Tag Archives: divorce

What We Give Up 


Recently I separated from my husband for a while to move in with my relatives. In the interest of doing what I felt best for my daughter, however, I came back- if only temporarily. I also came back because I was still unsure and frightened of what I would do if I stayed gone and as of yet had no way to really survive on my own and live the life I was accustomed to. My husband had promised me that he’d take care of me and not let anything happen to me if I did come back. I know I cried when we got closer to home. I couldn’t even drive. I didn’t want to come back and face the same circumstances and abuse I had endured, but for the moment I simply didn’t know what else I could do. I told him I’d give him a set amount of time to change our circumstances the way he promised to do or else I’d be forced to leave again. I still might leave again to move in with my relatives if I found some way to survive, at least until he changes our circumstances (instead of waiting around in a bad environment while he does so). We’ve changed our schedules and made other arrangements for our child. It helps that she’s a lot older as well.

It’s a scary thing though leaving the only life you’ve ever known, but sometimes circumstances make it impossible to stay. It doesn’t mean that we don’t love those we leave. For instance, you may love a family member of yours, but, due to their wrongful behavior be forced to show them the door to protect yourself, your assets, or others that you love. It also doesn’t mean that reconciliation could never be possible in the future. Sometimes relationships actually get better after a period of separation.

I thought about what my life would be like. I know my mother keeps saying “You’re X years old!!” What she really means is, “why haven’t you done something with your life” and “you should have a good college degree and career by now.” But what she doesn’t understand are my old-fashioned beliefs. Maybe when I’m middle-aged and the kid is grown and my fertility is waning, etc., I might start some career or something to pass the time and gain some “fulfillment” in my life. But I know that I chose the life of staying home, of living under the constraints of traditional patriarchy, in exchange for the benefits it offered me. It’s made me softer, more docile, more feminine, and happier in many ways. It’s given a stability to my life and to the life of our daughter and brought wealth and prosperity. But I know there are many things I’ve given up. You exchange one kind of freedom for another, one kind of “slavery” for another. Nothing truly comes for free in this life. Do I want to work under fluorescent lights every day in exchange for being able to walk away and easily do my own thing? To be more stressed and deal with the harshness of the outside world? If it comes down to it, of course, I might have to. If the benefits of leaving outweigh the risks of staying, I might even choose to. If I had that career it would be so easy to do. Saying goodbye becomes easier. I could grab my things and get an apartment on the other side of town, find someone new, go out whenever I wanted to, etc… I could become just like the modern woman, but it’s something that just makes me sick inside though. I never wanted to be like the modern woman.

There is a frustration to being dependent on a man and sometimes a whole lot of mental pain involved. It is harder to get away from abuse and bad circumstances, it’s true. I chose to be pampered and cared for and looked after. I chose to look after the home, maintain a nice figure, take care of the child and look pretty in exchange for being rendered more helpless. Less stress means a smaller, more feminine waistline, beautiful long hair (that’s had to grow back out some after enduring some previous breakage and damage), more demure childlike ways and an innocence of heart and soul. It makes for femininity, it makes for complementariansim.

Contrary to what we are often told this isn’t anything new. We’re always told that women never had any rights, etc., etc., but the reality is that women have long had grounds to separate from their husbands, even since medieval times, and it was never uncommon for women in the past to separate from their husbands to either be with another man or to move back in with their family. In the past a woman would be able to be supported by male family members or a new husband if she was unmarried or left her husband, as well as her ex-husband being required to provide some support as well in most cases. Looking back to the 20th century, a lot of married women even had degrees or would work after divorce too. There have long been risks to financial dependency, and the issue of “what if something happens to your husband” is not a new issue by any means and has been discussed many times. But who’s to say that career wouldn’t fail me in the future and leave me just as hopeless wondering what to do? I could build up a career and have a nice degree only to be left jobless a decade from now. I feel as well it would limit my options in men, as most career women and independent women have a lot of problems having meaningful relationships with men. Men may say they want an independent woman and women may say they want a man who treats them as an equal and on and on, but life doesn’t always work out so smoothly that way.

