Tag Archives: equal pay

I Don’t Care About Money

I came home Sunday with plentiful money from work, but I didn’t care. I did nothing but cry the entire way home, in fact. I didn’t care about the money at all, because it’s not like it was making me happy. My first thought was to come home and throw all the cash to the wind. Within only a few days of having paid employment I’ve been able to put a lot of money back in savings, and while it’s nice to have, I really don’t like it.

We live in this world that tells women to go out and work and be independent. It amazes me as much as it sickens me the way our society is. It isn’t even thought that a man should be providing for his wife or that men should take care of women. Just suggest such a thing, and you have a mental disorder. Just suggest there are differences between men and women or that men should provide and you could start a damned riot (it’s happened).

If you look at family law, it makes no distinctions between sex. Instead of marriage being seen as an institution for men to provide for and protect women and children, it’s some genderless institution now were spouses provide for *each other.* The whole idea of marriage being about us providing for each other just makes me feel kind of sick. It makes me lose respect for marriage, for men, for society. Most people just cohabit these days, proving all the more that marriage has lost the deeper meaning that it once had and anyone who truly believes it has nothing to do with women having careers is retarded.

I know what I’ve always felt, that I wanted to bond with a man who would provide for me and take care of me. My senses are very dulled now. In some ways me going out and taking on paid employment (for the first time EVER in our marriage, and we’ve been married since I was practically a teenager) has helped the marriage because it’s confirmed what I’ve always felt in my heart and it’s made my husband become angry and want all the more to get up and stop acting like a wimp the way he had been acting. It’s also worth noting that I only took on paid employment to separate from him, lending further credit to the claim that women having careers is damaging relations between men and women and undermining the true meaning of marriage.

People look at me strange that I would be as old as I am with no career and little to no work experience. The good news for me is that everyone unanimously thought I was no older than 19 or 20 years old (my employer even asked if I was old enough to be serving alcohol over the phone (she didn’t have my app in front of her at the time to see my real age)).

Nobody believes I’m truly as old as I am, which also confirms that living a traditional lifestyle has preserved my youth, preserved my innocence and beauty and kept me more feminine. (It’s probably one of the best anti-aging secrets ever. Just be feminine, just be happy and joyful and full of love, depending on a man and admiring men in general and focusing on keeping fit and feminine and doing housework and helping your man and being there for him).

Guess what? I don’t care what people think. I feel no shame in not having had a career. If they reject me for that, it’s their problem. I don’t care what my mother or anyone else in the world thinks. I don’t want to live the way they do and have the disastrous relationships they’ve always had. I’m much happier being feminine. I take pride in NOT being a career woman. If anyone asks me I’ll simply tell them that I never believed women should really be out there working. We’re women, there’s no shame in being weak, or even unsuccessful for that matter. Being docile, being weaker, depending on a man, being soft and receptive are all feminine traits, and they are nothing to be ashamed of.

I think it’s better if us girls marry real young and stay under the protection and authority of a husband. It PROTECTS us. It keeps you from getting hurt by other men or swayed and it keeps women from running wild to their detriment and the detriment of families and children.

Is there really a better life to be had otherwise? So what if you marry real young and have a kid or two young and stay home? Are women really much happier screwing around and wasting their youth and beauty on men who don’t deserve them, don’t cherish or provide for them while they go pursue some meaningless career that won’t amount to anything true and real in the end?

While everyone likes and needs money, after a certain point, once your basic needs are met and you are comfortable, more money won’t make you any happier. Is the point of life really to make a six-figure salary especially when as a woman it’s not going to do anything for your sexuality or better your chances with anything other than some “weak” man who wouldn’t cherish you as a woman, for everything feminine and unique about you? And as a woman do you really want a man that needs or wants your money? A man who isn’t strong enough to provide for you or protect you, both from immediate danger and from the harshness of the world (which includes the burden of working out of the home)?

Yes, I have a paying job right now, but I don’t like the idea of it. Our daughter is moving into her preteen years (almost) so the burden of childcare isn’t what it once was, but just the simple fact that I have my own money means I don’t NEED my husband to provide. Yes, he provides for me still fully, but it feels more like I’m simply letting him do it, instead of truly relying on him and needing him to do it. I also know that I’m still needed at home. Who cares what the world thinks, a woman’s husband is supposed to be her authority. If she keeps the home and stays there, she only focuses on him. What others think doesn’t matter.

