one of the founding principles of second-wave feminism is that the work of a housewife (and, by extension, a mother) is meaningless, demeaning, stifling, and utterly undesireable; therefore, no woman should be a housewife. if a woman decides to be a housewife anyway, despite the unmitigated discouragement, she is wasting her life and must be a lazy, brainless leech.
that is the party line espoused and preached by the leading members of the movement, not just fringe extremist cuckoos. individual feminists, just like all people in all things, adhere to or stray from it as they are wont. I am not addressing all individuals who identify themselves as feminists, but rather the movement itself.
feminism is about expanding choices for women as long as they are the "approved" choices of the movement's elite. will feminists ever rally 'round the cry that NOT having sex (other than rape) is ALSO ok for girls and women? it is to laugh. will they ever encourage more women to seek out alternative lifestyles of perpetual virginity and service through community living and prayer? permit me to laugh even harder. these are non-acceptable choices. it is the same with housework and motherhood; children can be status-symbol accessories, perhaps alternative pets or projects, but a woman dare not consider them her calling in life and choose working in the home - that is, her own home - as a permanent JOB. if she does, feminists like Gloria Feldt (most recently) with give them a blistering earful about how they're ruining things for all the other women in the country. (http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/where-is-the-female-steve-jobs/)
second-wave feminism presents as its highest goal the idea that a woman should obtain as much power, wealth, and sex as humanly possible, and that NOTHING should give her the slightest pause in her pursuit. anything less is inferior and anything different is intolerable. if you think this is wrong, you should examine how leading second-wave feminists present themselves, and what rhetoric they employ in the public square.
that is the party line espoused and preached by the leading members of the movement, not just fringe extremist cuckoos. individual feminists, just like all people in all things, adhere to or stray from it as they are wont. I am not addressing all individuals who identify themselves as feminists, but rather the movement itself.
feminism is about expanding choices for women as long as they are the "approved" choices of the movement's elite. will feminists ever rally 'round the cry that NOT having sex (other than rape) is ALSO ok for girls and women? it is to laugh. will they ever encourage more women to seek out alternative lifestyles of perpetual virginity and service through community living and prayer? permit me to laugh even harder. these are non-acceptable choices. it is the same with housework and motherhood; children can be status-symbol accessories, perhaps alternative pets or projects, but a woman dare not consider them her calling in life and choose working in the home - that is, her own home - as a permanent JOB. if she does, feminists like Gloria Feldt (most recently) with give them a blistering earful about how they're ruining things for all the other women in the country. (http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/where-is-the-female-steve-jobs/)
second-wave feminism presents as its highest goal the idea that a woman should obtain as much power, wealth, and sex as humanly possible, and that NOTHING should give her the slightest pause in her pursuit. anything less is inferior and anything different is intolerable. if you think this is wrong, you should examine how leading second-wave feminists present themselves, and what rhetoric they employ in the public square.
=^.^=
Reply
Leave a comment