Tag Archives: working mothers

So Parents “Deserve” Affordable Childcare?

What Obama just said about stay-at-home moms literally disgusts me

I was having a conversation yesterday about Obama and him saying how we need “affordable childcare.” Then I re-read some articles about what he said last October on the issue and how he bashed stay-at-home mothers. First, let me just say that I hate the term “stay at home mother.” It makes it sound like I’m making some kind of feminist choice to stay home for a while or something (which is exactly the intention of the term).

But, anyways, the sad thing is that in all the solutions ever proposed to fix the current crisis of the family nobody ever suggests bringing back the traditional family (which is patriarchal and headed by the husband, not both spouses and not by the wife). Instead, the conversation always revolves around something politically correct like counseling couples to work out their problems instead of divorcing or something and finding good daycare or “one parent” staying home or something.

The part where Obama said parents “deserve” to be able to drop their kids off with someone else at an affordable price is the worst. And then lamenting about women losing career prospects because they take some time off to care for children, as if it’s some kind of terrible obligation nobody should ever be forced to do or something! As if all women even give a care about a career!

So, the taxpayers should, once again, foot the bill for someone else to watch your kids. Family breakdown costs a tremendous amount of money every year. It has always been the few- very few- patriarchal families still left today that generally foot the bill for it. But, as I said just a few sentences ago, nobody wants to do anything about it that will actually work. We can’t look for simple, time-tested solutions that have actually been proven to work. We must continue going out of our way and scratching our heads wondering why everything has gotten so awful bad as if it’s really some big mystery that nobody can quite figure out.

Not to mention the harm done to children when left in the care of others. Yes, they may be fed, changed and physically taken care of but this does nothing for them emotionally, psychologically and it does nothing for the protection of their souls.

The worst part is that conservatives are no better. Conservatives still want women out of the home just the same as liberals, only they wish to forbid homosexual encounters and abortion. Other than that they are NO DIFFERENT than liberals. The end result is still women out of the home.The end result is still the abolition of sex roles by saying either parent can stay home. The end result is still FEMINISM.

The problem is that it doesn’t work! It never has and it is only getting worse and will continue to get worse. The obvious solution is for men to actually man up and take on the sole obligation for supporting their families and for women to submit themselves to their husbands, even if the thought does make them cringe. Traditional family law had it that when children were in the custody of their fathers (generally this meant marriage but also extended to divorce as well) that the father had the sole obligation to support them. It was his responsibility, not the mother’s and not the taxpayers. Mothers only had to take on that obligation in the event of emergency, such as if they were widowed or unwed or something.

Mothers going off to work was considered a very bad thing. Looking at our world today we can see our ancestors were right to look down upon it. Society was stable when women stayed home and when few married (and even single) women worked. It is the only solution that works and I’m sick of hearing about careers and the “wage gap” and I’m sick of the talk about “women’s rights” as if all women care about careers and nothing else.

When does it end? Give women back their traditional rights to be financially supported by husbands and give men back their position as heads of families. We need a system such as coverture to be implemented again that gives husbands authority over women and children and where husbands have obligations for the support of their wives and are ultimately called to answer for the state of their families.

Recommended:

Can You Have Your Cake and Eat it Too?

Advertisements

Should Women Have Careers Before Marriage?

What sense does it make to have a career before marriage if you plan just to be a housewife or stay at home mother? How on earth can you expect employers to not discriminate when your plan is to work for a few years and then just up and quit or plan to take a lot of time off? Of course this brings up the point of why the women’s movement had to abolish legal protections for housewives and also to degrade her role and promote full-time work for women, regardless of their marital status and regardless whether or not they have children. If society just assumed that women would quit their work after marriage then it would be unreasonable for employers not to discriminate. As it now stands, however, it’s illegal to discriminate no matter if the woman plans on getting married and no matter if she has children, which just complicates everything and honestly disrupts businesses.

What sense does it make to keep giving leave to women to take off for their menstrual cycles and for childbirth when instead companies and businesses could just hire men who would ultimately be more reliable? Besides, women in the workforce cause problems and make it hard for men to really get any work done. Also, there are the issues of sexual harassment and the like that wouldn’t even be issues if men didn’t have to work beside women so much (and if we went back to the days where a good old-fashioned slap across the face and men’s chivalrous duty to protect the honor of women took care of a man who was getting a little too fresh).

