Tag Archives: female promiscuity

Why We Need Modesty

I’m really ready to see some more modesty make it’s way back into society. I’m tired of turning on the television and being blasted with feminine product ads and and advertisements with women displaying nude and swollen pregnant bellies. Every year it seems like bikinis get smaller and smaller. I’m tired of the “who’s my baby daddy,” divorce and teenage mom shows. I’m sick of loud mouthed and vulgar women who act like men. I’m tired of female body parts and half-nude women being plastered everywhere one looks. I’m sick of pregnancy and childbirth being openly talked about even among men.

There was a time not too long ago when it was considered obscene for Lucille Ball to be shown on TV late in her pregnancy or for the word “pregnant” to even be said on television and men being present at childbirth was almost unheard of. Not too long ago couples would have said “expecting” instead of pregnant, divorce was something that just didn’t happen, and if it did happen it was considered shameful and something that wasn’t talked about. The word “divorce” itself was considered a dirty four-letter word that just wasn’t said in polite society. Having children out of wedlock was unacceptable for both the father and mother. It was something you just didn’t do, and if pregnancy happened you got married right away and men were expected to provide. Not too long ago women’s fashions were more feminine and more modest and women took pride in their appearance and wanted to look the best for their husbands.

Now women are vulgar, divorce is considered a common good when two people just can’t make things work out. It’s rare for only women to be present at childbirth these days and even conservative women drag their boyfriends and husbands into “childbirth classes” (since when did women need classes for a natural bodily function anyways?) and force them to be present at birth or else the men are looked down upon for not loving their wives or being good fathers. Used to the husband (as well as anyone else who might be in the general area) would be kicked out to wait in the barn or be sent on some errand. But today everyone in general can’t even respect a woman’s body nor privacy and everyone wants to crowd around her with absolutely no respect (is it any wonder labor today lasts an average of hours longer than it did in the 1950s?). There is no mystery anymore nor modesty regarding women’s bodies. Today instead of men respecting women they instead are turned off most of the time because there is no mystery left. Instead of being in awe over what only a woman can do they instead often just say “so glad I’m not a girl, man.” A lot of men don’t even want sex with their wives anymore after watching them give birth and most couples these days divorce after a new baby is born. Take away modesty and male-female relationships are turned upside-down.

Now when it comes to clothing I haven’t always been the most modest. Even today I can be seen sporting a tiny Victoria’s Secret bikini on the beach at times (then usually cover myself more if others come closer). I’ve been known to wear mini skirts, Daisy Dukes and five inch heels before. I’m certainly not “holier than thou” when it comes to modesty. But I do like to cover up. I like my body to be all for my husband, something other men can’t have and can’t see. I believe women would have more respect if they covered their bodies more. Part of eroticism is mystery. When there is no mystery left most of the time men are not only turned off, but they are disgusted. Interestingly enough, I’ve talked to strippers before and have been told by many of these women that they don’t make any more money (in fact sometimes they make less) when they are completely nude than when they are only half nude. Sex is everywhere yet research keeps showing (if anyone can really have dependable statistics on such a thing anyways) that we are having less sex than in previous generations when women were more modest and sex was only acceptable in marriage. Part of this is because of working wives (keep your wives at home men, you’ll get more that way!), but I believe part of it is also because there is no mystery and women are less modest. Sex being readily available and female body parts being plastered everywhere devalues what a woman’s body is worth. The more something costs and the harder it is to get, the more valuable it will be. The cheaper and more readily available something is, the less desirable it will be. I know we’ve all heard this before, but I don’t believe the full effect of what this actually means is sinking in. Many pay lip service to modesty (just the same as they do the value of the housewife’s role) but that’s about as far as it goes.

The media mocks female sexuality and childbirth. It has turned from being something precious and private that was shrouded in modesty to being something openly talked of and shown everywhere one looks. Even small children are exposed to indecent language and sexuality on shows and movies that are supposed to be family oriented and it seems even their parents do not care to shield them from it half the time. It’s no big deal, really! It’s nothing they haven’t heard or seen before! Increases in science and technology have definitely done a lot of harm to traditional morality and left the human race with lingering questions about the human soul and what is ethical and moral. With the internet especially anyone can have access to pornography and other graphic and sexual content with simply the click of a button. How degrading all of this is to women.

Who’s my baby daddy shows and shows depicting pregnancy and birth and divorce are indecent and shameful. Whether they are scripted or not, they show a society that is falling apart all around us, yet we are not shamed and horrified at it, we are entertained by it. Instead of there being outrage at such things there is only rounds of laughter and more indecent talk. Instead of female sexuality being uplifted and honored and young women being taught modesty and the saving of their bodies and wombs for their husbands and how wonderful the ability to give life is the female body is instead degraded and young women are shown that their natural bodily functions are something to abhor and ultimately fear. They should instead medicate their wombs and have careers because pregnancy and birth are only acts that humiliate and degrade them and all marriages end in divorce. These shows not only have a very harmful effect on vulnerable young women who often never had anyone to love them nor teach them right from wrong but also I have to wonder what the long-term effect is on children. It is bad enough that nearly half of children growing up these days will know that they are bastards, but even worse to know momma was a slut and daddy denied his paternity openly and was just as promiscuous. No matter how much we try to de-stigmatize illegitimacy and promiscuity the effects it ultimately has on women and children cannot be washed away. We need modesty.

We need modesty because it makes women beautiful. Modesty means that women are respected by men and respected by society. When it comes to modesty, society must always be concerned primarily with women. When speaking of sex, we generally have to focus on women. Erection and ejaculation are the only male sex acts, but everything of a woman’s body is sexual and designed for a sexual purpose. It is more beautiful to have mystery, but it is degrading for society to openly speak of woman’s sexuality. The more of a woman’s body men are used to seeing in everyday life, the more skin showing it will ultimately take for a man to be turned on by a woman. Modesty protects women. It protects men’s investment in women. It protects women from being abused and exploited and it maintains sexual law and order.

