dinsdag 2 juni 2015

Housewives Should Be Protected

We live in the times of cognitive dissonance when the Western countries are doing their best to publicly deny the existing reality and  reshape the world according to their egalitarian delusions theories. One of this theories is the complete sameness of men and women, except for their reproductive organs. The real biological differences are minimised and we are all supposed to pretend that women want exact same things as men and if they choose different things, it's due to brainwashing and/or discrimination.

In this shiny brave new world, all women are supposed not to care about home and motherhood, but to be good, obedient cogs in the consumerist machine "productive citizens taking part in the modern economic system". In fact, the article about make-believe jobs in France I previously linked to, says, among other things, that people without jobs "risk being disconnected from the workplace and society", with no distinctions being made between men and women. So here you have it, a housewife and mother apparently becomes a pariah by virtue of not having a job.

And yet, despite propaganda, despite ridicule, despite hostility, many women still choose exactly this path in life: full time motherhood. Full time motherhood means that you spend years outside of the modern working world. Whatever credentials you may have acquired, whatever working experience you may have obtained, it all becomes obsolete after several years outside of workforce. Add to this the fact that in countries such as mine a woman after certain age becomes practically unemployable unless she has some highly marketable skills, and the picture becomes even more dim.

Luckily, in my neck of woods we still have laws protecting widows and orphans (which feminists would love to abolish), so that, theoretically, there is never a need for a mother to work. That is, unless her husband decides to divorce her. Than she is out on her own.

Now there is a whole internet movement dedicated to castigating evil women who all supposedly divorce their husbands "for cash and prizes". I'm well aware that such wicked women who commit adulteries and falsely accuse their husbands exist in real life. I personally know a couple of them. I also know women whose husbands just walked away one day because they decided they weren't in love any more. Guess what, neither men nor women have monopoly on sin and wickedness.

There is, however, one difference. In most families, even those where the wife works, the husband is the primary breadwinner, which means that the loss of his income will pretty much reduce his wife to the state of poverty. Many a man complains about unfair amounts of child support they have to pay, yet they never articulate any reform program beyond the idea that child support should be totally abolished.

I suggest looking at the situation from a different angle. In a society where the women are equal producers, there would be theoretically no need for the father's income at all and yet, despite all these years of feminism, married women with children are still largely dependent on their husbands' salaries. Outside of some Stone Age type societies, do matriarchies really exist? Is it not utopian to expect to have a successful, industrial society which is matriarchal with women not depending on men at all? Will all the children be raised by the state? What will men's role be in such a society? Do we really want it?

Patriarchal family with heavy father's investment is vastly superior for raising children and building productive, modern societies. For such a family to be able to function properly, we need the mother to be home or at least, work part-time, which means, she most probably won´t have an income comparable to her husband's and will thus be a dependent. In such a situation, what happens if we abolish alimony and child support? Should a husband have a right to simply discard his wife whenever he feels like it?  Should he have no obligations at all? And finally, what do you think her male relatives who will probably be burdened with supporting her from now on, will think of the arrangement?

Well, someone will say, it's the 21st century after all, and the woman can search for employment. Well, then you try it. Try to find a job as a 45+ woman who spent the last 15 years staying home in the modern economy. May be, it's different in the USA, I don't know, but here the big chance is you'll end on welfare in a government project getting your food and clothes from charity.

The most typical objection I hear is that it´s mostly women who file for divorce these days so they deserve nothing, should lose their kids and starve. First, the one who files for divorce isn´t always the guilty party. If the husband commits adultery or simply walks out the door and disappears, and  the wife files for divorce, who is the guilty party? Second, contrary to what certain men say, not all fathers want to be primary caregivers of the kids, especially when they are small. Some are perfectly happy to surrender the custody to the ex~wife.

The obvious solution to the problem of the `frivolous` divorce is to make divorce difficult once again. Abolish no~fault divorce. Let the judge determine who is the guilty party. Let the guilty party lose custody of children. Now, that would obviously change a lot of things. And yet, in the traditional society where the women by default don´t work, it still would mean that the husband would have to pay some maintenance to his guilty ex, as it used to be the custom before.

To frame this issue as `men vs women` is to simplify it. As usual, it´s men vs other men. In a patriarchal society, some man will always be burdened with the responsibility of providing for the woman, either her husband, or her male relatives. Or may be, the tax~payer, who will continue subsidising the make~believe jobs?

