Tag Archives: coverture

The Might of Nations

 

[PDF Version]

 

But what is it that makes a nation? Barricaded away in study in the law and history books, it becomes quite easy to see that the strength and might of a nation lies in its military strength, its economy, and its political structures (of which a nation’s family patterns play a key role in all three).

Transformed as modern economies may be from agricultural-based to industrial-based, there is nothing new under the heavens. Work was outsourced even to the extent in ancient times that the Code of Hammurabi[1] outlines many economic regulations (including the regulation of worker’s wages) and even ancient Rome had a welfare system[2] where imported grains were distributed free by the government to the poorest citizens. The two-parent “nuclear” family system is also to be found in various ancient societies where international trade and a marketplace based upon coinage seem to be the hallmarks of an advancing and prosperous civilization throughout all eras of history.

In short order, political instability contributes to economic instability and the reduction in the fighting capabilities of a nation’s armed forces. Which plays the greater role or comes first in causing the disorder (declining economics, military prowess or political instability) is hard to ascertain, but all forces push and pull on one another in the creation of such disorder.

To have stability, groups of individuals have since the beginning of time developed codes of conduct- either through unwritten tribal customs or formal codification of laws in civilizations[3]– often patriarchal[4]– with more advanced political structures- that regulate how they will relate to one another and deal with any forms of disputes that arise. When the formal and civilized terms become unacceptable, the alternative is to resort to violence until one side succeeds in subduing the other, and thereby forcing the losing side’s surrender to the will of the prevailing forces, and thus securing their acceptance to abide by the terms and the customs of the rule of law of the winning side.

Civilizations are created and the story of human affairs develops (and this is, perhaps, the very reason why the whole “herstory” idea has never gained any traction) whenever one civilization overpowers the other through brute force and imposes their own rule of law over the opposing (conquered) forces and sets up their own leaders in place of the ones who formerly ruled.

Throughout history, governments are only as strong as the might of their military forces- as strong as the men of a nation. An effective government must not only have the resources (its economy) and the manpower (its military) to protect its borders from invading forces attempting to overcome it from without, but also to subdue rebellion from within. Thus, all governments depend upon the strength of their military forces, effective economic functioning, and political stability for their continued existence.

Civilizations seem to prosper in particular when diplomatic relations are stable, and thus fostering the growth of international trade. Whenever civilizations advance in such ways they then begin to form more complicated systems of government, turning from being governed in more primitive ways (as in pre-civilization under tribal rule, without formal written language or advances in agriculture/industry) to becoming stable functioning states replete with a written code of laws and formal bureaucratic administration.

Stability from within and without produces prosperous and wealthy civilizations, and historically this has also meant increases in innovation and inspiration, with changing family structures to become patriarchal with men working the land/ engaging in industry and business to directly provide for families where the paternity of their children is known. With advancing economies also comes more resources to develop technology, and thus more advanced weaponry and more advanced modes of production (whether agricultural or industrial) to further advance a nation’s military and economic forces and increase the native population (with the civilizations thus becoming more powerful than those that surround them, with these nations oftentimes even moving to conquer their surrounding neighbors and impose their will and rule of law over them).

On BBC’s website, searching through the history section, there are provided a couple of image galleries that give a brief overview and quite fascinating insight into the aforementioned military and economic forces at work throughout human history: The Art of War by Professor Daniel Moran and a War and Technology Gallery by a writer named Matthew Bennett. It’s interesting to see the timeline of how such forces have historically played out to create the societies we have today.

Aside from how civilizations are built, another important aspect of all civilizations (and whether they advance or falter and become conquered and impoverished peoples), is their family structures (as mentioned, when civilizations advance they generally become more patriarchal in their structures where the role of fathers providing and protecting in families is of paramount importance to their stability) and relationships between the sexes.

From the ancient Greek Hoplites and brutal hand-to-hand combat to the modern era where “The essence of new information technologies…have made the accuracy and effectiveness of weapons independent of the range from which they are fired,”[5] and where, “On the battlefields of the future all detectable targets will be equally at risk, while the ‘shooter’ may be literally anywhere,”[6] the entire point of warfare has been, and will always be, to annihilate or subdue one’s target and “win.”

Modern political discourse revolves around placing women in combat because brute strength is apparently not needed on account of all the new technologies. But no matter the battle strategy utilized, the end result will always be that the one pulling the trigger (even if from far away and even if the utilization of the weaponry requires little to no physical strength where females can equally do the job as well as males) will become a target in warfare. The “brains of the operation,” operating invisibly from some far away source would of necessity become the prime target for the opposing forces, as they would not be able to achieve their objective until the individual silently and invisibly taking out their forces is himself (herself) annihilated- this means killedcapturedtaken out of action and off the battlefield.

Whatever way one wants to put it, placing women in any kind of combat situations where they engage the enemy either directly or indirectly is still placing women in danger. It is the hallmark of an ever-increasing degenerating culture where the rule of law has utterly broken down.[7] It is also a very dangerous proposition for society overall whenever men stop seeing women as weaker vessels whom it is their duty to provide for and protect. Men will also- no matter the consequences- desert both battlefield and workplace when morale sinks and they simply see no point in continuing on working or fighting anymore: when they simply no longer have anything to work or fight for.

On an interpersonal level, it is a very dangerous proposition indeed whenever males in society overall become aggressive against their women, and see no problem engaging in face-to-face competition with females and don’t even flinch at the idea of females being called into military service to be captured and killed by the enemy and will themselves attack and get in a woman’s face at only the smallest slight. When reality hits in the real world, men and women are not equal.

In sexual encounters, it is females who become pregnant and bear the disabilities associated with pregnancy and childbirth. In violent confrontations and domestic violence situations, few females are actually on equal footing with males. The rule of law may impose anti-discrimination legislation upon citizens and describe penalties for socially perceived wrongdoing- it may even become totalitarian with arbitrary domestic violence legislation- but the law is mere words on a piece of paper whenever its terms become unacceptable by individuals or groups of individuals who do not wish to abide by it.[8] Violence is the alternative to adherence to the rule of law, and out in the real world women are never- or rarely- equal under such circumstances. Therefore, it is imperative that the males of a civilization (and civilization in general) see the placing of women in harm’s way- no matter the circumstances- as utterly repugnant and unacceptable.[9]

On a personal note, we must always think of our children. When they are younger it is easy to see the world through selfish eyes and focus on oneself. But as they grow older the game shifts from simply caring for incompetent young and infant children to attempting to guide and instill necessary wisdom in the minds of young individuals- our offspring whom we once nurtured before they could do for themselves- and protect them from a world they are at once too young to truly understand even as they are yet beginning to enter into it as autonomous individuals seeking their own independence.

I have a preteen daughter, and I worry every single day about what this world is going to look like in a few short years when she begins to go out in the world and begins to interact romantically with the opposite sex. If I had a son I would want to know that the law would be on his side if he chose to invest in a woman, but it is absurd to truly believe that the same rules apply to women (or girls) as to men (or boys) or that I would have the same fears and concerns over a son as I do my own daughter.

Relationships between the sexes matter and they always will. It is, of necessity, the role and function of the men of society to provide for and protect their women and children, which will also produce the by-product of more feminine and less aggressive women, thereby resulting in a more prosperous, wealthy, and stable civilization where the people are free due to the rule of law being upheld.

—————————————————————————————–

 

 

[1] The Avalon Project, Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, Babylonian Law– The Code of Hammurabi, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hammpre.asp (Last Visited, September 10, 2018).

[2] See Generally, TimeMaps, The Roman Republic: Government and Societyhttps://www.timemaps.com/civilizations/roman-republic/ (Last Visited, September 10, 2018); Hans Julius Wolff, Roman Law: An Historical Introduction 12-13 (9th ed. 1951). “Ever larger masses of the former free rural population moved into the city where they formed, together with great numbers of freedmen of foreign origin, a proletariat maintained by grains imported from the provinces, chiefly Africa; part of these grains were distributed free by the state.” Id.

[3] Even Rome itself developed as an insignificant city-state around the Tiber river region of Central Italy. Its original political system before the Republic is not as well known, though Rome was under a monarchy before the beginnings of the Roman Republic around 500 B.C. See generally Wolff, note 2, supra; TimeMaps, The Rise of the Roman Empirehttps://www.timemaps.com/encyclopedia/rise-of-the-roman-empire#republic, (Last Visited September 10, 2018).

