Tag Archives: female sexual superiority

Nobody Can Take That From You

For any wife and mother, never forget that you have a great importance in life- an importance society cannot take from you, though the society might try. Throughout all of history, in every society, the role of a mother has been of upmost importance. No matter what roles men did or did not play; no matter what responsibility they did or did not take, there has always been the mother, at the center of the family and of paramount importance in the raising and bearing of children. A new study may come out every six months trying to convince us that men can nurture young children just as well as women. A string of biased polls might come out telling us women would rather have careers. Children today are often taken from their mothers to be put into all kinds of crazy custody arrangements and men are often seen parading around the local park pushing a baby carriage while their high-earning wives are out to work. It doesn’t matter. The father holding the infant child and nursing it with a bottle can never be the same as a mother suckling the child at her breast. He can never be the same as the woman carrying life within her; life brought into this world from her body and her sacrifice; life that can be immediately nursed from her body even with its life-force while in the womb still attached and connected to her. At best the father nurturing the infant can only be a stand-in for a mother.

It doesn’t matter what crazy scientific inventions mankind has created or how much we try to play God. It cannot take away what God himself has given to women. It doesn’t matter if a father does or doesn’t accept responsibility for his part in procreation. It doesn’t matter that society often loves to hold children hostage from mothers at birth in reward for the woman’s good behavior or that immoral and irresponsible men love to use children as pawns to control women. It doesn’t matter that a woman’s privates are the subject of every political debate around. It doesn’t matter how much a man might want to proclaim you a slut just because he wants to evade the consequences of his actions. He is only, at best, declaring his role to be uncertain and a cultural creation. Don’t ever forget that your role as a mother is biological. It is imperative. It is as old as time itself. Since the beginning of time, nobody alive has ever been able to live in this world without first coming through a woman, a mother. Even if society does not care about mothers nor the sacrifices they make it doesn’t matter. Nobody can take a mother’s importance away from her. You ARE doing your part just by being a wife and mother and don’t ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

Men may have superiority in other ways but never forget, if you are a wife and mother, that God has granted you superiority within the home and the lives of your young children. Never trade that superiority away for equality with men. Never trade that away for a mere career. It doesn’t matter who likes it or who doesn’t. It doesn’t matter what anyone else says. It doesn’t matter how hostile the law becomes towards wives and mothers. It doesn’t matter how much men’s and father’s rights activists scream about the injustice of woman’s sexual superiority and how much they don’t want any responsibility. It does not matter. You are what God made you as a woman and nobody can ever take that from you. Nobody can make you inferior. You, as a woman, have the bargaining power over sex and you can use it to enable you to better fulfill your role as wife and mother. It doesn’t matter whether or not feminist women nor egalitarian men like it.

It does not matter. God gave to women the ability and responsibility for bearing the children. Nobody can take that away from you no matter how much they try. Seasons come and go and the times change, yet the role of the mother has forever remained the same.


Women Deserve Better than Feminism

I feel sorry for the modern woman who was brought up in a feminist society. She has been taught nothing but lies her entire life. Her entire life the myth that women were second class citizens in our past has been fed to her and reinforced over and over. She has been taught to pursue sex as long as the man uses a condom. She has been taught that careers are the true path to fulfillment. But this is not all her fault. No, it is the fault of a culture that does not teach women their true worth. The modern woman will live with her boyfriend, split the bills and give him sex. Yet the relationship won’t last. She will probably bear him a couple of children yet he will never marry her. No, the modern emasculated man will continue to be a child. More than likely in this living arrangement he won’t bother to hold down a steady job. His girlfriend will give him sex, clean the house, have his kids, pump herself full of hormones that wreck her body, and go to work to support the family- he has nothing to worry about. She will be used and tossed aside without ever as much as receiving the prospect of marriage and a home to live in.

The modern woman will never be treated with the same courtesy and respect that her female ancestors (who according to feminists were “second class”) were given for she lives in a society where any man will readily send the mother of his children into the workforce to support the family and will readily see women sent into war. But since men are naturally stronger and more dominant than women are, this is nothing less than abusive. Men are given greater physical (and even some mental) powers over women by nature. So a man who is not chivalrous towards women is abusive. The man who does not take on the appropriate responsibilities that come along with fatherhood and manhood is abusive towards women. As Jesse Powell notes:

“In this way unconditional chivalry provided to women by men is what is fair, is what is equal, is what is just. Any burden imposed upon the woman for the chivalrous benefit is abusive, it is a form of theft against the woman, it is a violation of the woman’s natural rights as a woman, it is an abuse of the power granted to the man as the man is not using the power he is given for the purpose the power is meant to serve. When the man denies the woman chivalry he is using a power entrusted to him on behalf of the woman for his own benefit. This is outright theft.

