Marriage as economic slavery

Introduction

This is also a thread on twitter, (click and scroll up).

It was prompted by a claim that women are not privileged because “Privilege is about choice right?” (now deleted).

Privilege is indeed about choice. The only way people can deny female privilege is then to claim that women’s choice is a forced decision and men’s forced position is a choice. Which is exactly the lie that feminists tell.

I’m reporting that feminists are wrong about women being forced to stay at home, because they are. Being allowed – not forced – to stay at home is a privilege. Historically only some women had that privilege. Men were forced – not allowed – to go to work to support women.

The difference between being allowed to do something and being forced is important. It’s the difference between employment and slavery. Between sex and rape. Between imprisonment and accommodation.

This is why feminists always frame men being forced to do something as men being ‘allowed’ to. eg the draft – men being forced to fight – is cast as men being ‘allowed’ to fight. Gender roles – men being forced to support women under threat of imprisonment – are phrased as men being ‘allowed’ to work.

This is as ridiculous as a man claiming female rape victims are privileged because they are “allowed to have sex”. Or slaves are privileged because they are “allowed to work”. Or conscripted men are privileged because they are “allowed to fight”. Oh wait, that last one is real:

Since some people still credulously believe the feminist narrative that men historically (and present) were not forced to work and that women were not ‘allowed’ to work, let’s go through the facts.

Myths

Myth 1: Men don’t want to stay at home

A 2007 survey by the employment web site monster.com found that 68% percent of fathers would be a stay at home parent if money were no object. [1]

Warren Farrell reported in “The Myth of Male Power” that 80% of men he surveyed said that if they could stay at home with no loss of income and their wives approval, they would. Only 3% said they would prefer to work full-time. [2]

87% of men who did quit their job after having a child to stay at home say they are glad they did. [3]

63% fathers say they don’t spend as much time as they want with the kids, compared to 35% of mums. [5]

Myth 2: Women want to work outside the home

Only 10% of British part-time female workers surveyed expressed an interest in working full time [6] .

Among women at home with children less than 18, only 16% (less than one in six) say they want to work outside the home full-time. [7]

Which drops to 12% if the children are young. [8]

Among at-home mothers only 22% say the increase in working mothers with young children is a good thing for society. [9]

For women with children who do work full-time outside the home, more than half want to change to working part-time or not working at all. [10]

Fully 94% of women who have reduced their hours or taken significant time off work after having a child say they are glad they did this. [11]

Women are 38% more likely to file for divorce if she works more than her husband than vice versa, and 29% more likely to divorce if they have had to increase the number of hours worked outside the home in the last 5 years. [12] [13]

As The Atlantic reported: [14]

Two facts are often obscured in the public conversation devoted to women, work, and family. First, the vast majority of married mothers don’t want to work full-time. Second, married mothers who are able to cut back at work to accommodate their family’s needs tend to be happier. The news cycle is stuck in a lean-in loop, but new data show mothers report more happiness when they can lean homeward.

80% of women said they would ostracize a man who failed to provide for his family “as he should”. [15]

Feminists in particular have repeatedly complained about declining alimony (men paying so women do not have to support themselves). [16] [17] [18] [19]

In a 1985 Roper survey only 10 percent of women declared that a husband should turn down a very good job in another city “so the wife can continue her job.”. [20]

An overview of multiple studies across Europe concluded that only 14%-20% of women aged 16+ are “work-centered” which it defines as “Committed to work or equivalent activities”. The author concludes [21] :

“Feminists constantly complain that men are not doing their fair share of domestic work. The reality is that most men already do more than their fair share.” and “As factual data replaces received wisdom, several well-entrenched feminist myths have been overturned … Men do substantially more hours of paid work.”

Marty Nemko, a professional career coach reports: [22]

Over the past 17 years, I have been career coach to 1,500 middle and upper class women and to 500 middle-to-upper class men. Because of our relationships’ confidentiality, I have learned much about what women really think on a number of issues.

Most surprising to me, is that at least half of the women, including many graduates of elite colleges, either don’t want an income-earning job or will only work part-time in an unusually pleasant job.

