Just forty-five years ago, a divorced man had absolutely no prospects of running for public office. His failed marriage was considered a direct reflection of his character, or lack there of, and he was therefore considered, by the voters, to be unelectable.
For instance, as a divorced man, Ronald Reagan was thought to be a dubious candidate for governor of California in 1966. The fact that his first wife, actress Jane Wyman, had divorced him in 1949 was considered by many to be a serious liability to his being elected governor.
On the other hand, a married Christian man was considered reliable and trustworthy. His devotion, and commitment, to his faith, wife, and children were regarded as a sign of a man’s self-respect. He was judged to be a respectable, and responsible, member of his community and was therefore a highly desirable candidate for public office. A happily married man was viewed as an honorable and upstanding man, a divorced man was not.
The voters believed that if a man could not be trusted to honor his marriage vows, he was certainly not to be trusted with the temptation-fraught environment of public office. His life as a divorced man was considered scandalous and his judgment was thought to be impaired.
Regrettably, the American public today no longer judges a man’s suitability for elected office based on his commitment to his marriage. Divorced men are just as likely to be elected to public office as married men. This “excellence barometer,” once used to assess a man’s character, has been eliminated from consideration.
Not surprisingly, history shows that two women were the promulgators of the acceptance of divorce by the public. Both radical feminists in their day, one was born in 1808 and the other in 1922.
With the rise of radical feminism’s influence during the last forty-five years, traditional marriage is no longer considered an important cornerstone of civilized living. A successful marriage is less likely to be thought of as the product of a good Christian life as most Americans no longer considered it a sacrament.
Today it’s considered a civil contract. And, for this we can thank Britain’s Caroline Norton.
In 1836, she would, for the first time in history, petition parliament to change the child custody laws. Emboldened by her success, she began her crusade for the creation of a civil divorce court as opposed to the well-established ecclesiastic court.
Mrs. Norton was a society beauty, a poet, a writer and had a successful political salon. She was also married to George Norton, a jealous and sometimes brutal man.
The Hon. George Norton was a barrister (lawyer), an MP (Member of Parliament) for the borough of Guildford and the younger brother of Lord Grantley.
Caroline was the granddaughter of the well-known playwright, Richard Brinsley Sheridan and although well-connected, her father had died penniless. Caroline’s mother considered Norton to be a good prospect despite his being a Tory, and associated with the monarchy, gentry and the Church of England, as opposed to her family’s political leanings, as Radicals supporting Catholic emancipation, supremacy of parliament over monarchy, free trade, the abolition of slavery and supported working class male suffrage.
Once married, George encouraged Caroline to use her connections to further his political career but as her political influence increased, his career, as a barrister, began to falter. She also considered him lazy and dull. They disagreed on nearly every topic, which resulted in violent arguments. As a result of his beatings, Caroline, on occasions, sought refuge with relatives while continuing her political salon in London.
In 1836, after eleven years of marriage, George sued the fifty-seven-year-old Prime Minister of England, Lord Melbourne, for damages. He claimed that the Melbourne was having sexual relations with his twenty-eight-year-old wife, Caroline.
George’s accusations caused an enormous public scandal and, it was fueled by rumors spread by George himself. He and his Tory associates took great pleasure in the fact that they nearly toppled the Whig government.
The final decision of the jury found Lord Melbourne innocent of the charges of adultery but, the episode left Caroline branded as an immoral woman. She did nothing to improve her reputation, when in the early 1840s, she began a five-year affair with Conservative politician Sidney Herbert.
At the conclusion of the trial, Caroline’s husband forbade her any further contact with their three children, which was his legal right to do.
This scenario initiated Caroline’s efforts to solicit her political friends for changes to the custody laws. This also began Caroline’s twenty-year writing campaign in which she petitioned Parliament to enact laws allowing for a divorce through a civil court, rather than through the church.
Prior to Mrs. Norton’s protestations, divorce was rarely available in England because marital relations, and its associated morality, were considered the purview of the ecclesiastical courts of the churches. Courts which vehemently opposed divorce, based on the Bible’s admonition, “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” (Mark 10:9)
The nullification of a marriage through the church was only permitted if the petitioner could prove impotence, insanity, or potential incest. A husband could also divorce his wife, through the ecclesiastical courts, on the grounds of adultery.
In some cases, the wife was not legally permitted to petition the ecclesiastical court for a divorce, in others cases, she was allowed to proceed with the process, but only if she could prove adultery and physical cruelty, sodomy, bestiality, bigamy or desertion, as well.
In addition, this very public process demanded a lengthy, and open, discussion of all of the sordid details of the couple’s marital relationship and finally required another, very public, Act of Parliament, in order to finalize the church’s decision.
As a result, the divorce proceedings were an embarrassing and expensive process which was limited to the rich.
According to the law, once divorced, the wife was denied her dowry, her children, her social standing, her friends, and the remainder of her family, all in deference to her husband.
The aristocratic husband retained everything in order to safeguard England’s long-standing precedent of primogeniture, whereby his lands and titles were reserved for his first male heir. The tradition was sustained in order to “guard against a wife introducing spurious offspring into her husband’s family.”
Mrs. Norton’s efforts were finally successful, and her pamphlets, which were written to Parliament, were instrumental in the passage of the Marriage and Divorce Act of 1857.
In fact, much of her writing was summarized within the document written by Lord Lyndhurst. Lyndhurst was friend with whom she routinely attended recherche dinners at the Athenaeum Club in London, which were given by the influential essayist, Abraham Hayward.
As a result of Caroline’s feminist influence, divorce and child custody cases were transferred from the ecclesiastical courts of England to a newly established Court of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in 1858.
The vindictive and dysfunctional nature of she, and her husband’s relationship did not reflect the majority of Christian marriages at the time and therefore should not have been used as a barometer upon which to base drastic changes to the divorce proceedings.
Caroline Norton’s political influence, social standing and feminine guile began a process that women have continued to abuse to this very day.
Lowering the standards for divorce decrees has created women like Brit, Susan Sangster, who has used the divorce courts to amass a huge fortune, while marrying and divorcing four wealthy men.
