Do I think they were right in retaliating? No. Do I think the actions perpetuated prior to the feminist movement were ok? No. But I strongly believe two wrongs (or three wrongs or four wrongs) do NOT make a right.
I often hear men from the MRA side bemoaning the loss of the 1950's era. "Those good old days" when fathers were looked up to as the backbone of the family, strong and respected. Mr. Cleaver vs Homer (the differences in address was done on purpose). One deserves respect while the other, our ridicule. Men were seen as strong and upstanding citizens, hard workers, and disciplined fathers and husbands.
Women? They were respectful, modest, demure, wonderful cooks and housekeepers, good mothers, and lovely wives.
They were also belittled (politics is too complex for your brain) or convinced that what they do at home all day is absolutely nothing. You remember that 1950's article on a good wife? You know the one that says to have dinner ready when he walks in the door (commendable), be napped (I like this), and refresh yourself with powdering your nose so you look well rested and fresh when he comes home (nice, though a bit unrealistic)? Yeah - the article also says to give him space, let him relax, and take a load off because he's been working all day. And she hasn't? So she doesn't deserve to take a load off?
No wonder women became so angry. But instead of standing up for what they do, they believed that housework and raising children is a lazy and useless job - so they all fought for the right to leave the home and enter the workforce. They did in the 30's and they helped get us out of the depression and supplied many goods to our men fighting in Europe and the Pacific. It was valuable then, so why not now? So they fought and they won and now rarely does a woman stay home and cook, clean, look after children, and make herself presentable and refreshed for her husband - besides, it was useless work anyway.
And now men lament that they don't do that anymore. But still, they are harsh in their criticism of the work done at home. They belittle the value of that work - and in so doing, belittle the value of the woman doing that work.
To these men, women still appear to be worth nothing. They still think that the place for a woman is in the home and that that position is worthless. Nevermind that they miss it and see a need for it (rendering it worthwhile) but they would never admit to this.
They are just as wrong.
Better to live in the wilderness than with an angry and contentious woman.
Try and find one that isn't either of these.
So in conclusion, what do I hate most? I hate the sin that entered this world and made us so angry with eachother to the point that we are unable to look to God for answers and obey his laws even when those around us do not.
9 comments:
Hi Christina,
I was wondering, how did you find my blog? =) I've been trying to get it listed on google search for a few days now. No luck yet.
On a side note, I was thinking about something I read about in the past. I don't have any evidence to back up this statement, but I bring it up as something to think about.
Did women entering the workplace have less to do with desire than with necessity?
Is it possible that women entered the workplace en masse during World War II to ensure that we would win? Is it possible that women continued to be in the workplace in great numbers due to the fact that the then Soviet Union, which some considered our greatest rival at the time, had a policy that required women to work? I think I read somewhere that if anyone, whether man or woman, did not work in the Soviet Union, they would be sent to jail. I read that there were a few exceptions to this rule, such as the wives of those in high levels of authority.
I write this not to spark chaos, but an orderly discussion.
"They were also belittled (politics is too complex for your brain)...."
Coddled, is more like it. No one ever said women were stupid, enough of us have seen them at work when they want to destroy a man's life to know they aren't stupid.
But really, how many women do you know who are more interested in political philosophies than beauty pageants? Let's not talk about the exceptions, let's talk about the rule.
"....or convinced that what they do at home all day is absolutely nothing."
No one said that either. Most men believed at the time that a woman was indispensable for managing a household properly. We now know better. And truthfully, compared to working 16 hours a day in a coal mine or 12 hours on a garbage truck, vacuuming the floor and doing the dishes IS nothing,in terms of physical exertion. It can be demonstrated mathematically that this is the case.
"Yeah - the article also says to give him space, let him relax, and take a load off because he's been working all day. And she hasn't? So she doesn't deserve to take a load off?"
I think that part was more about not hounding the man for details about his day or nagging him to take out the trash. I don't know about women, but the first thing I want to do when I get home from work is not to talk about all the tedious mindnumbing crap I just escaped from.
How many men do you know who do this to women?
"No wonder women became so angry."
Maybe they were angry in the first place. Maybe women don't need a reason to become angry.I'm not saying that's the case, but I think we should explore all the possibilities before saying "It's men's fault!",we do that enough already.