It doesn’t make any sense to me why women would waste years in college and get a career just to up and quit it. Also, I believe it is just plain awful to leave children in daycare or with babysitters/other family members just so you can go off to work or so that the parents can fight and divorce. The memories of my childhood are nothing more than warring parents and riding the bus to daycare after school. My childhood was hell because of it. We talk all the time about “the best interests of the child” but in reality this is nothing more than code speak for “don’t say anything politically incorrect” and a justification for gender-neutral policies and laws.

The feminist movement knew it was bad news if women just wanted to be housewives and if society accepted that women should be housewives because it would ruin all their plans of women becoming fungible with men. If society saw that the ideal was for women to be housewives and care for their children and love and obey their husbands after marriage then our customs would change to favor men in the workforce on the logical basis that the men would more than likely be sole providers for families one day and the logical basis that a woman would have a husband to provide for her. Society would also see that women need protections due to the vulnerability that comes along with being dependent in their traditional roles. Denying protections to women and degrading traditional women goes along with feminism’s plans to make all women independent from men and to refute any thoughts of women being potential mothers and weaker and more vulnerable than men.

If on the other hand society sees that married women should have careers then the protection of women isn’t even an issue and nobody cares. Indeed, that’s what we have today- nobody cares. But we need to care. Men need to provide for and protect women and society should impose these responsibilities upon men as it is ultimately in the best interest of all of society.

More on anti-discrimination:

Discrimination is the Solution, Not the Problem

Recommended:

My Review of “Why We Lost the ERA”

Feminism and Female Preciousness

Is Feminism Pro-Choice?

Do We Really See Nothing Wrong With This???

Why do I see everywhere around me women getting married, having a baby and continuing working as if nothing at all has changed in their lives? I see also women having babies with some guy that they don’t even stay with for more than six months after the child is born and then they go off to college to pursue a degree. A baby changes nothing in their lives. And if any of these women do become “stay-at-home mothers” they still spend most of their time trying to find ways to make money! And we really see nothing at all wrong with this? I was visiting a friend yesterday and they have a new baby. The baby isn’t even more than about two months old yet the mother is working full-time and always gone. And we see nothing wrong with this at all? They actually have several kids, the oldest no more than five years old and yet the mother is always gone working and using her college degree. It’s always been that way since day one. Her husband apparently sees nothing wrong with this either. Tell me why the hell we have young women having babies then going off to college when the kids are just a few months old and looking for family members to take care of the kids while they’re gone? Also, most don’t even marry their boyfriends either and yet nobody sees anything at all wrong with this?? What has happened to us as a society? Let’s get it straight. If you have kids they should be your top priority. Mothers should not be encouraged to go off to work or pursue an education while they dump their kids off with whoever will take them and neglect forming a real and true relationship (as in marriage) with their child’s father. Money is masculine. The making of money is masculine. Making money requires competition and putting oneself out there to face the world and achieve. Fatherhood should strengthen a man’s goal to make money and motherhood should weaken a woman’s desires to do so. OOPS I forgot I’m not allowed to say that! I’m just supposed to sit here and say “you go girl!” to any woman who makes it out there in a “man’s world.” Mothers are encouraged to pursue college degrees and paid employment and nobody is supposed to say anything about it at all. I’ve heard several men say that they would love for their wives to stay home but that they would never ask them to do so. I mean, come on!! Do we really see nothing wrong with this? Isn’t it time somebody said something?? Women need to make the home top priority again and men need to actually be real men again instead of some pansies who just go along with what their wives say instead of being leaders and taking charge. When it’s all said and done that college degree is going to be nothing more than a burden leading to nothing more than financial debt, wasted youth and an inability to have the life you really want.

The Provider Role Belongs to Man

“It is sad that such a subject is even necessary to discuss, because for generations, women, whether they were single or childless, married or widowed, were protected from the pressures of earning a living, and the fathers, husbands, brothers and sons, proudly took their responsibility to be good providers and protectors of the family.” (1)

Today’s conservatives have adopted feminism although they are less liberal than what liberals are about it. Conservatives today will say women should work and go to college before marriage, stay home for a few years and then go back to work. This is a huge contrast from before when marriage was seen as a covenant lasting for a lifetime with a husband being required to financially provide for his wife for her lifetime.

