Tag Archives: feminists and housewives

Why Feminism is not Compatible With the Housewife’s Role

Possibly one of the saddest realities of life today is that few have any faith in marriage to last a lifetime anymore. In these times most people concentrate most on what happens when the marriage ends, rather than the marriage itself (think prenups for instance, most people go into marriage expecting it to end). Marriage consists of competition and mistrust between husband and wife. There is plenty of support for men out there who distrust women and don’t feel safe about investing in the marital relationship or investing themselves in women (as in supporting and protecting women). But what about woman’s role in marriage? Is it safe for a woman to invest herself in the marital relationship? And who is standing up for her role in marriage? The unfortunate answer to this question seems to be nobody. There is really nobody out there standing up for a woman’s role as a wife and mother. The absolute only voice for women revolves around the workforce.

As a woman it’s always my greatest joy just to be a wife and mother. Living a traditional life is what I’ve always wanted to do. It was always my dream to be a housewife and nothing else but I was always ashamed to admit it when I was younger (since we’re told it’s not a career or dependable anymore). Unfortunately as I’ve grown up over the years I no longer see life the same way. I no longer see life through rose colored glasses. Life has taught me the hard way that nobody is going to come to the rescue of a woman and force a man to be a man and do the honorable thing by marrying a woman he impregnates or who’s virginity he has taken. Nobody in our world today is going to enforce a man to be responsible for the financial support of his wife or throw shame on him for abandoning her or failing to protect her.

I still love the housewife role and in my very heart being a wife and mother is all I’ve ever wanted. It’s what I’ve always lived for. Being pregnant and nursing an infant. Even giving birth was a powerful experience. It was so empowering to know that as a woman I could do such a thing. It’s an instinct. It’s primitive, ancient and distinctly feminine. But at some point we all grow up and have to face the world for what it is. My world has for many years been torn between the longings of my heart (which are generally fantasies about being barefoot and pregnant) and the realities of modern day life that women are no longer secure in their roles as wives and mothers.

Like so many others, I too, have fears about truly investing myself in marriage. Just because I have come on here for years expressing the need for tradition and my love for it does not mean I am displaced from the society I live in. It does not mean I’m not a real wife and mother with fears and issues of my own. Occasionally I am upset and tell my husband I want nothing more than to just follow him and worry nothing about his business and the happenings in the world around me. That’s the way it should be. That’s the way it was for hundreds of years. Women knew they could just follow their husbands and depend upon their husbands for everything because the law would hold him responsible for her well being. She could safely follow him and obey him knowing that he would have to take legal responsibility as the husband and head of household. The law would even accept a woman’s explanation that she was following her husband’s orders.

But what about now? If there’s one thing that most women know in our times today it would be that depending on a husband is risky. Where once financial support of the family and chivalry was the man’s responsibility now the law has been bastardized by the feminist movement to say that it should be a woman’s responsibility as well and that instead of husband and wife being one unit they are instead supposed to be treated as barely anything more than two cohabiting individuals, with barely any more status or control over each other than what a boyfriend and girlfriend living together would have. Husbands and wives are no longer legally looked upon as one unit with one head, but as separate individuals who are supposed to be responsible for themselves.

This means that traditional women have no choice. In order to protect ourselves we have to know our husbands’ business. Because if we didn’t then we could be held responsible for what he does. He is no longer given the legal right to make decisions on behalf of his wife and children (unless there’s a very extreme case like his wife being in a coma or something) and the wife is forced to be right there equally (there’s that word again, isn’t it so gorgeously feminist?) participating in what he’s doing and the business he is conducting. Most women today know they would be fools to blindly obey and follow their husband’s orders because they know they no longer have the protection of the husband taking full legal responsibility for being the one in charge.

This is what feminists wanted and now their beliefs are enshrined in law and accepted by all of society including conservatives. So what are traditional women to do? Will we fade away? Even lurking somewhere in the minds of the most traditional among us is a feeling of unease and distrust of our spouse. Feminism and the role of the traditional woman are not compatible. The first step is that society must realize this. Women’s and men’s traditonal responsibilities within marriage must be law if they are to have any meaning. If they cannot be enforced then they are worthless. Married women cannot gain the ‘right’ of being independent from husbands and children without also compromising a woman’s traditional role. Feminism has stolen from a woman’s security and power in her traditional roles to force her to comply with feminist beliefs and grant her power in the masculine realm. And when they can’t get enough force together from women to abandon tradition on their own then they encourage men to “liberate” themselves from their duties. They betray women to get exactly what they want.

Traditional women must be vocal. We have no choice. We must insist that the traditional roles of a man and wife in marriage must be enforced by law. The husband’s responsibility to financially support his wife and take legal responsibility for her (with a few exceptions, the same as the law generally holds parents responsible for their children with exceptions when those children cannot be controlled) must be enforced as well as a woman’s submission to her husband must also be enforced by law. This is the only safe way that both husband and wife can invest in their traditional roles with peace of mind. No authority is a true authority unless it has the power to enforce it’s rule. Likewise no protection is a real protection unless it can be enforced.

As for feminist women? Nobody says you have to get married. In fact, please do us all a favor and stay single and childless. Go liberate yourself and support your own self and stop robbing traditional men and women who want to know the joys of marriage and children of their security.

