Friday, January 18, 2013


For my female readers out there, would any of you be able to tell me what the positive cost-benefit calculation is for this? Why would you have kids only to pawn them off on a min-wage, doesn't-care-about-them-as-much-as-you-do, probably-doesn't-share-your-values caregiver from 9 AM - 6 PM (after a 1 hr commute each way), go through the pain of daily chore negotiation (a weakness of equalitarian marriages that reject gendered marital behaviors), and generally run yourself ragged?

This isn't a gotcha question, I'm truly attempting to divine where the value is in this equation, other than the utility gained from self-actualization.

For my male readers out there, why would you entertain thoughts of hitching yourself in today's legal climate to someone who thinks that her choices shouldn't have consequences, that others exist to underwrite and enable her choices, who doesn't grok that running a household with children requires time, and who evidently takes your lack of choice for granted?

Honestly, the latest mommy-wars salvo linked above would be amusing if it weren't so sad--doubly so because it's so entirely avoidable. The professional woman's life is hard because her choices trammel tradition and received cultural wisdom, flout the genetic predisposition of both sexes, and attempt to dodge the laws of economic resource allocation. Mind you, the problem can be partially papered over with various legal and socialized compensatory measures intended to support the "working mother" in her effort to be economically "independent", but at the end of the day, between lower productivity and higher overhead costs, I have to wonder if we collectively are trying too hard to make a broken model work.

Of course, no "working moms have it worse" urinary Olympics/pity party would be complete without spears lobbed at those lazy husbands who won't "get off their ass" and/or are "get[ing] away with murder" in shirking their share of the household duties. But at least this time around, someone weighed in from a man's perspective:
I've been a Biglaw associate, and a Biglaw spouse, and let me tell you, it's not as easy as it looks. Just because a lady "loses" the negotiations on domestic chores doesn't mean that she's married to a sexist pig, and it doesn't mean the guy is "getting away with murder".

First of all, I'm assuming that Ms. X's husband works, and works in a fairly well-paying, high-stress job. Why am I making that assumption? BECAUSE MS. X IS QUITTING HER WELL-PAYING, HIGH-STRESS JOB. Guess what, most women aren't going to leave their careers as Biglaw lawyers so they can live on one salary when that one salary is schoolteacher, or dog walker, or (ahem) legal blogger. If this woman has the "freedom" to quit, then chances are her husband is making enough bank to support the family by himself.

Now, other commentators have pointed out that not only did Ms. X have to do the bath time routine, she also had to drop the kids off at daycare, pick them up, and put dinner on the table. And that is a lot to do, without question. But it's wrong to assume that the husband was in any better position to do any of those things. Ms. X says that because she dropped the
kids off in the morning, she was five minutes late on a conference call. To pick the kids up, she left work at 6:00 p.m. And when she finally got home, she made dinner.

Sucks to be her, but do we know that the husband even has that kind of flexibility? The flexibility to sometimes not do a good job at work because of family concerns? Employers can be dismissive and sexist towards women who show up five minutes late with spit up on their suit to meetings. But some employers won't even tolerate the same offenses in men. By all means, fellas, start leaving work at 6:00 p.m. everyday to "go pick up your kids," and see how quickly you're on the outside of leadership opportunities, promotions, and more money.

We talk a lot more about making work environments respect working mothers, but we don't spend a lot of time trying to get old men who had their stay-at-home spouse raise their kids respect "working fathers." And it's worse the more money you make. For a working father making a certain salary, the employer assumes that you're being paid enough to "afford" a stay-at-home wife or live-in nanny. You know, unless you are a beta-ass male who doesn't have what it takes to run my company or win my business because you'd rather be spending time with your kids.

Do we even know if this guy was home for the chicken nugget dinner his wife managed to throw together? Isn't it possible that Ms. X "lost" the negotiation over bath time because the husband spent all his political capital just making it home, and now he has to go right back to work?

And besides, as I'm learning, all the household chores that had to be done before you had kids still have to be done after you have children. Maybe while Ms. X was bathing and reading stories to the kids, the husband was doing the dishes (dishes, by the way, were not on Ms. X's tick-tock), getting the laundry done, and taking out trash.

Ms. X had a busy day, but there's every reason to believe that her husband did too. Just because he wasn't actively involved in the managing of the children on this particular day doesn't mean he wasn't contributing, mightily, to their domestic output.