Emotional pain is just as real as physical, and oftentimes brings with it physical symptoms as well. For the housewife it isn’t just about it being a “problem that has no name.” Sometimes people get restless, but sometimes the issues are greater. As women we are different than men, and our needs are different. I don’t know that it ever gets easier. I live a life of being cared for and not having to worry about anything. Sometimes we make the choice to live with a certain amount of pain and discontentment, and sometimes we choose to leave. Leaving means the loss of security and the life we are accustomed to, staying means enduring the discontentment and pain. Is this our only lot in life or are humans just not meant to live this way? It’s what we give up for modernity, for tradition, for stability, for comfort, for financial support, for protection. Patriarchy oftentimes means restraint and the forfeiting of certain rights in exchange for a different set of rights and in return for the numerous benefits and protections that it offers. But it is not a perfect system and human relationships do not always run smoothly. These are the choices we make in life, these are the sacrifices we make.

I asked my mother what I would do next and her response was to finish college, get a job and just “live my life.” I just curled up and cried as it sounded like a fate worse than death.  

My Review of “The Female Eunuch”

This book is not new to me and I’ve quoted it many times over the years but I thought I would post it here as it is a landmark book in the women’s “liberation” movement and is a wonderful example of feminism’s assault on femininity, the traditional family unit and the role of the housewife. Feminists love to tell us they stand for our “choices” and that they’ve never in all their feminist studies seen feminists degrade the role of the housewife, but those of us who are educated know this movement has been an assault on the traditional family unit and the rights of the traditional woman from the start. My review here consists of quotes taken directly from the book. We must understand feminism and teach the next generation against it. We must educate men and women alike on the truth of this movement. Please read, understand and share with others the truth of this movement and its assault on our families and our security within our families.

————
The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer

“On these grounds we can, indeed we must reject femininity as meaning without libido, and therefore incomplete, subhuman, a cultural reduction of human possibilities, and rely upon the indefinite term female, which retains the possibility of female libido. In order to understand how a female is castrated and becomes feminine we must consider the pressures to which she is subjected from the cradle.” (79)

“So what is the beef? Maybe i couldn’t make it. Maybe I don’t have a pretty smile, good teeth, nice tits, long legs, a cheeky arse, a sexy voice. Maybe I don’t know how to handle men and increase my market value, so that the rewards due to the feminine will accrue to me. Then again, maybe I’m sick of the masquerade. I’m sick of pretending eternal youth. I’m sick of belying my own intelligence, my own will, my own sex. I’m sick of peering at the world through false eyelashes, so everything I see is mixed with a shadow of bought hairs; I’m sick off weighting my head with a dead mane, unable to move my neck freely, terrified of rain, of wind, of dancing too vigorously in case I sweat into my lacquered curls. I’m sick of the Powder Room. I’m sick of pretending that some fatuous male’s self-important pronouncements are the objects of my undivided attention, I’m sick of going to films and plays when someone else wants to, and sick of having no opinions of my own about either. I’m sick of being a transvestite. I refuse to be a female impersonator. I am a woman, not a castrate.” (70)

“April Ashley was born male. All the information supplied by genes, chromosomes, internal and external sexual organs added up to the same thing. April was a man. But he longed to be a woman. He longed for the stereotype, not to embrace, but to be…He tried to die, became a female impersonator, but eventually found a doctor in Casablanca who came up with a more acceptable alternative. He was to be castrated, and his penis used as the lining of a surgically constructed cleft, which would be a vagina…He became a model, and began to illustrate the feminine stereotype as he was perfectly qualified to do, for he was elegant, voluptuous, beautifully groomed, and in love with his own image…April’s incompetence as a woman is what we must exect from a castrate, but it is not so very different after all from the impotence of feminine women, who submit to sex without desire, with only the infantile pleasure of cuddling and affection, which is their favourite reward. As long as the feminine stereotype remains the definition of the female sex, April Ashley is a woman, regardless of the legal decision ensuing from her divorce. She is as much a casualty of the polarity of the sexes as we all are. Disgraced, unsexed Ashley is our sister and our symbol.” (71-72)