Today young women are taught just to be “ready” before having sex. It’s a new day and age after all and we must forget the old ways. I find it shameful that the older generation of women is not teaching the young women of today how to act and how to be truly modest and the importance of marriage for sex and raising children. Many scoff at the younger generations and at how “out of control” they are but did they ever teach them any different? The younger generation is only a product of how they were raised. Most men and women are never taught one word by their parents or grandparents on their responsibilities in marriage. They are taught nothing about how they should treat the opposite sex or how to get along with the opposite sex and not a word is mentioned about the preciousness of a woman’s body and sexuality and how much more vulnerable she is than a man and how much more important her sexuality actually is.

Traditional femininity is more beautiful. A woman is more beautiful when her sexuality is a secret, when everything about her exudes femininity. I feel more beautiful in a modest feminine dress with a flower in my hair, bare feet touching the grass, being at once part child and part woman than with the heels and the mini-skirt expressing my sexuality and being “empowered.” Without modesty there can be no true respect, love or protection for the female sex.

Advertisements

Do Women Really Want to Smash the Patriarchy?

“Most women are neither cowards nor impotent victims. When society tells them that the rank conferred by a career is all important and that maternal child-nurturing must be sacrificed to it, many will defy society if they believe this not to be so. It has been my experience both as a market producer and mother at home that determined women in our society are very successful at getting what they want.If women want to destroy the remnants of patriarchy and become virtually fungible with men, I believe that- unless a significant number of our effete, attenuated, androgynous males undergo a rapid metamorphosis- women can do so. But before they do, I would have women consider whether their acquiescence in the feminist ideology our culture promotes does not rest solely on an intellectual evaluation of its message. If women do not defy that ideology, it is partly because they do not feel it is wrong. And they do not feel it is wrong because many of them are responding with the constricted emotions of a spiritual virgin.”[1]

Is smashing the patriarchy really what we desire to do? Has it honestly been good for women? The feminists believed that patriarchy was the cause of all their problems and even today they campaign, delivering the same message to women and the public that they were delivering 40 years ago. The revolution swept through Western society and there are no signs that feminists want to turn back now. Yes, they call crisis (conveniently forgetting and refusing to acknowledge that their movement was responsible for creating it) but still hang onto the same ideology that has put women into crisis situations. Before patriarchy forever becomes a thing of the past, maybe today’s women should take a closer look at the harm feminism has brought them. If women listen to the feminists, they will forever feel beaten down and victimized. But, if we set aside the feminist revisionist history and belief system, I believe women might finally come to see things in a different light. Maybe women should give patriarchy another chance.

Feminists’ first fatal mistake was to ignore the inherent differences between men and women- differences that are a part of our biology and cannot be changed. Ignoring these differences had done immense harm to women. Feminists deny female preciousness. They advocate putting women in combat and mothers returning to work as soon as possible after giving birth. They advocate doing away with “the rape culture” by wiping out patriarchy anywhere it can be seen. They advocate that a woman should live with her boyfriend and split the bills 50/50 and that if a woman feels like having casual sex or thinks it could be fun that she should go for it. After all, they insist, men do it so why can’t women? How unfair that there would be a double standard upon women.

Perhaps, if feminists want to get rid of the “rape culture” and the double standard upon women it would be wise to look at some matrilineal societies. In most matrilineal societies the women do all the work. In most of these societies the women may marry who they wish, including more than one man and divorce him as she wishes. Consequently, sex is not taken seriously and in some cases rape is not even a crime. Such as the Mosuos in China, who cannot understand why women in other cultures could ever see anything wrong with such a beautiful thing as sex:

“Sex is practiced freely. They only have to choose a partner to spend the night and only incest is forbidden. Typical marriage and fidelity are something like heresy. Obviously, they don’t seem to present signs of jealousy. The western love tragedies of revengeful and victimized lovers make them laugh. They think the visitor is kidding them ‘How is it possible to end your precious life for something so banal like sex?’

Otherwise, in the Mosuo language doesn’t exist the word ‘rape’ – even if rape does exist – but is less common than in other cultures.

The woman is clearly the center of this culture.”[2]

Yes, clearly. Though this is just one example, matrilineal societies have been quite common throughout human history. Most of the societies that feminists exclaim that women were equal in were not equal societies at all. In Iroquois society, for example, the women might have farmed, participated in politics and controlled their families, but there was no gender equality at all. Well defined gender roles still prevailed. There is quite a distinction between these matrilineal societies and our modern day free-for-all society where the law is blind to gender.

It is not a good thing for women at all if the law is blind to gender because this means that our laws do not protect women. It means all the protections that the law once gave to the female sex are now gone- but all in the name of “equality” and “fairness,” of course. And even when the feminists see that it doesn’t work, they still press forward with their agenda by lying to women and telling women that, if it wasn’t for them, they would be worth less than cattle and go straight back to “second-class” citizenship.

“Like the Soviet reformers, the American family law reformers of the 1960s are now reaping the economic and social consequences of their revolution. But unlike the old Bolsheviks they show no sign of turning back. The revolution in divorce law and in the culture of marriage are perhaps the best example of their intransigence. Feminist thinkers and activists in the women’s movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s assured women that the enactment of no-fault divorce laws would mean their liberation from bad marriages and their economic independence. No-fault laws were passed by nearly every state in the nation soon after 1970, largely at the instigation of feminist organizations. Although there is some dispute about their precise effect on the divorce rate due to the timing of the implementation of no-fault theory, there is now little doubt that they accelerated the cultural trend towards divorce, which only peaked in the early 1980s and has stayed at record levels ever since. What is beyond question is that no-fault has made divorce considerably easier to obtain for the spouse that wants out of a marriage, without regard for the wishes of the other spouse. It essentially transferred the right to decide when divorce is justified from society to the individual, leaving the marriage contract gutted and legally meaningless. After the institution of no-fault divorce laws, says Maggie Gallagher, marriage has turned into ‘something best described as cohabitation with insurance benefits.’