The point that I draw from the Ms. X story is that a Biglaw job is almost impossible without a stay-at-home spouse or a full-time nanny. These jobs just aren't oriented for people who don't have significant support at home.
Here, at the end, is the key point. All those high-powered jobs that apex-fallacy-subscribing women covet generally have the SAHM family model built into the job description. Which then begs the question: Why again does one pursue a job, in which those who have been successful in the past hail from the Industrial-age working father/SAHM family model, as one half of a two-earner-with-kids couple, and expect the same outcome as those fellows you spy at the top of the pyramid?


Nova said...

The thing is that they want to change the workplace rules so that they are flexible for men and women alike -- the idea being that then there isn't a choice to be made as to who gets most of the home duty, and it can be shared.

The problem is that this denies competitive realities. As it is, currently there generally aren't "rules" that say you have to work until 9 as a biglaw associate. However, there is competition, and if you are the "leave at 6" type you won't get fired if you do good work, but you also won't get promoted, you won't get the good bonuses, and you won't get the juciest work -- why? Because you're not working as hard as others are, and you are not contributing as much as others are -- this is especially true in a system where the firm makes money by hours billed, as is the case in biglaw, but it's also true in any area where the work generally tends to be done in crunches (software programming is another such area, and there are many others).

So, sure, you're free to leave at 6 to be with your family, but you will pay a steep economic price for that due to the competitive nature of the workplace. The flexibility people want is already there. What people don't want, however, is the trade-off -- they want to have their cake (leave early to see kids) and have it too (get promotions, bonuses, etc, same as people leaving work at 9pm). That's never going to happen, because the latter are contributing more, and will get rewarded more -- that's the case even if their average productivity is lower, because their overall output is higher simply due to the additional hours worked.

unmaskingfeminism said...

I too would really like a good honest answer to this. Although, the modern woman won't be able to provide one that doesn't make her sound heartless, so the usual lines about how husbands don't help out enough and employers aren't understanding enough are played. Women shouldn't have to make hard choices between a career and family, everyone else should just be more supportive.

When DS was born I toured a popular daycare facility just to see if its as bad as I heard they are and I left crying. It was so institutionalized to see all the cribs lined up in a row like an orphanage. This place costs $1100 a month too and had rave reviews!

A related irony, as taxes continue to go up, the working mom is not only going to pay a stranger to watch her kids, she is going to pay via tax dollars for a mom to stay home with her kids on welfare.

ray said...

told you before, full male employment, then what's left over/special cases for female employment

you and the peeps dont want that tho, you want this "equalitarian" culture where "everybody" has an "equal right to work" (meaning, in practice, more feminism and feminist workplaces, until all is corrupted and destroyed, and males are forced from virtually all employment, at which point more m.s.m. articles will appear blaming Lazy Men)

how those satanic principles workin' out for ya? fine? u.s. kids are happy, families are thriving, and the society is peaceful and calm?

keep it right on up then i'm sure The Economy is poised to improve! :O)

Suz said...

There is no measurable benefit, only hope:

Hope that *I* have what it takes to be everything feminism tells me I can and should be.

Hope that my husband is as invested in *my* success and fulfillment as I am (even to the detriment of his own success and fulfillment.)

We don't measure "success" in dollars and cents, because we have the luxury of taking dollars and cents for granted. Our measure of success is "How successful do I feel today?"

We women aren't very good at accurately measuring cost vs. benefit, because someone else usually handles the "cost" part - it's nearly invisible to us.

So the short answer is: Delusion. We believe what we choose to believe, and it's not too difficult to find people who agree with us, keeping layers of insulation between us and objective reality.

unmaskingfeminism said...

Timely piece:

Andrew Priest said...

I think the actual truth is that the 2 earner, especially 2 professional incomes, has the appearance of "success". It is an appearance that is too tempting to pass up.

There is very very few professional earners that can afford those $250k to $350k houses on 1 income. That market is dominated by the 2 professional earners, particularly DINKs. Dropping down to 1 professional income for several years is a dramatic lifestyle change.

Plus as Dalrock would say, it is a requirement for the feminist merit badge.

Elusive Wapiti said...

" The flexibility people want is already there. What people don't want, however, is the trade-off"


This is the key phenomenon at the heart of the pay gap myth. They don't like the trade-offs that come when one elects to not put in as many hours as others who do not prioritize home or family life as high on their personal totem pole.

