Yes, feminists, you’ve really gone and done it this time — you’ve destroyed manhood, attacked womanhood, encouraged drug use, raised the teen pregnancy rate, and killed babies. Nice work ladies — clearly, you’ve been effectively multi-tasking.
There was a time when women deserved respect-because we are mothers, because of our natural softness and tender feelings, because we have been the ones who raised up righteous leaders of good nations for centuries now.
This is from the soft, tender, feelings-oriented woman who calls herself the War Chick.
In the sixties, women began taking the easy way out. Why? Because Motherhood is a damned hard thing to do. It is 24/7/365. There is no pay, no immediate gratification, little recognition, and more often than not, no appreciation until you yourself become a mother. When you go to work, you get to dress nicely. You have a schedule that you actually keep. People do what you tell them to do. You get to speak to and with adults, have conversations that have meaning. You get regular breaks, and no one is peeing or spitting up on you, throwing tantrums, breaking your things, or calling Grandma to get his way. And while there is truth to the fact that society has both revered and ridiculed that which comes naturally to women-tenderness-it is women-not men–who have inflicted the most damage.
Those selfish bitches. They should have known their place and continued to dedicate themselves to a vocation that’s unappreciated, unpaid, frustrating, and dirty.
Except, you know, they did — there are still a whole lot of mothers out there, and it’s feminists who are trying to make their lives easier. It’s also feminists who are encouraging men to participate in parenthood, in part to make life a little easier for moms, but also because, contrary to Resa Laru Kirkland’s description, parenthood can also be incredibly fulfilling.
Men have always been in awe of the female form-not just physically, but spiritually and emotionally as well. While they may burst with pride over their strength and snicker at the physical “weakness” of women when compared to men, they hold in that realm of mystical and reverent those attributes of femininity that are not as comfortable within themselves, and they marvel about them in private moments. They reveal this wondering in ways that are at times misunderstood, but nevertheless bespeak of the awe they feel toward the female sex.
My all time favorite saying about the power women possess was revealed by author Samuel Johnson in the 18th century: Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little. Now before feminists start ripping tendons and ligaments with their typical knee-jerk reaction to this example, look again. This is a statement and recognition of the power and strength men recognize within women-power they envy, strength they admire, and tenderness they crave. This is a statement of respect and recognition for women, not belittlement.
It’s not belittlement, you silly little girls. We take your rights away because we envy you. We promise! Seriously! So don’t go on whining about it now, or you’ll get a good hard smack in the face — and there won’t be any legal recourse for it, because you’re my property. Because I envy you!
It is the horrifying trend in our children’s feelings, lives, and behavior. You see, when we began giving into the bullying tactics of the feminist movement that used guilt and “Second Class Status” brainwashing to get women to leave the home, it resulted in our children going en masse to day cares or coming home alone. Suicide rates, sexual diseases, poor academics, increased violence and drug use, not to mention less formal criminal behavior such as arguing a great deal, deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, too much talking, too much fighting have all been the result of the selfishness of the “Woman-Good-Man-Bad” mentality of those who pay lip service only to it being “for the children” when what they really intend to say is “Mine! Mine! Mine! Now! Now! Now!”
Interestingly, the suicide rate has significantly declined. So has the STI infection rate — although STIs are apparently a bit more popular in conservative states than in more progressive ones. The Chlamydia Top Ten are Arkansas (11.2% of young women infected), South Carolina (11.1%), Mississippi (11.0%), North Carolina (10.7%), Alabama (10.6%), Louisiana (10.2%), Texas (8.2%), Georgia (7.6%), Illinois (7.4%), and Florida (7.2%). Ditto for violent crime rates — they reached their lowest level ever recorded in 2004.
As for academic performance, well, that’s not as easy to measure, but it would appear that blue-staters are much more likely to even take the SAT in the first place. That could be explained by the fact that students in the Midwest and South are more likely to take the ACT though, right? Well, sure — except that blue-staters dominate on that test, too, scoring the highest on all sections. I don’t really buy into standardized testing for a variety of reasons, but these scores at least demonstrate that it’s not liberal feminism that’s harming students. Perhaps social conservatives have more to answer for.
The real kicker to this is that the Gloria Steinems of the world don’t even realize what they were saying by getting women to leave the home for the “man’s world.” It was the women of the world-not the men-who force fed women the notion that what comes naturally to men-to conquer the outside world-was more important, better, more deserving than what comes naturally to women. They were actually demeaning femininity by their own words, and were too foolish to even realize it. The shame of my sex is that we bought into it. The shame of the male sex is that they did too.
No, feminists simply argued that these things don’t come “naturally” to men nor women. We argue that they’re largely socialized, and that most of what is biological is highly variant and differs between individuals, and therefore shouldn’t have laws and social policy constructed around it. Feminists have also argued against demeaning what has been considered traditionally “feminine,” which is why we advocate for pregnant women, women with children, family-friendly workplace policies, etc.
Society has paid a dear price for women choosing to listen to these wretched individuals. Women are now in a far worse position than they were 100 years ago; back then, they didn’t have many other choices than to be a wife and mother. Today, if they want to be a wife and mother, they can’t unless they marry a very rich man.
Back in the day, women could only be wives and mothers, so they had to get married. Today, they can still be wives and mothers, but they have to get married to do it. Man have things changed!
The major difference, of course, is that while women can still be wives and mothers (and many, many women are), they can also be other things if they choose to be. Or they can be one but not the other. Or they can be neither. Nothing was taken away, more choices were simply added. But that, apparently, is the problem.
“Female Empowerment” was the shameful fantasy. Now for the harsh reality. Sisters, your babies are killing each other. They are having babies at younger ages and in record numbers in a desperate search for that unconditional love they couldn’t find in the myriad of minimum wage babysitters and daycares they had growing up. They are turning to gangs and drugs to ease the pain of loneliness and the longing for Mommy-a longing which is innate, necessary, and good-and it is our fault. Our children are suffering; their tender feelings have waxed cold and all signs of humanity are dying off in agonizing death throes, and we women are the cause. Women. The givers of life have turned against their own offspring in a vain quest for self-fulfillment. It is madness.
This paragraph actually made me laugh out loud. A few points:
*Sisters, your babies are killing each other. Homicide rates are significantly down. The homicide rate for children under the age of 14 has always been very low; the homicide rate for older teens has also decreased dramatically. Ninety percent of murderers are male. While men can certainly be feminists, it’s probably safe to assume that it ain’t NOW members who are off shooting people. And the South has the highest homicide rates in the country — again, not exactly a liberal feminist child-hating career-bitch stronghold.