Chivalry is a collection of powers and advantages first granted to men through inheritance. The man then creates and controls chivalry in order to then give it to the woman. Chivalry is something that men create and men control but it is something that the woman rightfully possesses.”[1]

Modern women need to discard the feminist beliefs that our mothers’ generation were taught. We have seen many in our mothers’ generation live chaotic and stressful lives. Many of them are now middle aged and still out there searching (often times for “Mr. Right” as they have run through so many “Mr. Wrongs” by living a feminist lifestyle). If women are to finally achieve happiness and prosperity we must discard the feminist teachings that are so mainstream in our society today. If a man wishes to lay claim to his children he must be required to marry the mother and take on traditional responsibilities for her and the children. The granting of rights to men without these responsibilities is an abuse of male power. Likewise, society must not tolerate sexual promiscuity and the resulting single parenthood that is so prevalent in our society. Our grandmothers were able to stay home with their children because they demanded and expected it, and also fostered an economy that supported it. We could have the same prosperity if only we too would demand it from our society and from our men.

The purpose of marriage and bringing fathers into the family should be for them to take on responsibilities for women and children so that the mother does not have to perform both the roles of child rearer and breadwinner. Men who depend on a woman to support themselves and/or their children are doing nothing more than abusing and taking advantage of women. It has been well documented all throughout history and almost every society that has ever been in existence that the male role in the family is to provide:

“Similarly, man’s ‘innate need for structure’ can be satisfied in hundreds of forms of organization. The need for structure may explain all of them or none of them, but it does not tell us why, of all possible arrangements, marriage is the one most prevalent. It does not tell us why, in most societies, marriage alone is consecrated in a religious ceremony and entails a permanent commitment.

As most anthropologists see it, however, the reason is simple. The very essence of marriage, Bronislaw Malinowski wrote, is not structure and intimacy; it is ‘parenthood and above all maternity.’ The male role in marriage, as Margaret Mead maintained, ‘in every known human society, is to provide for women and children.’ In order to marry, in fact, Malinowski says that almost every human society first requires the man ‘ to prove his capacity to maintain the woman.'”[2]

Thus it is and has always been the primary role of fathers and husbands (if paternity is to be acknowledged in society) to provide for and maintain women and children. Thus I feel sorry for the modern woman who does not demand from the man she loves and wants to be with commitment, respect, and support.

Many feminists laugh at us for standing up for the “rights” of traditional women. In their view, traditional women have no rights. But they are wrong. Traditional women have many rights, and chief among them is the right to expect support from our husbands and to be protected from the man’s burden of military duty. Traditional women have the right to demand protection and support from the senior men in their lives (namely husbands and when they are younger fathers). Feminists see guardianship of women and patriarchy as oppression of women, yet for the traditional women it is a right. We can look to Saudi women for a magnificent 21st century example. Many of their women do not want to give up their guardianship laws and consider it a right of women:

“In Saudi culture, women have their integrity and a special life that is separate from men. As a Saudi woman, I demand to have a guardian. My work requires me to go to different regions of Saudi Arabia, and during my business trips I always bring my husband or my brother. They ask nothing in return—they only want to be with me. The image in the West is that we are dominated by men, but they always forget the aspect of love.”[3]

Western women used to have such rights as well before feminism swept through and destructed our entire society and ruined male-female relationships. English and American women used to have the right of coverture which was the ultimate act of a husband assuming responsibility for his wife:

“Patriarchal institutions are a two-way street, and if men ever supposed they had the power to control the lives of their womenfolk, they were, in so thinking, obliged to support and protect them. Anyone may choose to dislike the terms of this division of labor, but the consistent misrepresentation of sex roles as as a one-sided tyranny is a myth or, rather, a barefaced lie…

