Tag Archives: the vote

Woman’s Worst Enemy 

It’s often a mistaken belief among women that women can represent the interests of women the best; that a woman will be more sympathetic to another woman’s plight. The feminist movement has always promoted the theory that women can only have true representation by other women and that more women as lawyers, judges, and congress members will be a good thing for women because women can best legislate for other women. The reality, however, is often far different. Take the abortion debate, for instance. Women often say things like “if only men could get pregnant abortion would never be illegal” or something of the sort, but the reality is that men have been constantly shown to be more “pro-choice” than what even women are. This has held steady for decades. It is women that oppress other women. It is women that destroy the security of other women. Look at any other issue such as military duty of the draft for women. Once again, women are more likely to want women to be forced into war and into the traditional duties of men while men are more likely to be against it. When you put women in charge everything simply becomes one big b*tchfest. 

The reality is that women are often each other’s worst enemies in nearly every area of life. A woman would do best to plead her case in front of men than in front of women or both men and women. It is true that men do not always act as they should towards women, but most of these problems originate from the emasculation of men in our society. In the past if a man did not act right towards a woman, that woman could seek the protection and help of other men to straighten him out, but no such protections exist today because the men have all stepped back out of the way to let women run things. The results have been disastrous not only to women and children but also to men and all of society.

I have seen very often in life that women often turn to a fellow woman thinking she will be more sympathetic to her situation (because, after all, she’s a woman too and she would “understand” whatever it is that she’s going through or how she feels) just to find that the women are much worse than the men and often are simply bent on their destruction. Women often think “another woman would understand!” But another woman often will not understand nor care. My mother once pleaded to her mother-in-law for help and got the door slammed in her face. Where was her father-in-law? In the background, apparently, while his wife took charge of the situation to disastrous results. She just couldn’t understand how another woman and a fellow mother could be so insensitive to her- and she is not alone. Millions of women look to other women, other mothers, other women “just like them” who will “understand” and help them. We are taught all our lives in the post-feminist world about “sisterhood” and that men being in charge and in power in all areas of life leads to the oppression of women. But that is simply not how human nature works. 

There is this book by Taylor Caldwell called “Melissa” that I have always really liked because it showcases human nature very well. Melissa was an odd sort of woman who, after her mother’s death, marries a man for his money. She never fit in well with others in society and was regarded as strange by everyone else. Upon arriving at her new husband’s home her sister-in-law is determined to destroy her and break her down. Her sister-in-law has a bunch of guests staying over and Melissa notices that the men give her sympathetic looks while the women look at her with amusement and an evil gleam in their eyes. She remembers that her mother told her one time that women are a lot meaner that what men are and she starts to suspect that her mother might have been right. Towards the end of the book her sister-in-law has succeeded in breaking her down and putting enmity between her and her husband and has caused so many problems that Melissa plans to simply leave. Melissa’s sister-in-law calls upon Melissa’s brother and brother-in law for a conference about Melissa’s “behavior” trying to convince the men that Melissa is an immoral woman. Meanwhile, Melissa thinks to go to her sister for help (because surely it’s only natural that a sister would understand and help her more than a brother would?) but upon arriving at her sister’s home her sister screams at her, calls her a slut and slams the door in her face. Meanwhile, Melissa’s brother, sitting in conference with Melissa’s sister-in-law, is very suspicious of what the woman is saying and doesn’t really believe a word of it. After the conference he goes to find Melissa to find out what’s really going on. Of course, according to feminists, he would be very chauvinistic as earlier on in the book he slaps their sister across the face and tells her to sit down and shut up so he can talk because he’s the man of the house now. 

Me and a friend of mine were talking about this movie from 1945 called “Frontier Gal,” starring Yvonne de Carlo and Rod Cameron. At the end of the movie when Lorena is coming to her husband because she wants to live with him and take care of the home and their child it is another woman who convinces her husband to leave the house that way they might talk “woman to woman.” The woman then convineces Lorena that it is best if she is out of her daughter’s life forever because she would be no good for the girl. Once again, her husband stepped out of the way to let the women make decisions and disaster ensues (although the misunderstandings are cleared up in the end). 

If I close my eyes and think about any potential oppressors that I might have I always see the faces of other women. It’s true that sometimes women have to band together against a man who’s acting insensitive, but once the man is acting as he is supposed to he will be the better protector of the interests of the woman that what another woman will.