[4] See generally Daniel Amneus, The Garbage Generation (1990). Still the best classic resource on the need for patriarchy. This book is also available online at: https://www.fisheaters.com/gb1.html (Last Visited, March 13, 2018). For a review of Amneus’ work, see B.A. Hunter, My Review of The Garbage Generationhttps://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/my-review-of-the-garbage-generation/, (Last Visited September 11, 2018). Victimology is not a theme in Amneus’ classic work. The solution for mothers- whether divorced, widowed or never married- is not the workforce, but marriage. Though paternal authority can at times be somewhat harsh-seeming on the outside of things, patriarchy is- in its truest sense- about love. Amneus doesn’t speak of love, but he does cite the English and Anglo-American common- law system of Coverture as the ideal. For the traditional girl, the heart and spirit softens and the mind is put at ease at his insistence on the male dominance and protection to be found under a truly patriarchal system such as Coverture. For more on Coverture, see generally What’s Wrong With Equal Rights, William Blackstone on Coverture Taghttps://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/tag/william-blackstone-on-coverture/, (Last Visited September 11, 2018).

[5] Daniel Moran, The Art of War, Future of Warhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/art_war_gallery_09.shtml, (Last Visited September 11, 2018).

[6] Ibid.

[7] A great historical example to this effect- though there are many- is the fall of the Western Roman Empire to “barbarian” Huns and the Germanic tribes of the Angles, Jutes and Saxons which plunged Western civilization into a period of lawlessness and ignorance. “When the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons first migrated to England, life was brutal. They came in small clans and tribes and every member of the tribe had to contribute to the defense of the tribe. Women had to fight. These tribes slowly coalesced into kingdoms, which gradually formed the kingdom of England.” Christine G. Clark, Women’s Rights in Early England, Brigham Young University Law Review 1 (1995). Available at  http://constitution.org/lrev/eng/womens_rights_early_england.pdf. The author then goes on to lament about the supposed taking away of women’s rights when law and order was restored and society was brought out of the Dark Ages in particular when William the Conqueror, at the time of The Conquest (1066), restored law and order with his Feudalism and code of chivalry. The author then ends the article with bright-eyed hope that women will return to combat now that less brute strength is needed as a result of ever increasing technology in warfare.

[8] See for instance, Lyman Abbot, The Atlantic, Why Women Do Not Wish the Suffrage (1903), Available at https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1903/09/why-women-do-not-wish-the-suffrage/306616/:   “It is this power to compel which distinguishes law from advice. Behind every law stands the sheriff, and behind the sheriff the militia, and behind the militia the whole military power of the Federal government. No legislature ever ought to enact a statute unless it is ready to pledge all the power of government- local, state, and Federal- to its enforcement, if the statute is disregarded. A ballot is not a mere expression of opinion; it is an act of the will; and behind this act of the will must be power to compel obedience…The great elections are called, and not improperly called, campaigns. For they are more than a great debate. A debate is a clash of opinions. But an election is a clash of wills… Will sets itself against will in what is essentially a masculine encounter. And if the defeated will refuses to accept the decision…war is the necessary result.” Id.

[9] Perhaps there is yet still hope with the as of yet very weak cries at restoring a sense of chivalry and duty for the protection of women and children back to society. See for instance, Emily Esfahani Smith, The Atlantic, Let’s Give Chivalry Another Chance (2012). https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/lets-give-chivalry-another-chance/266085/, (Last Visited September 11, 2018).

Advertisements

The Sanctity of Marriage

As is always the way with me, I’m a thinker, a doer. Lately it has been on my mind to write a few things. Many aspects in life and including the comments I’ve received here have led me to think about these things. First off, I just want to say that it shouldn’t matter what anyone else thinks about the way you choose to live your life whenever you choose to live in a traditional way. I don’t have anyone I’m trying to please and the opinions even of my own relatives are unimportant to me. What they think about my lifestyle doesn’t matter.

Recently I had to send a formal letter to my own mother telling her that I wished no further contact with neither her nor any of my relatives. They were interfering in my life and it concerned me. It was getting completely out of hand. They would rather see my marriage ruined, they would rather see me finish college and live the life they want for me to be living[i].