I get depressed at work. Thoughts keep running through my head that I should just go home and focus on the house and just be what I’ve always been, which is simply a wife and mother. I figure for now I’ll stay there as I’ve made friends and feel like I have a home away from home. I don’t know. I just figure I’ll stay unless or until they want to let me go or something happens in life where I know it’s truly time to quit and come home.

My husband does not like me working and does want me to come home. I’m not sure if I’m ready to come home though. I just don’t know. This is all very hard for me and very new. I just want to be the feminine woman I once was, keeping the home and loving my family with the same childlike innocence and demeanor that I always have, unconcerned about the outside world. I don’t care about independence. I don’t care about equal pay or any of the mainstream women’s rights bullshit. And I don’t give a damn what anyone thinks of me. Their comments about me “getting a job” will not sway me, because I know who I am as a woman. As odd as it might seem, I don’t get into those kinds of conversations. There is no need. I just simply smile if anyone ever makes a comment about me having a career. I just simply let my femininity shine through and speak for itself. And trust me, men really don’t give a shit about your career, but they do care about your femininity.


The Corruptions of Feminism Part II: Male-Female Fungibility

“When I went to the hearings for the Equal Rights Amendment and I heard what they were saying, and they had absolutely no benefit to offer women, but we could see a lot of disadvantages in it…What that amendment would do is to make all laws sex-neutral. Well, the typical, classic law that is not sex-neutral is the draft registration law. And we were still in the Vietnam War in 1972. I had sons and daughters about age 18. My daughters thought this was the craziest thing they ever heard. You’re going to have a new amendment for women? And the first thing is they’ll have to sign up for the draft like their brothers. Now, that was an unsaleable proposition.”[i]

Thus began one of the biggest anti-feminist fights in history. After the 1960s feminism had taken a radical turn. No longer were these new wave feminists concerned with family life for women as they had been in the past. Apparently to this new wave of feminism abortion, equal pay and women in combat were big enough issues that they were willing to harm millions of women to get what they wanted. I mean, according to them life was so miserable for women and all women were confined to the single option of becoming breeding machines. According to them, women were the inferior sex and her position in the family was an inferior one. As we’ve gone over before, this is about as far from the truth as it gets.

For many women before the modern feminist movement, family life took center stage in a woman’s life. Not because women had no other choice, but because they believed their families were more important than any amount of money they could bring in. Contrary to the tales feminist love to tell, women have always had the right to own property, pursue careers, and choose who they want to marry. In the memory of nobody living today have women not had the right to divorce an abusive husband or retain custody of children or pursue a career of their choosing. In the 19th century laws were more restrictive of married women, but all married women had options to bypass the restrictions of coverture. In regards to property, Married Women’s Property Acts were passed in states in the mid-1800s to allow a woman to maintain control over any property she came into the marriage with. Even before these acts, however, there were ways around the law:

“However, the common law also had for a long time been modified by arrangements in equity which provided loopholes. Wealthy fathers who did not have faith in their prospective sons-in law and wished to endow their daughters with an inheritance they could use free from their husbands’ control found a way to accomplish that. They established trusts which separated legal ownership from use. A trustee held title to the property and kept it out of the hands of the woman’s husband; the woman, however, had use of the property. Through such legal fictions, some women acquired the fruits of property ownership.”[ii]

The right to vote was a complicated thing and laws generally varied state to state. Many men did not have the right to vote unless they were property owners. The Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote regardless of race or other previous condition of servitude (as the Amendment reads). Although many states did allow women to vote, the 19th Amendment would not go into the Constitution until the early 1900s. Again, the right to vote has nothing to do with the modern feminist movement. The Equal Rights Amendment was written by a suffragist, but the Amendment was ignored by most feminists of the time who did not believe in male-female fungibility the way feminists from the 1960s onward believe.

Women’s lib was about removing protective legislation for women that early feminists fought so hard to achieve for women. The most notable assault of women’s lib came from the so-called “Women’s Rights Project” of the American Civil Liberties Union, of which premier feminist lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the director (she was first a volunteer lawyer for the ACLU before The Project really took off). In a succession of Supreme Court cases, she sought plaintiffs (mostly male) from all around the country to remove any legal exemption or protection that women had. In the words of Phyllis Schlafly, “Ginsburg was vehement in her desire to abolish any legal preference or protection that women might have”[iii] The cases of Taylor vs. Louisiana, Ballard vs. United States, Kahn vs. Chevin, Califano vs Webster, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld , Orr v. Orr, Rostker v. Goldberg, Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma City and numerous others were all designed to take critical protections and exemptions away from women- all in the name of “women’s rights” and “gender equality.”

