Tag Archives: father’s rights

Does it Matter if I Don’t Have a Dad? 

For various reasons my actual biological dad has never really been around in my life for a long time. I’ve never had too much of a relationship with him since I got old enough to be on my own (this pretty much happened when I was a teenager) and to be honest I’m not sure that it has really hurt me that badly. I mean, I never remember actively looking for some other man to be “dad” to me, even when I was younger. I never panicked and said “oh my God I need a dad where can I find one? Think they have a sale at the local Walmart?” It hurts that someone you’ve known all your life and someone who’s supposed to be family  is no longer around and has hurt you badly but I’m not so sure it is because he himself brings something special to my life just on account of the genetic relationship/ social role played by being dad. 

The truth is that fatherhood is a cultural creation. Mostly the drive for “father’s rights” and the importance of “every child having a father” is an attempt for men to stay relevant in a world where women are increasingly independent of them and can have and support themselves and their offspring without men. After all, if women ever figure it out and are allowed to have babies without men and can be self sufficient to where men aren’t needed then what role will men have in society? The quest for father’s rights is about men’s drive for dominance and control and also about male sexual jealousy. Harsh truth? Yes. But as they say, the truth hurts.

It is what it is. Of course in modern society monogamous relationships with fathers playing a central role in providing for offspring and mothers raising them is quite necessary. It all depends on the norms of society. We aren’t running around in beads and feathers anymore; our lives are more structured and therefore our family arrangements must reflect this as well. Men need to have an important role in society in one way or another. 

Of course, anytime one lives in a way or comes from a family pattern that differs from the norm it can create confusion and problems. Someone growing up never knowing their dad in a society where everyone else is expected to have a dad will undoubtedly have problems and feel confusion, anger, depression, etc… and suffer as a result. They’re different. They’re an outcast and “not one of us.” And they know it. If one is raised in a primitive society where promiscuity is the norm and few even know their fathers because nobody even cares then there is unlikely to be any problems, confusion or heartbreak because, hey, they’re completely normal just like everyone else. It’s no big deal. They’re “one of us.” I think we will see these same problems in children being raised by two gay parents as well because they are different from everyone else and undoubtedly they will be confused and have the same mental issues as a result of being different. 

Society always shapes our perceptions of ourselves. Nobody is immune from this. If you’re an outcast and differ from everyone else, it hurts. Plain and simple. If you are like everyone else and fit in life is more pleasant and you’re happier. No matter how much we say we don’t care about what others think, deep down we do- at least to an extent and someone who just can’t fit in is likely to withdraw completely from the society that has outcast them.

So with all that being said does “dad” himself bring something special? I don’t think, in truth, that he does. I think when I look back and when I think of my life now it is more about a drive to depend upon men, look up to men and follow men. It is a primitive instinct and I think it is hard wired into all women to do so. After all, women have been doing this since the beginning of time and it has always been necessary for survival. Modern men may be withdrawing from this responsibility (to disastrous results) but it doesn’t change the facts one bit. It doesn’t change biology. Women can live without men for the most part- at least until disaster strikes. Even where men don’t provide most of the resources they have always universally and historically provided protection.

Family arrangements are cultural constructions. It’s never really bothered me not having an actual dad around because I always seemed to have at least one man around who wasn’t perverted to me and acted fatherly to me and who took care of me in one way or another. Even if I didn’t have a close relationship with the men they still made a difference in my life. My dad may have been around when I was growing up, but that didn’t make a difference when it came to how much male attention I craved or whether or not I partied, etc… Maybe it would have been different if he would have been different towards me, I cannot say. But either way I don’t think I’ve ever really felt the loss of not having a father-daughter relationship. I distanced myself from him many years ago and have honestly never cried about it and honestly never felt any void beyond just wishing I had a family and somewhere to belong. 

Education and a greater understanding of the world has also made me more immune to any insults from others and the ways society tries to outcast those who are different. The truth of what I’ve discovered about life is that the majority of people are stupid and most (not all) blindly believe what they’re told/what they hear so what they think is of little concern to me.