16 opmerkingen:

  1. I like this post. I've noticed that these men's rights types always complain about how they are supposedly victimized by divorce yet if you mention stopping no-fault divorces they'll scream murder and defend divorce. I guess family breakdown is OK, so long as they can get whatever they want.

    My own dad was like them and still is which is why I haven't had anything to do with him since I got married years ago. He even tried to get me not to change my last name to my husband's or to hyphenate it and I, of course, refused. If I ever did change my last name in the future I'd change it to my mother's maiden name. I'm sure that would really burn his *** good.

    My own dad would talk about how women get "everything" with affirmative action and he literally belieevs that most women don't even know who fathers their children and that they are all getting pregnant just to get child support and welfare. If you mention to him about stopping divorce he'll say "you can't make people stay together if they don't want to!" He didn't want anything to do with childcare when I was a baby, my mother did it all yet when she divorced him because of his drug habbit he pursued full custody just to control and punish her. I was only like two years old and he was able to get EVERYTHING he wanted yet still to this day he'll talk about how victimized men are and how much the family courts discriminiate against fathers and on and on. His last girlfried made twice as much money as he did yet he told her if they were going to get married she had to live the way he does (in a run-down trailer that stays dirty and trashed) and they would have ONE bank account that HE would be completely in control of (despite the fact that she made more than him). She finally dumped him and I was honestly relieved.

    When my mother re-married after divorcing my father her husband cheated on her even while she was pregnant then finally abandoned her so she had to file for divorce (I guess that means she was guilty I mean after all she filed!) and to this day my brother's biological father doesn't want anything at all to do with him, even though he was born legitimate my brother has been adopted more than once and everything.

    But yeah, it's all women's fault...

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen
  2. I'm planning to write a post about the damage which easy divorce causes to family and society, but first I'm going to write another historical post. I find it suspicious that (some) men are against alimony and child support, but not against no-fault divorce. I've seen both men and women behave badly and cause divorce, but most guys still did pretty well financially. I can't give any opinion about the state of things in the USA as I don't live there. If there is any man reading this who disagrees, feel free to express your opinion in comments.

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen
    Reacties
    1. It's become my opinion that here in the US it's fathers and fetuses first, women and children last...

      Verwijderen
    2. Personally though alimony should be around (only for ex-wives though, whatever men do to justify being financially supported by women is beyond my wildest imagination) as it has been for thousands of years but the child support system needs to be scrapped and overhauled win a new system entirely. It's not about the children anyways and oftentimes doesn't even go with custody and is imposed upon practically anyone these days. I just think the bill for all the necessities of the children, if they are legitimate, should be the responsibility of the father, regardless of where the children live. I think the fathers, unless they are insane or abusive, should decide on where the children live. That's the way it was before feminism. The system wasn't perfect but families were much more stable than they are today. It would put a host to the "custody wars" in a heartbeat.

      Verwijderen
    3. And btw they are only against child support if FATHERS have to pay it. Mothers, however must always be on the hook for it and they will complain when women don't have to provide "adequate child support and alimony upon divorce."

      Verwijderen
  3. I will admit I don't know much about the details of divorce laws in various countries in the times past. As far as I know, in the USA divorce was allowed for "4 As": abuse (including mental cruelty, whatever it was), addiction, abandonment, adultery. I think that the guilty party usually lost the custody, at least in the case of adultery. I think before the 20th century, divorce was allowed for men for adultery and if the wife refused marital rights, for women for abandonment (including husband going to prison long term) and abuse+adultery (male infidelity alone wasn't grounds for divorce).

    I know in some countries in the case of adultery on the wife's side the husband could sew her lover for breach of honour and get financial compensation. The amount of alimony the wife could get was also dependent on what she brought into her marriage. From Jane Austen's books I know the unfaithful wife would get alimony from her husband after divorce but lose property rights. I think it was different in every country, however, the principle stayed the same. Divorce was supposed to be an exception, not the rule. I agree that in a traditional marriage the idea of a wife (even as a guilty party) paying alimony or child support to her husband is beyond ridiculous.

    I guess my problem isn't so much the men who believe in egalitarian family norms, as long as they honestly admit it, but rather those who say they want to have "traditional marriage" or "marriage 1.0" or whatever then turn around and deny all male responsibility. It''s just as hypocritical as the modern day feminism.

