Tag Archives: patriarchy

Rather be Oppressed 

Over the past weekend my husband and I went to town. I began to grow saddened again when we went into stores and I saw all of the women at work. Most of them were not very good looking women either, might I add. I just remember thinking how fortunate I was to marry young and follow all of my feminine instincts to just stay home.

Even still the thought of being independent makes me sick. I just held onto him the entire way home, wanting him to lead me and take care of me. I let him make love to me, and I clung to him and it felt so good, wonderful and right.

There’s a lot of people, including my own relatives, who hate me for who I am and for what I believe. I’ve been pushed non-stop to be the independent woman that relies on nobody but herself. But that’s just not me. I’d rather be “oppressed.” I’d rather be open and loving towards a man. I’d rather be controlled and under the authority of a man that I love and trust. I think we women are vastly unhappy when we are given too much freedom.

There’s nothing unhealthy about feeling a real and deep need to depend on a man. I believe that’s how we women are made to feel. It only seems to me that women become the most psychologically unhealthy when we stray from the protection and authority of our men.

Sitting here writing this, I’m actually in pain right now. I’m not in pain because there’s something wrong with me. On the contrary, I’m in pain because I’m a female and I’m healthy. I’m fairly weak right now simply because of the design of my biology.

I have the option of medicating myself, getting up and forgetting about this female side of me. I could make a few jokes about it, perhaps even some crude ones, and go to work and be Miss Independent- plenty of women do that. But I don’t really want to do that. I’d rather just lie down and rest and enjoy being female; enjoy being weaker and more vulnerable. Sometimes it’s hard and sometimes it’s a bit painful and messy even, but it’s who I am and how I’m made. I’m not supposed to be a man or strong in the same ways as a man. My strength is in my femininity.

It’s ingrained in men to want to take care of women, but the modern woman’s attitudes and behaviors are causing men everywhere to have a “Screw the b****” attitude.

Can you look at the man you love, or the man you think you could one day love, and tell him you are open to him? Can you tell him that you would trust and follow him and live under his authority? Some men don’t want or can’t handle that- and that’s fine. Let them pair off with the feminist women they deserve.

I don’t really believe men only want sex. Men can get sex if they want it. Men can pay for sex. I think most men just want their women to be open to them and trusting of them. They want to be acknowledged as men.

I’ve dealt with the criticism of others but it doesn’t matter. I’ve dealt with men that hate housewives and independent women trying to push me to be like them. I’m different from others and I always have been. That’s what makes me who I am and that’s why you’re reading this article right now.

I would rather be oppressed than liberated. Everyone else lives hectic lives and their families are all torn apart. Why would I want to be like them? Perhaps they just want to bring me and others like me down to their level. Perhaps they want us to fail.

Patriarchy isn’t always perfect or even fun, but it’s the best option for families and ultimately for women too. That’s why women, such as myself, have always fought for it. Plain and simple, we don’t want to leave the protection of coverture or be away from the guidance of our men. That’s why we always come running back while everyone else just shakes their heads thinking there’s something wrong with us. We don’t want to be liberated or really care about women’s “rights.” In the end, we’d rather be oppressed.

Advertisements

Could MRAism Ever be OK?

Generally I have always been opposed to MRAs. The reason is simple; most MRAs I’ve ever seen have been about nothing more than woman-bashing and denying male responsibility. Worse, there are many who want men to have patriarchal authority but none of the patriarchal responsibilities- the biggest thing being that they want control over women and children without the responsibility to provide for and protect women and children. Many advocate for a society with women being submissive and feminine and husbands and fathers being in control of children and women’s reproduction yet where wives and mothers, as well as women in general, are required to work and support themselves as well as their offspring.

That to me has always been an unsaleable proposition. As the old saying goes “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” I hate feminism, EVERY single wave of it, and am against the whole “gender equality” dogma but when it comes down to it I would rather give my support to the feminists than pro-equality MRAs who want to have their cake and eat it too.

However, times change and so do social movements. Just look at the different “waves” of feminism. Therefore could it ever be possible for me to be accepting of MRAs? Could it be possible that it could ever be a movement I would accept?

There is a new post by Jesse Powell over at Secular Patriarchy. In the post, titled “Rethinking the Manosphere and MRAs,” Powell argues that maybe MRAs might turn out to be pro-patriarchy in the end after all; that instead of being 4th-wave feminists it might be, in actuality, the beginning of several social movements and ideologies to re-establish patriarchy- true patriarchy- in society.

