Tag Archives: stay at home mother

Marriage is Not Meant to be Egalitarian

A husband should be obligated to support his wife just based on the fact that she is his wife, his dependent, and he is responsible for her. It should not be dependent on how much housework she does or whether or not they have children that she is responsible to care for. I see in the times we live in now that a lot of women are telling their husbands or live-in boyfriends that they’ll do housework if he will support her. Of course, then this leads oftentimes to the boyfriend/husband getting angry that she isn’t doing enough housework or isn’t doing her share even though he’s supporting her. Of course, men and women (who aren’t related) should not be allowed to live alone together without being married. But on a husband should fall the obligation to fully financially support his wife no matter how much housework she does or even if she does any housework at all. If a man is rich enough to afford a maid it shouldn’t affect his obligation to support his wife. As much as he provides for himself he should provide for his wife as well and any children they have together. A man shouldn’t be relieved of his obligation to support his wife just because he can afford a housekeeper and doesn’t need her to do housework. In times past men had the legal obligation to support their wives and this obligation was not dependent on the wife “doing her share” in housework or bearing a child every year.

As well, a lot of people look down on childless housewives as though they were not doing anything productive. This is only because we’ve been brainwashed to see everything in terms of money, in terms of how much money it would cost to pay someone else to do what the housewife does. We’ve been brainwashed to believe that marriages and male-female relationships should always be egalitarian. But you can’t put a price-tag on the work a woman at home does, as her work is invaluable. Even if all she does is bake a pie and invite a friend over for tea she has still done something valuable. She has still contributed to society and the family. She has contributed to society in the way of one less broken home, one less unhappy family, one less obese child and one less frustrated and angry woman.

I like to sit down and read a book and occasionally, if there’s anything good to watch, I like to watch a little tv when I get all of my chores done. Just because I sit down for a couple of hours doing something that I enjoy doesn’t mean I’m lazy or “freeloading”. If my husband is unsatisfied with the work I do around the house then he can tell me what I’m doing wrong. It is his job to straighten me out if I’m neglecting my true duties. Likewise, most married women feel they have to volunteer all of their free time or start some home business or something. I have no intentions of starting some home business or volunteering. That would make me very unhappy and no doubt be an unnecessary stress.

A husband should have the legal obligation to fully financially support his wife and any children they do or don’t have and as well he should have the legal right to be head-of-household. It is the woman’s obligation to care for the home and she will generally have her own way of doing things and her own methods. Mostly a husband should just let her do things the way she knows how to do things best. If a wife is truly neglecting her duties around the house and neglecting the kids then it is the husband’s job to keep her in line or punish her if necessary. It’s not really the business of anyone else around as it is the husband’s household and he should have the right to direct his family the way he sees fit (so long as he doesn’t cross the line into abuse and so long as he lives up to his responsibilities). It doesn’t really matter if the feminist woman down the street hates the fact that his wife doesn’t work. It doesn’t really matter if the wife is busy non-stop or what other people think. A wife should not be pressured to be on her feet running herself into the ground all day just to appease the modern-day notion of “equal” marriages. Marriage was not meant to be an “equal partnership.” Marriage is a partnership of sorts, but it should not be “equal.” The purpose of marriage is for men to protect and support women and give women security to have babies. The purpose of marriage is to protect women from having to go out and work and be on their own and to protect women from carrying double burdens.

Every year when my husband files our taxes he is barred from claiming me as a dependent. If we were not married he could do so, but since we are married our laws state that legally I cannot be a dependent and he cannot legally be head of household. Our laws state that we must jointly be head of household. That I, as his legal wife, must accept all the same burdens that are laid upon him and no consideration is given to the burdens that fall solely on a woman or to her weaker and more dependent state. That is not a choice, that is an obligation. It is the law accepting of the feminist perspective and obliging all citizens to follow it despite the fact that it is anti-God and this legally enforced equality in the family has been the primary cause of the complete destruction of the family unit and the instability in marital relationships. But this is not what marriage has historically been about. Marriage is about men protecting and supporting women and being responsible for their actions towards women. Marriage needs to return once again to being an institution about men providing for and being guardians of women and children, no matter how much work a woman is doing around the house.