*They are having babies at younger ages and in record numbers. Actually, not at all. In 2000, the teen pregnancy rate reached its lowest rate since 1976. In 2004, the teen birth rate hit a record low. And between 1940 and 1957, the teen birth rate increased a record 78 percent, hitting an all-time high in 1957. The current teen birth rate is less than half of what it was throughout most of the 1950s. The major difference, of course, is that most of the teenagers having babies in the ’50s were married — but I’d say teen marriage screams “desperate search for unconditional love” (or perhaps more accurately, “shotgun wedding”) a little more than a record-low teen birth rate does.
In fact, teenagers today really aren’t doing all that badly. Interestingly,
Today’s teens are also healthier than teens of the past. Never before have teenagers been less likely to die from disease; never before have more been enrolled in or graduated from educational institutions;8 never have fewer been forced out of school by injury, sickness, poverty, handicap, early pregnancy, or social disadvantage; never before has their projected life span been longer.
I blame feminism.
That may sound sarcastic, but feminism has brought tremendous benefits to women, men, and society in general. Contraceptives are more available and accessible thanks to feminists — which means that women can plan their families, instead of having 15 children and being over-burdened physically, emotionally and financially. A planned family means a family that’s more financially and emotionally stable. It means healthier children and healthier parents. It means better access to education. It means that mom is more likely to be around to see her kids graduate college or get married or turn 50, since she’s far less likely to have died in childbirth. Feminists have promoted family-friendly work policies which make it easier for working women to have children — because, contrary to Resa Laru Kirkland’s white middle class worldview, women in the United States have always worked, because lower-income women don’t have the choice not to. Feminists have advocated for better healthcare access for all Americans, and more comprehensive poverty-alleviation programs. Because of early feminists, women in the United States can elect their own representatives and therefore have a greater voice in politics — something that was barred to them 100 years ago, in Kirkland’s apparent heyday of gender relations.
But who needs all that?
Society became this way because we women allowed ourselves to feel ashamed for having children and raising them right, and that was wrong. It’s time for the New Feminist Revolution. No longer can our children-or society-abide the general female answer and shrug: “Well, it’s the day we live in… whatcha gonna do?”
Here’s what you’re gonna do. Women, go home. Get rid of the huge mortgage and move into a trailer. It’s not the neighborhood-or village, idiot!-that raises a good child. Have two cars? Get rid of one and deal with the annoyance of having to drive more. It’s not the car that makes the family. Fancy clothes and vacations? Trivial and silly… those won’t be what your child remembers. Be the one who drops him off and picks him up from school. Those precious moments laughing and talking will always be remembered, I guarantee it. Be in the kitchen, filling a warm home with delicious smells, sounds, and memories, and bring the whole family in to make dinner again, cleaning up together afterwards and bonding over pot roast. It is simple, it is time tested, it is true. The hand that rocks the cradle did-at one time-rule the world. The cradle is silent because the hand is at work and the baby at an institution. Sisters, go home-too much is at stake. Your babies are dying and killing, and the only one who can stop this infanticide is you. The power is-and always has been-yours. Take it back now… it’s almost too late.
Move into a trailer, sell your primary means of transportation, never leave the country, and devote your entire existance to your babies. Well that sounds appealing.
The fact is that there are many people who do live in trailers, only own one car or none at all, and can’t afford expensive vacations. But I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of those people aren’t living that way because they make the self-sacrificing decision to. Not having enough money to pay the bills every month sucks. It’s not fun, and it’s usually not a chosen lifestyle. And it doesn’t necessarily make one a better or worse parent that someone who’s lucky enough to have a stable, well-paying job and who can afford the pricey mortgage, the multiple cars, and the expensive vacations. Good parents come from all economic backgrounds — so do shitty ones. And I can certainly understand the argument that material things like houses, cars, and clothes don’t make the memories. They don’t. But acting as if it’s entirely reasonable for most people to give up their entire incomes, dedicate themselves to their homes, and move into a trailer is going a little too far. Poverty — or even being lower-income in this country — isn’t a pleasant pasttime, and it’s not something to be trivialized by urging women (and only women) to voluntarily enter into it.
I also feel pretty confident say that, if given the choice, most women would choose to bond with their kids while exploring and seeing the world together than while cleaning her husband’s dishes after dinner. That doesn’t mean that one bond will be stronger than the other, only that encouraging women to bury their heads in the sand and never go anywhere or see anything is about as misogynist as it gets.
And if Resa Laru Kirkland is so concerned about our babies dying and killing, why does she call herself the War Chick and promote militarism and international violence?
Finally, the hand that rocks the cradle does not rule the world, and never did. The hand that rules the world rules the world. Telling women to give up their aspirations to reach the top in exchange for being uncompensated servants is despicable — trying to convince them that powerlessness is actually really powerful is just sad.
Of course, like most professional anti-feminists, Resa Laru doesn’t exactly walk her talk when it comes to staying home and making pot roasts. No, it would seem that she’s quite the busy columnist – a job, the last time I checked. She is also “an avid military historian” — also a job, I think, if you’re any good at it. Or at least something that you go to school for. And indeed, Resa Laru has gone to school, and is going back for a graduate degree. She is also married with two sons.
Don’t you love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning?
(Of course, this is also the woman who proudly justifies her own family’s owning of slaves and the use of the n-word, because the slaves were actually their masters’ friends! So, you know.)
Thanks to Jessica for sending this on.
{ 80 comments }
I’m kind of relieved, actually. Because the whole column reeks of jealousy of women who have had more opportunities than her. For example, the opportunity to both work and have a family. Or to choose whether and when to have a family. I think she’d be a lot happier if she spent more time working and less time worrying about whether or not other women were doing the same.
“Men have always been in awe of the female form-not just physically, but spiritually and emotionally as well.”
Well yeah, but I think you have to learn how to differentiate between overly romantic, pedestal-putting awe, the (as has been written about so often here) I am horny and entitled to get some awe, and acting on your physical attraction to a woman in a mature manner .
If you “awe” overcomes your reason or maturity, which it inevitably will, you are a putz. Hopefully, we live and learn though.
Oh and on the attributes of femininity bit. I love that one.
“they hold in that realm of mystical and reverent ”
“attributes of femininity that are not as comfortable within themselves”
Of course they do and are not comfortable with them when men are taught that they are not supposed to have them, even though most sane humans do have them and are supposed to.
I notice she has lived in “Northern Idaho”. I wonder where? When I was in high school in Boise in the ’90s, northern Idaho was pretty much a hotbed of neo-nazi crazy.
Funny … I seem to very vividly and fondly remember the vacations we went on when I was a kid. We didn’t go on many, but the few we did were very memorable.
I’m also very confused on the “no two cars” thing. We did live in a trailer growing up because my grandparents paid for it, but we also had two cars. If we didn’t have two cars, I’m not sure what the hell we would have done since the trailer park was well outside of town and my dad also worked waaay outside of town. My mom certainly wouldn’t have been able to drop us off at school or pick us up, and we wouldn’t have been able to do much of anything in the summer. And she couldn’t shop for groceries that way either. Even when we moved into town, we wouldn’t have been able to get groceries because groceries would necessitate a 5+ mile hike to and from the grocery store.
