Tag Archives: no-fault divorce

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)

Advertisements

Do Women Really Want to Smash the Patriarchy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questioning Economic Necessity

“It has been estimated that by 1960 a family wage was paid by 65 percent of all employers in the United States, and by over 80 percent of the major industrial companies. Although feminist historians today call the family-wage ideal a “myth” designed to keep married women oppressed, few myths have come closer to becoming a reality.”[1]

The feminist conviction is that the “good ole life” where married women did not work is a myth. In their view of history, married women staying home is somehow a new thing in human history that was invented in the 1950s. They also stress that it is the economy that flushed women out of the home and into the workforce during the revolution years.Today they say it is just too bad and even if married women wanted to go back home it is impossible because of the economy. Their views and assertions are, however, pretty far removed from reality. In fact, in the grand old 1950s there were even more married women in the workforce than in previous times in American history. All the way up until the year 1900, only 5.6% of married women were in the workforce. By the year 1910 that number had climbed to 10.7%. In the 1950s, 23% of married women were in the workforce. [2]

Feminists also like to chime in and tell us all about how it was only middle class white women that were able to fulfill the role of housewife. But unless 90% of married couples were middle class and white this remains to be seen. Generally, feminists like to plead economic necessity so as to ensure that married women with dependent children do not feel guilty about going off to work and leaving their children in the care of someone else. Mainstream feminists propaganda says that it “takes two incomes” just to make ends meet. Yet, in the vast majority of cases this is not, nor has it ever, been true.

“When the mother in a two-parent family chooses to work, economic necessity (as opposed to advantage) is more likely to be the rationalization than the explanation for her decision. Feminism’s effort to bring about the demise of the full-time housewife required diminishing the guilt felt by working mothers. Thus began the constant effort to depict a two-income family as economically necessary when in most instances one income would provide the basic necessities of life-food, housing, and clothing. That the best-educated and highest-paid women are the ones who return to work the soonest after birth of a child makes clear that something other than economic necessity has impelled women to abandon child care in favor of the workplace.” [3]

Moreover, it was not the economy at all that forced women out of the home. No, the influx of married women into the workforce was deliberate and the intended outcome of the women’s liberation movement. One really does not have to wonder what the word “liberation” in the phrase “women’s liberation” is referring to. It refers to nothing more than the “liberating” of women from sexual morality and the bonds of marriage and child-rearing. Women were not forced out of the home because the economy was going in the gutter. The feminist movement created the economy we have now. The influx of married women into the workforce lowered men’s wages and devalued the housewive’s role. It was the women with highly-educated husbands- the women who could least claim “economic necessity”- that left the home first. Poorer women were still in the home caring for their children.

“In 1962, only 37 percent of all wives worked for pay outside the home. The wives of high school- and college-educated men were hardly more likely to work for pay than the wives of men with only a grade school education. Between 1962 and 1978 the proportion of wives working for pay rose from 37 percent to 58 percent. This growth was concentrated among wives with highly educated husbands, for whom the economic pressures to work were lowest. Among women whose husbands had only a grade school education, 34 percent worked for pay both in 1962 and in 1978. Among women whose husbands attended college, 38 percent worked for pay in 1962, but this had grown to 65 percent by 1978…

In the 1950s, to preserve their own self-esteem, they extolled the virtues of work in the home. By 1980, they saw matters quite differently. A job once perceived as noble now seemed distinctly plebeian. Thus, homemakers suffered a tremendous loss in social prestige in two decades. Sociologists call this phenomenon “status degradation.” It happened to these homemakers through no fault of their own. As the paid labor force offered urban, educated women attractive options the more rural, less-educated women round the world judged the traditional job of homemaking less attractive. Middle-class women who chose to stay in the home began to feel déclassé. Women’s magazines began to print outraged letters from homemakers who now found that they had to describe themselves as ‘only’ a housewife, not only to men but to other women.”[4]

On top of the status degradation of the housewife’s role, feminists forced other pressures onto women to abandon homemaking. The housewife started to be seen as a “deadbeat.” Indeed, still today mothers who aren’t financially responsible for the family are seen as “deadbeats.” This is how feminists wanted women who were not in the workforce to be seen. From the traditional perspective, however, the only “deadbeat” wife or mother is the one who is not in the home caring for her young children. The only “deadbeat” mom, from the traditional point of view, is the one who IS in the workforce. But, of course, to feminists, the paycheck is all that matters. The very thrust of the woman’s movement was to flush women out of the home and into the workforce as full time homemaking was incompatible with the movement.