Recommended Articles:

The Contribution of Traditional Wives to Society

Homemakers Should Not Be Made to Feel Guitly for Enjoying Life at Home

So You Think You Should Go To Work?

If All You Do…

Where are the Men?: The Case for Male Breadwinners

“…Your grandfather returned from World War II, got a cheap mortgage courtesy of the GI bill, married his sweetheart and went to work in a factory job that paid him something like $50,000 in today’s money plus health benefits and pension. Your father started at the same factory in 1972. He was laid off in 1981, and has never had anything like as good a job ever since. He’s working now at a big-box store, making $40,000 a year, and waiting for his Medicare to kick in. Now look at you. Yes, unemployment is high right now. But if you keep pounding the pavements, you’ll eventually find a job that pays $28,000.”[i]

When one thinks of the words “feminism” and “women’s rights” many things probably come to mind. Among the many visuals and other associations that go along with the modern “women’s movement,” women in the workforce and women’s wages are sure to be at the top of the list. But, feminists and other women’s rights advocates have not always been so adamant about getting women into the workforce and dealing with issues such as “equal pay for equal work.” In fact, before the 1960s (the dawn of modern feminism), women’s organizations strongly advocated for paternalistic treatment of women, protecting mothers and wives from the necessities of wage work, exalting the irreplaceable role of at-home motherhood and advocating fiercely for protective legislation for women. This protective legislation included protecting women by instating “women’s only” hours, Mothers’ Pensions and ensuring a family wage to be paid to married men. This protective legislation was meant to give women security within the family and within the home by reinforcing the traditional view of husband as breadwinner and wife as homemaker. Protective legislation secured the wife’s invaluable role within her family.

Today, one reads everywhere- from school textbooks, to internet blogs, to magazines and popular articles and opinion pieces- about a woman’s “subordinate” position within the family pre-women’s liberation, how feminism has finally given women “options” and how society now finally (after centuries of “oppression”) finally recognizes the wife’s status as an “equal partner” within the marriage. Feminists celebrate that they are part of a long line women’s rights advocates and have convinced society that since the early days of the 19-century feminists they have fought for nothing more than equality with men and it has been a long struggle over the centuries but they have finally achieved what women’s rights advocates have been fighting for since the beginning. They celebrate every step of the way as another “milestone to equality.”

“The true history of the women’s movement in the United States and its attitude toward the domestic realm is strikingly at odds with- and more interesting than- this standard feminist picture… In fact, the impetus for the original involvement of women in public affairs in the United States- and the driving force behind most of their policy initiatives- was to protect women from the necessity of involvement in the labor force and to preserve the special realm of the domestic from the economic and social pressures that would interfere with the mother’s primary task of bringing up her children well.”[ii]

This convoluted re-interpretation of history as “milestones to equality” conveniently ignores what the earlier feminists were really fighting for. By putting pretty labels on the modern feminist movement such as “the women’s movement,” “women’s rights,” and “women’s liberation” they appeal to the general public as though this is what all women want and as though their movement had the best interests of all women in mind. In fact, the modern feminist movement did not give us the right to have careers, have a bank account, own property or receive an education. While there was a different set of laws applying to married women (which we have explained in other articles), the single woman has always had the opportunity to pursue the kind of life she wanted and marry whom she wanted.

“Within the memory of no one living today have the barriers of society been strung so tightly that women could not pursue careers if they chose to. From the time in middle school when I decided to become a lawyer (that was in 1941) until I left my law firm to raise a family, I encountered no barriers, but only support and encouragement. Living on the edge of poverty in the working class with my divorced mother, I could not have succeeded otherwise.