The way I see it is that there is no reason for daughters to be shipped off to college or pressured to go to work before marriage. I see nothing wrong with a young women having some employment to earn some extra spending money before they are married, but young women should not be taught that they must provide for themselves. Young women should be taught to look at employment as a temporary thing, as something to do only until they are married. A young woman should learn from her mother and her father should still be required to support and protect her until she should marry and that responsibility passes to her husband. Today even preachers exclaim that they want their daughters to go off to college and secure a good job. This is considered that the young woman is doing something worthwhile and something good and holy. But I don’t see it that way. I see it as feminism being so pervasive in our culture that even the most religious and conservative and God-fearing have adopted it, even if they are still rejecting the more “radical” elements like gay marriage and abortion.

“I will not encourage my daughters to go to college or have careers. They’ll be raised as housewives. They’ll be raised to be good mothers and wives whose sole focus is their family. They can study what they want and be involved in things that interest them (other than sports), in their free time, but their main focus will be domestic activities. They’ll be taught to be kind, good, and respectful to their husbands and to men in general. They’ll live with me until they’re married. There’s no need for them to have a job. I don’t care if they can take care of themselves or not because that’s what they’ll have a husband for…There will be no “equality” in my house. My children will learn something along the lines of “mommy is supposed to cook, clean, and stay home with me. Daddy is supposed to work, pay for things, and make final decisions.” (There are other things, but this is just the basics). No shared household chores and no shared income responsibility.” (2)

I see nothing wrong with a woman’s family helping the newly married couple to get started by giving her household items or other properties. My family gave me cookware and some furniture as well as a car (albeit an old clunker that we sold within a year) when I first got married. I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with dowries either, so long as it isn’t seen as the woman providing it for herself before she gets married, as in her being expected to work to provide a large dowry so a man can instead not worry about providing and just marry a woman with a good dowry or something. Expecting a woman to work before marriage to provide for land or property or other goods to provide for the family is still pushing the burden of providing off onto women. All the necessities should be the husband’s to provide.

“In the same manner, when the law made the man the head of the family, he also had to financially support his wife… In the times of the Vikings, the government even had established the minimum bride price the man had to pay if he wished to marry, the reasoning behind it being that if a man was too poor to pay the minimum amount of money required by law he obviously wouldn’t be able to support a family and hence had no business to marry.” (3)

Even when the children are out of the home (say in school or have grown up or gotten married themselves) a woman should still have every right to be in the home. Homemaking shouldn’t be seen as some temporary thing a woman does just to take care of very young children, but a lifetime vocation. It should be the right of every woman to be financially supported by her husband. The male role as provider shouldn’t be some optional burden that he can choose to accept or not. It should be a man’s obligation to provide for his wife or daughters as well as any unmarried sisters or other closely related female family members who need his support.

Another thing that bothers me is that stay at home mothers and housewives are often pressured to take in extra money in the form of having a home business or babysitting other people’s kids for some extra money. This, in my opinion, can be just as bad and disruptive to family life as the woman simply working out side of the home. It’s one thing for a housewife to have a hobby or volunteer activity that she does in her spare time or for her to occasionally make something unique that she sells on eBay or something, but it is a different story when she has actual work-a job- that needs to be done that takes her away from the home or when she’s doing work from home because she feels she must “do her part” and help her husband provide or something. Also, babysitting other people’s kids can be a major liability for a woman’s family and also serves the purpose of enabling other mothers to go off to work and leave their kids in someone else’s care. I would say it’s OK to watch a close friend or family member’s kids on occasion for a little money unless it disrupts the home or become a normal job for the wife or, as I just said, enables another mother to leave her kids for a job. No matter if it’s in the home or not, women should not be expected to have paid employment of any kind, even if it is only part-time.

At any stage the burden of providing should not be pushed off onto women. The necessities should be the husband’s and father’s job to provide for his wife and children. It is a man’s duty to provide. Whether young, old, childless, or a mother of many, a woman’s place is in the home. A man’s responsibility is to provide. Marriage is about raising children, but it is also just as much about providing for and protecting women- about male guardianship of and responsibility for women.