In the case of Orr v Orr, the majority opinion of the justices was,

“…There is no question that [he] bears a burden he would not bear were he female…the old notion that generally it is the man’s primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials, can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender”[iv]

Well, dear feminists, the reason why the obligation of support is on the husband is because women are the ones who carry all of the physical burdens of the sex act and the main purpose of marriage is for men and women to reproduce in a stable family unit- thus sex is the constitution of marriage. Women, by nature of our biology, bear burdens we otherwise would not if we were born male. No amount of legislation can change that. That is how we are designed, and because of that our laws placed the obligation of support onto husbands and fathers. Even if a mother was unfit to retain custody of her children, the obligation of support was still that of the father and the obligation to support the wife was that of the husband before feminists burst onto the scene wanting the false notion of “gender equality.” Quoting Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly again:

“Since the women are the ones who bear the babies and there’s nothing we can do about that, our laws and customs then make it the financial obligation of the husband to provide the support. It is his obligation and his sole obligation. And this is exactly and precisely what we will lose if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed.”[v]

This particular case caused all remaining states to remove the exemptions that women once held. Now, dear feminists, forcing extra legal obligations onto women is not so much allowing her the choice to work as it is forcing her to work under the penalty of law. Explain to me again how that is an example of the “choices” you promote for women..?

“As a practical matter, the Court’s ruling had widespread repercussions in moving the law to a gender-neutral position. Ten other states that maintained divorce laws similar to Alabama’s were forced to change their laws as a result of the Court’s decision. Now courts can require both financially able husbands and wives to pay alimony to needy spouses at divorce. And laws concerning child custody, attorney’s fees, and child support arrangements were also considerably affected by the decision as they were reshaped to recognize the new economic and caretaking roles of both men and women in the America family.”[vi]

Feminists see cases such as this in a favorable light. They praise equal treatment. I mean, how dare us suggest that husbands should support their wives? Of course, women should be forced into the workforce to bear the burdens of men on top of all of the biological burdens women bear, burdens which men have never shared- Soviet Union egalitarian policies at their finest.

Thanks to feminism, we now have constant gender wars and most in the Western world don’t even see marriage as a necessary thing for having sex or starting a family. Marriage today is basically nothing more than cohabitation with insurance benefits. So, why not just cohabit in the first place? Thanks to the gender wars that feminists started, a woman’s place within the family is not secured, nor are her natural roles valued. Thanks to feminists, a woman is viewed as lazy and a worthless leech unless she joins the workforce and becomes an “equal partner” within the marriage (as if she wasn’t already a partner of just as much, if not even more, worth as her husband before).

Feminists hate housewives. Oh, they say they don’t really have a problem with a woman staying home for a little while to raise her kids. After all, many of them say they do it themselves. But, those same feminists will turn around and still believe a woman is lazy if she expects financial support from her husband for her lifetime.

Thanks to feminists traditional women now have another enemy: the MRM (Men’s Rights Movement). They too want gender-neutral laws to further avoid the responsibility of breadwinner for the family. They claim to be anti-feminist (which really doesn’t make much sense, as feminism has handed them all the things they claim to want right on a silver platter and feminists often take their side on the issues, in fact feminists have teamed up with them in the past to hurt women).

There appears to be two major groups of MRAs- ones that are traditional and those who just plain and simply hate women. The latter often use acronyms for themselves such as “MGTOW” or “Men Going Their Own Way.” To be fair, the feminist movement was all about women going their own way and breaking away from dependence upon men. So, once again, thanks feminists for the current mindset of our men today. You feminists don’t want to be supported and they don’t want to support you. I hope you enjoy it.