When I entered college in 1947, I knew that women were in all the professions. The doctor who performed my pre-college physical was a woman… My mother’s divorce lawyer in 1936 was a woman and a mother. And the president of the bank where I opened my first account in 1942 was a woman and a mother, Mary G. Roebling, who said American women have “almost unbelievable economic power” but “do not use the influence [it] gives them.” Women’s failure to pursue opportunities in the workplace has always been much more of a choice than feminists admit. The most significant barrier to a woman’s market success is her own unwillingness to constrict her maternal, marital, and domestic roles.”[iii]

Modern feminists believe that “equal treatment” is essential to women’s advancement in the workforce. Yet, in abolishing protective legislation that early feminists had worked so hard to enact for women, they have hurt those women wanting to be housewives and stay at home mothers. Despite feminists constantly insisting women’s rights means equal representation in higher paid jobs and equal representation in politics, a growing number of surveys over the past few years have been showing that women favor homemaking over full-time workforce participation.

It is conceivable that women are beginning to figure out that the dream of “having it all” is simply not reality. Women today are beginning to wake up and realize that feminism has sold them a pipe dream. Compared to men, women’s happiness has been constantly declining since women’s libbers took to the street campaigning for “equal rights” at the expense of women who wished to retain the benefits of protective legislation.[iv]

Beyond women’s declining happiness, society as a whole is not fairing too well either. Marriage rates are down, cohabitation, divorce and out of wedlock births have been on the rise. There is a civil war waging between the sexes and crime is on the rise (I trust I don’t need to cite statistics here on this particular issue, but they are easily available from many government entities for those who aren’t convinced).

The egalitarian era has been a catastrophe. To remedy society’s problems, women’s increasing unhappiness, our children’s emotional/behavioral problems and men’s apathy towards work and marriage, the traditional family unit must be revived. When divorce rates started climbing and married women began to enter the workforce in record numbers, men’s wages began declining to the point that it is now very difficult (although still not impossible) for a man to support his entire family on one income.[v] While theoretically the woman certainly could be the breadwinner for the family, most women would simply not be happy with such an arrangement for very long and men have generally been found to be resentful of their breadwinner wives[vi] and divorce rates are the highest where the wife makes more money than the husband.[vii] There is also a strong correlation between reversal of gender roles and bad health. Moreover, recent evidence has been shedding light that stay at home dads are simply not the best thing for children, boys in particular, who have been found to do very poorly in academics when raised by stay-at-home fathers when they are young.[viii] Add to this the fact that most violent infant deaths are caused by male caretakers while the mothers are off at work and we have a complete catastrophe. Also, reversing of gender roles is not leading to men doing more housework and becoming more involved parents. In fact, it is having precisely the opposite effect:

“…Moreover, a recent study by psychologist William T. Bailey at Eastern Illinois University indicates that fathers who take on the primary childcare role are actually less responsive to the needs of their children than those fathers who are less directly involved in caregiving. Statistics also indicate that husbands working full-time whose wives do not work spend considerably more time with their children than do husbands with working wives, presumably because the mother at home makes more demands for his time and effort with the children. The conclusion is as striking as it is disturbing: at a time when children’s well-being has been declining according to every measure, their primary caregivers- married mothers with dependent children- account for most of the influx of women into the workforce, and married fathers have not discernibly made up for the diminishing maternal care.”[ix]

Society as a whole has a major stake in ensuring that men have all the tools necessary to become the breadwinners for their families and mothers can stay home with their young children and depend upon lifetime support from their husbands. Reversing traditional gender roles has led to absolutely nothing productive and will in fact end up destroying a once civilized and prosperous society. Though many will scream sex-discrimination, it is imperative to ensure that young men in particular can excel in education and the workforce.

