The Meaning of Candace Owens Making Her Husband a Sandwich

I am in favor of patriarchy and I am in favor of traditional gender roles, I am in favor of the 1950s family model of the wife staying at home with the kids while the man goes off to work to make the money.

Candace Owens made an interesting tweet on March 16, 2021 where she stated:

“Making my husband a sandwich is not submissive. Cooking for your family is not submissive. Yes, a good woman should take care of her family. And yes, a good man does the same.”

Traditional gender roles can be summarized as the man takes care of the money and the woman takes care of the household and the children; making sandwiches and cooking in general being part of taking care of the household at home, not in an external workplace like the man does.  Patriarchy is based on traditional gender roles, patriarchy leads to traditional gender roles.  Patriarchy is good because traditional gender roles are good.

The traditional gender role is that the man takes care of the woman and in turn the woman takes care of the children because the woman is enabled to take care of the children by herself being taken care of by the man first.  In this way both the man and the woman invest in the children.

Candace Owens is proclaiming that “making my husband a sandwich is not submissive.”  By this Candace seems to be saying that she is choosing to be caring for her husband and for her family in the form of food preparation as an expression of being a good mother and a good wife, not because she is “made to” by her husband.

Is it possible for a man to “choose” to be a traditional man?  Is it possible for a woman to “choose” to be a traditional woman?  Can you have a traditional family life based on the free choice that the man and woman have made together to work together as a traditional couple?  I think this is basically what Candace Owens is claiming; that she is simply choosing to be virtuous according to the traditional model of how a wife behaves towards her husband; that such behavior towards her husband does not imply that she is submitting to her husband because she chooses the traditional role she is taking on.

There is something that should be kept in mind here however; traditional relationships in the past traditionally were not based on the mutual choice of the man and the woman involved.  It is not “traditional” to CHOOSE to be traditional; instead it was a social expectation, a religious command or a religious duty, and even in certain ways a legal requirement; this being true for both men and women, both men and women facing social and legal pressures to act according to the traditional role of their sex.  Choosing to be a traditional man or a traditional woman is an oxymoron; you do not choose to be a traditional man or a traditional woman, you have a duty to fulfill your role as a man or a woman according to the traditional model of what it means to be a man or a woman.

Yes, a man can choose to be a breadwinner and financially support his wife and the wife can in turn choose to be a stay at home mother and keeper of the household but this should be done as a matter of duty, not as a matter of preference.  Being traditional is idealistic, it is not selfish or based on calculated self-interest maximization.

The concept of self-chosen partnership style that the man and woman mutually agree on is a feminist gender equality construct.  There is then this idea that a traditional gender relationship can be one choice among many that a particular couple might choose for themselves; the idea of creating a traditional relationship under the overall feminist gender equality starting principle of equality between the man and the woman and the man and the woman choosing together what kind of relationship they will have with each other.  This is actually the primary way that traditional relationships are viewed by the wider feminist culture, as simply a choice a particular couple might make for themselves.

A traditional relationship based on mutual choice of the man and the woman together however is not a traditional relationship as it does not have the underlying foundation and the basic first principles that a truly traditional relationship has.  A truly traditional relationship is not based on the mutual choice of the man and the woman together, it is based on the man successfully asserting his dominance over the woman that he wants.  The purpose of the truly traditional relationship is then to serve God or to be the vehicle by which the man lives out his romantic purpose as a man and the woman lives out her romantic purpose as a woman.  The man obeys God and then the woman obeys the man based on the man obeying God.

The purpose of a relationship being a traditional relationship is not to serve the man and the woman involved whom prefer a traditional relationship for themselves, the purpose is to better serve the children who will be born into the traditional relationship of their mother and father or to serve some other intended purpose of the marital couple.  A woman functions better as a woman within a traditional framework and a man functions better as a man within a traditional framework; the traditional relationship then enabling the man to function his best as a man and the woman to function her best as a woman in service to others.

Patriarchy is the framework within which traditional gender roles take place; patriarchy dictating to the man the traditional gender role of the man and patriarchy dictating to the woman the traditional gender role of the woman.  Yes, there is indeed a gender hierarchy embedded within patriarchy that patriarchy is based on, namely that the man is dominant over the woman.  Traditional gender roles are then what patriarchy prescribes for men and women; traditional gender roles then having male dominance embedded within them since the traditional gender roles themselves come from male dominance based patriarchy.

So there is the interesting question; if a woman is acting according to a traditional gender role such as Candace Owens making her husband a sandwich is this simply something that Candace Owens is choosing to do according to her own free will implying feminist gender equality or is it something that indicates her submissiveness towards her husband, her engaging in a behavior consistent with the traditional feminine gender role of making food for her family, the traditional feminine gender role itself being submissive?

I would say it is possible that Candace Owens is being feminist, that for her the traditional feminine gender role is just her feminist choice of what she prefers as a woman, and it is also possible that Candace Owens is being patriarchal or truly traditional in that she sees her making a sandwich for her husband as being part of her overall mission to serve her husband according to how her husband wishes to be served.

Now according to what Candace Owens herself said she is proclaiming that her making a sandwich for her husband is just her feminist choice so presumably this is Candace’s internal state of mind regarding the issue.  It would be better if she was making the sandwich according to an overall orientation of submission to her husband but it is what it is.

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Gender Hierarchy, Philosophy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The Meaning of Candace Owens Making Her Husband a Sandwich

  1. I think free will and communication between the couple to choose the kind of relationship they want is better than just fullfiling social expectations. Each person is different, and going against your individuality to fit into a mold is not going to make anyone happy, and will probably end up in resentment, and that doesn’t benefit anyone. My parents are not “traditional”, they share decision making and my mother has a degree in physics and a career on her own right. They’ve been married for 25 years, they still love each other and my sister and I turned out just fine, thank you. We have a great relationship with them and between us, and we are honest and respectful citizens who try to make the world a better place. She is studing Occupational Therapy at University, and I am studying biology, and I have started my own social entrepreneurship projects, one of them related to environmental education.
    Free will is a right we were born with, and one I will treasure. I don’t want a partner, but if I ever have one, I’d much rather create a partnership with him with enables both of us to thrive and be happy together than try to fit into a mold which could make us misserable and resented.
    I am a biologist, I am wired that way, I’ve got that passion within me, and I’m working hard to achieve this dream. To make me fit into the traditional mold of submissive wife, SAHM, you’d have to take parts of my very soul, the ones which make me who I am, away from me, as if you were cutting a cake, and I don’t see how this could be done without making me suffer greatly and resent my partner for it. There’s no relationship I would choose above my identity and free will-If you don’t love me as I am, you don’t love me at all, full stop.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s