Suggested Reading:

In Defense Of Coverture

Marriage is Masculinity and Coverture

Advertisements

Married Women Should Not Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Review of “Why We Lost the ERA”

Review of “Why We Lost the ERA” by Jane Mansbridge

I give this book five stars not because I agree with Mansbridge and the feminists (I strongly disagree), but because of the information contained in the book. Written in the late 80s, this book is 100% relevant to women today. This book finely showcases the absolute stupidity of the modern feminist movement. Though Mansbridge does state her opinion quite clearly in the book, she does attempt to keep it neutral when discussing the pros and cons of the ERA. She conveniently tells her readers to go ahead and skip to page such and such twice in the book (probably so her female audience wouldn’t read about how badly feminism has actually screwed them over- I didn’t skip ahead but read the entire thing). She goes on for nearly two hundred pages about all the ways in which the ERA could be interpreted to hurt women and goes into detail about past Supreme Court decisions that could (could being the key word here) effect how the ERA would be interpreted. Pretty much, it would offer no benefit to women the only reason the feminists wanted it was because of what it symbolized (a societal affirmation of the feminist perspective). Never mind that the amendment itself doesn’t even mention women. All it would have done is invalidate all laws that protected and favored women (alimony, child custody, child support, statutory rape, different treatment of unwed mothers and fathers, the draft, combat service, etc…). ERA or not, feminists have continuously gotten it their way, which she mentions in the book. From the book:

 

“From the beginning, ‘equal rights’ meant ending special benefits. An ERA would have made unconstitutional the protective legislation that socialists and social reformers like Florence Kelley, frustrated by the lack of a strong working-class movement in America, had struggled to erect in order to protect at least women and children from the worst ravages of capitalism…Nonetheless, the ERA never came close to passing until 1950 and 1953, when the U.S. Senate passed it, but with the ‘Hayden rider,’ which provided that the Amendment ‘shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereinafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.’ In both years the House of Representatives recessed without a vote. Because the women’s organizations supporting the ERA knew that special benefits were incompatible with equal rights, they had tried to block the amended ERA in the House and were relieved when their efforts succeeded.”

 
“The Supreme Court’s extension of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to include women meant that by 1982 the Court had declared unconstitutional, either directly or presumptively, almost all the laws that proponents in the 1972 Congressional debates had said the ERA would change. The major exceptions were all-male draft registration, which because of the ERA’s legislative history would almost certainly have been declared unconstitutional if the ERA had been ratified, and certain laws designed to benefit women rather than men.” (87)

 
“From the very beginning of the modern women’s movement in the mid-1960s, feminists had been ideologically opposed to, or at best ambivalent about, homemaking as a full time career. NOW’s founding statement of purpose, in 1966, stated:

 
‘We believe that a true partnerships between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support.’

 
While NOW’s word ‘equitable’ was not nearly as strong as the more radical groups’ demands for ‘equal’ sharing, NOW’s ‘different concept’ of marriage still implied an androgynous division of labor, in which men took half the responsibility for child care and housework and women took half the responsibility for bringing in money. This position became not just an implication but an article of faith for later feminists…

 
…The very existence of full-time homemakers was incompatible with many goals of the women’s movement, like the equal sharing of political and economic power. Women can never hold half the economically and politically powerful positions in the country if a greater proportion of women than men withdraw from competition for those positions. More important, if even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are very young…Thus the more full-time homemakers there are, the harder it will be to break traditional expectations that homemaking ought to be a woman’s career. This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole had reasons to discourage full-time homemaking.” (99-100)

 
“The typical NOW member had not been born in Illinois and did not necessarily expect to spend her life there. In my local NOW chapter, many of the members were recent migrants to the city, at least half were under forty, several were lesbians, and many were unmarried. ” (169)

 
“Pro-ERA marches and demonstrations also provided important opportunities for autonomous action. In the early days of the ERA struggle, pro-ERA demonstrations were open to all. As a consequence, almost every demonstration had a socialist and a lesbian contingent, with banners proclaiming their identities as well as their support for the ERA. After considerable debate, NOW decided not to allow socialist and lesbian banners in its ERA demonstrations. While many disagreed with this decision, it was explicit and relatively participatory.” (131)

 
“From the point of view of the movement as a whole, each organization, as well as each individual, was also an autonomous actor…Now could not keep the president and vice-president of ERA Illinois from attending a Republican fund-raising dinner. ERA Illinois could not keep NOW from calling a demonstration in the last days of the legislative session.” (131)

 
“During this moratorium, feminists will need to discuss what would be best for all women in the realms of combat, school athletics, prisons, and sex-blind legislation generally. Since about 1980, as more women have experienced the results of gender-neutral legislation like no-fault divorce and joint custody, some feminists have begun to articulate a critique of egalitarianism that looks much like Marx’s critique of bourgeois equality. They argue that in a society where one group holds most of the power, ‘neutral’ laws usually benefit the powerful group. From this perspective, a constitutional amendment that bars women from using their electoral majority and moral leverage to pass laws explicitly redressing the traditional balance of power may actually help maintain male supremacy. Although the ERA’s direct legal mandate for gender neutrality would probably have been balanced by its indirect political mandate for legislation and judicial interpretations that benefited women, its defeat still raises, in a different form, the questions that Florence Kelley raised in the 1920s. An open discussion of these issues among feminists would probably make some feminists more aware of the concerns that motivated mainstream legislators to vote against the ERA.” (197)

 

 

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