Tag Archives: male authority

I Don’t Care About Money

I came home Sunday with plentiful money from work, but I didn’t care. I did nothing but cry the entire way home, in fact. I didn’t care about the money at all, because it’s not like it was making me happy. My first thought was to come home and throw all the cash to the wind. Within only a few days of having paid employment I’ve been able to put a lot of money back in savings, and while it’s nice to have, I really don’t like it.

We live in this world that tells women to go out and work and be independent. It amazes me as much as it sickens me the way our society is. It isn’t even thought that a man should be providing for his wife or that men should take care of women. Just suggest such a thing, and you have a mental disorder. Just suggest there are differences between men and women or that men should provide and you could start a damned riot (it’s happened).

If you look at family law, it makes no distinctions between sex. Instead of marriage being seen as an institution for men to provide for and protect women and children, it’s some genderless institution now were spouses provide for *each other.* The whole idea of marriage being about us providing for each other just makes me feel kind of sick. It makes me lose respect for marriage, for men, for society. Most people just cohabit these days, proving all the more that marriage has lost the deeper meaning that it once had and anyone who truly believes it has nothing to do with women having careers is retarded.

I know what I’ve always felt, that I wanted to bond with a man who would provide for me and take care of me. My senses are very dulled now. In some ways me going out and taking on paid employment (for the first time EVER in our marriage, and we’ve been married since I was practically a teenager) has helped the marriage because it’s confirmed what I’ve always felt in my heart and it’s made my husband become angry and want all the more to get up and stop acting like a wimp the way he had been acting. It’s also worth noting that I only took on paid employment to separate from him, lending further credit to the claim that women having careers is damaging relations between men and women and undermining the true meaning of marriage.

People look at me strange that I would be as old as I am with no career and little to no work experience. The good news for me is that everyone unanimously thought I was no older than 19 or 20 years old (my employer even asked if I was old enough to be serving alcohol over the phone (she didn’t have my app in front of her at the time to see my real age)).

Nobody believes I’m truly as old as I am, which also confirms that living a traditional lifestyle has preserved my youth, preserved my innocence and beauty and kept me more feminine. (It’s probably one of the best anti-aging secrets ever. Just be feminine, just be happy and joyful and full of love, depending on a man and admiring men in general and focusing on keeping fit and feminine and doing housework and helping your man and being there for him).

Guess what? I don’t care what people think. I feel no shame in not having had a career. If they reject me for that, it’s their problem. I don’t care what my mother or anyone else in the world thinks. I don’t want to live the way they do and have the disastrous relationships they’ve always had. I’m much happier being feminine. I take pride in NOT being a career woman. If anyone asks me I’ll simply tell them that I never believed women should really be out there working. We’re women, there’s no shame in being weak, or even unsuccessful for that matter. Being docile, being weaker, depending on a man, being soft and receptive are all feminine traits, and they are nothing to be ashamed of.

I think it’s better if us girls marry real young and stay under the protection and authority of a husband. It PROTECTS us. It keeps you from getting hurt by other men or swayed and it keeps women from running wild to their detriment and the detriment of families and children.

Is there really a better life to be had otherwise? So what if you marry real young and have a kid or two young and stay home? Are women really much happier screwing around and wasting their youth and beauty on men who don’t deserve them, don’t cherish or provide for them while they go pursue some meaningless career that won’t amount to anything true and real in the end?

While everyone likes and needs money, after a certain point, once your basic needs are met and you are comfortable, more money won’t make you any happier. Is the point of life really to make a six-figure salary especially when as a woman it’s not going to do anything for your sexuality or better your chances with anything other than some “weak” man who wouldn’t cherish you as a woman, for everything feminine and unique about you? And as a woman do you really want a man that needs or wants your money? A man who isn’t strong enough to provide for you or protect you, both from immediate danger and from the harshness of the world (which includes the burden of working out of the home)?

Yes, I have a paying job right now, but I don’t like the idea of it. Our daughter is moving into her preteen years (almost) so the burden of childcare isn’t what it once was, but just the simple fact that I have my own money means I don’t NEED my husband to provide. Yes, he provides for me still fully, but it feels more like I’m simply letting him do it, instead of truly relying on him and needing him to do it. I also know that I’m still needed at home. Who cares what the world thinks, a woman’s husband is supposed to be her authority. If she keeps the home and stays there, she only focuses on him. What others think doesn’t matter.

I get depressed at work. Thoughts keep running through my head that I should just go home and focus on the house and just be what I’ve always been, which is simply a wife and mother. I figure for now I’ll stay there as I’ve made friends and feel like I have a home away from home. I don’t know. I just figure I’ll stay unless or until they want to let me go or something happens in life where I know it’s truly time to quit and come home.

My husband does not like me working and does want me to come home. I’m not sure if I’m ready to come home though. I just don’t know. This is all very hard for me and very new. I just want to be the feminine woman I once was, keeping the home and loving my family with the same childlike innocence and demeanor that I always have, unconcerned about the outside world. I don’t care about independence. I don’t care about equal pay or any of the mainstream women’s rights bullshit. And I don’t give a damn what anyone thinks of me. Their comments about me “getting a job” will not sway me, because I know who I am as a woman. As odd as it might seem, I don’t get into those kinds of conversations. There is no need. I just simply smile if anyone ever makes a comment about me having a career. I just simply let my femininity shine through and speak for itself. And trust me, men really don’t give a shit about your career, but they do care about your femininity.

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.

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.

The Poison of Feminism is Deep in Society

After a brutal rape, I became pregnant. Doctors told me to abort. My husband and I did this instead.

What on earth is wrong with society today? This guy’s wife was out traveling abroad on a business trip, they already have two children and she gets RAPED? Wow men today are really true men aren’t they when we have married mothers traveling abroad for their career, away from their husbands, and have no male protection whatsoever? Maybe if she would have been a housewife or at least stayed under the wing and protection of her husband she wouldn’t have been raped. In our screwed up world today it’s even possible her rapist could interfere into the marital union by petitioning the courts for custody or visitation even that’s how screwed up society has gotten. Not only are women out there being independent after marriage instead of becoming one with their husbands but the laws don’t even protect the marital unit or operate in the best interests of the family. Sad though that even conservative Christians who are supposedly “pro-family” don’t even mention the harm that has been done to the family unit and don’t even give a care about marriage being about men providing for and protecting women. Also, this woman is kept practically locked away for days and her husband has no authority whatsoever over the situation nor authority to protect or be responsible for his wife. Of course, I only take whatever I read on the news half-heartedly as most is biased anyways and only tells half the truth (whether liberal or conservative news) but still this is the terrible shape society and the family is in toady nonetheless.

Yes, High Numbers of Women Working IS a New Thing

On the one hand we are told that women were always oppressed in the home and never allowed to have careers. Now after the feminist movement historians have been trying to constantly convince us that women “always” worked and the 1950s were some kind of cult of domesticity where women were forced to stay in the home but before that women were always out in the workforce and plowing the fields and were always “equal partners” with their husbands so feminism wasn’t really even necessary after all because women have *always* worked. One can read a five hundred page history book today and most generally the authors will spend half the book talking about “male divorce power” and the sexual double standard and how adultery was never a crime for husbands, only for wives and so on and so on. They will spend half the book trying to convince us that women have always been forced to work and bear children (that they never had rights to) and live under the rule of men. Barely a word is ever spoken about men’s duties to their wives or the truth about hardly anything. This is what women today are fed and why so many undoubtedly turn to feminism:

“For more than five thousand years, men—fathers—were legally *entitled* to sole custody of their children. Women—mothers—were *obliged* to bear, rear, and economically support their children. No mother was ever legally entitled to custody of her own child.” (1)

This, of course, is a complete lie. See here how they first try to convince us women were never *allowed* to work and then they turn around and tell us that women *always* worked, were forced to work. Then historians will now try to convince us that all women worked in the factories and plowed the fields even when heavily pregnant, then gave birth in the fields and got right back up and went right back to plowing! Another thing undoubtedly many have heard is a story that goes something like this: First, man marries woman for dowry, then proceeds to squander it all away within a month, then man goes and gets drunk every night and heads to the local brothel to have a good time (because adultery wasn’t a crime for men!) then man comes home to beat and rape his wife. But, realistically, the husband would only really uncover the wife just enough to penetrate her to do his “duty” to procreate and have legitimate heirs (because women knew nothing about sex and were clueless about their own sexuality and body until feminists came along and sexually liberated them) and then it was back to the brothel! Of course, women had no rights and men could use and abuse their wives as they pleased. They could do anything they wanted because women were less than chattel and marriage was nothing but slavery for women. The description of the book “Love, Honor and Obey” tells a 100% accurate description of life for women before feminism:

“In 1889, women were chattel, prized solely for their physical attributes, the contents of their dowries, their skills at the helm of the family’s wood-burning cook stove, their capacity to conceive endlessly and their willingness to endure marriage and miscarriage in silence. Women could not vote or smoke in public. Motherhood was sanctified and only the whores ventured out unescorted after dark, dyed their hair and wore make-up.Blissfully young and naïve, Emma Miller nearly lost herself in Edward Richardson’s seductive blue eyes until the reality of her husband’s alcoholic rampages began to erode her cherished dream of marriage. Like the practiced coward that he was, Edward abandoned his wife and children in the dead of night, taking with him their horse and their cookie jar savings.Emma had willed herself to survive Edward’s beatings but could she survive life as a single parent with three children? At a time when women were to be seen but never heard, Emma marched boldly into the dawn of a new era for women. Emma defied polite society by embarking upon a career, taking a lover and refusing to bend in the face of personal and professional conflict.” (2)

What women wouldn’t be a feminist after listening to that? Historically the dowry was always something the groom paid to the father of the bride for her hand in marriage. Often it is called a “bride price.” Later the dowry came to be something that the bride brought into the marriage from her family. Historians don’t know why, some speculate that the absence of eligible men for marriage started the tradition of the bride’s family dowering the daughter instead of it coming from the groom. Some other historians point out that bride-price seemed to be the way in polygamous societies and dowry coming from the bride’s family the way in monogamous societies. A bride price is where the groom pays the woman’s father a sum of money for her hand in marriage or, in some societies, the money would go to the bride herself. A dowry is a sum of money, property or other goods given to the groom upon marriage for no other purpose than the maintenance of his bride. In some societies the bride still controlled the dowry and in others the groom controlled the dowry. If divorce should occur or if the bride was widowed then the dowry had to be returned intact to the bride and her family. Dowry was always a way of signaling social class and the woman’s status in society and the larger a woman’s dowry the wealthier a mate she could be expected to attract (social class was always very important to people and everyone was generally expected to marry someone of their own class). Traditionally a young woman would be dowered by her father or sometimes other male family members. Ancient Rome even had laws requiring that fathers provide dowries for daughters. A poor peasant girl whose family could not afford to dower her might either marry without a dowry or work before marriage to provide for her own dowry. In other cases sometimes donations were made to poor girls’ dowries to help them get married. The dowry, however, did not mean the husband did not have to support his wife. The dowry would help the woman get settled and start a new household. Also important was the woman’s dower, the portion of her husband’s property that the wife would inherit to be used for her support upon her husband’s death. A man could not get rid of his own property nor his wife’s dowry without her consent, which had to be given without coercion as she could reclaim her third (or in some societies half) of her husband’s property that he could not take from her.

After marriage a man was by law required to provide for his wife all of her necessities. There were no obligations upon a wife to support her husband or pay the family’s bills until very recently with women’s lib where the law became bastardized as support being something both spouses “owe” each other and the egalitarian vision of the mother working equally as the father to support the family. Of course, throughout history women taking on masculine responsibilities does resurface and it always seems to correlate well with societal decline. Feminism is not a new thing. All throughout history women have tried to usurp their husband’s authority and men have tried to evade responsibility. From the fall of Rome in the fifth century to the crumbling of the monarchy in the tenth and eleventh centuries and the ending of Anglo-Saxon rule in England, women taking masculine responsibilities and husband and wife being “equals” sharing in rights and responsibilities resurfaces and usually destroys society. Usually once a great empire falls, it never regains its former power or glory.

The role of housewife for women is not new. Modern technology has made the work easier than what it used to be, but the idea that this “50s housewife” ideal is a new thing is a lie. Families have been organized in many different ways throughout time and in different societies but the modern idea of the “traditional” family of a husband, wife and their kids living in one household apart from any others is not a new thing. Speaking of the Western world specifically here, people living together with their extended kin in one household seems to resurface throughout the centuries but the nuclear family of husband, wife and kids in one household with the man standing alone as sole provider for wife and children has been around for centuries. Barbara A. Hanawalt speaks of the life of a medieval peasant woman in England in her book “The Ties that Bound; peasant families in medieval England”

