Tag Archives: husband head-of-household

Too Much Interference in the Family

There are way too many people making decisions regarding the family these days. This is always the inevitable result of family breakdown. All too many children are born illegitimate then everybody and their brother wants to jump in and get involved with the child and everybody seems to think they have some kind of rights. This is all too obvious these days in that increasingly the grandparents want to get involved on their son’s/daughter’s behalf (usually their son’s as maternity and the role of the mother is really never in question or in dispute but just a given fact) and it becomes a complete circus. In the past they might have gotten involved to force the issue of marriage but now they get involved just to help the parents fight and get their way. In addition so many children these days are being raised by grandparents and in all kinds of crazy situations. There is no clear authority in families anymore. Indeed there really isn’t any family anymore- just a bunch of broken pieces loosely strung together.

In reality a return to basics is in order. Strong families and the husband as head of household is a system that needs to be returned to. A wife should put her husband above all others and depend upon him. His authority is greater than all others’, including the wife’s own father’s (as he has given her away he no longer has the authority over her), but increasingly it seems that married couples have trouble bonding and forsaking all others and still allow their relatives to have authority and still turn to them for advice or their needs. As well, the advice and opinions of friends are often given too much priority. The husband should put his wife first. She comes before anyone else and he should never allow anyone to hurt his wife or attack her. She must come first no matter what anyone else thinks or says. He is responsible to protect and guard her from harm, even if it means protecting her from his own relatives.

There is way too much interference within families these days both from outsiders and the federal government. The husband should be responsible for his family and it is his right to run his house the way he sees fit. Excluding certain circumstances, it is not the business of anyone else to come into his home and tell him or his wife how they should be living their lives or how they should be raising their children. Since there is a lack of authority in families everybody seems to think they have a right to decide on what is in the best interest of the family or the children. That’s what happens when men stop being in charge and wives and mothers go off to work. If there is any internal or external problem within the marriage it should be the husband’s responsibility to deal with it, unless he cannot deal with it.

The bureaucratic agencies set up in every county supposedly for the welfare of children are in reality nothing more than institutions designed for the breakdown of the family unit and are constantly used as weapons by outsiders to try to interfere and insert what they perceive to be their “rights.” Can’t get your way? Have a vengeance against someone? Just call [insert name of bureaucratic agency designed for the destruction of the family unit here].

Although legal marriage doesn’t mean much these days, there are some benefits and protections that legal marriage offers that cohabitation doesn’t- at least in most jurisdictions. That is why the institution of marriage has been constantly under attack for over a century and is still being attacked today. Illegitimacy and family breakdown always open the door for everyone else to step in and think they are going to have their say or get their way. As Jesse Powell once told me “corrupt partially enforced responsibility is better than no responsibility.” Marriage offers some safeguards and at least represents a higher commitment. In some cases it serves as a buffer against outside interference, in particular where children are concerned. If society turned back to seeing marriage as essential for raising children and having respectable sex then the laws would surely change as well to strengthen marriage and the family unit.

Advertisements

How Much Authority Should a Wife Have?

The father is ultimately the head of the household, but that does not mean that the wife has no authority whatsoever. While the husband has the authority and the responsibility to rule over the family and make decisions regarding the family (including decisions about his wife and children) the mother is the one responsible for caring for her children everyday and she does have a certain level of authority over them. It is the woman’s job to care for her home, her husband and her children. She is responsible for making sure her children eat, dress and behave properly and she is responsible and has the right to punish them as well for their misbehaviors. The father, of course, does teach his children and discipline them too, but men are not always around and it would be unreasonable if a wife had no authority within the household to make day-to-day decisions regarding the running of the household and decisions regarding the children. It would be unreasonable for a child to always have to wait and ask daddy for every little thing.