A personal acquaintance of mine, named Jenny, 46, has, to the great dismay of her happily married siblings, been divorced four times. As a result, her brother asserts that she has skewed the divorce statistics for the remainder of her still married, siblings. Her brother contends that his sister’s four divorces have made it appear as though each of her siblings had divorced once, when if fact none of them have divorced. As an individual, she distorts the divorce statistics dramatically.
Today, the sanctity of marriage, and the basic Christian responsibility of Christian men to love, protect and provide for their wife and children has been undermined by feminism’s continued shortsightedness, while instead, irrationally pursuing women’s “liberation” and “emancipation” from the very men who love them the most.
As a result, our citizenry no longer respects the virtues once demanded of Christian family men. And, the dramatic increase in the divorce rate, during feminism’s most recent forty-five-year reign, is a reflection of that unfortunate shift in allegiance.
Regrettably, nearly one-hundred and fifty years after Caroline Norton’s successful effort to make divorce legal in civil courts, the roles are nearly reversed.
Today, the divorced husband is left with NOTHING, all in deference to his wife. Whether he wants the divorce, or not, he loses his home, his children and his financial stability. All of his admirable efforts to protect and provide for his family are for naught.
Christian America’s divorce rate has skyrocketed, from a 1950 low of five per one thousand married women, when ninety-four percent of Americans defined themselves as Christian, to a 1978 high of twenty-three per one thousand married women.
Today the rate hovers around seventeen per one thousand married women, more than triple the divorce rate in 1950.
In the 1940s, fourteen percent of women were divorced, by the 1970s, the number had risen to fifty percent. The divorce rate increased almost forty percent from 1970 to 1975 alone, and as a result, (until 2011) 1974 was the lowest birth year on record.
The most significant influence on those statistics during this short time frame was the rise of feminism’s misandry and its push for female “independence”, led by radical, second-wave feminists, and non-Christians, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just to name a few.
Today, being divorced is considered acceptable, and it is inordinately embraced by “liberated”, “career-oriented” feminist women, especially poor and middle-class women. In fact, 73% of today’s divorces are initiated by the wife.
This irrational behavior continues even though divorced women suffer a forty-five percent reduction in income and their children suffer irreparable emotional damage.
It is no mere coincidence that the acceptance of divorce by our society has paralleled the acceptance of radical, feminist ideology during those same forty-five years.
Although feminists continue to deny that the increase in divorce rates comes as a direct result of their efforts to gain female “emancipation” from men, the corresponding rise in the rates of acceptance, for both feminism and divorce, are impossible to ignore. They are so intertwined statistically that they are nearly indecipherable from one another.
Feminism’s subtle sabotage of marriage, through its promotion of women’s “liberation”, could have had but one outcome – the acceptance of divorce from the radical feminist’s, much maligned, “male chauvinist pig”.
The feminist’s efforts to legitimize divorce as an accepted escape from marriage during the late 1960s and early 1970s, desensitized young women, for the first time in history, to the traditional shame associated with divorce.
In doing so, the radical, second-wave feminist leaders, most of whom were either about to be divorced, already divorced, non-Christian or single, encouraged the acceptance of divorce by young women. For the feminists to deny their culpability in the analogous rising rates of divorce is preposterous.
Although Ronald Reagan would eventually overcome the objections to his being divorced and finally become Governor of California in 1967, his divorce from Jane Wyatt left him very distraught. The entire ordeal was especially painful because she falsely accused him of mental cruelty as the grounds for their divorce. This humiliating experience stayed with Reagan, and as a result, he unthinkingly made a bad situation worse.
In 1969, Governor Reagan signed the first “no-fault” divorce legislation in America, which eliminated the need to prove “just cause” in order to obtain a divorce. Not only was the filing spouse no longer required to prove his or her case (“irreconcilable differences” was deemed an adequate excuse), but a woman could now divorce her husband whether he agreed to the divorce or not. This new law quickly spread across the country, markedly increasing the divorce rate and the heartache.
When considering the destructive results, Ronald Reagan’s son Michael wrote in his 2004 book, Twice Adopted, that later in life his father confessed that signing the bill had been one of the worst mistakes he’d ever made while in public office. And, just as with his approval of “Therapeutic Abortion Act” in 1967, which he signed just four months into his first term as Governor of California, he sincerely regretted both decisions.
Today, two-thirds of divorce cases are instigated by the wife. This does not reflect poorly on the husbands, as it purportedly did during the heyday of feminism’s irrational push for “independence.” Instead, it justifiably reflects poorly on the women, because they have taken the “need” for divorce to new heights of cruelty, pettiness, and absurdity.
For example, consider another friend of mine, named Elizabeth. She was a professional woman, with three young children. She divorced her husband because he “wanted sex all the time.” Four years after her divorce, she was complaining about not getting any sex.
Then, there was an acquaintance named Jean. She had four elementary school age children. She demanded a divorce because she accused her nurseryman husband of “working too much.” Yes, she was granted a divorce on that absurd premise! And, now she teaches music to preschoolers and complains that she’s exhausted and that she doesn’t have enough money to pay her bills!
Another acquaintance named Michelle decided, after fifteen years of marriage and three boys, that she wanted a divorce because “I just don’t love him anymore.” It was no coincidence that her husband, Bill, who was in management at his company, had recently become the victim of downsizing and their income had been reduced by 2/3rd. Michelle imperiously demanded the divorce despite Bill’s pleadings and her children’s distress. When the divorce was final Bill was devastated. To make matters worse, Michelle then proceeded to sleep with her garbage man, who was ten years her junior, leaving her children in the care of babysitters for days on end.
Once considered an “object of shame”, divorce has now become something of a “badge of honor” among today’s “liberated” women. Their selfish shortsightedness and inconsiderate nastiness, with regard to their husbands and children during their divorce proceedings, is astounding.
The level of abject selfishness among women who have pursued this destructive experience is flabbergasting. And the unintended consequences of their inconsiderate, self-centered behavior has resulted in immeasurable heartache for their husbands, and even more so, for their vulnerable, innocent children.
I once listened to a professional career woman named Marcy, who had divorced her cheating husband ten years earlier, tearfully described how her divorce had destroyed her relationship with her two teenage children.