Gee, this situation is sounding more and more like house arrest or some sort of slavery … imagine that.
Am I the only person who reads “sell you car, stay with your kids all the time, and never leave your trailer” and thinks of Andrea Yates?
Really? Damn, I gotta find a new career path. Well, okay, I’ve never been peed on. But the other stuff …
Post hoc, meet propter hoc.
Could this article make motherhood seem any less appealing? If you read it too quickly, you’d think it was an argument against motherhood, not for it.
Women who call me “Sister” make me nervous.
No fizz, you’re definitely not the only one.
I want to throw a copy of “The Feminine Mystique” at this bitch. Not that she’d be able to process it. But hey, I try.
Yet another article that reads as if written for The Onion. Also, all that babies-killing-each-other stuff kind of creeped me out… is there an army of killer babies out there I don’t know about? Is this ‘Rosemary’s Babies’?
Ha. I read the article and I noticed that she enjoys “snowboarding” and weight lifting, so she’s got hobbies outside of the family (unless she’s got them kids pumping iron too, which I don’t doubt) but she doesn’t want other women to do it? This is why I don’t believe women like her or Dawn Eden or Anne Coulter because if they truly believed what they were desperetly trying to sell other women then THEY’D be at home, in the kitchen away from the computer (women shouldn’t busy themselves with typing when there’s a pot roast that’s waiting to save humanity) and keeping their mouths shut like they want all other women to do. Whenever I see any of these women touring with books on news shows advocating for the return of women to the home I dismiss them altogether. They should all do us a favor and lead by example.
And the slavery post pissed me off beyond words. I cannot wrap my mind around how anyone can justify slavery. And while she is right about SOME of the etomology of the n-word, she is sadly mistaken that “nigra” was what these Southern people were really trying to say, “nigra” was a bastardization (sp?) of “negro”. They were damn clear when they called black people the n word. I would love to email her and tell her what an a-hole she is but I kow there’s no point.
What I live for is the day when people like her are shamed into the closet, told that they are crazy and mentally unbalanced and they just need to stay quiet lest we get the straight jacket.
The prescription of house arrest is the part that scares me the most. I am currently staying home with my two kids because the youngest is still up a couple times a night and I cannot imagine the hell that my life would be without a vehicle. I have a rambunctious two year old and an infant. What if I need to get someone to the doctor? What if I need groceries? My husband works 50-60 hours a week right now with it being the busy time at his work. I would be a wreck if I were stuck in my house all day with no way to leave if we needed.
The who in the what now?
Talking too much is criminal behavior. Who knew?
Eeeew eew eeew eeeeeeew!
I propose emergency eye-wash stations all over the internet with little stickers above them saying: “If you’ve just been contaminated by reading gnarly-ass-desperately-stupid-but-still-explosively-hateful biological essentialism, stick your eyeballs under this faucet for relief.”
Then again, the humor of the comments kind of did that for me, thanks.
“Yes, feminists, you’ve really gone and done it this time — you’ve destroyed manhood, attacked womanhood, encouraged drug use, raised the teen pregnancy rate, and killed babies. Nice, work ladies — clearly, you’ve been effectively multi-tasking.”
Well, thank you. Thank you very much. We do try.
This dumb bitch must be smoking some heavy ganja. I know when I smoked pot in the seventies, I had a tendency to fly off the handle and make strange associations about things, albeit, mostly on a liberal/progressive bent, but hell this is the turn of the century and leftie stuff just ain’t cool anymore I guess.
I checked out her blog and she hasn’t posted anything since June.
What the hell is the American Chronicle anyway? How far into the dumpster of wingnut hell did you have to dive to find this gem Jill?
I think next time I go home to visit my dad in Alton, Illinois, I’m going to have to check out the Phyllis Schlafly compound up in Fairmont Heights. I think Dr. Frankenfurter’s evil sister is up there engineering these mysogino-bots.
I did a research paper on this passage last semester! She was so easy to tear to pieces, I didn’t have room for everything I wanted to cover in the few pages the teacher assigned. This one and a piece called “Back To The Future” (as it was called in the anthology I got it from) by Danielle Crittenden–they were just awful, but really easy refute.
Aaarrrrrggghh! What is with all the female anti-feminists out there?! We’re supposed to be a team! Haven’t they ever been belittled at work or harassed on the street? I do twice the amount of work of many of my male coworkers and though most of them are fantastic people, there are a few who (perhaps unwittingly) talk to me as though I were a child. One coworker actually called me “hunny bunny wunny”! And, as far as I can tell, the vast majority of women have had a few such degrading experiences in the workplace.
That’s my (edited) rant. But – to end it on a catty note – is this woman NOT a dead ringer for Boy George?
Ah but have you read her part II of this article? She unleashes the following gem:
“And the only significant difference in the life of children between when my father was being raised—handling guns every day and never attacking his school—and the children of today—who steal guns and mow down their friends–is the absence of the mother in the home. And worst of all, according to Goldberg, the feminists know this and have gone out of the way to hide the truth from the world, because that would make them appear evil. It would make their enemy—conservative Americans, men, and the family unit—appear right. And with all of their cries that women are creatures of immeasurable strength, they have yet to gain the potency to admit the horrible truth—that they sold out their own offspring for the corner office, the fancy title, and the fatter paycheck. This, apparently, is the way society dies.
Oh if it was only the appearance of evil! Time is proving that it has gone way beyond that point–feminism doesn’t just appear evil… it is evil.”
Eh? Support for this statement?
She sure can write. Perhaps bit hyperbole, but anyway.
Ellie:
Yep, me too. I have very fond, cherished, memories of family vacations in Southern Europe etc.
The whole thing is almost like bad satire, but only almost.
Ah. So when someone says “Don’t trust anything that bleeds for six days and doesn’t die, hur hur hur”, it’s actually all about the reverence for the generative power of women? I guess you really do learn something new every day.
Oh, and that slavery bit was just asinine. Wow, your ancestor wrote a bunch of self-serving shit into his will about how he was just the bestest slave master ever, and how all the slaves were his friends, and how in the evenings they would all gather around his rocking chair and make smores in the fireplace while he read them ghost storys. That changes everything! Slavery was totally awesome after all!
Oh, aarggh, and the utter glamorization of a past that never existed. Women staying home with their children has been a relatively recent phenomenon in the course of history, and this woman just has no clue. There is a ton of class privilege inherent in that post. Outside of the aristocracy, women did not stay home with their children. They went to work. Either in the fields, as servants in the house of the aristocracy, in factories, etc. The children also went to work in the fields and, later, in factories. And this wasn’t so many hundreds of years ago. It was legal to employ children in the US, for example, until 1938. Once you move outside the industrialized nations, the appalling poverty is such that women work and so do children (under often horrendous conditions), no matter how much the emerging market countries try to hide that latter fact.
