Tag Archives: obedient wife

How Can a Woman Deal With a Wayward Husband?

I’ve talked before about when women act bad. When the wife is in the wrong or acting bad then the problem is simple. The husband is the authority figure, he is in almost every case larger and stronger and his wife is obliged to obey him. If she doesn’t want to comply then the husband can use appropriate force or even discipline if necessary to force obedience from an unwilling or reluctant wife. The same holds true for the government/citizen relationship. The citizen is under the authority of the government. If the citizen should not want to obey he can be cited, given a warning and punished appropriately. It’s a straightforward thing really. The laws are laid out. If the citizen acts bad the government has the power to punish or even use appropriate force if the citizen refuses to cooperate and accept the rule of law and appropriate punishment. The rules are laid out and if the person refuses to obey then the problem can be dealt with straightforward in a no-nonsense manner and force/discipline can and will be used against the reluctant citizen to compel obedience against the person’s will to get them to act right and keep order in society. The husband is the authority in the house and if the wife is out of line the husband will tell her and if she refuses to cooperate the husband can just take her in hand then and there and straighten out the problem and put everything back in order even against the woman’s objections. It’s a simple and easy solution that can generally be dealt with quickly and easily as divine law has ordained the husband’s authority (the same with the government’s) and he is more powerful and can simply overpower the woman’s will and everything can be set straight. The home can be in order and peace can reign once again.

But what about if the husband is the one doing wrong? What if he is the one who is out of line? The solution for the woman is not so easy. She is not in authority over him. There are times when she might try to be and if he is in the wrong she might try to confront him head-on and tell him to act right. But what if he doesn’t accept that he’s in the wrong and act right? What if he refuses to change? She cannot be truly in authority over him. She cannot compel him to do something if he doesn’t want to. She has not the strength nor proper authority. Nothing can be law without authority behind it, and no authority can be a true authority without the power to compel obedience against those who are unwilling. The woman in authority over the man upsets the natural order and she, in almost every case, does not have the power nor strength to compel obedience from him. Her position can be the same as that of a citizen who lives under the rule of a tyrannical government that has gone out of control, has become abusive and is not functioning properly. When this happens the citizen cannot compel the government to get “back in line” and function properly and generally has to look for an external form of support. The citizen might find supporters, draw up a petition and look for others to show support and sign it. The citizen might then try to find those higher up the ladder in authority to show support and plead his case. If all else fails, the citizen will probably start looking for a miracle and pray to God to hear his cries.

Likewise, the woman who finds herself in a position where the one who is supposed to be protecting her (her husband) has gone out of control and refuses to perform his rightful duties towards her and/or the children ideally needs an external form of support. If she is a Christian woman or a Muslim woman she can look to what God says and show her husband where he is wrong and expect of him that he change his behaviors. A woman with no religious affiliation can still look to a form of divine law to tell the husband he is wrong and he needs to change. It is important for the woman not to just say “I want it now do it!” or make her case in such a selfishly-oriented way. This will cause the man to pull away from her and he will be less likely to want to protect her or resume his rightful duties towards her if she makes demands unilaterally in a selfish way against him. Putting her case to her husband in such a way causes her to be unfeminine and removes the man’s natural protective instinct for the woman.

I think it is very destructive for women to protect themselves unilaterally. A woman should always try to gain support from the community around her and other men in the family close to her that can deal with the man at his own level if need be (as in deal with him “man to man”). It is hard in our world today because society at large does not care if a husband supports his wife and even more abused women find it hard to find shelter and a woman can hardly count on the law to enforce that her husband perform his rightful duties or be punished. But in any case, a woman should never doubt that her feminine aspects can still draw support towards her and change the husband to be the man he should be. She can also set a good example that will help inspire cultural change.