“Women do have sexual desires and it is a function of normal mental health development and good breeding to destroy it, let us try some abnormal mental development, rejecting our breeding. If marriage and family depend upon the castration of women let them change or disappear. The alternative is not a brothel, for brothels depend upon marriage and family for their existence. If we are to escape from the treadmill of sexual fantasy, voracious need of love, and obsessiveness in all its forms we will have to reinstate our libido in its rightful function. Only then will women be capable of loving.” (111)

“Womanpower means the self-determination of women, and that means that all the baggage of paternalist society will have to be thrown overboard.” (130)

“There was even mention of setting up nurseries to be run by management and unions cooperatively at factories. The intrusion of sex and children adds a tinge of frivolty to the arguments: in fact, an employer who faces problems of organizing his employees’ children as well as themselves might well be inclined to discriminate more and more…” (135)

“A secretary is a boss’s status symbol, like his wife” the more her duties are limited to his requirements the more her value.” (141)

“Feminine women chained to men in our society are in this situation. They are formed to be artificially different and fascinating to men and end by being merely different, isolated in the house of a bored and antagonistic being.” (158)

“When heredity has decayed and bureaucracy is the rule, so that the only riches are earning power and mobility, it is absurd that the family should persist in the patter of patriliny. It is absurd that people should live more densely than ever before while pretending that they are still in a cottage with a garden. It is absurd that peole should pledge themselves for life when divorce is always possible.” (266)

“If women would reject their roles in this pattern, recognizing insecurity as freedom, they would not be perceptibly worse off for it.” (274)

“Women have very little idea of how much men hate them. Any boy who has grown up in an English industrial town can describe how the boys used to go to the local dance halls and stand around all night until the pressure of the simplest kind of sexual urge prompted them to score a chick. The easier this was the more they loathed them and identified them with the guilt that their squalid sexual release left them.” (300)

“They must not scurry about from bed to bed in a self-deluding and pitiable search for love, but must do what they do deliberately, without false modesty, shame or emotional blackmail.” (300)

“A housewife’s work has no results: it simply has to be done again. Bringing up children is not a real occupation, because children come up just the same, brought or not. ” (312)

“Men argue that alimony laws can cripple them, and this is obviously true, but they have only themselves to blame for the fact that alimony is necessary, largely because of the pattern of granting custody of the children to the mother. The alimonized wife bringing up the children without father is no more free than she ever was…If independence is a necessary concomitant of freedom, women must not marry.” (358-359)

“Even though there are more problems attendant upon bringing up an illegitimate child, and even friendly cohabitation can meet with outrage and prosecution from more orthodox citizens, marrying to avoid these inconveniences is a meaningless evasion.” (359)

“In many cases, the husband is consoled by being allowed to retain the children and can afford to treat them better with less anxiety than a woman could. he is more likely to be able to pay a housekeeper or a nanny than a woman is. And so forth. Behind the divorced woman struggling to keep her children there always looms the threate of ‘taking the children into care’ which is the worst of alternatives. A woman who leaves her husband and children could offer them alimony, if society would grant her the means.” (362)

“Only by experimentation can we open up new possibilities which will indicate lines of development in which the status quo is a given term. Women’s revolution is necessarily situationist: we cannot argue that all will be well when the socialists have succeeded in abolishing private property and restoring public ownership of the means of production. We cannot wait that long. Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let’s get on with it.” (368-369)

“…But man made one grave mistake: in answer to vaguely reformist and humanitarian agitation he admitted women to politics and the professions. The conservatives who saw this as the undermining of our civilization and the end of the state and marriage were right after all; it is time for the demolition to begin…” (369)

“The first significant discovery we shall make as we racket along our female road to freedom is that men are not free, and they will seek to make this an argument why nobody should be free. We can only reply that slaves enslave their masters, and by securing our own manumission we may show men the way that they could follow when they have jumped off their own treadmill.” (371)

Female Economic Independence and Failed Marriages

I am going to share a few personal details of my life and past in this post. Normally I keep my personal life more private but sometimes I write about my life in the hopes that it can be a help to others and to the cause of bringing back traditional gender roles.