A father, of course, should have the authority to overrule decisions his wife makes about the household and children, but regarding normal everyday events he should not do so unless he is really against or feels strongly about some decision the wife has made. A set amount of authority and responsibility has already been given to wives and mothers and her authority should be acknowledged. For instance, say a child wants a cookie and mother says no. It would be contrary to the best interests of the child and counterproductive if the child could then just run to daddy and have daddy say “oh it’s alright son go ahead and have a cookie.” (This is also yet another reason why divorce and family breakdown is bad because kids know they can just run back and forth between parents and between households when one parent won’t let them have their way). It is also appropriate for a father to say “ask your mother” regarding the smaller everyday life decisions (such as “can I have a cookie” and other small issues of the sort). For the most part, these kinds of small everyday issues should be mostly left to the mother as she watches and guards her children’s daily behaviors and sees what they eat and what they do everyday more than the father does and thus she would know best in most cases whether it was appropriate for the child to, say, have a cookie or if the child, for instance, does not need a cookie because the child has already consumed to many sweets or unhealthy foods. (Yes, I know I’m using the cookie example a lot but it was the first issue that popped up in my mind writing this and it’s a common everyday issue with kids as they always want treats). A husband and wife should, for the most part, be in agreement with each other about everyday issues so children cannot play one parent against the other just to get their way. A husband should already have a pretty good idea what his wife would say about an issue and vice versa. A wife has to have a certain amount of authority that is consistent with her daily responsibilities of raising up and caring for her children and the household.

Regarding the bigger events, the father should really be the one to make the decisions. This will vary some between traditionalist households. For instance, I would tell the little one it’s OK to run over and visit a friend without consulting my husband as that is a small everyday issue and is in my general domain of authority. If the husband has a problem with his child going over to visit a certain kid or family that’s a different story, however, and he should have the right to disallow his children to visit a certain household despite the wishes of his wife. I don’t really get involved in whether or not the little one can spend the day with his relatives or whether she can go on school field trips and the like. Those are bigger decisions that don’t need to be decided immediately (and if they did I would still call my husband about it).

Regarding other issues besides the children, I don’t really have a lot of authority over them. My husband controls all of our finances as he is also sole provider and makes all the money as well. I do not contribute financially as I do not believe it to be my responsibility and any spending money I do get I use for extra things for myself, the little one and the house that my husband cannot always afford. I believe my husband does have the authority to tell anyone to leave our home even if I do want them to stay and I believe he also has the authority to forbid me from going somewhere or doing something. If he ever wanted/needed to move somewhere else I’d go with him even if I wasn’t necessarily happy about moving. I think it would be going too far for him to control every tiny detail of my life, such as the smaller issues such as me wanting to wear a certain dress or pair of shoes or have a glass of tea after dinner or use a certain kind of soap to bathe with or something. Of course, sometimes he does tell me not to wear something, so,(after a lot of pouting), I won’t wear it. Usually the general intent isn’t just to micromanage my life, however, but there are instead other reasons why he might tell me not to wear or do something. There are some circumstances where a husband might tell his wife not to do some small thing, such as maybe he believes it might be harmful in some way or that she might hurt herself.

I do the things I wish to do everyday and enjoy the hobbies I love and wear things I like but I still stay overall under the control and protection of my husband. I do not believe in equally making decisions with my husband. I make some small decisions with him but most of the things he does or where he goes I don’t even really know much about. I don’t really get involved much in any of his affairs and, of course, I don’t have any control over what de does for the most part. I might not like that he doesn’t always eat healthy or something like that but there’s nothing I can really do about it and I don’t try to either. I have demanded respect or that he grow up or similar things in the past and I consider that completely appropriate for a woman to do. A man is to love, cherish, protect and support his wife and it is his role as head of household that enables him to do that. A woman can make some decisions, but her husband can overrule them. A man should rule over his wife for her protection and for the best interest of the family. If done for any other purpose or for his own selfish interests then he is in the wrong.

Female Economic Independence and Failed Marriages

I am going to share a few personal details of my life and past in this post. Normally I keep my personal life more private but sometimes I write about my life in the hopes that it can be a help to others and to the cause of bringing back traditional gender roles.

