I have often found myself in the last year quite disgusted with the conservatives of today’s era. In fact, I have been so disgusted that I didn’t even vote in the last election (I don’t think women should participate in politics anyways but in today’s world we have no choice) because I simply could not come to terms with which political party is out to hurt women the most. First the conservatives, who wish to bring back the harsh traditions of yesteryear without any of the traditional protections for women and families that went along with it, or the liberals who are in favor of everything from working mothers to instating a draft for women and putting 18 year old females straight in the front lines of combat. This is more than just the lesser of two evils here. This is simply women having to choose which way the want to get screwed over, because with either party they are going to get a raw deal.
Republicans have been accused of waging a “war on women” and I cannot entirely say that this accusation is entirely without justification. I think both parties are waging a war on women and we would be better off letting our husbands represent us and care for us, as they would care much more for our needs than any politician ever will. But, at present, we women have to play the hand we’re dealt. Conservatives have gone so far off track that even conservative women have been abandoning their party. As some Republican women put it:
“There is no way on God’s green earth that I would consider voting Republican.”
So, why are these conservative women feeling this way? Well, that is what I want to talk about. The women go on to say;
“The Republican Party’s abortion platform is so anti women that it makes no exception, even in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother. Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan said when asked if it should it be legal for a woman to be able to get an abortion if she’s been raped, “the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.”
The Republican Party has doubled down on their radical personhood agenda, which is the only way they can justify the cruel, draconian policies that they’ve been pushing for years now. Todd Akin only exposed the issue to the public, who may have missed the mountain of Republican legislation criminalizing contraception, in vitro fertilization, abortion under all circumstances and in some cases miscarriages.
The Republican Party’s policy empowers rapists to choose the mother of their children by physically overtaking her and raping her, forcing her into being in his life for the life of the child. Rapists have legal rights to the children conceived via rape.
Freedom under the Republican party looks like forcing women to give birth after being raped, and even when a young girl has been molested by a family member.”
Abortion is generally something that Conservatives are against. I generally take a neutral position when writing on issues of abortion as it is a very complicated thing and there are all kinds of moral, legal and medical considerations but I have long felt that life might be better for women and men might treat us differently and be willing to take on traditional responsibilities for women and children if it was illegal; mostly because society would be more likely to shift more responsibility to the men to marry the woman. But this is not what the crusading Republicans today are about. There is nothing on their platform that wants to actually protect women and children. I took up a tiny poll from some of my supporters to get an idea of their thoughts on abortion. The vast majority believed it should always be illegal. One of the comments I received was:
“The rapist should get the death penalty, not the child.”
The problem is that a rapist cannot legally be given the death penalty in the United States nor in much of the Western world -not even in the case of child rape (see Coker v Georgia; Kennedy v Louisiana). Feminist lawyers and liberal justices are mostly to blame for this. But what do conservatives do about it? Nothing. They are so busy wanting to impose harsh restrictions and laws on the public, mainly women, yet they do nothing and say nothing about the laws that hurt women and children. Do the Republicans of today even have any morality left at all? The majority of them claim to have a strong belief in God and traditional morality rooted in Biblical law, yet absolutely none of this morality is seen in their actions. Even women in Biblical days had more protections from immoral men than what women in our “modern” and so-called “progressive” society do now.
Let’s take a look at these Biblical laws and contrast them with today’s laws.
Judeo-Christian tradition has it that the first five books of the Bible, the Torah, are to be found the Biblical laws. In Deuteronomy 22 we read:
“But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is the matter:
For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was noone to save her.
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”
So, basically what these age-old laws are saying his this: if a man rapes a woman that is to be married he will die. If he rapes a woman who is not engaged to any other man, he will be fined and forced to marry and provide for her. And there won’t be any “no-fault” divorces either. He has committed a wrong against her and must pay the price for her for the rest of his life. Being that most women were dependent upon husbands for their survival and she could very easily end up pregnant, I see this as a way of actually protecting her. Why put him to death? Instead he should pay for his crimes against her and she should never have to worry about anything for the rest of her life.
Now let’s take a look at today’s laws!
“David Ward, Legal & Legislative Counsel of Legal Voice, a nonprofit organization that secures and protects women’s legal rights in America, confirmed in a phone interview with The Christian Post that many states do indeed currently allow rapists to hold the same custody and visitation rights as any other father. Ward could not confirm the total number of states that grant rapists such rights.
Sara Ainsworth, a former staff attorney for Legal Voice, wrote in 2008 a paper titled “Parental Rights for Rapists?” which talked about the controversial topic in depth.
“But for the thousands of women in the United States who become pregnant and bear children as a result of rape each year, the need to ensure that they can raise their children without further threat from the rapist is a critical – and largely unacknowledged – concern,” Ainsworth notes.
The paper explains that 32,000 women in the Unites States become pregnant as a result of rape each year, half of whom decide to end their pregnancies while the other half decide to keep their babies.
Highlighting the legal obstacles they face in most states, Ainsworth shares a number of stories of raped women who were forced under law to cooperate with their rapists over their children.
“Another survivor, a 14-year-old girl, decided to give up her baby for adoption. She was required by law to give notice of the adoption to the rapist, an adult man. While she was permitted by a court to give up her rights to the child, the rapist retained his and then sought child support payments from her,” the lawyer writes. “Another survivor, who gave birth to twins after a date rape, raised them peacefully with her intimate partner until they were five years old, at which time the rapist learned of their existence and filed a lawsuit to establish his paternity and gain visitation rights, and attempted to use the mother’s sexual orientation against her in the legal proceedings.”
