Life is Sacred, Until It Leaves the Womb

Daily Show Shreds Alabama’s Ridiculous New Abortion Law

This has just gotten so insane. Yes, unborn life is precious but these nut-job republicans today are crazed. So what happens when the girl is forced to give birth to that life these “fetus lawyers” so well care about? Will they care about that life then or how it is raised or do they only care about it before it’s born then afterwards “who cares your on your own?” Of course, it’s not like this law serves any purpose other than to “run out the clock.”

Instead of others testifying against the young woman, whose life is probably already torn to shreds and out of sorts due to an unwanted pregnancy, how about her parents and the fetal father be put on trial for failing to protect her and the unborn and abandoning their obligations? Or is it only mothers who should be put on trial for abandoning their children or abusing them? If a mother walks away from her child then wants to show up later she is regarded as the worst kind of scum imaginable but men do it every day and not only are they not looked down upon for it, they are regarded as heroes and “good guys.”

How about the young woman be allowed to testify against the father and force him either into marriage or to give up his rights? Republicans care about children until they are born, at which point they are no better than anyone else with divorce, failure to protect the sanctity of marriage and general who cares about children and let’s treat the sexes the same (except where they can hurt women and get away with it) BS.

100 years ago the fetal father could even be put in PRISON if something happened to the mother or child but now apparently he can testify against the woman he has impregnated, keep her from obtaining an abortion and still have full legal status as a father without ever having to take on any kind of real responsibility.

What the hell kind of nation have we become?

My previous posts on this issue:

The Traditional Family is the Solution to Abortion

The Problem With Republicans

Coverture and the Criminalization of Pregnancy

The Traditional Family is the Solution to Abortion

I was looking at abortion statistics (source) from 2013 yesterday and this is what I found:

Financial reasons came first (40%) as a reason why women had abortions. After that came relationship problems and then issues like it not “being the right time” to have a baby because a woman wanted to focus on a career or college.

“A 21-year old pointed to a number of reasons why she felt the timing of her pregnancy was wrong “Mainly I didn’t feel like I was ready yet – didn’t feel financially, emotionally ready. Due date was at the same time as my externship at school. Entering the workforce with a newborn would be difficult – I just wasn’t ready yet.” A small proportion of women described not having enough time or feeling too busy to have a baby (2%).”

And as for the relationship issues:

“Nearly one third (31%) of respondents gave partner- related reasons for seeking an abortion. Six percent mentioned partners as their only reason for seeking abortion. Partner related reasons included not having a “good” or stable relationship with the father of the baby (9%), wanting to be married first (8%), not having a supportive partner (8%), being with the “wrong guy” (6%), having a partner who does not want the baby (3%), and having an abusive partner (3%).”

Some more women cited health reasons, some cited that they already had to take care of other children and didn’t want more. Still, even more cited that having a baby would interfere with future “opportunities” (read: career). Some of their explanations are as follows:

“One in five women (20%) reported that they chose abortion because they felt a baby at this time would interfere with their future goals and opportunities in general (5%) or, more specifically, with school (14%) or career plans (7%). Usually the reasons were related to the perceived difficulty of continuing to advance educational or career goals while raising a baby: “I didn’t think I’d be able to support a baby and go to college and have a job.” states an 18-year old respondent in high school. A 21-year-old woman in college with no children explains that she “Still want[s] to be able to do things like have a good job, finish school, and be stable.” Similarly, a 26-year old desiring to go back to college explains “I wanted to finish school. I’d been waiting a while to get into the bachelor’s program and I finally got it.” Another woman explains “I feel like I need to put myself first and get through college and support myself.” As a 21-one-year old seeking a college degree points out, “I’m trying to graduate from college and I’m going to cooking school in August and I have a lot of things going for me and I can’t take care of a kid by myself.” Others spoke to the inability to take time off work to raise the child.” A 21-one-year old holding two part-time jobs and raising two children states: “I wouldn’t be able to take the time off work. My work doesn’t offer maternity leave and I have to work [to afford to live] here. If I took time off I would lose my job so there’s just no way.”’

More cited things such as not being “prepared” to have a baby. Still others cited other issues that didn’t fit into the category like not wanting kids at all or legal issues.

It seems to me that the problems of a career, not being able to support a child or take off of work and other financial issues (as well as legal issues if we had coverture) would be solved by having a strong belief that fathers should be breadwinners. It also seems that the relationship issues could be solved by a strong legitimacy principle (that women shouldn’t have babies out of wedlock and should marry if pregnant, even if not the biological father) and a sexual double standard.

Feminist responses to these issues are more abortions (or subsidized ones by the state), paid maternity leave and anti-sex discrimination laws. Conservatives’ answers are to do away with welfare and tell women to keep their legs closed and pay for their own birth control already. Neither of these solutions are likely to help women in the slightest. Now that the feminist movement is over every one sees that Ok, women have equality now so let’s forget about the women. If anything let’s make everything more “fair” to men now since apparently things have gone too far to favor women. Yet the main theme is still egalitarian. It’s still leaving women on their own to fend for themselves. You don’t see conservatives advocating changing existing marriage and divorce laws to reflect traditional rights and responsibilities between the sexes. The only groups out there looking to protect marriage or change divorce laws are still operating in egalitarian mode (even antifeminist groups).