“…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.”[5]

The period after the 1970s marked the decline in men’s wages. This too was deliberate and the intended outcome. Most protective legislation for women did not discriminate against women. But in the area of pay discrimination against women was necessary to protect wives and mothers from the harsh necessity of wage work. Unequal pay for equal work was necessary. Many women who would be shocked to work for anything less than equal pay to a man simply do not realize that, even though women now make more to the dollar than their grandmothers did, they are not keeping any more of that paycheck. The few extra cents to a dollar that women are making as the result of the feminist movement are simply going to pay for women’s newfound financial obligations in the family and to supplement her husband’s diminished paycheck. There has been nothing tangible gained for women when everything is added up. Feminists campaigned against protective legislation for women. They saw it as “sexist” and campaigned that protective legislation was simply designed to keep women “oppressed.”

Moreover, “no-fault” divorce legislation ripped away the economic security that housewives once enjoyed- financial security in their marriages that made it safe for a woman to stay in the home with her children and now women are held women equally financially responsible at divorce. Being a homemaker is a risky endeavor for a woman, as the new divorce laws made very clear:

“The economic messages of the new law are clear: it no longer ‘pays’ to invest in the marital partnership- to be a faithful breadwinner or a devoted homemaker. Ones economic ‘take’ from the marriage will be the same no matter what one has done.” [6]

Of course, feminists like Weitzman believe women’s newfound economic predicaments as the result of the new divorce laws are simply because women have not reached “full equality” yet, or the courts are not treating women “equally” yet. But it is the very essence of gender equality in our law codes that is causing women hardships and scaring them and shaming them out of the housewife’s role. Moreover, the mass media creates the image that, in order to be successful, a woman must have a full-time career and a fancy college degree. Also, modern women are pressured and made to believe that if they do not use their college degree for something “worthwhile” (ie., a fancy career outside of the home) then they are wasting their knowledge away and being unproductive.

“The female role models held up for veneration and imitation by the popular media are almost exclusively highly educated, independent, career women. Bucking the trend to devote oneself exclusively to home and family today requires extraordinary self-confidence and fortitude on the part of young women who must be prepared to endure both the censure of their culture and the disapproval of their peers. It is no wonder that most college women pursue a course of study that will put them firmly on the full-time career path when they graduate; they are simply following their culture’s prescription for success and acceptability. And since no-fault divorce, by undermining all claims of a wife to her husband’s income, has eliminated the economic security that marriage provided for women in our society, it is hard to blame young women for hedging their bets by setting out on the career path sooner rather than later.”[7]

Thus, it is not the economy that has forced women into the workforce. It was a deliberate attempt by the leaders and those who funded the women’s liberation movement to get and keep women in the workforce. Traditional divorce law protected women by ensuring her support from her ex-husband (providing she was not at fault) until she at least married another man who would become responsible for her support and almost all states protected the family home so that the mother could live there to raise her children at least when they were young. But, to feminists, this was holding women back so protective legislation had to go.

“The protections the law once afforded to women who made economic sacrifices for their families no longer exist. They were abolished when we rewrote the divorce law in the name of equality. When a marriage breaks up, as two out of five marriages now do, a wife will seldom be entitled to alimony, no matter how much less she may earn than her ex-husband. In the 1970s, feminists campaigned against alimony on the explicit grounds that its elimination would flush women out of the home and into the workforce, where they belonged…A divorced couple usually sells its home and divides to proceeds, after which the woman survives on what she can earn- not much if she’s getting on in years and has been out of the workforce for any significant amount of time.” [8]

To drive home the main point, the economy did not flush women out of the home, but the feminist movement did. This was to ensure that women did not depend upon men but instead became self-sufficient. There is nothing that women have gained from the modern feminist movement (1960s- present). Women have been the losers. Women, by nature of our biology, are different from men. We have different needs and different vulnerabilities and burdens to bear than do men. Our laws used to understand this. But now feminists have forced women into the workforce and left women vulnerable by knocking down protective legislation for women. Women’s problem today is not that we are not treated as equal to men, but that we are.