"So they fought and they won and now rarely does a woman stay home and cook, clean, look after children, and make herself presentable and refreshed for her husband - besides, it was useless work anyway."
Who did they fight? In every fight, there is someone fighting and the person they are fighting against. Who did women fight against? Who were all the powerful people who did not want women to have these things?
Do you ever stop to think about the fact that there is no mention of any resistance to "women's fight for equality"? Don't you think that's just a tad bit odd? When men fight against someone, that enemy goes down in history. "The Axis of Evil", "The Red Menace". But there's not even a titter about who women had to fight to overturn "thousands of years of oppression"? Come on, I may have been born, but I wasn't born last night.
"To these men, women still appear to be worth nothing."
And why should it be otherwise, these women did indeed campaign to have lowered standards for women in everything,education,job qualifications,they give women affirmative action,title IX, small business loans, all broadcasting the message loud and clear that women are inferior. Women did that to themselves.
Men don't respect someone who barges into their space proclaiming that they are just as good, if not better, at doing what the men are and then ask for lowered standards so they can do the same thing. That is dishonorable, and men have a built-in disrespect for cheaters.
If women simply admitted that they weren't as good at some things as men are, or just bowed out entirely, the amount of respect men had for them would increase overnight.
There is no shame in admitting defeat at the hands of someone superior,especially for a woman, whose social status is not tied up in such things anyway.
Coddled, is more like it. No one ever said women were stupid
Yes, they did. Regrettably, couldn't find the quote, but I know it had been said at one point in history that women were incapable of rational thought and therefore do not belong in schools.
No one said [housework isn't work] either.
No one outright said it, but it is implied in that 1950's housewife article floating around the internet (from an actual magazine in the 50's)
I think that part was more about not hounding the man for details about his day or nagging him to take out the trash. I don't know about women, but the first thing I want to do when I get home from work is not to talk about all the tedious mindnumbing crap I just escaped from.
How many men do you know who do this to women?
When my husband gets home (specifically on a rough day), I just want to hide from my son and scream into a pillow.
But I'm not allowed because my husband just had a long day at work and doesn't want to deal with the child I'm trying to escape for a little bit.
Maybe they were angry in the first place. Maybe women don't need a reason to become angry.I'm not saying that's the case, but I think we should explore all the possibilities before saying "It's men's fault!",we do that enough already.
I don't think I ever said it was men's fault. I targeted a group of men specifically in my post - primarily the ones that are likely to echo the quote I left up - but I wrote this because of a group of men who believed women don't do anything at home.
Do you ever stop to think about the fact that there is no mention of any resistance to "women's fight for equality"?
Do you have any idea who you are arguing with? I'm angry with Feminist women who belittled their work so much that they thought it was worthless and they wanted to do something they thought was worthwhile.
I'm angry with the men who come home and refuse to acknowledge their wives hard work or to affirm them in staying at home (NOT all men. THE men)
Women were fighting against a system that made it impossible for them to get jobs outside of the home. Whoever was defending that system, they fought against - including other women who supported that system.
There did exist, whether you care to admit it or not, a system where women were not valuable if they were without a husband and child. You earned the title Old Maid. And granted, charities and volunteer work became their primary domain, they weren't allowed to work to provide for themselves.
I am not a supporter of many of the things that Feminism has brought about. I fight and rail against them as much as you do - only I care to keep the fight against THEM and not against ALL women. Not ALL women wanted what Feminism brought. Most of the inequalities suffered by women were of their own mental construct - like staying at home being worthless and unappreciated - though I argue that one has been largely re-enforced by lack of acknowledgement by husbands.
Jane Austen wanted nothing more to marry and have children. But if those were not in the cards for her, she did not want to be a backseat driver in the world of men. She wanted to make a difference in people's lives. And so she wrote. And she is forever known for being one of the first Female novelists. So when marriage and motherhood did not come to her, she did not feel worthless - she felt worthwhile.
And I think many women fought for that ability.
Uh, Christina, contrary to popular misconception, women have ALWAYS worked! It was just understood by society that the vast majority of women would want to marry, have kids, and have homes. Society was organized with that in mind.
"There did exist, whether you care to admit it or not, a system where women were not valuable if they were without a husband and child."
Well,cry me a frickin' river and get me a violin so I can play "My Heart Bleeds For You".
Do you have ANY conception of what it takes for a man to be considered "valuable"? Any idea at all?