I think the problems really occur when there are no men around for women to look up to. I think that is the hurtful and damaging thing. After all girls and women in countless societies have never had dads, but they still depended on the men around them and still had male family members to depend on and to take care of them. I mean, if a woman looks around and every man young and old is an unreliable, untrustworthy pervert how is she to feel? On the other hand if there are a few men in her life that she can trust and look up to and who take care of her that’s a different story. It’s like the world is set right somehow. 

So is it dad himself that makes a difference? Probably not. It is ultimately all about society’s norms and a deep biological drive for women to depend on and follow men and a woman’s need for stability and security. 

The father’s main role should be protection and provision of his offspring, as women need the protection of men (even to protect them from other men) but that role can be fulfilled by other family members and eventually a husband. 

Why I Hope the Supreme Court Strikes Down “Gay Marriage” Bans

“…But on the other hand we hold that the new status will prove to be the worst kind of communism. The relations between the sexes, now so carefully guarded by religion and by parents, by law and by society, will become common and therefore corrupt. The family, the foundation of the state, will disappear…

The marriage tie will be weakened, and separation recurred to as an ordinary remedy. It is even probable that the duration of the bond will finds its limitation in expediency, and the marriage contract be assumed for limited periods, or for other purposes….”(1)

Next month the Supreme Court of the United States will hear gay marriage cases and decide upon gay marriage as a “constitutional right.” As much as I am opposed to the idea that two homosexual couples can actually be “married,” I hope that the Court will rule it as a constitutional right.

Yes, you heard me right. I hope the Court strikes down gay marriage bans as unconstitutional. 

I hope gay marriage goes nationwide. It’s not like it could possibly do any more damage to the marriage institution anyways. The institution of marriage was pretty much destroyed years ago, with legal marriage only offering a few “benefits” to those who enter into what used to be a permanent and binding covenant between a man and a woman sanctioned by law, religion and custom.

The conservative case against gay marriage will be weak. What will the Right do? Throw the Bible at them? They’ll just be branded as bigots in the throes of religious dogma. Say it destroys the rights of children? It’s not like children aren’t already being raised in a whole host of non-family arrangements based upon “anything goes”  legal policies and whatever contract adults choose to make with each other. Family ties are already so weak, “blended” and “rotational” that a few gay couples here and there raising kids probably won’t even be noticed.

Marriage used to have real and true meaning but not anymore. Marriage used to be an institution that safeguarded a father’s rights and the security of women and children. But now a man by default has the same rights and responsibilities to children fathered via a drunken one-night stand with a woman who is a complete stranger as he does within legal marriage. He can walk in or out of rights and responsibilities at his own whim and few women can expect to be provided for by husbands anymore.

Marriage used to be about men financially providing for women and children, but not anymore. Most women today enter into relationships with boy-men who become financially dependent upon them. Nearly half of all men have wives and live-in girlfriends who are better educated and have a better paying job than they do. Marriage was already bastardized a long time ago to hold both spouses jointly responsible for all debts, financial matters and decisions made in the family. Alimony, where for centuries a husband was required to provide for a wife for a lifetime, has now been reduced to some kind of gender-neutral and temporary “spousal support” and nothing more.

Marriage today has so little legal meaning that a marriage license is barely even worth the paper it’s printed on. It’s not about a man coming forward and calling upon a woman, of making his intentions to court her known and taking her under his wing and providing for her in the honorable state of marriage for a lifetime.

Marriage today is barely more “honorable” than just moving in together. Today men can expect to be able to live with a girlfriend for a while and, if they get “serious” enough about each other (or happen to have a few kids together) they might get married later. His girlfriend will split the bills with him and he gets free sex.

Now a man takes a woman as his wife and she helps him pay the rent and helps provide for him. And, oh yeah, he gets to have sex with her (if she’s in the mood, of course. If she’s not then he becomes the all-maligned “marital rapist”). A man can expect to gain with marriage these days a roommate that helps him pay the bills.

So what is marriage about? It’s not a permanent commitment. Either party can walk away whenever. It’s not a covenant. The vows don’t mean much as a person’s word isn’t worth anything these days. Pretty much anything that comes out of a person’s mouth these days is all BS until proven to be true. It’s not about raising children. Most children aren’t even raised within legal marriage with both parents in an intact and stable family unit. It’s not about paternity. It’s not a requirement for respectable sex. Is it about love? romance? insurance benefits? commitment?

