I want to address a certain danger that I am seeing, one that seems to be going completely unrecognized, mainly because we are too damned busy hiding under our beds, pointing terrified fingers at Islam and the prospect of Sharia law invading our western countries. While we mock women in the far-left for attempting to embrace things like the hijab, we let women in the far-right off completely scot-free when they attempt to embrace ‘traditional’ lifestyles.
At this point the reader is no doubt wondering how on earth I can equate the repression that women suffer under strict Islamic law with traditional man-at-the-head of the household western-style family life. Well, the first point of similarity is that the women advocating these two lifestyles don’t have a clue as to what they represent, and where they lead. Those on the side that glorify the hijab as an emblem of female liberation are guilty of cultural ignorance, while those on the side of ‘traditional western families’ are guilty of historical ignorance.
I am going to assume that most readers are already familiar with the downside of Islam when it comes to a woman’s rights: women don’t exist as individuals, women are owned by their husbands, husbands can beat their wives, and so on and so forth… . However, do modern women advocating ‘traditional western families’ realize that, until the the suffragettes and other fighters for the rights of women came along, western women lived under similar conditions?
Yes, western women were once considered the property of their fathers until they married, and then of their husbands. Since they were legal non-entities, every cent they earned belonged to the men who owned them. They did not have access to their own money, including inheritances, unless their husbands gave them an allowance from it.
Did men have the right to beat their wives? Yes, they did. In a law similar to that found in Islam, men in the UK were permitted to beat their wives with a reed no thicker than his thumb (You can visit this page from http://www.historyofwomen.org to read more about wife-beating in the UK). Sophists may try to argue that this law is a UK law, and therefore not the norm for women in other areas of Europe and North America, but sadly, that is a lie. From the Urals to Los Angeles, women were subject to similar laws granting their husbands permission to beat them, and their children, if they misbehaved.
If a woman left her husband, even for valid reasons such as being cruelly beaten, she lost all of her rights and could be denied access to her own children. Divorcing, or being divorced by her husband, brought massive shame down on her family and could damage any unmarried siblings’ marriage prospects.
An interesting bit of trivia: The Mary Richards character in the old Mary Tyler Moore Show was actually supposed to be a divorcee, but producers felt that idea was too radical for a 1970s viewing audience.
In addition to being beaten, western women were also considered too feeble-minded and morally corruptible to be permitted the vote.
This leads me to ask what the hell is in the minds of women glorifying ‘traditional’ lifestyles? How much hypocrisy can modern women be expected to swallow? A return to the ‘traditional’ family unit is no sunshine-and-daffodils scenario. It means giving up everything other women, and some men, have fought decades-long battles to win for us. Those rights include the right not to be beaten, the right to keep our own earnings and inheritances, the right to divorce a man who beats his wife and children, and the right to have a say in how our cities, provinces, and countries are governed. If a woman wants to relinquish those rights, then let her do it, but she does not have the right to strip other women of them.
Please watch these videos that I have found. They might help to open the eyes of people who believe women in the west were never treated as badly as their modern day counterparts in the Middle East.