The standard is set so high that 85-90% of ALL men will be considered worthless.
If I could be considered as valuable by having a child and a spouse as I would by becoming a rock star or the President of The United States, I think I'd consider that a blessing.
As it is, because I am an average male, my only value to society is as cannon fodder, and that's iffy. If the war is considered unpopular at some point, people will be spitting on my grave instead of praising me, whereas a woman is considered valuable just for having a vaginny-gine.
That's real fair.
"You earned the title Old Maid."
That's still better than the stigma of homosexuality that surrounded unmarried men.
"I am not a supporter of many of the things that Feminism has brought about. I fight and rail against them as much as you do - only I care to keep the fight against THEM and not against ALL women."
I'm not fighting anyone. I'm simply pointing out what should be obvious to everyone. It's not likely the 50's were a Holocaust for women like feminists said, and I KNOW FOR CERTAIN that life isn't a gravy train for all men at all women's expense, like feminists said and most women, yourself included, apparently believe.
See, that's the part I can't tolerate. If I were to fight over something, that would be it, because that concept is so retarded that I feel that anyone who believes in it should have their skull cracked in.
Do you ladies think we LIKE giving you all the lifeboats when a ship goes down? Have you considered that fact that WE DON'T WANT TO DIE EITHER? Are you able to appreciate the fact that a man's life has just as much value as yours does?
We aren't taking anything from YOU, you are taking something from US. Our money, our time and energy, and yes, even today, when it's called for you even take our lives. And then you turn around and spit on us and call us "oppressors", or worse, claim that we OWE YOU. I'm sorry life is tough for you,ladies, I really am. But what you face is in no way comparable to growing up KNOWING, not just believing, but KNOWING that at some point in your life you may be called on to die for someone else.
How do you think YOU'D feel if you thought your life was worthless,or not worth as much as someone else's?
Part 1.
"There did exist, whether you care to admit it or not, a system where women were not valuable if they were without a husband and child."
Well,cry me a frickin' river and get me a violin so I can play "My Heart Bleeds For You".
Do you have ANY conception of what it takes for a man to be considered "valuable"? Any idea at all?
The standard is set so high that 85-90% of ALL men will be considered worthless.
If I could be considered as valuable by having a child and a spouse as I would by becoming a rock star or the President of The United States, I think I'd consider that a blessing.
As it is, because I am an average male, my only value to society is as cannon fodder, and that's iffy. If the war is considered unpopular at some point, people will be spitting on my grave instead of praising me, whereas a woman is considered valuable just for having a vaginny-gine.
That's real fair.
"You earned the title Old Maid."
That's still better than the stigma of homosexuality that surrounded unmarried men.
"I am not a supporter of many of the things that Feminism has brought about. I fight and rail against them as much as you do - only I care to keep the fight against THEM and not against ALL women."
I'm not fighting anyone. I'm simply pointing out what should be obvious to everyone. It's not likely the 50's were a Holocaust for women like feminists said, and I KNOW FOR CERTAIN that life isn't a gravy train for all men at all women's expense, like feminists said and most women, yourself included, apparently believe.
See, that's the part I can't tolerate. If I were to fight over something, that would be it, because that concept is so retarded that I feel that anyone who believes in it should have their skull cracked in.
Do you ladies think we LIKE giving you all the lifeboats when a ship goes down? Have you considered that fact that WE DON'T WANT TO DIE EITHER? Are you able to appreciate the fact that a man's life has just as much value as yours does?
Part 1
We aren't taking anything from YOU, you are taking something from US. Our money, our time and energy, and yes, even today, when it's called for you even take our lives. And then you turn around and spit on us and call us "oppressors", or worse, claim that we OWE YOU. I'm sorry life is tough for you,ladies, I really am. But what you face is in no way comparable to growing up KNOWING, not just believing, but KNOWING that at some point in your life you may be called on to die for someone else.
How do you think YOU'D feel if you thought your life was worthless,or not worth as much as someone else's?
"Not ALL women wanted what Feminism brought. Most of the inequalities suffered by women were of their own mental construct - like staying at home being worthless and unappreciated - though I argue that one has been largely re-enforced by lack of acknowledgement by husbands."