A woman cannot and should not follow the husband if he is leading her down the wrong path. She also cannot obey when he is not acting in his rightful role as a man. Obeying him when he has truly become neglectful and abusive will cause her to be a doormat and he will continue to be irresponsible. It isn’t always easy for a woman in these situations as a man’s irresponsibility and bad behaviors towards his wife can cause a real problem when he is the one who is supposed to be in charge. I have heard women ask “well, what is a woman supposed to do if the husband won’t act right? Sit around and watch her family fall to pieces all around her?” These women make good points and pose difficult questions with no easy and straightforward answers.

In cases not so severe I believe a woman can win her husband over by still obeying him even if she doesn’t necessarily like what her husband demands or if he isn’t doing things quite the way she wants (no authority figure is ever going to operate exactly as the ones under his authority like anyways). Her feminine charms can win her more love from her husband and she can influence him thus, but unfeminine selfishness will only draw him away and she will be even more unhappy. In severe cases such as non-support, abandonment, abuse and neglect she must put her foot down and refuse to follow the man or temporarily separate and seek the shelter and the support of others and not return to the husband until he has changed his ways and accepted responsibility.

The important thing is the woman’s attitude I believe. She should always be willing to obey but make it clear that she cannot do so if he is truly in the wrong (not just because she doesn’t like a decision but because he is truly doing something wrong or stepping outside the bounds of what is moral or appropriate) and is neglecting his true duties towards her and the family. If the husband asks her to do something that he doesn’t have any moral authority to do (such as telling her to “get a job”-that is his responsibility and he has no right to push it on her– or telling her to go commit an indecent or irresponsible act) she must say no. She must tell her husband why she is refusing to make it clear she cannot obey him because what he has asked is wrong and he has no authority to command her to do which goes against God/divine law.

These issues aren’t easy to deal with and there isn’t always an easy answer. For the women who have never heard of Helen Andelin I suggest picking up a copy of her book “Fascinating Womanhood.” Mrs. Andelin taught many women in her lifetime to be feminine and she teaches a woman to embrace old-fashioned femininity and accept patriarchy, not equality. She has very good advice on how a woman can act to bring out the protective and responsible chivalrous instinct in men and how a woman can best fulfill her roles as a traditional woman. She also gives advice on how women can deal with men who won’t earn the living, how women can deal with anger in an appropriate feminine way and have a happy home life in a traditional marriage. Mr. Jesse Powell also has some good articles on how a traditional woman can assert herself with men in a hostile feminist climate and also how the submissive wife is protected under patriarchy that are very worthwhile to read.

Another thing I would like to add is that a woman should not solve the problem by taking it into her own hands when the husband is being too passive in his leadership role or is refusing to support the family. For instance, I heard a woman say that her son would stay up half the night playing on the iPad and she was very worried for her son. She had many talks with her husband about it and he would do something for a time but then would cave and let the son have the iPad back and stay up half the night. Eventually the woman had enough and her husband wouldn’t do anything so she took matters into her own hands and took the iPad and smashed it to pieces. She employed a temporary solution to what was in reality a chronic long-term problem (her husband’s reluctance to accept responsibility and his passivity in his rightful leadership role). The problem was solved for the moment but surely it was only a matter of time before something else big would come up. Her husband was glad she had done something about the problem which shows yet another danger. First she went against her husband’s authority and second she allowed him to evade responsibility so the next time if there should be a serious problem the husband might think “it’s ok, if I just do nothing my wife will eventually handle the situation.” Here a pattern of allowing the husband to evade responsibility is created. In the process she also showed the children that their father was not the ultimate authority thus possibly causing them to even act out more in the future. She upset the natural balance of authority/responsibility in her home.

A woman taking matters into her own hands when her husband doesn’t accept responsibility only worsens the problem in the long run. The same can be true for women who go and get a job because their husband won’t support the family. This may solve the problem temporarily (money’s coming in so the kids won’t starve) but the woman only creates a greater long term problem. A woman should not follow her husband into sin and should put her foot down if he is asking her to accept his responsibilities. If he is rejecting his responsibilities she should remind him what his duties are in a non-selfish way and refuse to obey until he is operating in his rightful role as a man once again.

Advertisements

Thoughts on Coverture, Suffrage, Chivalry, Patriarchy and the Natural Order

“There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make of man and woman beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things – their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived, that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded; and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, “Deomocracy in America,” Chapter XII)

I believe it is the obligation of men to be chivalrous to women. I believe this duty to be unconditional. That means even if the woman acts bad I still believe it is the duty of men to protect and provide for women. I believe that women have special circumstances in life and the differences between the sexes warrant special consideration and protections for women. I believe it is the duty of men to elevate the interests of women above their own and the responsibility of adults to elevate the interests of children above their own. Women are inherently more vulnerable and weaker than men and are in need of special protections and guardianship in marriage. I believe it to be the duty of the husband to provide for his wife and be responsible for her. I do not believe this duty to be reciprocal. Marriage was never meant to be an “equal partnership.” The purpose of marriage is for the provision of women and children. Love is important and I believe it is good that everyone can choose who they wish to marry and spend their lives with and be happy. But marriage is more than that. It is more than how one feels at the moment and more than just “mutual benefit.” Marriage is about masculinity, femininity and the provision and guardianship of women and children. Now that society has lost sight of what the real and true purpose of marriage is the institution of the family has been destroyed and we have such perversions like “gay marriage” and cohabitation and epidemics of single parenthood and divorce and “blended” families that do nothing more than confuse children about their family identity. Once the legal obligation upon men to be providers for a wife and children (if there are any children, even if there aren’t it shouldn’t change his role to provide for the wife) was erased it didn’t take long at all for the family unit to be destroyed.

Although I’ve never come out and straightforward said much about my beliefs, I do believe in God, although I don’t have any particular religious affiliation. I never really talk about this much because I want my site to welcome those of all religious beliefs as well as atheists to the cause of traditional sex roles and traditional marriage (I don’t believe one can have a traditional marriage without traditional sex roles and the obligation of husbands and fathers to provide). I believe men and women were made for certain roles in this life and men have a moral obligation to to care for women and children and put women and children first. Man has always tried to pervert the natural order of things and go against God, there is nothing new or unusual about that. I guarantee any crazy thing one can think up of some society somewhere has tried it, somebody has done it. But that doesn’t mean that we should. We have thousands of years of history to show us the consequences (both good and bad) of different human behaviors and different laws and policies.

The sex act itself reaffirms traditional gender roles. The man is dominant, the woman submissive. The man gives, the woman receives. The man is powerful while the woman is often helpless. The man covers the woman with his body and penetrates into her most intimate places first with his own body and after the act is completed with his seed that lives inside her in the most intimate and precious place where all life begins. The man controls and leads the act while the woman follows and submits. The sex act depends upon the man’s ability to achieve. He must give to the woman, he must work to bring fulfillment to the woman and put her needs before his own or he has failed and is incompetent, impotent and dysfunctional. This is the order that traditional gender roles take, with the man giving to the woman and being dominate over the woman, while the woman receives and accepts what the man gives and submits. The woman is precious and weaker and it is the man’s job to protect and provide for her.

Although I’ve alluded to it before, I don’t believe that women should participate in politics and I am against the vote for women. The world may hate me for what I believe but I don’t care. I will not change what I believe in to fit what modern society tells me is right. Right now I may be hated and be in the minority viewpoint but in time the tables will turn. I will state what I believe no matter who is against me. If I have to change myself for someone to follow or like me then what is the point of writing? As a traditional woman I don’t want to deal with external affairs and problems in the community and society at large. I take to writing to speak out against what I see as wrong. Women have always done this, vote or no vote. If women have the right to vote then we also have the obligation to participate in politics and other duties that traditionally fell only to men. As it stands traditional women have no choice because if we back out and don’t participate in politics there will be a huge imbalance as non-traditional women will get everything they want and traditional women will be outnumbered and our voice ignored. If women have the right to participate in politics that means they also have the obligation, and a woman cannot just mind her own business at home and remain under her husband’s authority and be at peace.

