Feminist Hypocrites II: Feminists Lie to Women, Mothers

Warning: Post contains some graphic material

Feminists have long been taking credit for things they never did for women. In fact, they have actually taken part in removing the very rights of women and mothers they claimed to have given them. They will never acknowledge this now, of course. Second and Third Wave feminists just love to jump on board and say they are an extension of “First Wave” feminism, but in fact they are not. But here is what it has done. Modern feminism has relieved fathers and husbands of their burdens and responsibilities. Loss of laws that protected and favored women gives men an unprecedented power to control women like never before.

“The feminist quest for female fungibility with males has led the women’s movement to support the invalidation of laws benefiting and protecting women. This was the thrust, for example, of litigation directed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and , often using male plaintiffs, secured invalidation of laws that favored women…In the area of divorce reform, one of the benefits women have lost is the maternal preference which favored awarding custody to the mother. Almost all states now grant men and women a statutory equal right in custody… In order to secure custody, many women will drastically compromise their financial interests: ‘women who are scared to death of losing custody will trade away anything else- child support, property, alimony to keep it from happening.'”[i]

The main thrust of modern feminism has been to remove laws that protected and benefited wives and mothers in the name of equality. I have plenty of blogs posts about this that I have written. With the current fabrications father’s and men’s right groups like to come up with about women and our modern judicial system I’m sure this might be downright shocking and insulting (the truth usually is). But, I am not exactly known for mild, politically correct blog posts either. My views are generally shocking and insulting to both sides. I’m not interested in approval from anyone or a pat on the back for a job well done. The day approval is what I seek, is the day I should resign from writing as my mission means nothing any longer.

Our grandmothers may have been shamed for having babies out of wedlock, but this shaming helped to ensure protection for all women. Women today are forced to become single mothers. They don’t want to be, but with promiscuity and the granting of rights to men over illegitimate children without them having to take traditional responsibilities causes these hardships. In the past, many women were pregnant on their wedding day. The social and legal pressures on both parties forced them to come together or pay the price. If the man wanted rights, he had to take on the responsibilities of marrying the mother and supporting her for life. If the woman wanted to keep her reputation and be supported she knew she too would have to marry. The widespread availability of birth control and abortion shifts the responsibility from men to women as now men can have easy sex because they know the woman is pumped full of hormones to keep her from ovulating (or trick her body into believing she is already pregnant) and if she should become pregnant, once again it is her responsibility as Planned Parenthood is right around the corner to perform the abortion (the man might pay for it or he might force that responsibility onto her but either way he knows it is not his problem as neither law or custom forces him to take responsibility).

“Our grandmothers might have led more sheltered sex lives, but they also controlled what amounted to a sexual cartel: setting a high price for sexual involvement and punishing both men and women if they broke the agreement (either by forcing them into marriage or by ostracizing them from respectable company). Sexual rules create sexual solidarity among women. If men feel they can flirt from woman to woman, they will. They will enjoy our ready availability and exploit it to their advantage. But if women as a group cease to be readily available- if they begin to demand commitment (and real commitment, as in marriage) in exchange for sex- market conditions will shift in favor of women. “[ii]

The feminist war against women has been a massive one that has wrecked the lives and shattered the very beings of millions of women and children everywhere. Feminists today lie. They say they “need” feminism because of the most absurd issues, such as society’s unwillingness to take rape seriously. Yet feminists have never taken rape nor women’s bodies seriously. Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself and others filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amici curiae in the case of Coker Vs Georgia (1977) to argue that rape of a grown woman was not worthy of the death penalty.[iii] Thirty years later we would see Ginsburg further degrade women as a Supreme Court Justice by joining the majority opinion in the case of Kennedy vs Louisiana in a case involving the rape of an eight year old girl where

“…An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.”[iv]

This is really not so surprising coming from a premier player in the women’s movement who believes that protecting any group of people creates “harmful stereotypes” and the courts now long-gone “paternalistic” treatment of women was subjecting women to “second-class” citizenship.[v]

Today women face hardships that would not have happened in the 1950s. Husbands held responsibilities for, and to an extent authority over, their wives. But lest he wish to support her for life while she continued to live in the house with the kids, he would not leave her. Until women’s liberation a man had to provide the needs of his wife by law. Although coverture was mostly abolished by the end of the 19th century many aspects still remained in law. “Married women’s ability to make purchases on credit in their own name was denied by coverture. [Yet the wife was permitted to be] economically active by pledging her husband’s credit for necessaries (food, clothing, lodgings and medicine).”[vi]

Feminists love to tell us about the terrible days where women were treated so badly and unwed fathers didn’t have to support their children. Yet, they never tell us about the other side of the story. If a man fathered illegitimate children he could claim no rights. Today’s men have rights without having to take on the responsibilities for women and children that come along with it. Few unwed fathers actually support their children (and the feminist movement fought fiercely, winning Supreme Court decisions such as Orr vs Orr that forced states to gender-neutralize family law thereby making the traditional burdens of fathers and husbands the burdens of mothers and wives as well) and the loss of the maternal preference is a wonderful technique used against women to get them to forgo child support altogether in order to hang onto their children.