Feminists in particular are not happy about the increase in work for women. Some recently demanded that “in order to achieve gender equality,” the legal maximum working hour limits must be lowered to 34 hours a week for women, but kept at 48 hours for men. [23]

Myth 3: Historically women were not ‘allowed’ to work outside the home.

In early agricultural societies women worked by grinding grain for as much as 5 hours a day to make flour, in addition to tilling soil and harvesting crops by hand. [24]

Confirmed by studies of Ancient Egypt which show that almost all non-aristocratic women worked, including spinning, combing, and carding cloth. [25] [26] [27]

Ancient Egyptian wall painting showing a woman sowing while a man ploughs

From the 13th to the 17th Century most brewers were women, a survey in 1228 found 80% of brewers in towns were female [75].

Percentage of ale sales by married female brewers (14th C). ‘brewster’ means a female brewer [74].

The norm of most women working lasted until the industrial era. A study of 1,350 working-class households from early 19th Century Britain suggests that the husbands’ proportion of family earning was as low as 55 percent.

Between 1787 to 1815 in families with unemployed children (!) wives earned 41 percent of household income. [28]

In this same period 66% of married women had a recorded occupation. [29]

In 1833 Britain, women made up 57% – the majority – of factory workers. [30] [31]

Even in labour intensive agricultural work, significant numbers of women worked. [32]

However, by 1851 the proportion of married women who worked had dropped to 30%. [33]

The share of household income generated by women started to decline rapidly from around 1830 onwards. Notably this involved “increased leisure for women and children” with the percent of income generated by men increasing from 55% in 1831-1855 up to 81% in 1860-1865. [34] [35]

By 1890, women’s work in Europe and the United States contributed just 1.9 percent to 3 percent of household income. [36]

This was entirely because of married women being supported by their husbands. By 1887, 3/4 of female workers in American cities were under 25 years old. 96% of them were
single. [37]

By 1911 only 25% of British women worked. [40]

In 1920 in the US, women were only 21% of employed adults. [41]

We can speculate this was because the extra wealth from industrialization meant it became possible for some people to not work outside the home, and women got this benefit.

This is supported by the fact that the total working hours have dropped by almost half since 1870. [42]

This is a good overview of the late Victorian era, still more women working outside the home than feminists claim, but far fewer than pre-industrialization.

This change from the vast majority of women working (pre 1850s) to a small percentage (by 1920s) was overwhelmingly welcomed by women, and universally seen as a benefit to women.

John Stuart Mill, thought that “it is not… a desirable custom that the wife should contribute by her labor to the income of the family.” [43]

The German Government stated in 1940: “the goal remains to ensure that, in 20 years’ time, no woman is obliged to work in a factory.” [44]

In the Soviet Union, when mothers got permission to work part time instead of full time, and fathers still had to work full-time, this was welcomed as “liberating” by
women’s groups. [45] [46]

Even as late as 1915 women’s rights campaigner Clementina Black was complaining about the fact that married women as well as single women had to work to earn money: [47]

those [married women] who, because the family income is inadequate, do earn – are the most overworked, the hardest pressed and probably the unhappiest of working women…

Such a mother will be often sharp of tongue and irritable of temper; life offers her neither rest nor hope; she scurries through her household work that she may spend an extra ten minutes at her monotonous toil and receive an extra farthing at the week end; the premature collapse of a child’s boots is a disaster that disturbs all her calculations; a day’s illness is an indulgence that she dares not afford herself. As the children grow up and go out to work the pressure relaxes a little; if she is fortunate an unmarried daughter remains with her to the end, and if she lives to be 70 years old her pension gives her the gratification of feeling herself rather a help than a burden. She will be anxious still, saying some-times to herself and her daughter: ‘What will you do when I am gone?’ But it will no longer be the grinding daily anxiety of bygone years. She will know no pleasures, she will still work; but she will know intervals of rest, and these – though she will not know it – will be the happiest years of her life.

During WWII, when many women had to do war work in factories, it was found that women had been “made miserable by the [war work]” and “fervently wished themselves back into their prewar home routine.” [48]

During WWII the British and US governments spent a fortune on propaganda encouraging women to work, but less than 40% of women of working age in both countries took it up.

Men were not given the choice.

Women with children stayed in the home only in a brief exceptional period in human history which lasted less than 150 years, the norm being both sexes working all waking hours.

