Tag Archives: traditional women’s rights

A Woman Should Not Get Involved In Her Husband’s Business

A wife getting involved in her husband’s business should ultimately be looked upon as a bad thing. Men used to be shamed if their wives worked and a married woman getting involved in business was frowned upon. I see a lot of women whose husbands have home businesses and in almost every case the wife is working full-time in the business (most generally by sitting in an office all day). But a wife getting involved in her husband’s business is still engaging in paid employment. She is not dependent upon her husband but rather she is a business partner with him, and this removes her from her traditional role. It is a husband’s job to fully financially support his wife. A husband asking his wife to work in his business or contribute to it full or part-time in a significant way is an assault against her traditional role and an assault against her right to be supported by her husband. It is one thing to ask the wife about something she may be skilled in occasionally but another for her to be involved fully or partially in his business. Any activity or work that goes towards the provision for a family is the husband’s responsibility or the responsibility of the adult males in the household (say if there was an older or adult son of working age still at home).

For the most part, a wife should stay out of her husband’s business. Under coverture, husbands controlled property and money and were fully responsible. For the most part, what the husband does is his own business and he should not be obligated to explain himself to his wife. He should be held fully financially responsible for whatever occurs or whatever he does. It is his responsibility to support the family and he should be called to answer and be held responsible for whatever the outcome. The working world should be seen as “men’s business,” as should political affairs and, although single women have always been able to have their careers and independence if they so chose, women should, as a general principle, stay out of it. The wife can spend her time engaging in feminine pursuits, chores around the house, caring for children and others, being social (or not), engaging in hobbies that interest her, and being there for her husband, children, family and friends when they need her.

A woman should leave the working world to her husband and a husband should not involve his wife in his business and affairs. A man asking his wife to engage in productive work which goes towards the provision of the family is asking for his wife to help provide for his household, which is also to say he is asking his wife to help provide for him. Truly masculine men do not need the protection and support of women.

Related:

married women and home businesses (tag)

The Provider Role Belongs to Man

Recommended:

Alexis de Toqueville on American Women

William Blackstone on Coverture

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…

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)

The Traditional Family is the Solution to Abortion

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

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

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

And as for the relationship issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Feminism is not Compatible With the Housewife’s Role

Possibly one of the saddest realities of life today is that few have any faith in marriage to last a lifetime anymore. In these times most people concentrate most on what happens when the marriage ends, rather than the marriage itself (think prenups for instance, most people go into marriage expecting it to end). Marriage consists of competition and mistrust between husband and wife. There is plenty of support for men out there who distrust women and don’t feel safe about investing in the marital relationship or investing themselves in women (as in supporting and protecting women). But what about woman’s role in marriage? Is it safe for a woman to invest herself in the marital relationship? And who is standing up for her role in marriage? The unfortunate answer to this question seems to be nobody. There is really nobody out there standing up for a woman’s role as a wife and mother. The absolute only voice for women revolves around the workforce.

As a woman it’s always my greatest joy just to be a wife and mother. Living a traditional life is what I’ve always wanted to do. It was always my dream to be a housewife and nothing else but I was always ashamed to admit it when I was younger (since we’re told it’s not a career or dependable anymore). Unfortunately as I’ve grown up over the years I no longer see life the same way. I no longer see life through rose colored glasses. Life has taught me the hard way that nobody is going to come to the rescue of a woman and force a man to be a man and do the honorable thing by marrying a woman he impregnates or who’s virginity he has taken. Nobody in our world today is going to enforce a man to be responsible for the financial support of his wife or throw shame on him for abandoning her or failing to protect her.

I still love the housewife role and in my very heart being a wife and mother is all I’ve ever wanted. It’s what I’ve always lived for. Being pregnant and nursing an infant. Even giving birth was a powerful experience. It was so empowering to know that as a woman I could do such a thing. It’s an instinct. It’s primitive, ancient and distinctly feminine. But at some point we all grow up and have to face the world for what it is. My world has for many years been torn between the longings of my heart (which are generally fantasies about being barefoot and pregnant) and the realities of modern day life that women are no longer secure in their roles as wives and mothers.

Like so many others, I too, have fears about truly investing myself in marriage. Just because I have come on here for years expressing the need for tradition and my love for it does not mean I am displaced from the society I live in. It does not mean I’m not a real wife and mother with fears and issues of my own. Occasionally I am upset and tell my husband I want nothing more than to just follow him and worry nothing about his business and the happenings in the world around me. That’s the way it should be. That’s the way it was for hundreds of years. Women knew they could just follow their husbands and depend upon their husbands for everything because the law would hold him responsible for her well being. She could safely follow him and obey him knowing that he would have to take legal responsibility as the husband and head of household. The law would even accept a woman’s explanation that she was following her husband’s orders.

But what about now? If there’s one thing that most women know in our times today it would be that depending on a husband is risky. Where once financial support of the family and chivalry was the man’s responsibility now the law has been bastardized by the feminist movement to say that it should be a woman’s responsibility as well and that instead of husband and wife being one unit they are instead supposed to be treated as barely anything more than two cohabiting individuals, with barely any more status or control over each other than what a boyfriend and girlfriend living together would have. Husbands and wives are no longer legally looked upon as one unit with one head, but as separate individuals who are supposed to be responsible for themselves.

This means that traditional women have no choice. In order to protect ourselves we have to know our husbands’ business. Because if we didn’t then we could be held responsible for what he does. He is no longer given the legal right to make decisions on behalf of his wife and children (unless there’s a very extreme case like his wife being in a coma or something) and the wife is forced to be right there equally (there’s that word again, isn’t it so gorgeously feminist?) participating in what he’s doing and the business he is conducting. Most women today know they would be fools to blindly obey and follow their husband’s orders because they know they no longer have the protection of the husband taking full legal responsibility for being the one in charge.

This is what feminists wanted and now their beliefs are enshrined in law and accepted by all of society including conservatives. So what are traditional women to do? Will we fade away? Even lurking somewhere in the minds of the most traditional among us is a feeling of unease and distrust of our spouse. Feminism and the role of the traditional woman are not compatible. The first step is that society must realize this. Women’s and men’s traditonal responsibilities within marriage must be law if they are to have any meaning. If they cannot be enforced then they are worthless. Married women cannot gain the ‘right’ of being independent from husbands and children without also compromising a woman’s traditional role. Feminism has stolen from a woman’s security and power in her traditional roles to force her to comply with feminist beliefs and grant her power in the masculine realm. And when they can’t get enough force together from women to abandon tradition on their own then they encourage men to “liberate” themselves from their duties. They betray women to get exactly what they want.

Traditional women must be vocal. We have no choice. We must insist that the traditional roles of a man and wife in marriage must be enforced by law. The husband’s responsibility to financially support his wife and take legal responsibility for her (with a few exceptions, the same as the law generally holds parents responsible for their children with exceptions when those children cannot be controlled) must be enforced as well as a woman’s submission to her husband must also be enforced by law. This is the only safe way that both husband and wife can invest in their traditional roles with peace of mind. No authority is a true authority unless it has the power to enforce it’s rule. Likewise no protection is a real protection unless it can be enforced.

As for feminist women? Nobody says you have to get married. In fact, please do us all a favor and stay single and childless. Go liberate yourself and support your own self and stop robbing traditional men and women who want to know the joys of marriage and children of their security.

Suggested Reading:

In Defense Of Coverture

Marriage is Masculinity and Coverture