“We are sometimes told by politicians who wish to press this matter on us, ‘You women will not be forced to vote.’ But our conscience speaks otherwise. If, in spite of our remonstrances, we have political obligations forced upon us, we shall feel it to be the first duty to vote every man out of place who has abused his lawmaking power thus to oppress us, and also to counteract the votes of bad women-and here is the appalling danger. While conservative women may stay at home the infamous women of our cities, numbering thousands, will be brought to the polls as a unit, and every such vote bought by some scheming politician. What legislation will this vote ask for? Surely nothing less than a social disorganization. Women of this hitherto happy land, reflect. Are you prepared for such consequences.” (1)

Under coverture the woman’s husband spoke for her. He represented her. Men cared more about the interests and well being of women because they were responsible for women. They knew they had the moral duty to elevate the interests of women above their own. They knew they had to think of women and children first. Now men don’t care about the interests of women because many modern women and the feminist movement has insisted that women can speak for themselves, protect themselves and support themselves and they have no need of the protection or support of men. But women do have need of male protection and guardianship. It is not degrading to women. It signifies that women are precious and loved, favored even. I don’t believe America has been a true patriarchy since the mid-19th century when coverture started being repealed. Patriarchy entails male headship of families and the legal dependence of wives and children as well as male guardianship of women and men in charge of the overall social order. Many societies have adopted aspects of patriarchy but if the social system does not involve chivalrous ethic on behalf of men towards women I don’t believe it to be patriarchy. For instance, I don’t believe a tribe that acknowledges fatherhood and descent through the male line yet has the women own all the property and do all the drudgery work to be a patriarchy, patrilineal perhaps, but not truly patriarchal.

“It may not be altogether easy to determine the exact difference in function between the sexes; in minor details those functions may differ in differing civilizations. But speaking broadly, it may be said that the work of battle in all its forms, and all the work that is cognate thereto, belongs to man. Physically and psychically his is the sterner and the stronger sex. His muscles are more steel-like; his heart and his flesh are alike harder; he can give knocks without compunction and receive them without shrinking. In the family, therefore, his it is to go forth and fight the battle with Nature; to compel the reluctant ground to give her riches to his use. It is not for woman to hold the plough, or handle the hoe, or dig in the mine, or fell the forest. The war with Nature is not for her to wage.” (2)

It is important to note that although men in general hold authority over women in general, a woman is not under any obligation to obey just any man. In fact, a man attempting to assert dominance over a woman where he has no authority is often subject to punishment, sometimes by the woman’s husband (or father) himself. For instance, if the man is holding out his hands wanting the woman to feed him or he is trying to order her around or he pushes himself on her sexually then he has committed a serious offense. In patriarchal societies men were often put to death for raping a woman. It was an offense not just against her but also against her husband/father because the woman was under guardianship. Even the Bible itself gave a husband the right to punish a man who brought physical harm to his wife. Not because women were “property” but because they were under guardianship and her husband was responsible to protect her. (As a side note no in the Bible and in other ancient societies women were not “damaged goods” if they weren’t virgins. Women were only punished for adultery and her lover was punished equally. Widowed and divorced women frequently remarried and the man had to marry the woman if they were intimate and she was not already engaged. In the Bible the man would have to pay the bride price (dowry) anyways if the woman’s father wouldn’t agree to the marriage).

I have been a supporter of automatic father custody, but only under the principle of coverture. I do not support men’s or father’s rights groups because these groups are abusive. They do not elevate the interests of women and children above their own interests. Their interests are purely selfish. They are about asserting their dominance over women but in a way that harms women and gets them out of responsibility. They want men’s rights without men’s responsibility attached to it. The only time they care about fatherless children is to show that they and not the mother should have custody. Family breakdown is only really a problem when they can’t get whatever they want out of divorce or when they have to support illegitimate children that they don’t want (at least that they don’t want until the child support gets to be too burdensome, at which point they all of a sudden become dad of the year and start pulling out the custody card and claim to be victims). No, I support father custody under coverture. For the father who is married to the children’s mother and is responsible to provide for them. I support this because it brings more security to women and children in ways I can’t completely explain in one posting. Under coverture the wife and children are already under the husband’s custody. Divorce should be rare in this instance but if divorce or separation does occur it should not change the rights nor the responsibilities between husband and wife (for instance, she shouldn’t automatically be responsible for being a co-provider nor should the husband’s authority now have to be shared with the wife over the children as in her getting equal rights to them over the husband’s objections). As long as she hasn’t been adulterous he should still have to support her, so him wrestling the kids away from her won’t get him out of responsibility.

