Less confusing, that's what.
For starters, and in light of the recent yearly anniversary of International Women's Day, why is it that I am supposed to be impressed by women who do what men do? Why should that, in and of itself, impress me?
In other words, aren't those women just copying men if they are doing what they see men do, thereby blindly following men's examples? Why should that automatically be seen as rational thought or intelligent, if all that is being done is copying another without applying one's own thinking?
For Gozer's sake, if all the men in the world jumped off a bridge, would women prove themselves as equals by doing that, too? Is that what women mean when they talk about being liberated and equal to man -- following without thinking? I highly suspect, based on the evidence I've seen, that that is the case for some.
And yet, if a woman does something that a man cannot do, or even other women cannot do, such as carrying life and giving birth, it is not necessarily seen by liberated women as a good thing; unless perhaps it is done as a career move, either for the sake of business or societal standing.
I mean, is there any woman with a career and a healthy 401(k) or pension who doesn't foam at the mouth over Michelle Duggar for doing what a woman with a career can't seem to do -- be a mom and happily enjoy it in spite of its imperfections without whining about it to others?
My own empirical evidence is in all the testimony of housewives I took down on the record, who often stated that they were 'just' a housewife when describing what they do. 'Just.' You know, 'just'; as in, they just raise human beings that will contribute to the makeup of society and the world in general after conceiving, carrying, and pushing new life out of their bodies. You know, nothing miraculous or important; just a housewife. Is my sarcasm coming through yet?
The thing is, where do they get the mentality that what they do is not important: maybe their husbands, maybe their friends, or maybe modern society's message that a working woman is the only kind of woman to be?
Is this what women's lib has created: Disgust from women, by women, and for women for what is their inherent role as females -- to be caring, nurturing humans who don't have to conquer the world with a pantsuit and a college degree?
Simply imagine how much the world changes for a baby every time its diaper gets changed by someone who loves it. Sure, it's not saving the world from evil, yet it is monumentally pivotal in a baby's world. Or imagine how much better it makes the world for a man when he comes home to a clean castle and a caring companion; but I digress.
Perhaps being born in post-women's lib America has created all of my confusion, for I do not know from experience what it is like to live not being viewed as man's equal, at least in the eyes of the law. And perhaps that is why I am questioning it now after having the double standard shoved into my head my whole life; that I should do what men do because they are men and I am not; thus, I must do what they do, on top of doing what they can't do.
Wait. Wouldn't that mean women's lib essentially doubled the workload for women, not to mention the standards? Pardon me for not celebrating the victory I do not see.
I mean, I can understand the victory of getting to work until the mandated age of retirement, and paying taxes for the honor of working for someone else, and paying more taxes by working for myself, and handing my theoretical kid off to strangers to raise while I get taxed for working, plus getting to do it all while my uterus sheds life and provides debilitating cramps every month.
Actually, maybe I don't understand the victory and someone should explain it to me.
For everything she does, let her know
she's the Best. Housewife. Ever.
Classic White Coffee Mug @ ProseAndPix
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
For more unpopular opinions,
check out my new book: