Tag Archives: chivalry

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)

Advertisements

Why Feminism is not Compatible With the Housewife’s Role

Possibly one of the saddest realities of life today is that few have any faith in marriage to last a lifetime anymore. In these times most people concentrate most on what happens when the marriage ends, rather than the marriage itself (think prenups for instance, most people go into marriage expecting it to end). Marriage consists of competition and mistrust between husband and wife. There is plenty of support for men out there who distrust women and don’t feel safe about investing in the marital relationship or investing themselves in women (as in supporting and protecting women). But what about woman’s role in marriage? Is it safe for a woman to invest herself in the marital relationship? And who is standing up for her role in marriage? The unfortunate answer to this question seems to be nobody. There is really nobody out there standing up for a woman’s role as a wife and mother. The absolute only voice for women revolves around the workforce.

As a woman it’s always my greatest joy just to be a wife and mother. Living a traditional life is what I’ve always wanted to do. It was always my dream to be a housewife and nothing else but I was always ashamed to admit it when I was younger (since we’re told it’s not a career or dependable anymore). Unfortunately as I’ve grown up over the years I no longer see life the same way. I no longer see life through rose colored glasses. Life has taught me the hard way that nobody is going to come to the rescue of a woman and force a man to be a man and do the honorable thing by marrying a woman he impregnates or who’s virginity he has taken. Nobody in our world today is going to enforce a man to be responsible for the financial support of his wife or throw shame on him for abandoning her or failing to protect her.

I still love the housewife role and in my very heart being a wife and mother is all I’ve ever wanted. It’s what I’ve always lived for. Being pregnant and nursing an infant. Even giving birth was a powerful experience. It was so empowering to know that as a woman I could do such a thing. It’s an instinct. It’s primitive, ancient and distinctly feminine. But at some point we all grow up and have to face the world for what it is. My world has for many years been torn between the longings of my heart (which are generally fantasies about being barefoot and pregnant) and the realities of modern day life that women are no longer secure in their roles as wives and mothers.

Like so many others, I too, have fears about truly investing myself in marriage. Just because I have come on here for years expressing the need for tradition and my love for it does not mean I am displaced from the society I live in. It does not mean I’m not a real wife and mother with fears and issues of my own. Occasionally I am upset and tell my husband I want nothing more than to just follow him and worry nothing about his business and the happenings in the world around me. That’s the way it should be. That’s the way it was for hundreds of years. Women knew they could just follow their husbands and depend upon their husbands for everything because the law would hold him responsible for her well being. She could safely follow him and obey him knowing that he would have to take legal responsibility as the husband and head of household. The law would even accept a woman’s explanation that she was following her husband’s orders.

But what about now? If there’s one thing that most women know in our times today it would be that depending on a husband is risky. Where once financial support of the family and chivalry was the man’s responsibility now the law has been bastardized by the feminist movement to say that it should be a woman’s responsibility as well and that instead of husband and wife being one unit they are instead supposed to be treated as barely anything more than two cohabiting individuals, with barely any more status or control over each other than what a boyfriend and girlfriend living together would have. Husbands and wives are no longer legally looked upon as one unit with one head, but as separate individuals who are supposed to be responsible for themselves.

This means that traditional women have no choice. In order to protect ourselves we have to know our husbands’ business. Because if we didn’t then we could be held responsible for what he does. He is no longer given the legal right to make decisions on behalf of his wife and children (unless there’s a very extreme case like his wife being in a coma or something) and the wife is forced to be right there equally (there’s that word again, isn’t it so gorgeously feminist?) participating in what he’s doing and the business he is conducting. Most women today know they would be fools to blindly obey and follow their husband’s orders because they know they no longer have the protection of the husband taking full legal responsibility for being the one in charge.

This is what feminists wanted and now their beliefs are enshrined in law and accepted by all of society including conservatives. So what are traditional women to do? Will we fade away? Even lurking somewhere in the minds of the most traditional among us is a feeling of unease and distrust of our spouse. Feminism and the role of the traditional woman are not compatible. The first step is that society must realize this. Women’s and men’s traditonal responsibilities within marriage must be law if they are to have any meaning. If they cannot be enforced then they are worthless. Married women cannot gain the ‘right’ of being independent from husbands and children without also compromising a woman’s traditional role. Feminism has stolen from a woman’s security and power in her traditional roles to force her to comply with feminist beliefs and grant her power in the masculine realm. And when they can’t get enough force together from women to abandon tradition on their own then they encourage men to “liberate” themselves from their duties. They betray women to get exactly what they want.

