Depend on Whom?

If women shouldn't have paychecks, how do we continue to eat and live indoors?

reYesterday I wrote about this Inez Stepman bilge published at First Things. Her thesis, which she very poorly supports, is that ‘girlbosses’ — women with jobs — are not ‘independent’ but supported by ‘institutions and structures that allegedly liberate women from the patriarchal boot but instead merely redistribute and conceal their dependence.’ What Stepman never explains or discusses is what, exactly, are the alternatives?

The answer is implied from the linked article: husbands. One of her policy recommendations is:

No more preferences for women in hiring and promotion, and no more risk of damaging lawsuits to employers who choose married male employees, whose salaries support their wives’ choices to stay home.

This is the old “family wage” system, never particularly effective, which in theory required employers to pay male employees enough to support a family on one income. The history is complicated, but one principle source is Rerum Novarum, an encyclical issued by Pope Leo XIII, namesake of the current American pope. This was one of the first papal reactions to the Industrial Revolution and is foundational to Catholic social theory. Most of the document is a condemnation of socialism, but a lot of it discusses the obligation to pay men — and only men — enough to support families. That encyclical makes it very clear that the wages belong to the man, who is supposed to use them for everyone’s benefit, but the money is still HIS. “A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father.”

Rerum Novarum clearly states that women don’t have a place in the workforce. It even calls for governments to take action to stop “if in workshops and factories there were danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes.” Late on the Pope states that: “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.” Women are to be restricted to the home, by law if necessary.

I have to be clear and state that I have not found any statement by Stepman related to Rerum Novarum. Her arguments are, however, the same as those presented in 1891 by the guy the current Pope admires.She clearly thinks that, except for her own precious self, women should depend on our husbands if we want to eat and live indoors. So let’s look at some examples:

Larry Summers.

Dominique Pelicot

Pete Hegseth

Mr. Lindy West, whom she obliquely references in the article.

Ex-Congressman Eric Swallwell

Ex-Congressman Tony Gonzalez

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

And no list of awful men would be complete without twice-divorced adulterer Donald John Trump.

That’s a decent bi-partisan list and including all social classes. I didn’t even include the long list of famous men who beat their wives. It is very much not politically correct to say this, but anyone with eyes and ears knows that if given a chance to cheat, a man WILL cheat. Marriage is a great deal for men, but not so much for women. A woman who doesn’t have her own independent income has no choice but to endure this and no recourse whatsoever when it happens.

Let me make a detour here and state that I absolutely believe that domestic labor is absolutely vital. Clean, orderly houses are essential to a decent life. Searching for clean underwear every day is a waste of time that could be used on other, more important things. Cooking is cheaper and healthier and just plain nicer than the outsourced alternatives. Cleaning is extremely boring, but the alternative is learning to live with cockroaches, mold, and dust which I hope all of my readers want to avoid. More than this, however, some traditional women’s tasks are lots of fun. Cooking a fancy meal is an accomplishment! I am an excellent cook and even make a lot of my own preserves. It’s a delightful hobby. Gardening and needlework also provide useful objects or just beautiful ones as well as creative outlets. I will this more later, but just know that I really love cooking and needlepoint and other girl stuff and think those tasks deserve respect. More men need to do these things.

My objection to Stepman and all the other Schlafly-clone hypocrites is that they argue for putting women in an extremely vulnerable position. Either starve or put up with being abused in some way. They know they’re lying because, like Ms. Stepman, they don’t live by their own stated principles.

I do actually think that marriage is worth preserving for lots of reasons. For one thing, loneliness kills. We need more connection in our lives! The problem with the system Stepman wants to impose on every but herself is that it doesn’t actually make marriages stronger unless one things captivity is a good model for human relationships. If we want a world with stronger families, then we need to ensure that both parties are there entirely voluntarily and that each has a way out if things go sideways. Institutions can provide that insurance. Individual people cannot.