The thing I find most interesting about it all is that the primary driving force for MGTOWS and MRAs accepting patriarchal values and traditional male responsibilities seems to be sex and romantic involvement with women. The psychological theory is that men do everything they do for sex. After all men will create and build up civilization to get sex (if that’s what it takes) or they’ll become parasites living off their girlfriends if that’s all it takes. It’s kind of interesting that even the most hard-core embittered MGTOW will apparently even step up and embrace true patriarchal responsibility for women if it’ll finally get him laid.

That being said I don’t think I could ever support the movement unless it got a different name. Also, it is still only a minority who are embracing traditional manhood and gender roles. MRAs have many good points but their reasoning is flawed and everything always turns into “I’m a victim of this, that and the other.” Their “movement” to me is more like a religion where one has to believe in certain basic tenents of victimhood regardless of whether or not there is any evidence to support it.

To me whining and complaining about how victimized one is is completely pointless. What matters is finding any injustices and working to change things for the better not sitting around with a “poor me” attitude and whining about how you hate the opposite sex and the entire world along with them. I truly hope Mr. Powell is right in his observations about MRAs but at this point it is simply too early to lend support to such an ideology as “men’s rights” or any associated movement. If the time comes where the movement as a whole has gender roles and traditional patriarchal values as its first and foremost goal then I will get behind it. But things are crazy right now in society and their movement is very schizophrenic.

That being said I’ve linked to a few MRA articles in my day and I’ve talked to a couple of others who believe there is a split coming soon in the movement. I truly hope that is so. Until then, I will still shy away from MRAs because I see them ultimately as abusers of women who have no love nor compassion for women. I still see them as, ultimately, men who wish to take advantage of women and exploit women especially where they are most vulnerable. I see them as putting the women down who don’t want to have to go out and work and because they want to be taken care of by a man and care for their own children. I still see them as the men who complain about women and don’t want to take care of women. I still see them as abusive, exploitative and selfish. I still see them as men like my father, who talk highly of the old days of patriarchy and where the father was head of household but then want to turn around like “you owe me support, bitch” and have a constant run of girlfriends who they wish to control yet the women all are financially independent and work everyday. That is still how I think of MRAs. And maybe it’s that they don’t understand how things should be or what to do about the current mess. I know I always felt something was wrong but never knew exactly what or how things could be different or how to make it better before I discovered the truth of history and men’s duties in patriarchal society that feminism did away with (and that the MSM goes to extraordinary lengths to cover up).

But I would like to believe it could change and that maybe out of all the destruction a movement will arise with men taking charge again and accepting responsibility to be the guardians, providers and protectors of women and children.

“Can’t Hold Us Down”

The Christina Aguilera video below is the stuff I grew up on. Of course, I never had a mother or mother-figure to tell me what exactly was wrong with this video and that those “double standards” actually served a purpose. I remember me and my husband talking once and we were talking about how neither of us had ever even heard the word “illegitimate” growing up. We never even knew what it meant. The only thing I ever heard from my mother growing up was the importance of birth control and that I needed college and a good career and not to have babies until I had finished college and was “ready” or “in a serious relationship” or something. I was never quite clear on when exactly it was OK to have sex or when babies should ideally come along (or if they were ever even supposed to).

This song actually strikes right at the heart of patriarchy, but none of us girls belting out the lyrics to the song could have possibly known that when we were growing up or understand the significance of it. It’s very confusing when you’re told on the one hand to express yourself sexually and do what you want yet on the other hand when the consequences of sex (i.e., babies) inevitably follow all of a sudden you’ve done something wrong and nobody can quite understand “how this could have happened” and how things became so messed up. On the one hand young women and girls are sexualized by the media and taught free sex is OK yet on the other hand she’s done something wrong by actually following what the media teaches (and nobody ever teaches her how she should act as the media, the Hollywood stars and her peers are her primary- and sometimes only- teachers). That should probably be termed the real double standard; the double standard in expectations as if actions have no consequences in life. Older women would rather be hostile to the younger women rather than teach them the right way to behave and be loved and happy in life and the men generally stay silent on the issue.

After being taken care of and provided for by a man for so long it was a bit unnerving to see this video after so many years and see how both the men and the women were up in each other’s faces and looked as if they might even physically attack each other at any moment. Also interesting (and I’m sure completely insignificant) is that the video appears to be set in a dirty poverty-stricken ghetto neighborhood. A woman is even carrying around a young child at the end of the video. (The significance of that, I’m sure, is anyone’s guess. Maybe her baby will grow up to be a good feminist man who follows orders).