There’s nothing sex-specific about “love” and “commitment” is there? So why, then, cannot anyone marry? After all a person can feel “love” for someone of the same sex and people have all kinds of sexual fetishes. It’s all just a personal and private thing between “two consenting adults” so why not have gay marriage?

Indeed, why not?

The foundation of marriage has been chipped away at for so long there’s barely anything left. Maybe the only way change can happen is by allowing gay marriage; by completely demolishing what’s left of the broken, chipped, cracked, weathered and destroyed foundation. Maybe only then will the institution completely collapse. Maybe only then can a social revolution occur to rebuild the foundation of marriage and restore it to it’s former meaningful and respected position in society. Maybe only then will things have gotten so bad and gone so far down that the only way to go is up. Maybe only then can the old fade away and a new beginning be possible.

So I say bring the popcorn and the beer and let’s get on with the show…

Recommended:

Considering how meaningless marriage has become, I hereby withdraw any opposition I’ve ever had to gay marriage

No, “We” Are Not Pregnant

First off I want to give a disclaimer that I’m not a doctor so use your brain and seek your own medical advice from an actual qualified medical professional. I’m giving my opinions and beliefs based on my long hours of research and personal experiences. Second this post has some sexual talk that isn’t completely PG-rated and isn’t normally something I go into, but I feel it is important so I’m going to “go there.” Just wanted to give a quick warning about that.

I came across some comments today regarding this “we are pregnant” nonsense that men today say (which I think is ridiculous) while surfing through NYMOM’s blog (I’m a big fan of her blog and occasionally check through her postings again to lift my spirits from this broken world we live in). Anyways, I thought they were pretty good and summed up some things that were have actually been on my mind here lately and I wanted to make a blog posting to put in my own two cents on the matter.

“We Are Not Pregnant
The glory of men and women lies in their unbridgeable differences.
Mark Galli | posted 7/12/2007 08:55AM

A male friend, married to a lovely women, comes up to me beaming and says, “We’re pregnant!”

“Wow!” I reply, with inappropriate sarcasm. “When I was a young man, only women could get pregnant.”

I’ve heard this phrase—”We’re pregnant”—too much recently, but it’s time to move beyond sarcasm. The intent is as understandable as the execution is absurd. It arises out of the noble desire of men (and future fathers) to participate fully in the childrearing. And I understand that for many men, it simply means, “My wife and I are expecting a baby.”

But the first dictionary meaning of pregnant remains, “Carrying developing offspring within the body.” Whenever a word is misused, it means the speaker is unaware of the word’s meaning, or that the cultural meaning of a word is shifting, or that some ideology is demanding obeisance. Probably all three are in play, but it’s the last reality that we should pay attention to. It is not an accident that this phrase, “We’re pregnant,” has arisen in a culture that in many quarters is ponderously egalitarian and tries to deny the fundamental differences of men and women.

This phrase is most unfortunate after conception because it is an inadvertent co-opting of women by men—men using language to suggest that they share equally in the burdens and joys of pregnancy. Instead, pregnancy is one time women should flaunt their womanhood, and one time men should acknowledge the superiority of women. Men may be able to run the mile in less than four minutes and open stuck pickle jars with a twist of the wrist, but for all our physical prowess, we cannot carry new life within us and bring it into the world. To suggest that we do is a slap in the face of women.”

Anonymous #1 says:

“…My partner too has experienced many emotions since finding out I am pregnant, and although both very happy I have been very poorly due to morning sickness and nausea. To which he can never really understand how much I have been ill, and although has an idea of how depressed at times I felt through being incapacitated by the nausea, he really does not have a clue as to the extent of my suffering.

This is of course not his fault. However he has experienced symptoms of what I would call womb envy. He often says he wishes HE was the pregnant one, and that I am experiencing the baby growing, and how HE wishes he could feel it move just as I can, and how HE would rather be the one pregnant, and how he would swap places with me in a second, just to experience what I am. This actually makes me feel guilty, as he actually gets quite bitter and at times moody over the whole thing…at least that’s how he comes across. I have really tried to be sensitive to his needs, during this time, and share every aspect of how I feel and how IT feels to be the pregnant one.

