The bad:
This story shocked me like I haven't been shocked in a while. I feel so awful for those children that their lives are such chaos that they feel they need to have sex at such a young age, and in front of other people.
The good:
This post from a blog I read regularly made me nod my head pretty fiercely - it's really one of the best posts on feminism that I've seen in a while. I've long felt that one of the essential flaws in what has been classically understood as the "feminist movement" was that they try so hard to be like men. How can we women expect men to respect us if all we do is debase ourselves, deny what we truly are, and try to make ourselves more like men? If we would accept who we are, accept and embrace our femininity, and force men to accept us for what we are instead of trying to prove that we are like men, the feminist movement would have gotten their job done many, many years ago. The "feminists" who think that I, as a proud, celebrated wife and mother, am an embarrassment and hindrance to feminism can straight up bugger off. I'm doing what men cannot. How many career women can say that?
3 months ago
5 comments:
Stacey, a lot of that "housewives are bad" nonsense was part of a very shameful part of feminist history. It was not the "feminist movement." Many early feminist leaders, from the suffragists to Betty Friedan, were wives and mothers who felt that they wanted something else for themselves but were not permitted to have it under a patriarchal system. Thanks to the feminist movement, you can CHOOSE to be a housewife rather than being FORCED to be one. That's feminism.
You chose a life path that many would not but that doesn't make your choice anti-feminist nor does it make you oppressed.
On the other hand, the choice to be an educated professional (the one I made) does not make me any less a woman. We all know that I am NATURALLY less feminine than most, but I'm not trying to be a man or like men. I simply am what I am and don't think our society should set up some artificial bullsh*t rules about what I HAVE to be or do simply because I happen to own a vagina. Just like I don't think our society should create artificial, bullsh*t rules for men just because they happen to have yucky blobs of flesh hanging between their legs. (haha) That is feminism, the freedom to choose what it means for you as an individual to be a man or woman and to pursue what you want out of life without artificial bullsh*t rules about how you should dress, act, live, work, feel, etc.
History? No. It seems like everywhere I look, some angry chick is demeaning my choice to exclusively take care of my husband and my son. I saw a lobbyist on Good Morning America a couple of weeks ago that say it's great that I made the choice I did, but I could be doing so much more for the sake of feminism. That makes so little sense that it blows my mind.
They especially hate the fact that I am a Christian housewife who submits (...mostly) to my husband - they think that my sole mission in life is the old barefoot and pregnant adage. They can seriously get over themselves.
And what I mean by making themselves more like men is ignoring the biological imperative within the majority of women to settle down and procreate. Women are constantly suppressing their desires to have children in order to get ahead in the career world, or aborting their children, so they can be more unencumbered like men are. Instead of pushing for more mom-friendly environments, women are simply avoiding having children so they can get ahead... Then they're having children in their 40's, 50's, even 60's - DANGEROUS times to have children, for both the mom and the child - because they didn't want to have to put their careers on hold or take lower positions to be moms. That's artificial bullsh*t.
Melinda, before handing the antediluvian feminist movement the brass ring for liberating women, can you specify what you refer to by the "patriarchal system" that was "forcing" women to be housewives? Were they being forced by laws to be housewives or by social expectations and economic necessity?
Both, Drew. Remember, with limited exceptions, women were not permitted to attend universities or gain employment in most fields. Women were not considered separate legal persons under the law until well into the twentieth century. They were considered "property" of their fathers and husbands. Women couldn't vote, own property, have banking accounts, or testify in court. Nor could they charge their husbands with domestic violence or rape, since the law granted him ownership of her body and the right to "discipline" or use her at his discretion. (My aunt's deed on her first home, which she paid off herself after being widowed, lists her as merely part of her husband's household under the "lord and master" laws.)
Poor women worked in limited fields out of economic necessity. Rich women were permitted the level of education needed to be a good hostess for their husband's parties. The majority of women were consigned to housewifery by both the law and social custom, being deprived even a high school education in many cases.
The single income household was more economically feasible in the early and mid twentieth century than it is today. Since even most middle class people could then afford maids and nannies, housewifery was hardly an economic necessity then. Once children came of school age, it was even less of an economic necessity.
As for the feminist movement, I was referring (as Stacey had in her post) to the leaders of the movement--leading feminist intellectuals and organization policies. The movement has always been very fractured with a variety of views represented, however, in the 80's, so-called "radical" feminists took over briefly. This is the "embarassing" part of our "history" to which I was referring.
I don't think you can take one group's opinion (especially those of young, foolish women) to represent all of feminism any more than we could, say, declare that Fred Phelps and his slobbering, vile-spewing lot represent all Christianity.
As I said, I don't think Stacey's decision is anti-feminist or any of that b.s. I simply think that those who make the opposite decision have the right to do so and should not be condemned as trying to be men or stepping out of their "natural" place as women.
For example, if you and Stacey's position were reversed and she was making far more money than you could, I would think no less of either you or her if you'd decided that you would be a househusband while she worked. Just because she had to be the one to give birth doesn't mean she had to be the one to provide the day to day childcare. I've known couples who made that decision and I respect them for doing what they could to provide what they deemed the best life possible for their children.
Each individual must determine their lives based on their individual abilities, circumstances, values, wishes, etc. Condemning someone simply because their life choices are different from your own is foolish and self-righteous nonsense.
I don't know Melinda personally, but I think the last statement of her comment sums up most of what I believe about modern society: condemning others for their "other-ness" is foolish, narrow-minded and self-righteous. I'm attempting to get my doctorate, married to a man whose family would much rather I stayed at home and produced (speedily) their first Pesci grandchild. My husband and I realize that to have that life right now would be selfish and unfair to any child. Who's right? No one can judge anyone else's life, and I think if the feminist movement wants to tell me that I shouldn't want to have kids while being a doctoral student, they can piss off. But like all things, wanting and doing are two separate issues. I think you're great for staying home with Ace. It's what I hope to do for my kids.
Post a Comment