“Also absent from the discussion was any notice that Steven was not married to the mother. As will be discussed in chapter 4, it has been little more than twenty years since the U.S. Supreme Court, in Stanley v. Illinois, recognized any custodial rights for unwed fathers, much less those equal to the mothers’. This case seems to have given Steven-who never lived with Jennifer and Maranda-the same rights as a recently divorced father who had always lived with them, or, for that matter, the same rights as Jennifer. And no one found this worthy of comment.”[vii]

“The tender years doctrine (or maternal presumption, as it was often called) was well established by the 1920s. By the 1950s in Michigan and all other states it was the law The rule of maternal presumption reflected a universally held belief in the early part of this century that mothers by nature were the more nurturing parent for very young children. In their drive for equal rights in the seventies, many feminists spurned this very assumption, believing it fixed women as second-class citizens in a patriarchal structure.”[viii]

But, not to worry, feminists are on the scene to help. They realize women’s newfound predicament and are seeking justice.

“There is a national crisis for women and their children in the family law courts of this country. Affirmed by experts and leaders in the women’s movement, the existence of this crisis is verified by women in every state who report injustice in their family law cases, especially battered mothers trying to protect their children from abusive fathers who aggressively litigate against them, using family court to stalk, harass, punish, and impoverish their former partners and children. NOW recognizes this crisis for women and their children and seeks to address discrimination against women in family courts.”[ix]

The new wave of feminists seek to carry on the legacy of their woman-hating older sisters still pining for the same “equality” and rejecting “the patriarchy,” yet seem to have developed a convenient case of amnesia. “Yet, having been taken seriously by every state legislature in the country…feminists seek to absolve themselves from the blame, as if society should have known better than to listen to them.”[x] They have contributed largely to many social ills and problems women face. Their support of no-fault divorce laws and abolition of hundreds of laws that protected women largely contribute to the widespread “feminization of poverty” and the way out, they suggest, is affirmative action and subsidized daycare. Never will you hear them admit that they had anything to do with the problem’s women face today.

“No longer concentrating on the oppressiveness of home and family for women, feminists argue instead that, unfortunately, married mothers must remain in the work force to protect themselves from the very likely possibility of becoming single-parents impoverished by divorce. This is a likelihood, they choose not to remember, their movement was highly instrumental in creating.”[xi]

“Enactment of no-fault divorce laws unambiguously warned women to adopt the feminist perspective and replace homemaking with full-time career. The ‘present legal system,’ concluded Lenore Weitzman, “makes it clear that instead of expecting to be supported, a woman is now expected to become self-sufficient…’Thus, as always, feminist ideology converged with the interests of men who would avoid the responsibility for women that traditional marriage entails.”[xii]

Notes:

[i] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.295. Spence, 1998.
[ii] Crittendon,D. “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us,” p.35. Touchstone,1999.
[iii] http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=3131#AmiciCuriae
[iv] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-343.ZO.html
[v] Cushman,C. “Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights” CQ Press, 2001.
[vi] http://economics.ouls.ox.ac.uk/13127/1/Item.pdf
[vii] http://www.law.berkeley.edu/3158.htm
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/
[x] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.296. Spence, 1998.
[xi] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.296. Spence, 1998.
[xii] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.136-137. Spence, 1998.

 

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

How the Feminist Movement Hurt Women

IT HAS RIPPED THE LAWS OFF THE BOOKS REQUIRING THAT A HUSBAND SUPPORT HIS WIFE AND PROVIDE HER WITH A HOME TO LIVE IN

IT HAS DESTROYED CHIVALRY IN MEN

IT HAS MADE FAMILY LAW SEX NEUTRAL WHICH MEANS WIVES AND MOTHERS NOW CAN BE LEGALLY FORCED TO CARRY THE TRADITIONAL BURDENS OF MEN

IT HAS MADE WOMEN EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE FAMILY AND THE DEBTS OF HER HUSBAND AS WELL AS HERSELF