This is what makes so ridiculous her whinging about the fact that the only way a woman can be a wife and (stay-at-home) mother is to marry a rich man. That’s exactly how it’s been for the vast majority of human history. It was only the last 300 years or so where there was a middle class large enough to allow for anything different. If someone actually gives a sh*t about the welfare of children, they’d be focused on doing something about poverty, not whinging about feminists.
Since when did reality matter to a wingnut? That’s what’s so breathtaking bout them….their ability to go, “NANANANANAN I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALLALALALA.” Their entire lives are nothing but a fight against reality.
Even the aristocracy didn’t stay at home with their children: they paid someone else to raise them. They might see their child an hour a day if the child was doted on.
The past she described did, technically, exist. In an agrarian society–not an industrialized one. In the agrarian society, a family did have a mom who stayed at home and cooked, sewed, weaved, milked, cleaned, and usually died in childbirth by the time the eldest child was 8; leaving all those chores to her issue. Of course, most of these chores, even during her lifetime, were heavily assisted by the children. And, for that matter, the man stayed “at home” too — in that he was in the fields right outside of the home and was there to offer assistance to his wife should she require it.
As a woman with a college degree who works out of the house and yet takes on 100% of the tasks of full-time, stay-home motherhood (I’m at home, after all), I am so bored of these women who think in Either/Or terms.
I’m also tired of ducking my head in the dirt clod war between stay-at-homers and career women. Since I do both, I’m privy to both circles of women, and the way they continue to attack their peers when they believe they aren’t in mixed company is not only unbecoming and annoying to someone who does both, but revealing of two things:
Women are usually their own worst enemies, when really we should all be part of the same sisterhood. Why can’t we all just share respect for making individual choices and be supportive?
Women are not happy choosing Either/Or (though nobody said they had to!). The only women I know who are happy are those who choose the Third Way: Do what works for you.
So let me say it one more time: Do what works for you and to Hell with the rest of the world and what it says we *should* do.
There’s a great book that covers this subject matter, quite empowering for women in the predicament of feeling they have to choose: THE MASK OF MOTHERHOOD.
TKS
“Oh, and that slavery bit was just asinine.”
Ugh. Utterly cringe-inducing. She lives in the most bizarre, ahistorical fantasy world – if she believes anything she writes. I guess it just shows, once again, that reality has a liberal bias.
Hey, even if she can’t process it, at least maybe you’ll hit her with it.
I used to think that the denizens of RightWingNuttia idealized the “nuclear family” of the 1950s – after reading that piece of swill, I have to change my opinion – apparently their ideal time period occurred somewhere in the high dark ages – around 1100 or so.
.
Ha!
apparently their ideal time period occurred somewhere in the high dark ages – around 1100 or so.
Actually, as Lesley pointed out a few posts ago, Kirkland’s ideal was really impossible for anyone but the elite in the Middle Ages. The vast majority of people were peasant farmers, and women worked very hard days (up at dawn to gather wood and water, cook, do washing, tendfamily gardens, make and mend clothes. They also helped in the fields). Women of the artisan class helped in their husband’s shops, or were involved in a craft themselves (and we’re not talking about scrapbooking and knitting), frequently in weaving or other textile-related industries. Poor urban women were domestic workers in the houses of the bourgeoisie and elites, trying to save up a meager dowry for marriage, after which they might remain in they employ of the people for whom they had been maids as governesses or wet nurses. Only very elite women were able to avoid work, and here’s the kicker – many of them basically spent their time knocked up. It was pretty regular practice among elites in the later Middle Ages and Renaissance to give children to a wet nurse — which for all but the very elite meant sending the child out of the house unless the family was wealthy enough to pay for and house a wet nurse of their own — so that a woman would be fertile again sooner. Again as Lesley said, this situation obtained for centuries – you still have the vast majority of women doing some sort of non-childcare work through the Industrial Revolution. The idea that women devoting themselves soley to childrearing and homemaking should be the norm is a recent phenomenon. (Sorry for the long post).
I’ve heard of men that pretend to be feminists just to try and get laid, and I think this lady might be a similar sort of phenomenon, along with dear Mrs. Flanagan.
Her life is so different from what she preaches that it makes me think that everything she says is a carefully sculpted charade to get readers. If she weren’t married then I’d say that her whole persona (the snowmobiling, weight-lifting, fun chick who likes guns and wants a man who knows how to put her in her place) was aimed at attracting men. Since she is married, I can only assume it worked.
Why is it always the people who are pretty well off financially try and encourage others to enjoy their “nobel poverty?” Why does not she move into the trailer and own only one car?
Up untill last couple of years my parents lived on a very, VERY tight budget.
Let me tell you, there is nothing fun about that.
She’d better get her research and critical thinking skills in better shape if she wants to complete her graduate degree – unless she’s going somewhere like Bob Jones, where such things undoubtedly count against you.
You mean women are usually other women’s worst enemies. But hey, that’s only an important distinction if you think women are individual human beings, so no big thing. I mean, who really thinks that, right?
Us too. I have far more vivid memories of traveling through Spain with my family than I do of Mom holding my hair while I struggled with another bout of stomach flu.
And we managed the vacations because – surprise! – we were a household with two parents working, until my mom’s health problems got to a point where she couldn’t work. We were lucky enough to have affordable childcare and accomodating parental schedules (Dad worked days, Mom’s orchestra gigs were at night), but my mom didn’t sacrifice her career or her self to be a perfect robotic housewife.
Resa loves power-lifting, snowmobiling, swimming, boating, four-wheeling, and most activities of any nature.
So feminine! Of course, I wonder how acceptable most of her beloved hobbies (as well as her career) would even be if feminists hadn’t stepped up to the plate to challenge the notion that certain activities are not acceptable for women. Sheesh.
Have two cars? Get rid of one and deal with the annoyance of having to drive more.
Enjoy the bliss of using the underfunded public transit system in your area. Ditch the annoyance of having to drive more and instead bask in the peace and serenity of wrangling two children and five bags of groceries on a city bus. Get to know each other as you all walk 10 blocks home in the rain because they dropped the stop near your apartment.
I think this woman and Caitlin Flanagan have a similar Darwinian purpose in trying to sell this swill: they want to eliminate the competition for the goodies in life from their own spoiled-brat issue. The entire right wing is motivated by a desire to eliminate upward mobility. (See Maximos’ post “Against Meritocracy” at Enchiridion Militis for further proof, if proof in some of the most pretentious language on the Internet. Also, sorry for no link, but i didn’t write it down.) If more of us from less-exalted backgrounds stay in said places, then our kids will pretty much have to stay there too,.and debutantes’ kids will get all the good jobs. Considering that the Constitution prohibits titles of nobility and the country was founded on the principal of eliminating hereditary privilege, I propose we start calling this people what they are: traitors.