Traditional women must be vocal. We have no choice. We must insist that the traditional roles of a man and wife in marriage must be enforced by law. The husband’s responsibility to financially support his wife and take legal responsibility for her (with a few exceptions, the same as the law generally holds parents responsible for their children with exceptions when those children cannot be controlled) must be enforced as well as a woman’s submission to her husband must also be enforced by law. This is the only safe way that both husband and wife can invest in their traditional roles with peace of mind. No authority is a true authority unless it has the power to enforce it’s rule. Likewise no protection is a real protection unless it can be enforced.

As for feminist women? Nobody says you have to get married. In fact, please do us all a favor and stay single and childless. Go liberate yourself and support your own self and stop robbing traditional men and women who want to know the joys of marriage and children of their security.

Suggested Reading:

In Defense Of Coverture

Marriage is Masculinity and Coverture

On Patriarchy, Chivalry and Fear

I know the very thought of men controlling things can be very scary to the modern woman. Sometimes when I think about the term “patriarchy” I admit that I get a little scared too. I’ve made brief mentions of my own father who wanted both the benefits of patriarchy for his own selfishness then the benefits of feminism when it suited him and, after all, not all patriarchies throughout time and throughout the world have treated women well. In some societies, the men would cowardly push women ahead of them in combat (sound familiar?) and in some, even when food was scarce, the men would always eat first and the women would always eat last. If there wasn’t enough food left by that time then, well, the women would just go hungry. Just as much as a matrilineal society does not guarantee a woman’s dignity and safety neither does patriarchy in and of itself. So, why then, do TWRAs endorse patriarchy? Whey would a group that claims to stand up for women endorse a social order that could very well harm or oppress women?

Simply put, the patriarchy that TWRAs endorse is one of high male investment in women so that women in turn can make a high investment in children. Patriarchy the TWRA way does not mean that the man is in charge and therefore can treat a woman however he wants. The man could say “hey, I’m bigger and stronger than you and I’m the man of this house so I’m going to serve myself first” and push the woman out of the way, because, simply put, he can. But such is not the TWRA way. TWRAs understand that patriarchy is a social order that works to the best interests of families and overall societal stability but we also understand that patriarchy without an enforced concept of chivalry is dangerous. The man’s position as leader and authority figure is not for his own gain, but for the benefit of women and children. This is why we make unconditional chivalry one of the key concepts of our ideology.

With unconditional chivalry women can feel safe to trust in men once again and women can be protected and invest more in their children without the man’s burdens of supporting the family or having to deal with traditional men’s issues such as politics and war.

Of course, in the patriarchal society it is the men who control the chivalry and it is men who impose chivalry on one another. The woman, for instance, doesn’t get to just make any demand she wants upon the man or upon her husband. It is up to men to care for women and be responsible for women and thus it must be up to men to look out out for women’s best interests and hold other men to their rightful responsibilities for women and children. A woman’s concerns and viewpoints do matter and her husband should always take them into account (many times women have good insight and wisdom to offer and men would be foolish not to consider it) but ultimately he has to be the one to decide what is best.

I know that the idea of allowing men to have this power might seem scary, but I do believe that men, when they are not emasculated by feminism or MRA activism, really will take care of women. Mostly from what I’ve seen men will look out for women and take care of them but it is only women’s current mindsets because of feminism and the fact that women want to impose their own demands upon men that causes men to shy away from their responsibilities and not care as much about women. I also feel that it is more-so the women who disregard the best interests of other women and in the end women’s interests would be better served left in the hands of men. It runs contrary to what we are taught all of our lives, but since women got the vote and started getting involved more in politics and the workforce I feel that life has gotten consistently worse for women. I remember my grandmother telling me once that life really was better for women before the 1960s. It seems scary at times but most men would look out for women more and protect women more if they were given the rightful authority and the rightful responsibility imposed upon them for women. And, for those men who do not follow the rules and use their power to harm women, it is up to the other men to deal with them.

Related reading:

Gynocentrism, Fairness and Morality

Why I am an Anti-Feminist Woman Part II

Why am I an anti-feminist woman?

1) I want my man to be chivalrous: My man has always paid for our dates and held doors open for me. He doesn’t expect a woman to pay because he knows that is his job. He is not the type of man who believes women and men are equal because he believes women should be protected and taken care of. He does not throw our society’s mainstream vision of equality back in my face by telling me to pay my own way, open my own doors, and fight our wars. “Of course, when you wipe out masculine men, you also eliminate gentlemen, the kind of men who would defend and protect a lady-like the gentlemen who remained on the Titanic. Of the ship’s survivors, 94 percent of those in first-class and 81 percent of those in second class were women.”[1]

2) I don’t want to be “equal”: I know as a woman I am already of great worth. I don’t have to go out into the workforce to prove myself. It does not make me inferior if my husband pays the bills and has all the money because that means he is assuming responsibility as a father and husband and providing our needs. I don’t want the burdens that have been forced upon wives and mothers because of feminism. I want my husband to have the legal obligation to provide my needs and the needs of our child and I want him to be the head of household. I do not want to be treated like a man. “Different but equal” is a term that contradicts itself.