ATTEMPTS AT DRAFTING WOMEN

CONSTANT PRESSURE TO PUSH WOMEN FURTHER INTO COMBAT AND MANY WOMEN ARE ALREADY SERVING IN COMBAT

NO-FAULT DIVORCE

NO FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR THE HOUSEWIFE

ABOLITION OF THE TENDER YEARS DOCTRINE

DEPRIVATION OF COMMON LAW RIGHTS TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR WRONGS SUCH AS BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY AND SEDUCTION

IT HAS TAKEN AWAY IMPORTANT EXEMPTIONS WOMEN USED TO HAVE UNDER THE LAW

SOCIETY SEES WOMEN AS FUNGIBLE WITH MEN

MEN VIEW WOMEN AS EQUALS AND NO LONGER SEE A NATURAL OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT AND PROTECT WOMEN

FEMINISM HAS MADE YOUNG WOMEN BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN HAVE EMOTION FREE SEX WITH NO CONSEQUENCE

GIRLS NO LONGER KNOW HOW TO SAY “NO” TO THEIR BOYFRIENDS

THE DEGRADATION OF THE HOUSEWIFE: HOUSEWIVES ARE “PARASITES” (De Beauvoir) THE HOUSE IS A “COMFORTABLE CONCENTRATION CAMP” (Friedan)

THE PRESSURE GIRLS GET FROM FAMILY AND SOCIETY TO BECOME CAREER WOMEN

MARRIAGE AND MOTHERHOOD IS NO LONGER A VALID CAREER OPTION FOR WOMEN

WOMEN NO LONGER VALUE THEIR FEMININITY INSTEAD THEY WANT TO BE MEN

THANKS TO FEMINISM IRRESPONSIBLE AND IMMORAL MEN NOW HAVE A FREE RIDE AT THE EXPENSE OF WOMEN

THERE IS NO LONGER A REQUIRED FAMILY WAGE WHICH IN THE PAST MADE IT EASIER FOR A WOMAN TO STAY HOME

IT IS NO LONGER SHAMEFUL FOR A MAN NOT TO SUPPORT HIS FAMILY

MEN ARE TAUGHT THAT WOMEN ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM THEM THEREFORE THIS CAUSES A LOT OF CONFLICT AND THE DIVORCE RATE IS SKYROCKETING

CHILDREN FROM SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BECOME CRIMINALS DUE TO THE LACK OF STRONG FATHER FIGURE:

SINGLE MOTHERS INSTEAD OF BEING MARRIED HAVE NOW TURNED TO THE GOVERNMENT: WHICH HAS BECOME A REPLACEMENT FOR A REAL FATHER

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

Feminist Myths II

Myth: Before women’s liberation there were no laws protecting women.

Before women’s liberation there were actually hundreds of laws that benefited and protected women. Now it is important to stop right here and understand that the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s had absolutely nothing in common with the early feminists of the 19th century. These early feminists were trying to give women basic rights and protections that the feminist movement of the 60s-70s would ultimately take away from women. It is very essential to note that most of the women living at the time of the “first wave” of feminism in the 1800s probably did not see themselves as victims or “second class” in any way. Even when it came to the suffragist movement (which really should be put in a different category separate from the feminist movement) women stood on opposing sides. They were both suffragists and anti-suffragists.

“Under the old laws of coverture, the husband was held completely liable for the actions and well being of his wife.

“Under coverture rules, a woman could not make contracts; write wills; sue or be sued in court; or own property such as money, clothing, and household goods- these belonged solely to the ‘head of household,’ the husband. This meant that if the wife worked for pay for someone else, her husband owned the wages that she earned…”[i]

In the words of William Blackstone in 1765:

“By Marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything…and her condition during her marriage is called coverture.”[ii]

However, “even in the old Common Law tradition, man and wife were not so merged that women had no legal identity. The wife’s position was not that of a possession but of her husband’s ward. She could, for example, maintain property rights, though they were limited by her husband’s authority.”[iii] Also, along with being head and master of the house, “the husband is bound to provide his wife with necessaries by law, as much as himself; and if he contracts debts for them, he is obliged to pay them…..If the wife be indebted before marriage, the husband is bound afterwards to pay the debt.”[iv]

Before women’s liberation the laws that protected women were numerous. Because our society understood that the reality for women is, and always has been, different than the reality for men, our laws and customs gave women preference and protections in many areas of the law. Divorce could not be obtained just because one party wanted to walk away or got bored and yes there were laws protecting women should she need to divorce her husband because he had been abusive. Many today distort this part of our history by saying a woman was property before women’s liberation and couldn’t get away from abusive husbands. In the 1700s and early 1800s such things might occur, but, as stated above, women gained rights and protections in the mid to late 19th century. Women were protected. Family wages laws were enacted to ensure a man could easily support his wife and children on one income, the maternal preference in child custody cases was put into law to ensure that young children would not be taken from their mothers in the event of divorce (unwed fathers did not have rights, but occasionally did gain the right to visitation), and multiple other laws protecting widows, wives, mothers and women in general.

