Tag Archives: female breadwinners

Discrimination is the Solution, Not the Problem

So, I get an e-mail from the American Civil Liberties Union last night asking me to help them and some other women’s organizations pass what is called the “Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.” Now, I’ve been aware of this legislation and the ACLU’s involvement for some time. However, there is something majorly wrong with this piece of legislation (as well as a lot of the very liberal legislation they push for).

The problem is that men and women are not on equal terms. They never have been and they never will be. The simple fact of life is that women get pregnant. That’s just the way life is. Our laws used to make many clear distinctions based upon sex and for very logical reasons. Now, sex discrimination is highly illegal. And what do we have as a result? Problems-and lots of them.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is unreasonable for us to go and rearrange our military, burden businesses to accommodate the differences between the sexes and reorder society just to make everything between the sexes “equal” when it is not nor ever will be equal in the first place.

Do pregnant women need to be taken care of? Absolutely. This is without question. Women have the unique task given to them by a higher power (whether you believe that to be God or evolution, whatever) to bear children. It is a biological fact of life. Women get pregnant and when they are pregnant they need medical care, nutritious food, a home to live in and a stress free environment free from toxins and other dangers. The nine months spent in the womb are the most critical times of anyones life. A woman’s well-being during pregnancy is critical. If she is stressed, if she doesn’t have adequate nutrition or medial care it will not only effect her and potentially lead to illness or death but it will also affect the child, possibly causing developmental problems or even death to the child or complications. Therefore it is absolutely critical that pregnant women have all of their basic needs met.

However, it should not be the responsibility of the woman to provide these things for herself nor the responsibility of businesses to go out of their way and accommodate her while she is pregnant. The problem is not discrimination but the lack of discrimination. Plain and simple, this is why the traditional family unit is important and this is why legitimacy is important. There needs to be a bargaining power for both sexes to ensure that marriage occurs. We need a workforce that will favor men over women in hiring and in pay that way men in turn can do their job of providing for and protecting women. We also need laws to protect the sanctity of the traditional family and legitimacy and laws that hold both men and women to traditional responsibilities- taking care of the home and the children for women and financial support for men.

Random Anti-MRA Rant, Pt. I of Several

I think both sexes are being hurt badly just in different ways because this whole equality thing is stupid. But I really don’t know how MRAs have much of a case when women are being forced into combat, being the family breadwinners in nearly half the families and are having babies without any security at all. The mothers have immediate responsibilities yet the father gets rights any time even if he fathered the child by brutally raping the mother or walks in a decade later after never having even seen the child before. Yet, that’s right, women have “no responsibilities.” Keep dreaming MRAs. Women are bearing their biological responsibilities and then taking on your rightful ones too. Because of our desire to be politically correct we always must treat the sexes “equally” no matter how logical it would be to treat them differently.

If nearly 70% of all married women are in the workforce and 40% of them out earn their husbands where exactly is the justification for these men saying that they are getting screwed over? Most studies have shown exactly the opposite of what MRAs whine about. And what makes them think they should have abortion rights when they don’t even want to marry and support the mother? What makes married men think they should have abortion rights if they aren’t held responsible for their wives? If they want things to equal out then they should man up and take on their responsibilities, this includes leading their families, doing something to change the foundation our laws are built upon today and actually marrying. Besides, if they are freaked about divorce they should seek traditional women because, statistically speaking, they have fewer divorces.

Now my husband would have justification to say he was screwed if I left without justification because he has paid for our house and land and everything we need( how many of these whiny MRAs can truly say that?). But the married men who live around me? No way. Their wives are as much breadwinners as them and they carried the burdens of multiple pregnancies on top of it.

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.

Feminist Hypocrites, Pt. I

Are feminists our true heroes? Or are they really hypocrites? Feminists have always seen any different treatment on account of sex (unless it is to advance women in the workplace, of course) as harmful to women and all the laws that protected us making us were simply making us inferior to men. Feminists of the 1970s went around campaigning and demonstrating (often resorting to very ugly measures) for complete equality.

The premier feminist lawyer in the 1970s, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then a professor at Columbia University Law School, argued that all such differences of treatment based on gender were sex discriminatory and should be abolished. She won several Supreme Court Cases on that theory. In state after state, as well as in Congress, feminist lawyers were able to persuade legislators to gender neutralize their laws.[1]

As I have written before, the main thing that feminism did was liberate men from responsibility. There are, of course, many honorable men who support their wives and children and protect them (such as my own husband <3). In the past both men’s groups and women’s groups ganged up together to attack the traditional woman. In reality their attack was on all women in general (the most blatant example being the 1981 Supreme Court case of Rostker vs Goldberg). The goal was a complete androgynous society where both law and custom was blind to one’s sex.

Feminists had not only been attacking women, particularly traditional women, in their literature (think Betty Friedan’s “The Feminie Mystique” where she calls housewives a “parasite”) but they set out, though a series of legislation, to force women out of the home. As Mrs. Chancey writes for Ladies against Feminism:

All of this would be bad enough by itself, but the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s did not stop at verbal attacks against wives, homemakers, and mothers. They pushed relentlessly to change laws which both protected wives and mothers and which encouraged men to provide for their own families. They did not rest until they had triumphed through the elimination of the “family wage,” the reduction of tax benefits for single-earner households, and the passage of “no-fault” divorce laws. Sociologist Jessie Bernard (quoted above), remarked that the “very deprivation of assured support as long as they live may be one of the best things that could happen to women” ( The Future of Marriage, 1982). In other words, if men can walk away from marriage easily, leaving women with no support, women will be forced to take up careers whether or not they desire to do so.[2]