***

When both parties are independent, it’s easier to walk away. It’s easier to start a new life somewhere else. I’ve never been independent in my marriage and really not even before then. I know that it has made a huge impact not only on my marriage but also on the quality of it. My husband hasn’t always been the ideal husband. In fact, he has even technically been abusive before. We were very young when we first married and things were certainly not ideal at first. We had a lot of problems. A few months later I began to suffer from hormonal and emotional problems from just having had a baby and because I tried hormonal birth control which really messed me up worse (I will never take birth control like that again as I know it is harmful and I can’t conceive anymore anyways. Actually, I don’t even remember having any problems until I started taking the birth control). It didn’t help matters any that my husband wouldn’t protect me. Not only would he hurt me but he would let others hurt me as well. In a few instances he even allowed others to come into our home and hurt me and he wasn’t man enough to stop it. I didn’t know what else to do so I went to visit my mother for a while. I was only there three days when I asked my husband to come for me. However, he wouldn’t. Instead he abandoned me. Since he wouldn’t come for me and bring me home I waited until my mother could get me home as my husband had given me no money to make it back. I think it was about a week and a half before I could get home. I came back to our home because I had nowhere else to go. I really loved my husband despite whatever he had done to me and, besides, I had nowhere else to go. I had no money and no way to make it on my own. Getting into another relationship with another man was also out of the question. Being out of the workforce there was certainly not ample opportunity to go around flirting with other men or run around without my husband knowing it (not that I would anyways).

Well, my husband did come back to me a couple of days later (much to the chagrin of some of his relatives). I had no options but to stay and I’m sure that somewhere in his mind he knew that. I’m also sure my need for him kept him from really ever leaving and staying gone. I was willing to do what he said in regards to our child (I did as he told me and left her at the house with him while I went to my mother’s) but I knew as well as he did that he did not want to take care of a young child full-time. Our house was a wreck, of course, and he left our child with his relatives to care for while I was away.

I think maybe if I would have had a paying job or career that things might have turned out different for us. There is every probability that we wouldn’t be together today if I was independent from my husband. If I had had paid employment I could have just gone and stayed somewhere else. I could have just said “fine you can talk to my lawyer you jack***.” If I didn’t believe in the husband being in charge then I probably would have fought him until it destroyed both of us and our family. We probably would have been divorced today and it’s possible we might be on marriage number two or three each by now and our child torn between two warring families and having several different “mommies” and “daddies.”

I know there have been times I have been so angry and upset that I have wanted to leave, but where would I go? How could I go? Even going on a weekend vacation is out of the question for me. As well, my husband has matured over the years. Although I did obey what he told me in most areas, I absolutely refused to go get a job even though in the first few months of marriage he did pressure me to. I told him no. I told him I would not carry his responsibilities and that we had a young child and that he needed to support us. He wanted to insist that it took two incomes and it was “so hard” for him to support the family alone but still I refused. We are still here years later. We’ve never lived under a bridge and two incomes have never been necessary.

I think it weighs on a man’s conscience more if he knows his wife is completely dependent on him. For the dependent wife leaving an unhappy marriage is harder because she literally doesn’t have that option, unless she wishes to enter the workforce and make her own way. If she has been dependent upon her husband for years her options for money-making will be limited and the very prospect of going out and working is undoubtedly a scary thing. I know for me it is. I think a husband feels a greater weight of responsibility (that also makes him grow up and mature) when he knows his wife is depending on him and needs him. I think that makes leaving harder for him as well.

I think it’s no coincidence that divorce rates went up at about the same rate as married women working did and divorce rates have gone down slightly since women have been leaving the workforce. Some couples will make it a lifetime having egalitarian marriages, but for the culture overall it just isn’t working that way. I think a wife depending on her husband can breed love even where before there wasn’t much love at all, or the love was dying.

I’m not a complete saint and my husband can be cruel to me sometimes. I know I provoke him to anger sometimes and I am guilty for that. But, overall, the marriage still “works” because it has to. There is no other option. Even if I am unhappy at times and really just hate him I can’t leave. I need him even if I am unhappy or angry so I still stay close by and do what he tells me to do. Besides, he’s not the way he was years ago. I made him accept responsibility as a man and he grew into that role. If I ever tried to leave today I have no doubts that he would come after me, or, more precisely, wouldn’t let me go to begin with. Me being dependent upon him also changes the way he views me. I know he sees me as being his responsibility so he won’t let anyone hurt me or confront me about anything. Not only does he not pressure me to ever go to work, he won’t allow me to. There has never been any more trouble with others coming into our home attempting to interfere because my husband has long made it clear that nobody is going to intrude into his household and if somebody has a problem they can take it up with him, not me.