But the thing is that none of that matters to me. And I’m writing and saying all of this because I know just how many young women out there are facing the same pressures from relatives[ii]. But like I told my own mother, I love her- I really do- I’ve always longed for a good relationship with her but I know that it’s just never going to happen. Ultimately, they are not what is of importance. They want me to live in a certain way but they won’t be the ones who ultimately pay the price for the life they believe I should be living- I will be.

Traditionally the law threw a cloak over marriage[iii][iv]. Even in religious beliefs, it is well established that a man and women leave the sphere of their relatives and join together. From then on out they are one and all others take second stage (or in some cases, such as is often the case with friends and acquaintances, cease to matter altogether). Only in matriarchal or tribal societies does marriage not take on such importance[v]. In these kinds of societies, even the raising of children becomes some community matter and there are no permanent and stable romantic relationships between men and women.

The existence and establishment of “gender equality” and “gay marriage” have lessened the importance and sacredness of marriage by obliterating separate rights and responsibilities between the sexes and stripping the true meaning from sex- but even here many jurisdictions still cloak marriage in various ways (such as exclusive rights to offspring within the marriage and immunity regarding testifying in criminal/civil cases). Where the last of these privileges fall by the wayside, it means that society no longer sees marriage as something worth preserving nor protecting.

This showcases what marriage traditionally meant to our society. Traditionally, the husband was head of the household. His wife and his children were his[vi]. The marriage was sacred and outsiders had no right to come in and interfere with the relationship of a man and his wife, or of parents and their legitimate offspring unless compelling circumstances necessitated the law’s interference. When you take away the foundations of the institution of marriage you also strip away all these protections.

Also keep in mind here that it doesn’t matter what the “majority” are supposedly thinking. Your average, ordinary citizen is largely ignorant of the law[vii] and the world around him (or her). Despite all our fancy technological gadgets, human beings are not any more or less ignorant than what we were thousands of years ago. Human nature doesn’t change and likewise humans tend to let emotion overwhelm them and get into a mob mentality where all common sense flies out the window. But that’s why your average, ordinary citizen doesn’t have the power to make laws or policies[viii].

It doesn’t matter what others say or do. Your best protection is to educate yourself (this can be done outside of formal settings) and marry a good man while you’re young. From there on out- no matter what the society might say right now as the society is not always right- your husband should be your everything. A young woman should start out by looking to her husband for everything. He should be your protection, your provision and your guidance that you look to. You will also hold great influence over him as well as many a man have accomplished great things when they had the guidance and support of a good and faithful woman by their side.

Relatives, in-laws, friends can all be nasty and vicious and tear apart marriages if they are allowed to. That’s why the marital relationship must be first in importance and why we need to get to the point in society once again where the husband is the head of house and responsible for his family and, absent compelling circumstances, rights are only established and defined within the state of marriage. In our world today, marriage is regarded as a mere piece of paper that is optional whenever men and women procreate with each other- but this has got to change.

The marriage protects your privacy, the marriage protects your well-being. Also realize your influence as a woman. I never felt that my mother or relatives had my best interests at heart, which is why I always rejected the things they wanted for me and I always left their side and their influence to bond with my husband. I knew that my protection was only going to be found in him. I knew that no one else could ever protect, love or understand me the same. Others will invade on your home, attempt to run your life and invade your personal sphere and privacy if they are allowed to. Marriage should block this from happening and traditionally it always did by clearing establishing rights and responsibilities that could not be obtained anywhere else[ix].

Under coverture, for instance, husband and wife were considered as one[x]. A wife could represent her husband or conduct business in his absence even if need be, as they were one. A man could take his wife, wherever he found her, and take her with him wherever he went, as he had a right to keep her by his side and nobody had a right to keep him from her (unless she had obtained a legal separation from him). This protected her, and this protected the husband as well. A wife had a right to the support and protection of her husband, as he was responsible for her[xi]. He had the obligation to support her, and this ensured her security when she left her family and had children. The idea is to leave one’s relatives and cling to one another, forsaking all others[xii]. Even where your children are concerned, teach them the sanctity of marriage as one day they will leave the home to form their own families.

