Housewives

This blog post is meant as a clarification of my earlier doctrine about marriage, which was written about one year ago, in 2021-01-03.

First, I would like to reiterate the fact that marriage is here conceived of as a heterotelic relationship, or society, constituted for the purpose of producing and raising children.

There are, of course, modern conceptions of marriage which make it, basically, into a version of what I call friendship, i.e., an equal, autotelic relationship. I do believe that it is best for marriages to be constituted between persons who already had a strong friendship, but the relationship which has the purpose of producing children is nevertheless quite distinguishable, and its traditional name is marriage, which I use here without qualms.

Second, I would like to make clearer my opinion that marriages ought to be hierarchical, because they own societal property. Given our culture, it was really foolish of me to mention hierarchical marriage, and to give the reasons for the traditional rule of the man, without making the following point clear; but it was not, in fact, fully clear in my mind at the time when I wrote that post.

I did not mean to support, and do not support, the institution of full-time housewives, i.e., of women doing no other work than staying at home and raising their children. Women should be allowed to do this, of course – contra de Beauvoir[1] – but I do not in any way recommend it.

I do, nevertheless, believe, from my recently-elaborated broader considerations on private property, that societies which own societal property should be hierarchical, and that this includes marriage. But for a marriage to be hierarchical means only that the subordinate party[2] should submit in decisions involving the purpose of the marriage and the employment of its societal property. The head of the marriage is the final decider regarding any property which is owned by the marriage, as a society. No further powers are required by reason to be allotted to him.[3]

Abstract reasoning being indifferent to any further decisions about a marriage, I do not make any hard prescription to married couples regarding how to guide their married lives, beyond the management of societal property.

I will note, however, that it appears from the various facts adduced by Betty Friedan, in her great book The Feminine Mystique, that the office of a full-time housewife is generally detrimental to her well-being, and that modern, civilized women, especially the educated ones, can live happier and ‘more fulfilled’ lives if they pursue other occupations in parallel with their housework.[4]

Rather than any cultural idea of the husband of a housewife, I believe that the necessary practical role of the head of a marriage is best illustrated by Harry Browne’s idea of one parent being the “custodian” of each child, which he advanced in his classic libertarian self-help book, How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World (§21, pp. 238–240). I will quote at length from that, since I think it will be helpful, but I won’t quote the entire relevant passage, to avoid copyright concerns.

Though a child is not a “thing” to be owned, some of the same principles apply to decision-making and custody that apply to property. Someone must make decisions concerning the child; and if there’s a separation, the question of custody will arise.

One of the most difficult problems a child can face is in being subject to conflicting authorities when the parents disagree. He’s put in an unfortunate position when two people whom he loves are claiming authority and telling him to act in two different ways. He knows he has to disappoint one of them when there are disagreements.

How much simpler for everyone concerned if one person has the major responsibility and sets the main plans for the child’s upbringing.

If the parents’ differences of opinion are so great that one couldn’t stand to live with a child raised by the other, they probably shouldn’t have a child—no matter what the arrangement. But if they’re compatible enough to live together harmoniously, the chances are good that one will not object to the methods used by the person who has the main responsibility.

Custody

I think it’s important, then, that it be clearly established before the child is born which parent is the ultimate custodian of the child. That parent will have the final say in decisions concerning the child and will automatically have custody of the child if the parents should separate.

If you think ahead to such a decision, you can see that the woman will realistically control such a question of custody. She has to deliver the child, and she doesn’t have to get pregnant if she doesn’t want to. Also, she can leave any time during the pregnancy and take the unborn child with her. So she will be the natural custodian unless she agrees otherwise.

Any agreement made before the birth can be altered later if both parties agree. In fact, if after the child is old enough to have some conception of the consequences of his choice he chooses the non-custodial parent (and that parent agrees), it’s probably best for all concerned that his choice be honored in the event of a separation of the parents. [...]

Notes

[1] In an interview with Betty Friedan, published in Friedan’s book It Changed My Life (p. 397), Simone de Beauvoir famously said that “no woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children”. To help my readers out, I’ll give a slightly fuller quotation:

de Beauvoir: Why women? That’s the question! Should one consider that the women are doomed to stay at home?

Friedan: I don’t think they should have to. The children should be the equal responsibility of both parents – and of society – but today a great many women have worked only in the home when their children were growing up, and this work has not been valued at even the minimum wage for purposes of Social Security, pensions, and division of property. There could be a voucher system which a woman who chooses to continue her profession or her education and have little children could use to pay for child care. But if she chooses to take care of her own children full time, she would earn the money herself.

de Beauvoir: No, we don’t believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.

[2] Or parties, in the case of polygamy.

[3] Or her, if the woman were the head of a particular marriage.

[4] Addition, 2022-02-19: Catholic obedience to certain papal statements may require a wife to, nevertheless, primarily do housework, though. In particular, the following statements have been brought to my attention:

Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family. As a general principle it may be laid down that a workman ought to have leisure and rest proportionate to the wear and tear of his strength, for waste of strength must be repaired by cessation from hard work. (Rerum Novarum, §42)

In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family. That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. [...] (Quadragesimo Anno, §71)