***

When both parties are independent, it’s easier to walk away. It’s easier to start a new life somewhere else. I’ve never been independent in my marriage and really not even before then. I know that it has made a huge impact not only on my marriage but also on the quality of it. My husband hasn’t always been the ideal husband. In fact, he has even technically been abusive before. We were very young when we first married and things were certainly not ideal at first. We had a lot of problems. A few months later I began to suffer from hormonal and emotional problems from just having had a baby and because I tried hormonal birth control which really messed me up worse (I will never take birth control like that again as I know it is harmful and I can’t conceive anymore anyways. Actually, I don’t even remember having any problems until I started taking the birth control). It didn’t help matters any that my husband wouldn’t protect me. Not only would he hurt me but he would let others hurt me as well. In a few instances he even allowed others to come into our home and hurt me and he wasn’t man enough to stop it. I didn’t know what else to do so I went to visit my mother for a while. I was only there three days when I asked my husband to come for me. However, he wouldn’t. Instead he abandoned me. Since he wouldn’t come for me and bring me home I waited until my mother could get me home as my husband had given me no money to make it back. I think it was about a week and a half before I could get home. I came back to our home because I had nowhere else to go. I really loved my husband despite whatever he had done to me and, besides, I had nowhere else to go. I had no money and no way to make it on my own. Getting into another relationship with another man was also out of the question. Being out of the workforce there was certainly not ample opportunity to go around flirting with other men or run around without my husband knowing it (not that I would anyways).

Well, my husband did come back to me a couple of days later (much to the chagrin of some of his relatives). I had no options but to stay and I’m sure that somewhere in his mind he knew that. I’m also sure my need for him kept him from really ever leaving and staying gone. I was willing to do what he said in regards to our child (I did as he told me and left her at the house with him while I went to my mother’s) but I knew as well as he did that he did not want to take care of a young child full-time. Our house was a wreck, of course, and he left our child with his relatives to care for while I was away.

I think maybe if I would have had a paying job or career that things might have turned out different for us. There is every probability that we wouldn’t be together today if I was independent from my husband. If I had had paid employment I could have just gone and stayed somewhere else. I could have just said “fine you can talk to my lawyer you jack***.” If I didn’t believe in the husband being in charge then I probably would have fought him until it destroyed both of us and our family. We probably would have been divorced today and it’s possible we might be on marriage number two or three each by now and our child torn between two warring families and having several different “mommies” and “daddies.”

I know there have been times I have been so angry and upset that I have wanted to leave, but where would I go? How could I go? Even going on a weekend vacation is out of the question for me. As well, my husband has matured over the years. Although I did obey what he told me in most areas, I absolutely refused to go get a job even though in the first few months of marriage he did pressure me to. I told him no. I told him I would not carry his responsibilities and that we had a young child and that he needed to support us. He wanted to insist that it took two incomes and it was “so hard” for him to support the family alone but still I refused. We are still here years later. We’ve never lived under a bridge and two incomes have never been necessary.

I think it weighs on a man’s conscience more if he knows his wife is completely dependent on him. For the dependent wife leaving an unhappy marriage is harder because she literally doesn’t have that option, unless she wishes to enter the workforce and make her own way. If she has been dependent upon her husband for years her options for money-making will be limited and the very prospect of going out and working is undoubtedly a scary thing. I know for me it is. I think a husband feels a greater weight of responsibility (that also makes him grow up and mature) when he knows his wife is depending on him and needs him. I think that makes leaving harder for him as well.

I think it’s no coincidence that divorce rates went up at about the same rate as married women working did and divorce rates have gone down slightly since women have been leaving the workforce. Some couples will make it a lifetime having egalitarian marriages, but for the culture overall it just isn’t working that way. I think a wife depending on her husband can breed love even where before there wasn’t much love at all, or the love was dying.

I’m not a complete saint and my husband can be cruel to me sometimes. I know I provoke him to anger sometimes and I am guilty for that. But, overall, the marriage still “works” because it has to. There is no other option. Even if I am unhappy at times and really just hate him I can’t leave. I need him even if I am unhappy or angry so I still stay close by and do what he tells me to do. Besides, he’s not the way he was years ago. I made him accept responsibility as a man and he grew into that role. If I ever tried to leave today I have no doubts that he would come after me, or, more precisely, wouldn’t let me go to begin with. Me being dependent upon him also changes the way he views me. I know he sees me as being his responsibility so he won’t let anyone hurt me or confront me about anything. Not only does he not pressure me to ever go to work, he won’t allow me to. There has never been any more trouble with others coming into our home attempting to interfere because my husband has long made it clear that nobody is going to intrude into his household and if somebody has a problem they can take it up with him, not me.