It is a bad thing for our society and a very bad thing for other women when men step back out of the way and let women take charge of things. Women are often each other’s competition. I see every day in the world that we live in that men are just stepping out of the way and letting women run everything. What women really need is for men to be the ones in charge of everything. A world where women are not allowed the vote or to involve themselves formally in politics would be the best for women. A world where men are in charge within the family and hold the political power in society is the best thing for women. A woman who finds herself in a bad situation would be best to turn to another man to help her. The worst thing she can do is turn to other women or try to manage on her own. Turning to another woman might be an intermediate step if she is in a bind but she is still better off having the help and protection of another man. If a woman puts herself under the protection and authority of a man (a man that is moral and masculine) her best interests will be served. In addition, I believe that most men will step up to the plate and be responsible if women are depending upon them to be so. 

There is really no other way. I see it as a very bad and depressing thing that there are a record number of women in congress and women as lawyers and a ten-fold increase in women being breadwinners over the last couple of decades. The longer this continues, the worse things will get. 

Advertisements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why I, as a Woman, Do Not Want to Engage in Politics

“I love peace and quiet, I hate politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, we must dislike these masculine occupations.”
~ Queen Victoria

As a woman, I do not wish to engage in politics. I know this may be very shocking to our modern post-feminist world. But I just do not believe that women were meant for this job. In reality, where has engaging in politics gotten women? We are certainly not better off than our ancestors were in previous generations. It’s a common belief today that more women in the higher paid jobs and more women in in politics will guarantee women greater rights, protections or status in society and lift women and children out of poverty. But this is just not the reality. The more women move up in the career world and engage in politics the worse off we are. Treating a married women the same as a single woman is causing hardships within our marriages. It is no coincidence that as soon as married women started entering the workforce in record numbers that divorce rates started rising. This was true even before the advent of the first “no-fault” divorce laws. The feminists say that education and better employment opportunities will lift women out of poverty, as if it is the solution to all of society’s problems to push women into the workforce. Yet, they are never concerned about the causes of poverty among women and children. The biggest cause of poverty is broken apart families yet even the most conservative of lawmakers and individuals become hostile at the thought of strengthening the bonds of marriage, making divorce harder to obtain and making the husband the authority figure within the family. Men and women are so confused over their roles today. They have so many problems coming together in marriage and staying together. If women would look more to find our identities within our families instead of competing with men in the job market, we might find greater happiness. For even the woman who does stay home feels the pull of society on her to get up and enter the workforce and society does not value her contributions and her unique abilities. As such she is no more happy than the woman who works. It’s a common thought that women lawyers, judges and politicians will be more sensitive to the needs of women. Yet, oftentimes the exact opposite has been proven to be true. A woman would often do better if it were a man to decide her fate than if it were to be a woman. The end result of women making political decisions is that it becomes a war between married women and single women, or more realistically, traditional women versus non-traditional women. Single women are now the largest growing voting bloc thus the woman who is a wife and mother gets disadvantaged once more as the needs she has are never considered. Women have no voice within our families today, the only voice for women is centered around the workforce. Once more this leaves traditional women in an even greater bind. For if she lets go of current events and depends upon her husband to act on her behalf, the career-minded feminist woman gains even greater power, and thus the needs of the traditional woman are pushed even further into the background. I do not wish to be here engaging in political discussions. I wish to live a happy, normal and peaceful life only concentrating on the needs of my husband and children and caring for the home. But I feel as if I have no other choice. For if I do not speak up on behalf of traditional women (and really speak up, as in work to change the law) then will anybody ever?

 

 

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

Thoughts on Female Suffrage and In Vindication of Woman’s True Rights

“We acknowledge no inferiority to men…It is our fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons who represent us at the ballot-box. Our fathers and brothers love us. Our husbands are our choice, and one with us. Our sons are what we make them. We are content that they represent us in the corn-field, the battle-field, and at the ballot-box, and we them in the school-room, at the fireside, and at the cradle…”

“For, at present, the law protects the persons and the weakness of women to an extent far beyond anything they might legislate for themselves.”

“Public opinion, almost chivalric in its courtesy among Americans, goes even further, and gracefully yields privileges, which will be best understood when lost…Deprive women of such protection, and place them on a sheer equality with men, to struggle for their rights at the ballot-box, and they cannot but suffer by a direct competition, which would create an antagonism.”

“As to property, the law extends to the single female, femme sole, all that the male owner has…”

“The proper sphere of woman we hold to be in no way inferior to that of man. That sphere is of the highest. As wife and mother she is queen of the most holy aspirations. When she moves in her own proper orbit she fulfills her true duties as a citizen; and while men are struggling with the battle of life for food and raiment she cares for the progeny- the future men and women of the country.”

“These, our dear sisters of Providence, need of all women the present union of law which shields their physical weakness, and of the moral sentiment which protects their persons. The ballot will substitute for this tenderness equal rights; then must all else be equal and common, and our sisters of toil must be crushed.”

-Dahlgren, V.M.  “Thoughts on female suffrage and in vindication of woman’s true rights,” Blachard & Mohun, 1871.