Their solution to the comparative (dis)advantage of those who elect home/family life or more "nurturing" / social-type jobs is to put in place laws that compel equal pay for less work, subsidized child care, non-discrimination laws, etc.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Unmasking,

"Women shouldn't have to make hard choices between a career and family,"

Added to that, men who even think about making these "hard choices" themselves are far more heavily penalized than women.

The gals like to gripe about how the work/life balance is out of whack, but they are cut considerably more slack than men, who must perform/compete or suffer the consequences.

After all, they don't have the benefit of government intervention to soften the impact of such choices.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Nice DM article, BTW. As you say, "timely".

Elusive Wapiti said...


We've been down this road before.

I don't see how, short of dramatic social and political revolution, women will be proscribed from remunerated employment.

On top of that, history that speaks against the wisdom of keeping women in a gilded cage/pedestal. What was 2d wave feminism, if not a bunch of bored, ungainfully employed, covetous housewives making trouble for everyone else?

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Suz,

"Hope that *I* have what it takes to be everything feminism tells me I can and should be."

Such slavery. The worst part about it is that it's completely voluntary.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Andrew,

"2 professional incomes has the appearance of "success"."

This comment dovetails with what Suz wrote quite well. "Success" is defined as keeping up with the herd, living the feminist ideal to the hilt, being able to outmatch the other women in the chick hierarchy.

In the end, I think it all comes down to values. What do you value, and what are you willing to sacrifice (the costs) to achieve that value?

ray said...

"I don't see how, short of dramatic social and political revolution, women will be proscribed from remunerated employment."

i'm aware that you dont see how, EW, yet it's possible that despite your wonderfulness, that you are not panoptic

publically opposing women-in-workplace is where it starts . . . taking an unpopular stand bc it is both right, and necessary

given the horrible evidence before us, there is NO excuse for maintaining this facade of "employment equality" . . . yet both righties and lefties desperately demand to maintain it, b/c it is in their personal economic and power interests, and bc males are AFRAID of females (and rightly so, at this point)

. . . despite the clear fact that the free-market-woman model has already essentially destroyed western family and society

the rightie guys LOVE that PHAT dubble-paycheck coming in, LOTS of great stuff to be bought, cool toys n gun n motorcycles, and "improvements" to their hen-nests, me me me me me me me

the fact this can only be accomplished by disenfranchising 40 million men from employment and a reasonalble life, matters not a whit . . . neither to leftie nor rightie

cuz i gots mine and i wants ta keep it! and get More! lol

little boys w/o daddies? who cares? vast male homelessness, suicide, incarceration? so what?

no men in the household to protect male children? no prob! hey me 'n the missus got our new s.u.v., she's got a GREAT government job, come on over and check out the options on this baby!

it's not that tossing women from their (largely useless/destructive) "jobs" isnt the obviously sane thing to do, and would result in tremendous benefit, short-and-long term . . . it's that yall DONT WANT TO DO IT

"On top of that, history that speaks against the wisdom of keeping women in a gilded cage/pedestal"

history speaks no wisdoms, all wisdom comes from God

listening to History instead of who you should is a big part of the problem

ennyway its a red herring, you present a false default position that removal of women from their "jobs" must result in some fantasy "gilded cage" derived from feminist theory and stuff you heard about the Fifties

restoration of sanity in male-female relations, and in functioning of society, need not result in some requisite "gilded cage" nonsense you have proferred . . . a weak rationalization to Keep Things As They Are

you can do better than that EW! i guess you were in a hurry tho? so it's ok

El Bastardo said...


I think you know that this bastard here truly respects you?

However, how dare you expect these women to make sense? Good Sense is obviously not in their vernacular! You can't hold it against them; they have needs, and we must all drop what we are doing as soon as these little cupcakes run into any myriadal storm of problem in real life they are incapable of solving on their own; whilst reaffirming how special said cupcake is regardless of the consequences to society as a whole.

So come on everyone, let's just let our common sense, and respect for a workable society go down the drain so these princesses can let us eat cake; sans guillotine ops.

All joking aside, there comes a point where we need to stop making these idiots see reason; and let the consequences of life naturally clear the air for us.

In trying to make them see reason, we destroy our own momentum. I think we have enough theory available for them to see the light when life forces them to sit and do the research. Whether they listen or not is none of our concern!

"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

Elusive Wapiti said...


While I can appreciate your sentiments, I don't think you are going back far enough to put humpty back together again.