Why do you insist on blaming men? I agree a man should appreciate a woman's contributions. I would NEVER dispute that. I draw the line,however, on asking men to "acknowledge" those contributions, which I know in your mind refers to praise and gifts heaped on women for doing a job that a man could easily do himself if he lived in a smaller place, such as an apartment, rather than the mini-mansions that women demand for marital homes.
That's going too far.
Unless it's materialism or bald egoism driving your demand for "acknowledgement",then a woman should be satisfied knowing that a man is appreciative,and his saying so should be sufficient to demonstrate that fact.
"Jane Austen wanted nothing more to marry and have children. But if those were not in the cards for her, she did not want to be a backseat driver in the world of men."
You just said it right there. "The world of men". That's a pretty good description for the civilized world we live in. It was conceptualized,designed,built, protected, bought and paid for by men. Not just with their time, dignity or money, but with their blood.
What right does a woman have to be a front seat driver in the "world of men"?
That would be like me walking into,say, WalMart, and demanding an influence over their corporate practices as a non-shareholder.
Every man is a shareholder in society,that share is our actual lives being laid on the line. We bought that right with our LIVES.
A woman could easily "buy a share" by being obligated to bear children. It wouldn't be the same,as she's buying the share with someone else's life, but a life is a life.
Women,however, will never be obligated to bear children, and social ostracization is far from government-enforced coercion.
They also refuse to give up their lives for men and children.
Women do not want to trade ANYTHING for these "rights" they demand, which are not really rights, but, as I have demonstrated, privileges bought with blood.
Part 2
"She wanted to make a difference in people's lives."
Most men don't "make a difference in people's lives",i.e. receive tons of positive attention and hero worship either. If she really wanted to "make a difference" caring for her family, a husband and children or just elderly parents is sufficient. However, we both know that this is a thankless job and you don't receive a bunch of sycophantic praise for it, which is the real motivation behind most people's desire to "help others". It is simply another way for selfish people to stroke their egos.
"And so she wrote. And she is forever known for being one of the first Female novelists. So when marriage and motherhood did not come to her, she did not feel worthless - she felt worthwhile."
I doubt it. Let me tell you a little secret. When you die, you aren't thinking about all your accomplishments and how fulfilled you are. What you're thinking about is how alone you are.
In the end, no amount of money or sycophantic praise can keep you warm. There's only you, and the darkness creeping in.
"And I think many women fought for that ability."
Women didn't "fight for" anything, they asked for it, and then men gave it to them,just like all the other obligation-free "rights" we have given women. Men fought,as in "with guns", for the right to establish a democratic society here where it would even be possible for women to have these things. Women have never fought for anything.
How can you even call it "a fight"? Women threw a hissy fit like spoiled little babies until men gave them what they wanted. So, women get what they want (only to find they don't want it later),men get nothing in return, everybody's unhappy.
What a world, huh?
Part 2
I draw the line,however, on asking men to "acknowledge" those contributions, which I know in your mind refers to praise and gifts heaped on women for doing a job that a man could easily do himself if he lived in a smaller place, such as an apartment, rather than the mini-mansions that women demand for marital homes
Again, Anon, you have no clue who I am and what i think "Acknowledgement" is.
Before you attack me, figure it out.
I live in a nice suburban home because my husband wanted a new home and not an old one (like I did). My husband and I shared a very small one-bedroom apartment before we moved here with furniture from two apartments squeezed into one room - all that with me about to burst with a baby. I drive an '08 Mustang instead of a used Honda or Nissan (or my grandmother's '96 oldsmobile) because my husband said it was probably the only time I could get my dream car (before we found out I was pregnant).
Sure, i would love to get flowers occassionally - but not necessary. And I think that's probably the only thing I've ever wished for besides a cross necklace that I got from HIM and not my dad or an ex-boyfriend.
Yeah, I wear a big diamond engagement ring - but that's because HE bought it for me - and my first reaction was "it's huge" (every guy loves to hear that, right?). I didn't ask for it. In fact, I had made it clear that I preferred small.
I wanted to major in History and pack up a suitcase and head off to Africa or Israel and live in a shack - my FATHER made me major in Mathematics because it made more money.
Oh hell yeah - I'm materialistic, all right.
Anon, I'm about to stop publishing your comments. I've had enough of it. MarkyMark is the only other one that got this close to me blocking his comments. Before you write one more, you had better read my blog and stop jumping to conclusions or making assumptions because I have a vaginny-gine.
Post a Comment