Myth 4: Historically men were not forced to work outside the home

This is usually phrased as “men were allowed to”, which implies they were not forced to (see the introduction).

The way this is implemented is by forcing men to support women, and take sole responsibility to support children. For all but the most privileged men this means having to work.

As early as 92 BC men were forced to support their wives by law. [49]

Men who refused to support their wives were legally punished under Roman law. [50]

Under the common law of ‘coverture’, which existed in England from at least 1660 to the 19th century, and in America until 1839 “A wife was entitled to be maintained by her husband” – if she got into any debts, the husband had to pay them. If he refused, he could be imprisoned in debtors prison. Wives could not be sued or imprisoned for debt.

It’s because of this that 18th century texts said that a married Woman ‘is a Favourite of the Law’ and described England as ‘the Paradise of women’. [51]

Coverture was only legally abolished by the Married Women’s Property Act of 1882 (in the UK).

Men were responsible for paying women’s income tax for much longer, and this was exploited by suffragettes to send their husbands to jail simply by her refusing to pay tax.

An article from 1912 notes [52]:

Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife’s property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income tax – $185 – and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless his wife pays or the law is changed.

In 1660 a Venetian noblewoman wrote [53]:

It is a marvelous sight in our city to see the wife of a shoemaker or butcher or even a porter all dressed up with gold chains round her neck, with pearls and valuable rings on her fingers, accompanied by a pair of women on either side to assist her and give her a hand, and then, by contrast, to see her husband cutting up meat all soiled with ox’s blood and down at heel, or loaded up like a beast of burden dressed in rough cloth, as porters are…. In France men may not spend even a centime unless at the request of their wives, and women not only administrate business dealings and sales but private income as well.

In the 19th Century women could sue their husbands for maintenance while still married, and if she won the man could be imprisoned. [54]

Even after the English common law of ‘coverture’ was replaced, men were legally obliged to support their wives. This was reinforced in successive acts of parliament in 1861,
1881, 1920 and 1964. [55]

Even after the official end of coverture in Britain with the Married Women’s Property Act of 1882 husbands’ were liable for debts their wives had from before they were
married. Men could, and were, imprisoned for not paying their wives debts. [56] [57]

This obligation to support his wife stayed in force even if the couple lived apart, even if she had abandoned him and with no obligation on her (note divorces were extremely difficult to obtain in this period).

Around 1901 this a newspaper published this heartfelt letter from 37 husbands jailed for non-support, begging their wives to let them out just for the upcoming holiday. The editor has no sympathy and responds that men who don’t support their wives and children are committing “a serious crime”, and they deserve to be punished for not “doing their duty”. Note that although married, the support is referred to as ‘alimony'[58].

Under Sharia (Islamic) law a man must support his wife: “Allah has ordained men to earn the living of his wife and children”

“A husband is obliged to earn the living for his wife and fulfill all her needs although his wife is a rich woman. The riches of a wife doesn’t nullify her right, which is the obligation of her husband.” but any money a married woman earns is her own and she has no obligation to spend it to support her husband or children. [59] [60]

Vedic (Hindu) law [61] also says a man must support his wife.

The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland (written in 1937) explicitly states women – and only women – shall not be obliged to work:

the State shall, therefore, endeavour to insure mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour

[62]

Obviously, this means fathers are obliged to work more as a consequence. This is still in the Irish constitution as of 2018.

The obligation for husbands to support their wives also applied after divorce; in Victorian England a divorced woman had the right to be maintained “at the level to which she had been accustomed.” [63]

And similarly in the US [64]. The law was highly gendered – in 1979 the United States Supreme Court struck down an Alabama law that denied alimony to a person simply because he was male [65].

In practice nowadays the obligation on men is mostly enforced by the woman divorcing and claiming mummy (‘child’) support, or threatening to do so.

Currently in the US men make up only 3% of alimony recipients, and campaigners admit alimony laws are only now being reformed due to the fact that now some women are having to pay [66].

Present

The end result of this is that over twice as many married fathers work full-time as mothers.

60% of fulltime workers are men, and men who work full time work 3.8 hours more per week [67].

Fathers of children under 18 work 27 hours a week, and mothers only 21.

