Tag Archives: family wage

Married Women Should Not Work

“Women’s Liberation? Not for me. I would have to step down from my pedestal.”

I love this quote from a friend’s grandmother when she first learned about a thing called “Women’s Liberation”. I think she was probably a wise woman.

Maybe she knew how blessed she was to be protected and pampered by a husband who loved her. Or maybe she had the foresight to realize that this so-called “Women’s Liberation” would actually put women in bondage, robbing them of their rightful place in society, causing untold miseries in their lives and those of their children. Whatever her reason, I couldn’t agree more.”(1)

I do not believe that married women should work. Single women sure. But married women no. I believe that it should be the husband’s responsibility to provide for his wife and children and that it is the wife’s responsibility to submit to her husband so that he can take care of her and take responsibility for her.

There have always been women who have never married and there always will be. There will always be those women who cannot or will not have children. But most women will want to form some kind of long-lasting relationship at some point and most women will at least have one child. The best way for a woman to have children in any civilized society is within marriage and with only one man. Those children will need to be cared for and raised, as human infants stay helpless for years and need constant care. The husband’s financial support of his wife is what enables a mother to stay home and care for her children. Without such an obligation on the husband, the obligation then has to fall onto the wife to either go to work to fully or partially make money to live off of if the husband doesn’t want to fulfill that obligation. Family life is then disrupted.

“Women like us are sexists. I think of myself as defined, most essentially, by being female and very different from a male- different from years of menstruating, from the nature of my sexual encounters, from the priming of my body by pregnancy, from giving birth, from nursing my babies, and from my unique maternal- not simply parental- interactions with my children. These differences comprise my femininity.” (Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 324)

This stay at home dad thing is absurd. It does absolutely nothing good for families nor society and only serves to further degrade the family unit and confuse the natural order of gender relations. It doesn’t even make sense. Men don’t give birth and therefore there is no need for a business to grant him leave to recover from childbirth and nurse an infant. A man could take a few days off to be there for his wife and go back to working to make sure they are supported. But, no, of course, women must pump out breast-milk or babies must be bottle-feed and companies must pay maternity leave and re-arrange their business to accommodate pregnant and lactating women so we can be politically correct and feminism can continue to destroy society and the family. We can’t just tell a man to be a man and tell the woman to go home to her family!

There used to be order within families. When a woman and a man married they both knew what to expect. They both knew that they had separate obligations to fulfill and those obligations would be acknowledged by society and enforced by law if it came down to it. Today there is no real order within families and families are falling apart. I hear much talk everywhere about the crisis the family is in but absolutely nobody- including conservatives- wants to really do anything about it. At least, nobody wants to do anything about it that would involve putting a stop to no-fault divorces and imposing different obligations upon spouses depending on their sex. Of course, everyone should have personal freedom to do what they want! Who cares if they wreck society and everyone else’s life in the process. How dare us tell anyone they cannot do something?

And that leads us back to married women working. I think it is terrible. It completely changes the dynamic of family structure and relieves men of their rightful responsibilities towards women and children. If women want to be able to do whatever they want then they shouldn’t marry. I am of the opinion that a married women should have to have her husband’s permission in order to to work anywhere (even from home) and that her husband should be allowed to terminate her employment anytime he wants- especially if he feels it is interfering in family life. Likewise, I believe that a wife should have the right to force her husband to provide her with the necessities.

Of course, along with the husband being responsible for his wife means he must also be in charge of things. It should be the duty of the wife to obey her husband. When a man and a woman marry they are meant to become one, not to remain as separate independent individuals who cohabit and can go their way at any time. As such I believe it is such a joy to obey my husband and he in turn takes good care of me. The more women empower themselves the less men feel a personal responsibility towards women to care for them, support them and protect them.

“Women’s empowerment and women’s abandonment are two sides of the same coin; you never get one without the other. This is because an empowered woman will necessarily drive a man away since a man cannot contribute to a woman safely or effectively when the woman is ‘in charge.’ There are men however who will be attracted to an empowered woman and these are the men who want to abandon women, who don’t want to provide for and protect women. These men will prefer an empowered woman so that they will be ‘off the hook’ in terms of their duties as men.”(3)

I was just telling my husband the other day that it would completely alter the dynamic of our relationship if I was to work. It would change the way I viewed him, it would change the way I think about our relationship and I doubt I’d be very happy (I doubt he would be very happy either). I know I certainly would not put up with working to pay the bills then coming home to do housework so we would probably end up fighting all the time over who does what and if we are splitting things “equally” enough. I certainly wouldn’t feel real obligated to obey him and my financial independence would always mean I would be able to walk away from the marriage whenever (as many women do these days) because I had no need of his money. It would just be a wreck. I don’t think I would perceive him to be as much of a man nor would I feel as close and intimate with him without being dependent on him.