When the law upholds traditional marriage, the door can be slammed in the face of outsiders and all others as what goes on inside the home is sacred, because the marital relationship is sacred. I know that my husband knows me better than anyone else, and being there under his wing keeps others from harming and harassing me. My privacy is assured, my security is assured. This is important.

————————————

[i] This is what life looks like when following the feminist plan, check out my earlier article where I discussed my thoughts regarding this: https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/why-young-women-shouldnt-listen-to-their-mothers-generation/

[ii] One recent comment (though there have been many just the same) on one of my recent postings showcases the pressures many women get, being forced into feminist lifestyles which they do not want on account of pressure from relatives https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2017/11/30/listen-to-me-victimology-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1133

[iii] For another example of the law legally cloaking marriage and protecting children and families, see The United States Supreme Court case of Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989)

[iv] There are numerous ways in which the law has done this, from spousal immunity to testifying in criminal trials, to disallowing paternity suits to children born within marriage, to protection in cases of disability and death, etc… Some states, such as California and New York, for instance, no longer regard marriage as a sacred institution, instead declaring that a child may even have as many as three legal parents in California, https://verdict.justia.com/2013/10/15/california-allows-children-two-legal-parents an unmarried father having the right to claim rights to a child being raise by a woman and her lawful husband, and New York, for instance, recognizes no protections regarding privileged communications even regarding those occurring within legal marriage before the marriage has broken down.

[v] The Mosuo, from China, for instance, are probably the last modern example of this kind of matriarchal family structure: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/01/the-kingdom-of-women-the-tibetan-tribe-where-a-man-is-never-the-boss https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/19/china-mosuo-tribe-matriarchy The Late Daniel Amneus also portrayed the matriarchal way in his infamous book “The Garbage Generation: On the Need for Patriarchy” which showcases that many historical societies had no concept of even the word “father” as is the custom in patriarchal societies.

[vi] See my previous article https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/the-wrongs-of-the-mens-movement/ for more info on a father’s authority under coverture

[vii] Look at this poll, for instance, as reported in an article on CNN https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/poll-constitution/index.html which states that more than 1/3 of individuals surveyed couldn’t name a single right protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, only ¼ could name all three branches of government, and 1/3 couldn’t name any branch of government.

[viii] The framers of the Constitution intentionally feared a direct democracy, as well as too strong of a central government (even though they realized a stronger centralized government was necessary as the Articles of Confederation were weak and thus had to be repealed, and ultimately replaced, with the new Constitution that called for a Republic form of government where people elect representatives but do not directly make the laws and policies), and feared putting important matters in the hands of the common people http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Why%20Our%20Founders%20Feared%20a%20Democracy.htm

[ix] The old protections of marriage are numerous and plentiful. Check out some of my earlier articles on illegitimacy, for instance, for more references to ways in which this is so: https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/tag/illegitimacy/

[x] See, for instance, William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England https://www.thoughtco.com/blackstone-commentaries-profile-3525208 ; http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/blackstone-commentaries-on-the-laws-of-england-in-four-books-vol-1 As American law is derivative of the common law of England, which was adopted by the colonists and still, to this day, remain our laws unless otherwise changed.

[xi] Consider the old English common-law “Doctrine of Necessaries” https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/doctrine-of-necessaries/

[xii] Though still treading the bounds of political correctness, consider this article which cites Biblical references about forsaking all others within marriage: Protecting Marriage from Outside Intruders: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kreitz/christian/Boundaries/09intruders.pdf

My Covering

My Covering

I try to do my best every day to obey my husband and do what he tells me to do. Inside I feel like God has favored me by giving him to me as my covering; my provision and my protection. He shields me from the world, keeping me there under his wing and in his love. He is my choice. I chose him so long ago whenever I was young. Even in the times that I didn’t want to follow him, I still did, because I didn’t always have much of any other choice. I went with him, as he is my only source of provision in this life so I followed where he led. If he doesn’t listen, then he causes me pain and suffering. If he doesn’t understand, I hold that resentment inside. That’s why he must listen to what I say to him, to the things that my heart needs inside. He must listen to me with love and understanding as he was called to do, putting me above all others, as I do with him in return.