“…The society thus has a much larger stake in employing young men than in employing young women. The unemployed man can contribute little to the community and will often disrupt it, but the woman may even do more good without a job than with one. Her joblessness may spur new efforts to induce a man to work, supporting her own crucial role as a mother.”

The woman’s financial superiority thus leads to a society of sexually and economically predatory males. The sexual power of women, if combined with economic power, leaves many young men with no civilized way to achieve sexual identity. If they cannot be providers, they resort to the primal male assets, wielding muscle and phallus for masculine identity and attacking the fabric of society…What Mead concluded from all her other studies as well, the New Gunea experience affirms: Males always require a special arena of glorified achievement from which women are excluded. Their concern with sexual differentiation is obsessive. Men can be passive without grave psychological damage only if the women are passive also. Aggressive and competitive women, unconcerned with motherhood, produce more ruthless men- and a society so competitive that it disintegrates. Men, on the other hand, when passively preoccupied with child-rearing, become incapable of effective sexual behavior and paranoid about aggressive women. A society with a great emphasis on child-rearing will, however, be exceedingly generous and cooperative. In none of the tribes Mead studied is there the slightest evidence that roles, however created, through culture or biology, can be switched back and forth or that the aggressiveness and volatility of males can be ignore by any society”[x]

The need to ensure a proper role for males within society depends largely on the role they play within the family. The civilizing of men into appropriate roles in society largely depends upon the willingness of women to demand both commitment and support from them within the confines of marriage. Though no law or social custom can currently force a man to support a woman, they could if we wanted them to. The stability of families depends upon male breadwinners. Without a strong family unit and a man that is able to carry the load of supporting a wife and children, society will continue to face increases in the feminization of poverty. Without the income of a husband, a woman will have a very hard time giving the necessary care to her children and will more than likely depend on the taxpayers at the expense of single-earner families where the husband is the breadwinner.

There simply is no replacement for maternal care and it is doubtful that modern science will ever truly be able to match the benefits of nature in the conceivable future. Within minutes of the birth of a baby the child forms an instant bond with its mother and when the child is breastfeed, the suckling strengthens even more the mother-child bond that is so crucial for healthy development. Yet, the surge of mothers into the workforce has further eroded this bond as many women no longer breastfeed due to the demands of joining the workforce.[xi] In order to ensure healthy families and proper development of children, it is essential to strengthen marriages and the role of the husband as breadwinner.

Women are recruited and exploited in the workforce for corporate greed and for tough competition in a global economy. Yet, when women are pushed into the workforce, the family unit disintegrates, women suffer physically and mentally and the morals of a society plummet.

“In answer to the heresy of conservative individualism, we must clearly enunciate the principles of a new economy ordered toward the good of our citizens rather than toward merely abstract goods like growth, efficiency, profit, and productivity. As elements of an economy that serves the interests of real people, real families, and real communities, those concepts have value; if they simply dictate a bottom-line approach to economics that views persons as a means toward achieving some unspecified and perpetual goal of directionless economic expansion, they are worse than useless; they are positively dangerous. The economy exists for man, not man for the economy- a fundamental idea often ignored in discussions of economy which tend to revolve around the almost mystical concept of ‘growth.’”[xii]

So what is a family wage and what led to its decline? A family wage is “…an income sufficient for a man to support a wife and children at a certain minimal level of comfort…with the explicit purpose of protecting mothers from having to contribute to the family income out of economic necessity.”[xiii] Before the surge of women into the workforce and the feminist quest for equal rights the family wage “…was paid by 65 percent of all employers in the United States, and by over 80 percent of the major industrial companies.”[xiv]Despite feminists insisting that the good ol’ life of women not having to work to support the family never even existed, there has never been so many married women in the workforce as there was post WWII all the way up to today. The percentage of married women in the workforce remained at about 5% throughout U.S. history all the way up into the early 1900s, when the number of married women in the workforce started increasing gradually. The 1950s actually saw more married women in the workforce than in previous generations (though generally not out of economic necessity).[xv]