“Sisterhood” of course is promoted in the song and video. The women appear to be just as immature as the boy-men in the video whom they are criticizing. The in-your-face sexual perversion in the video is crude and uncomfortable. The video is a wonderful display of the lawlessness, perversion, poverty and antagonism between the sexes that feminism and sexual promiscuity creates. If he attacks you, attack him back girl…We got your back…

No, the males shown in the video and described by the song are not men- and they never will be so long as the girls are sexually free.

A Personal Thought on Mayberry and Patriarchy

Mayberry. A nice little American town in the 1960s from the Andy Griffith Show. Little boys can play cowboys on the sidewalk in the middle of town with fake guns and pretend shoot each other and nobody even pays any mind. Prisoners just grab the keys and let themselves out when their 24-hour sentence is served. The sheriff and his deputy are so bored from the town not even having a single significant crime happen from day to day that the sheriff even jokes that maybe they should advertise and fake crimes have to be invented just for deputy Barney to feel important because he hasn’t had a single crime to solve since he was deputized. And, of course, there ain’t been no pickpockets around Mayberry for as long as anyone can remember (well, at least not since since old man Burnett put in that complaint against old lady Burnett).

Maybe the secret to the peace and stability of the community lies in an episode titled Ellie for Council where local woman Ellie (fresh out of college and working at the local pharmacy) is appalled that there is no women running for council and that there are no females in office or involved in the government in their town. She puts Andy down for his blatant sexism for telling her women should stay out of government affairs and calls him anti-woman and, just to prove herself and stand up for her sex, decides to run for office. The men, of course, try to prevent her from running and the women fire back at the men for their misogyny. It becomes men vs. women until at the end they can’t see any reason for her not to run other than that she’s a woman.

Maybe, however, it is the simple fact that the town is so highly patriarchal that explains the peace in the town. Maybe the reason she shouldn’t run isn’t just “because she’s a woman” but rather because women in politics and business will, ultimately, destruct the family and the civilization as a whole. Today women are breadwinners and politicians and “in charge” and it would cause an international crisis if a man told a woman she should just worry about women’s business. In our world today there is no area where men and women have not mixed their duties and roles. Also, small towns are not peaceful like Mayberry. Kids would be arrested as terrorists these days just by saying the word “gun” or having a toy gun and jails are overpopulated and overcrowded even in small towns. Intact families are rare. People don’t know their neighbors and don’t bring a bowl of soup over for the elderly woman who’s taken sick and you’d be a fool to let your kid out of your site for just one minute. But, trust me, no man will ever tell a woman to stay out of politics. The society would set out on a modern day witch-hunt if any man ever dared.

The other day I was watching a Little House on the Prairie episode titled Oleson vs Oleson. At the beginning of the episode Nels was attempting to discipline his and Harriet’s son. Harriet, however, thought he was being too harsh on the poor boy and intervened to give him back the things Nels took from him. The next day a feminist comes to town to tell everyone about the “horrid” laws governing the family which put the husband in charge over women, children, and property. She pleads with all the men to please sign her petition to get these awful laws changed. Of course, Nels hears this and proceeds to act like your stereotypical chauvinistic male whenever he comes home (you know, takes off his slippers and props his feet up and tells Harriet who’s boss). Harriet leaves him to go stay in the hotel and Caroline Ingalls is outraged. She tells Charles that they are supposed to be equal partners in the marriage and it isn’t right what Nels is doing. She then sets out to get all the women to leave their husbands until they agree to sign the feminist woman’s petition. She creates a huge wreck and practically turns the town upside down. Meanwhile, Charles and the other men are trying to care for the screaming kids at home and cook dinner, etc… The only voice of reason in the entire mess of an episode seems to be when Albert tells Charles that the men in the town won’t sign the petition because they believe women should be taken care of. In the end, however, all the men (including the preacher) end up signing the petition. At the end Laura Ingalls narrates that one day women will also have the right to vote as well!

Funny I don’t think there’s a single show even dating back to the 1950s that doesn’t have some kind of feminist agenda where the women rise up and the men give in in the end. The shows all portray happily-ever-afters where things just get better when society becomes more feminist. Of course, in the real world the reverse is true. Real-life towns undoubtedly had peace and prosperity like what is shown in Mayberry because the towns and families were so patriarchal that there were barriers to what men and women could do based upon their sex.