But there is love unimaginable. Whenever I’m lying there with him in the night, I know that I’m safe. It’s safe to let him inside of my body. I can take every bit of him in with love, as I know I’m safe to do so. He’s my covering and I don’t have to fear his abandonment come the morning. I can’t describe that feeling nor that joy whenever he’s inside of me. Sometimes I wonder how anything could ever feel or be so good. To be filled physically by one and only one man that I love and rely on, I know it’s safe to simply open up and relax. There’s something wonderous in the way my female form was made. I love the feel of it, to relish in it.

I don’t feel degraded when I’m lying there under him. In some sense I do feel inferior, but it is only in a good way; inferior in the sense that I know I’m subject to him, yet I have worth and value beyond compare, value that goes far beyond just the physical. All I have to do is ask and he’d give it to me. I know that I am cherished above all other women, beloved above all others. My position is important. There’s something so precious about it, to know how he invades me on the inside, and how I long for him to do so. The most private and intimate of things that I delight in in wonderment, that I would be horrified beyond words to just share with anyone. It’s beautiful beyond words the way my body was made. I have no reason to be scared or sad after the act is over, as it is an act of love, and not of temporary perversion, of the man that I love, of the only man who has ever lain with me, the same man who I have relied on for years.

The way I love him when I’m scared or in danger, the way I come to him. Many times has he picked me up in his arms and carried me; many times have I rested my head against his chest and let him protect and hold me. So easy is it for him to overpower me, but I know he would never hurt me. I delight in the feeling and strength of his arms. The few nights that I have ever been without him were nights of loneliness, pain and fear. If I left him temporarily, it’s like his covering was removed from me, and I was extremely frightened. I’ve always depended on him for my livelihood, knowing no other life but a truly patriarchal one. Yet I know I’ve never been oppressed. I have been favored and loved. I pursue my dreams and passions, yet I do so there under his covering. And I do know the power he has over me in that I have no means to provide for myself. And it’s OK. If I’m depending on him then I need him. If he is providing for me, then I know I am secure. When there is no mixing of the roles, then there is no confusion or contempt. I ask him for the things I need. I feel happy and free. Free to be soft, feminine, devote myself to my home and family and focus on being a woman. His covering allows me to be a feminine woman who doesn’t have to toughen up to focus on advancing in the work world. I don’t have to devote my time to hardening myself and focusing on moving up the career ladder.

Coverture has protected me from being out in the world to be raped, abused, harmed or harassed by other men, or by others in general. Sometimes when I have gone through hard times I’ve stopped and wondered, asked, that if there was really a God out there, then what am I supposed to do? How am I supposed to be? For the last few months I’ve felt this voice inside of me, perhaps an intuition trying to guide me, that speaks to me. But that voice has never told me to be independent, to go out and conquer the world or anything of the sort. The only thing that I hear inside is this voice telling me just to be a woman. And there is something precious inside. My very feminine essence I feel is so precious. And it’s precious when I’m with him, most precious of all the way I feel when he’s inside of me, most precious when he kisses me. I’m odd for the times we live in today, but I am no different than the women who came before me. Above all, I was made to be a woman. I was made to be loved and to be delighted in, that feminine essence inside of me so powerful and unique.

 

Recommended:

The red pill philosophy in action

 

 

Rather be Oppressed 

Over the past weekend my husband and I went to town. I began to grow saddened again when we went into stores and I saw all of the women at work. Most of them were not very good looking women either, might I add. I just remember thinking how fortunate I was to marry young and follow all of my feminine instincts to just stay home.

Even still the thought of being independent makes me sick. I just held onto him the entire way home, wanting him to lead me and take care of me. I let him make love to me, and I clung to him and it felt so good, wonderful and right.

There’s a lot of people, including my own relatives, who hate me for who I am and for what I believe. I’ve been pushed non-stop to be the independent woman that relies on nobody but herself. But that’s just not me. I’d rather be “oppressed.” I’d rather be open and loving towards a man. I’d rather be controlled and under the authority of a man that I love and trust. I think we women are vastly unhappy when we are given too much freedom.

There’s nothing unhealthy about feeling a real and deep need to depend on a man. I believe that’s how we women are made to feel. It only seems to me that women become the most psychologically unhealthy when we stray from the protection and authority of our men.