“The very movement that turned against the traditional woman, vilifying and isolating her and compromising her social and economic security, claimed to be- and was accepted by society as- representing the interests of all women” (Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 358)

The truth of the matter is that feminism has never spoken for all women. They have created this mess we have now and made men not want to take on any personal responsibilities for women. So now women have to take on a man’s burdens as well as putting up with their traditional ones. Marriage and divorce has become a never ending war between the sexes. First it’s marriage where both spouses fight over who does what and women whining and complaining about “having” to work (dumb girls don’t complain about working when you won’t consider going back to tradition even if that includes re-instate the word “obey” in those wedding vows and giving preference to men in hiring and pay) then it’s divorce where all laws are gender-neutral so it becomes a battle to get the upper hand over the other out of spite as well as get a good financial deal and welfare package out of it.

“Married women were once supporters of job discrimination. They knew this discrimination would make it easier for 1) Their husbands to find work and 2) Unmarried women and widows to support themselves. Feminists utterly distort this history. They say discrimination was the product of misogyny when in fact it was the result of respect and the assuming of responsibilities on behalf of women.

And as a result of their distortions of history, what do we have? A world in which married women are less able to forgo paid employment and must work a double shift, one at home and one at a job.”(4)

I’m not going to sit here and be politically correct and I am not going to defend feminism in the slightest. Feminism has offered absolutely nothing good to women. Man’s authority and responsibility within the family needs to be re-established and women’s traditional rights and duties need to be established as well. I don’t have any problem with asking my husband for permission to do things or buy things. I don’t have any problem with doing what he tells me to. I’m tired of hearing women complain about “having” to work and saying how much they’d just love to stay home but then turning around and spouting off some bs about “choice” and how feminism was some kind of necessary thing. They want tradition but they don’t want it when it means that the man’s in charge. And, likewise, I’m not letting men off the hook here because they are the same way. Men might like to have the woman in the home and obeying them but they don’t really want tradition if it means they must take legal liability for their wives. Well, neither can have it both ways. I know that and I think it’s time others realized that too.

“Employers no longer need to pay a family wage now that women have been “liberated” from the home—much better to hire both husband and wife and pay each half as much!”(5)

Besides, another matter most won’t discuss is the issue of the availability of jobs in the first place. If married women dropped out of the workforce there would be jobs available for single women who need them and jobs for men looking to support a family either immediately or in the future. Families with two incomes also tend to go into debt and most of the wife’s paycheck generally ends up going to pay for the wife working.

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, and it will bring you nothing but joy.”(1)

Questioning Economic Necessity

“It has been estimated that by 1960 a family wage was paid by 65 percent of all employers in the United States, and by over 80 percent of the major industrial companies. Although feminist historians today call the family-wage ideal a “myth” designed to keep married women oppressed, few myths have come closer to becoming a reality.”[1]

The feminist conviction is that the “good ole life” where married women did not work is a myth. In their view of history, married women staying home is somehow a new thing in human history that was invented in the 1950s. They also stress that it is the economy that flushed women out of the home and into the workforce during the revolution years.Today they say it is just too bad and even if married women wanted to go back home it is impossible because of the economy. Their views and assertions are, however, pretty far removed from reality. In fact, in the grand old 1950s there were even more married women in the workforce than in previous times in American history. All the way up until the year 1900, only 5.6% of married women were in the workforce. By the year 1910 that number had climbed to 10.7%. In the 1950s, 23% of married women were in the workforce. [2]

Feminists also like to chime in and tell us all about how it was only middle class white women that were able to fulfill the role of housewife. But unless 90% of married couples were middle class and white this remains to be seen. Generally, feminists like to plead economic necessity so as to ensure that married women with dependent children do not feel guilty about going off to work and leaving their children in the care of someone else. Mainstream feminists propaganda says that it “takes two incomes” just to make ends meet. Yet, in the vast majority of cases this is not, nor has it ever, been true.

“When the mother in a two-parent family chooses to work, economic necessity (as opposed to advantage) is more likely to be the rationalization than the explanation for her decision. Feminism’s effort to bring about the demise of the full-time housewife required diminishing the guilt felt by working mothers. Thus began the constant effort to depict a two-income family as economically necessary when in most instances one income would provide the basic necessities of life-food, housing, and clothing. That the best-educated and highest-paid women are the ones who return to work the soonest after birth of a child makes clear that something other than economic necessity has impelled women to abandon child care in favor of the workplace.” [3]

Moreover, it was not the economy at all that forced women out of the home. No, the influx of married women into the workforce was deliberate and the intended outcome of the women’s liberation movement. One really does not have to wonder what the word “liberation” in the phrase “women’s liberation” is referring to. It refers to nothing more than the “liberating” of women from sexual morality and the bonds of marriage and child-rearing. Women were not forced out of the home because the economy was going in the gutter. The feminist movement created the economy we have now. The influx of married women into the workforce lowered men’s wages and devalued the housewive’s role. It was the women with highly-educated husbands- the women who could least claim “economic necessity”- that left the home first. Poorer women were still in the home caring for their children.

