. Some modern men have never seen a truly feminine woman, content with her work in the home. Growing up in institutions and schools, they saw girls and women who seemed the same as men in their purpose and activities. They have not grown up with Biblical grandmothers and mothers. They get their image of what women are supposed to be like, from what they see around them. Most men these days have female bosses and are surrounded by women in the workforce. They see nothing wrong with sending their wives to work. It looks normal to them. Men feel no shame in sending their children to daycare and their wives to work.

The women’s movement has changed the nature of men. They do not seem strong, protective, masculine and brave. Men have become weaker because they no longer have to be the sole provider for the family. They have no unique role in society; nothing to make them hold their head high or improve their dignity, when women also earn the living for the family. There are few places in the workplace where women have not invaded. Work needs to be a man’s world, and homemaking needs to be a woman’s world. Husbands and wives can be stronger in their own ways, when they do not try to be alike in their roles.

Women must return to the home and men must take on the burden of providing for their families again. Working to be a provider builds up a man, and contentedly tending to her home increases the soft femininity of a woman. These are the opposite tendencies which are the main attractions between men and women. When husbands and wives both work outside the home, the wife will suffer a greater burden. She will be suffering guilt for leaving her children, and she will suffer anxiety for not being able to manage her home. Her health will suffer, as she can not get enough rest. She will loose some of her innocent sweetness, as she tackles the job away from home.

Truly masculine men will not ask their wives to go to work. They will try harder to provide for their families, or cut down on expenses so that their wives wont have to work. Manly men will tell you that when women are not in the workplace, they get their jobs done much better. Women going to work has complicated the way things are done in the workplace, and this has not been good for the men.”(4)

Recommended Articles:

What If Something Happens to Your Husband?

A Woman’s Place

Do What God Says and Let Him Take Care of the Rest

A Personal Reflection on “I Love Lucy”

Practically everyone’s heard of I Love Lucy, a 1950s TV show about a crazy red-headed housewife (played by Lucille Ball) who is married to a Cuban band leader (played by Desi Arnaz). I personally never watched the TV show until here recently when, disgusted by even the family TV shows of today’s era and exhausting historical romance books with feminist heroines, my good friend Sanne over at Adventures in Keeping House suggested the show to me. I have to say that I love it and it will forever on be a favorite show of mine.

For the first season and half of the second season Lucy is a childless housewife, as is her best friend Ethel Mertz (played by Vivian Vance). There is never any shame in the fact that they are housewives who have never had children. Women in those days were not “stay at home moms,” they were simply housewives. The ethic that men were to support their wives (as well as the legal obligation upon them to do so) still existed whether there were children in the marital union or not. Of course, halfway through the second season we find that Lucy is expecting. In the episode “Lucy is Enceinte” we see Lucy getting ready to go to the doctor. Ethel asks her what’s wrong, to which Lucy responds that she has gained some weight and has been feeling real tired here lately. Ethel thinks for a minute and then her eyes light up and she tells Lucy that maybe she’s going to have a baby. Of course, Lucy waves that aside and says “oh Ethel don’t be ridiculous I’ve been married for eleven years!” But when she comes back from the doctor she has a dreamy look on her face and exclaims that she’s going to have a baby. Lucy talks of how she’s always dreamed of how she would tell her husband the good news. She finally gets a chance to tell him by coming down to the club where Ricky works. Ricky receives a note on stage from a woman that she and her husband are going to have a “blessed event.” Ricky passes by all the couples and when he gets to Lucy she has a dreamy look and a smile on her face and nods her head. Ricky, of course, doesn’t get it right away and passes on to the next couple until it finally hits him and he realizes that him and his wife are the lucky couple! He then sings to her and for the audience “we’re having a baby, my baby and me.” The next few episodes continue on where Lucy is expecting but a big deal is not really made over her pregnancy. On the episode “Lucy Goes to the Hospital” Little Ricky is finally born and the next few episodes are pretty much memories and events that happened in the past, presumably so mother and child are not shown on TV too soon after the event of birth.