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen
    Reacties
    1. In most time periods men were financially responsible for women and children, period. Here in the U.S. though ex-husbands were off the hook for paying alimony if the wife was guilty but husbands had no right, until the late 70s to receive support even if the wife was guilty. In a lot of time periods the wife's lover would have to be financially responsible for the adultery in some cases to pay the bride price for the wronged husband to find a new bride or to pay childbirth expenses if he got another man's wife pregnant, etc... One way or another men still had to be responsible regardless of how women were acting. I think the woman's behavior just dictated what man had to be responsible and to what degree...

      But we live in a time when even preachers wives have careers and pro-life conservative praise women in combat roles... I've seen sites advocating for men to be breadwinners and be the head of household yet STILL praise and exclaim that "yes, wives should have careers!" and give men advice on how to deal with blended families and when the wife makes more money and tell them how to still be *in charge*. Plain absurdity and BS.

      Verwijderen
  4. I think in the situation of the wife's adultery it's reasonable to expect the lover to be financially responsible and to pay damages to the husband. The funny thing is, that at least here in Europe most men work in private businesses while most women have taxpayer sponsored jobs, so men collectively keep supporting women while individual men are off the hook. It's socialism vs private property, imo:) Me, I prefer the old system.

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen
  5. Very deep thoughts in this post. What I wonder is something about aging women. 45+ woman who has lost both her children after she abandoned the home and who had never worked before until now where she is working abroad, after she probably will divorce due to violence and alcoholism (husband) - could such a woman get a job in her country if she has no degree, no experience and no property available unless she rents something, but she is eager to regain motherly rights after divorce because she left home out of fright and hunger and husband has no parental rights? If divorce doesn't happen motherly rights cannot be granted again, it's a matter of child security. It's just a question and I would like to see reactions. Thanks.

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen
  6. Alexandra, are you talking in general or about someone in particular?

    I don't presume to give advice in any particular situation especially when I don't know the people in question. Generally though, before no-fault divorce, the one who desired divorce had to present his case before court and prove that the other spouse was at fault. The other spouse then could file a counter claim. The judge would examine the evidence, determine the guilty party and grant divorce decree (or sometimes not). The guilty party usually lost the custody of the kids. The wife had a right to get alimony, unless she was adulterous/left her husband for another man.

    The Radical now refers to an earlier period of time (generally the 19th century) when father's custody was presumed (unless he was deemed unfit). I'd like to point out that though legal custody was father's, the (young) children still often resided with the mother, unless she was guilty of adultery (for instance, if she divorced her husband because of the fault on his side). I'm in principle O.K. with this system, too.

    In both scenarios the innocent wife would get life-long support unless she remarried (if there was anything to get from her husband, otherwise, the family would have to help). In the 20th century USA the adulterous wife generally wouldn't get alimony. In the 19th century England, at least, sometimes she would, but I'm not sure of details. I don't know if it answers your question.

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen
  7. The problem is now in my country such a person has no support from relatives, her mother being very ill, husband cannot work or pay anything after divorce. Being a housewife is no option for her because she is working now to support herself abroad. I am wondering if charity is the only option for her, but the law does not grant you parental rights on the base of charity, you have to prove you earn money and live in your country I guess, I wanted to ask you if this is the case only in my country or am I missing something, it's just something I don't know very well. How could a working mother regain her children if she has no husband and not a good marriage perspective at her age of 45? Does she have any chance to raise her children while working her health being weak? What would a judge decide if her only achievement is a very poor salary?

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen
  8. Well, I guess we were not discussing any particular case, just general principles. I'm not sure about the laws in your country. Here the divorced or single mother will get government assistance if she is below a certain income level, plus you have subsidies for having children. As for the custody, it depends. For the woman to lose custody if the husband is deemed unfit, she must be abusive/drug addict or something similar. It happens after a court decision. I'm not sure how she can regain custody in this situation.

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen
  9. Thank you for you answers. I was sure single mothers get some support from various programs but in my country they don't help very much. This particular case makes me consider how important patriarchal families are were the father is the breadwinner and the mother the homemaker. A homemaker who suddenly has to live on her own after divorce should have chosen a responsible husband years ago, now it's very difficult to repair things, I guess. The problem is not being a homemaker lifelong but the choices we make in life that cannot be undone afterwards.

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen

No anonymous comments. Anonymous comments will be deleted.