Moreover, making marriages subject to unilateral dissolution resulted in none of the economic benefits predicted by its feminist advocates. On the contrary, numerous studies have shown that divorce usually impoverishes women while enriching men. From 1970 to 1983, just as the divorce rate was going through the roof, so was the number of children living in poverty; 65 percent of that increase occurred in the fast-growing number of female-headed families. And because ‘women’s advocates’ have effectively demolished all remaining protections for women in the law on the theory that the principle of ‘equal treatment’ is essential for women’s advancement, courts are less likely to award custody of children to the wife in a divorce proceeding, which makes women more likely to agree to a reduced settlement in order to retain custody.

As the economic damage that divorce inflicts on women has become more apparent, feminists have stressed that women need divorce-on-demand so that battered wives can escape abusive husbands. The correlation of domestic violence and marriage is simply asserted. In fact, spousal abuse accounts for just 9 percent of all domestic violence. A full two-thirds of male abusers are either boyfriends or ex-husbands. Such data should lead us to strengthen the bonds of marriage, not to weaken them. Of course, the argument that legal obstacles to divorce might result in a wife’s being forced to remain in an abusive marriage is used primarily for its emotional impact. In reality, divorce for reasons of abusive conduct on the part of a spouse was easily obtainable- and was commonly granted- long before the advent of no-fault laws.” [3]

True patriarchies generally protect women greatly. When the husband is the authority figure within the family, he is given the power to protect his wife and children and provide for them. Such a system benefits women well. Women are naturally smaller and weaker than men (the average women is 5 inches- nearly half a foot- shorter than the average man and only has about 60% of the strength of the average man) and therefore are vulnerable to being taken advantage of by men. There are numerous biological differences beyond size and strength that put women at a sever disadvantage when they act and compete the same as men (fertility (including woman’s limited fertility), ability to handle alcohol and vulnerability to STDs and AIDS). Therefore a system in which women do not compete to be equal to men but instead are bound to one man who will protect and support her is a system that works the best for women.

“…Libby Anne is acting as if the concept of men protecting women from other men is an absurdity since if a man is dangerous by virtue of being a man then nothing is gained from an inherently dangerous man “protecting” women from other inherently dangerous men since the so called male “protector” is just as likely to turn around and attack the woman himself once he is given the trusted status of being the woman’s ‘protector.’ The problem with this line of thinking is that some men are more dangerous than other men. The minority sociopath man is more dangerous than the majority socially well adjusted man. The man who has made a high commitment and investment in a woman is less dangerous than the man who only has a casual relationship with a woman. A man who can act as a neutral third party whose primary interest is the well being of the woman, such as a woman’s father, is more trustworthy than a potential suitor who has the obvious self-interest of trying to gain a relationship with the woman. Women are most protected when the most trustworthy and least dangerous categories of men are empowered over the least trustworthy and most dangerous categories of men. The whole point of empowering fathers to protect their daughters from potentially harmful boyfriends and empowering husbands to protect their wives from potentially harmful relationships with other men is so that the men who are the most trustworthy and protective of women’s interests will be in charge.”[4]

When it comes to sex, should women really want to forever be done with the “double standard?” Perhaps the double standard might be a good thing for women. Part of the marriage contract in a patriarchal society is that a woman will only sleep with the man who protects and provides for her and only have children with him. Men also strongly dislike when their partner has many other men to compare his performance to. Generally, the more sexually liberated a woman is, the less interest a man will have in forming a long-term relationship with her. And the more partners she has, the less likely the woman is to have a successful marriage. Men also suffer from sexual jealousy that can, and does, lead to violence against the woman.

“On the basis of his studies of human mating behavior, David Buss concludes that American men ‘view the lack of sexual experience as desirable in a spouse.’ This is so because men ‘place a premium on fidelity’ and the single best predictor of extramarital sex is premarital sexual permissiveness.’ Men rank ‘faithfulness and sexual loyalty’ as a wife’s ‘most highly valued traits’ and ‘abhor promiscuity and infidelity in their wives.’ When a sexual relationship is threatened, claims Buss, women are more likely to feel sad and abandoned, and men to experience rage. ‘Male sexual jealousy is the single most frequent cause of all types of violence directed at wives,’ and most spousal homicide is ‘precipitated by male accusations of adultery or by the woman’s leaving or threatening to leave the husband.’

These facts of life, which are now documented by evolutionary psychologists, were always part of our cultural knowledge. They are facts that feminist sexual revolutionaries chose to ignore. While they and the women who followed their lead obtained what they viewed as sexual freedom- that is, the freedom to imitate male tom cat behavior- they jeopardized their chances of marrying and, once married, of remaining so…[5]

For some feminists, the sex act itself was a reaffirmation of “the patriarchy” as it was seen as an expression of male domination over a woman. Andrea Dworkin presented society with a rather shocking view of the subject:

“This is nihilism; or this is truth. He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied- physically, internally, in her privacy.”[6]

Some feminists responded to this view of sex by forgoing heterosexuality all together. Still some other feminists thought that simply pursing equality and sex on the same terms as men would alleviate it.Germaine Greer taught women that,

“…They must not scurry about from bed to bed in a self-deluding and pitiable search for love, but must do what they do deliberately, without false modesty, shame or emotional blackmail.”[7]

Even though insisting on sexual promiscuity to gain more respect for women, Germaine Greer went on to speak of men’s perverted sexual views of women as “cunt hatred” and insisted that:

“Women have very little idea of how much men hate them. Any boy who has grown up in an English industrial town can describe how the boys used to go to the local dance halls and stand around all night until the pressure of the simplest kind of sexual urge prompted them to score a chick. The easier this was the more they loathed them and identified them with the guilt that their squalid sexual release left them.”[8]

To the feminists sex was to be seen as a casual thing. Illegitimacy was to be de-stigmatized and divorce was to be made easily available. The patriarchy had to crumble. And in so crumbling that patriarchy came many unforeseen consequences.The laws that protected women and favored women were abolished. These laws were necessary protections for women but the feminists campaigned them all away. The consequences of their movement are grave.