This changing of traditional gender roles, sex-neutral laws and women joining the workforce in ever increasing numbers has led women to be deprived of the most precious rights a woman could ever have. Most notably, the right to not only keep her own children, but also the right to raise them. As I have often written, in the earliest days of American history women were not protected from their husbands abandoning them, garnishing their wages- if they did work for money- leaving them on the streets and taking custody of any children they had together. Many in our society still hold onto the belief that this is the way it was all the way up until the time of women’s liberation. Such a belief, however, is false. After the time of the Civil War, many things began to change for women. In the area of child custody, the Tender Years Doctrine was established to where mothers were always granted of custody of young children (save for certain circumstances). It was abolished however, with women’s liberation. It would seem that “in the best interests of the child” would be a victory all the way around. However, rarely is this reality. Taken from the National Organization of Women’s own website (for those that don’t know they were a feminist group established at the time of women’s liberation and fought fiercely for the Equal Rights Amendment as well as stripping women of many other protections and preferences they held under the law):

There is a national crisis for women and their children in the family law courts of this country. Affirmed by experts and leaders in the women’s movement, the existence of this crisis is verified by women in every state who report injustice in their family law cases, especially battered mothers trying to protect their children from abusive fathers who aggressively litigate against them, using family court to stalk, harass, punish, and impoverish their former partners and children. NOW recognizes this crisis for women and their children and seeks to address discrimination against women in family courts.[3]

Also, Phyllis Chesler (you guessed it, a feminist) just published edition number two of her book “Mother’s on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody;” a book which, in the first edition, Gloria Steinem herself proclaimed the book was “Sure to inspire anger, understanding and action.”

Of course, they are not wrong in their assessments. But, then again, didn’t the feminists go around campaigning for easy divorces and abolition of all the laws that protect women? Quoting Graglia:

“Yet, having been taken seriously by every state legislature in the country and with the divorce revolution accomplished, feminists seek to absolve themselves from the blame, as if society should have known better than to listen to them.”[4]

And once again, Graglia:

The feminist quest for female fungibility with males has led the women’s movement to support the invalidation of laws benefiting and protecting women. This was the thrust, for example, of litigation directed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and , often using male plaintiffs, secured invalidation of laws that favored women. The theory was that obliteration of all legal sex distinctions would ultimately be in the best interests of working women; those women, including homemakers, who wished to retain the benefits of protective legislation were never the women with whose rights the Project was concerned. In the area of divorce reform, one of the benefits women have lost is the maternal preference which favored awarding custody to the mother. Almost all states now grant men and women a statutory equal right in custody… In order to secure custody, many women will drastically compromise their financial interests: ‘women who are scared to death of losing custody will trade away anything else- child support, property, alimony to keep it from happening.’[5]

“Among the greatest harms done by contemporary feminism has been its support of no-fault divorce laws that enable men to abandon wives and children with minimum guilt and little monetary compensation. It may seem ironic that through its divorce policy a movement supposedly devoted to women’s interests disadvantages women who are homemakers and favors the interests of males who abjure responsibility for wives and children.”[6]

Of course, when women become the breadwinners for the family men almost always use it to their advantage. For decades now, the more a woman makes compared to her husband, the higher the likelihood they will divorce -although currently only 19% of women make more money than their husbands (up from 4% in the 1970s). Many women not only feel the maternal bond pulling her away from the workforce, but many women breadwinners find that they also end up losing complete custody of their children:

… Julie Michaud, who ran her own business, which supported her family, while her unemployed husband cared for the couple’s 7-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter. As Abrahms writes:

Julie sat helpless as Mark’s lawyer argued that he was the one who arranged the playdates, took the kids to the pediatrician and volunteered at their schools. Affidavits from teachers and neighbors attested to his hands-on involvement in their daily lives. Meanwhile, Julie’s long hours at work meant that people in the community didn’t witness just how much parenting she did out of view. No one saw the lunches she packed every morning, the all-nighters she pulled when the kids were sick. “If I could have done things differently,” Julie says today, “I would have made myself supervisible.”[7]

This story is all too common today. More and more mothers are losing custody of their children and forced to take up the traditional male role of supporting their families (which, before women’s liberation was a burden that only men would bear until feminists, as stated above, went state by state to gender neutralize laws and won Supreme Court cases such as Orr vs Orr to make the rest of the states, who hadn’t already conformed, to do so). Women’s liberation has allowed men to have rights with little to no responsibility. As we have gone over in our blogs and book reviews before, 82% of unwed mothers receive no financial support from the father at all.[8] Most unwed fathers never even marry the mother of their child and never take responsibility until it is convenient for them to do so. Feminism has led women to be used and exploited and taught them that careers are the only source of fulfillment and more every day, our society even sees marriage itself as pointless.

“Our Judeo-Christian civilization has developed the law and custom that, since women bear the physical consequences of the sex act, men must be required to pay in other ways. These laws and customs decree that a man must carry his share by physical protection and financial support of his children and of the woman that bears his children, and also by a code of behavior that benefits and protects both the woman and the children.

This is accomplished by the institution of the family. Our respect for the family as the basic unit of society, which is ingrained in the laws and customs of our Judeo-Christian civilization, is the greatest single achievement in the history of women’s rights. It assures a woman the most precious and important right of all- the right to keep her own baby and to be supported and protected in the enjoyment of watching her baby grow and develop.”[9]

 

Notes:

1. Schlafly, P., Feminist Fantasies. Spence, 2003.
2. http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/You_Don_t_Know_Feminism_744_printer.shtml
3. http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/
4. Graglia, C.F., Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism. Spence, 1998.
5. ibid.
6. ibid.
7. http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/more-fathers-getting-custody-in-divorce/
8. http://www.hausvater.org/book-reviews/153-darwinism-contraception-and-the-decline-of-manhood.html
9.Schlafly, P., Feminist Fantasies. Spence, 2003.

 

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