Okay, here’s the : obnoxious link.
Azelie – also about the Middle Ages, the vast majority of peasant couples married when the bride was pregnant. I know in Tracy Chevalier’s (author of Girl with a Pearl Earring) The Lady and the Unicorn several of the peasant characters were pregnant before marriage.
Yeah, but Babs Bush being Alestair Crowley’s daughter would explain a *lot*, especially about how her children are evil sucks.
stumbled on this blog, and hope it’s okay to actually disagree to a degree with the blogger here (based on the comments i just skimmed it appears this might be a place like-minded people gather to mock views they disagree with? (i dont mean that in a sarcastic manner either. that is just the way it comes across)).
i think someone might have specifically made fun of the paragraph below, but i think it has some merit:
i come from a community with ‘old fashioned views’ and most people i know do view women this way. most guys i’ve met from other cultures and backgrounds (read: typical american or european male) do not view women this way. obviously one could say, “so what?,” but i believe this is one of the major reasons the divorce rate is well below 5%.
needless to say, many things the author writes are a bit absurd, but as someone who has an entirely different background and therefore an entirely different perspective from the rest of the people here, i’m not sure it is all as foolish and silly as the blogger and others here make it out to be.
Kyra, damn straight. ;)
What you failed to include in your quote was the context of the writer’s speaking about the ‘awe’ of men toward womenfolk which she summarizes in the next paragraph as follows by quoting:
Traditional values means the subjugation of women. Empowerment of women is indeed a new concept as many here have already expressed.
I’d make a bet that the ‘traditional values’ of your beloved community includes the traditional position of women within such and therefore a 5% divorce rate speaks little about the actual happiness or equanimity of your womanfolk.
We look back and our fancy rejoices in better days that have passed, when people were prestine and life was pure. And it was better in our fathers days, who were wiser and stronger than us And it was better yet in their fathers days, who were even wiser and stronger than they. And it was best of all in the golden past of our distant progenitors, who were each and every one a king, and who all did good deeds. Alas these days are gone, that we believe existed, and now there is only the bitter present.
I get so tired of these claims, the whole “why back in my day” routine. Every generation looks back at a make believe past with awe and longing, and at their current situation with fear and mistrust. Unless I’m mistaken, that would mean that each day is worse than the last. If you truly believe this, then by all means make your claims that society is and has been going downhill since the beginning of time. If, however, you have a modicum of common sense, it would probably be better to admit that you are afraid of change.
name, if women aren’t allowed legal and social power, the idea that men are in “awe” of them is simply a lie.
kate: i did not fail to include anything. you clearly ignored my line stating that much of what this writer wrote is “a bit absurd.” that’s hardly a compliment to her piece on my part.
my point was simply that those few sentences did stand out in my mind as having meaning since i notice very clearly that the mentality described in that paragraph does exist among some of us, but for most today it does not. and i believe that there have been some negative consequences because that sense of awe has been lost and the venom and cynicsm expressed by most people here (throughout the site?) might mean they will never fully examine the issue.
btw kate, i find this line particulary sad (and offensive i might add)
“traditional values means the subjugation of women”
how you can say something like that as a matter of fact is beyond me, but it is rather intolerant and since i know it not to be true, i have no problem calling it baseless as well. tempering your assertions could prove valuable if you ever wish to have a fruitful discussion instead of just slinging mud at someone who disagrees with you.
finally, i’ll happily accept your wager that the women in my “beloved” (the cynicsm and mockery never ends with you i guess?) do not feel the least bit subjugated. that you want to bet without knowing the first thing about my community and that you immediately assume the “womanfolk” (yet again) are unhappy simply reiterates my point for me.
i think ginmar (unknowningly of course) put it best when
s/he wrote
sara: as i wrote above, you too seem to have just skimmed what i wrote and decided “oh, he disagrees” and decided to equate my position with that of the author. i did no such thing and at no point suggested women should not have legal power (i dont know what you mean by social power, so while i agree women should have social power i imagine you and i define that term differently).
also, if by “men” you mean the idea that any man stands in awe of women is simply a lie would mean you are intricately familiar with all men or at least all groups of men. i find this hard to belive and therefore, as with kate, i suggest you take a more tempered approach to your statements otherwise it will be hard for reasonable people to take you seriously. (again, maybe everyone here just wants to openly mock everything they disagree with, though that seems awfully pointless to me).
Name:
I think the problem isn’t that there may be some women who are happy home-makers and stay-at-home-mothers.
The problem is that the ones who ARE happy are used to justify the idea that a woman’s proper and natural place is hearth and home, popping out babies and such. And if a working woman is unhappy with her life, it’s because she truly yearns for a traditional role.
Besides, I’d rather be respected for my achievements, admired for my intellect, and beloved for my wit, than held in awe for those inherent traits that I have no control over (ie. my status as a woman and its associated fecundity).
Name, I notice you don’t mention if you’ve ever asked the women in your community if they enjoy being viewed as mysterious and awe-inspiring.
name, you’re overlooking one key point.
The author of the original column is not writing about your beloved traditional society. She is writing about Western culture, and particularly about her views of the ways in which American feminism has ruined her life and some mythical period of perfect housewifery and motherhood.
What is your “traditional” culture? Are you a male or female, or otherwise identified? Can we get a cite on those divorce stats? And do men in your culture believe that women are capable of the same things as a man, regardless of the magical babymaking powers?
vanilla: you too missed my point. like the others, you create a strawman and claim it to be my point and then knock it down. i merely noticed 4 to 5 lines that i felt deserved recognition as a legitimate point and then made the statement that, as an observation that on a societal level this view of wome has, generally, been lost and that some negative results may have occurred as a result.
if the cost benefit analysis of “yesterday” v. “today” is done in an all or nothing manner i am sure most (myself included) would agree that things today are better. however, this black and white approach that many who are jaded or otherwise cynical use is rarely accurate and typically unhelpful. i used those lines to illustrate an aspect of “yesterday” that appears to have been lost that might be worth considering how it, without the negatives everyone here apparently takes as a given MUST come with it, can be restored.
em: nothing to read into that (was i supposed to explicitly state this??). i have discussed it at great length with many of them. they all say basically the same thing. they are extremely happy.
nomie: see what i wrote above. i couldnt care less about this author. how many times do i need to say it? i dont care who wrote it and i dont care about any other lines she wrote (in other words, as i said before, i found most everything else she wrote rather absurd). i focused on a few lines and those are the only ones i have expressed anything positive about.
dont see how my gender is relevant to the discussion and no you can’t get a cite on those divorce stats because i dont have one. if you want, just ignore everything i say and dont believe me. dont care to get into specifics of my culture and, while certainly relevant to the discussion here, i dont think it is neccessary to discuss in order to express (or debate) my point of view.
finally, “magical babymaking powers”? sorry, i dont respond to sarcasm or cyncism that essentially amount to offensiveness and intolerance.