Mothers, wives, widows and rape victims have all been harmed by the feminist movement. Running wild has given women no greater freedom or respect. In fact, it has had quite the opposite effect. While campaigning about how much men hated women and viewed women as sexual objects, feminists at the same time insisted that women must join men and accord men sex on male terms. It has never turned out the way they promised for women.

“Not all stallions can be kept in harness, but the feminist response was to abandon the attempt and run wild with the stallions. For women to run wild, however, can be very costly, as many have learned to their regret.”[9]

Perhaps male dominance is not a bad thing when it is directed in a way that protects women. The feminists would rather have women giving their preciousness away to just any man. To carry children casually for just any man whether he has proven himself worthy to be the father of her children or not. Modern women allow just any man to enter her most private space even when he has not proven himself worthy of being her provider and protector- whether he has proven his commitment to her or not. Even the most conservative women have adopted the feminist perspective when it comes to work, sex and motherhood. While Dworkin, in the view of a traditional woman, reaches the wrong conclusion about sex, she does, however, capture the intensity of the moment from the woman’s perspective.

“Dworkin depicts sexual intercourse as a much more momentous experience for a woman than a man…Her depiction might be considered an outrageous exaggeration (many of Dworkin’s critics so characterize it), but I find it a dramatic portrayal-from the woman’s, but not necessarily from the man’s perspective- of sexual intercourse at its best. Dworkin describes an overwhelmingly personal, a truly awe-inspiring, event in which a woman should shrink in horror from participating on any basis even remotely casual. One might think that in her lifetime a woman would meet few men that she considers worthy of exercising such power over her. This may explain why women often invest their romantic relationships with a meaning the facts do not support, endeavoring to convince themselves that the man is what he is not and that the woman means much more to him than she truly does.”[10]

There are few facts in this life that can be changed by a social revolution. When a woman loves one man and devotes herself to him, Dworkin’s descriptions actually become a positive thing for women, as does patriarchy. For, as described above, the patriarchal system at its best allows only one man who has proven himself worthy to be with the woman and guard her to have any control over her. In our world today, women allow many men (live in boyfriends, casual sex partners, bosses and the government) to have control over them. The feminists insist this is freedom and independence for women, but the facts simply do no support their assertions.

Notes:
[1] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p. 328. Spence, 1998.
[2] http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mosuo-One-of-the-Last-Matriarchal-Societies-36321.shtml
[3] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family.” Spence, 2002
[4] http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/mark-driscoll-explains-patriarchy/
[5] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 240.
[6] Dworkin, A. “Intercourse,” p.122. Secker &Warburg, 1987.
[7] Greer, G., “The Female Eunuch,” p. 300. HarperCollins, 1970, 1971
[8] Ibid., p. 279.
[9] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility, p. 241.
[10] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 173.

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

The Case Against Illegitimacy

“In regard to the only issue that I consider properly before the Court, I agree with the State’s argument that the Equal Protection Clause is not violated when Illinois gives full recognition only to those father-child relationships that arise in the context of family units bound together by legal obligations arising from marriage or from adoption proceedings. Quite apart from the religious or quasi-religious connotations that marriage has – and has historically enjoyed – for a large proportion of this Nation’s citizens, it is in law an essentially contractual relationship, the parties to which have legally enforceable rights and duties, with respect both to each other and to any children born to them. Stanley and the mother of these children never entered such a relationship. The record is silent as to whether they ever privately exchanged such promises as would have bound them in marriage under the common law. See Cartwright v. McGown, 121 Ill. 388, 398, 12 N. E. 737, 739 (1887). In [405 U.S. 645, 664] any event, Illinois has not recognized common-law marriages since 1905. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 89, 4. Stanley did not seek the burdens when he could have freely assumed them.

Where there is a valid contract of marriage, the law of Illinois presumes that the husband is the father of any child born to the wife during the marriage; as the father, he has legally enforceable rights and duties with respect to that child. When a child is born to an unmarried woman, Illinois recognizes the readily identifiable mother, but makes no presumption as to the identity of the biological father. It does, however, provide two ways, one voluntary and one involuntary, in which that father may be identified. First, he may marry the mother and acknowledge the child as his own; this has the legal effect of legitimating the child and gaining for the father full recognition as a parent. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 3, 12-8. Second, a man may be found to be the biological father of the child pursuant to a paternity suit initiated by the mother; in this case, the child remains illegitimate, but the adjudicated father is made liable for the support of the child until the latter attains age 18 or is legally adopted by another. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 106 3/4, 52…

The Illinois Supreme Court correctly held that the State may constitutionally distinguish between unwed fathers and unwed mothers. Here, Illinois’ different treatment of the two is part of that State’s statutory scheme for protecting the welfare of illegitimate children. In almost all cases, the unwed mother is readily identifiable, generally from hospital records, and alternatively by physicians or others attending the child’s birth. Unwed fathers, as a class, are not traditionally quite so easy to identify and locate. Many of them either deny all responsibility or exhibit no interest in the child or its welfare; and, of course, many unwed fathers are simply not aware of their parenthood.