“Women’s political movements have spent a century trying to be equal to men, and in doing so, men have quit regarding them as weaker vessels, creatures worth protecting and caring for. Some modern men have never seen a truly feminine woman, content with her work in the home. Growing up in institutions and schools, they saw girls and women who seemed the same as men in their purpose and activities. They have not grown up with Biblical grandmothers and mothers. They get their image of what women are supposed to be like, from what they see around them. Most men these days have female bosses and are surrounded by women in the workforce. They see nothing wrong with sending their wives to work. It looks normal to them. Men feel no shame in sending their children to daycare and their wives to work.

The women’s movement has changed the nature of men. They do not seem strong, protective, masculine and brave. Men have become weaker because they no longer have to be the sole provider for the family. They have no unique role in society; nothing to make them hold their head high or improve their dignity, when women also earn the living for the family. There are few places in the workplace where women have not invaded. Work needs to be a man’s world, and homemaking needs to be a woman’s world. Husbands and wives can be stronger in their own ways, when they do not try to be alike in their roles.

Women must return to the home and men must take on the burden of providing for their families again. Working to be a provider builds up a man, and contentedly tending to her home increases the soft femininity of a woman. These are the opposite tendencies which are the main attractions between men and women. When husbands and wives both work outside the home, the wife will suffer a greater burden. She will be suffering guilt for leaving her children, and she will suffer anxiety for not being able to manage her home. Her health will suffer, as she can not get enough rest. She will loose some of her innocent sweetness, as she tackles the job away from home.

Truly masculine men will not ask their wives to go to work. They will try harder to provide for their families, or cut down on expenses so that their wives wont have to work. Manly men will tell you that when women are not in the workplace, they get their jobs done much better. Women going to work has complicated the way things are done in the workplace, and this has not been good for the men.”(4)

Recommended Articles:

What If Something Happens to Your Husband?

A Woman’s Place

Do What God Says and Let Him Take Care of the Rest

Yes, High Numbers of Women Working IS a New Thing

On the one hand we are told that women were always oppressed in the home and never allowed to have careers. Now after the feminist movement historians have been trying to constantly convince us that women “always” worked and the 1950s were some kind of cult of domesticity where women were forced to stay in the home but before that women were always out in the workforce and plowing the fields and were always “equal partners” with their husbands so feminism wasn’t really even necessary after all because women have *always* worked. One can read a five hundred page history book today and most generally the authors will spend half the book talking about “male divorce power” and the sexual double standard and how adultery was never a crime for husbands, only for wives and so on and so on. They will spend half the book trying to convince us that women have always been forced to work and bear children (that they never had rights to) and live under the rule of men. Barely a word is ever spoken about men’s duties to their wives or the truth about hardly anything. This is what women today are fed and why so many undoubtedly turn to feminism:

“For more than five thousand years, men—fathers—were legally *entitled* to sole custody of their children. Women—mothers—were *obliged* to bear, rear, and economically support their children. No mother was ever legally entitled to custody of her own child.” (1)

This, of course, is a complete lie. See here how they first try to convince us women were never *allowed* to work and then they turn around and tell us that women *always* worked, were forced to work. Then historians will now try to convince us that all women worked in the factories and plowed the fields even when heavily pregnant, then gave birth in the fields and got right back up and went right back to plowing! Another thing undoubtedly many have heard is a story that goes something like this: First, man marries woman for dowry, then proceeds to squander it all away within a month, then man goes and gets drunk every night and heads to the local brothel to have a good time (because adultery wasn’t a crime for men!) then man comes home to beat and rape his wife. But, realistically, the husband would only really uncover the wife just enough to penetrate her to do his “duty” to procreate and have legitimate heirs (because women knew nothing about sex and were clueless about their own sexuality and body until feminists came along and sexually liberated them) and then it was back to the brothel! Of course, women had no rights and men could use and abuse their wives as they pleased. They could do anything they wanted because women were less than chattel and marriage was nothing but slavery for women. The description of the book “Love, Honor and Obey” tells a 100% accurate description of life for women before feminism:

“In 1889, women were chattel, prized solely for their physical attributes, the contents of their dowries, their skills at the helm of the family’s wood-burning cook stove, their capacity to conceive endlessly and their willingness to endure marriage and miscarriage in silence. Women could not vote or smoke in public. Motherhood was sanctified and only the whores ventured out unescorted after dark, dyed their hair and wore make-up.Blissfully young and naïve, Emma Miller nearly lost herself in Edward Richardson’s seductive blue eyes until the reality of her husband’s alcoholic rampages began to erode her cherished dream of marriage. Like the practiced coward that he was, Edward abandoned his wife and children in the dead of night, taking with him their horse and their cookie jar savings.Emma had willed herself to survive Edward’s beatings but could she survive life as a single parent with three children? At a time when women were to be seen but never heard, Emma marched boldly into the dawn of a new era for women. Emma defied polite society by embarking upon a career, taking a lover and refusing to bend in the face of personal and professional conflict.” (2)

What women wouldn’t be a feminist after listening to that? Historically the dowry was always something the groom paid to the father of the bride for her hand in marriage. Often it is called a “bride price.” Later the dowry came to be something that the bride brought into the marriage from her family. Historians don’t know why, some speculate that the absence of eligible men for marriage started the tradition of the bride’s family dowering the daughter instead of it coming from the groom. Some other historians point out that bride-price seemed to be the way in polygamous societies and dowry coming from the bride’s family the way in monogamous societies. A bride price is where the groom pays the woman’s father a sum of money for her hand in marriage or, in some societies, the money would go to the bride herself. A dowry is a sum of money, property or other goods given to the groom upon marriage for no other purpose than the maintenance of his bride. In some societies the bride still controlled the dowry and in others the groom controlled the dowry. If divorce should occur or if the bride was widowed then the dowry had to be returned intact to the bride and her family. Dowry was always a way of signaling social class and the woman’s status in society and the larger a woman’s dowry the wealthier a mate she could be expected to attract (social class was always very important to people and everyone was generally expected to marry someone of their own class). Traditionally a young woman would be dowered by her father or sometimes other male family members. Ancient Rome even had laws requiring that fathers provide dowries for daughters. A poor peasant girl whose family could not afford to dower her might either marry without a dowry or work before marriage to provide for her own dowry. In other cases sometimes donations were made to poor girls’ dowries to help them get married. The dowry, however, did not mean the husband did not have to support his wife. The dowry would help the woman get settled and start a new household. Also important was the woman’s dower, the portion of her husband’s property that the wife would inherit to be used for her support upon her husband’s death. A man could not get rid of his own property nor his wife’s dowry without her consent, which had to be given without coercion as she could reclaim her third (or in some societies half) of her husband’s property that he could not take from her.

After marriage a man was by law required to provide for his wife all of her necessities. There were no obligations upon a wife to support her husband or pay the family’s bills until very recently with women’s lib where the law became bastardized as support being something both spouses “owe” each other and the egalitarian vision of the mother working equally as the father to support the family. Of course, throughout history women taking on masculine responsibilities does resurface and it always seems to correlate well with societal decline. Feminism is not a new thing. All throughout history women have tried to usurp their husband’s authority and men have tried to evade responsibility. From the fall of Rome in the fifth century to the crumbling of the monarchy in the tenth and eleventh centuries and the ending of Anglo-Saxon rule in England, women taking masculine responsibilities and husband and wife being “equals” sharing in rights and responsibilities resurfaces and usually destroys society. Usually once a great empire falls, it never regains its former power or glory.

The role of housewife for women is not new. Modern technology has made the work easier than what it used to be, but the idea that this “50s housewife” ideal is a new thing is a lie. Families have been organized in many different ways throughout time and in different societies but the modern idea of the “traditional” family of a husband, wife and their kids living in one household apart from any others is not a new thing. Speaking of the Western world specifically here, people living together with their extended kin in one household seems to resurface throughout the centuries but the nuclear family of husband, wife and kids in one household with the man standing alone as sole provider for wife and children has been around for centuries. Barbara A. Hanawalt speaks of the life of a medieval peasant woman in England in her book “The Ties that Bound; peasant families in medieval England”

