June 13, 2006

Makes Me Wish for a Scold's Bridle and a Margarita

It's my considered opinion that the biggest detriment to the feminist movement in the 21st century is all these women writing books about:
a) The betrayal of the feminist movement
b) The perils of being a stay-at-home mom who is so freaking competetive she makes herself miserable (emphasis on the phrase MAKES HERSELF MISERABLE)
c) The crushing burden of liberal guilt when it comes to dealing with cooks and nannies.

File Linda Hirshman under option "a."

I just read four tedious pages which can really be summed up like this: It's not fair that women have wombs, families are a punishment and men should be forced to join in this punishment with women, religion is scary, evil and oppressive, and what's wrong with you that you aren't out there pursuing power and wealth? Oh, and by the way, if you say you "chose" your life, you're lying to yourself, because the only true choice is to choose to work in the pursuit of power and wealth.

Jee-sus.

This overabundance of sanctimonious, judgemental harpies in all three categories who are hell-bent on "saving women," really just makes me want to go on a three-day killing spree.

Love, trust and self-confidence are what make a good marriage, good family, and a good career. Replace any of those with just a "love of work," or "shared housework," and it's not going to make you a more fulfilled person--take any of them away and I can pretty much guarantee you'll be miserable, no matter how many revolutions you're fomenting.

It's as though Hirshman thinks you can take some sort of tally-board approach to fulfillment, which completely disregards things like human emotion, love and personal sacrifice--which we do make for people we care about. And not just women.

But I guess all that pales in comparison to the fact that someone with a PhD isn't out there PhD-ing like crazy, dammit! Plus, you start talking about love and sacrifice and you're verging into scary Jesus-land. And we can't have that; I mean, Jesus was a man! Proof positive that God is just a damn misogynist.

Sigh.

Posted by Big Arm Woman at June 13, 2006 12:54 PM
Comments

``completely disregards things like human emotion, love and personal sacrifice--which we do make for people we care about. And not just women.''

Then there's remembering anniversaries.

Stanley Cavell _Disowning Knowledge in Six Plays of Shakespeare_ introduction, has men susceptible to hyperbolic skepticism, the need to know things for certain beyong the limits of human knowing.

He has women under fanaticism, wanting to love beyond the human conditions of loving.

His great line, ``(Is this news?)''

Anyway I deny that love is a feeling, and in particular ``care about'' has wandered into that area, unless you're willing to say that caring isn't a feeling either.

Taking your kid to the dentist isn't relying on any feeling whatsoever ; yet if you don't, people say you don't love your kid.

I would say the general form is morality in general, where something becomes moral by determining who you are.

Kant would put an edge on it by saying it's more moral the less the feeling.

Posted by: Ron Hardin at June 13, 2006 06:21 PM

So, she wants women to go out of the house and work, then she complains that most bosses are "somebody else's husband." Okay.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 13, 2006 07:18 PM

Oh for pete's sake. (Which I suppose is an antifeminist expression in itself).

It makes me want to bang my head against the wall when these sociologist types are looking for a one-size-fits-all solution to life. Woman, don't you realize that some people are HAPPY without being cutthroat selfish workaholics? And don't tell them they're deluded; they're not. You are.

I wonder if some of these folks - the ones who seem to want everyone to be the stereotypical ballbreaking harddriven workaholic - had some kind of early trauma that made them actively reject love and selflessness.

I have chosen not to have children (mainly because I do not think I'd make a particularly good mother) but I can totally see the reward that comes from having the child hug you and tell you they love you, or watching them come running to you after they get off the school bus - and that's the kind of thing that no amount of money can buy.

Posted by: ricki at June 14, 2006 03:17 PM

The child starts planning his escape about age two.

Forget being loved, unless you get a dog. The dog is satisfied with you.

Posted by: Ron Hardin at June 14, 2006 09:17 PM

"The child starts planning his escape about age two."

Bah. Humbug.

I think my mom's the greatest thing since the opposable thumb; just like we both thought her mom was.

I'm hoping to make it to the third generation, God willing and the creeks don't rise.

If your child doesn't love you, it might well be the child (that happens) but it's even odds it's you.

Posted by: Carbonelle at June 15, 2006 01:31 AM

Better than even, Carbonelle. True sociopaths are rare in the general population, but I wonder about the subset of blog commenters.

Posted by: John at June 15, 2006 06:47 AM

Found it: It seems Miss Manners agrees with me on the strange assumptions Average America has about the affections of children.

Posted by: Carbonelle at June 16, 2006 01:15 AM

Ron, you are clueless.

Posted by: Michael at June 17, 2006 09:39 PM