Sitting here writing this, I’m actually in pain right now. I’m not in pain because there’s something wrong with me. On the contrary, I’m in pain because I’m a female and I’m healthy. I’m fairly weak right now simply because of the design of my biology.

I have the option of medicating myself, getting up and forgetting about this female side of me. I could make a few jokes about it, perhaps even some crude ones, and go to work and be Miss Independent- plenty of women do that. But I don’t really want to do that. I’d rather just lie down and rest and enjoy being female; enjoy being weaker and more vulnerable. Sometimes it’s hard and sometimes it’s a bit painful and messy even, but it’s who I am and how I’m made. I’m not supposed to be a man or strong in the same ways as a man. My strength is in my femininity.

It’s ingrained in men to want to take care of women, but the modern woman’s attitudes and behaviors are causing men everywhere to have a “Screw the b****” attitude.

Can you look at the man you love, or the man you think you could one day love, and tell him you are open to him? Can you tell him that you would trust and follow him and live under his authority? Some men don’t want or can’t handle that- and that’s fine. Let them pair off with the feminist women they deserve.

I don’t really believe men only want sex. Men can get sex if they want it. Men can pay for sex. I think most men just want their women to be open to them and trusting of them. They want to be acknowledged as men.

I’ve dealt with the criticism of others but it doesn’t matter. I’ve dealt with men that hate housewives and independent women trying to push me to be like them. I’m different from others and I always have been. That’s what makes me who I am and that’s why you’re reading this article right now.

I would rather be oppressed than liberated. Everyone else lives hectic lives and their families are all torn apart. Why would I want to be like them? Perhaps they just want to bring me and others like me down to their level. Perhaps they want us to fail.

Patriarchy isn’t always perfect or even fun, but it’s the best option for families and ultimately for women too. That’s why women, such as myself, have always fought for it. Plain and simple, we don’t want to leave the protection of coverture or be away from the guidance of our men. That’s why we always come running back while everyone else just shakes their heads thinking there’s something wrong with us. We don’t want to be liberated or really care about women’s “rights.” In the end, we’d rather be oppressed.

A Woman Should Not Get Involved In Her Husband’s Business

A wife getting involved in her husband’s business should ultimately be looked upon as a bad thing. Men used to be shamed if their wives worked and a married woman getting involved in business was frowned upon. I see a lot of women whose husbands have home businesses and in almost every case the wife is working full-time in the business (most generally by sitting in an office all day). But a wife getting involved in her husband’s business is still engaging in paid employment. She is not dependent upon her husband but rather she is a business partner with him, and this removes her from her traditional role. It is a husband’s job to fully financially support his wife. A husband asking his wife to work in his business or contribute to it full or part-time in a significant way is an assault against her traditional role and an assault against her right to be supported by her husband. It is one thing to ask the wife about something she may be skilled in occasionally but another for her to be involved fully or partially in his business. Any activity or work that goes towards the provision for a family is the husband’s responsibility or the responsibility of the adult males in the household (say if there was an older or adult son of working age still at home).

For the most part, a wife should stay out of her husband’s business. Under coverture, husbands controlled property and money and were fully responsible. For the most part, what the husband does is his own business and he should not be obligated to explain himself to his wife. He should be held fully financially responsible for whatever occurs or whatever he does. It is his responsibility to support the family and he should be called to answer and be held responsible for whatever the outcome. The working world should be seen as “men’s business,” as should political affairs and, although single women have always been able to have their careers and independence if they so chose, women should, as a general principle, stay out of it. The wife can spend her time engaging in feminine pursuits, chores around the house, caring for children and others, being social (or not), engaging in hobbies that interest her, and being there for her husband, children, family and friends when they need her.

A woman should leave the working world to her husband and a husband should not involve his wife in his business and affairs. A man asking his wife to engage in productive work which goes towards the provision of the family is asking for his wife to help provide for his household, which is also to say he is asking his wife to help provide for him. Truly masculine men do not need the protection and support of women.

Related:

married women and home businesses (tag)

The Provider Role Belongs to Man

Recommended:

Alexis de Toqueville on American Women

William Blackstone on Coverture