I think female economic independence gives both men and women an easy way out of marriage and out of their duties within the family. If both spouses are “equal” to each other then both can go their own way at any time and aren’t as concerned about each other. The man doesn’t assume control of the family nor responsibility so whatever his wife does is her own business and he feels no shame or guilt for leaving her on her own because she never depended on him in the first place. If she is his “equal” then he sees nothing wrong in treating her just like he would another man and he doesn’t see any need to treat her with more consideration or treat her more gently or lay down his own life for hers or be concerned with her support or protection. It gives men a free pass out of responsibility and allows women to run wild and marriages to fall apart (or never form in the first place).

Also, when the husband is not the head of the family it allows other relatives and outsiders to interfere and help break apart the family. If a woman is not submitting to her husband then she might believe her friends or relatives and listen to what they say instead of submitting to her husband and trusting him. If he is responsible for her, she can trust him because he’s already proven that he’s looking out for her best interests by providing for her and protecting her so whatever anyone else has to say about the marriage, her husband or what she *should* do will not be taken seriously in most cases. I can testify to this personally. Although I love my relatives and care for them I won’t go against what my husband says even if it means never talking to them. The tradition of our culture is for the bride to be “given away” by her father (or sometimes another man close to her will give her away) and given to her husband. In today’s world this means very little. It’s just one of those traditions we still cling to in ceremonies but it has no real meaning to our culture or our personal lives anymore because females have overall become independent of men both socially and economically. However, the giving away of the bride has a real symbolic meaning. Where once it was the obligation of her father or other male relatives to support her and protect her, at marriage she is now given to her husband and he is to assume responsibility for her. The man is not given away because men are supposed to protect and support themselves. There is a difference in hierarchy with the husband expected to “be a man” and assume a greater level of responsibility. I saw someone decrying the giving away of a bride at marriage as a “sexist” tradition a couple of weeks ago. Indeed, it is. But that is the intended purpose and the way marriage and society functions best.

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)

The Isolation of Housewives

“…But man made one grave mistake: in answer to vaguely reformist and humanitarian agitation he admitted women to politics and the professions. The conservatives who saw this as the undermining of our civilization and the end of the state and marriage were right after all; it is time for the demolition to begin…” (Greer, “The Female Eunuch,” 1970)

Being in the home is what I always dreamed of when I was young. But the existence can very well be isolating at times. Most of the women today have gone off to work and those that are in the home are not truly traditional in almost all cases. Family values mean very little in practice to most people today. My neighbors are not traditional and it is questionable whether any of them are truly trustworthy. There is no community because there are no women in the home. Families are broken apart and there are so many remarriages and men and women have children from several different mothers and fathers so frequently that most children are confused about who they are and where they belong in the first place. Most never have a stable home life.

The word “feminism” may have gone out of style but feminism itself is stronger than ever now in our culture. Most want to replace it these days with some kind of “complementarianism” (sorry if I misspelled. The computer doesn’t even recognize this word. I guess that’s how it always goes with the latest fads in society) which is the same exact thing and still promotes women in the workforce as opposed to them being sheltered in the home and provided for by a husband or father.

I remember as well when I was growing up that I felt kind of isolated. All the women have left their homes and there is no sense of community anymore. A young woman today doesn’t have older generations of women in the home to turn to for advice or to visit when she is feeling down. She has no mother or grandmother in the home teaching her to be a wife and mother and protecting her from the world and teaching her what she’s really worth as a woman. I remember my mother telling me to get a job and go to college. She also would tell me how she wished she had spent her twenties being selfish and pursuing a career. Like most today she would tell me about the importance of birth control and not getting pregnant. She really wanted me to have a career. According to her I always had a talent in music and a beautiful voice and she encouraged me non-stop to pursue a career in music. I also remember when I was young I always wanted her to stay with me but she would rush me in the mornings to push me out the door to go off to preschool. Everything was always so chaotic. I couldn’t understand why she couldn’t just stay with me. I was so messed up from being dragged back and forth between two warring parents. I endured a lot of psychological abuse especially in my teenage years and once I even ran away from home because the fighting between my parents had gotten so bad.

