“[-], you are my new heroine. I’m a 76 year-old mother/grandmother/great-grandmother and can vouch for the absolute truth of everything you say. The women & girls were respected & fiercely protected, rape was at least as serious a crime as murder, no one ever challenged a woman’s right to custody of her children or right to her own property, and if you got a girl pregnant you by G_d married her or else (which had a wonderful chilling effect on the romantic ardor of both parties.)
The finest exposition on the all-around stupidity of the”third wave of feminism” is George Gilder’s Men & Marriage.
Thank you…”- a fan
“We find as we look into the matter that, ERA won’t give women anything which they haven’t already got, or have a way of getting, but on the other hand it will take away from women some of the most important rights and benefits and exemptions we now have.”- Phyllis Schlafly, 1973, “Firing Line: The Equal Rights Amendment” with William F. Buckley Jr.
“Not only would women, including mothers be subject to the draft, but the military would be compelled to place them in combat units alongside of men in some cases it could relieve the fathers of the primary responsibility for the support of even infant children, as well as the support of the mothers of such children”…U.S. House Judiciary Committee Report (No.92-359, July 14, 1971).
“I refuse to allow the glad-sounding ring of an easy slogan [equal rights] to victimize millions of women and children”…Congressman Emanuel Celler, U.S. House of Representatives.
“So, in the name of “all women,” the feminist movement cavalierly did away with the very rights that guaranteed the wife peace of mind in her choice to remain at home and bring up her own children. Mary Ann Glendon, writing in Abortion and Divorce in Western Law (1987) states, “Divorce law in practice seems to be saying to parents, especially to mothers, that it is not safe to devote oneself primarily or exclusively to raising children.” We don’t need to recite long lists of statistics here, I trust, though they are readily available from the Census Bureau and other government entities, but in the past thirty years, divorce and abandonment have skyrocketed, leaving women the victims of poverty in far greater numbers than men. Instead of admitting culpability, feminists have moved on to push for taxpayer-funded daycare and greater welfare benefits for those mothers left in the lurch.”- Ladies Against Feminism, “You Don’t Know Feminism”
“As to property, the law extends to the single female, femme sole, all that the male owner has…” – “Thoughts on female suffrage and in vindication of woman’s true rights,” 1871
“Sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The [F]ourteenth [A]mendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men…” – Justice Morrison R. Waite, Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1875)
“Because virtually all of the significant harmful and inescapable identifiable consequences of teenage pregnancy fall on the young female, a legislature acts well within its authority when it elects to punish only the participant who, by nature, suffers few of the consequences of his conduct. It is hardly unreasonable for a legislature acting to protect minor females to exclude them from punishment. Moreover, the risk of pregnancy itself constitutes a substantial deterrence to young females. No similar sanctions deter males. A criminal sanction solely on males thus serves roughly to ‘equalize the deterrents on the sexes.'”- Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma City., 450 U.S. 464 (1981)
“All of this would be bad enough by itself, but the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s did not stop at verbal attacks against wives, homemakers, and mothers. They pushed relentlessly to change laws which both protected wives and mothers and which encouraged men to provide for their own families. They did not rest until they had triumphed through the elimination of the “family wage,” the reduction of tax benefits for single-earner households, and the passage of “no-fault” divorce laws. Sociologist Jessie Bernard.., remarked that the “very deprivation of assured support as long as they live may be one of the best things that could happen to women” ( The Future of Marriage, 1982). In other words, if men can walk away from marriage easily, leaving women with no support, women will be forced to take up careers whether or not they desire to do so.”- Ladies Against Feminism
“Few of these students had read Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique or other feminist classics. Only a handful had joined the campus women’s groups. It didn’t matter… They had grown up with working mothers, day care, and no-fault divorce…The students I interviewed had neither adopted nor rejected feminism. Rather, it had seeped into their minds like intravenous saline into the arm of an unconscious patient. They were feminists without knowing it.” (18)
“We have, in a sense, robbed women of a choice that belonged to every previous generation of women-the choice to care for their children and expect support from their husbands for doing so.” (99)
“‘No-fault divorce’ and other sex-blind laws have perversely punished women, whose special circumstances no longer receive special consideration.” (24)
– Danielle Crittendon “What our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us”
“No longer concentrating on the oppressiveness of home and family for women, feminists argue instead that, unfortunately, married mothers must remain in the work force to protect themselves from the very likely possibility of becoming single-parents impoverished by divorce. This is a likelihood, they choose not to remember, their movement was highly instrumental in creating.” (296)
“Enactment of no-fault divorce laws unambiguously warned women to adopt the feminist perspective and replace homemaking with full-time career. The ‘present legal system..’, “makes it clear that instead of expecting to be supported, a woman is now expected to become self-sufficient…’Thus, as always, feminist ideology converged with the interests of men who would avoid the responsibility for women that traditional marriage entails.” (136-137)
“Like all special interest groups, feminists seek subsidies for themselves. Their economic interests and professional advancement have been greatly enhanced by claims of past societal discrimination against women, including the claim of being forced to assume a sacrificial role as homemaker… My own experience differs sharply from the tales feminists tell. I was a practicing lawyer in the 1950s…” (19)
“Although the sources of their discontent were complicated and mutually reinforcing, women would have alleviated that discontent if they had resisted the emasculating forces in our society and encouraged the growth of mature masculinity.” (149)
“The male revolt against the breadwinner ethic could have respectable sex without marriage only if society changed the standards by which females sexual behavior was judged. Contemporary feminism has given the male revolt what it wanted by promoting male sexual patterns as the ideal for women as well.” (157)
