tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post394653855467426763..comments2024-03-28T12:31:11.055-07:00Comments on Adventures In Keeping House: Why I Support PatriarchySannehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08124283361844607678noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-39438303843060542572013-10-20T15:28:13.476-07:002013-10-20T15:28:13.476-07:00Sorry to hear about your problemsSorry to hear about your problemsSannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08124283361844607678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-9170398797067405932013-10-20T15:27:14.732-07:002013-10-20T15:27:14.732-07:00That above in answer to WillThat above in answer to WillSannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08124283361844607678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-43352126872524626662013-10-20T15:26:35.318-07:002013-10-20T15:26:35.318-07:00Well, according to the statistics I read, in the y...Well, according to the statistics I read, in the year 1870 in USA only 2.2.% of married (white) women worked. Unless 97.8% of the population qualified as middle and upper class, we can draw the conclusion that even a working class family could generally afford for the wife to stay home. Working class women usually worked before they married, but not afterwards unless the husband was disabled, or a good-for-nothing, and many widows were supported by their families. <br /><br />Also about alimony, if the husband didn't pay it, it simply meant that her male relatives would provide for her as no father or brother would want to see his daughter starve, even if she was adulterous. Probably male relatives (and their wives, imagine your husband having to provide for his sister as well till death do us part), found the alimony laws just and proper. Sannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08124283361844607678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-41489456262254033932013-10-20T15:22:28.436-07:002013-10-20T15:22:28.436-07:00was a housewife for close to three years. absolut...was a housewife for close to three years. absolutely LOVED it. as soon as i had left the workforce, i lost 10% of my body weight and kept it off for the whole time i was home cooking and keeping house. when i went back to work (had to, no money) those lost pounds found me - and brought along their friends.Suehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12009191540139452049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-76147514155951089712013-10-20T14:10:24.705-07:002013-10-20T14:10:24.705-07:00There were indeed women working; only middle class...There were indeed women working; only middle class to wealthy families could afford to have only one breadwinner.<br /><br />Sometimes, I think in our remembrances of the past, we can fail to remember such things, and think that women didn't work, in general.<br /><br />I don't think it was right that adulterous women received alimony; there should be consequences for wicked behaviour, and if starvation is a potential result, that prospect can be used to motivate to NOT engage in the behaviour in the first place.<br /><br />I do think it best for an unmarried woman to stay at home, and be supported by her family.Will S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02714519301979594160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-37757961957029323082013-10-20T13:39:30.421-07:002013-10-20T13:39:30.421-07:00I had a very hectic weekend, after a very hectic w...I had a very hectic weekend, after a very hectic week, so it took me some time to get to your comment. I have read your post and I see your point, and to say the truth, I'm undecided on default father custody; however, this being said, I see rationale behind it, inside the system which Jesse seems to propose. BTW, I doubt he is still following this thread, so if you want to debate him, you'll have to do it on his blog. <br /><br />Now back to the custody topic, you wrote on your blog about the guilty party paying child support to the innocent party. This is a thoroughly modern view, as for the woman to pay child support to the man, she has to have a job. Under coverture laws, which Jesse apparently wants to restore, a woman was not supposed to support herself, she was to be provided for by her husband or male relatives. In this situation, in the case of divorce, even adulterous wives got alimony (a small one), so that they wouldn't starve, as mentioned in one of Jane Austen's books (Sense And Sensibility), to be precise.<br /><br />Of course, in old times there still were woman in the workforce, mostly driven by necessity, but it was hardly considered ideal. I think Thomas Fleming of Chronicles had a series of articles on this topic, I'll try to find the relevant one. It was a totally different world from now and some people seek to restore it. It's just how far in the past you want to go, that's all. I hope it makes sense.Sannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08124283361844607678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-83973579590963297062013-10-19T13:36:13.917-07:002013-10-19T13:36:13.917-07:00Will, I have read your post and it was very intere...Will, I have read your post and it was very interesting but I don't have time for reply right now, I'll try to write my thoughts on the issue tomorrow. Sannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08124283361844607678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-91422612253016821402013-10-19T07:49:39.362-07:002013-10-19T07:49:39.362-07:00Post inspired, here.Post inspired, <a href="http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/should-men-automatically-get-default-custody-of-children-in-a-divorce-no/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Will