1960s feminists and beyond worked relentlessly to tear down the legal protections that early feminists had secured for women. They did not rest until they tore through, one by one, the pillars upon which the family wage rested:

“…The family wage was effectively abolished as a result of three distinct changes in policy: 1)the dismantling of legal barriers to women’s employment (protective legislation) and the phasing out of direct wage discrimination (unequal pay for equal work) against female workers in the 1940s; 2) the collapse in the late 1960s of long-standing labor union opposition to wage equality; and 3) the end of job segregation by gender as a result of an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its subsequent application by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which had the effect of undercutting job discrimination by gender and striking down all state laws granting special protection for women, the very “protective legislation” that social feminists had worked so hard to enact.” [xvi]

One way or another, traditional men and women must work together to reverse the harmful policies of women’s liberation. We need families to stay together and we need male breadwinners. Traditional Women’s Rights Activists must make the case for protective legislation and the family wage.

Notes:

[i] http://www.familyinamerica.org/files/FIAFall2012Files/FIA.Fall12.Patterson.pdf

[ii] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 40. Spence, 2002.

[iii] http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar85.htm

[iv] http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2009/oct/09102911

[v] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 36. Spence, 2002.

[vi] http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/laws-desire-does-making-more-money-less-sexy-182700208.html

[vii] http://www.divorcesaloon.com/2010/09/10/new-york-cornell-university-study-shows-that-divorce-rates-are-higher-for-women-who-make-more-than-their-husbands-higher-infidelity-rates/

[viii] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-494864/Why-stay-home-dad-bad-boys-girls.html

[ix] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 15-16. Spence, 2002.

[x] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage.” Pelican, 1993.

[xi] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 19;28. Spence, 2002.

[xii] ibid., 176.

[xiii] ibid., 42.

[xiv] ibid., 63.

[xv] http://www.freeby50.com/2010/10/historical-look-at-womens-participation.html

[xvi] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 105. Spence, 2002.

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

Why I am an Anti-Feminist Woman Part II

Why am I an anti-feminist woman?

1) I want my man to be chivalrous: My man has always paid for our dates and held doors open for me. He doesn’t expect a woman to pay because he knows that is his job. He is not the type of man who believes women and men are equal because he believes women should be protected and taken care of. He does not throw our society’s mainstream vision of equality back in my face by telling me to pay my own way, open my own doors, and fight our wars. “Of course, when you wipe out masculine men, you also eliminate gentlemen, the kind of men who would defend and protect a lady-like the gentlemen who remained on the Titanic. Of the ship’s survivors, 94 percent of those in first-class and 81 percent of those in second class were women.”[1]

2) I don’t want to be “equal”: I know as a woman I am already of great worth. I don’t have to go out into the workforce to prove myself. It does not make me inferior if my husband pays the bills and has all the money because that means he is assuming responsibility as a father and husband and providing our needs. I don’t want the burdens that have been forced upon wives and mothers because of feminism. I want my husband to have the legal obligation to provide my needs and the needs of our child and I want him to be the head of household. I do not want to be treated like a man. “Different but equal” is a term that contradicts itself.

To ameliorate the problems caused by society’s overvaluation of male marketplace activities and women’s dissatisfactions with a traditional female role, masculinity must be reinforced. Only a man secure in his masculinity will place a high value on the traditional female role and exert himself to make that role viable. The fiber of effete, attenuated, androgynous males must be shored up so that they can happily marry, reproduce, and assume responsibility for supporting a family. A man secure in his masculinity will not usually believe himself suited to the female role, but he will respect the woman who assumes it and take pride in providing for her and their children. Such a man will afford his wife the security and affirmation that enable her to deal with the troubling aspects of her role and perform it with satisfaction.[2]