Another thing that puzzles me about a lot of them though is that some of them want women in the home yet complain about paying alimony and complain when the mother keeps the kids. Well boys, as the saying goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Unilateral (or “no-fault”) divorce is bad news for all of us all and women are feeling the sting of it too. But these boys conveniently forget (or maybe they never understood in the first place) that traditional family law gave numerous preferences and advantages to women (provided the woman was faithful and had committed no grave wrong against the husband):

“Traditional divorce law perpetuated the sex- based division of roles and responsibilities enshrined in traditional legal marriage: the wife’s domestic responsibilities and the husband’s obligation to provide support. Although traditional family law assumed that the husbands support would be provided in a lifelong marriage, if the marriage did not endure and if the wife was virtuous, she was nevertheless promised alimony- a means of continued support. Alimony thus perpetuated the husband’s responsibilities for economic support and the wife’s right to be supported in return for her domestic services. It therefore maintained at least part of the basic reciprocity in the legal marriage contract.

Traditional divorce laws also reaffirmed the sex-based division of roles with respect to children: the husband remained responsible for their economic support, the wife for their care. All states, by statute or by case law, gave preference to the wife as the appropriate custodial parent after divorce, and all states gave the husband the primary responsibility for his children’s economic support.

Traditional divorce law helped sanction the spouses’ conventional roles and responsibilities in marriage- by both punishment and reward. On the punishment side, if a wife was found guilty of adultery, cruelty, or desertion, she would have to pay for her wrongdoings by being denied alimony (and sometimes custody and property as well). And if the husband was at fault, he would be punished through awards of property, alimony, and child support to his ex-wife.

On the reward side, traditional divorce law promised “justice” for those who fulfilled their marital obligations. It guaranteed support for the wife who devoted herself to her family, thus reinforcing the desirability and legitimacy of the wife’s role as homemaker and the husband’s role as supporter. And the law assured the husband that he would not have to support a wife who betrayed or failed him. Justice in this system was the assurance that the marriage contract would be honored. If not, the “bad” spouse would be punished, the “good” spouse rewarded, and the husband’s obligation to support his wife (if she was good) reinforced.”[vii]

The feminist movement and the subsequent changes in family life, along with the passing of “no-fault” divorce laws all across the nation dramatically altered the social, legal and economic climate of our civilization. As we have seen before in history, however, egalitarian societies do not work. And anyone or any group of people who is in favor of these ideals and in favor of male-female fungibility has no respect for the traditional woman, no matter if they try to convince the public that they are not looking to harm the homemaker of force unnecessary burdens onto women and families. We have seen egalitarian ideals and the breakdown of the nuclear family crash civilizations before in history. Rome is a historical example so breathtakingly similar to ours that we can learn from. There are also plenty of 20th century examples our civilization can learn from (such as Soviet Russia after the bolsheviks took power). George Gilder demonstrates quite poetically how gender relations can either make or break a society. If women will begin to listen, maybe there is a chance. But, as an unknown author so exclaimed: “Those who don’t learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to watch helplessly while everyone else repeats it.”

“The woman’s financial superiority thus leads to a society of sexually and economically predatory males. The sexual power of women, if combined with economic power, leaves many young men with no civilized way to achieve sexual identity. If they cannot be providers, they resort to the primal male assets, wielding muscle and phallus for masculine identity and attacking the fabric of society…What Mead concluded from all her other studies as well, the New Gunea experience affirms: Males always require a special arena of glorified achievement from which women are excluded. Their concern with sexual differentiation is obsessive. Men can be passive without grave psychological damage only if the women are passive also. Aggressive and competitive women, unconcerned with motherhood, produce more ruthless men- and a society so competitive that it disintegrates. Men, on the other hand, when passively preoccupied with child-rearing, become incapable of effective sexual behavior and paranoid about aggressive women. A society with a great emphasis on child-rearing will, however, be exceedingly generous and cooperative. In none of the tribes Mead studied is there the slightest evidence that roles, however created, through culture or biology, can be switched back and forth or that the aggressiveness and volatility of males can be ignore by any society”[viii]



[i] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134981902

[ii] Jacob, H. “Silent Revolution: The Transformation of Divorce Law in the United States,” p. 107. The University of Chicago Press. 1988.

[iii] Schlafly, P., “Feminist Fantasies,” p. 139. Spence, 2003

[iv] Cushman, C. “Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights,” p. 79. CQ Press, 2001.

[v] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134981902

[vi] Cushman, C., “Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights,”p. 81. CQ Press, 2001.

[vii] Weitzman, L.J., “The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America,” p. 11;14. The Free Press, 1985

[viii] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage.” Pelican, 1993.





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

Why Economic Discrimination?