“Women’s daily household routines are very well summed up in the ‘Ballad of the Tyrannical Husband.’ The goodwife of the poem had no servants and only small children, so that her day was a full one. She complained that her nights were not restful because she had to rise and nurse the babe in arms. She then milked the cows and took them to pasture and made butter and cheese while she watched the children and dried their tears. Next she fed the poultry and took the geese to the green. She baked and brewed every fortnight and worked on carding wool, spinning, and beating flax. She tells her husband that through her economy of weaving a bit of linsey woolsey during the year for the family clothes, they would be able to save money and not buy cloth from the market. Her husband insists that all this work is very easy and that she really spends her day at the neighbors’ gossiping…”

This woman sure sounds like a housewife to me, only without the modern-day convinces of an electric cookstove, washing machine and prepared food from the grocery store. Coroners’ reports reveal a clear pattern of traditional gender roles for the medieval wife and mother. The same as we see today, women who were rich in the past could afford to hire a wet-nurse and have a maid to do the household chores and watch the kids. Poor women were in the home doing all these things themselves.

In America, as well, there is no evidence to suggest women were out plowing fields or all women were out in the workforce. In America there is actual statistical and census data to show that only 5% of married women were actually engaged in “gainful occupation” (as opposed to 96% of married men) in the 19th century and single women only worked at a rate of around 45% which is much lower than the rates of even married women working today.(4) Also many left journals describing their daily lives as housewives which correlate very well with what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of American women (in 1830) in his book III of “Democracy in America:” (emphasis mine)

“In no country has such constant care been taken as in America to trace two clearly distinct lines of action for the two sexes, and to make them keep pace one with the other, but in two pathways which are always different. American women never manage the outward concerns of the family, or conduct a business, or take a part in political life; nor are they, on the other hand, ever compelled to perform the rough labor of the fields, or to make any of those laborious exertions which demand the exertion of physical strength. No families are so poor as to form an exception to this rule. If on the one hand an American woman cannot escape from the quiet circle of domestic employments, on the other hand she is never forced to go beyond it…

Nor have the Americans ever supposed that one consequence of democratic principles is the subversion of marital power, of the confusion of the natural authorities in families. They hold that every association must have a head in order to accomplish its object, and that the natural head of the conjugal association is man. They do not therefore deny him the right of directing his partner; and they maintain, that in the smaller association of husband and wife, as well as in the great social community, the object of democracy is to regulate and legalize the powers which are necessary, not to subvert all power. This opinion is not peculiar to one sex, and contested by the other: I never observed that the women of America consider conjugal authority as a fortunate usurpation of their rights, nor that they thought themselves degraded by submitting to it. It appeared to me, on the contrary, that they attach a sort of pride to the voluntary surrender of their own will, and make it their boast to bend themselves to the yoke, not to shake it off. Such at least is the feeling expressed by the most virtuous of their sex; the others are silent; and in the United States it is not the practice for a guilty wife to clamor for the rights of women, whilst she is trampling on her holiest duties…

As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that, although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply – to the superiority of their women.”

Now everyplace in the world has had their own traditions, but I speak not of every place in the world. I speak of the Western world, of Europe and the Americas and my own ancestors. High numbers of married women in the workforce is a new thing. I personally am American and American women were always sheltered from the workforce and masculine duties as well as any dangerous jobs or jobs that required hard physical labor. On the other hand, every occupation has long been open to women. The only exceptions I could find in American history were the obvious prohibitions of women to be in the military and women were prohibited from being coal miners and being bartenders unless they were the wife or daughter of the owner. I have found no other exceptions in our history. Obviously there is always going to be your amazon woman out proving she can work like a man, but she would have been the rare exception, not the rule. I know personally from those I’ve talked to how much neighbors would try to help a family who’s husband was injured or gone and could not work to take care of the family. Women were never left out on their own to fend for themselves and their children as so great was the ethic of providing for and protecting women until feminism came along.

But let’s just say those attempting to redefine history were actually right. Let’s say women have always worked in the fields and in the home and borne the babies and this housewife thing is new. Does that mean we should destroy a cultural and legal ethic that did shield women from the masculine burdens just because women in the past were in the fields? Does that justify tearing down a system that actually worked well, even if it was a supposedly new and temporary invention? What sense does that make? Surely if something better had been invented to protect women and families it would only makes sense to embrace it, not destroy it. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Suggested resources:

Women Plowing

Woman Suffrage and the Laws

Doctrine of Necessaries Law & Legal Definition

Questioning Economic Necessity