It has actually brought out some strange colours in him that I never knew were there. He gets angry that most pregnancy books are female focused, and that there are only small sections dedicated to the man, which he says he finds patronising and insults his intelligence. When I suggested finding a book specific for men in pregnancy, he said, “he should not have to”, and says we are EQUAL in this process, that he is just as important as I am.”

Anonymous #2 says:

“I am a 30-year-old European married to an American. I don not have any children. Lately I have decided that I do not want to have any children from my husband because I have come to regard pregnancy as the worst Ponzi scheme out there: You go through nine months of pregnancy, through labor, etc. and suddenly someone else can claim (at least equal) legal rights over the fruit of my labour (literally)!? Over the child I gave birth to! No, thank you! I am European and moving to the (very legalistic) United States has been a huge eye-opener for me: I once told an American fellow student that I would not want my husband to be present during the birth of my child (I see it as a very private moment, and I would like to be assisted by a doula or a trusted female friend) and he became very angry, claiming that it is a father’s right to be there and see the child exit the mother’s vagina (actually, he called it “witness the child’s first moments”)!!! I am a woman, a separate free individual, and NOT a mechanical child-bearing vessel / child-birthing machine. Therefore, I will not have any children, especially from my husband (I could always go to Denmark and undergo artificial insemination). I would love to have a child from my husband, but I am too afraid to do so in this upside-down world.

Unfortunately, also many formerly feminist European countries, such as Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia, are now starting to embrace this questionable gender neutrality… When the heck did we switch from “women’s rights” to “gender equality”? Sad!”

There is so much to comment on here. The first anonymous commenter has a “partner” (she doesn’t specifically state “husband” which is a problem in itself) who is jealous of her more important role in bringing a child into this world. I personally think it really pathetic of a man to be jealous of women’s roles in any area of life- whether in childbearing or in the traditional feminine sphere of caring for the home and children. Anonymous commenter #2 has a real problem with her husband or any man claiming the same legal rights as her to a child she has suffered and worked to give birth to and also a problem with her husband insisting to be there when she gives birth.

I have to say that these ladies are right. Their feelings on these issues are not unfounded. A man should not be jealous over the role his wife has in life. Men and women are not “equal.” A father can only be made equal by the society/law and what he brings to the mother and child (as opposed to what the mother does in childbearing). I understand there is a tendency in men (that they will never admit to, of course) to be afflicted with womb envy. That is why men should have other areas in life that are unique to their sex that they can achieve in (such as providing for families and being protectors). Yes, her role is more important in childbearing. In truth, the male role in childbearing is dispensable. Only a mother is necessary during childbirth, only her role is biological. She conceives, carries, bears and nurses the child from her own body. Her maternity is certain. Paternity, however, is never completely certain. The most intense scrutiny in the world can never completely assure a man of his paternity. He must trust in a third party (whether the mother or some anonymous person in a lab coat he’s never met and who is, after all, just a human who makes mistakes, not to mention that in a bureaucracy the right hand never knows what the left hand is doing) to assure him he is the father of a child.

I also agree completely with childbirth being a private event. My husband did not in any way participate in the birth of our child. Actually, nobody really did. Nobody- friends or family- was informed at all that I was in labor and I wouldn’t have had it any other way. The midwife was specifically informed that nobody at all was to be told that I was in labor and if anyone did show up to get rid of them. My midwife only checked on me midday to make sure I was ok then left me in peace until I needed her a couple of hours later. I can’t see what good spectators do in childbirth other than make labor longer and more difficult and painful for the mother by disallowing her privacy and peace of mind to let instinct take over and I’m sorry but I can’t see how it takes five people groping a woman’s privates for a child to be delivered safely. In all societies I’ve ever studied, until recently, men were barred from being present at childbirth and a mother would either give birth alone or have a woman (or women) with her (although they often did not touch her, but were only there for support and to give assistance if needed). Male doctors only started delivering babies in the 19th century for the money, whereas before if men attempted to sneak around to see a laboring women they were shooed away. There is no need to touch a woman when she is giving birth and touching or interfering or talking to a woman (when it is not an emergency of course) can actually cause her injury and make the process more difficult. After all, animals give birth alone. They know when birth is imminent and isolate themselves. I had a midwife but she was only there pretty much after birth to make sure we were doing fine and to run an herb bath for me and the baby. As a result of my husband making himself scarce and me having complete silence and privacy labor and birth was actually relatively easy and not very painful. Labor progressed quickly and naturally with no interventions. Nobody talked to me or touched me and, while listening to the horror stories of every other woman having a hospital or home birth with lots of family, friends as well as the father in attendance, I probably had one of the best births imaginable. I never took any medications at all while pregnant nor during birth- they weren’t necessary. My body was made for this. I felt instinctively that childbirth was sexual (yes, sexual) and an intimate event that was sacred. Somehow I felt connected to something greater. It’s a beautiful feeling of vulnerability and preciousness that is unique to women. Men should not seek to undermine this and it is preposterous to think men are just as good with care-taking as women when there is not a shred of evidence to suggest such a thing. Men should respect and honor women for what only we can do.