I think female economic independence gives both men and women an easy way out of marriage and out of their duties within the family. If both spouses are “equal” to each other then both can go their own way at any time and aren’t as concerned about each other. The man doesn’t assume control of the family nor responsibility so whatever his wife does is her own business and he feels no shame or guilt for leaving her on her own because she never depended on him in the first place. If she is his “equal” then he sees nothing wrong in treating her just like he would another man and he doesn’t see any need to treat her with more consideration or treat her more gently or lay down his own life for hers or be concerned with her support or protection. It gives men a free pass out of responsibility and allows women to run wild and marriages to fall apart (or never form in the first place).

Also, when the husband is not the head of the family it allows other relatives and outsiders to interfere and help break apart the family. If a woman is not submitting to her husband then she might believe her friends or relatives and listen to what they say instead of submitting to her husband and trusting him. If he is responsible for her, she can trust him because he’s already proven that he’s looking out for her best interests by providing for her and protecting her so whatever anyone else has to say about the marriage, her husband or what she *should* do will not be taken seriously in most cases. I can testify to this personally. Although I love my relatives and care for them I won’t go against what my husband says even if it means never talking to them. The tradition of our culture is for the bride to be “given away” by her father (or sometimes another man close to her will give her away) and given to her husband. In today’s world this means very little. It’s just one of those traditions we still cling to in ceremonies but it has no real meaning to our culture or our personal lives anymore because females have overall become independent of men both socially and economically. However, the giving away of the bride has a real symbolic meaning. Where once it was the obligation of her father or other male relatives to support her and protect her, at marriage she is now given to her husband and he is to assume responsibility for her. The man is not given away because men are supposed to protect and support themselves. There is a difference in hierarchy with the husband expected to “be a man” and assume a greater level of responsibility. I saw someone decrying the giving away of a bride at marriage as a “sexist” tradition a couple of weeks ago. Indeed, it is. But that is the intended purpose and the way marriage and society functions best.

A Woman Should Not Get Involved In Her Husband’s Business

A wife getting involved in her husband’s business should ultimately be looked upon as a bad thing. Men used to be shamed if their wives worked and a married woman getting involved in business was frowned upon. I see a lot of women whose husbands have home businesses and in almost every case the wife is working full-time in the business (most generally by sitting in an office all day). But a wife getting involved in her husband’s business is still engaging in paid employment. She is not dependent upon her husband but rather she is a business partner with him, and this removes her from her traditional role. It is a husband’s job to fully financially support his wife. A husband asking his wife to work in his business or contribute to it full or part-time in a significant way is an assault against her traditional role and an assault against her right to be supported by her husband. It is one thing to ask the wife about something she may be skilled in occasionally but another for her to be involved fully or partially in his business. Any activity or work that goes towards the provision for a family is the husband’s responsibility or the responsibility of the adult males in the household (say if there was an older or adult son of working age still at home).

For the most part, a wife should stay out of her husband’s business. Under coverture, husbands controlled property and money and were fully responsible. For the most part, what the husband does is his own business and he should not be obligated to explain himself to his wife. He should be held fully financially responsible for whatever occurs or whatever he does. It is his responsibility to support the family and he should be called to answer and be held responsible for whatever the outcome. The working world should be seen as “men’s business,” as should political affairs and, although single women have always been able to have their careers and independence if they so chose, women should, as a general principle, stay out of it. The wife can spend her time engaging in feminine pursuits, chores around the house, caring for children and others, being social (or not), engaging in hobbies that interest her, and being there for her husband, children, family and friends when they need her.

A woman should leave the working world to her husband and a husband should not involve his wife in his business and affairs. A man asking his wife to engage in productive work which goes towards the provision of the family is asking for his wife to help provide for his household, which is also to say he is asking his wife to help provide for him. Truly masculine men do not need the protection and support of women.