Despite her husband’s philandering, the children blamed HER for the father’s behavior. Her sense of regret was palpable. She said that if she’d realized that divorcing their father would mean losing her children’s devotion, she would have “sucked it up and stuck with him.” And, she knew that she’d only made matters worse by remarrying too quickly after her divorce. Five years later she found herself filing for divorce once again.
Before divorce became a “badge of honor”, for radical, second-wave feminists who proudly jettison their “inconvenient” husbands, millions of women prayed nightly to be blessed with marriage and children. For generation upon generation of women, divorce was never a consideration because most American women were devout Christians who were happy in their Christian marriages to Christian men.
And, marriage was NEVER a certainty. Only the lucky girls married, and the remainder became “spinsters” or “old maids”. These unlucky women coped as best they could, tending to their elderly parents, teaching school or piano lessons, minding the store, working as librarians or clerks, helping their married siblings with their children and homes, or volunteering at their church.
Women NEVER deliberately aspired to remain single, and it was NOT because there weren’t any jobs open to them (Wesleyan College for Women in Connecticut had a graduating class of eleven in 1840. Co-educational Oberlin College in Ohio graduated three women in 1841 and graduated the first black woman in 1862) but because life was difficult enough, without trying to maneuver through it alone. Life was easier, and more rewarding, with a loving spouse at your side. And, if blessed with children, married women were the envy of their peers. These women, rightfully, considered their lives complete.
When I was young, there was an old saying that adult women routinely repeated while smiling and rolling their eyes. “A women’s work is never done.” For that older generation of women, devotion to their family was considered their “badge of honor”, NOT divorce.
A Christian mother’s loving self-sacrifice for her family used to be of epic proportions. Her dedication to her family was both admired and revered, not only at home, and within her community, but throughout the world as well.
For Christian women, the Blessed Mother’s devotion to her Son Jesus inspired all mother’s behavior, and the personal rewards were incalculable. The entire family thrived in this blessed environment. Everyone recognized the importance of Mother’s contributions to the family. She was the essential, and much-loved, “heart of the home.”
Women throughout history sought no higher calling, other than becoming a nun. Women LOVED their family, and they LOVED taking care of them. For many women, the application of the term self-sacrifice, as a description of their level of commitment to their family, was a foreign concept. They didn’t see themselves as forfeiting anything. On the contrary, they viewed their life as being enriched and completed by their family. They were happiest when caring for their home and family.
At the celebration of my grandfather’s one hundredth birthday in 1982, I recall my ninety-two year old grandmother’s quiet response when asked for what she was most grateful. She lovingly looked at Pop-Pop and said, “I am most grateful to Pop for giving me a family of my own.” I can still see her loving and serene face as she spoke these words to a room filled with her twelve grandchildren.
You see, she was twenty-seven when they married in 1917. At that age she would have been considered a “spinster” had it not been for Pop. Grandma knew her life was immeasurably enriched the day she married Pop and sixty-five years later she remained immensely grateful. And, in all those years, divorce had NEVER entered her mind.
The second woman who was responsible for the acceptance of divorce in the Christian world, was the now infamous radical, second-wave feminist, Betty Goldstein Friedan. Mrs. Friedan was a contemporary of my mother and born in 1922. She became the chief spokeswoman for the women’s liberation movement.
Friedan’s book, The Feminine Mystique, was released in 1963. It became the textbook for radical, second-wave feminism. She claimed that housewives lived in a world of personal “emptiness,” wasting their intellect caring for their husbands and children in suburbia. Getting a job, she professed, was the only way for women to attain intellectual “fulfillment,” and to that end, divorce was subtly encouraged.
Despite her research to the contrary, which indicated that most housewives were still happy with their life. She insisted that women were unwittingly being brainwashed by the male editors of women’s magazines to think that they were happy at home. Friedan also espoused that the male executives in the television industry were causing homemakers to believe in the “feminine mystique” of female domestic bliss.
At the same time that Friedan was criticizing the magazine and television industries, the non-Christians running Hollywood and Broadway were undermining Christian family men through anti-Christian movies and plays.
Friedan claimed that women were unhappy at home and insisted that employment in the “larger world” was the only cure for the intellectual “boredom” she claimed that housewives were suffering. She also said that she had been able to break the chains of domesticity herself and encouraged others to follow.
In reality, Ms. Friedan (formerly Friedman) had been working as a writer for leftist organizations and magazines for nearly all of her adult life. While writing her book at the New York Public library she routinely left her school age children to go home with the children of my mother’s friend. Friedan would routinely arrive to pick up her children unannounced and well after her children had been fed dinner by my mother’s friend. She either imposed on neighbors and friends to care for her three children while she worked, or had a nanny/nurse to care for them.
Although she claimed otherwise, Betty had never been “domesticated” by her husband, whom she divorced in 1969. But, a chronic lack of money had always been a problem for her, so she turned what was initially supposed to be another magazine article, into her book, “The Feminine Mystique.” She was an opportunist who’d finally found a lucrative niche due to her intellectual dishonesty and total lack of domestication.
In her book, Ms. Friedan referenced Redbook and McCall magazine articles from the late 1950s concerning chronic “housewife’s fatigue” as proof of the correctness of her theories. Unfortunately, some magazine articles were also beginning to reflect the depressing, unsubstantiated assertions made by Hollywood, the theater and book publishing as well.
I was thirteen years old when Friedan’s 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique, was published and, at the time, we lived just twenty minutes from each other in the same county in New York. For her book, Ms. Friedan, who was a non-Christian, interviewed former classmates from Smith College and other local women. These women were her primary source for examples of “housewives” suffering from, what she called, the, “problem that has no name.” She asserted that housewives were bored and unhappy, wasting their intellect as wives and mothers in suburbia despite her lack of proof.
If the hundreds of Christian mothers I knew during my childhood were unhappy, their smiling faces, kind personalities, and caring good natures certainly belied the “emptiness” Ms. Friedan claimed they were experiencing. More likely, her suppositions reflected her own dissatisfaction with her married life, and her assumptions were based on her own feelings of “emptiness” and “boredom“, rather than those of others.
When it came to personal relationships, Ms. Friedan, by her own admission, was a very dysfunctional individual. The New York Times 2006 obituary for Friedan states that she was “famously abrasive,” “thin-skinned and imperious, subject to screaming fits of temperament.” Her contentious relationship with her discontented, hypocritical mother and the fact that she turned down a Ph. D. fellowship in the mid-1940s under pressure from her boyfriend, whom she never married, may have started her on this bitter path.