“Before the feminist movement burst on the scene in the 1970s, there were literally hundreds of laws that gave advantages or protections to women based on society’s commonsense recognition of the facts of life and human nature. These included the prohibition against statutory rape, the Mann act, the obligation of the husband to support his wife and provide her with a home, special protections for widows…and laws that made it a misdemeanor to use obscene or profane language in the presence of a woman”[v]

There were numerous protections that women had under the law and numerous rights. These rights were there before the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s. The feminist movement of the 60s and 70s was nothing more than an attempt to push women out of the home and into the workforce and destabilize society. Whether or not women actually enjoyed having careers was inconsequential.[vi] In order to get women into the workforce so there would be more workers for the government to tax the family had to be destroyed and all laws that favored and protected women abolished (all in the name of “equality” of course). Instead of wives and mothers being protected and husbands and fathers having the responsibility for supporting and protecting their wives and children, a new code was developed to make wives and mothers equally financially liable and divorce laws were liberalized. The main method of achieving this was the Equal Rights Amendment. But even though it failed, it didn’t matter. Feminist lawyers were still able to get laws gender-neutralized both on the state and federal level.

“Because of women’s rational fear that they might become comparatively destitute if they were divorced, our no-fault divorce laws exerted tremendous pressure on women to decline the housewife’s role. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would have served that same goal. By the end of the campaign for enactment, the amendment’s only real purpose was to compound further the pressures to drive all women into the work force. As Jane Mansbridge has noted, decisions of the United States Supreme Court had, by 1982, already changed almost all the laws the ERA was designed to change. The amendment’s major legal effect would have been to subject women to the draft and combat service and invalidate certain laws that benefited women; supporters could point to little else they claimed was discriminatory. But what the amendment had come to represent-and the reason its enactment seemed crucial to the women’s movement- was a societal affirmation of the feminist perspective.”[vii]

“‘What was at stake in the battle over the ERA was the legitimacy of women’s claim on men’s incomes’; the force of feminism, Ehrenreich concedes, was to ‘allow men to think they have no natural obligation to support women.’ Mary Jo Bane anticipated that the ERA would encourage reexamination of marital roles to ‘stimulate questioning and perhaps change behavior,’ thereby fostering families where wives are no more likely than husbands to take time from the workplace to rear children.”[viii]

Ultimately what the feminist movement of the 70s did was bring women’s rights back to the old days where women were not protected and their husbands could once again leave and take the kids, their wages, and property. But with corruption so rampant our laws don’t care who gets hurt or taken advantage of- in this regard the sexes are indeed equal today- just as long as families don’t stay together. If women cannot be protected because it would mean sex discrimination, women can be fined, thrown into jail, taxed and the elite can profit off of it. Broken apart families leave a civilization vulnerable. It opens the way to massive government interference in people’s private lives and the government begins to decide how children will be raised, what they will be taught, and where they will live. Women view careers as more important than simply being wives and mothers and men become unmotivated and refuse to marry and take responsibility for women and children. Women’s lib was about getting children out of the care of nurturing mothers and out from under the guidance and protection of patriarchal men.

Ultimately, women’s liberation was never about women’s rights. Women have gained in the area of reproduction and marketplace achievement but have sacrificed their happiness and security in the process. Mostly women’s liberation was about taking protections and rights away from women to achieve a gender-neutral society.

“The feminist quest for female fungibility with males has led the women’s movement to support the invalidation of laws benefiting and protecting women. This was the thrust, for example, of litigation directed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and , often using male plaintiffs, secured invalidation of laws that favored women.”[ix]

Of course, feminists see this as an example of “women’s rights.” Those such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg see protecting any group of people, particularly women, to be harmful because it locks us into stereotypes. Nothing less than complete equality would suffice for feminists.

 

Notes:

[i] Cushman, C. Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights. CQ Press, 2001.
[ii] ibid
[iii] http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/09/29/the-wrongs-of-womens-rights-ii-coverture/
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Schlafly, P., Feminist Fantasies. p.144, Spence, 2003.
[vi] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN05DHO9bJw
[vii] Graglia, C.F., Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism. P. 137, Spence, 1998.
[viii] ibid., 138.
[ix] ibid., 295.

 

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