I struggled to find a place where I could fit in. I do remember the very rare occasion when I was a teenager going over to another’s home with a mother at home. Actually it only happened once and the woman wasn’t even a housewife. Her children were grown and she even worked part-time. But I still remember the warm-heartedness of the experience. She offered me some cheesecake she had made and I socialized with the family for a while even though I had no home of my own nor a mother at home to do the same in return. It’s the simple things like that that a woman in the home can contribute to society even if there are no children in the home. But such experiences are rare in society today.

Our culture is dying and I believe it is because women have left the home and men, instead of protecting women and children, have in turn declared war on them and abandoned their responsibilities. Modern technology has made our work easier (and has made men’s work easier as well) but that doesn’t mean we are no longer needed at home. A man can never fill in for a mother at home. A father cannot be the same. He is needed for the stability, protection and support that only he can realistically provide to the family. The husband’s paycheck is the stabilizer of the family unit but only if the wife is dependent upon it. The modern way that holds both mother and father equally financially responsible and liable for the family is not good. Society pushes women into the workforce when they have no real business being there. My grandmother would tell me when she was a little girl that society was much safer. Sure, there were bad people and there was always some crime but nothing like the problems we have today. In the past kids would walk to school and neighborhoods were safe. My grandmother would walk through the neighborhoods as a girl and everyone would just smile and wave at her. But not today.

“Few of these students had read Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique or other feminist classics. Only a handful had joined the campus women’s groups. It didn’t matter… They had grown up with working mothers, day care, and no-fault divorce…The students I interviewed had neither adopted nor rejected feminism. Rather, it had seeped into their minds like intravenous saline into the arm of an unconscious patient. They were feminists without knowing it.” (Crittenden, “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us,” p. 18)

It is so hard to find women such as myself today. Even if you find some stay at home mothers they still hold egalitarian ideals. None of them really believe a husband should be legally required to provide for his wife or that the wife should be obligated to obey her husband. I don’t care if only 20% of women want to be called feminists, most of them still are feminists. Whatever name you put on it, it is still feminism (yeah I’m talking about you and others like you Sarah Palin).

Men are supposed to protect women and support women not the other way around. It is not my job to support the family or provide for my husband. That’s insane. My husband is a man (obviously) and can support himself and our child is legitimate therefore the obligation for that child’s financial needs should always be his. Ignoring human nature does not make it go away. The reality of the differences between the sexes is like the elephant in the living room (to use a phrase I heard someone saying once). You know, kind of hard to ignore it. It takes up a lot of space, eats a ton, makes a lot of noise and knocks things over yet we all just have to just pretend it isn’t there.

It wouldn’t be so isolating if women were in the home. When a woman is lonely or needs advice she could visit another homemaker. Young women would have good role models to look up to. When a housewife got done with her work she could visit other housewives and socialize or help others. Childless housewives especially could help the new mother at home or the just married young woman needing a little comfort or advice. Women would be in the home to cook home made food which would in turn make everyone healthier (especially with the obesity, heart disease and diabetes rates today) and cost less money. The neighborhood would be a friendly place and children could play together and walk around the neighborhood safely. Women would be happier and have a more gentle, nurturing and submissive spirit instead of the kicking a** and taking names variety of women we have today.

Today, however, there is only loneliness and isolation and women seek advice from the media and their role models are Hollywood superstars. Our culture is dying, our way of life is dying. The institution of the family has been almost entirely destroyed and every government institution seeks to further undermine the family instead of protecting it.

A woman’s place is in the home, whether there are children or not and whether she is busy all the time or not. Our civilization has been in decline ever since women left the home. Divorce rates have always correlated strongly with the percentage of married women working. And yes, you can afford to live off of one income! More jobs would open up for men and they’d probably receive better pay as there wouldn’t be as much of a surplus of workers as we have now. More than anything it would motivate men to make more money to be providers. Their pride would be in their family and husbands would feel and be essential to the family’s welfare.