Traditional Living Advice for Traditional Gals: Common Questions, Answers and Myths

This is part of a series of posts about being domestic and living traditionally for all interested ladies (or curious gentlemen) out there. Companion Q& A piece from That Stepford Gal to this article here. 

Q: Domestic women are stagnant and dependent just being at home. Don’t you want to use your talents in a career?

There’s nothing wrong with a female being dependent upon and serving her family. So what if it’s not normal to society? What is normal to society? Being obese, watching hours of television every day, being stressed, being in debt and having poor-quality or nonexistent romantic relationships with the opposite sex? A woman depending on her man breeds a closer, deeper relationship and makes families stable. Why would a man work at all or fight at all out there in the world if not for a woman or family that he loves? It gives a man purpose and meaning in life and makes women less stressed and more feminine. A career is not the only way to use one’s talents. It is only seen as the only way because of the emphasis put on women having careers in the post-feminist society.

Q: Domestic women are lazy and don’t want to work. Why do you just want to be at home and do nothing?

Most people are lazy. Period. Most housewives I know are not lazy, unless they are really career women on temporary leave, or as fellow traditionalist blogger That Stepford Gal likes to call it, “a three-year nanny for hire.” True traditional women love to be feminine and keep a good home. Anyone can come home and toss the laundry in the wash and throw a microwave dinner in the oven and throw some dishes in the dishwasher with food still caked all over them, but truly making a home and doing it right is exhausting, time-consuming and draining work- even with all the modern technology a housewife has in the 21st century. Have you seen most people’s houses where both partners/spouses work? Case closed. Unless they hire someone to clean it, you probably wouldn’t even want to eat there. But traditional women make homemaking an art to cherish and do with delight.

Q: Domestic women cannot afford to be at home. What about getting a house and saving? You’ll have nothing.

Most people are in debt. When you destroy marriage you also destroy property and inheritance as well. The idea that women can’t “afford” to be home has no basis in reality. You make do with what you have and over time you gain more assets. Husband and wife are a team. Attacks on marriage are also attacks on property as property cannot be passed down through the generations so that one’s children and grandchildren can have something to start out with to build a life on their own. But anyone can live on one income. Historically, women with husbands who earned the most money went out to work while poor women stayed home. It’s still the same today. What I’ve found as I’ve gotten a bit older is that the majority of commonly quoted mainstream beliefs are untrue and unfounded, if not plain-out false, and I’ve found this to be the same with the idea that women can’t afford to be housewives. The only women who can’t afford to be housewives are either women who’ve made extremely poor choices in life or women who simply don’t want to be housewives.

Related Postings:

https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/questioning-economic-necessity/

https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/there-has-never-been-an-easier-time-for-women-to-stay-home/

https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/where-are-the-men-the-case-for-male-breadwinners/

Made This Way 

Imagine a world like this: a world that is cold and cruel outside yet a woman can’t be a calm refuge from it. A woman shouldn’t express her emotions or wear her heart on her sleeve. She must adopt the masculine and shun the feminine because the masculine is the only thing that is valued. She isn’t allowed to retain an air of childlike innocence even though she is grown. She must be cold, uncaring and independent. In a world where marketplace achievement is the only thing that is ultimately valued she’s told feminine submissiveness, dependence and the showing of emotions will only repel men. Yet the moment she adopts the masculine values she bears the brunt of every “stick up your ass” joke around.

We live in a world where women are attacked just for the simple art of homemaking and harassed even by those that they love and family members for not having a “job” because once again the masculine is the only thing that has value. Women will medicate themselves just so they don’t do something unforgivable such as daring to cry at work. Modern men complain about emotional women or a woman’s tears yet they don’t like it when women adopt masculine values and become more like the men either. They like feminine women so long as they don’t have to deal with them. They like submissive women so long as they don’t have to take care of them.

Men can write ten-page reports about how unfeminine the modern American woman is using the most vulgar language imaginable and degrading women in every way conceivable yet women are not allowed to say a word about “manhood” or say a word about what they think a “real man” might actually be or how men should talk to or treat women or act around women. If any woman ever talked even a fraction of the way about men that most MRA men talk about women she’d probably be charged with a hate crime.

It’s not OK to be feminine. It’s not OK to cry or show emotion or love or empathy or be nurturing. Baking a pie with love has no value, but making a paycheck does. A woman should be able to drink beer just as good as any man and brag about her inability to cook.

Women are irrational creatures, yet nobody would even be alive in this world if women weren’t as no rational creature would put up with a man’s shit, or want to be penetrated, or deal with pregnancy, etc… It is that irrationality and emotion that brought each person alive into this world and nurtured you when you were yet a helpless infant unable to do anything but suck and scream. It’s that childlikeness that felt and cared and loved. Sometimes it’s unreasonable but it’s not always easy dealing with girl emotions and fluctuating hormones, yet somehow we survive it. Sometimes a woman just needs to cry and sometimes she needs to be told to shut up. Much as the way a child often cries over small things that an adult finds absurd, such is the way with women. Sometimes it’s fit throwing and sometimes it’s real pain. 

It is that lost art of homemaking and showing feminine sweetness and vulnerability that has turned the modern woman unattractive and destroyed the distinctiveness of the masculine and the feminine that should complement each other and work with each other, instead of against each other. But it doesn’t really matter how bad things are, it’s not ok to be traditionally feminine in this world and if you are everyone will hate you. 

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.

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.

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.