Furthermore, if conservatives take away women’s right to abortion we are going to have even greater problems as now what will these women do? In the past a man could even be made to support his closely related female relatives beyond just his wife and daughters and women even had such protections that an unwed woman coming to a hospital suffering from an illegal abortion would be questioned about the father and he could even be arrested and thrown in jail (1) (I’m sure feminists left out that little piece of history when exclaiming how society looked down on and slut-shamed single mothers- which they did of course). Now women have no protections in the slightest as they are treated and held to the same responsibilities as men, even though women are not men and don’t even understand half of the time the reality of the current legal climate.

Women had all kinds of protections to force men to be responsible for their actions towards women and children and women could count on support one way or another even if it was just marrying for convenience. But now what will women have? If conservatives wanted to protect unborn babies they could start by protecting the mother and teaching young women that a career should not be number one in their lives but prepare them to be caretakers of their children and homemakers and as well teach men they must man up and accept responsibility for women and children.

Is it any wonder that statistics show that stay at home mothers are more likely to be independent and not lean either liberal or conservative? (2) Could it be that a lot of traditional women like myself are sick of today’s conservatives? I personally think the only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican. The traditional family solves the issues of a woman not being able to financially provide for a baby, or not being able to stay home or not being ‘ready’ because she wants to focus on a career or she doesn’t feel mature enough. Patriarchy tells a woman her child cannot be a bastard. It is harsh, yes, (but then again isn’t life always harsh for those who don’t follow what society deems proper?) but if we look back through history we see that very few babies were born out of wedlock when there was high stigma on illegitimacy and even then those mothers may have married shortly thereafter. Patriarchy puts the obligation to provide on the father. With him as unquestionable provider and authority the woman’s worries of financial support go away. Her problems of not being able to stay home go away. Her worries of not being mature enough or ready go away.

Once again, I don’t argue whether abortion should be legal or not because of the ethical and medical considerations involved. My focus is on the realities of life and gender issues. If society wanted to help families and unborn babies, they would focus on separate rights and responsibilities between the sexes instead of just saying we’re all equal now and everyone fend for themselves and fight each other when they think one party has a 1% greater chance of being a victim of something or not getting something they want.

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.

The Problem with Republicans

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.”[1]

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.”[2]

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.”[3]

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.”[4]

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.”[5]

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.”[6]

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.

Thank you…”

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.”[7]



[2] Ibid.
[3] Deuteronomy 22:25-29. KJV
[6] Deuteronomy 22:13-19. KJV
[7] Schlafly,P. “Feminist Fantasies,” p.144. Spence, 2003.



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

Family Wage Jobs: The Missing Plank of the GOP Platform

I have recently come across a very well-written and informative essay about our modern-day economy and the need for a family wage. The essay is a little bit lengthy so down below I have highlighted some of the key concepts for those who might not want to read the entire thing. 🙂

“Charts 2, 3, and 4 illustrate this marginalization of “red-state” mar­ried-parent families, and their breadwinners, unappreciated yet indis­pensable builders of the nation. Married-parent families (with depen­dent children) that rely exclusively on one male-wage earner saw their median income hit a peak in 1973, at $50,083, in 2010 dollars. Prior to 1973, these households enjoyed steady income growth, keeping pace to a great extent with GDP growth, increasing by a respectable 98 percent in real terms between 1950 and 1973, as GDP increased by 145 percent in real terms. After 1973, these same households saw their median income remain essentially flat or decline. From 1980 to 2010—when the GDP increased by 124 percent—those same families struggled to keep up, seeing their median income increase by merely 2 percent. That financial pressure may explain, in part, why many married mothers traded having more children for joining the labor market. Yet even when mothers with part-time or full-time jobs are added to the mix, the median income of all married-parent families rose just 24 percent, a modest gain compared to the income growth that single-earners with larger families enjoyed in the immediate postwar era.”

“A collusion of many factors explains this reversal of fortunes of Middle America. The Spring 2012 issue of this journal explored social, economic, and political aspects of “the vanishing American middle class,” a devel­opment that many observers, liberal and conservative, lament. Without ignoring these other factors, The Family in America has historically highlighted the mischief sowed by the abandonment of the “family wage” by government and business during the 1970s. A social and economic ideal upheld throughout most of the twentieth century, the family-wage construct enabled the vast majority of married fathers not only to fully support a wife and three or four children at home but also to secure, for retirement, adequate health-care and pension benefits for two adults.”