“The political rights of citizens are not properly dependent upon sex, but social and domestic relations and industrial activities are… Women cannot be made men by act of the legislature or by amendment to the Federal Constitution. The inherent differences are permanent. Women will always need many laws different than those needed by men.” [9]

As a final point, many women have learned that a second income is not all it is cracked up to be. Oftentimes, the woman keeps very little of that second income when all expenses are added up. In one conversation I had with a woman she confessed that when her and her husband added it all up, she found she was literally working for about a dollar an hour. Moreover, a woman can save a lot of money by doing things more old-fashioned around the house. She would not have the time to do all of this if she were working full time. When there are young children involved, it does not pay for a woman to be in the workforce. But, rather, the economic advantage is greater if she is at home (unless she makes a six-figure salary, which most women do not).

“Most women make clear and purposeful choices — regarding sex, whom to marry (that’s a biggie), work, geography, etc. — that allow them to be the primary caregiver in their children’s lives. Others learn the hard way that it costs to have both parents work. The money from a second income — unless it’s a six-figure salary — is usually eaten up by commuting costs, child care, eating out, work attire, dry cleaning, convenience foods, and, of course, taxes. By the time you add it all up, there isn’t much left.”[10]

 

Notes:
[1] Roberton, B.C., “Forced Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 63. Spence, 2003.
[2] http://www.freeby50.com/2010/10/historical-look-at-womens-participation.html
[3] Graglia, F.C., “Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism,” p. 72. Spence, 1998.
[4] Mansbridge, J.J. “Why We Lost the ERA,” p. 105; 107-108. University of Chicago Press, 1986.
[5] ibid., p. 99-100
[6] Weitzman, L.J., “The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America,” p. 30. The Free Press, 1987.
[7] “Forced Labor,” p. 38-39.
[8] Crittenden, D., “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman,” p. 98-99. Touchstone, 1999.
[9] “Forced Labor,” p. 60.
[10] http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/295943/feminist-war-women/suzanne-venker#

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

The Corruptions of Feminism Part II: Male-Female Fungibility

“When I went to the hearings for the Equal Rights Amendment and I heard what they were saying, and they had absolutely no benefit to offer women, but we could see a lot of disadvantages in it…What that amendment would do is to make all laws sex-neutral. Well, the typical, classic law that is not sex-neutral is the draft registration law. And we were still in the Vietnam War in 1972. I had sons and daughters about age 18. My daughters thought this was the craziest thing they ever heard. You’re going to have a new amendment for women? And the first thing is they’ll have to sign up for the draft like their brothers. Now, that was an unsaleable proposition.”[i]

Thus began one of the biggest anti-feminist fights in history. After the 1960s feminism had taken a radical turn. No longer were these new wave feminists concerned with family life for women as they had been in the past. Apparently to this new wave of feminism abortion, equal pay and women in combat were big enough issues that they were willing to harm millions of women to get what they wanted. I mean, according to them life was so miserable for women and all women were confined to the single option of becoming breeding machines. According to them, women were the inferior sex and her position in the family was an inferior one. As we’ve gone over before, this is about as far from the truth as it gets.

For many women before the modern feminist movement, family life took center stage in a woman’s life. Not because women had no other choice, but because they believed their families were more important than any amount of money they could bring in. Contrary to the tales feminist love to tell, women have always had the right to own property, pursue careers, and choose who they want to marry. In the memory of nobody living today have women not had the right to divorce an abusive husband or retain custody of children or pursue a career of their choosing. In the 19th century laws were more restrictive of married women, but all married women had options to bypass the restrictions of coverture. In regards to property, Married Women’s Property Acts were passed in states in the mid-1800s to allow a woman to maintain control over any property she came into the marriage with. Even before these acts, however, there were ways around the law:

“However, the common law also had for a long time been modified by arrangements in equity which provided loopholes. Wealthy fathers who did not have faith in their prospective sons-in law and wished to endow their daughters with an inheritance they could use free from their husbands’ control found a way to accomplish that. They established trusts which separated legal ownership from use. A trustee held title to the property and kept it out of the hands of the woman’s husband; the woman, however, had use of the property. Through such legal fictions, some women acquired the fruits of property ownership.”[ii]

The right to vote was a complicated thing and laws generally varied state to state. Many men did not have the right to vote unless they were property owners. The Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote regardless of race or other previous condition of servitude (as the Amendment reads). Although many states did allow women to vote, the 19th Amendment would not go into the Constitution until the early 1900s. Again, the right to vote has nothing to do with the modern feminist movement. The Equal Rights Amendment was written by a suffragist, but the Amendment was ignored by most feminists of the time who did not believe in male-female fungibility the way feminists from the 1960s onward believe.