S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02714519301979594160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-20331074487651558152013-10-19T07:48:40.948-07:002013-10-19T07:48:40.948-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Will S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02714519301979594160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-71479544541906502722013-10-19T06:21:04.976-07:002013-10-19T06:21:04.976-07:00I prefer default father custody, but I have an eve...I prefer default father custody, but I have an even better idea (in my humble opinion): the choice of the wronged party, whether the man or woman, whichever was cheated upon, as to what kind of custody arrangement they wish for: either complete custody, or shared custody, or zero custody. That way, a would-be cheater can't be guaranteed that they'll not have to look after the kids if they break up their marriage thru infidelity, and so can't know that to count on it, and be able to even abuse that to run away from marriage without the children.<br /><br />No; the problem with default father custody is precisely that it is abusable by a wife who just wants to run away and end her responsibilities.<br /><br />By giving the decision entirely to the wronged party, this disincentivizes anyone from potentially abusing a default custody scenario to their perceived advantage.<br /><br />It's true that the children can be seen as pawns in this scenario. But what it really does is disincentivize both parents from cheating, since they can't guarantee they'll either get the kids at all OR be burdened with complete custody. Only way to prevent either scenario is for both to not cheat, because if one does, the other gets all the cards.<br /><br />Thus the superiority of my system, if I say so myself. :)Will S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02714519301979594160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-54252932971528830772013-10-18T23:26:46.468-07:002013-10-18T23:26:46.468-07:00Jesse must speak for himself, I'll just say th...Jesse must speak for himself, I'll just say that he seems to also support default father custody in the case of divorce, and coverture. In the light of this, his chivalry ideas make senseSannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08124283361844607678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-70677862512906522182013-10-18T20:26:28.065-07:002013-10-18T20:26:28.065-07:00Chivalry on the part of all men, without simultane...Chivalry on the part of all men, without simultaneous submissiveness on the part of all women, is unworkable, and irrational; moreover, men being chivalrous towards all women, whether deserving or not, just makes you a chump; a social contract requires both parties to adhere to the terms; one side holding up their side of a broken contract while the other side has broken it and doesn't abide by the terms of their side in the least, just makes you an idiot, a doormat to be trampled upon in life by the other side, which will hold you in contempt for being so 'noble' and 'old-fashioned'.<br /><br />Might as well instead 'enjoy the decline', as they say. Watch the fireworks, as the young women who support feminism get what they deserve, good and hard, as they deserve, for stupidly buying into the lies they were taught.<br /><br />How can you appeal to 'duty', when as an atheist, you have no transcendent frame of reference to appeal to, in terms of rational support for moral absolutes? With no god - and evolution is not god, merely, if real, a process - there are no moral absolutes, and one is free to do whatever one wishes; how can you expect to appeal to fellow atheists to act sacrificially (which one-sided chivalry certainly is, BTW), against what they perceive, rightly or not, are their own interests? You cannot, and will not.Will S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02714519301979594160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-89111951557551584982013-10-06T11:43:46.298-07:002013-10-06T11:43:46.298-07:00It's nice to meet you, too!It's nice to meet you, too!Sannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08124283361844607678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-83909926662937207822013-10-06T11:37:03.833-07:002013-10-06T11:37:03.833-07:00Thank you, Sanne, it is nice to meet you :)Thank you, Sanne, it is nice to meet you :)Judithann Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18128768776871812268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-62536081493532796672013-10-06T09:16:02.837-07:002013-10-06T09:16:02.837-07:00That was a very interesting post, Jesse, thanks fo...That was a very interesting post, Jesse, thanks for writing it.<br /><br />Judithann, welcome to the blog!Sannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08124283361844607678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139017677124620997.post-45360481501442028512013-10-05T16:20:36.120-07:002013-10-05T16:20:36.120-07:00Thank you for this post, Jesse. Feminists definite...Thank you for this post, Jesse. Feminists definitely give bad advice to men on how to deal with women! As for patriarchy giving men power, I would argue that patriarchy simply recognizes the power that men have over women, a power that in most cases feminism cannot take away. So many women these days are consenting to things that they don't really want-premarital sex, abortion, working motherhood, because the men in their lives are pressuring them into it. And because feminists are claiming that the patriarchy has been overthrown, the irresponsible men who pressure women into destructive behaviors cannot be held to account: they supposedly have no power, and everything is supposedly totally up to the woman. Which means, in reality, that women have been abandoned by men, at the behest of feminists.Judithann Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18128768776871812268noreply@blogger.com