“In 1962, only 37 percent of all wives worked for pay outside the home. The wives of high school- and college-educated men were hardly more likely to work for pay than the wives of men with only a grade school education. Between 1962 and 1978 the proportion of wives working for pay rose from 37 percent to 58 percent. This growth was concentrated among wives with highly educated husbands, for whom the economic pressures to work were lowest. Among women whose husbands had only a grade school education, 34 percent worked for pay both in 1962 and in 1978. Among women whose husbands attended college, 38 percent worked for pay in 1962, but this had grown to 65 percent by 1978…

In the 1950s, to preserve their own self-esteem, they extolled the virtues of work in the home. By 1980, they saw matters quite differently. A job once perceived as noble now seemed distinctly plebeian. Thus, homemakers suffered a tremendous loss in social prestige in two decades. Sociologists call this phenomenon “status degradation.” It happened to these homemakers through no fault of their own. As the paid labor force offered urban, educated women attractive options the more rural, less-educated women round the world judged the traditional job of homemaking less attractive. Middle-class women who chose to stay in the home began to feel déclassé. Women’s magazines began to print outraged letters from homemakers who now found that they had to describe themselves as ‘only’ a housewife, not only to men but to other women.”[4]

On top of the status degradation of the housewife’s role, feminists forced other pressures onto women to abandon homemaking. The housewife started to be seen as a “deadbeat.” Indeed, still today mothers who aren’t financially responsible for the family are seen as “deadbeats.” This is how feminists wanted women who were not in the workforce to be seen. From the traditional perspective, however, the only “deadbeat” wife or mother is the one who is not in the home caring for her young children. The only “deadbeat” mom, from the traditional point of view, is the one who IS in the workforce. But, of course, to feminists, the paycheck is all that matters. The very thrust of the woman’s movement was to flush women out of the home and into the workforce as full time homemaking was incompatible with the movement.

“…The very existence of full-time homemakers was incompatible with many goals of the women’s movement, like the equal sharing of political and economic power. Women can never hold half the economically and politically powerful positions in the country if a greater proportion of women than men withdraw from competition for those positions. More important, if even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are very young…Thus the more full-time homemakers there are, the harder it will be to break traditional expectations that homemaking ought to be a woman’s career. This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole had reasons to discourage full-time homemaking.”[5]

The period after the 1970s marked the decline in men’s wages. This too was deliberate and the intended outcome. Most protective legislation for women did not discriminate against women. But in the area of pay discrimination against women was necessary to protect wives and mothers from the harsh necessity of wage work. Unequal pay for equal work was necessary. Many women who would be shocked to work for anything less than equal pay to a man simply do not realize that, even though women now make more to the dollar than their grandmothers did, they are not keeping any more of that paycheck. The few extra cents to a dollar that women are making as the result of the feminist movement are simply going to pay for women’s newfound financial obligations in the family and to supplement her husband’s diminished paycheck. There has been nothing tangible gained for women when everything is added up. Feminists campaigned against protective legislation for women. They saw it as “sexist” and campaigned that protective legislation was simply designed to keep women “oppressed.”

Moreover, “no-fault” divorce legislation ripped away the economic security that housewives once enjoyed- financial security in their marriages that made it safe for a woman to stay in the home with her children and now women are held women equally financially responsible at divorce. Being a homemaker is a risky endeavor for a woman, as the new divorce laws made very clear:

“The economic messages of the new law are clear: it no longer ‘pays’ to invest in the marital partnership- to be a faithful breadwinner or a devoted homemaker. Ones economic ‘take’ from the marriage will be the same no matter what one has done.” [6]

Of course, feminists like Weitzman believe women’s newfound economic predicaments as the result of the new divorce laws are simply because women have not reached “full equality” yet, or the courts are not treating women “equally” yet. But it is the very essence of gender equality in our law codes that is causing women hardships and scaring them and shaming them out of the housewife’s role. Moreover, the mass media creates the image that, in order to be successful, a woman must have a full-time career and a fancy college degree. Also, modern women are pressured and made to believe that if they do not use their college degree for something “worthwhile” (ie., a fancy career outside of the home) then they are wasting their knowledge away and being unproductive.

“The female role models held up for veneration and imitation by the popular media are almost exclusively highly educated, independent, career women. Bucking the trend to devote oneself exclusively to home and family today requires extraordinary self-confidence and fortitude on the part of young women who must be prepared to endure both the censure of their culture and the disapproval of their peers. It is no wonder that most college women pursue a course of study that will put them firmly on the full-time career path when they graduate; they are simply following their culture’s prescription for success and acceptability. And since no-fault divorce, by undermining all claims of a wife to her husband’s income, has eliminated the economic security that marriage provided for women in our society, it is hard to blame young women for hedging their bets by setting out on the career path sooner rather than later.”[7]

Thus, it is not the economy that has forced women into the workforce. It was a deliberate attempt by the leaders and those who funded the women’s liberation movement to get and keep women in the workforce. Traditional divorce law protected women by ensuring her support from her ex-husband (providing she was not at fault) until she at least married another man who would become responsible for her support and almost all states protected the family home so that the mother could live there to raise her children at least when they were young. But, to feminists, this was holding women back so protective legislation had to go.