“Women’s daily household routines are very well summed up in the ‘Ballad of the Tyrannical Husband.’ The goodwife of the poem had no servants and only small children, so that her day was a full one. She complained that her nights were not restful because she had to rise and nurse the babe in arms. She then milked the cows and took them to pasture and made butter and cheese while she watched the children and dried their tears. Next she fed the poultry and took the geese to the green. She baked and brewed every fortnight and worked on carding wool, spinning, and beating flax. She tells her husband that through her economy of weaving a bit of linsey woolsey during the year for the family clothes, they would be able to save money and not buy cloth from the market. Her husband insists that all this work is very easy and that she really spends her day at the neighbors’ gossiping…”

This woman sure sounds like a housewife to me, only without the modern-day convinces of an electric cookstove, washing machine and prepared food from the grocery store. Coroners’ reports reveal a clear pattern of traditional gender roles for the medieval wife and mother. The same as we see today, women who were rich in the past could afford to hire a wet-nurse and have a maid to do the household chores and watch the kids. Poor women were in the home doing all these things themselves.

In America, as well, there is no evidence to suggest women were out plowing fields or all women were out in the workforce. In America there is actual statistical and census data to show that only 5% of married women were actually engaged in “gainful occupation” (as opposed to 96% of married men) in the 19th century and single women only worked at a rate of around 45% which is much lower than the rates of even married women working today.(4) Also many left journals describing their daily lives as housewives which correlate very well with what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of American women (in 1830) in his book III of “Democracy in America:” (emphasis mine)

“In no country has such constant care been taken as in America to trace two clearly distinct lines of action for the two sexes, and to make them keep pace one with the other, but in two pathways which are always different. American women never manage the outward concerns of the family, or conduct a business, or take a part in political life; nor are they, on the other hand, ever compelled to perform the rough labor of the fields, or to make any of those laborious exertions which demand the exertion of physical strength. No families are so poor as to form an exception to this rule. If on the one hand an American woman cannot escape from the quiet circle of domestic employments, on the other hand she is never forced to go beyond it…

Nor have the Americans ever supposed that one consequence of democratic principles is the subversion of marital power, of the confusion of the natural authorities in families. They hold that every association must have a head in order to accomplish its object, and that the natural head of the conjugal association is man. They do not therefore deny him the right of directing his partner; and they maintain, that in the smaller association of husband and wife, as well as in the great social community, the object of democracy is to regulate and legalize the powers which are necessary, not to subvert all power. This opinion is not peculiar to one sex, and contested by the other: I never observed that the women of America consider conjugal authority as a fortunate usurpation of their rights, nor that they thought themselves degraded by submitting to it. It appeared to me, on the contrary, that they attach a sort of pride to the voluntary surrender of their own will, and make it their boast to bend themselves to the yoke, not to shake it off. Such at least is the feeling expressed by the most virtuous of their sex; the others are silent; and in the United States it is not the practice for a guilty wife to clamor for the rights of women, whilst she is trampling on her holiest duties…

As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that, although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply – to the superiority of their women.”

Now everyplace in the world has had their own traditions, but I speak not of every place in the world. I speak of the Western world, of Europe and the Americas and my own ancestors. High numbers of married women in the workforce is a new thing. I personally am American and American women were always sheltered from the workforce and masculine duties as well as any dangerous jobs or jobs that required hard physical labor. On the other hand, every occupation has long been open to women. The only exceptions I could find in American history were the obvious prohibitions of women to be in the military and women were prohibited from being coal miners and being bartenders unless they were the wife or daughter of the owner. I have found no other exceptions in our history. Obviously there is always going to be your amazon woman out proving she can work like a man, but she would have been the rare exception, not the rule. I know personally from those I’ve talked to how much neighbors would try to help a family who’s husband was injured or gone and could not work to take care of the family. Women were never left out on their own to fend for themselves and their children as so great was the ethic of providing for and protecting women until feminism came along.

But let’s just say those attempting to redefine history were actually right. Let’s say women have always worked in the fields and in the home and borne the babies and this housewife thing is new. Does that mean we should destroy a cultural and legal ethic that did shield women from the masculine burdens just because women in the past were in the fields? Does that justify tearing down a system that actually worked well, even if it was a supposedly new and temporary invention? What sense does that make? Surely if something better had been invented to protect women and families it would only makes sense to embrace it, not destroy it. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Suggested resources:

Women Plowing

Woman Suffrage and the Laws

Doctrine of Necessaries Law & Legal Definition

Questioning Economic Necessity