Friedan’s ex-husband, Carl Friedan, also stated publicly that she had no concept of how to be a wife and mother. He was quoted as saying, “She changed the course of history almost single-handedly. It took a driven, super-aggressive, egocentric, almost lunatic dynamo to rock the world the way she did. Unfortunately, she was that same person at home, where that kind of conduct doesn’t work. She never really understood this.”
The advice of this radical feminist, driven by personal demons, should never have been taken seriously by anyone, especially not by young women trying to plan their future course in life. Becoming a notorious bitch never makes for a happy life, or marriage.
Furthermore, Friedan’s interpretation of what was necessary for women to be truly happy should have been exposed as a fraud, as well. Instead, a whole generation of young baby boomers, trying to define their new role in the world, as college-educated women, turned to the loudest feminist voice for answers and, Betty Friedan, was certainly that.
Ms. Friedan said of herself in her book Life So Far, “The truth is that I’ve always been a bad-tempered bitch.” Obviously, despite being married with three children, she wasn’t happy, nor was she easy to live with. Unfortunately, her abrasive personality made for good press, so the national media embraced her as the leader of the women’s movement, while gullible young women everywhere, primed by the entertainment industry and the media, accepted her assertions about men and their motivations.
While the non-Christian men in Friedan’s personal life may have indeed harbored the dysfunctional tendencies she abhorred, eventually, her singular view of these men became all-encompassing, and would erroneously ensnared Christian husbands and fathers within her hatred as well..
To this very day I find it hard to believe that Friedan’s preconceived notions concerning housewives’ happiness, or lack thereof, were ever taken seriously. In addition, I think it is nearly impossible to believe that her abrasive personality did not, in some way, elicit the corroborating responses she wanted from her interviewees, allowing her to invent a crisis that simply did not exist.
The reason the “problem had no name” was because there wasn’t a problem until Friedan invented it. Friedan had nearly no effect on the women of her generation because they were happy with their station in life. But, it was the millions of naive young daughters of her generation, who would irrationally come to agree with her.
By insinuating this imaginary problem into young women’s minds, Ms. Friedan doomed multiple generations of women to the same unhappy life that she herself was living. Rather than helping women to lead “fulfilled” lives, Friedan took the source of their centuries-old fulfillment from them.
Upon closer review, I do not believe that Betty Friedan, who was a non-Christian, wrote The Feminine Mystique for, or about, Christian wives and mothers. Her life, and the lives of her interviewees, did not reflect the reality of a Christian woman’s home at the time.
And yet she became the darling of the media and was considered a suitable representative for redressing the problems of the supposedly dissatisfied needs of women.
Unfortunately, whether Friedan’s “problem that had no name” ever existed is irrelevant because her premise was embraced as gospel by the feminist movement, and the TV industry, both of which were in their infancy.
In the early 1960s Christian America still believed that people told the truth, both privately and publicly. As a result, her allegations were accepted on face value. Today, as her many critics have stated, much of her research was seriously flawed. This included her use of the work of Margaret Mead, Bruno Bettelheim and Alfred Kinsey’s to support her conclusions. Now we know that much of Mead’s, Bettelheim’s and Kinsey’s work was flawed as well. Ms. Friedan’s didn’t care if her theory was all smoke and mirrors because it solved her financial problems.
Unfortunately, and thanks to the mass media, Ms. Freidan’s need to correct a problem that existed only in her mind, and in the minds of the very young women she influenced, resulted in societal chaos.
Friedan publicly legitimized her own dissatisfaction with her life, while blaming others for her misery and demanding reform. Regrettably for all of us, we are now living with the bitter consequences of trying to solve personal problems with public policy. It can’t be done, and attempting to nullify the impossible costs a fortune! Adherence to Christian principles is the only proven method for controlling the demons suffered by humanity.
Ms. Friedan, by her own admission, was a miserable bitch who never resolved her own, deep seeded, personal problems. Friedan’s allegations about suburban women’s “unhappiness” were never permitted to be refuted, as Ms. Friedan “shouted down” anyone who opposed her position. In retrospect, her obnoxious behavior made for good press and television but that was about it! Considering Friedan’s paranoia and sociopathy, she most certainly should never been the person on whose allegations we should have judged ourselves as a people.
More importantly, women in particular, should never have taken her advice as to what type of behavior should be undertaken to attain a happy life. This woman knew absolutely nothing about personal happiness and her entire life reflected those shortcomings. In 1969, with her “star” rising, Friedan divorced her husband and her three teenage children, in order to continue her “work.”
Considering the hypocrisy surrounding Friedan’s life this move was obviously selfish and egotistical in nature. Her priorities were upside down and backwards and she was living proof that her premise of living “independently” , was impossible.
Something always has to give in order for a woman to pursue a “career”, and divorcing her husband and family should have set off alarms, for her young admirers, who were to plan their futures. Unfortunately, no one connected the dots until it was too late for many of them.
Ms. Friedan’s only long-term success was confirming the fact that misery loves company. She managed to ensnare millions of young, gullible women to join her in her misery. The corresponding, and rising, divorce statistics confirmed her unfortunate influence on society.
The glow was removed from marriage by the roaring cascade of feminist rhetoric and the drumbeat of the entertainment industry, all of which made divorce acceptable.
Incredibly, the dissolution of a marriage became a “liberating” experience from the “male chauvinist pigs,” which would become another highly undeserved radical, second-wave feminist label for men.
Feminism, and the movie industry, literally, ground the good Christian fathers of the baby boomers, under their heels. But, most men didn’t realize that they were being trashed behind their backs. They were still too busy working, and supporting, their family to take note of the antics of a few disgruntled malcontents. This would prove to be very unfortunate because all of this, deliberately deceptive propaganda, was the next incremental step toward the total annihilation of the post WWII domestic bliss.
The second-wave feminists of the 1960s initially succeeded in brainwashing the young college-aged daughters of the “Greatest Generation” by making them believe that they should add a full-time “career” to their married lives in order to feel fulfilled. The next piece of propaganda promulgated by the feminists was inevitable. Now that women were gainfully employed, divorcing their “inconvenient” husband was the next goal. It mattered not that their minor children would suffer immeasurably through, and forever after, the divorce.