If you really want to reverse the free-market-woman model, you need to go ahead and revoke the industrial revolution as well. For it was the industrial revolution that pulled men en masse out of the home and enthroned mother as de facto head of the household by virtue of the fact that she was there. And he wasn't. And as someone famous said, life is 90% just showing up. Once dad was turned into a wage-slave, the sort of post-Enlightenment silliness that Abigail Adams hen-pecked her husband about suddenly had headroom.

It is for this reason that I don't think putting women back into the no-workie box you propose won't, well, work. There are other reasons, to be sure (human nature, spiritual warfare, Scripture itself, the consequences of bad ideas, etc).

As for wisdom, agreed, true wisdom comes from God. However, given that the bulk of readers here and in other places of the manosphere are not Believers, it makes sense to argue from reason rather than scripture. Thumping the Bible, hollering "you were made for man, not the other way around" only works with about 15% of the female population, max, and about 25% of the male population by my reckoning.

If you think you can do better than me, that's fine. I'm not offended. Draft up a proposal that's fit to print and I'll post it here.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Le Bastard,

I think you give me far too much credit, my friend. I've pretty much given up on trying to convert the wayward lasses. Pearls, fools, all that.

Instead, I've retrenched and am merely trying to I can help my vertical-thinking brothers from making poor choices. Maybe even help a few take the red pill before having it force-fed to them via the divorce grist mill. Which by then is too late.

El Bastardo said...

Which by then is too late.-EW

Whatever do you mean fella? I am broke, can't see my kid, and a student again after post non-reenlistment due to feminists budget constraints and I am doing FIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEE!

Please don't look at me when I am in the unemployment line; as I can't look at in you directly in the eye whilst I can't obviously fool anyone then.

What you say? Family court? What on heavens is that?

For the Love of God; get all that we can, every last one we can

Elusive Wapiti said...

Sorry Bastardo. I should clarify...never too late as you say. A message of freedom and wisdom and reality is always timely. Even for guys like us who've been through the grinder.

However, I'd rather get to our brothers and educate them *before* they get fed into the chipper. The best kind of experience is that which one doesn't have to learn oneself.

El Bastardo said...

Very true; like the Bible says: The wise gain knowledge by watching others punished.

I was not always wise; as I saw it, but did not connect the dots.

Have mercy on me, my science books had pictures to color; connect the dots was to advanced for public college.

Unknown said...

You set up some straw men with your question.

I am a working, happily married mother of three with a fourth on the way.

I lovingly accept that I care more about certain household standards than my husband does. For instance, he thinks I am crazy for ironing all our kids' school clothes; maybe he's right and I'm overcompensating. On the other hand, the realization that my husband's crooked clothes-hanging is not meant as some personal affront to me is very freeing. And I appreciate all the things he does that I cannot do, even if it's something that does not really require much effort on his part, such as setting a superb example of manhood for our children.

I completely agree with Roissy/Heartiste that a wife letting herself get fat and/or frigid is the equivalent to a husband quitting his job and lazing around on the couch. I keep fit can guess the rest.

My children's caregivers make more than minimum wage, do care, and do share my values.

My job forbids overtime, and is not particularly stressful.

My job pays well (though not six figures).

My commutes from to work and daycare are negligible. 5-10 minutes between any two locations.

So, we have great work-life balance, I don't henpeck my dear husband, and we are all happy. We get to bid competitively for economic resources with all the other two-income couples, my husband and I get some built-in personal time together, I don't have to go through a logistics battle just to stop by the store for an ingredient, I get validation from my peers, I get built-in gym time, I get built-in studying time (I am studying for my next career), my kids strengthen their social skills and immune systems, my kids engage in all kinds of craft projects that I probably wouldn't do at home on such a consistent basis...frankly I am not very 'girly' or cut out to be a housewife and this arrangement works great for me.

As long as diversity, the nuclear family, and two-income competitor families are the reality, I choose to work outside the home. Now, if most other women stayed home, the country was mostly made up of my co-ethnics (thus obviating the need to outbid other families for the privilege of living far away from the diversity), and I had extended family living nearby, then obviously staying home would be the optimal choice.

ray said...