Not even family movies and shows in today’s era are as respectful as what I Love Lucy was regarding Lucy’s pregnancy and the birth of Little Ricky. The word “pregnant” is never even used. The term “expecting” is used instead. There is no talk in the show about childbirth or about pregnancy or the female body. I did think the episode “Ricky Has Labor Pains” bordered a bit on the obscene side with Lucy’s “cravings” that Ricky then gets too and also the one scene where Lucy couldn’t get out of the chair without assistance but it was still nowhere near what today’s shows are like. Today even family movies that conservative parents watch with their children have indecent talk and showing of birth and pregnancy. One that comes to mind is Cheaper by the Dozen 2 in which one of Kate and Tom’s (I believe that was their names) older daughters is very heavily pregnant. Her “water” ends up breaking when she is in a canoe competing in the competition between families and it becomes some immediate emergency that, of course, requires multiple people to help (including children). Then of course she’s shown having contractions and everything in the movie as well. Another Disney show I watched a bit was Good Luck Charlie. We watched a few episodes until the mother was pregnant with a fifth child and the family started talking about “how she gets” when she’s in her third trimester. Also in one episode the mother played sick because she was exhausted from working at work and working at home even though they had a young child at home. Even Disney these days shows nothing but the career wife and mother and children being raised by nannies. The disgusting and offensive movie Knocked Up shows the perfect example of how far things have come since the days of I Love Lucy. High powered career woman decides to go out and celebrate one night, picks up man for one-night stand, discovers she’s pregnant a few weeks later (you know by puking in a trash can, because that’s how all women discover they are pregnant, you know, by getting sick then thinking they must have the flu or something) then goes and finds the lucky guy to try to explain she’s pregnant (this is a very smart move ladies, if you get pregnant by some random guy you don’t know you should probably find him and inform him about it that way he and his family can sue you for custodial rights later). Of course, dude can’t even comprehend what on earth she’s even talking about. Pregnant? What on earth do you mean? Pregnant with and idea? Oh, a baby? Huh? Seriously, man? Of course, dude has no real job except for trying to find shots of female private parts from movies until he discovers that someone else has already had that idea. Bummer! Well, that’s ok the two get together and try to make it work. She’s a career woman who doesn’t need his money anyways (so I guess that would make him the “third wheel”). Later on of course she’s heavily pregnant and highly emotional and decides to kick his broke self out of her car on the side of the road on the way to her gynecologist appointment because she’s so crazy emotional (get out you bum and find your own ride!) then when she gives birth he brings all his perverted guy friends to the hospital to crack jokes and talk about her private parts and how gynecology is their favorite hobby and shots are shown of her privates while she’s giving birth. But, it’s Ok, the story has a happy ending because they make a *relationship*. I guess us women are supposed to feel empowered and respected because society now openly talks of and displays our bodies. And, hey, even the older generations are now cool with it. I’m sure shoving childbirth, period sex and private rituals we women do in the bathroom in men’s faces will make them respect us! (Here’s the gory details boys, now give me respect!)

In Lucy there is none of this. Ricky was not by her side and holding her hand through labor. He was out being a real man and working to support his family. Lucy was never even shown in the hospital room at all. There was no “oh honey I told you antibiotics knocked out the pill” or talk of maternity leave or shots of her peeing on a stick in the bathroom or throwing up in a trashcan or talks of “so who’s the father?” There was nothing but joy and love. Mother and child were secure in a home that Ricky had provided for them. There was never any pressure on Lucy to work even when she was childless, much less so after the arrival of Little Ricky. A baby was seen as nothing but a blessing, as was pregnancy.

As a married woman Lucy’s job was to take care of the home and a child being introduced into the union didn’t pose any threats to the ordering of their daily lives. Children being born out of wedlock wasn’t acceptable and there are no showings of unwed fathers or mothers on the show, nor was there divorce or illegitimacy. All the women she comes into contact with and all the women she is friends with are housewives who care for their homes and children. Of course, Lucy is always begging Ricky to let her into show-business to which Ricky responds that he wants a wife who will take care of the home and be a mother to his children.