So you have no statistics, won’t provide any details, and don’t interrogate your own premises? And you’re mad at us for not taking you at your word?
Shocking!
i have discussed it at great length with many of them. they all say basically the same thing. they are extremely happy.
Does anyone else think this is just crazy, or at best hyperbole? “Extremely” happy? Nobody’s extremely happy all the time, that’s the human condition. Are these women in a cult?
name, if you don’t want folks to call “bullshit”, then perhaps you can at least give some details—which particular traditional culture are you speaking of? and where?
A person doesn’t need to be astonishingly well-read or educated to recognize that in pre-industrial cultures, from the West to the East, women were denied access to formal education (in most cases, even at the grade-school level), were not allowed to own property, were not given the choice of whether or not to be married (nor in most cases given the choice of who their spouse was to be), were not allowed to hold civil or religious office, were not allowed to bear witness in court (or, their witness was not deemed as being equivalent to a man’s)…..do I need to go on?
So, how can you then reconcile that with the idea that women were somehow “respected?” If women are truly respected, then their intellects are respected—-and they will have the same access to education, political and religious office, marriage, etc. that men do! Otherwise, it’s not really “respect”. It’s sort of like being the family dog; the treatment you receive is entirely based on the whim of your master.
Look. We all have traditional cultures, and we are all still brought up being under the influence of those traditional cultures—regardless of whether or not we’re living in a postindustrial society, regardless of whether we or our parents grew up with running water in the home. That traditizione is still running in the background, just like the blood in one’s veins, for better or worse. And it’s precisely because of that, that I am sick and tired of reductionist arguments about how there was supposedly a dream time for women back in the past, or back in a supposedly simpler life, when we (men and women) were “happy.” And that we can all be “happy” again if we (just women this time) voluntarily give up the “complications” of “modern life”; voluntarily accept the same status granted to the family dog—wag our tails, smile, and hope the Master pats us on the head and continues to feed us.
Ask yourself this: why aren’t there paeans to men who aren’t descended from the nobility to voluntarily give up their right to vote, own property, hold public office, get an education, seek employment where they desire, etc.? Because “traditionally”, men didn’t have these rights either. Think about it.
But, see, you can’t do that. You can’t read a couple of sentences as being completely independent of the whole. Kirkland feels that women should be put on a pedestal because of their ethereal womanly qualities – which is where the “magical babymaking powers” came from in my reply, not a response to anything you said.
Okay!
I also think that such rigid, deterministic definitions of masculinity and femininity are harmful to the many men and women who don’t fit them. According to traditional concepts of femininity, women should be mothers. Well some women are infertile or have health problems that prevent them from giving birth – so does this problem that they have no control over mean those women are not feminine? According to traditional concepts of masculinity, men are better at math and science than women. Obviously there are some men who are terrible at math and science – again, does this problem they have no control over mean those men are not masculine?
As for being “in awe” of women’s feminine qualities, I put it to the same test as cultural fetishism. There’s nothing wrong with appreciating something, whether it is a woman’s ability to give birth or an aspect of another culture. However, it becomes a problem if you exoticize or “other” it, and yes, that includes putting it on a pedestal to the degree that you hardly regard that other culture/gender as human and related to yourself.
Furthermore, I doubt that a traditional culture as espoused by reactionaries ever existed to a great extent. Lesley and Azelie upthread have offered historical evidence about it. Even in the Victorian “separate spheres” and “cult of motherhood” era, many women in the industrializing West worked in factories. In the post-Reconstruction US, many black women had to work as maids to support their families – for the antebellum era, see Sojourner Truth’s “ain’t I a woman?” speech. Oh and BTW I am not white, and so it’s not only white Westerners who adhere to “less traditional” concepts of gender.
Shorter name: Get offa my lawn!
“btw kate, i find this line particulary sad (and offensive i might add)
“traditional values means the subjugation of women”
Gosh, it’s really too bad your feelings were hurt. Maybe if you could come up with one, single concrete example of this being wrong you might have a leg to stand on.
I think the reaction to name’s posts have been fairly rediculous. In just about every way I share the views of this very liberal blog. However I absolutely agree with name that these comments do suggest that this is merely a place for denoucing things we disagree with. Someone with differing views comes in with a very well-worded critique, and he gets torn to shreds by people blinded by their beliefs.
“Blinded by beliefs”… Where have we heard this one before? As much as I call myself liberal and atheist, I have a hard time alligning myself with others that go by the same labels. Are we no better than the religion radicals, dismissing anything we remotely disagree with? Do we not also surround ourselves entirely with friendly media and opinions? Do we also not feel a great threat in the presence of those who do not share our views? We can’t expect our ideas and beliefs to be accepted if we don’t even recognize those of others.
Haemonculus, no one was dismissing Name’s beliefs. As far as I can tell, people here are openly disagreeing — which isn’t dismissive at all. It’s responsive. And in order to respond, you have to recognize. Which is what the other commenters are doing.
What, exactly, should we do when faced with statements we disagree with? Nod our heads so that we don’t appear “blinded by beliefs”? Not argue?
Name:
Actually, I wasn’t addressing your original point or your post at all.
I was acknowledging that there are, in fact, women who ARE happy in traditional roles and there exist functioning families with female homemakers. But that the ORIGINAL ARTICLE (IE NOT YOU) was using their happiness as a justification for the idea that ALL women would be happier in traditional roles and everything would be better off that way when there are many perfectly, extremely happy career women and perfectly, extremely happy families that have career mothers (or no mothers at all or the vice versa).
Because you were saying that women in your community are happy, and I was saying “Yes, that’s possible, but that doesn’t mean the Original Article has any right in saying that’s where ALL women belong or where they should be.”
OK? Got it?
If you are saying the “awe of women” from days of yore is where you think I misinterpreted, I responded: I would rather be respected for my achievements and my choices, admired for my intellect and beloved of my wit, than held in awe for something thati is simply inherent.
How is that a strawman? How ELSE are you constructing a characteristic that women should be held in “awe” that men should not – besides by the virtue of us being fecund?
Unless you’re saying ALL people should be held in awe – for the sheer improbability of our existence as a species, and our existence as individuals, and the amazing working of our biologies (which mostly we share with other mammals, except that of our brain). That I agree with.
Or do you mean some nebulous “femininity”? The personality traits that are considered female? Nurturing and compassionate and all that? That compassion should be held in awe?
Fine, but to hold female compassion in awe and deny men the ability to nurture or be compassionate or gentle is not giving either sex a very fair deal. Instead of holding “femininity” in “awe”, why not work to break down the rigid ideas of “feminine” and “masculine” so that men can share the same traits that are held in “awe”.