Recommended:

Changes in Time: Reading Grandma’s Diaries

No, “We” Are Not Pregnant

First off I want to give a disclaimer that I’m not a doctor so use your brain and seek your own medical advice from an actual qualified medical professional. I’m giving my opinions and beliefs based on my long hours of research and personal experiences. Second this post has some sexual talk that isn’t completely PG-rated and isn’t normally something I go into, but I feel it is important so I’m going to “go there.” Just wanted to give a quick warning about that.

I came across some comments today regarding this “we are pregnant” nonsense that men today say (which I think is ridiculous) while surfing through NYMOM’s blog (I’m a big fan of her blog and occasionally check through her postings again to lift my spirits from this broken world we live in). Anyways, I thought they were pretty good and summed up some things that were have actually been on my mind here lately and I wanted to make a blog posting to put in my own two cents on the matter.

“We Are Not Pregnant
The glory of men and women lies in their unbridgeable differences.
Mark Galli | posted 7/12/2007 08:55AM

A male friend, married to a lovely women, comes up to me beaming and says, “We’re pregnant!”

“Wow!” I reply, with inappropriate sarcasm. “When I was a young man, only women could get pregnant.”

I’ve heard this phrase—”We’re pregnant”—too much recently, but it’s time to move beyond sarcasm. The intent is as understandable as the execution is absurd. It arises out of the noble desire of men (and future fathers) to participate fully in the childrearing. And I understand that for many men, it simply means, “My wife and I are expecting a baby.”

But the first dictionary meaning of pregnant remains, “Carrying developing offspring within the body.” Whenever a word is misused, it means the speaker is unaware of the word’s meaning, or that the cultural meaning of a word is shifting, or that some ideology is demanding obeisance. Probably all three are in play, but it’s the last reality that we should pay attention to. It is not an accident that this phrase, “We’re pregnant,” has arisen in a culture that in many quarters is ponderously egalitarian and tries to deny the fundamental differences of men and women.

This phrase is most unfortunate after conception because it is an inadvertent co-opting of women by men—men using language to suggest that they share equally in the burdens and joys of pregnancy. Instead, pregnancy is one time women should flaunt their womanhood, and one time men should acknowledge the superiority of women. Men may be able to run the mile in less than four minutes and open stuck pickle jars with a twist of the wrist, but for all our physical prowess, we cannot carry new life within us and bring it into the world. To suggest that we do is a slap in the face of women.”

Anonymous #1 says:

“…My partner too has experienced many emotions since finding out I am pregnant, and although both very happy I have been very poorly due to morning sickness and nausea. To which he can never really understand how much I have been ill, and although has an idea of how depressed at times I felt through being incapacitated by the nausea, he really does not have a clue as to the extent of my suffering.

This is of course not his fault. However he has experienced symptoms of what I would call womb envy. He often says he wishes HE was the pregnant one, and that I am experiencing the baby growing, and how HE wishes he could feel it move just as I can, and how HE would rather be the one pregnant, and how he would swap places with me in a second, just to experience what I am. This actually makes me feel guilty, as he actually gets quite bitter and at times moody over the whole thing…at least that’s how he comes across. I have really tried to be sensitive to his needs, during this time, and share every aspect of how I feel and how IT feels to be the pregnant one.

It has actually brought out some strange colours in him that I never knew were there. He gets angry that most pregnancy books are female focused, and that there are only small sections dedicated to the man, which he says he finds patronising and insults his intelligence. When I suggested finding a book specific for men in pregnancy, he said, “he should not have to”, and says we are EQUAL in this process, that he is just as important as I am.”

Anonymous #2 says:

“I am a 30-year-old European married to an American. I don not have any children. Lately I have decided that I do not want to have any children from my husband because I have come to regard pregnancy as the worst Ponzi scheme out there: You go through nine months of pregnancy, through labor, etc. and suddenly someone else can claim (at least equal) legal rights over the fruit of my labour (literally)!? Over the child I gave birth to! No, thank you! I am European and moving to the (very legalistic) United States has been a huge eye-opener for me: I once told an American fellow student that I would not want my husband to be present during the birth of my child (I see it as a very private moment, and I would like to be assisted by a doula or a trusted female friend) and he became very angry, claiming that it is a father’s right to be there and see the child exit the mother’s vagina (actually, he called it “witness the child’s first moments”)!!! I am a woman, a separate free individual, and NOT a mechanical child-bearing vessel / child-birthing machine. Therefore, I will not have any children, especially from my husband (I could always go to Denmark and undergo artificial insemination). I would love to have a child from my husband, but I am too afraid to do so in this upside-down world.