Furthermore, I believe that a State is fully justified in concluding, on the basis of common human experience, that the biological role of the mother in carrying and nursing an infant creates stronger bonds between her and the child than the bonds resulting from the male’s often casual encounter. This view is reinforced by the observable fact that most unwed mothers exhibit a concern for their offspring either permanently or at least until [405 U.S. 645, 666] they are safely placed for adoption, while unwed fathers rarely burden either the mother or the child with their attentions or loyalties. Centuries of human experience buttress this view of the realities of human conditions and suggest that unwed mothers of illegitimate children are generally more dependable protectors of their children than are unwed fathers. While these, like most generalizations, are not without exceptions, they nevertheless provide a sufficient basis to sustain a statutory classification whose objective is not to penalize unwed parents but to further the welfare of illegitimate children in fulfillment of the State’s obligations as parens patriae. 4

Stanley depicts himself as a somewhat unusual unwed father, namely, as one who has always acknowledged and never doubted his fatherhood of these children. He alleges that he loved, cared for, and supported these children from the time of their birth until the death of their mother. He contends that he consequently must be treated the same as a married father of legitimate children. Even assuming the truth of Stanley’s allegations, I am unable to construe the Equal Protection Clause as requiring Illinois to tailor its statutory definition of “parents” so meticulously as to include such unusual unwed fathers, while at the same time excluding those unwed, and generally unidentified, biological fathers who in no way share Stanley’s professed desires. [405 U.S. 645, 667]

As Mr. Justice Frankfurter once observed, “Invalidating legislation is serious business . . . .” Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457, 474 (1957) (dissenting opinion). The [405 U.S. 645, 668] Court today pursues that serious business by expanding its legitimate jurisdiction beyond what I read in 28 U.S.C. 1257 as the permissible limits contemplated by Congress. In doing so, it invalidates a provision of critical importance to Illinois carefully drawn statutory system governing family relationships and the welfare of the minor children of the State. And in so invalidating that provision, it ascribes to that statutory system a presumption that is simply not there and embarks on a novel concept of the natural law for unwed fathers that could well have strange boundaries as yet undiscernible…”[i]

“By excluding unmarried mothers and divorced mothers (for the most part) from eligibility, the framers of the mothers’ pension laws made it quite clear that their primary concern was to support traditional families when those families suffer financial difficulties from the loss of the husband’s income. They were also concerned to take no action that would encourage illegitimacy or divorce. In addition to the criteria excluding certain categories of recipients, there were behavioral criteria as well…Only much later, with the welfare legislation of the Great Society were moral criteria abandoned in administering AFDC programs- the direct successor of mothers’ pensions. The subsequent explosion of the illegitimacy rate is a persuasive argument that the concerns of mothers’ pension proponents were justified.”[ii]

————————

Because of the feminist movement and the sexual revolution (which was a product of the feminist movement), we now have a welfare system and a legal system that rewards illegitimacy and punishes marriage. The result is a society that is wrecked. Our legal system is corrupt, our schools are dangerous, children are failing school and turning to crime, and the happiness of women is at the lowest point in our history. In this article I consider one of the main reasons that I believe all these problems are occurring. The main problem, I believe, is the breakdown of our families.

The word “family” is indeed very diverse if we consider all of the cultures throughout history. Every society has had its own customs regarding marriage. Some societies were matrilineal with the fathers (if paternity was ever even acknowledged at all) being occasional visitors with no necessary obligation to support the children and having no claim to them. The most successful and civilized societies have generally been strictly patriarchal, with men having the responsibility to support, protect and lead their families and, of course, the resulting rights that come along with it. Many societies have had homosexual marriages and polygamy/polyandry and a whole host of other living arrangements. In the view of feminists, all of these living arrangements can exist simultaneously. Indeed, their entire movement was about changing our laws and customs to reflect any family arrangement one can think of. All stigma concerning illegitimacy and unwed mothers had to go because, of course, it was “discrimination” and an attack on personal freedoms. The stigma of illegitimacy was one of the first things that had to go in the eyes of feminists because, of course, women must be sexually free and marriage was the enslavement of both men and women in their view. As Germaine Greer stated in 1970:

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

Yet, after a few decades we see the results of these policies and no true analysis of the cultural and legal climate today can reasonably conclude that all has changed for the better. The prime leaders of the women’s liberation movement claimed that women would be better off if they were sexually free and postponed marriage to pursue their careers first. They championed easier divorces and abolition of all the laws that protected wives, mothers, widows and all women in general on the grounds that it was making women second class citizens. In their eyes, if women could leave their families to pursue careers and enjoy equality with men by being sexually promiscuous all would be better. The prominent feminist leaders of the time believed that housework and the care of young children was holding women back. If only society would do away with the “terrible” protective legislation and treat women like men then, they claimed, would women truly be free. Quoting Germaine Greer once again:

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

The feminists have now secured almost every single legal and cultural change they sought, and men’s groups jumped on board to exploit it all to their advantage. Yet, in looking around today at the situation young women, older women, wives and mothers find themselves in it does not look good. I have yet to see a case where the feminist way has actually made women free. Quite the contrary.- feminism has given away a woman’s bargaining power in every area of life. In the old days, many babies were not conceived in marriage but most were at least born into it because of the social and legal pressures on BOTH parties. If a marriage did not take place after a pregnancy occurred the unwed mother would not be entitled to benefits and the unwed father would have no claim to the child. Now that illegitimacy is accepted both culturally and legally, women have lost their power to demand commitment and support from men. Today’s men know they do not have to marry a girl once she becomes pregnant for all the rights and pleasures that were once reserved solely for married men who took on traditional responsibilities for a wife and children are now freely given to them.

Feminism and the sexual revolution has really messed women and girls up real bad. They are pressured into sex by their boyfriends and then forever regret it. Because of feminists the common law rights that once protected young women from male pressure to engage in sex are gone. Traditional laws protected women and sent a clear message to the male that he was responsible. For instance, traditional statutory rape laws punished the man (as he was the only party who would walk free from basically all of the consequences of the sexual act) but protected the young woman. But, of course, this was “sex discrimination” and feminists did not stop until every jurisdiction gender-neutralized these laws.

Another problem we have as a result of widespread illegitimacy is the welfare culture that is turning us into a socialist state where everyone eventually becomes equally poor and equally bad off. For a young woman whose life at home is bad she knows an option available to her is to have a child and collect the resulting welfare that is freely given to her. One can hardly blame a woman for wanting to get out on her own and have a family. I myself understand as I had a child very young. The only difference is that I married the father and now many years later am still married to him and living a very stable life where our children can be raised. But the majority of young women today do not get these options. Generally when a young woman becomes pregnant today the father denies all responsibility or the two simply cohabit for a time and collect welfare as our tax laws penalize marriage and the welfare benefits are greater when couples cohabit and unwed fathers can claim rights at any time they want to regardless of whether they marry the mother or not.