The 1975 movie The Stepford Wives advanced the feminist theory of patriarchy and female subservience, thus reinforcing the “need” for divorce. The feminist premise of “emancipation” through divorce was also promoted in the 1979 movie Kramer vs. Kramer, which received five Academy Awards.
Today, divorced women now have two full-time jobs (family and career) and they are without a devoted husband to help them.
The years of brainwashing finally worked. Many female baby boomers had bought the feminist concepts of “independence” and “liberation” hook, line and sinker.
But then, women demanded to know why they felt so chronically overburdened and unhappy. This began another assault on male employers to reconstruct the workplace to suit women employees, especially those who were divorced with children.
But the main reason was that women were never intended to, “go it alone” because that means they, have to do it all! Feminism gave birth to the concept of stress. At the time of feminism’s inception, stress was defined as “a force placed on an I-beam.” The new meaning of that word did not even exist in the public conscience before feminism’s reign began and divorce proliferated.
Amazingly, thousands of delusional women continue to believe that their job alone will sustain them, without needing their husband’s financial, physical, and emotional help. And, as a result, they continue to divorce those “inconvenient” husbands at a dizzying pace.
Their pathetic excuses for their need for a divorce are routinely obfuscated by the catchall legal term irreconcilable differences. But be assured, the truths behind that term eventually go public in the divorce court, where wives vindictiveness continues to shock the paid professionals.
The court system has not helped ameliorate this rash of divorces. They are culpable, co-conspirators in this disaster, as they have been easing the restrictions on divorce, in lock-step with the wacky feminist’s demands, for fifty years.
Once these women get divorced they immediately and foolishly add a third full-time job to their life – trying to find a new man! This is total insanity, yet it happens time and time again. Everyone loses under these circumstances, especially the women themselves. For these women, nothing makes sense and nothing is easy. They’ve cut themselves off from nearly every safety net designed to HELP them and routinely “hang themselves out to dry.”
The seriousness with which divorce was addressed survived up to, and through, the 1950s. In most states it was very difficult to get a divorce. Naturally, the churches were emphatically opposed to divorce, for very good reasons, principally the welfare of the children.
In addition, the Christian family unit provided people with the best chance for prosperity, happiness, and good health. All of its members reaped the benefits inherent in the Christian sacrament of marriage. The Christian father was responsible for the safety and welfare of his family, took his duties very seriously. Christian mothers took their responsibilities for the care of their home and children just as seriously.
Not until the feminist theory of female “liberation” from “patriarchy” took hold. during the wild and crazy 1960s, did marriage become a sidebar to women’s lives, rather than its focus.
Under increasing feminist pressure, the obligations that a Christian husband once undertook for his family were unceremoniously dumped.
Christian men eventually tried to offset the preposterous, and irrational, feminist allegations of male “domination” and “oppression” directed at them, with sensible reasoning.
But, by then, the effort proved to be fruitless; the pendulum had swung too far in the opposite direction.
Good Christian men nation-wide, finally gave up as the pressure, and irrational, accusations from their OWN daughters and women folk became intolerable. The centuries-old, and principle, motivation for men’s lives – the obligation to protect and provide for their family – was suddenly reviled and eventually gone. It died in a storm of betrayals and was finally buried in the divorce court.
Sadly, the unintended consequence of the inequities imbued in Family Court, left the fathers and their children in hell, while the “liberated” mother went to another party. As Cindy Lauper’s 1983 feminist song says, “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun!” Unfortunately, this behavior went viral and it knew no age limit.
In 2009, an acquaintance’s daughter, who had three children under the age of nine, filed for divorce from her husband of eleven years. Despite her own father’s pleas, the daughter was getting a divorce because her husband was “too busy, busy, busy.” Her parents thought the young husband was a good man and a good provider. But his wife didn’t care. She wanted out, and she wanted to open an arts and crafts shop, too! As her father said, “We are living through the worst economic crisis in our country’s history, when people can’t afford even the basics, and she wants to open a craft shop?” He thought it was another bankruptcy in the making. Despite this young woman’s irrational justification for wanting a divorce, the court granted it.
Notwithstanding the fact that divorce leaves no one unscathed, women are still shedding spouses like snakes shed their skin. They walk away from their husbands, and their family life, while never looking back. No regrets, no apologies and no guilt. Feminism in ALL its glory!
The process often begins when they have a night out with their divorced girlfriends. They get brainwashed about what a good time they’re missing. Or, they get sold a bill of goods by their divorced friends, who tell them that there are lots of great guys out there who are better than their inconvenient husbands.
This a hoax perpetuated by women who are already divorced, alone and unhappy. They work very hard to convince their married friends that they are missing all the fun. When in fact, it is a lie! These divorced, and rapidly aging, women know they made an enormous mistake. So now, their mission in life, is to convince their married friends to join them in the growing ranks of the divorced. They hate to see their friends happily married. It simply rubs salt in their open wounds.
The truth is, there is not a plethora of great guys doing the bar scene, who are looking to find and marry a nice girl. What there is a lot of, is “rejects” wanting to get laid. And most of them come with a lot of baggage of their own – ex-wives, children, debt, anger, resentment, addictions, frustration, alimony and, child support.
Incredibly, most women, who shed their husband, misguidedly think they’ll stay young and attractive forever. Sorry, the truth is that every minute of the day there are thousands of never married, younger, and more beautiful women coming up behind them.
The chances of their ever finding a new, great guy drops off precipitously with every advancing year. The older they get, the slimmer their chances of EVER finding a new man. And, if they are over forty and have minor kids, forget about it!
The truth is, that before you consider ditching your husband, do yourself a favor. Rent the 1944 movie titled Mr. Skeffington with Bette Davis and Claude Raines. It will foretell your future, minus the big house and the maid.
Incredibly, the feminist delusion that women don’t need their husbands lives on. The lies are now taken as the gospel truth. Women can no longer tell the difference between the true and the false information they’ve been fed by “reliable” sources. Some of these women’s stories are actually startling in their shortsightedness.
