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?