Unfortunately, also many formerly feminist European countries, such as Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia, are now starting to embrace this questionable gender neutrality… When the heck did we switch from “women’s rights” to “gender equality”? Sad!”

There is so much to comment on here. The first anonymous commenter has a “partner” (she doesn’t specifically state “husband” which is a problem in itself) who is jealous of her more important role in bringing a child into this world. I personally think it really pathetic of a man to be jealous of women’s roles in any area of life- whether in childbearing or in the traditional feminine sphere of caring for the home and children. Anonymous commenter #2 has a real problem with her husband or any man claiming the same legal rights as her to a child she has suffered and worked to give birth to and also a problem with her husband insisting to be there when she gives birth.

I have to say that these ladies are right. Their feelings on these issues are not unfounded. A man should not be jealous over the role his wife has in life. Men and women are not “equal.” A father can only be made equal by the society/law and what he brings to the mother and child (as opposed to what the mother does in childbearing). I understand there is a tendency in men (that they will never admit to, of course) to be afflicted with womb envy. That is why men should have other areas in life that are unique to their sex that they can achieve in (such as providing for families and being protectors). Yes, her role is more important in childbearing. In truth, the male role in childbearing is dispensable. Only a mother is necessary during childbirth, only her role is biological. She conceives, carries, bears and nurses the child from her own body. Her maternity is certain. Paternity, however, is never completely certain. The most intense scrutiny in the world can never completely assure a man of his paternity. He must trust in a third party (whether the mother or some anonymous person in a lab coat he’s never met and who is, after all, just a human who makes mistakes, not to mention that in a bureaucracy the right hand never knows what the left hand is doing) to assure him he is the father of a child.

I also agree completely with childbirth being a private event. My husband did not in any way participate in the birth of our child. Actually, nobody really did. Nobody- friends or family- was informed at all that I was in labor and I wouldn’t have had it any other way. The midwife was specifically informed that nobody at all was to be told that I was in labor and if anyone did show up to get rid of them. My midwife only checked on me midday to make sure I was ok then left me in peace until I needed her a couple of hours later. I can’t see what good spectators do in childbirth other than make labor longer and more difficult and painful for the mother by disallowing her privacy and peace of mind to let instinct take over and I’m sorry but I can’t see how it takes five people groping a woman’s privates for a child to be delivered safely. In all societies I’ve ever studied, until recently, men were barred from being present at childbirth and a mother would either give birth alone or have a woman (or women) with her (although they often did not touch her, but were only there for support and to give assistance if needed). Male doctors only started delivering babies in the 19th century for the money, whereas before if men attempted to sneak around to see a laboring women they were shooed away. There is no need to touch a woman when she is giving birth and touching or interfering or talking to a woman (when it is not an emergency of course) can actually cause her injury and make the process more difficult. After all, animals give birth alone. They know when birth is imminent and isolate themselves. I had a midwife but she was only there pretty much after birth to make sure we were doing fine and to run an herb bath for me and the baby. As a result of my husband making himself scarce and me having complete silence and privacy labor and birth was actually relatively easy and not very painful. Labor progressed quickly and naturally with no interventions. Nobody talked to me or touched me and, while listening to the horror stories of every other woman having a hospital or home birth with lots of family, friends as well as the father in attendance, I probably had one of the best births imaginable. I never took any medications at all while pregnant nor during birth- they weren’t necessary. My body was made for this. I felt instinctively that childbirth was sexual (yes, sexual) and an intimate event that was sacred. Somehow I felt connected to something greater. It’s a beautiful feeling of vulnerability and preciousness that is unique to women. Men should not seek to undermine this and it is preposterous to think men are just as good with care-taking as women when there is not a shred of evidence to suggest such a thing. Men should respect and honor women for what only we can do.