So, what this is basically saying is this: a man who brutally rapes a woman is to be treated the same as a married father or (since we grant rights to sperm donors now) any other father who is not a criminal. Not only that, but there will be no payments to the woman or her family for the wrongs committed against her nor will the man be put to death. Instead, these victimized women can and often will be forced to pay support to the man! And it does not matter if the female is underage or not. Many of these women will even avoid reporting the rape because if the biological father finds out of the child’s existence (cases can take a long time to make it to trial- if they ever make it to trial- and pregnancy only lasts nine months and should be evident long before then) he can sue for rights at any time, regardless of how much time has passed. It is also liberalism and feminism that has relieved fathers and husbands of the sole obligation for the support of their families, thus allowing a man to lay claim to the mother of his children’s paycheck.
And what about the recreational sperm donors who refuse to man up and marry the mother and instead slander her name and deny all responsibility? Absolutely nothing. Once again, they are granted all the same legal rights as a married father who is a devoted and committed provider for his family. All this as a product of liberalism and the feminist movement. Mary Ann Mason (a feminist-or former feminist, I’m not sure her exact position-who writes and admits the faults of women’s lib and its harm to women and families) explains:
“But it is in the case of new rights for unwed fathers that Mason finds the most egregious examples of a legal system that disregards the welfare of the child.
Until a Supreme Court decision in 1971, unwed fathers had no rights to child custody based on the genetic relationship. Now, most states have given unwed fathers all the rights of a married father.
“In the case of unwed fathers,” said Mason, “states have abandoned the child-centered ‘best interests’ test.
Today, it must be shown only that it would be harmful to the child to live with the biological parent, not merely in that child’s best interest.” She said this means that a young child can be taken from an adoptive parent with whom he or she has a strong attachment, as in the celebrated case of Baby Jessica, because the biological rights of the father have become paramount.
In Michigan, four-year-old Baby Jessica was raised by adoptive parents only to be given in a custody dispute to her biological father. The father was not married to Jessica’s biological mother and the child had never seen him.
“If our first concern was truly the best interests of children, we would look at unwed fathers in a different light,” said Mason. “We would look, first of all, to whom is performing the actual parenting.”
In a current California case, an unwed father was allowed to make a paternity claim for a child being raised by his former girlfriend and her husband.
In the past, such a claim would not have been tolerated by courts because their primary intent was to preserve family stability. This time-honored tradition, in which the married father was always the legal father, also protected the child.
But no more, said Mason.
By allowing this paternity claim, the California court “paid little attention to the rights of Brian, now age four, or even to his needs. His best interests were not considered at all,” she said.
If paternity tests bear him out, said Mason, the unwed father may sue for custody and sink that family into dispute, with serious psychological risks for Brian.”
How does this contrast with the ancient Biblical law that most conservatives believe in and endorse (yet don’t follow)? Let’s take a look.
“If a man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
And give occasions of speech against her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsels’ virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city
And the elders of the city shall take that man and chastise him;
And they shall amerce him in an hundred skekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.”
So, what this is saying is that if a man falsely lies about his new wife committing adultery against him he will be fined. Now, once again, there won’t by any “no-fault” divorces. Nope, he is responsible for her provision for the rest of their lives.
Obviously most people today realize that virginity isn’t foolproof but the point here is that Republicans believe in the harshness of tradition and most claim a strong belief in the Bible and policies based upon it- at least when it suits them. But not a word from the Republican side about protecting women. Nope, let’s just criticize welfare mothers and continue on with the anti-abortion crusades while all of this other nasty business is allowed to happen to women and children.
What about the traditional common law rights that women once possessed? In the past our courts would not have acknowledged or stood for unwed fathers claiming the same rights as a married father. They would not have stood for no-fault divorces or allowing a pregnant woman to be divorced or without recourse to sue for breach of promise to marry. Society would not have stood for men getting a woman pregnant and not marrying her. If pregnancy occurred, you got married- or else. This following quote is from a former fan of mine (whom I am deeply sorry to have lost as a fan):
“B.H., you are my new heroine. I’m a 76 year-old mother/grandmother/great-grandmother and can vouch for the absolute truth of everything you say. The women & girls were respected & fiercely protected, rape was at least as serious a crime as murder, no one ever challenged a woman’s right to custody of her children or right to her own property, and if you got a girl pregnant you by G_d married her or else (which had a wonderful chilling effect on the romantic ardor of both parties.)
The finest exposition on the all-around stupidity of the”third wave of feminism” is George Gilder’s Men & Marriage.
And furthermore, Phyllis Schlafly (who, unfortunately, is also one of those conservatives who no longer cares about women or children and instead panders to MRAs) drove home the main point in her book “Feminist Fantasies,” where she acknowledges that it is within the family that feminism has inflicted the deepest pain:
“Ginsburg was vehement in her desire to abolish any legal preference or protection that women might have…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.”
 Deuteronomy 22:25-29. KJV
 Deuteronomy 22:13-19. KJV
 Schlafly,P. “Feminist Fantasies,” p.144. Spence, 2003.
© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.