"Once dad was turned into a wage-slave, the sort of post-Enlightenment silliness that Abigail Adams hen-pecked her husband about suddenly had headroom."

america was planned and founded to be exactly what it is now, not what it was in the first half-century

Abby and the Grrls were already hard at work before the baby even started toddling! lol

"It is for this reason that I don't think putting women back into the no-workie box you propose won't, well, work."

oh i know it wont work (satan would simply undermine it again, given time)

the job-suggestion was an example of the kind of commitment required to shake the matriarchy from its death-hold on civilization... and i wanted to see what excuses you'd come up with for not doing something so simple, that would improve the lives of so many people, so quickly

and you DID, you DID! :O) oh no it could never work, the Enlightenment alreddy ruined it all, the immigrants would just take all the newly opened jobs, etc etc

i also used it to highlight the REAL reasons why u.s. employment (and everything else) is gyno-controlled . . . collusion with feminism/leftism by the RIGHT wing men who WANT the endless goodies of their two-earner households (usually with wifey in govt. job) and the desire of RIGHT wing men that their daughters and wives continue as first class citizens ruling over OTHER males (while Mr. RightWing tough-guy pretends he's a level-headed nonfeminst lol)

"There are other reasons, to be sure (human nature, spiritual warfare, Scripture itself, the consequences of bad ideas, etc)."

yes yes reasons reasons reasons reasons but the harsh reality is the vast majority of guys, including righties, dont WANT to make simple, necessary changes, because they are heavily invested in the Fempire status quo

the dying empire still has enough loot to buy these men off, and keep them from doing, well, the obvious things that need doing

i'm quite aware that scripture does not indicate that socio-political alterations will save humanity... but that doesnt mean sane measure should therefore not be taken . . . or sloughed away by presenting rationalizations why "it'll never work"

"If you think you can do better than me, that's fine. I'm not offended. Draft up a proposal that's fit to print and I'll post it here"

usually i only bother with those i like

appreciate the offer but ive been writing and publishing for a couple decades now at my own sites, despite the No Traction Punishments of The Group lol, anybody wants me knows where to find me (and they dont! lol)

dunno whatcha got til it's gone etc, cheers

Christina said...

Last time I commented here, I was unjustly called a hypocrite and he got away scott free after Wanderling was banned for - what, exactly, if not ad-hominem attacks?

But I'll give this a shot -

There is a history that exists that the MRM doesn't like to acknowledge - but it IS real... that women were EVER oppressed or treated badly is something they don't really like to hear.

I'm not saying patriarchy is oppressive or treats women poorly - and maybe that's why the MRM takes such offense the proposition that women were ever oppressed.

I believe patriarchy protects women and children. But I'm also not so naive to think men are incapable of evil deeds.

Feminism undoubtedly came before Chauvinism - it was Eve who ate the apple first, wasn't it? Wasn't the serpent's argument to her that God never told HER not to eat it, effectively making her feel less important than Adam because God HAD told Adam and Adam told Eve. Imagine how she must have felt realizing that...and then the serpent says she'd know everything God knows if she just ate the fruit... And she thought then I would know everything BEFORE Adam! Oh yeay!

I'm sure chauvinism came later, when some asshat decided all women were worthless because its their fault we ended up in this hell-hole outside the Garden.

Its been a cycle throughout history - feminism/chauvinism vying for prominence. Many ancients suffered from feminism and many ancients oppressed women and considered them unworthy of the more important "men's work".

Regardless of where it began or how it came about (but it DID exist), women believed the lie that child-rearing and home-keeping was not valuable work.

My Bible Translation (NLT) translates Eve's curse out of the Garden not as having desire for her husband but as having a desire to RULE OVER her husband. I imagine we'd all see how feminism is exactly that. If men believe a women's work is useless, they want to do the men's work and rule over the men.

If all you want to be is more important than your husband (or men in general) and you believe that "women's work" is worthless, than you are naturally going to want to do what men do to prove you are just as good (if not better) than men.

That's my opinion of where all this started.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Unknown,

I regret taking so long to circle back to you.

You wrote:

"You set up some straw men with your question."

While I did paint with some large strokes, esp with the definition of "professional woman" being so broad, I don't think I was setting up strawmen.

My query was issued with the example of Mrs. X in mind, as an exponent of a woman who pursues optional outside-the-home employment for various reasons mostly accruing to self-gratification while others foot the bill.

Of course there are many variations on the theme of "working mother", including, in my book, the SAHM.

And I hope I've made it clear by now that I don't think that returning all women to the domestic sphere, leaving the worldly sphere to teh menz, is the correct solution either. For temporal, historically sound reasons as well as spiritual.

I thought fellow TC contributor alcestiseshtemoa had a good put over at TC yesterday on this issue, prescribing a third way of sorts. In her missive, she recommends something that I think would go a long way toward righting the social wrong wrought by the industrial revolution, leveraging tech to permit men to return to the home and for extended families to reunite.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Christina,

"There is a history that exists that the MRM doesn't like to acknowledge... that women were EVER oppressed or treated badly is something they don't really like to hear."

I personally don't see how this (women treated badly in some cultures/time) is in any way controversial.

That it is suggests that portions of the MRM is as infected with liberalist thought as is feminism...the notion that humanity is naturally morally neutral and/or perfectible is a liberalist precept.

The precept that man (i.e., both male and female) is fundamentally evil unless otherwise redeemed is a Christian one. It may also be a Moslem one as well.

Thus the statement that "men are capable of great evil too" is axiomatic...perhaps not to some of my more male-positive brothers...but certainly to me.

Further, in my experience, those who do anchor their cosmology in the imperative of correcting female maltreatment are often victims of the apex fallacy, or in believing the herstories proffered by agitators interested in recasting the historical record to fit their political perspectives.

Christina said...

Further, in my experience, those who do anchor their cosmology in the imperative of correcting female maltreatment are often victims of the apex fallacy, or in believing the herstories proffered by agitators interested in recasting the historical record to fit their political perspectives.

Don't really know where you stand as to my theory >.<

Certainly, I see nothing gained by over-indulging on part of history ad-nauseum for the sake of advancing some ideology. I'd rather draw from multiple sources, periods, geographical areas. Certainly, victorian england could be seen as a bit oppressive of the female sex, but it is Rome that is such a beautiful illustration of how destructive feminism is.

I do agree that many in the MRM come from many backgrounds, but in writing the statement about the histories being shunned by many in the MRM, I realized that the argument from feminists on that history is that PATRIARCHY OPPRESSES WOMEN is what they opposed so vehemently. Their argument: Patriarchy does NOT oppress women. Which is absolutely correct.

Aside from that, the attitude still existed that women's work was not as valuable as men's work. I know I've heard it in histories from the victorian era being pushed by men, but certainly since the 60's it is feminists who have been pushing that belief on women - and they overwhelmingly agreed. Hence the belief that working outside the home is more fulfilling and "better".

I think this is changing - men have actually helped. With their wives out earning the keep, it is stay at home dads that have somehow managed to progress the idea that housekeeping and child rearing is valuable. Many of the dad's blogs (though ridiculously feminist, many of them) are refreshing in the idea that it is a worthwhile venture, validating many SAHMs whose more aggressive and ambitious counterparts have slandered and smeared them as being brainwashed idiots.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Sorry, I don't know much about where the differential valuation in so-called "women's" work and "men's" work comes from. Hadn't really thought much about it, because using market compensation as a barometer of the absolute value of one's labors is a pretty clumsy metric IMHO.

Even among "men's work"...for example, banksters and pro athletes are paid handsomely for what they do as money-changers/skimmers and entertainers. Yet is what they do more important than a father teaching his daughter to be responsible and guarding her sexuality, or a mother serving as "Den Mother" in Cub Scouts?

My best guess: it originates from a unity of the Economic Man model and the strict division of labor within the household, from which both sexes draw their relative "power".

Elusive Wapiti said...

And as you note, feminists are among the most strident--if not the only--advocates of paid employment being more "valuable" than the sort of indirectly compensated labors that a SAH spouse engages in.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"Patriarchy does NOT oppress women. Which is absolutely correct."

It just feels like it oppresses women because it restricts female autonomy.

You and I both know that slavery to one's base urges and its consequences is just that.

Those whose lens is focused only on themselves miss the wider systems view...and that is how patriarchy structures the family (and therefore society) in a way that benefits women and children (and men) far more than matriarchy does.

IOW, fathers as heads-of-households and in community leadership positions and telling women "no" every once in a while works to everyone's benefit.

Christina said...

It just feels like it oppresses women because it restricts female autonomy.

It also restricts male autonomy. Limiting their access to quality women with which to procreate with - they don't go around spreading their seed willy-nilly.

I suppose its the idea that boundaries in general are oppressive. Oh to behave on our natural inclinations like some wild animal! Heaven forbid mommy and daddy say 'no' to ANYTHING.

I don't care, really - except that knowing all this has me church floating and friend questioning.