“The protections the law once afforded to women who made economic sacrifices for their families no longer exist. They were abolished when we rewrote the divorce law in the name of equality. When a marriage breaks up, as two out of five marriages now do, a wife will seldom be entitled to alimony, no matter how much less she may earn than her ex-husband. In the 1970s, feminists campaigned against alimony on the explicit grounds that its elimination would flush women out of the home and into the workforce, where they belonged…A divorced couple usually sells its home and divides to proceeds, after which the woman survives on what she can earn- not much if she’s getting on in years and has been out of the workforce for any significant amount of time.” [8]

To drive home the main point, the economy did not flush women out of the home, but the feminist movement did. This was to ensure that women did not depend upon men but instead became self-sufficient. There is nothing that women have gained from the modern feminist movement (1960s- present). Women have been the losers. Women, by nature of our biology, are different from men. We have different needs and different vulnerabilities and burdens to bear than do men. Our laws used to understand this. But now feminists have forced women into the workforce and left women vulnerable by knocking down protective legislation for women. Women’s problem today is not that we are not treated as equal to men, but that we are.

“The political rights of citizens are not properly dependent upon sex, but social and domestic relations and industrial activities are… Women cannot be made men by act of the legislature or by amendment to the Federal Constitution. The inherent differences are permanent. Women will always need many laws different than those needed by men.” [9]

As a final point, many women have learned that a second income is not all it is cracked up to be. Oftentimes, the woman keeps very little of that second income when all expenses are added up. In one conversation I had with a woman she confessed that when her and her husband added it all up, she found she was literally working for about a dollar an hour. Moreover, a woman can save a lot of money by doing things more old-fashioned around the house. She would not have the time to do all of this if she were working full time. When there are young children involved, it does not pay for a woman to be in the workforce. But, rather, the economic advantage is greater if she is at home (unless she makes a six-figure salary, which most women do not).

“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.”[10]

 

Notes:
[1] Roberton, B.C., “Forced Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 63. Spence, 2003.
[2] http://www.freeby50.com/2010/10/historical-look-at-womens-participation.html
[3] Graglia, F.C., “Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism,” p. 72. Spence, 1998.
[4] Mansbridge, J.J. “Why We Lost the ERA,” p. 105; 107-108. University of Chicago Press, 1986.
[5] ibid., p. 99-100
[6] Weitzman, L.J., “The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America,” p. 30. The Free Press, 1987.
[7] “Forced Labor,” p. 38-39.
[8] Crittenden, D., “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman,” p. 98-99. Touchstone, 1999.
[9] “Forced Labor,” p. 60.
[10] http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/295943/feminist-war-women/suzanne-venker#

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

Where are the Men?: The Case for Male Breadwinners

“…Your grandfather returned from World War II, got a cheap mortgage courtesy of the GI bill, married his sweetheart and went to work in a factory job that paid him something like $50,000 in today’s money plus health benefits and pension. Your father started at the same factory in 1972. He was laid off in 1981, and has never had anything like as good a job ever since. He’s working now at a big-box store, making $40,000 a year, and waiting for his Medicare to kick in. Now look at you. Yes, unemployment is high right now. But if you keep pounding the pavements, you’ll eventually find a job that pays $28,000.”[i]

When one thinks of the words “feminism” and “women’s rights” many things probably come to mind. Among the many visuals and other associations that go along with the modern “women’s movement,” women in the workforce and women’s wages are sure to be at the top of the list. But, feminists and other women’s rights advocates have not always been so adamant about getting women into the workforce and dealing with issues such as “equal pay for equal work.” In fact, before the 1960s (the dawn of modern feminism), women’s organizations strongly advocated for paternalistic treatment of women, protecting mothers and wives from the necessities of wage work, exalting the irreplaceable role of at-home motherhood and advocating fiercely for protective legislation for women. This protective legislation included protecting women by instating “women’s only” hours, Mothers’ Pensions and ensuring a family wage to be paid to married men. This protective legislation was meant to give women security within the family and within the home by reinforcing the traditional view of husband as breadwinner and wife as homemaker. Protective legislation secured the wife’s invaluable role within her family.

Today, one reads everywhere- from school textbooks, to internet blogs, to magazines and popular articles and opinion pieces- about a woman’s “subordinate” position within the family pre-women’s liberation, how feminism has finally given women “options” and how society now finally (after centuries of “oppression”) finally recognizes the wife’s status as an “equal partner” within the marriage. Feminists celebrate that they are part of a long line women’s rights advocates and have convinced society that since the early days of the 19-century feminists they have fought for nothing more than equality with men and it has been a long struggle over the centuries but they have finally achieved what women’s rights advocates have been fighting for since the beginning. They celebrate every step of the way as another “milestone to equality.”