This is what I believe. I’ve always felt that it was right to let my husband support and protect me and I always felt it was right to obey him. I was just innocent and naive when I first married. I had never even known the words “women’s liberation” and I knew I felt inside that men should protect women and love them, not harm them. It is particularly damaging when a man exploits, abuses and abandons a woman much more so than if he abused another man just the same as it is particularly more damaging if an adult abused or exploited a child than if an adult did the same to another adult. It is very damaging when the natural order is perverted and women are given no special consideration as being the weaker and more vulnerable of the two sexes. Men are stronger than women and always inherently more powerful. Feminists tried to put women on an equal level to men by erasing laws that protected women but doing so didn’t make women as powerful as men, it left women desperate and vulnerable and liberated men from their responsibilities. It shouldn’t be this way. It is man’s duty to protect women, not declare war on them.

“For until she had been unsexed, until she had ceased to be woman, she could not play the part which her destiny and her ambition assigned to her. For like reason society exempts woman from police functions. She is not called to be sheriff or constable or night watchman. She bears no truncheon and wears no revolver. She answers not to the summons when peace officers call for the posse comitatus. She is not received into the National Guard when bloody riot fills the city with peril and alarms. Why not? Is she not the equal of man? Is she not as loyal? as law abiding ? as patriotic? as brave? Surely. All of these is she. But it is not her function to protect the state when foreign foes attack it; it is the function of the state to protect her. It is not her function to protect the persons and property of the community against riot; it is man’s function to protect her. Here at least the functional difference between the sexes is too plain to be denied, doubted, or ignored. Here at least no man or woman from the claims of equality of character jumps to the illogical conclusion that there is an identity of function.” (2)

When Women Act Bad

“And to any Mangina who might be reading this: These are YOUR women. Why are you letting this happen? Why are you handing them over to government, to feminists? Especially American men abandoning their own to seek a wife abroad. One in four of them is medicated for depression or anxiety these days. If you guys can’t even manage your own, what makes you think you deserve one from overseas? Those have only turned out better because their men DID THEIR JOBS. You, like beaten dogs with a tail between their legs, skulking off to lick their wounds, leaving YOUR WOMEN to rot. That’s cowardice. A captain who abandons ship isn’t worthy of his rank. Shrugging like a sullen teenager “well it ain’t my fault”. Come on… Are you really fool enough to believe you have no power, no influence?!” (Happy Housewife)

Today we have a nation full of whiny crybaby men. If you look around for a while you will see entire groups of them whining that women are bad, women are evil, women are just as abusive (even sexually) as much as what men are. That men are really the victims of some unrecognized epidemic of female on male sexual assault and violence but the feminist court systems refuse to recognize it, etc…etc… They spend much of their time being paranoid about aggressive women and complain that they must live by women’s rules. They’ll whine and cry that they want equality with women and that they’ve been oppressed and dragged down into the dirt and are victims.

If these “men” would have been men in the first place none of this would have ever happened. Their solution is to abandon women, to hate women. If women are “bad” then they in turn are going to be “bad” and irresponsible as well. The truth, however, is that if women are out of control it is ultimately the fault of men. Just the same as if we have a nation of undisciplined, disrespectful and out of control youth it is the fault of adults. The problem can be traced back to adults being irresponsible and not doing their jobs as parents. Likewise, if women today are being bad, disrespectful and out of control the fault can be traced back to men being irresponsible and not doing their jobs in most all cases.