Of course, even in those days society was still feminist in many ways. Lucy is often in the show doing things that put Ricky’s career in jeopardy either because she is jealous of one of the showgirls and is scared Ricky is unfaithful or because she wants in the show so badly she is willing to do anything. Even after Little Ricky is born she worms her way into one of his shows with Little Ricky on her back. In the episode “Equal Rights” Ricky is tired of her being late and declares that he is going to run the home like they do in Cuba, with the man as master of the home. Lucy obediently goes to the bedroom to get her coat then comes back out and “stands up for herself” (with Ethel cheering her on from across the room) and the girls declare they want to be treated just like men. Ricky says fine and treats her just the same as he would another man. Lucy and Ethel end up washing dishes in the restaurant because they had no money to pay for the food (they were expecting their husbands to pay), Ricky and Fred end up pushing the girls out of the way to sit down first and talking over them to order their food first and Ricky even commits an unforgivable breech of etiquette and shaves at the table! Of course, the difference between then and now is that their husbands never did abandon them, as Ricky and Fred were waiting to pick them up and bring them home when they were done. Also Lucy was able in the show to go out and buy a business in more than one episode without her husband’s knowledge or consent. Of course, she always fails at it when she tries to go into business. In one episode the men tell Lucy and Ethel that housework is easy and the women respond by telling Fred and Ricky that being the breadwinner is easy. They switch jobs and Lucy and Ethel find they are no good at bringing home the bacon and Fred and Ricky find they are no good at frying it up. So, all in all, traditional gender roles are still promoted in the show.

Often times Lucy (who can’t ever be on time, keep up with anything, manage money, display much logical thinking in various arenas nor sing, act or dance) will get herself into trouble. Instead of going to her husband and telling him the truth or getting his help she instead messes things up even worse by taking things into her own hands. A few times her schemes even land her right across Ricky’s knee, an obviously politically incorrect display of male dominance now completely written out of all TV shows, movies and even historical novels. (Just something as simple as Disney prettying up Princess Merida from the movie “Brave” these days causes boycotts from parents today who want their girls to be independent). A couple of times in the show she even manages to get Ricky fired due to her interference in his affairs. Even though she is only trying to help her husband, her interference still undermines his career and often makes things worse. Of course, she often does find a way to make everything better in the end and sometimes her schemes to insert herself into show-business actually work out for the good of Ricky’s career. When they travel to Hollywood Lucy is offered a one-year contract. It is what she has always wanted yet in the end she turns it down so that she can go back home and be with her family. She does still attempt at times to get into show-business afterwards, but not nearly so severe as in the early days of I Love Lucy.

Of course, it is Lucy’s illogical thinking and ridiculous schemes that propel the show forward and make it so hilarious and entertaining. I haven’t seen the comedies that Desi and Lucille put out after the show ended, but I Love Lucy definitely gets an A+ rating in my book. Much has changed in our culture and most of it has not been for the better. Though some things were worse in the 1950s, in the area of gender relations there is no comparison between now and then. In the show Lucy never does get a career. Another thing to note is how sexually exploited women are today compared to then. Lucille Ball was already forty years old whenever I Love Lucy began (of course she is portrayed as being in her 30s, although she claims to have stopped having birthdays at 29). Today women in movies are mere sex objects whose youth is sucked up and young women are considered old hags by about the time they hit the ripe age of 25. There is such a cult of youth in our culture today that is reflected in the media.

Interesting as well is how advanced society was even in the 1950s. Even in those days the middle class housewives had many of the conveniences we do today. In one episode Lucy and Ethel didn’t even have a clue how to make bread or churn butter.

Also, Lucy and the other housewives always tried to look pretty everyday. Sure, there were some scenes were Lucy still had her nightclothes on looking half out of it in the morning, but for the most part women strived to look good and act like ladies. In one episode Ricky even commented that Lucy thinks she’s naked (or was it niked) without lipstick on and in one episode Ethel was saying how she couldn’t get on the subway wearing jeans. Of course, Lucy belonged to the middle class. The amount of money that she threw around on the show for clothes, redecorating the house, going to get her hair done every couple of weeks, and fixing all the problems she caused with her schemes would be considered outrageous by most even in 2014 dollars. But it is nice to see a time when women actually strove to look good and take care of themselves and a time when men were in charge. Also nice is that Ricky most often wears a suit.

By now all of the main characters of the show (save for, I believe, the man who played Little Ricky) are all deceased. In fact, many were deceased before I was ever even born. Also deceased are the old ways. The saddest thing of all is the thought that the prosperity and much stabler gender relations of the past depicted in the shows and movies of yesteryear may never come back. But at least we may catch a glimpse of better times through the entertainment of old.

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)