“The true history of the women’s movement in the United States and its attitude toward the domestic realm is strikingly at odds with- and more interesting than- this standard feminist picture… In fact, the impetus for the original involvement of women in public affairs in the United States- and the driving force behind most of their policy initiatives- was to protect women from the necessity of involvement in the labor force and to preserve the special realm of the domestic from the economic and social pressures that would interfere with the mother’s primary task of bringing up her children well.”[ii]

This convoluted re-interpretation of history as “milestones to equality” conveniently ignores what the earlier feminists were really fighting for. By putting pretty labels on the modern feminist movement such as “the women’s movement,” “women’s rights,” and “women’s liberation” they appeal to the general public as though this is what all women want and as though their movement had the best interests of all women in mind. In fact, the modern feminist movement did not give us the right to have careers, have a bank account, own property or receive an education. While there was a different set of laws applying to married women (which we have explained in other articles), the single woman has always had the opportunity to pursue the kind of life she wanted and marry whom she wanted.

“Within the memory of no one living today have the barriers of society been strung so tightly that women could not pursue careers if they chose to. From the time in middle school when I decided to become a lawyer (that was in 1941) until I left my law firm to raise a family, I encountered no barriers, but only support and encouragement. Living on the edge of poverty in the working class with my divorced mother, I could not have succeeded otherwise.

When I entered college in 1947, I knew that women were in all the professions. The doctor who performed my pre-college physical was a woman… My mother’s divorce lawyer in 1936 was a woman and a mother. And the president of the bank where I opened my first account in 1942 was a woman and a mother, Mary G. Roebling, who said American women have “almost unbelievable economic power” but “do not use the influence [it] gives them.” Women’s failure to pursue opportunities in the workplace has always been much more of a choice than feminists admit. The most significant barrier to a woman’s market success is her own unwillingness to constrict her maternal, marital, and domestic roles.”[iii]

Modern feminists believe that “equal treatment” is essential to women’s advancement in the workforce. Yet, in abolishing protective legislation that early feminists had worked so hard to enact for women, they have hurt those women wanting to be housewives and stay at home mothers. Despite feminists constantly insisting women’s rights means equal representation in higher paid jobs and equal representation in politics, a growing number of surveys over the past few years have been showing that women favor homemaking over full-time workforce participation.

It is conceivable that women are beginning to figure out that the dream of “having it all” is simply not reality. Women today are beginning to wake up and realize that feminism has sold them a pipe dream. Compared to men, women’s happiness has been constantly declining since women’s libbers took to the street campaigning for “equal rights” at the expense of women who wished to retain the benefits of protective legislation.[iv]

Beyond women’s declining happiness, society as a whole is not fairing too well either. Marriage rates are down, cohabitation, divorce and out of wedlock births have been on the rise. There is a civil war waging between the sexes and crime is on the rise (I trust I don’t need to cite statistics here on this particular issue, but they are easily available from many government entities for those who aren’t convinced).

The egalitarian era has been a catastrophe. To remedy society’s problems, women’s increasing unhappiness, our children’s emotional/behavioral problems and men’s apathy towards work and marriage, the traditional family unit must be revived. When divorce rates started climbing and married women began to enter the workforce in record numbers, men’s wages began declining to the point that it is now very difficult (although still not impossible) for a man to support his entire family on one income.[v] While theoretically the woman certainly could be the breadwinner for the family, most women would simply not be happy with such an arrangement for very long and men have generally been found to be resentful of their breadwinner wives[vi] and divorce rates are the highest where the wife makes more money than the husband.[vii] There is also a strong correlation between reversal of gender roles and bad health. Moreover, recent evidence has been shedding light that stay at home dads are simply not the best thing for children, boys in particular, who have been found to do very poorly in academics when raised by stay-at-home fathers when they are young.[viii] Add to this the fact that most violent infant deaths are caused by male caretakers while the mothers are off at work and we have a complete catastrophe. Also, reversing of gender roles is not leading to men doing more housework and becoming more involved parents. In fact, it is having precisely the opposite effect:

“…Moreover, a recent study by psychologist William T. Bailey at Eastern Illinois University indicates that fathers who take on the primary childcare role are actually less responsive to the needs of their children than those fathers who are less directly involved in caregiving. Statistics also indicate that husbands working full-time whose wives do not work spend considerably more time with their children than do husbands with working wives, presumably because the mother at home makes more demands for his time and effort with the children. The conclusion is as striking as it is disturbing: at a time when children’s well-being has been declining according to every measure, their primary caregivers- married mothers with dependent children- account for most of the influx of women into the workforce, and married fathers have not discernibly made up for the diminishing maternal care.”[ix]

Society as a whole has a major stake in ensuring that men have all the tools necessary to become the breadwinners for their families and mothers can stay home with their young children and depend upon lifetime support from their husbands. Reversing traditional gender roles has led to absolutely nothing productive and will in fact end up destroying a once civilized and prosperous society. Though many will scream sex-discrimination, it is imperative to ensure that young men in particular can excel in education and the workforce.

“…The society thus has a much larger stake in employing young men than in employing young women. The unemployed man can contribute little to the community and will often disrupt it, but the woman may even do more good without a job than with one. Her joblessness may spur new efforts to induce a man to work, supporting her own crucial role as a mother.”

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”[x]

The need to ensure a proper role for males within society depends largely on the role they play within the family. The civilizing of men into appropriate roles in society largely depends upon the willingness of women to demand both commitment and support from them within the confines of marriage. Though no law or social custom can currently force a man to support a woman, they could if we wanted them to. The stability of families depends upon male breadwinners. Without a strong family unit and a man that is able to carry the load of supporting a wife and children, society will continue to face increases in the feminization of poverty. Without the income of a husband, a woman will have a very hard time giving the necessary care to her children and will more than likely depend on the taxpayers at the expense of single-earner families where the husband is the breadwinner.

There simply is no replacement for maternal care and it is doubtful that modern science will ever truly be able to match the benefits of nature in the conceivable future. Within minutes of the birth of a baby the child forms an instant bond with its mother and when the child is breastfeed, the suckling strengthens even more the mother-child bond that is so crucial for healthy development. Yet, the surge of mothers into the workforce has further eroded this bond as many women no longer breastfeed due to the demands of joining the workforce.[xi] In order to ensure healthy families and proper development of children, it is essential to strengthen marriages and the role of the husband as breadwinner.

Women are recruited and exploited in the workforce for corporate greed and for tough competition in a global economy. Yet, when women are pushed into the workforce, the family unit disintegrates, women suffer physically and mentally and the morals of a society plummet.

“In answer to the heresy of conservative individualism, we must clearly enunciate the principles of a new economy ordered toward the good of our citizens rather than toward merely abstract goods like growth, efficiency, profit, and productivity. As elements of an economy that serves the interests of real people, real families, and real communities, those concepts have value; if they simply dictate a bottom-line approach to economics that views persons as a means toward achieving some unspecified and perpetual goal of directionless economic expansion, they are worse than useless; they are positively dangerous. The economy exists for man, not man for the economy- a fundamental idea often ignored in discussions of economy which tend to revolve around the almost mystical concept of ‘growth.’”[xii]

So what is a family wage and what led to its decline? A family wage is “…an income sufficient for a man to support a wife and children at a certain minimal level of comfort…with the explicit purpose of protecting mothers from having to contribute to the family income out of economic necessity.”[xiii] Before the surge of women into the workforce and the feminist quest for equal rights the family wage “…was paid by 65 percent of all employers in the United States, and by over 80 percent of the major industrial companies.”[xiv]Despite feminists insisting that the good ol’ life of women not having to work to support the family never even existed, there has never been so many married women in the workforce as there was post WWII all the way up to today. The percentage of married women in the workforce remained at about 5% throughout U.S. history all the way up into the early 1900s, when the number of married women in the workforce started increasing gradually. The 1950s actually saw more married women in the workforce than in previous generations (though generally not out of economic necessity).[xv]

1960s feminists and beyond worked relentlessly to tear down the legal protections that early feminists had secured for women. They did not rest until they tore through, one by one, the pillars upon which the family wage rested:

“…The family wage was effectively abolished as a result of three distinct changes in policy: 1)the dismantling of legal barriers to women’s employment (protective legislation) and the phasing out of direct wage discrimination (unequal pay for equal work) against female workers in the 1940s; 2) the collapse in the late 1960s of long-standing labor union opposition to wage equality; and 3) the end of job segregation by gender as a result of an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its subsequent application by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which had the effect of undercutting job discrimination by gender and striking down all state laws granting special protection for women, the very “protective legislation” that social feminists had worked so hard to enact.” [xvi]

One way or another, traditional men and women must work together to reverse the harmful policies of women’s liberation. We need families to stay together and we need male breadwinners. Traditional Women’s Rights Activists must make the case for protective legislation and the family wage.

Notes:

[i] http://www.familyinamerica.org/files/FIAFall2012Files/FIA.Fall12.Patterson.pdf

[ii] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 40. Spence, 2002.

[iii] http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar85.htm

[iv] http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2009/oct/09102911

[v] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 36. Spence, 2002.

[vi] http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/laws-desire-does-making-more-money-less-sexy-182700208.html

[vii] http://www.divorcesaloon.com/2010/09/10/new-york-cornell-university-study-shows-that-divorce-rates-are-higher-for-women-who-make-more-than-their-husbands-higher-infidelity-rates/

[viii] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-494864/Why-stay-home-dad-bad-boys-girls.html

[ix] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 15-16. Spence, 2002.

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

[xi] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 19;28. Spence, 2002.

[xii] ibid., 176.

[xiii] ibid., 42.

[xiv] ibid., 63.

[xv] http://www.freeby50.com/2010/10/historical-look-at-womens-participation.html

[xvi] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 105. Spence, 2002.