Related:

married women and home businesses (tag)

The Provider Role Belongs to Man

Recommended:

Alexis de Toqueville on American Women

William Blackstone on Coverture

Enough of This Home Business Business

Being a traditional woman means to be financially dependent on one’s husband. Traditionally, the working world was seen as “men’s business” and married women were shielded from the necessities of earning a living. I see women all the time who just simply cannot leave well enough alone. They simply cannot understand anything other than earning a paycheck. Even conservative Christians try to interpret the Bible to something pleasing to modern-day standards. For instance, I see all the time stay at home mothers who are Christians interpreting the Proverbs 31 woman as the ideal and saying that, if applied to the modern day, it means a woman should start a home business (as well as bear children and take care of the house!). A woman making her own money would be a financially independent woman no matter where that money is made. That would make her consistent with the feminist ideal for women. Also, a woman working everyday at her husband’s business would make her a business partner with him and not dependent upon him. Even conservatives promote the feminist ideal for gender relations and this has been going on for a while now. As George Gilder observed in his book “Men and Marriage:”

“As a critique of the feminist movement and its politics, Sexual Suicide now seems less telling. But the central themes of the book remain vitally important. Though rejecting feminist politics and lesbian posturing, American culture has absorbed the underlying ideology like a sponge. The principle tenets of sexual liberation or sexual liberalism-the obsolescence of masculinity and femininity, of sex role, and of heterosexual monogamy as the moral norm- have diffused through the system and become part of America’s conventional wisdom. Taught in most of the nation’s schools and colleges and proclaimed insistently in the media, sexual liberalism prevails even where feminism- at least in its antimale rhetoric- seems increasingly irrelevant.”

Sanne at Adventures in Keeping House, also sums it up perfectly in this post (comments section):

“As I see it, the problem often is that nowadays people see men and women as interchangeable. They are supposed to have the same interests and fulfill the same roles in society. Often, even conservatives who claim that they are pro-family will state that as long as one of the parents has to stay home, it’s O.K. and it doesn’t matter whether it is the father or the mother. On the other hand, the fathers who work long hours are criticized by the same conservatives for not contributing to raising the children. Excuse me, but the father who works hard and enables his wife to stay home is contributing enough, even though he doesn’t change the diapers!

I say men and women are different, and should be judged according to a different standard to some point. Long live sexual dimorphism!”

Before feminism men were required to financially support their wives. It was a man’s duty as well as a legal obligation. Our culture has lost this ethic entirely as the breadwinner ethic has been entirely eroded. A lot of women today are trying to gain respect for stay-at-home wives and mothers yet they are still focusing on teaching women how to make money from home. It’s still egalitarian; it’s still feminist. The point of marriage is for men to provide for and protect women; to take a woman out of the workforce so that she may be home and care for her children and others.

Also another thing that has gone out of our culture is that men, not women, are supposed to head households. When the provider ethic was the strongest (before the 20th century) it was also the oldest son, not the mother, who took over temporarily as being the head of household if the father was absent or away on business (assuming he had reached a certain age of maturity). It seems so odd and strange to us today (indeed it might even seem a little twisted and backwards) but the idea was that men had an obligation to protect and support women and that men should be in charge and take financial responsibility unless there was simply no other choice and those burdens had to fall to women. A woman’s closest male family members were also charged with her protection. This included her brothers and close cousins as well and it was not unusual for a woman to be financially supported by her adult brother if she was unmarried or widowed or for her brothers to take an avid interest in any man who might come calling on her with romantic interests.

It is clear to see that family breakdown began to be the norm at around the 1970s, when equal support obligations began to be laid upon wives and mothers and sexual promiscuity and divorce became common and accepted. Even conservatives do not promote sex roles anymore. A home business is still a business. A woman making money from home (unless it’s an occasional thing) is still being a co-provider. She is still adopting feminist ideology for her and her family. That is not traditional, it is egalitarian. We need to return to the cultural ethic of men being providers and protectors of families, not women. Being a traditional woman means depending on your husband, not finding ways to still be a co-provider while changing diapers and mopping floors.

Recommended:

Proverbs 31 Feminist Woman