“Is it wrong to treat a child like an adult and on that basis refuse to provide for the child or to punish the child by abandoning the child rather than giving to the child corrective discipline and then continuing to care for the child as before? Of course; such behavior towards a child is child abuse. Well, a woman’s status relative to a man is similar in many ways to the status of a child relative to their parents. It is abusive to a woman to refuse to provide for her in a marital context. It is abusive to a woman to deny her basic provision and protection when she does wrong to a man when corrective discipline can be imposed upon the woman instead while the woman continues to receive the basic support and protection she needs. When a woman is “out of control” it is the fault of men requiring male intervention to fix the problem just like it is the fault of parents when their children are “out of control” requiring intervention from adults to fix the problem. Just like parents are never entitled to abandon their children and deny their responsibilities towards their children and just like adults as a community are never entitled to abandon their collective responsibilities towards children overall men are never entitled to abandon women and deny their responsibilities towards women and men as a collective body are never entitled to abandon their collective responsibilities towards women overall.”(1)

If a man’s wife is acting bad, it is his responsibility to control her. It is his responsibility to protect her, even from herself. It is his duty to care for her, love her, protect and support her. If she is acting bad then most of the time it is because the husband himself has been irresponsible and not doing his job of providing for and protecting her. When one’s children act bad, the parents don’t just say “I’m outta here!” and abandon them because such a thing would be abuse, it is morally wrong. The children need the parents and if they are out of control then it is the job of parents to impose law and order upon them, including disciplining (not necessarily always physical discipline) them as appropriate to correct the misbehavior. Likewise, although women are not children, in many ways a woman’s relationship with a man is childlike. In most cases women choose men who are older than them. They like men who are more successful than them and physically stronger and taller than them. Just the same as a child might crawl up into an adult’s lap to sit or be held, so too is it common to see a woman climb into her husband’s lap in like fashion to spend time with him or so that he can comfort her. I have never seen a man crawl into a woman’s lap to be held and comforted. A woman is a creature of her emotions. Today’s society says it is just a “stereotype” but in truth it is reality; reality backed up with scientific evidence even. A man is often more stable emotionally and does not make as many decisions based solely on how he feels at the moment. Men and women reason differently. Psychological research has shown that even when men and women are performing the same tasks we use different parts of our brains. The man is often the one to comfort the woman by holding her and letting her cry and protecting her. Just as parent’s first and foremost duties are to their children, so should a husband’s first and foremost duties be to his wife (which also takes care of the children).

Modern society says women should be responsible for themselves and be “independent” and equal partners with their husbands and anything different is wrong. So for a man to control his wife in any way is “wrong,” even if it protects her and protects the marriage. The government has authority over citizens, parents over children, teachers over pupils and bosses over employees. But for a man to have authority over a woman is wrong, wrong, wrong! A man is no longer held to the responsibility of supporting his wife, of protecting her from harm, of controlling and being responsible for her actions. Domestic Violence legislation like VAWA is the inevitable consequence of man’s removal from authority and responsibility over wife and children. If women are to be left on their own then they must turn somewhere for protection from men who are in most all cases stronger and more powerful than them. And so strong has the women’s movement been that even the slightest attempt by the husband to control has wife (such as saying she can’t go somewhere or blocking the doorway) might be considered abuse. Even the highest courts in the land have ruled in favor of gender-neutral laws that prohibit the man from being authoritative and being held responsible for his wife and he must share in the rights and responsibilities in regards to his children. He cannot make any decision without also consulting his wife.


“Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void” (Numbers 30:13)

If men are victims today, it is because they have run away from responsibility. If a woman is out of control it is the responsibility of the husband to fix the problem and fix the behavior. His authority and responsibility should be set in the law codes and as a general rule others should not interfere unless he is failing in his duties. For instance, if he has done all he can to control his wife and nothing is working then the community might try to interfere and reason with her and if that too has failed then the law might have to intervene if the problem keeps continuing. But first and foremost it should be examined why the husband has failed in his duties. He is responsible and he must be held to answer.