“Divorce reform had precisely the outcome contemporary feminism sought: to instill in women distrust of their husbands and reluctance to leave the work force for fear of financial privation in the event of the divorces that ‘reform’ had made more likely.” (265)
“Housewives, not men, were the prey in feminism’s sights when Kate Millett decreed in 1969 that the family must go.” (97)
“Feminists do not speak for traditional women. Men cannot know this, however, unless we tell them how we feel about them, our children, and our role in the home.” (97)
“As one court put it, ‘a marriage license is not a ticket to a perpetual pension,’ but that is precisely what it must be to give a housewife security. In denying that security, society has rejected traditional marriage.” (137)
“As true today as in the classical Greece where a betrayed Medea deplored her fate, woman’s one-sided economic dependency is the most serious flaw in her traditional role. It constitutes a risk that was once- and could be again- ameliorated by divorce laws that, unlike our present no-fault laws, are designed to protect homemakers and their children.” (152)
“The feminist quest for female fungibility with males has led the women’s movement to support the invalidation of laws benefiting and protecting women. This was the thrust, for example, of litigation directed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and , often using male plaintiffs, secured invalidation of laws that favored women… In the area of divorce reform, one of the benefits women have lost is the maternal preference which favored awarding custody to the mother…In order to secure custody, many women will drastically compromise their financial interests: ‘women who are scared to death of losing custody will trade away anything else- child support, property, alimony to keep it from happening.'” (295)
“A male can be made sufficiently effete that he will not make a very good husband, but he will rarely become so effete that, even with her karate and body-building classes, the average woman can protect herself against him. This is the reason why the United States Army felt it necessary to further its goal of male-female fungibility by instituting a six-month program to see whether selected women can, through weightlifting and aerobics, ‘be brought into the lower range of male strength.’ Women, said the program’s director, are now ‘almost completely out of the male range’: ‘The strongest female is generally weaker than the weakest male.”‘ (192)
-F. Carolyn Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism”
“Ginsburg was vehement in her desire to abolish any legal preference or protection that women might have” (139)
“Before the feminist movement burst on the scene in the 1970s, there were literally hundreds of laws that gave advantages or protections to women based on society’s commonsense recognition of the facts of life and human nature. These included the prohibition against statutory rape, the Mann act, the obligation of the husband to support his wife and provide her with a home, special protections for widows…and laws that made it a misdemeanor to use obscene or profane language in the presence of a woman” (144)
– Phyllis Schlafly, “Feminist Fantasies”
“Since the women are the ones who bear the babies and there’s nothing we can do about that, our laws and customs then make it the financial obligation of the husband to provide the support. It is his obligation and his sole obligation. And this is exactly and precisely what we will lose if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed.” – Phyllis Schlafly, 1973
“…currently, women of child-bearing age pay 68 percent more for out-of-pocket costs than men, in large part because of reproductive health needs, including contraception.”- ACLU
“This repudiation is a betrayal of the family. It concedes that anti-social contention, never admitted by trade union or law, that a man need not support his wife and children, but the mother should work for her own and her offsprings’ daily bread. It advances a long march toward the subjugation of woman to material production and her elimination from home-making, baby bearing, and child training. It is betraying the future for political popularity.”
“Plainly there is blunt antagonism between the doctrine of equal pay for men and women and the doctrine of the minimum wage. If the demand for equal pay be conceded, the legal minimum wage for men must be abandoned, as must also the legal obligation upon the man support his wife and children- a high price to pay for a doubtful advantage to groups of women.”
– New York Times, 1915, “What Equal Pay For Men and Women Means”
“…In regard to the only issue that I consider properly before the Court, I agree with the State’s argument that the Equal Protection Clause is not violated when Illinois gives full recognition only to those father-child relationships that arise in the context of family units bound together by legal obligations arising from marriage or from adoption proceedings…The Illinois Supreme Court correctly held that the State may constitutionally distinguish between unwed fathers and unwed mothers. Here, Illinois’ different treatment of the two is part of that State’s statutory scheme for protecting the welfare of illegitimate children…Court today pursues that serious business by expanding its legitimate jurisdiction beyond what I read in 28 U.S.C. 1257 as the permissible limits contemplated by Congress. In doing so, it invalidates a provision of critical importance to Illinois carefully drawn statutory system governing family relationships and the welfare of the minor children of the State. And in so invalidating that provision, it ascribes to that statutory system a presumption that is simply not there and embarks on a novel concept of the natural law for unwed fathers that could well have strange boundaries as yet undiscernible…”- STANLEY v. ILLINOIS, 405 U.S. 645 (1972); dissent by Justices Burger & Blackmun
“Jennifer was wrong, however. This ruling could not have occurred in the 1950s. In all the fuss about day care no one noted the recent revolution in legal rules that made such a decision possible. In the 1950s, and in many states well into the 1980s, mothers like Jennifer were protected in custody disputes by two separate but well-established rules: the tender years doctrine, which favored mothers, and the complete lack of legal standing of unwed fathers to sue for custody In the 1950s Steven could not have brought his claim for custody before the court.
The tender years doctrine (or maternal presumption, as it was often called) was well established by the 1920s. By the 1950s in Michigan and all other states it was the law The rule of maternal presumption reflected a universally held belief in the early part of this century that mothers by nature were the more nurturing parent for very young children. In their drive for equal rights in the seventies, many feminists spurned this very assumption, believing it fixed women as second-class citizens in a patriarchal structure.”- Berkeley Law