A sea of change had occurred in men who only two decades before had taken pride in their ability to provide for wife and children. With scarcely a whimper, many males accepted the new androgyny and capitulated to the very feminist demands which have impaired their earning ability. Then, they too encouraged their wives to leave children hostage to the vagaries of surrogate care and pursue the economic opportunities which would spare husbands from assuming the now apparently overwhelming role of breadwinner.[3]

3) I want to be valued for the natural work I do: Our society does not see woman’s natural work of pregnancy, birth and child nurturing as work or as worthwhile. They tell us we do not do our part unless we are held to all the responsibilities of men. This is simply not true. As women we naturally do our part for we are the ones that bring life into this world. I want to be valued and cherished for the work I naturally do. We spend months and years of our lives to bring the next generation forth and it should be counted as more than just doing our part and respected. Feminists have never seen us as doing our part and have forced us to take on the man’s burden of supporting the family and have tried many times to get Congress to draft us. “But if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship…”[4]

…While androgyny advances the feminist cause, it is for the traditional person the ultimate perversion. Because of its essential elimination of what is singularly masculine or feminine, an ideology of androgyny is an attack on the biological constitution of society, a muting of the excitement created by that sexual distinctiveness and complementarity most conducive to satisfying heterosexuality. The widespread desexualization of our lives through a proliferation of androgynous styles has created fallow soil for growth of contemporary feminism. Societal acceptance of androgyny has validated feminist efforts to trivialize sexual differences. When androgyny becomes fashionable, women will become diffident about, even somewhat ashamed of, the sexual differentiation announced by their reproductive capability. Striving to become more like men, they will eschew the distinctively feminine satisfaction inherent in being female.[5]

4) I treasure my sexuality and my body: Feminists have for decades told us to pursue sex on the same terms as men and that double standards are holding us back. We are pressured from a young age to have sex and to be ashamed if we have not had sex. I remember being so ashamed of being a virgin that I had to lie to everyone I knew about sexual encounters that never even happened. It’s a pitiful thing when young women don’t understand their inherent worth and feel they must participate in sexual activity in order to feel accepted and loved. Sex for a woman will never be the same as sex for a man.

“ In the past, men had to commit before they could have sex. As a result, women were cherished for themselves and given a lifelong role that satisfied their deepest emotional needs.

Both mothers and daughters are victims of deliberate social subversion. A woman’s career used to be wife and mother. She consecrated her sexuality for the man she loved, the father of her children, her protector and provider.”[6]

Dworkin depicts sexual intercourse as a much more momentous experience for a woman than a man, because it is ‘an act of possession in which…a man inhabits a woman, physically covering her and overwhelming her and at the same time penetrating her…By thrusting into her, he takes her over. His thrusting into her is taken to be her capitulation to him as a conqueror; it is a physical surrender of herself to him; he occupies and rules her, expresses his elemental dominance over her…’ In intercourse, says Dworkin, a woman ‘is occupied- physically, internally, in her privacy.'” Her depiction might be considered an outrageous exaggeration (many of Dworkin’s critics so characterize it), but I find it a dramatic portrayal-from the woman’s, but not necessarily from the man’s perspective- of sexual intercourse at its best. Dworkin describes an overwhelmingly personal, a truly awe-inspiring, event in which a woman should shrink in horror from participating on any basis even remotely casual. One might think that in her lifetime a woman would meet few men that she considers worthy of exercising such power over her. This may explain why women often invest their romantic relationships with a meaning the facts do not support, endeavoring to convince themselves that the man is what he is not and that the woman means much more to him than she truly does.[7]

Notes:

1. Schlafly, P., Feminist Fantasies. Spence, 2003.
2. Graglia, C.F., Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism. p.151. Spence, 1998.
3. ibid., p.40.
4. http://www.amazon.com/Firing-William-Buckley-Rights-Amendment/dp/B007Q3QMEW/ref=pd_ybh_1
5. “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 61.
6. http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/feminists-surprised-their-daughters-are-sluts/
7. “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 173.

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