The second thing that anonymous commenter #2 talks about is giving fathers rights when they do not give birth. I certainly think our current legal system is disgusting and I feel her sentiment exactly. I would feel the same as her if I didn’t know history. Because only women can bear the babies our laws used to place the entire burden of financial support of a family on the husband/father. Women were not responsible for their husband’s support nor should a woman be. Husbands should be responsible for their wives, but wives should not be responsible for their husbands. Men today however seem to think they are entitled to support from the mother of their child and support from their wives as well as WIC benefits and a share in the mother’s maternity leave that were intended to benefit and help mothers and infants recover from the ordeal of pregnancy and childbirth. So a woman bears your child and she owes you? I don’t think so. If anything the father is indebted to the mother. In no other scenario is the one who does work for somebody supposed to pay the one who is receiving the benefits of their work. That would be a crime. And indeed it is a crime in my book for a man not to be fully financially responsible for his wife, the woman who has given him children. This works out for the best interests of the family overall anyways as the more the responsibility for support is placed on the wife/mother the worse family breakdown overall gets. A husband should have legal rights because he should be responsible for his family. He is responsible to provide for the children he fathers with his wife and he is responsible for how those children are raised and how they turn out. He should be responsible just the same for his wife. The obligation to see to their support and protection should rest on his shoulders, not hers. The day men suffer pain and the possibility for infection, sickness, injury, disfigurement , indignity and even death (and this isn’t even mentioning the emotional/psychological side effects of childbearing) to bring forth life into this world the same as women have always suffered since the beginning of time is the day they might be justified in asking the wife/mother to carry the burden of support as well. A man not married to his children’s mother shouldn’t get the same rights because his position is not the same. A man simply wanting rights to a child he’s fathered is not in any way an example of him being responsible. Him being married to the mother and providing for her and the child and being held responsible for them is him being responsible.

A husband should do what is in the best interests of his wife and children. In many cases, as heretical as this statement is today, it is in the best interests of both mother and child for him to not be present when she gives birth. He has the right to see to their safety, support and protection. It’s not about what he wants. He has no “right” to put his wants above their needs. He should be putting the needs of his wife and child above his own and if his wife is not comfortable with him being present he should wait somewhere nearby and stay out of the way. He should also protect her and make sure nobody else interferes to cause her distress or harm while she is in labor and vulnerable.

Anonymous commenter #2 also talks about artificial insemination. I am very much against this for many reasons and think it should be outlawed, along with surrogacy. I also don’t think a lot of women realize the stresses and harms these procedures often do to women. A lot of women suffer much physical pain and psychological distress and the procedures fail often. Apart from that, women should not be left on their own with children. I am very much for patriarchy, the way the West has practiced it for centuries, as it gives great status to women. I prefer to defer to my husband’s authority because it is the surest source of protection and support for a woman- because it makes me feel secure. The more divorce and out-of-wedlock births there are the less men invest in women and support and protect them.

On the other hand, we cannot exist with gender neutral laws without a complete societal collapse. It’s either matriarchy or patriarchy. I would prefer patriarchy in a heartbeat. I don’t want to have sex with any man (or multiple men) I choose without stigma and live with my extended matrilineal kin or other women and do all the work while the men lounge in hammocks all day and run around clubbing each other over the head! That is the greatest Ponzi scheme of all time if you ask me! Patriarchy is a marvelous invention that actually took that burden out of the hands of mothers and placed it on fathers and built up civilization and I don’t want to give that up! I’d much prefer to be taken care of by one man for my life. I have always liked the idea of carrying *his* (I’m talking about my husband here) child. It is a great feeling, wrapped in safety and love by one more powerful than I, for my intimate body to be filled and invaded. It’s spiritual and romantic. Our differences are what make us unique. I’m weaker and much more vulnerable while he is stronger and in charge. Egalitarianism and women being in charge takes the beauty and life out of everything. It dulls the senses. When we are in the roles we are made for it is a beautiful thing. A woman taking her husband’s last name is actually a remnant of coverture in our culture. She and her children have the husband’s name, as she was once a “covered woman” (before the so-called “advancement” of women’s rights) being under the protection of her husband.

Women are free under a true patriarchal system- under coverture. A woman is free from being ruled by men who have no responsibility for her. She is free to have her babies and care for them and keep them by her side while the father goes out and works. She is free from the drudgery of full-time work and is free from being harassed by other men and having to carry the weight of responsibilities that rightfully belong to men. No, “we” are not pregnant, and neither should “we” carry the same responsibilities because our roles are not the same. The same rules that apply to men do not apply to women and vice versa.

Recommended Articles:

Family and Medical Leave Act Seeks to Undermine Mother’s Rights

Why Men Should Never be Present at the Birth of Their Child

Undisturbed Birth is our Genetic Heritage