Aww, it’s so cute to watch the lovely feminist ladies at Jezebel try to make sense of the housewives profiled in New York Magazine who value men and babies more than money and cubicles. How can this be?
First up, we get class snarkiness. Why, one of those ladies is rich and she lives in Manhattan, of all places! I wonder which part of New York Magazine led them to believe that women in Wyoming would be profiled? Gosh, now that is a mystery.
“I’m really grateful that my husband and I have fallen into traditional gender roles without conflict”, says Patricia Ireland, one of the housewives interviewed. You know, those traditional gender roles that lead to a more satisfying sex life, greater wealth and just general overall happiness.
My goodness! Why would any woman choose that? Jezebel twists herself into a big knot trying to deny that there is some biological imperative for women to WANT to be at home with their small children. No, no, no. Gender and gender roles are 100% socially constructed. The only reason women prefer to be in the company of children is socialization. It’s a nefarious plot of the patriarchy to ensure that women are actually happy and fulfilled denied the opportunity to pay someone else (another woman, usually) to raise her children while she files papers or works as support staff or takes care of other people for less money than her husband earns.
I find it interesting that the MORE intelligent a woman is, the MORE educated she is, the MORE likely she is to be at home with her small children.
Know why that is?
Because those women dodged the bullet previous generations of women aimed straight at them in an effort to shatter a social structure that has delivered incalculable luxuries and technologies and privileges and protections and comforts. Everything from antibiotics to iPhones, from flushing toilets to push-up bras has been invented by men, and those older ladies were pissed to the hell, neglecting to recall that all of those men had MOTHERS who made it possible for their genius to shine.
See, feminism is all about choice. Women should have all the same choices as men, at the same time. Except two:
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
Hmm. The two things women are really good at. The two oldest professions.
The two women interviewed by New York Magazines identify as feminists themselves. Now how’s that for some cognitive dissonance? No, you can’t be a housewife AND a feminist. That’s like being a creationist AND believing in evolution. The whole point of the one is to deny the other.
What is the rationale behind the vitriol against housewives at Jezebel and across other feminist websites? I think they are responding to a change in the cultural tides, and one that does not bode well for the theory of female supremacy. More and more young women can see the truth, that a woman’s highest calling is caring for her own children under the protection of the children’s father.
The problem isn’t, and never has been, women’s ambitions to work outside the home. The problem has been the uncritical acceptance of a male timeline to accomplish those goals.
Most women won’t work at anything particularly productive or useful and our society will hardly crumble without their epic levels of artistic or scientific or technological genius.
And that’s okay. There is nothing wrong with women having a different sort of genius. The problem comes in denying that difference in service to an ideology when the facts and the biological realities are so very different.
Young women feel torn that their most heartfelt desires are for a relationship with a man, and they live in a culture that tells them they should feel guilty to long for husbands and children more than accolades (which will be few and far between) and accomplishments (also pretty scant).
Contrary to what a lot of readers seem to think, I think women are smart and capable and assertive and perfectly adept of sorting through the conflicting messages the dominant culture sends them, and they seem to be doing just that, in ever increasing numbers. There are two giant problems that need to be addressed before we will see the re-emergence of the nuclear family as the primary social unit.
Women first need to throw off the shackles of an ideology that insists they are exactly equal to men and whenever they aren’t (hello faculty of engineering) it must be the fault of men. That kind of thinking denies reality and encourages women to see themselves as perpetual victims, and there is nothing quite like the self-fulfilling prophesy of the victimhood mentality.
Remember all those second wave feminists who didn’t need any bicycles and who hated babies? Gloria Steinem? Germaine Greer? Ring a bell? Yeah. Married and throwing cash at IVF clinics in a futile bid to have those hated babies now. Victims of their own misguided and utterly false beliefs about the importance of men and children and relationships and families and love.
Don’t make that mistake, ladies. You’ll regret it. We need a new celebration of the fact that women are not better than men, nor worse: we are different. That’s not just okay, it’s wonderful!
The second major problem we need to address is that there are now almost ZERO incentives or rewards for men to support a wife at home with children. Why should they work long and hard to provide all the material comforts of life to women, only to have those women walk away with all the spoils AND the children too, in divorce? Marriage has turned into a rotten deal for men.
Now that women are starting to see that, oh, oops, marriage and being a stay at home mother is actually a super-sweet deal, it’s time to start sweetening the deal for men, too. That will take some concerted political effort, since so much of the bitterness for men is actually enshrined in law. Divorce, custody and spousal support laws all have to change. The importance of fatherhood needs to be openly celebrated and acknowledged.
That won’t be easy. But it’s very necessary.
The first thing we need to do is ignore the mewlings of liberal feminists with their kitchen-bitch husbands and their kids being raised by some poor woman while they moan about how unfair and difficult their lives are.
Most of those women would be at home, too, but they “have to” work. Because they made crappy choices. They believed the lies. And now it’s just sour fucking grapes.
Being angry at women who made sure they DID have choices is not the answer. If you want to be angry, be angry at the women who don’t think you should have the choice at all.
You don’t actually need Simone’s authorization to do anything. But if you want to be at home raising your own children, you will need a man who is willing to support you.
Just what feminists hate. That’s okay. I hate them right back. You should, too.
Lots of love,