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

Family Wage Jobs: The Missing Plank of the GOP Platform

I have recently come across a very well-written and informative essay about our modern-day economy and the need for a family wage. The essay is a little bit lengthy so down below I have highlighted some of the key concepts for those who might not want to read the entire thing. 🙂

http://www.familyinamerica.org/files/FIAFall2012Files/FIA.Fall12.Patterson.pdf

“Charts 2, 3, and 4 illustrate this marginalization of “red-state” mar­ried-parent families, and their breadwinners, unappreciated yet indis­pensable builders of the nation. Married-parent families (with depen­dent children) that rely exclusively on one male-wage earner saw their median income hit a peak in 1973, at $50,083, in 2010 dollars. Prior to 1973, these households enjoyed steady income growth, keeping pace to a great extent with GDP growth, increasing by a respectable 98 percent in real terms between 1950 and 1973, as GDP increased by 145 percent in real terms. After 1973, these same households saw their median income remain essentially flat or decline. From 1980 to 2010—when the GDP increased by 124 percent—those same families struggled to keep up, seeing their median income increase by merely 2 percent. That financial pressure may explain, in part, why many married mothers traded having more children for joining the labor market. Yet even when mothers with part-time or full-time jobs are added to the mix, the median income of all married-parent families rose just 24 percent, a modest gain compared to the income growth that single-earners with larger families enjoyed in the immediate postwar era.”

“A collusion of many factors explains this reversal of fortunes of Middle America. The Spring 2012 issue of this journal explored social, economic, and political aspects of “the vanishing American middle class,” a devel­opment that many observers, liberal and conservative, lament. Without ignoring these other factors, The Family in America has historically highlighted the mischief sowed by the abandonment of the “family wage” by government and business during the 1970s. A social and economic ideal upheld throughout most of the twentieth century, the family-wage construct enabled the vast majority of married fathers not only to fully support a wife and three or four children at home but also to secure, for retirement, adequate health-care and pension benefits for two adults.”

“This did not mean that wives never worked outside the home; many did, although generally not as family-wage earners. But there was no nor­mative expectation on the part of employers, labor unions, government, or the public that the average family would need both parents working outside the home full-time from the time they married until retirement, the current presumption in Western Europe and of influential bureau­crats of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as well as many social-policy theorists in the United States. However, in an economy where the family-wage doctrine prevails, a single earner—the father in the vast majority of cases—is sufficient to sustain the average household. Under this economic order, the house­hold arrangement made possible by the family wage is not considered a luxury available only to highly educated breadwinners such as lawyers or physicians; no, that arrangement was considered such a social neces­sity that virtually everyone recognized the need for a family wage that enabled even blue-collar workers to enjoy the American dream.”

“Nor was the arrangement devised, as the feminists imagine, to keep all women barefoot, pregnant, and out of public life. The American archi­tect of the family-wage system, Theodore Roosevelt, fully supported edu­cational and career opportunities for women: “It is entirely right that any woman should be allowed to make any career for herself of which she is capable, whether or not it is a career followed by a man. She has the same right to be a lawyer, a doctor, a farmer, or a storekeeper.” At the same time, the twenty-sixth president understood that the enormous demands of raising a family—to him, the most important work of both men and women, of greater value than any professional accomplishment—make it difficult for the “average” mother to meet those demands while also pursuing a career. He did recognize in his own day that “exceptional women—like Julia Ward Howe or Harriet Beecher Stowe” were “admira­ble wives and mothers,” as well as “workers of genius outside the home.” But he cautioned that “such types” are exceptions, “rare whether among men or women.”‘

“No-fault divorce legislation further reinforced feminist rent-seeking. By favoring the spouse who wants to dissolve a marriage, the legislation indirectly pushed more women into the labor market: among the married, women would seek employment as a form of divorce insurance; among divorcees, women would seek employment out of necessity.”

“As a consequence of these policy reversals, Americans lost the mid­dle-class norms that had long strengthened the nation’s economy, norms that simply disappeared in a sea of unwed parenthood, full-time mater­nal employment, abortion, no-fault divorce, and non-marital cohabita­tion. Moreover, Americans who followed the old rules found themselves carrying new burdens in the form of higher taxes to fund an expanding welfare system, further marginalizing the average, normal, and ordinary.”

“The assault on the middle class didn’t happen in a vacuum. Concocted in the 1970s, these social policy “innovations” were enacted at the worst possible time, when the economic vitality and industrial prowess the country had enjoyed since World War II started to wane. A new global economy was emerging, soon to be greased on the skids of free-trade agreements advocated by the elites of both parties, a new world order in which China would become an industrial giant and America an industrial weakling. The pace for this economic “restructuring” was set when President Richard Nixon dealt his tricky hand on monetary policy in 1971, and broke the Bretton Woods international gold-exchange agreement of 1944. Economist John Mueller claims that after the deci­sion—pushed by the dean of free-market economics, Milton Friedman (although with second thoughts thirty years later)15—America would never be the same, suffering from chronic episodes of inflation, declining take-home pay for workers, endless federal deficits, and unsustainable trade imbalances.16 In essence, the new monetary regime invited coun­tries like Japan and China to manipulate the dollar, strengthening their hand and weakening America’s.”

“Even before triggering the dislocations of 2008, this deadly mix was outsourcing family-wage factory jobs while further reducing the real wages, and labor-force participation rate, of men.”
“Yet the “creative destruction” of the past forty years, coupled with feminist social policies and environmental regulations redefining every factory as a threat to the natural habitat, has left Main Street American families not only struggling but also furious about what has happened to their country.”