“This did not mean that wives never worked outside the home; many did, although generally not as family-wage earners. But there was no nor­mative expectation on the part of employers, labor unions, government, or the public that the average family would need both parents working outside the home full-time from the time they married until retirement, the current presumption in Western Europe and of influential bureau­crats of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as well as many social-policy theorists in the United States. However, in an economy where the family-wage doctrine prevails, a single earner—the father in the vast majority of cases—is sufficient to sustain the average household. Under this economic order, the house­hold arrangement made possible by the family wage is not considered a luxury available only to highly educated breadwinners such as lawyers or physicians; no, that arrangement was considered such a social neces­sity that virtually everyone recognized the need for a family wage that enabled even blue-collar workers to enjoy the American dream.”

“Nor was the arrangement devised, as the feminists imagine, to keep all women barefoot, pregnant, and out of public life. The American archi­tect of the family-wage system, Theodore Roosevelt, fully supported edu­cational and career opportunities for women: “It is entirely right that any woman should be allowed to make any career for herself of which she is capable, whether or not it is a career followed by a man. She has the same right to be a lawyer, a doctor, a farmer, or a storekeeper.” At the same time, the twenty-sixth president understood that the enormous demands of raising a family—to him, the most important work of both men and women, of greater value than any professional accomplishment—make it difficult for the “average” mother to meet those demands while also pursuing a career. He did recognize in his own day that “exceptional women—like Julia Ward Howe or Harriet Beecher Stowe” were “admira­ble wives and mothers,” as well as “workers of genius outside the home.” But he cautioned that “such types” are exceptions, “rare whether among men or women.”‘

“No-fault divorce legislation further reinforced feminist rent-seeking. By favoring the spouse who wants to dissolve a marriage, the legislation indirectly pushed more women into the labor market: among the married, women would seek employment as a form of divorce insurance; among divorcees, women would seek employment out of necessity.”

“As a consequence of these policy reversals, Americans lost the mid­dle-class norms that had long strengthened the nation’s economy, norms that simply disappeared in a sea of unwed parenthood, full-time mater­nal employment, abortion, no-fault divorce, and non-marital cohabita­tion. Moreover, Americans who followed the old rules found themselves carrying new burdens in the form of higher taxes to fund an expanding welfare system, further marginalizing the average, normal, and ordinary.”

“The assault on the middle class didn’t happen in a vacuum. Concocted in the 1970s, these social policy “innovations” were enacted at the worst possible time, when the economic vitality and industrial prowess the country had enjoyed since World War II started to wane. A new global economy was emerging, soon to be greased on the skids of free-trade agreements advocated by the elites of both parties, a new world order in which China would become an industrial giant and America an industrial weakling. The pace for this economic “restructuring” was set when President Richard Nixon dealt his tricky hand on monetary policy in 1971, and broke the Bretton Woods international gold-exchange agreement of 1944. Economist John Mueller claims that after the deci­sion—pushed by the dean of free-market economics, Milton Friedman (although with second thoughts thirty years later)15—America would never be the same, suffering from chronic episodes of inflation, declining take-home pay for workers, endless federal deficits, and unsustainable trade imbalances.16 In essence, the new monetary regime invited coun­tries like Japan and China to manipulate the dollar, strengthening their hand and weakening America’s.”

“Even before triggering the dislocations of 2008, this deadly mix was outsourcing family-wage factory jobs while further reducing the real wages, and labor-force participation rate, of men.”
“Yet the “creative destruction” of the past forty years, coupled with feminist social policies and environmental regulations redefining every factory as a threat to the natural habitat, has left Main Street American families not only struggling but also furious about what has happened to their country.”

“Given the disproportionate influence of the libertarians, adversarial feminists, and environmentalists, the policy deck may be stacked against any attempt to reverse the current state of affairs. Yet the protracted Great Recession, now four years young and showing no signs of ending, makes it clear that the country can no longer afford to marginalize industry while moving bourgeois families and their men to the sidelines. In the spirit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the country needs policies that once again recover TR’s “preferential consideration” for average breadwinners and their families. The country cannot wait for the free market or free trade to reverse the malign effects of forty years of bad policy.”

“A new approach requires, like never before, initiatives that create pro­ductive family-wage jobs for men and fathers, certain to give Americans something far more effective and popular than the bloated welfare state.”

“For budget hawks, here’s a better option: cut welfare spending deeper so that a 3.3-percent cap would include the $187 billion transfer. In either case, any successful program would have to grant state governments— not Congress, the administration, or the courts—total discretion over how the money would be allocated, specifying only that 75 percent of the jobs would pay a family wage—at least $50,000 a year plus benefits—and would be reserved for married fathers without a college education.”

“All these recommendations may seem like pie in the sky. The attempt to reclaim premium-paying, family-wage jobs for married fathers will certainly send the $927-billion-per-year welfare industry,36 as well as the legal and political establishment, into shock. They will whine and scream that the whole project is discriminatory and unconstitutional, despite the promise such a project holds for Middle America, ignored by both parties for too long. That promise reflects the way all three recommendations are rooted in principles that have worked. These are the principles integral to the forgotten American System that Michael Lind has brought to light. These are the principles that informed the social policies of Theodore Roosevelt and that found embodiment in the New Deal. In short, these are the principles that reinforced the child-rich, married-parent family as the foundation of the nation’s social and economic well-being.”