Women’s lib was about removing protective legislation for women that early feminists fought so hard to achieve for women. The most notable assault of women’s lib came from the so-called “Women’s Rights Project” of the American Civil Liberties Union, of which premier feminist lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the director (she was first a volunteer lawyer for the ACLU before The Project really took off). In a succession of Supreme Court cases, she sought plaintiffs (mostly male) from all around the country to remove any legal exemption or protection that women had. In the words of Phyllis Schlafly, “Ginsburg was vehement in her desire to abolish any legal preference or protection that women might have”[iii] The cases of Taylor vs. Louisiana, Ballard vs. United States, Kahn vs. Chevin, Califano vs Webster, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld , Orr v. Orr, Rostker v. Goldberg, Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma City and numerous others were all designed to take critical protections and exemptions away from women- all in the name of “women’s rights” and “gender equality.”

In the case of Orr v Orr, the majority opinion of the justices was,

“…There is no question that [he] bears a burden he would not bear were he female…the old notion that generally it is the man’s primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials, can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender”[iv]

Well, dear feminists, the reason why the obligation of support is on the husband is because women are the ones who carry all of the physical burdens of the sex act and the main purpose of marriage is for men and women to reproduce in a stable family unit- thus sex is the constitution of marriage. Women, by nature of our biology, bear burdens we otherwise would not if we were born male. No amount of legislation can change that. That is how we are designed, and because of that our laws placed the obligation of support onto husbands and fathers. Even if a mother was unfit to retain custody of her children, the obligation of support was still that of the father and the obligation to support the wife was that of the husband before feminists burst onto the scene wanting the false notion of “gender equality.” Quoting Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly again:

“Since the women are the ones who bear the babies and there’s nothing we can do about that, our laws and customs then make it the financial obligation of the husband to provide the support. It is his obligation and his sole obligation. And this is exactly and precisely what we will lose if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed.”[v]

This particular case caused all remaining states to remove the exemptions that women once held. Now, dear feminists, forcing extra legal obligations onto women is not so much allowing her the choice to work as it is forcing her to work under the penalty of law. Explain to me again how that is an example of the “choices” you promote for women..?

“As a practical matter, the Court’s ruling had widespread repercussions in moving the law to a gender-neutral position. Ten other states that maintained divorce laws similar to Alabama’s were forced to change their laws as a result of the Court’s decision. Now courts can require both financially able husbands and wives to pay alimony to needy spouses at divorce. And laws concerning child custody, attorney’s fees, and child support arrangements were also considerably affected by the decision as they were reshaped to recognize the new economic and caretaking roles of both men and women in the America family.”[vi]

Feminists see cases such as this in a favorable light. They praise equal treatment. I mean, how dare us suggest that husbands should support their wives? Of course, women should be forced into the workforce to bear the burdens of men on top of all of the biological burdens women bear, burdens which men have never shared- Soviet Union egalitarian policies at their finest.

Thanks to feminism, we now have constant gender wars and most in the Western world don’t even see marriage as a necessary thing for having sex or starting a family. Marriage today is basically nothing more than cohabitation with insurance benefits. So, why not just cohabit in the first place? Thanks to the gender wars that feminists started, a woman’s place within the family is not secured, nor are her natural roles valued. Thanks to feminists, a woman is viewed as lazy and a worthless leech unless she joins the workforce and becomes an “equal partner” within the marriage (as if she wasn’t already a partner of just as much, if not even more, worth as her husband before).

Feminists hate housewives. Oh, they say they don’t really have a problem with a woman staying home for a little while to raise her kids. After all, many of them say they do it themselves. But, those same feminists will turn around and still believe a woman is lazy if she expects financial support from her husband for her lifetime.

Thanks to feminists traditional women now have another enemy: the MRM (Men’s Rights Movement). They too want gender-neutral laws to further avoid the responsibility of breadwinner for the family. They claim to be anti-feminist (which really doesn’t make much sense, as feminism has handed them all the things they claim to want right on a silver platter and feminists often take their side on the issues, in fact feminists have teamed up with them in the past to hurt women).