To ameliorate the problems caused by society’s overvaluation of male marketplace activities and women’s dissatisfactions with a traditional female role, masculinity must be reinforced. Only a man secure in his masculinity will place a high value on the traditional female role and exert himself to make that role viable. The fiber of effete, attenuated, androgynous males must be shored up so that they can happily marry, reproduce, and assume responsibility for supporting a family. A man secure in his masculinity will not usually believe himself suited to the female role, but he will respect the woman who assumes it and take pride in providing for her and their children. Such a man will afford his wife the security and affirmation that enable her to deal with the troubling aspects of her role and perform it with satisfaction.[2]

A sea of change had occurred in men who only two decades before had taken pride in their ability to provide for wife and children. With scarcely a whimper, many males accepted the new androgyny and capitulated to the very feminist demands which have impaired their earning ability. Then, they too encouraged their wives to leave children hostage to the vagaries of surrogate care and pursue the economic opportunities which would spare husbands from assuming the now apparently overwhelming role of breadwinner.[3]

3) I want to be valued for the natural work I do: Our society does not see woman’s natural work of pregnancy, birth and child nurturing as work or as worthwhile. They tell us we do not do our part unless we are held to all the responsibilities of men. This is simply not true. As women we naturally do our part for we are the ones that bring life into this world. I want to be valued and cherished for the work I naturally do. We spend months and years of our lives to bring the next generation forth and it should be counted as more than just doing our part and respected. Feminists have never seen us as doing our part and have forced us to take on the man’s burden of supporting the family and have tried many times to get Congress to draft us. “But if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship…”[4]

…While androgyny advances the feminist cause, it is for the traditional person the ultimate perversion. Because of its essential elimination of what is singularly masculine or feminine, an ideology of androgyny is an attack on the biological constitution of society, a muting of the excitement created by that sexual distinctiveness and complementarity most conducive to satisfying heterosexuality. The widespread desexualization of our lives through a proliferation of androgynous styles has created fallow soil for growth of contemporary feminism. Societal acceptance of androgyny has validated feminist efforts to trivialize sexual differences. When androgyny becomes fashionable, women will become diffident about, even somewhat ashamed of, the sexual differentiation announced by their reproductive capability. Striving to become more like men, they will eschew the distinctively feminine satisfaction inherent in being female.[5]

4) I treasure my sexuality and my body: Feminists have for decades told us to pursue sex on the same terms as men and that double standards are holding us back. We are pressured from a young age to have sex and to be ashamed if we have not had sex. I remember being so ashamed of being a virgin that I had to lie to everyone I knew about sexual encounters that never even happened. It’s a pitiful thing when young women don’t understand their inherent worth and feel they must participate in sexual activity in order to feel accepted and loved. Sex for a woman will never be the same as sex for a man.

“ In the past, men had to commit before they could have sex. As a result, women were cherished for themselves and given a lifelong role that satisfied their deepest emotional needs.

Both mothers and daughters are victims of deliberate social subversion. A woman’s career used to be wife and mother. She consecrated her sexuality for the man she loved, the father of her children, her protector and provider.”[6]

Dworkin depicts sexual intercourse as a much more momentous experience for a woman than a man, because it is ‘an act of possession in which…a man inhabits a woman, physically covering her and overwhelming her and at the same time penetrating her…By thrusting into her, he takes her over. His thrusting into her is taken to be her capitulation to him as a conqueror; it is a physical surrender of herself to him; he occupies and rules her, expresses his elemental dominance over her…’ In intercourse, says Dworkin, a woman ‘is occupied- physically, internally, in her privacy.'” Her depiction might be considered an outrageous exaggeration (many of Dworkin’s critics so characterize it), but I find it a dramatic portrayal-from the woman’s, but not necessarily from the man’s perspective- of sexual intercourse at its best. Dworkin describes an overwhelmingly personal, a truly awe-inspiring, event in which a woman should shrink in horror from participating on any basis even remotely casual. One might think that in her lifetime a woman would meet few men that she considers worthy of exercising such power over her. This may explain why women often invest their romantic relationships with a meaning the facts do not support, endeavoring to convince themselves that the man is what he is not and that the woman means much more to him than she truly does.[7]

Notes:

1. Schlafly, P., Feminist Fantasies. Spence, 2003.
2. Graglia, C.F., Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism. p.151. Spence, 1998.
3. ibid., p.40.
4. http://www.amazon.com/Firing-William-Buckley-Rights-Amendment/dp/B007Q3QMEW/ref=pd_ybh_1
5. “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 61.
6. http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/feminists-surprised-their-daughters-are-sluts/
7. “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 173.

© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.