Mothers spend almost twice as much time with their children as fathers do (13.5 hours a week). [68]

43 percent of married mothers and 88 percent of married fathers work full time. [69]

Even when housework is included, British men work longer hours in total than do women when there are children in the home, largely because men often have to work more overtime,
while their wives switch to part-time jobs, or leave employment altogether. [70]

Unsurprisingly housewives have more leisure time, even when housework is included, than married fathers. (4.2 hours vs 3.7) [71]

Note 1

Despite feminist claims that they’re against traditional gender roles, they are defending and promoting this.

The N.O.W. (National Organization for Women) has systematically campaigned against equal custody after divorce, something that would drastically cut down if not eliminate
‘mommy support’ orders. It has done this since the 1970s. [72]

According to the National Parents Organization, since 1974 – around when child support started to replace alimony as the main income for separated mothers – “no feminist organization anywhere has ever supported an equal parenting bill, and many have outright opposed them” [73]

Feminists complain loudly when women don’t get custody (and therefore child support).

Summary

Women with children have stayed in the home only in a brief exceptional period in human history which has lasted less than 200 years, the norm being both sexes working all waking hours. This system was welcomed by women and resisted by men. It is enforced by laws against men, including imprisonment and public shaming, with no legal enforcement needed or used against women.

Prior to the industrial revolution there was a justification for forcing married men to support women, as the amount of work done by both was comparable, and this ensured children born with the consent of the man (implicit in marriage) would be supported.

After the industrial revolution, the amount of work done by women relative to men drastically reduced, but the same laws and attitudes applied, resulting in men being forced into supporting women against men’s and society’s interest, this female privilege being enforced by social institutions the legal system and latterly the media.

With female contraception, the sexual revolution, and the application of child support laws to unmarried fathers, we now have the situation where any woman can at-whim force any man who has unprotected sex with her into economic slavery for up to 18 years. With all this and no-fault divorce, any married father can be forced into the same at the wife’s whim. This results in men being forced into all the most dangerous, dirty, and degraded jobs, with women doing less work overall and that the easiest and least unpleasant jobs.

This is well-known to young people planning their careers, with the result that all the people studying for the most well-paid jobs are men.

To achieve equality we have to reject the feminist framing of all gender roles as oppression of women by a sinister Patriarchy and instead recognize that men are disadvantaged in many ways, including work and family.

If society is serious about destroying gender roles we must:

• Demand equal treatment in the family courts so men get equal custody, and sole custody is only give in exceptional cases;
• Make sure that child support is only paid in these exceptional cases;
• Make sure that in these child support is limited to only supporting the child, by using food vouchers and receipts.
• Remove all laws that still say men have to support women.

If these are implemented then we can expect to see the ‘pay gap’ disappear, equal numbers of female CEOs, engineers etc, and equal numbers of women studying STEM subjects.

Further reading

Chapter 3 of The Privileged Sex by Martin van Creveld covers most of the same material.

Moms who cut back at work are happier is an overview of survey data about women with children and work.

Survey on attitudes towards women with young children working, and mothers’ opinions.

A good resource on the tradition of ‘coverture’, while still written from a gynocentric perspective, it busts a few feminists myths (e.g. Married women were allowed to own their own property independently of their husbands, despite feminists’ (and Wikipedia’s) claims to the contrary)

Some relevant quotes

“Wives’ inability to make financial transactions in their own name also prevented them from being sued and therefore imprisoned for debt.”

“The law of agency, which permitted a wife to be economically active by pledging her husband’s credit for necessaries”

“Christine Churches in her analysis of the transfer of women’s real property held
by customary tenure between 1660 and 1750 in Whitehaven finds that women handled their assets with expertise, indicating that even before inheriting they had not been excluded from the world of business by their fathers and husbands'”

Men as beasts of burden is a similar perspective to this post, with fewer citations, although the figures in this post back up his argument.

This is a summary of the EU use-of-time research referenced above.

“Feminists constantly complain that men are not doing their fair share of domestic work. The reality is that most men already do more than their fair share.”

Here is a more readable write-up of this research.

Changes in working time in the last century, it shows the time spent working in the home has also dramatically dropped from 1900.

Updates

2020-05-01: Updated with alewife/brewster statistics

Footnotes

Citations