 
It is the old saying of “if you subsidize something you will get more of it. “With a tax system that rewards marriage and strict laws against illegitimacy a young woman could marry the father of her child without losing anything. Moreover, taking away the free pass that unwed fathers get today would lead many to consider heavily the decision to marry the mother and take responsibility for her and the child.

 

 

Now unwed fathers do not have a complete “free pass” as they still are responsible for some child support, but very few actually pay their dues. Men evading responsibility is not a new thing but the feminist movement has stripped women’s bargaining power greatly in this area. The maternal preference that protected mothers of young children in custody disputes no longer exists. A man wishing to evade responsibility today has many options at his disposal that his male ancestors did not. Joint custody laws allow him to completely be off the hook for child support as our laws now assume both parents will then equally assume responsibility for both the care and support of the child (another feminist fantasy that simply has not panned out in reality). Men’s groups were the most adamant about joint custody laws in the late 70s and 80s, often disguising their intentions so as not to arouse opposition from the public, but feminists championed them too as it would “free” women from the responsibility of caring for children all the time so they could pursue their careers and gain equal economic power to men. Also, the threat of a custody battle (where the outcome can never be known as there are no clear guidelines and both parents have an equal shot at custody and even support thanks to the feminist movement) causes many women to decide it is best to just support the child alone.

 
To restore stability to society and protect the sanctity of the family, the current legal and cultural climate must be changed. Illegitimate births must be de-legitimized once again. Promiscuity and divorce is not freedom. Cohabitation is not freedom. A woman will be used and tossed aside. She will waste her youth on a career and cohabiting with several lovers only to find in the end that she is not on equal terms with men and while his desirability may increase with time, hers will not. If a society is to be civilized and prosperous, stigma and penalties must be attached to sexual promiscuity and illegitimacy.

 

 

Notes:

[i] STANLEY v. ILLINOIS, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) 405 U.S. 645

[ii] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 19;28. Spence, 2002.
[iii] Greer, G., “The Female Eunuch,” p. 359. HarperCollins, 1970, 1971.
[iv] ibid., p. 358-359

 

 

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

The Corruptions of Feminism Part I: The Sexual Double Standard

“Unless she is selling sex, a woman will usually attempt to intertwine it with romance. The sex act will somehow be part of a romantic story, whether that story was fashioned long ago and now lives only in the recesses of her memory, or it is still sharply etched in her immediate perceptions. Nonetheless, feminists sexual revolutionaries told women to forget romance, spread their legs like whores, and enjoy equality with men by experiencing sheer sexual lust unenhanced by the mystery and magic of love.”[i]

Sexuality has long been a key concern of feminists and egalitarians. Most notably, they have long insisted that female sexuality is no different than male sexuality and that a woman should have the exact same right to choose not to marry, and instead engage in casual sex while pursuing a rewarding career that will secure her a (supposedly) much better future than the lifestyles of past generations of women afforded them. What has long been a major proponent of patriarchal societies is the inhibition on female sexuality. The “double standard” in sexuality is to overlook male sexual promiscuity and focus solely on attaching stigma to female sexuality. Stigma against female sexual promiscuity is characterized by labeling a promiscuous female as dirty and undesirable and outcasting her from respectable society; generally by imposing undesirable labels upon her such as “slut” and “whore.” Despite feminists convincing women it is men who are the ones inhibiting women’s sexual “freedom,” most of the pressure on women to not be promiscuous has always came from other women.

“In the view of many women, acquiescence in this double standard which feminists attacked for inhibiting women’s sexual freedom always served women’s interests by helping them resist male pressure to engage in sexual activity they wished to avoid or postpone.”[ii]

Women have a much greater stake in sexual activities on many levels than what men do. Obviously, women are the only ones who can get pregnant from the encounter and a woman only has a limited amount of children that she can have in her lifetime and, of course, her fertility will peak at a much younger age. On this basis alone she must choose carefully about letting a man into her most private space. But, beyond these obvious biological differences that set her apart from males, she need also think about her own future.

“[The] gift of easy sex impairs the long-term interests of both men and women by catering to the male’s adolescent pursuit of sex without responsibility. Because it guaranteed men success in this pursuit, the sexual revolution further undermined the breadwinner ethic by inhibiting development of the mature masculinity which fosters the willingness to assume responsibility for a wife and family”[iii]

Eventually, having a committed husband and father for her children will be a priority for most women. And beyond getting the man to commit to her it will also become imperative to get him to stick around long-term and be dependable. But, so long as sex is easily available to men without the commitments and responsibilities that marriage entails and there is a constant pool of sexually available- at least minimally-attractive- women, securing his devotion for a lifetime will be even harder for her. On this basis, there is a great need among women to ensure sexual rules, and thus the sexual double standard.

“Men and women, by the very nature of their biology, have different, and often opposing, sexual agendas. Eventually most women want children and, with them, committed husband and father. Yet so long as there is no readily understood and accepted way for women to say no to men they like and hope to see again, women lose their power to demand commitment from men. In that sense, as women, we are all equal-in our powerlessness. The woman who holds back from sex, waiting for the right one to come along, will find that no right man does-because he can get what he needs elsewhere-just as the woman who gives herself freely discovers that she holds no firmer grasp over him, either. The sexual revolution, from a male point of view, could be summed up as, ‘You mean I get to do whatever I want-and then leave? Great!'”[iv]

Beyond the general need of a woman to initially secure a faithful husband is to ensure that he remains so. Sexual promiscuity on behalf of females (much more than males) drastically undermines the security of marriages already in existence. As George Gilder observed: “This is what sexual liberation chiefly accomplishes-it liberates young women to pursue married men.”[v] And so long as society approves of divorce and there is no stigma attached to it as there once was, the security of marriages will continue to be drastically compromised by sexual promiscuity.