Deanna divorced her perfectly normal, hard-working husband and then spent the next ten years in relationships with three different, married foreigners, all of whom promised to divorce their wife and marry her, none of whom did. She is now a forty-one year old, “career” woman, childless, and living alone in an apartment in London.
Another “liberated” acquaintance, Francesca, abandoned her husband in Nigeria where he was employed by an oil company and left for America to be with her college bound daughter. Three years later she was shocked to learn, when he came to America for Christmas, that he had taken up with a younger woman and wanted a divorce. To Francesca’s further chagrin, he was also having a child with this woman.
Another woman, with whom I’m familiar, named Marisa, who had two small children, threatened to divorce her husband because “he was required to work on the weekends”. She said he didn’t spend enough time with their kids. To please her, the husband took a new job for a lower salary in order to have his weekends free. Despite her husband’s warnings that the change would require cutting their expenses, she insisted he quit his more lucrative job. When the inevitable occurred and they could no longer pay for her overspending. He tried to get his old job back with no luck. She finally was forced to get a job herself in order to pay her bills. Now, neither of them sees much of their little kids and Marisa is more unhappy than she was when her husband had to work weekends.
Then we have the story of another “career” woman who divorced her unfaithful husband and married a divorced man soon afterward. She admitted that she’d just traded one set of problems for a different set of problems. The new husband’s ex-wife was a demanding woman who used their small daughter as a way to incite arguments between the “career” woman and her new husband. As a result, the “career” woman found herself in constant competition with her new husband’s first family for both his time and attention. After four years, she filed for divorce for a second time.
These are just a few examples of women who drank the feminist’s “Divorce is Divine” kool-aid. They are living proof of its disastrous effects and the unbearable misery it has caused the very women it was supposed to happily “liberate.”
The pathetic stories continue to mount. A woman friend named Penny divorced her husband and then discovered that she could no longer support her children. In order to make ends meet, she had to move back into her parent’s home with her three young children. Twenty years later, as she pushed her grandchild on a swing in the park, she tearfully told the story of her terrible mistake. After all of the travail she had caused her ex-husband, he continued to stand by her and their kids. The woman said that her ex-husband had turned out to be a wonderful father. Now, in her fifties, she sorely regrets divorcing him because it had, unfairly and unnecessarily, hurt everyone in her family, especially herself.
Another divorced woman, who was a mortgage broker, with a fifteen-year-old daughter, lost her job and was about to lose her house. She had no one to turn to. She had divorced her husband when she was making awesome money selling sub-prime mortgages. When the industry collapsed, she said divorcing her husband was the worst mistake, among many, that she’d ever made. Rather than providing her daughter with a stable life and a permanent home, her falsely inflated, “liberated” feminist ego had denied her both.
Divorce, according to Webster’s dictionary, is the “legal termination of a marriage” and “the complete separation of things.” That sounds so simple. So cut and dry. But, on the contrary, it’s probably the most devastating experience that can happen to all parties involved, except the lawyers.
For the children and the wounded spouse, the separation is never final. It leaves the entire family disjoined, disoriented, distressed and diminished, both emotionally and financially.
Unlike in 1836, most of today’s inconvenient husbands are forced by the courts to maintain their ex-wife in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed. This is nearly impossible without the men being forced to live in a studio apartment or bunk-in with a friend. And to make matter worse, in many cases, the ex-husbands are forced to watch as their liberated ex-wife traipses off with another guy to another party, while he struggles to pay for her partying. How is this fair? IT ISN’T!
There has recently been a rash of tragedies where husbands have killed their estranged, separated, or cheating ex-wife. The alarming part of these episodes is that in some cases the husbands have not only killed their wife but all of their children, and themselves, as well.
Upon closer analysis, most of these desperate family men have been treated unfairly by their ex-wife and the feminist-infested, family courts. Not long ago, a thirty-one-year old Pennsylvania father abducted his nine-year-old son from his mother, only to be killed by police in a hail of bullets as they surrounded him in an effort to retake his son. It was another divorce gone terribly wrong. Tragically, the innocent little boy will never fully recover from his grief.
In another local case, a fifty-year old father, whose vicious ex-wife brainwashed their five-year-old daughter to believe that her father had molested her, when he had not. He threw himself off the top floor of a parking garage in anguish over the loss of his daughter’s affection and his ex-wife’s duplicity and betrayal! When reading-between-the-lines, you can feel the agony of these desperate family men.
Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation.” They suffer their enormous responsibilities in silence, and they ask nothing in return but the love of their spouse and the sexual closeness through which their love manifests itself.
When a woman cheats on her husband, a sacred vow is irrevocably broken. The men take this betrayal harder than anyone can imagine and when there are children are involved, their shame and suffering is tenfold. Unfortunately, their side of the story is rarely told.
Men are not, by nature, vocal. When faced with an unjust set of circumstances, they methodically negotiate their way through the process to try to rectify the situation. They nearly always bring fairness and calmness to the most difficult of deliberations. Men seek an agreement, or an understanding, without hysterics.
There is only one set of circumstances which can push the average guy over the edge, and that is a cheating wife, or worse yet, a cheating wife-mother. When the woman they love brutally and unfairly betrays them, especially for the arms of another man, they rightfully seethed with bitter rage. Self-control, in many cases, is then impossible, and the results can be heartbreaking and deadly.
Most of these betrayed family men are caught completely off guard. A male acquaintance, whose wife had just had their second child six months earlier, discovered that his wife was having an affair with someone at work. He was devastated. Now he and his children are on a visitation-rights schedule. Henry did nothing wrong but he lost his family and, basically, his whole life. He profoundly suffers this horrific loss in silence.
Another man named Karl, with a one year old son, found his wife in a closet at a party having sex with her ex-boyfriend. This young father had again done nothing wrong but his life was soon turned upside down. The ex-wife, who, thanks to the courts, has primary custody of their son, used the boy as a pawn and turned him against his father. The little boy has become an emotional disaster. The cheating wife still resides, with their son, in the big marital home, while the ex-husband has been reduced to sleeping on the couch at a friend’s house for lack of funds.
The only crime these family men were guilty of was trying to do what was morally right for the family they loved. They went to their job every day, worked long hours and protected and provided for their children and their nitwit wife. But thanks to the prejudiced legal system, they were rewarded with divorce, heartache and poverty.