It is so ingrained in our society to believe that anything less that complete equality is bad for women and absolutely harmful. However, there are some instances where gender equality should not be sought. Despite feminist efforts to trivialize sexual differences, the sexes are not equal. Feminists have done such a good job at indoctrinating our entire society that even the most conservative among us are freaked at even the thought of anything but gender equality as if we wanted to slap a chastity belt on them and send them back to the dark ages (otherwise known as the 1950s) or lock them up in the kitchen to forever be barefoot and pregnant. As Danielle Crittendon observed at the turn of the century:

“Ideas that once seemed radical- whether it was equal pay for equal work, or rebelling against housework and marriage, or storming boardrooms and military academies- have been so completely absorbed by our society and accepted by its institutions all the way up to the Supreme Court that the only way left to be truly radical is to become a nut.”[1]

Of course, anytime I try to explain why complete equality and fungibility between the sexes may not be in the best interests of women, I get bombarded with remarks about equality as if I was talking to a brick wall. Many even become very hostile in their remarks to anything that could even be considered remotely traditional, “sexist” or against women’s full time participation in the paid work force (because obviously that is the most important thing to women, how many hours they work). Feminism has been absorbed so readily by our culture that the amount of women in the workforce is used to determine who will be the better president and which side is the bigger champion of women’s rights. Yet, despite the constant ramblings about equality and equal pay that bombard news stories here lately, many women are expressing their desires to stay home and let men be the breadwinners:

At a moment in history when the American conversation seems to be obsessed with bringing attention to women in the workplace (check out “The End of Men,” or Google “gender paygap” for a primer), it seems a remarkable chasm between what we’d like to see (more women in the corporate ranks) and what we’d like for ourselves (getting out of Dodge). But it’s true: according to our survey, 84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.[2]

It is often largely ignored that staying at home is indeed not a luxury, but often times a necessity. As Suzanne Venker writes:

Most women make clear and purposeful choices — regarding sex, whom to marry (that’s a biggie), work, geography, etc. — that allow them to be the primary caregiver in their children’s lives. Others learn the hard way that it costs to have both parents work. The money from a second income — unless it’s a six-figure salary — is usually eaten up by commuting costs, child care, eating out, work attire, dry cleaning, convenience foods, and, of course, taxes. By the time you add it all up, there isn’t much left.[3]

Obviously one income still buys the necessities but many women feel like it just isn’t enough for them to stay home and raise their children. Home is where many want to be, but they feel it is an option far out of their reach. But, as everything else in life, we cannot have things both ways. Either we want to have complete equality with men and continue to carry extra burdens that do not rightly belong to us, or we must realize that there are some areas where men must be given preference so that women can be free to truly choose the lifestyle that we want. In other words, if many of us are wanting to be home and not in full-time work (as indeed constant research keeps showing), then we cannot be adamant about complete equality and fairness in our relationships. We must support policies that allow our husbands to be given preference so they can assume responsibility for supporting a family. For, after all, it was the feminist movement that impaired men’s earning ability so that women would take on full time work.

“We need ultimately to reverse existing laws and practices. First and foremost, we must restore customary economic discrimination in favor of men. America’s businesses and institutions must be free once again to favor men over women in hiring. If they are not, family life will never return to a reasonable state of health; the happiness of women and children will continue to decline; and men will fail to flourish and prosper.”[4]

Along with economic discrimination in favor of men where it is necessary, we must also reverse our attitudes. Instead of insisting on fairness and equality, splitting the check 50/50 on dates, engaging in casual sexual activities and insisting our husbands assume half of the domestic chores, we must reinforce their masculinity (watch now our society will be confused about what masculinity even is in our modern day society). We must give our men the pride and tools necessary so that they can assume responsibility for us. This goal cannot be achieved as long as we follow feminist/egalitarian teachings.

“The result of women’s abandonment of their sexual bargaining power that the double standard has assured them has been a decline in marriage rates, an increase in divorce rates, and a surge in the number of women entering the workforce. And thus women have relinquished their role as the civilizers of men, who teach them to become responsible job holders, husbands, and fathers. Instead, women now bestow sexual rewards on men without requiring that they work in the hairpin factory to support women and their children.”[5]


1. Crittenden, D., What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us. Touchstone, 1999.
2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/
3. http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/295943/feminist-war-women/suzanne-venker#
4. http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2009/07/why-we-must-discriminate/
5. Graglia, C.F., Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism. Spence, 1998.


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