The second thing that anonymous commenter #2 talks about is giving fathers rights when they do not give birth. I certainly think our current legal system is disgusting and I feel her sentiment exactly. I would feel the same as her if I didn’t know history. Because only women can bear the babies our laws used to place the entire burden of financial support of a family on the husband/father. Women were not responsible for their husband’s support nor should a woman be. Husbands should be responsible for their wives, but wives should not be responsible for their husbands. Men today however seem to think they are entitled to support from the mother of their child and support from their wives as well as WIC benefits and a share in the mother’s maternity leave that were intended to benefit and help mothers and infants recover from the ordeal of pregnancy and childbirth. So a woman bears your child and she owes you? I don’t think so. If anything the father is indebted to the mother. In no other scenario is the one who does work for somebody supposed to pay the one who is receiving the benefits of their work. That would be a crime. And indeed it is a crime in my book for a man not to be fully financially responsible for his wife, the woman who has given him children. This works out for the best interests of the family overall anyways as the more the responsibility for support is placed on the wife/mother the worse family breakdown overall gets. A husband should have legal rights because he should be responsible for his family. He is responsible to provide for the children he fathers with his wife and he is responsible for how those children are raised and how they turn out. He should be responsible just the same for his wife. The obligation to see to their support and protection should rest on his shoulders, not hers. The day men suffer pain and the possibility for infection, sickness, injury, disfigurement , indignity and even death (and this isn’t even mentioning the emotional/psychological side effects of childbearing) to bring forth life into this world the same as women have always suffered since the beginning of time is the day they might be justified in asking the wife/mother to carry the burden of support as well. A man not married to his children’s mother shouldn’t get the same rights because his position is not the same. A man simply wanting rights to a child he’s fathered is not in any way an example of him being responsible. Him being married to the mother and providing for her and the child and being held responsible for them is him being responsible.

A husband should do what is in the best interests of his wife and children. In many cases, as heretical as this statement is today, it is in the best interests of both mother and child for him to not be present when she gives birth. He has the right to see to their safety, support and protection. It’s not about what he wants. He has no “right” to put his wants above their needs. He should be putting the needs of his wife and child above his own and if his wife is not comfortable with him being present he should wait somewhere nearby and stay out of the way. He should also protect her and make sure nobody else interferes to cause her distress or harm while she is in labor and vulnerable.

Anonymous commenter #2 also talks about artificial insemination. I am very much against this for many reasons and think it should be outlawed, along with surrogacy. I also don’t think a lot of women realize the stresses and harms these procedures often do to women. A lot of women suffer much physical pain and psychological distress and the procedures fail often. Apart from that, women should not be left on their own with children. I am very much for patriarchy, the way the West has practiced it for centuries, as it gives great status to women. I prefer to defer to my husband’s authority because it is the surest source of protection and support for a woman- because it makes me feel secure. The more divorce and out-of-wedlock births there are the less men invest in women and support and protect them.