In nearly every one of these cases, the lovers for whom these women divorced their husband soon vanished. Not one of those men wanted the woman after she was divorced. And who can blame them? What guy, in his right mind, would want to marry a woman who cheated on her husband? Amazingly, most of these cheating wives never saw this coming. They believed that the home-wrecker really loved them and that divorce would lead to remarriage. It never did.
Women who believe in the radical feminist delusion of the “sexual revolution” are asking for nothing but unhappiness. A very handsome young, thirty-something man lived in the center of the Manhattan social scene. He said that things have gotten so bad that if he dated a girl once and didn’t try to get her into bed that same night, the girl wanted want to know why he didn’t like her! He said this routinely happens to a lot of the guys he knows.
Even the young studs are amazed at the pathetic levels to which women have sunk. This young man, who no longer haunts the Manhattan social scene, says it’s nearly impossible to find a nice girl to marry anymore. Feminism has sexually twisted women for the worse but, by and large, not the men. They still search for a nice girl to love and marry and bear their children.
The young women who managed to keep their heads during the non-Christian feminist engendered “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s, and didn’t drink the feminist kool-aid, are the only true survivors. They actually managed to happily have it all – husband, children, family, friends, fortune, and good health. Those who understood how important it was to be faithful, supportive and loving towards their husband attained the highest form of human happiness known to man – a happy marriage!
Statistics prove that Christian husbands and wives, who are committed, not only to each other but more importantly, to the sacrament of marriage, live the most rewarding, uncomplicated, healthy, wealthy and happy lives.
Civilization was built around their needs. Nothing is denied them. Everything is available to them. There are no limits to the possibilities. Family, career, travel, home, children, friends, community, religion, and all of the wonderful rewards that come along with them are theirs for the asking. Husbands and wives are welcomed, and respected, everywhere, and the opportunities for happiness are endless. When these marriages shine, the world embraces the joy.
The world was designed around a husband and wife team. Even hanging a picture becomes a chore without someone to help. Nearly every aspect of life goes more smoothly when you have someone to help you accomplish whatever task you have to face. When you are part of that team, you always have someone with whom to share life’s myriad of joys, heartaches and responsibilities. You have someone to take up the slack, someone to fill in for you, someone to rely on whether you are sick or healthy. You have shared goals, and you both work to accomplish those goals. Husbands and wives make the perfect team and in Christian America, the 1950s was the pinnacle of domestic perfection.
Radical feminist Gloria Steinem (Smith College ’56) was one of the dysfunctional people on whom this Christian domestic bliss of the 1950s grated. When she was a small child Ms. Steinem’s Jewish father Leo traveled around the countryside with his trailer full of antiques and his family in tow.
Gloria, born in 1934, rarely attended school before she reached the age of twelve. She loved her father but he was obese which caused Gloria’s lifelong aversion to food. Her father left her mother Ruth Nuneviller Steinem, who was a Presbyterian, in 1944 to go to California to find work. He never returned and Leo divorced Ruth the following year as a result of her mental illness.
At the time, Gloria’s only sibling, Susanne, was away at Smith College. The divorce left eleven-year-old Gloria to care for her mentally ill mother, in a rat-infested apartment. She remained there with her mother for the next six years until she joined her sister in Washington, D.C to complete her senior year in high school.
The experience of reverse-parenting caused her to fear having to take care of anyone again, including a husband or children. Gloria famously said, “A woman without a husband is like a fish without a bicycle”. As a result, she had no interest in marrying saying, “I just didn’t see any marriages I wanted to emulate.” She also did not agree with her Christian contemporaries who gave up their jobs and lives “to meet the needs” of their husbands career and of children. Steinem thought that “since I really believed that in the 1950’s it made marriage seem like death. That was the last choice you could make.” She felt it was “an arrangement for one and a half people.”
In 1972 Steinem co-founded Ms. Magazine, which struggled financially from its inception due to lack of advertisers. During the 1970s and 1980s she became, along with Betty Friedan, a spokesperson for the Women’s Movement, writing and speaking on women’s issues. She and her opinions were everywhere, TV, magazines, protest marches, women’s rallies, college campuses and newspapers. Her impact was staggering.
During the 1990s, feminism experienced a public backlash and Gloria’s star faded. She suffered from depression in her fifties and surprisingly, in 2000 Ms. Steinem married at the age of sixty-six. When asked about her marriage she responded, “I’m happy and surprised and one day will write about it…”
When harassed by fellow feminists for having caved-in to marriage, she tried to explain it away by telling Joy Behar “But to get legally married, we wouldn’t have done, except that he needed a green card”. She continued to belittle her marriage by telling Ms. Behar that she couldn’t resist getting married when her friend, Wilma Mankiller, Chief of the Cherokee nation, offered her a Cherokee ceremony as well.
Unfortunately, Steinem waited too long to marry and lost her “partner” David Bale to brain cancer less than three years after their marriage. Her fifty year aversion to marriage, based on her unfortunate childhood, and her twisted view of how marriage denigrated women, unfortunately influenced generations of young and naive women.
Steinem’s opinions about feminism, and particularly marriage, were based on her isolated and dysfunctional family experience and did not reflect the happy lives of the millions of Christian families living in suburbia at the time. And yet, during the 1970s and 1980s, her influence was profound.
In retrospect, Steinem was not the sort of person upon whose opinion millions of young, college-bound, female baby boomers should have based their future and yet, naively they did just that. For the first time in history, marriage became an afterthought for “liberated” “career” women, as they now focused their energies on their jobs instead of families.
Ironically, even Gloria Steinem eventually found love and came to realize that women need men. Without men, women’s entire existence is more difficult. Men keep women calm and focused. As an acquaintance of mine once said after being divorced for ten years, “The worst part of being alone is that I’m so tired of doing everything myself.” So much for “having it all”. And so much for “I am woman hear me roar”, because they are just too tired. Being divorced just makes you old, unhappy, exhausted, and a lot poorer.
Men will work their fingers to the bone for you if you’ll only relax and let them love you. Too many good husbands are being tossed onto the scrap heap of failed marriages through no fault of their own. This has to STOP! It’s destroying everything we once valued and cherished, with devastating results.