There appears to be two major groups of MRAs- ones that are traditional and those who just plain and simply hate women. The latter often use acronyms for themselves such as “MGTOW” or “Men Going Their Own Way.” To be fair, the feminist movement was all about women going their own way and breaking away from dependence upon men. So, once again, thanks feminists for the current mindset of our men today. You feminists don’t want to be supported and they don’t want to support you. I hope you enjoy it.

Another thing that puzzles me about a lot of them though is that some of them want women in the home yet complain about paying alimony and complain when the mother keeps the kids. Well boys, as the saying goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Unilateral (or “no-fault”) divorce is bad news for all of us all and women are feeling the sting of it too. But these boys conveniently forget (or maybe they never understood in the first place) that traditional family law gave numerous preferences and advantages to women (provided the woman was faithful and had committed no grave wrong against the husband):

“Traditional divorce law perpetuated the sex- based division of roles and responsibilities enshrined in traditional legal marriage: the wife’s domestic responsibilities and the husband’s obligation to provide support. Although traditional family law assumed that the husbands support would be provided in a lifelong marriage, if the marriage did not endure and if the wife was virtuous, she was nevertheless promised alimony- a means of continued support. Alimony thus perpetuated the husband’s responsibilities for economic support and the wife’s right to be supported in return for her domestic services. It therefore maintained at least part of the basic reciprocity in the legal marriage contract.

Traditional divorce laws also reaffirmed the sex-based division of roles with respect to children: the husband remained responsible for their economic support, the wife for their care. All states, by statute or by case law, gave preference to the wife as the appropriate custodial parent after divorce, and all states gave the husband the primary responsibility for his children’s economic support.

Traditional divorce law helped sanction the spouses’ conventional roles and responsibilities in marriage- by both punishment and reward. On the punishment side, if a wife was found guilty of adultery, cruelty, or desertion, she would have to pay for her wrongdoings by being denied alimony (and sometimes custody and property as well). And if the husband was at fault, he would be punished through awards of property, alimony, and child support to his ex-wife.

On the reward side, traditional divorce law promised “justice” for those who fulfilled their marital obligations. It guaranteed support for the wife who devoted herself to her family, thus reinforcing the desirability and legitimacy of the wife’s role as homemaker and the husband’s role as supporter. And the law assured the husband that he would not have to support a wife who betrayed or failed him. Justice in this system was the assurance that the marriage contract would be honored. If not, the “bad” spouse would be punished, the “good” spouse rewarded, and the husband’s obligation to support his wife (if she was good) reinforced.”[vii]

The feminist movement and the subsequent changes in family life, along with the passing of “no-fault” divorce laws all across the nation dramatically altered the social, legal and economic climate of our civilization. As we have seen before in history, however, egalitarian societies do not work. And anyone or any group of people who is in favor of these ideals and in favor of male-female fungibility has no respect for the traditional woman, no matter if they try to convince the public that they are not looking to harm the homemaker of force unnecessary burdens onto women and families. We have seen egalitarian ideals and the breakdown of the nuclear family crash civilizations before in history. Rome is a historical example so breathtakingly similar to ours that we can learn from. There are also plenty of 20th century examples our civilization can learn from (such as Soviet Russia after the bolsheviks took power). George Gilder demonstrates quite poetically how gender relations can either make or break a society. If women will begin to listen, maybe there is a chance. But, as an unknown author so exclaimed: “Those who don’t learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to watch helplessly while everyone else repeats it.”

“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”[viii]

 

Notes:

[i] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134981902

[ii] Jacob, H. “Silent Revolution: The Transformation of Divorce Law in the United States,” p. 107. The University of Chicago Press. 1988.

[iii] Schlafly, P., “Feminist Fantasies,” p. 139. Spence, 2003

[iv] Cushman, C. “Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights,” p. 79. CQ Press, 2001.

[v] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134981902

[vi] Cushman, C., “Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights,”p. 81. CQ Press, 2001.

[vii] Weitzman, L.J., “The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America,” p. 11;14. The Free Press, 1985

[viii] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage.” Pelican, 1993.

 

 

 

 

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

The Corruptions of Feminism Part I: The Sexual Double Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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