On the other hand, we cannot exist with gender neutral laws without a complete societal collapse. It’s either matriarchy or patriarchy. I would prefer patriarchy in a heartbeat. I don’t want to have sex with any man (or multiple men) I choose without stigma and live with my extended matrilineal kin or other women and do all the work while the men lounge in hammocks all day and run around clubbing each other over the head! That is the greatest Ponzi scheme of all time if you ask me! Patriarchy is a marvelous invention that actually took that burden out of the hands of mothers and placed it on fathers and built up civilization and I don’t want to give that up! I’d much prefer to be taken care of by one man for my life. I have always liked the idea of carrying *his* (I’m talking about my husband here) child. It is a great feeling, wrapped in safety and love by one more powerful than I, for my intimate body to be filled and invaded. It’s spiritual and romantic. Our differences are what make us unique. I’m weaker and much more vulnerable while he is stronger and in charge. Egalitarianism and women being in charge takes the beauty and life out of everything. It dulls the senses. When we are in the roles we are made for it is a beautiful thing. A woman taking her husband’s last name is actually a remnant of coverture in our culture. She and her children have the husband’s name, as she was once a “covered woman” (before the so-called “advancement” of women’s rights) being under the protection of her husband.

Women are free under a true patriarchal system- under coverture. A woman is free from being ruled by men who have no responsibility for her. She is free to have her babies and care for them and keep them by her side while the father goes out and works. She is free from the drudgery of full-time work and is free from being harassed by other men and having to carry the weight of responsibilities that rightfully belong to men. No, “we” are not pregnant, and neither should “we” carry the same responsibilities because our roles are not the same. The same rules that apply to men do not apply to women and vice versa.

Recommended Articles:

Family and Medical Leave Act Seeks to Undermine Mother’s Rights

Why Men Should Never be Present at the Birth of Their Child

Undisturbed Birth is our Genetic Heritage

Why Would Men Support Feminism?

I can tell you exactly why men supported feminism. It’s pretty simple really. They wanted a free pass out of traditional masculine responsibilities to bear the sole burden of financial support for a family and traditional male duties such as all male conscription. Feminism also promised them free and easy sex and eradication of laws that protected women and made men accept responsibility. It’s really not that hard to figure out really. Feminism promised men freedom from traditional masculine responsibility and it was just too good to pass up for them.

It’s very hard today to find true masculine men. Most have been made effeminate to some degree and few want to support families, pay for dates or protect women. A lot of men are quite content to hand over their authority to women because they are quite content for women to carry their responsibilities. MRAs seem to be divided between radical nut-jobs hating patriarchy and others that promote patriarchy with a denial of male responsibility. The groups claim to support patriarchy and they want women to be traditional yet at the same time their official policies are to promote “gender neutral laws,” eradication of all alimony and cry foul at any supposed “discrimination” against men.

Some promote chivalry, but only when a woman “deserves” it. Traditional women that fall into line with their standards are “good” and all other women are to be treated as “competition” and given exactly what they “deserve.” So what they are really saying is that they allow the actions of women to dictate their own actions. They will act “bad” if women act “bad” and they will only act “good” if a woman acts “good.” This really sounds kind of insane when you say it out loud, doesn’t it? They emasculate themselves and allow women to dictate their own behaviors.

In reality, whether a woman “deserves” chivalry or not should be irrelevant to whether or not the man gives it to her. Men’s responsibilities towards women should not change just because women act bad (based on the hierarchal relationship between the sexes, however, a woman’s obedience to men must be conditional upon the man acting appropriate). A real man would not reject his responsibilities because the woman is acting bad. He would not allow himself to be dictated to by the woman and allow her to emasculate him or control what he does (isn’t that feminism anyways? women dictating how men should act?).

Men could have stopped feminism. They could stop it now if they wanted to but most are quite content to be passive and let women run things because they don’t want the male responsibility that patriarchy entails or they live in fear that if they attempt to control their women that they will be branded as outcasts and misogynists or chauvinists and face social or legal backlash. Other men, it seems, simply don’t know how to be real men because they’ve never been shown any positive example of what it means to be a man growing up. They grew up with dominant mothers, weak fathers and the media that shows incompetent men and successful career women who can fight just as good or better than any man.

MRAs are actually feminists in their purest form. They want to emasculate all men that way they can eradicate female sexual bargaining power and superiority, unconcerned, until they are faced with child support, divorce, or the recreational sperm donor coming back to claim his “rights”, that in so doing they also compromise the security of the father in the family unit. It also doesn’t seem to bother them in the slightest that their wives, daughters and sisters could be subject to a future draft or be taken advantage of by some irresponsible man following the teachings of their movement.