When left to their own devices men can handle nearly every contingency. They invented civilization and they were born to solve problems and fix things. Almost nothing intimidates them. There isn’t a job that they can’t do. You can’t say that about women. Sure, women can do a lot of jobs, but if they weren’t around the guys could do those same jobs, other than motherhood, just as well and probably better.
One of the best jobs men do is caring for their family. They instinctually know how to provide for their family and they innately understand how to protect them. This has become especially challenging in today’s atheist world. They have lost so many tools to radical feminism’s assault. Keeping your family safe requires total devotion and continual monitoring. Being a husband/father, providing and protecting his family, is one of the most selfless acts known to man because they rarely acquire anything for themselves. They work to provide for their family, NOT for themselves.
Christian men are renowned for their devotion to their family. Millions of men have died to protect and provide for those they loved. Entire wars were fought to protect their women and children. The fact is men rarely go into battle just for fun. Even mercenaries fight for a reason – money. But, most men go to war because they believe in a cause and the root cause is nearly always their wives and children’s safety and happiness. Divorce is never been their end game when they entered into a marriage; securing their family’s happy future is all they ever care about. Feminism has denied that vital information to young women.
Despite what the radical feminists have told women men still believe in a code of honor. Most play by the rules because those rules have been bred into their DNA throughout history. And they know those rules bring happiness, prosperity, and peace. This code of honor is so innate to their being that it’s instinctual. It is rarely spoken about among the men themselves, but they all subconsciously adhere to it with a vengeance.
When a catastrophe occurs, who comes to the rescue? Christian men. Ordinary guys. They could be a gas station attendant, a high school student, a police officer, a realtor, a farmer, or a car broker. They come out of nowhere, to help do whatever needs to be done to make things right again, even if it means putting themselves at risk. That doesn’t matter to them. As the old saying goes, “Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.” Christian men, unhesitatingly, jump right in to rescue total strangers from harm, especially women and children, because they know Christ expects no less.
One of the most dramatic examples of this inbred heroism happened when an Air Florida 737 crashed into a Washington, D.C. bridge and then sank in the frozen Potomac River in a snow storm in January 1982.
A passenger named Arland D. Williams, Jr. was one of only six people, of the seventy-eight passengers on board, to survive the crash. He caught the helicopter rescue line twice and both times, rather than save himself, he passed it to others while he calmly waited in the frigid water.
The first time he saved the life of stewardess Kelly Duncan. When he caught the rope the second time he passed it to Joe Stiley who was the most severely injured passenger. When the helicopter returned for Arland he had disappeared. He stayed in the freezing water for twenty-nine minutes helping others to escape, refusing to be rescued himself, and died a hero.
Mr. Williams was initially known as “the sixth passenger” because no one knew his identity. When he was identified it was determined that he was the only passenger to have drowned. Mr. Williams was fifty years old and a 1957 graduate of The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina. He was married with two children but he gave his life to save total strangers. President Reagan posthumously awarded him the United States Coast Guard’s Gold Lifesaving Medal, the bridge the plane hit was renamed in his honor and a new elementary school in his hometown of Mattoon, Illinois was dedicated to him. Arland D. Williams, Jr. was a true hero. This story is repeated over and over again in the news, and yet, thanks to feminism, men are unjustly demeaned to be scum, not worthy of the respect they truly deserve. They are, as a matter of fact, more worthy of our respect and admiration than all of the feminists combined.
Every catastrophe in recent memory included a great guy who came to the rescue. One of these men was pilot Chesley Burnett “Sully” Sullenberger. He crash landed his US Airways commercial airliner on the Hudson River in New York and saved all 150 passengers on board through his bravery and calm under duress.
In another instance, a 28-year-old, former Marine, Austin Anderson survived a plane crash in Kansas that killed three of his friends. They were all on their way to a Christian rally. Austin suffered burns over ninety percent of his body during the crash and yet still managed to pull the only other survivor from the wreckage, walk her to the road to get help, before dying of his injuries. These men, and all the other Christian men waiting to be called to action, deserve our respect and gratitude. We need to give these guys a break and back off!!
When women substitute the ideology of radical feminism for the tenets of their Christian faith, the process turns women into selfish, obnoxious, ungrateful whores. Why are women so unappreciative and ungrateful towards men? It’s because women have unconsciously internalized what non-Christian, Gloria Steinem credits first-wave feminist and suffragist Susan B. Anthony (1794-1862) with saying, “Our job is not to make young women grateful. It is to make them ungrateful so they keep going. Gratitude never radicalized anyone.” YUK!
Today’s ungrateful women have been unknowingly brainwashed to behave accordingly. It’s time to look at the losers they’ve become and begin to encourage them to behave like Christian ladies again. Men deserve better treatment by their wives and by the courts. We must turn back the clock and make it more difficult for women to divorce, NOT easier. Women have invented the most ludicrous, and trivial, excuses for divorcing their husband’s and the results are frivolously destroying their family lives, and by association, the country.
There are only six legitimate reasons for considering a divorce, and even those issues can be resolved with some effort. Divorce makes sense only if your spouse is an adulterer, falling-down alcoholic, a drug addict, a gambler, a psychopath or physically abuses you. If you were stupid enough to marry the guy knowing he harbors any one of these demons, deluding yourself into thinking you could change him; your efforts to get a divorce should be obstructed. You picked him, so you’re stuck with him. The so-called abuses that many wives whine about are typically trivial. These women are certainly not thinking about the long-term effects a divorce will have on them or their children. Their children’s innocent lives are unalterably changed, because in many cases divorce creates hate, confusion and fear.
Little kids always think they did something to cause the breakup of their parents’ marriage. This quiet guilt is a heavy burden for their little souls to bear. Over time, the divorced woman’s relationship with her children will degenerate into one of occasional phone calls. And in the end, the aging Jezebel, called “mother”, ends up living alone in a cheap apartment with a cat for company, while her ex-husband is long gone.
Women have gone too far. They should be reined in by the courts, especially women who have minor children. This aspect of the feminist experiment, which has markedly increased the divorce rate, is a disastrous failure, and it’s long overdue for a revision.
It’s high time to tell these “liberated” losers, the ones who have no understanding of the vast collateral damage they create through divorce, to shut up, sit down and get a grip!