Someone with differing views comes in with a very well-worded critique, and he gets torn to shreds by people blinded by their beliefs.
Torn to shreds? I don’t think so. Name came in talking about some traditional culture where women are all happy and respected but he won’t say what culture of give any evidence at all.
He also seems to be implying (hard to tell with the posts are unclear as they are) that being “held in awe” is better than having civil rights. I take issue with that.
too many, how shall i put it, critiques? to respond to each one individually so i apologize for not responding to each and every comment. just a few points.
1)Haemonculus. thank you.
2) jill: surprised you deny his point. i consider you someone a bit more honest than that. you too create a strawman by presenting the possibilities here as people either just nodding their heads at what they strongly disagree with or disagreeing with me. i think you recognize there are ways to disagree and ways to respond. few have disagreed with me in a mature, respectful and intellectually honest fashion.
3) evil fizz: does anyone read what i write? where was i mad at anyone for not taking my word? i specifically said if people dont want to take me at my word on the divorce rate or the view we have of women in my culture then i understand and just dismiss it and move on. i never, in the slightest, hinted i was ‘mad’ at anyone for not accepting it. please dont create arguments that arent there.
4) tally cola: similar problem. i was asked how they feel. i responded extremely happy. you add in “all the time.” you’re just creating something that’s not there. of course sometimes people have issues with any and everything. i responded to a question about how the women in my culture generally feel regarding men’s ‘awe’ toward them and said they are generally extremely happy. you decide to twist my words and create an absurd scenario and then go “ha! i got ya.”
general point: why so many here do what the two posters above (and so many others) did i dont know. i can only surmise it is an unwillingness to confront the nuances of issues and instead, through a defense mechanism, make everything black and white (dont think for a second that i believe those on the right are innocent of this, because i dont. but it happens to be that most everyone here who is doing it is on the left (at least on this manner)).
5) la lubu: clearly you didnt read what i wrote above. what else can i say? i have focused entirely on a specific aspect of the past never condoning and certainly not praising many staples of ‘traditional society.’ like the others, you just keep lumping me with the author instead of actually reading what i write and responding to it.
6) nomie: why cant i take a few lines and ignore everything else? if i say i do NOT agree with the author then i am divorcing myself from everything she wrote EXCEPT the lines i choose to agree with. sorry, but i dont see the problem with that at all.
7) exangelena: seems like your own separate comments, so no response on my part except to point out that infertile mothers can adopt children (i know many who have). please no one use this as a springboard for some lengthy diatrabe about traditionalists saying such rigid things about women’s roles etc. I’m just saying women who cannot have kids of their own can still be mothers. nothing more, nothing less.
8) sniper: apparently civil debate is not something that interests you. ok.
9) vanilla: sorry. when i read (and reread now) your comments above, they did not sound like what you just wrote. in response to what you just wrote, i will just say that women are generally different from men in some ways (that this even needs to be said is pretty silly) ability to openly communicate about feelings is an example that comes to mind.
8) sniper: apparently civil debate is not something that interests you. ok.
Debate about what? I’ve read and re-read your posts and they simply don’t make any sense. Your only point seems to be that some traditional women, somewhere in the world, at some time in history, are/were happy. And we’re supposed to take your word on that. So what?
name – Well, what about men who are bad at math and science? Not to mention that adoption is expensive and can be legally tricky, too. Anecdotal evidence – my aunt and uncle, who are middle class, considered adoption but couldn’t afford it. So I’m not sure what options poor infertile women have.
Also, what about women who don’t want to be mothers? Are they “unnatural women” or “unfeminine”? Should they be shamed and treated like social deviants because they don’t want to? Also, the quote is about men being in awe of women’s *physical* attributes – the physical act of giving birth. So even if infertile women become mothers through adoption, they still won’t undergo the “miracle” of childbirth.
I don’t think you’re a troll or have bad intentions and I have tried to be polite in my comments. There is nothing harmful on the surface about men being “in awe” of women’s physical attributes. However, that awe relies on broad and often less than progressive generalizations about women and can in itself perpetuate those generalizations. Because generalizations are generalizations, there will always be some exceptions to the rule. For example, I read over and over that men think women’s bodies are beautiful or sexy or whatever because they’re curvy, and I know they mean well. But I am a woman and my figure is naturally not curvy at all – so that attitude makes me feel excluded, unfeminine and unbeautiful. Just my $0.02.
Name, don’t start giving out lectures on civility when you pull statistics out of your ass to make your argument and then start telling the people who make reasonable — and civil — requests for some very basic support for those statistics (on which your entire argument rests) that they’re incapable of nuance or incapable of civil debate.
You brought up this magic culture with the 5% divorce rate as an example of how right War Chick is about the awe of men for women and how far Western culture has fallen from this traditional ideal. And yet you won’t name the culture. So that pretty much means that your argument is unsupported and for shit.
Ooh! I used a dirty word! How uncivil!
I suggest, name, that you put up or shut up. Either you back up your argument with specifics or you bow out. If you continue simply defending your argument by impugning the integrity of the other commenters, I’m going to have to consider you a troll and put you on moderation.
So, what will you choose? Civility or integrity?
Ooh! I used a dirty word! How uncivil!
I’ll do you one better. Fucking troll.
Again, as you have been asked many times before, can you tell us what culture this is that you’re speaking of? You keep saying you’re only answering questions but, actually, you’re not. Answer the damn question and gain some credibility.
Back on the subject of the original article… several people have mentioned how the ideal of women at home with kids was a recent thing, how beforehand women either worked if they were less well off and farmed their kids out to caregivers if they were rich. This is true, but doesn’t even begin to really address how wrong this woman’s nostalgiac view is. Most of my family is not well off – not truly poor, but definitely close enough to struggle. In the 50s, there wasn’t this idyllic time when one job was enough to keep a family content and happy. No, all the men in my family at that time simply worked two jobs. They weren’t one income families. This is something a lot of people seem to have forgotten today. It was always necessary to have more than one income unless that one income was far higher than average. So what about fathers? Does this woman think it’s better to go back to a system where mom was constantly around and crabby because of never getting a break from the kids, and the kids knew dad only as a mysterious, distant figure that appeared after they had gone to sleep?
BTW name, I find this
i will just say that women are generally different from men in some ways (that this even needs to be said is pretty silly) ability to openly communicate about feelings is an example that comes to mind.
particularly sad, and extremely offensive.
Also, I never once said “ha, got you!” or anything of the like in my post. (Talk about creating strawmen. This guy wrote the book.) Even with your elaboration, your original point about the women being “extremely happy” sounds completely absurd, and without you giving me a cultural context to understand it in, it will continue to be completely absurd. I stand by that.