The wife should be required to submit to her husband, unless what he has asked of her is immoral or he is attempting to impose his responsibilities upon her (such as commanding her to go to work to ease his workload or put herself in danger so he can be a wimp and hide behind her). If he has become cruel to her or truly abusive to her and is harming her then intervention might become necessary. First maybe the men closest to her (such as her father or brother or other men or even women that are friends and family of the husband) can intervene on her behalf and let the husband know what he is doing is wrong and they do not approve and will shelter the wife if necessary. If that doesn’t work then a separation might be in order where the husband must still be responsible for her support.

It is the responsibility of men to protect women and support women. If women today are out of control then it is the responsibility of men to fix the job but they are never justified in abandoning women. It makes no sense to me why a man would want to be “equal” to a woman. I mean, are you a man or are you not? The phrase “being a woman” doesn’t have near the impact that the phrase “being a man” has. Generally someone might say “stop being such a woman” implying that the person should stop acting weak or emotional. But on the other hand when someone says “be a man” it implies strength, courage and power. It implies a higher level of responsibility and expectations upon one’s conduct and accomplishments. If one were to say “be a woman” it would just sound kind of odd because generally to be a woman one need only have been a female that has reached physical maturity. On the other hand to “be a man” it does not simply imply physical maturity but carries the expectation that one must prove himself. Likewise, if a man were to yell “woman!” it would pack a heavy punch because it implies authority and commands attention. On the other hand if a woman yells “man!” she would probably only get as a response a few raised eyebrows and probably a round of laughter because there is no such underlying meaning of authority or commanding of attention there. In fact, saying “man!” has been a slang term for generations.

It takes time to really achieve societal change and change existing laws, but it is something that we must advocate for. Instead of rejecting responsibility or running off and abandoning a woman who acts bad or out of control men must instead assert their authority or the problems will just escalate.

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)

On Guardianship for Women

“It’s time to set the record straight. The claim that American women are downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century. The truth is American women never had it so good. Why should we lower ourselves to ‘equal rights’ when we already have the status of special privilege?” – Phyllis Schlafly, 1972.

A lot of people have always been shocked and wondered why I always do what my husband tells me to. I have created quite a scene at times by saying that my husband is the leader of our family. Some people praise me and other are scandalized that anyone would still hold onto such a “backwards” notion of how male-female relationships should be. Even most conservative women are offended when anyone says that they should let their husbands speak on their behalf (such as the case a few years back when a whole group of women walked out of their church over the pastor saying that the women should remain silent if their husbands could speak for them.) In the last 50 years it has become unheard of (except in really religious communities who have often made the news for their extreme, and sometimes illegal, activities) for a man to be the unquestionable leader of the family. Even conservative women believe in some sort of mythical “sharing” of decision making and responsibility. Even Suzanne Venker (a self proclaimed “anti-feminist ” and conservative) once said that any “sane” person would agree with women voting. She apparently has no problem with women working either. I had a fan of mine once tell me that he was at a church gathering once where they were praising women’s lib as being the greatest thing to ever happen. Even today’s conservatives have moved so far to the left that hey have a disdain for tradition- especially gender roles. They may still endorse the Bible and the Second Amendment. But, nonetheless they wouldn’t dare endorse traditional gender roles and they certainly wouldn’t dare suggest that our laws should reflect them. In the rare chance that they do, it creates a scandal and immediate backlash.

Anyways, I don’t attend any church. I’m not part of the Republican Party nor do I endorse it (I don’t endorse them because of they way the party is going and the things that they are doing- especially to women). I do, however, stick firmly to traditional gender roles and there is a good reason why.

My husband is not the leader of the family because his p**** has some kind of magical qualities that make him superior in some way nor is it because I’m grounded in religious dogma that tells me it must be this way, you know, because I’m just a lowly woman after all.

No, I obey what my husband tells me to do because I expect him to be responsible for me and take care of me. He couldn’t very well be responsible for me if I refused to listen to him. I expect that he will support me financially and be responsible for my wellbeing in all ways and therefore I let him have the authority of leading us. I don’t want his burdens and it is unquestionable in both of our eyes that he would ever put them on me. He agrees with women having exemptions and protections that women traditionally had. And he also believes that men should be in charge.

This ultimately serves a greater purpose for all of society. We either have two choices: we either push on with “equality” and watch men and women destroy each other, claim victim status, and eventually “go their own way” while our families break apart, our population declines and society becomes a complete wreck. Or, we can realize that, although things certainly weren’t perfect, maybe the age old wisdom of treating the sexes differently where it is logical to do so might actually be something we should return to.

Expecting that women should be treated the same as men and that everything will be OK is absurd. I am a woman. I should have every right not to have to listen to a man’s perverted language and to not have his rightful burdens and obligations forced upon my back. I know that I am physically weaker and have various hormonal changes that lead me to be an emotional wreck over practically the slightest thing. It is a normal part of being a woman and it is often unavoidable. It is also normal for women to have psychological issues right after childbearing and when sexually exploited or taken advantage of by men. But us women have been robbed of our rights (many under common law) to hold a man legally and socially responsible for the things he says in our presence or for seduction and then refusing to go through with a marriage and taking care of her afterwards. We have been robbed of our rights to demand that marriage be a prerequisite for sex or paternal rights to offspring. So, now, society erupts into chaos because the current methods of treating men and women are not working. Women need to be protected and cared for by men and men need to have a place in society that is all theirs. They need to lead, care for and be responsible for women.

My husband takes good care of me. I don’t go anywhere without his permission and I don’t generally go anywhere unless he’s with me. Sometimes it is inevitable that I go out alone or take our little one places, however, and he always knows where I’m going and when. I expect that he treat me right and be respectful to me. He won’t watch offensive TV shows or movies around me. He doesn’t let anyone talk down to me or hurt me. If there are any kinds of problems he takes care of them. Since I hold him responsible to take care of me I also let him speak for me. Despite appearances though, I’m convinced my husband listens to me more than other women’s husbands listen to them. Appearances are often deceiving that way. Being under the protection and authority of my husband allows me be truly feminine in all ways. If I had to take on his responsibilities I would lose that part of my femininity that makes me a little childish and lighthearted.

I am certainly a proponent of bringing back Coverture for women who are married. Under coverture the husband holds liability for the support of his wife and her actions as much as he holds the responsibility for his children (coverture would certainly give fathers more rights than the “joint custody” scams father’s rights groups and gender-neutralized feminists cooked up in the 1980’s). Since the husband holds the authority over the wife and children he also holds the responsibility for what his wife does unless he can show that she was indeed not operating under his orders. Having women in the home and under the protection and authority of their husbands certainly keeps society more stable and creates a better environment for children to be raised in. Children would have the nurturing and care of their mothers while being under the authority of fathers. Married women could also help out others in the community, socialize, or volunteer their time to a good cause like they used to do. These are all pluses for society for sure.

Being considered weak does not automatically equal being inferior the way we have been led to believe all of our lives. Quite the contrary. Men are taught not to hit or fight with women because women are precious (whereas, whether anyone likes it or not, men are not- at least not in the same way). We carry life inside of us which gives us a natural superiority which we should never trade away for mere equality. A woman becomes precious and of upmost importance in the eyes of her husband whenever he takes on personal responsibility and liability for her. The husband knows he is important and he feels like a man because he is in charge and he is responsible. The husband then becomes a productive member of society. His family stays together and he can focus on his career making positive contributions to society. And, most importantly, he enables the mother to do a job that only she can do the best. Her child-bearing abilities make her precious and should always be a point of pride because no man can do it. Women are sexual creatures and precious. We are more vulnerable and ultimately need the protection of men and should be cared for by them. No, we are not children. A woman under the protection of coverture may be cared for and under the authority of her husband the same as her children are, but she is still an adult with responsibilities as well as she still has to care for the children and see that they are taken care of everyday. There is really no bigger responsibility than that.