“Given the disproportionate influence of the libertarians, adversarial feminists, and environmentalists, the policy deck may be stacked against any attempt to reverse the current state of affairs. Yet the protracted Great Recession, now four years young and showing no signs of ending, makes it clear that the country can no longer afford to marginalize industry while moving bourgeois families and their men to the sidelines. In the spirit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the country needs policies that once again recover TR’s “preferential consideration” for average breadwinners and their families. The country cannot wait for the free market or free trade to reverse the malign effects of forty years of bad policy.”

“A new approach requires, like never before, initiatives that create pro­ductive family-wage jobs for men and fathers, certain to give Americans something far more effective and popular than the bloated welfare state.”

“For budget hawks, here’s a better option: cut welfare spending deeper so that a 3.3-percent cap would include the $187 billion transfer. In either case, any successful program would have to grant state governments— not Congress, the administration, or the courts—total discretion over how the money would be allocated, specifying only that 75 percent of the jobs would pay a family wage—at least $50,000 a year plus benefits—and would be reserved for married fathers without a college education.”

“All these recommendations may seem like pie in the sky. The attempt to reclaim premium-paying, family-wage jobs for married fathers will certainly send the $927-billion-per-year welfare industry,36 as well as the legal and political establishment, into shock. They will whine and scream that the whole project is discriminatory and unconstitutional, despite the promise such a project holds for Middle America, ignored by both parties for too long. That promise reflects the way all three recommendations are rooted in principles that have worked. These are the principles integral to the forgotten American System that Michael Lind has brought to light. These are the principles that informed the social policies of Theodore Roosevelt and that found embodiment in the New Deal. In short, these are the principles that reinforced the child-rich, married-parent family as the foundation of the nation’s social and economic well-being.”

How the Feminist Movement Hurt Women

IT HAS RIPPED THE LAWS OFF THE BOOKS REQUIRING THAT A HUSBAND SUPPORT HIS WIFE AND PROVIDE HER WITH A HOME TO LIVE IN

IT HAS DESTROYED CHIVALRY IN MEN

IT HAS MADE FAMILY LAW SEX NEUTRAL WHICH MEANS WIVES AND MOTHERS NOW CAN BE LEGALLY FORCED TO CARRY THE TRADITIONAL BURDENS OF MEN

IT HAS MADE WOMEN EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE FAMILY AND THE DEBTS OF HER HUSBAND AS WELL AS HERSELF

ATTEMPTS AT DRAFTING WOMEN

CONSTANT PRESSURE TO PUSH WOMEN FURTHER INTO COMBAT AND MANY WOMEN ARE ALREADY SERVING IN COMBAT

NO-FAULT DIVORCE

NO FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR THE HOUSEWIFE

ABOLITION OF THE TENDER YEARS DOCTRINE

DEPRIVATION OF COMMON LAW RIGHTS TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR WRONGS SUCH AS BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY AND SEDUCTION

IT HAS TAKEN AWAY IMPORTANT EXEMPTIONS WOMEN USED TO HAVE UNDER THE LAW

SOCIETY SEES WOMEN AS FUNGIBLE WITH MEN

MEN VIEW WOMEN AS EQUALS AND NO LONGER SEE A NATURAL OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT AND PROTECT WOMEN

FEMINISM HAS MADE YOUNG WOMEN BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN HAVE EMOTION FREE SEX WITH NO CONSEQUENCE

GIRLS NO LONGER KNOW HOW TO SAY “NO” TO THEIR BOYFRIENDS

THE DEGRADATION OF THE HOUSEWIFE: HOUSEWIVES ARE “PARASITES” (De Beauvoir) THE HOUSE IS A “COMFORTABLE CONCENTRATION CAMP” (Friedan)

THE PRESSURE GIRLS GET FROM FAMILY AND SOCIETY TO BECOME CAREER WOMEN

MARRIAGE AND MOTHERHOOD IS NO LONGER A VALID CAREER OPTION FOR WOMEN

WOMEN NO LONGER VALUE THEIR FEMININITY INSTEAD THEY WANT TO BE MEN

THANKS TO FEMINISM IRRESPONSIBLE AND IMMORAL MEN NOW HAVE A FREE RIDE AT THE EXPENSE OF WOMEN

THERE IS NO LONGER A REQUIRED FAMILY WAGE WHICH IN THE PAST MADE IT EASIER FOR A WOMAN TO STAY HOME

IT IS NO LONGER SHAMEFUL FOR A MAN NOT TO SUPPORT HIS FAMILY

MEN ARE TAUGHT THAT WOMEN ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM THEM THEREFORE THIS CAUSES A LOT OF CONFLICT AND THE DIVORCE RATE IS SKYROCKETING

CHILDREN FROM SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BECOME CRIMINALS DUE TO THE LACK OF STRONG FATHER FIGURE:

SINGLE MOTHERS INSTEAD OF BEING MARRIED HAVE NOW TURNED TO THE GOVERNMENT: WHICH HAS BECOME A REPLACEMENT FOR A REAL FATHER

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