Thank you. Thank you, thank you. My mother grew up in the 50s and her memories of “quality time with dad” are pretty scarce for exactly that reason. At one point he actually had 3 jobs, but I don’t think that period endured more than a year or so.
So, right, it was totally better when men killed themselves to make ends meet. Which side is anti-male again?
Exactly Ivy. I had planned on staying home for awhile after my son was born, daycare for two kids is expensive. However, after staying home for a little over two months, it’s come to our attention that we can’t afford to live on one income, so I am either going to go back to work and my husband is going to work part time around my schedule or vice versa, whichever will net more income. My mom and dad, however think my husband should just get two jobs, we should cancel our cable (the one unnecessary bill we have). Screw the kids actually being able to see their father, screw the fact that I am equally capable of workng and actually have a higher level of education, I shuld be home 24/7/365 and my husband should support me by working as many jobs as he needs to. And we’re not even talking about putting the kids in daycare, we’re talking about them being home with one of their parents at all times. However, because my husband is male, apparently he is unable to adequately care for our kids. Nevermind that he’s actually more patient than I am. The fact of the matter is that you can make plenty of memories with your kids when you’re not at work, baking cookies doesn’t have to happen during work hours. My two year old and I bake at 8 at night, even with me staying home. We play outside at night because it’s cooler. She was no less well adjusted when I was working than she is now.
Wow. I’m not going to comment on name’s posts, everyone else has said what I believe but I do think it’s easy to comment when you don’t have any facts to back it up, that’s what the Right has been doing for years, so I’m happy to see people calling name out on that.
I’m in my mid-20s and my mother was a teacher and after she had me she gave me to my dad and he took time away from his job to raise me while she went back to work. This was in the early 80s and I turned out fine. Once I was able to go to headstart he went back to work. Before that, he worked his butt off and even took a job in a city 6 hours away where he’d commute on Sunday and wouldn’t come home until the weekend. This was when my brother was born and he’d hardly ever see him so much so that my brother didn’t even realize he was “dad” and once my brother began becoming afraid of him when he’d come home on weekends my dad quit in order to spend more time with him.
It amazes me how these conservatives laud the women’s “role” in taking care of children and leaving only a financial participation in the role of men. They don’t seem to get that they’re saying, “men have no real role in child rearing outside of providing money/resources.” I mean, it’s not like we’re penguins where the survival of chicks is totally dependent on both male and female parents.
I get that this came from the cave man era of thinking where men would go out and hunt and bring back food to his family but again, that’s your only contribution? So, if there were a group of women and not all of them are pregnant at the same time then some of them could do the same thing you’re doing and you’d be shit out of luck? I think it’s that fear that fuels this. They have to feel important and apart of the child raising process somehow, yet actually taking care of babies/children is “beneath” them so they made up this “manly” way of contribution in order to shoehorm themselves into the power of the family.
Maybe someday we will see a time where women and men could equally choose what path they wanted in life without people shaming them for their choices, calling them un-feminine or “sissies” . But the cynic in me doubts it, at least in my lifetime.
Sorry for the long post and any missspellings.
guess i’ll just take zuzu’s sagely advice and bow out (though zuzu, you have some anger/frustration issues).
please just continue the hundreds of posts and comments here which all say ‘look how stupid and silly anyone who disagrees with us on any point is.’ that seems to be all anyone here wants to do.
All anyone asked was that you make your disagreement substantive, Name, and stand by it. We argue plenty, here.
About every political blog is more or less an echo chamber for like-minded people, with a few regular contrarians, and passers-by thrown in for good measure. That’s just how things naturally go, people seek people they like (or like arguing with). Duh. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be prepared to defend things that one knows aren’t shared by the majority with statistics, details, logic and argumentation.
Isn’t that part of the fun in presenting an opposing viewpoint?
name, let me sum up the issues I, at least, have with your comment.
You say this, but you never tell us how this “awe” manifests itself in your community. You reference negative consequences related to the loss of this awe in a later comment, but never describe what those negative consequences are (other than an implied higher divorce rate). You mention the lower divorce rate in your community, which you attribute to this feeling of “awe”, but never discuss any of the other factors present in your community which might also account for the lower divorce rate. For that matter, you never offer any additional information on your community so that the other commenters here can assess your claim. You also never describe the mechanism by which you believe this loss of “awe” would increase divorce rates and lead to other, unspecificed negative consequences.
You do all of the above in the context of a post about an article that describes this “awe” as manifesting itself in ways that clearly hurt women. Although you make an offhand remark about how you find most of the article “absurd”, you never really expound on that either. You don’t describe how the sense of “awe” you are referring to can exist without the harm the article’s author references.
So you won’t clarify what you are talking about, which leaves the blanks to be filled in by those reading your comment. Given the context in which your remarks are made, how can you find it surprising that those blanks are filled in the way they have been? If you find this distressing, it is incumbent on you to make explicit what you are talking about. We are not mind readers.
It is for all these reasons and more that I suspect most commenters here find claims that we’re not willing to brook disasgreement to be specious. If you can’t describe what precisely we’re disagreeing about in other than the most general of terms, how can you expect to have any reasonable discussion?
please just continue the hundreds of posts and comments here which all say ‘look how stupid and silly anyone who disagrees with us on any point is.’ that seems to be all anyone here wants to do.
Congratulations on the best imitation of a brick wall I have ever seen.
Name, people here argue with each other all the time. But you came in acting defensively, assuming you would be brow-beaten, and you have offered no support, no context for your words. It seems this entire visit of yours was an exercise in futility. On your part, not on ours.
Well, it’s not the primary way that people live their lives these days, TC, but it’s not impossible. My family, case in point. So there’s still hope, even for cynics! (count me among them!)
Cheers,
T
Are we sure this woman’s article is not some kind of parody, because I don’t even think Pat Robertson would be stupid enough to stand up and suggest people move into trailers. You can make lovely memories with your children until a tornado or hurricane blows your entire family away. This has GOT to be a joke. If it’s not a joke, all I can say is how dare she suggest my working mother and my working grandmother are not tender, feminine people; or that my husband is not admired by many for his own compassion and tenderness (that would be why he went into nursing). Two women I am related to in this generation did not work for wages. One blew her brains out and the other one lives with a drug dealer. The rest of us have turned out offspring who went to college and live responsible, sometimes noble, lives. Guess she and Ann Coulter have been attending the same Sunday school classes where they serve the same coolaid (derisive snort here).
A friend of mine died this last week. She was the 26th woman admitted to the bar in my state, and was lauded for her charitable work throughout her life. I guess she was part of this awful evil too for not having children and filling her alloted role. How dare anyone besmirch all the women like her out there, and suggest they are worthless.
A final question for War Chick. When I make pot roast gravy, I brown the flour and make a roux to start. How does she do it? Or is she too busy snowboarding to have any actual notion of bringing home the bacon and frying it up in a pan?
Comments on this entry are closed.