…The husband is bound to provide his wife with necessaries by law, as much as himself; and if he contracts debts for them, he is obliged to pay them…..If the wife be indebted before marriage, the husband is bound afterwards to pay the debt…The husband, at least in law, was the presumed master of the house and, consequently, could be held liable for his wife’s torts, including those to which she had been liable before marriage, and for misdemeanors and certain felonies that were performed in his presence and could thus be presumed to be done under his orders. In criminal cases the husband’s complicity did not have to be proved, and he, rather than the wife, was subject to punishment.” [4]

Calling our female ancestors “second-class” is the biggest lie of our time. Women in our past were cherished and loved. That doesn’t mean things were perfect. No, life is never perfect nor is it ever fair. But feminists set out to destroy any rights the traditional women had. The only rights women have now are the “rights” to work, have casual sex, abortions and be sent into combat to face rape, injury and death. So I feel sorry for the modern woman who believes that these are all good things. Why would the modern woman be so stupid as to trade away everything that makes her beautiful and precious and trade away the chivalry that has guarded women for centuries and the very legal rights that protected her position within the family? A woman does not need “equality” with men to be of great worth. She is already of great worth. Men conquer and they dominate institutions because that is how they prove their worth as men, but a woman already has an innate worth that no man can claim.

“The prime fact of life is the sexual superiority of women. Sexual love, intercourse, marriage, conception of a child, childbearing- even breastfeeding- are all critical experiences psychologically. They are times when our emotions are most intense, our lives are most deeply changed, and society is perpetuated in our own image. And they all entail sexual roles that demonstrate the primacy of women.

The central roles are mother and father, husband and wife. They form neat and apparently balanced pairs. But appearances are deceptive. In sexual terms there is little balance at all. In most of these key sexual events, the male role is trivial, even easily dispensable. Although the man is needed in intercourse…Otherwise, the man is altogether unnecessary. It is the woman who conceives, bears and suckles the child. Those activities that are most deeply sexual are mostly female; they comprise the mother’s role, a role that is defined biologically.

The nominally equivalent role of father is in fact a product of marriage and other cultural contrivances. There is no biological need for the father to be anywhere around when the baby is born and nurtured. In many societies the father has no special responsibility to support the specific children he sires. In some societies, paternity is not even acknowledged. The father is neither inherently equal to the mother within the family, nor necessarily inclined to remain with it. In one way or another, the man must be made equal by society.”[5]

So I feel sorry for the modern woman who would trade away protection, love and superiority to join men in the workforce and in combat. I feel sorry for the modern woman that will give her body to any man outside of the confines and commitments entailed in marriage. The modern woman has been duped to believe that equality with men is the only way that she achieves worth. A woman’s paycheck need not define her worth, nor should her financial contributions to the family. The financial support should be the man’s burden and the man’s alone. If a man cannot step up and assume such burdens then he is not worthy to be called either a man or a father. And similarly modern women are not equipping our men with the tools to be our providers. There are plenty of single women and men to fill up the necessary jobs needed in the market. There is no reason for a married woman to fill those positions.

Most of our mothers are still teaching us the feminist teachings that they were taught. Yet a smart woman can look and see that these things are not good for us. We must marry and we must not waste our youth. Once married we must stay in that marriage until death parts us. We must not give our youth and maiden beauty to a man without demanding that he remain with us even long after it is gone. The giving of our bodies to men should be done within marriage and should entail a life-long commitment. If we married women are set on having a career then we can do it when we are older and the kids are long grown and out of the house. But, even then married woman’s participation in the paid work force should be limited. Only in the most extreme of circumstances will a second or third marriage actually turn out better than the original man that a woman has pledged to spend her life with, no matter how awful or inconsiderate he is. In time he can and will change if the woman demands it of him. We must not leave our husbands even when the marriage is dull or there are marital spats that we seem to be unable to overcome. If we stick it out, we will be better off for it and happier in the end. As women we must always remember that we are precious and our physical and mental attributes greatly separate us from men. Let’s put our marriages first and demand the respect, commitment and support we deserve. Let’s not make the mistakes that our own mothers made and let’s teach our daughters to expect better and our sons to be better.


[1] http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/dominance-belongs-to-men-and-chivalry-belongs-to-women/
[2] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage.” Pelican, 1993
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
[4] http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/09/29/the-wrongs-of-womens-rights-ii-coverture/#_edn8
[5] “Men and Marriage”

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

Where are the Men?: The Case for Male Breadwinners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[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.