“The effect on marriage is evident. In Britain, as in America, nearly half of all marriages now embarked on will end in divorce, and in the kind of polite society inhabited by our urban elite, marriage has no more legitimacy and invites no greater public respect than a casual liaison. Official documents have been revised to put “partner” in the place of “spouse,” removing marriage from its privileged position in the official culture. Marriage is no longer the socially accepted norm marking the true conclusion of sexual development, but an individual choice, the business of no one save the couple who embark on it.

Hence no shame now attaches to divorce. Serial polygamy is the norm among successful men, and those who lose out from this state of affairs—the women and children whom they abandon—have been deprived of their most important protection, which was the social penalties suffered by the malefactor. Our society lavishes much sentimental sympathy on imaginary victims, whose feckless behavior is the real cause of their misfortune, but it is utterly indifferent to the real victims, such as illegitimate or abandoned children, whose misfortune results from its own refusal to cast judgment on the wrongdoers”[vi].

The double standard is a woman’s biggest bargaining power for ensuring security within marriage and ensuring that she can get the man she wants to be with to marry and commit to her. When women give away sex easily, it tells men that they do not have to take on responsibility in order to have sex or become fathers. “The freer women are sexually, the less interest men have in marriage…[vii] if it is harder to drag men to the altar today than it used to be, one reason is that they don’t have to stop there on the way to the bedroom.”[viii] Thus it serves the best interests of women to ensure that there is stigma against women who are promiscuous and would engage in sex outside of the confines of marriage. It serves women well to ensure that other women do not give away sex easily to men. “To serve the interests of traditional women, therefore, it is necessary to revive the eroded breadwinner ethic, and the primary tool is man’s sexual need.” [ix]

But, feminists, egalitarians and MRAs alike insist that this ensuring of a sexual double standard in order to “trap” men in marriage is evil manipulation. But that is precisely what it must be in order to ensure stable families and thus a stable and prosperous society. Feminists have always insisted that male and female sexuality are fungible with each other, as this fits well within their agenda of obliterating traditional gender roles and getting –and keeping- an equal amount of women in the workforce, specifically in traditional male jobs and higher paying jobs. It is nothing less than a political agenda on their part to rip apart the very foundations of civilized society. But regulating of male sexuality through the regulating of female sexuality is the process through which civilized societies are created:

“In Sexual Suicide and its revision, Men and Marriage, George Gilder describes with keen insight how woman uses man’s sexual need to bind him to her and their offspring, socializing him to work and provide for them; thereby is created the ‘sexual constitution’ of society.”[x] “The crucial process of civilization is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality”[xi]

Many feminists, and women who have never identified with the feminists, have found out the hard way the consequences of affording men easy sex and doing away with stigma against female sexual promiscuity. Not only do young women find that men will not commit and stick around for the children they father, but many women also find that their husbands can easily abandon them when their physical beauty has peaked and their reproductive years are over.

“Many men have enjoyed the fact of women’s increased sexual availability, they have sloughed off old wives and acquired young “trophies” under the sanction of no-fault divorce, they have encouraged abortions–thus avoiding responsibility for children they have bred–and they will willingly see women sent into combat to face the inevitable rape, injury, and death. In the eyes of such men, women are not uniquely precious individuals but only easily disposable sex objects. Contemporary feminism taught that lesson to men.”[xii]

Thus the sexual revolution has ripped up the fabric of civilized society, undermined the security and dignity of millions of women and even changed the way men view women. Feminists denied- and still deny to this day- female preciousness. Sexually liberated women have destroyed the marriages of other women and in so doing have also ripped up their own security for the future. When stigma disappears and society begins to see women as fungible with men, it is the women who ultimately lose out.

Notes:
[i] Graglia, F.C., “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p. 182, Spence, 1998.
[ii] Ibid., 157.
[iii] Ibid., 149.
[iv] Crittendon, D. “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us: why happiness eludes the modern woman,” p. 35. Touchstone, 1999.
[v] http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/antifeminism_quotes.htm
[vi] http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_bring_back_stigma.html
[vii] Graglia, F.C., “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p. 198, Spence, 1998.
[viii] ibid., 162.
[ix] Ibid., 157.
[x] Ibid., 148
[xi] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage.” Pelican, 1993.
[xii] http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar85.htm

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

Feminist Hypocrites II: Feminists Lie to Women, Mothers

Warning: Post contains some graphic material

Feminists have long been taking credit for things they never did for women. In fact, they have actually taken part in removing the very rights of women and mothers they claimed to have given them. They will never acknowledge this now, of course. Second and Third Wave feminists just love to jump on board and say they are an extension of “First Wave” feminism, but in fact they are not. But here is what it has done. Modern feminism has relieved fathers and husbands of their burdens and responsibilities. Loss of laws that protected and favored women gives men an unprecedented power to control women like never before.

“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…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.'”[i]

The main thrust of modern feminism has been to remove laws that protected and benefited wives and mothers in the name of equality. I have plenty of blogs posts about this that I have written. With the current fabrications father’s and men’s right groups like to come up with about women and our modern judicial system I’m sure this might be downright shocking and insulting (the truth usually is). But, I am not exactly known for mild, politically correct blog posts either. My views are generally shocking and insulting to both sides. I’m not interested in approval from anyone or a pat on the back for a job well done. The day approval is what I seek, is the day I should resign from writing as my mission means nothing any longer.