MRAs are very concerned about false claims of domestic violence and rape. In fact, one could say they are obsessed to the point of mass paranoia. Let’s humor them for a moment and say that they are even remotely telling the truth (yes false claims exist for every wrongdoing under the sun but let’s say they are right in their claims of how widespread this problem is). The problem lies at the very heart of feminism and “gender equality” itself. A woman should never be left in the position where she is desperate and vulnerable and feels no other choice than to cry wolf. Women should always be under the protection and authority of men. Men should be held to their responsibilities and women should have never been deprived of their protections and rights or told that it’s OK to live with a boyfriend and that she should express her sexuality any way she chooses of that it’s OK for a married woman to pursue college and a career. If men had refused to yield their authority to women in the first place and hadn’t rejected their responsibilities none of these wrongs would be happening the way they are.

Men today just assume that if women want “equality” then they are going to give it to them and give it to them full out. It becomes an all-out war. First both feminists and men’s groups wanted to eradicate all protections for women. Once that was accomplished feminists started calling crisis and split from the men’s groups who became “antifeminists” because feminists were no longer promoting the “true equality.” To MRAs women should just “man up.” Women are not “special” to them and deserve no special protections. It’s either corrupt policies should be implemented to “empower” women to protect and support themselves or women should have no protections or support at all.

The idea that women should just “man up” is a very unworkable solution. Women may say that they can protect themselves and support themselves but when it comes down to it they will expect men to rise up in a time of crisis and expect men to protect them. These women are not bad because of this. It is only natural that women hand off the rough jobs to men and expect men to protect them. What is bad is what men and women today are being taught. It is only that the idea of treating men and women equally confuses the sexes and imposes an unreal set of expectations upon men and women. Social movements cannot erase human nature but they can cause instability, confusion and many problems. Women are told one thing and that they can “do everything a man can do” yet when it comes down to it they can’t. Then some men, who have been told to see women as their equals, get frustrated and angry at this. It’s time to face reality because gender equality is unworkable and a pure fantasy.

I find it very insulting and offensive that now, after all the decades of erasing legislation designed to protect the homemaker and to protect women in general that feminists are now turning around and promoting housewifery as a “new form” of feminism or the next “wave” of feminism. I guess now that they have done all of the damage that they can possibly do to the family unit and now that there is no legislation at all left on the books (that’s enforced anyways) to protect women they turn back around and say they stand with traditional women. My point in saying this is that women should not be making the decisions or be in authority over men as when this happens laws, policies, the family unit and the overall social structure begin to be determined by special interest groups and how groups of women “feel” at the moment.

The vote for women itself seems to have spawned the worst economic recession in American history, massive government spending, socialism and a complete destruction of sexual morality and the family unit. All this because men wanted to become emasculated wimps and give up their authority to women so they didn’t have to carry traditional male responsibilities. If men loved women they wouldn’t just sit around and do nothing while those promoting “gender equality” go out and destroy society and the well-being of themselves and everyone else around them. If a man really loved his wife he would control her and protect her despite her objections. He would say “no” to her if she was wanting to go out and work and be independent. No matter what she might say at the moment or how she might feel, in the end she will respect and love him more and she will be a lot happier and better off.

There are real and true duties that men owe to women. When men reject their responsibilities and surrender their authority to women it causes nothing but problems. Men cannot hurt women without also hurting themselves and women cannot hurt men without hurting themselves either. When women refuse to obey their husbands they compromise their security and support. When men refuse to protect women they as well compromise their authority and security and position in the family. The man that takes advantage of a woman and refuses to marry her or refuses to support her or protect her may very well find one day he has a daughter that gets taken advantage of in the same way by a man. The woman who doesn’t respect her husband’s authority and tears down her own family may very well find one day she has a son who is treated the same way by a woman one day. In this way both men and women reap from the seeds they sow and the next generation is worse off than the one before and the future generations pay the price for what their parents and grandparents have done before them. As with most things in life, gender politics are akin to the double-edged sword. The fates of men and women are intertwined together and they will forever be.

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)