Our grandmothers may have been shamed for having babies out of wedlock, but this shaming helped to ensure protection for all women. Women today are forced to become single mothers. They don’t want to be, but with promiscuity and the granting of rights to men over illegitimate children without them having to take traditional responsibilities causes these hardships. In the past, many women were pregnant on their wedding day. The social and legal pressures on both parties forced them to come together or pay the price. If the man wanted rights, he had to take on the responsibilities of marrying the mother and supporting her for life. If the woman wanted to keep her reputation and be supported she knew she too would have to marry. The widespread availability of birth control and abortion shifts the responsibility from men to women as now men can have easy sex because they know the woman is pumped full of hormones to keep her from ovulating (or trick her body into believing she is already pregnant) and if she should become pregnant, once again it is her responsibility as Planned Parenthood is right around the corner to perform the abortion (the man might pay for it or he might force that responsibility onto her but either way he knows it is not his problem as neither law or custom forces him to take responsibility).

“Our grandmothers might have led more sheltered sex lives, but they also controlled what amounted to a sexual cartel: setting a high price for sexual involvement and punishing both men and women if they broke the agreement (either by forcing them into marriage or by ostracizing them from respectable company). Sexual rules create sexual solidarity among women. If men feel they can flirt from woman to woman, they will. They will enjoy our ready availability and exploit it to their advantage. But if women as a group cease to be readily available- if they begin to demand commitment (and real commitment, as in marriage) in exchange for sex- market conditions will shift in favor of women. “[ii]

The feminist war against women has been a massive one that has wrecked the lives and shattered the very beings of millions of women and children everywhere. Feminists today lie. They say they “need” feminism because of the most absurd issues, such as society’s unwillingness to take rape seriously. Yet feminists have never taken rape nor women’s bodies seriously. Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself and others filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amici curiae in the case of Coker Vs Georgia (1977) to argue that rape of a grown woman was not worthy of the death penalty.[iii] Thirty years later we would see Ginsburg further degrade women as a Supreme Court Justice by joining the majority opinion in the case of Kennedy vs Louisiana in a case involving the rape of an eight year old girl where

“…An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.”[iv]

This is really not so surprising coming from a premier player in the women’s movement who believes that protecting any group of people creates “harmful stereotypes” and the courts now long-gone “paternalistic” treatment of women was subjecting women to “second-class” citizenship.[v]

Today women face hardships that would not have happened in the 1950s. Husbands held responsibilities for, and to an extent authority over, their wives. But lest he wish to support her for life while she continued to live in the house with the kids, he would not leave her. Until women’s liberation a man had to provide the needs of his wife by law. Although coverture was mostly abolished by the end of the 19th century many aspects still remained in law. “Married women’s ability to make purchases on credit in their own name was denied by coverture. [Yet the wife was permitted to be] economically active by pledging her husband’s credit for necessaries (food, clothing, lodgings and medicine).”[vi]

Feminists love to tell us about the terrible days where women were treated so badly and unwed fathers didn’t have to support their children. Yet, they never tell us about the other side of the story. If a man fathered illegitimate children he could claim no rights. Today’s men have rights without having to take on the responsibilities for women and children that come along with it. Few unwed fathers actually support their children (and the feminist movement fought fiercely, winning Supreme Court decisions such as Orr vs Orr that forced states to gender-neutralize family law thereby making the traditional burdens of fathers and husbands the burdens of mothers and wives as well) and the loss of the maternal preference is a wonderful technique used against women to get them to forgo child support altogether in order to hang onto their children.

“Also absent from the discussion was any notice that Steven was not married to the mother. As will be discussed in chapter 4, it has been little more than twenty years since the U.S. Supreme Court, in Stanley v. Illinois, recognized any custodial rights for unwed fathers, much less those equal to the mothers’. This case seems to have given Steven-who never lived with Jennifer and Maranda-the same rights as a recently divorced father who had always lived with them, or, for that matter, the same rights as Jennifer. And no one found this worthy of comment.”[vii]

“The tender years doctrine (or maternal presumption, as it was often called) was well established by the 1920s. By the 1950s in Michigan and all other states it was the law The rule of maternal presumption reflected a universally held belief in the early part of this century that mothers by nature were the more nurturing parent for very young children. In their drive for equal rights in the seventies, many feminists spurned this very assumption, believing it fixed women as second-class citizens in a patriarchal structure.”[viii]

But, not to worry, feminists are on the scene to help. They realize women’s newfound predicament and are seeking justice.

“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.”[ix]

The new wave of feminists seek to carry on the legacy of their woman-hating older sisters still pining for the same “equality” and rejecting “the patriarchy,” yet seem to have developed a convenient case of amnesia. “Yet, having been taken seriously by every state legislature in the country…feminists seek to absolve themselves from the blame, as if society should have known better than to listen to them.”[x] They have contributed largely to many social ills and problems women face. Their support of no-fault divorce laws and abolition of hundreds of laws that protected women largely contribute to the widespread “feminization of poverty” and the way out, they suggest, is affirmative action and subsidized daycare. Never will you hear them admit that they had anything to do with the problem’s women face today.

“No longer concentrating on the oppressiveness of home and family for women, feminists argue instead that, unfortunately, married mothers must remain in the work force to protect themselves from the very likely possibility of becoming single-parents impoverished by divorce. This is a likelihood, they choose not to remember, their movement was highly instrumental in creating.”[xi]

“Enactment of no-fault divorce laws unambiguously warned women to adopt the feminist perspective and replace homemaking with full-time career. The ‘present legal system,’ concluded Lenore Weitzman, “makes it clear that instead of expecting to be supported, a woman is now expected to become self-sufficient…’Thus, as always, feminist ideology converged with the interests of men who would avoid the responsibility for women that traditional marriage entails.”[xii]

Notes:

[i] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.295. Spence, 1998.
[ii] Crittendon,D. “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us,” p.35. Touchstone,1999.
[iii] http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=3131#AmiciCuriae
[iv] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-343.ZO.html
[v] Cushman,C. “Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights” CQ Press, 2001.
[vi] http://economics.ouls.ox.ac.uk/13127/1/Item.pdf
[vii] http://www.law.berkeley.edu/3158.htm
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/
[x] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.296. Spence, 1998.
[xi] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.296. Spence, 1998.
[xii] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.136-137. Spence, 1998.

 

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