A Danger to Society

That’s the message being sent out by Nine Deuce in her various posts about bdsm.

All of us who engage in the nefarious practices of bdsm are a threat to feminism. We’re public enemy numero uno.

Now, she claims to be on a mission of trying to understand bdsm, really wanting to understand why we (we, as in the submissive females and the dominant males) do what we do and how we justify the damage we’re doing to the millions of women who have fought so bloody hard to give us a better life than the one we choose to live.

Having read through her posts and waded into the hundreds upon hundreds of comments (and read her oh-so-articulate replies like “fuck off” and “go fuck yourself” and “stay the fuck off of my blog” and her tendency to delete comments willy-nilly) I’m rather convinced that she’s not, actually, wanting to understand anything. She has an agenda. (But then, don’t we all? I have one, too. To be left alone, free from the ignorance and hatred she vomits into cyberspace on a regular basis.)

Of course, having a blog as ones personal space to bash bdsm is A-OK in my book. I have a blog that glorifies bdsm (sort of and sometimes) so, sure, bash away, and have a good time doing it.

What interests me about her blog is her apparent honest belief that we cult-ish bdsm peeps are a threat to her world. I mean, I suppose we get used to hearing that we’re “sick, twisted, damaged, blah blah blah” – but to hear that by the very nature of expressing our sexuality we’re dangerous to society as a whole? It’s kind of flattering, isn’t it?

Who knew we held so much power? Honestly, my head could begin to swell right now! I am already planning what I’ll do when I take over the world, right after I finish with this very slow, very tedious, very very loooooong process of destroying feminism by bending over for a spanking now and then.

(insert eyerolls at will)

I actually enjoy a good debate, especially a debate about bdsm and it’s practices, as well as its effects, if any, on society. And I truly like delving into the why’s of it all. Why am I like this? Why are you like that? Why is HE like THAT? But the thing that immediately made me dismiss her as a voice worth listening to was her insistence that she *only* hear from/talk about/ talk to the M/f members of bdsm, while simulataneously blaming that group for the nullification of the feminist movement.

Conveniently, that group are the ones who are a product of a damaged society and who are continuing to damage society. Switches, F/m, F/f, male submissives- you are all safe and free from judgement. You all mess up her theory so let’s just exclude you completely. (Isn’t there a name for that, where one excludes data that disproves the theory?)

Let’s say I had a theory that alcoholic men are alcoholics because their fathers were alcoholics. Then let’s say I wrote a blog about it and only asked for input from men who are alcoholics with alcoholic fathers.

I refuse to acknowledge that women can be alcoholics, too.

I refuse to talk with men whose fathers weren’t alcoholics.

Limiting my “research” to alcoholic men with alcoholic fathers is hardly sufficient proof to thus proclaim that all alcoholics are men with alcoholic fathers.

Which is, essentially, what she has done. She thinks that bdsm is a direct result of societal conditioning. That the only reason men are dominant sadists is because society has led them to believe that they can be, and the only reason women are submissive is because society has made us believe we *have* to be.

Male submissives and female dominants <-- that's how you deal with those pesky theory flubber-uppers!

According to her, feminism, and what feminists fought for, wasn't to give women the choice of how to live or how to express their sexuality. Not at ALL. In fact, she downright scoffs at the idea that we should have a choice. The choice we DO have, according to nine deuce's feminist views? Is to do it her way. That's it. The End. Any other choice is an insult to feminsists everywhere.

"Feminism is about freeing women from male oppression" /quote. It is NOT about choices. And by supporting that old male-led society, we're furthering the suppression of women. Therefore, no matter what *else* we do in our lives, we are not feminists, cannot be feminists, are the archenemies of feminists - and should be shot. Or something.

I haven't commented there, and won't, as getting involved in the argument waging there is a complete waste of time. She's not interested in hearing other voices. Which is sad, really, because some of the people over there who ARE trying to enlighten her are making some supremely important and valid points that she simply refuses to acknowledge.

But I'm going to quote some of her, and her followers, words of wisdom on the world of bdsm. A world that they, admittedly, have no knowledge of beyond a couple of websites. A world that they think they know enough of to condemn, judge, belittle, label, and dismiss. (a bit like how I'm feeling about her actually.)

"I’ve never said that anyone has no right to engage in whatever they’re engaged in, unless they’re hurting people. I think the issue at hand is whether what goes on at Kink.com and as a result of what they do hurts people. I think it does."
(and since she’s concluded that we ARE hurting people, she’s decided we have no right to engage in it)

“If someone can honestly sit there and rationalize how fetishizing non-consensual violent sex that follows the dominant patriarchal norms and is entirely rooted in them is a valid “identity” like homosexuality and race and gender, I’m going to assume the right to assume that they’re criminally intellectually challenged with a persecution complex the size of the Sun.”
(Why can’t domination/submission be a valid identity? I didn’t choose to be submissive, I choose to act on it. A gay person doesn’t choose to be gay, they choose to act on it. A straight person doesn’t choose to be straight, they choose to act – oh, ffs. How can she not see that??)

“You don’t get it. It doesn’t matter if individual women think BDSM rules or participate gladly[...]. What matters is that the existence of this kind of shit is BAD FOR ALL WOMEN.”
(Well damn good thing she’s around to decide for all of us women what’s healthy or not healthy! Wouldn’t want to think for myself or anything progressive like that!)

“It’s a moral judgment, not a call for legal action.”
(Coulda fooled me)

“If you want to participate in this discussion, avoid telling feminists what feminism is about.”
(Indeed. As soon as you stop telling bdsm’ers what bdsm is all about.)

“Just because we want something doesn’t make it right. Being aroused by domination is something we’ve been programmed to do since birth. That doesn’t mean we should hurt people or celebrate pain. And you know what? I will shame people that hurt other people, because in my opinion that is part of the social contract (and it isn’t the sex that is shameful).”
(You should be ashamed of yourself for being such a first-rate, class-less, venom-spewing bitch. Was that social programming for you or did you pick that up along the way? You’re awfully good at it.)

“I’m not urging banning anything, I’m not telling anyone to be ashamed, but I am saying that our goal ought to be a world in which women are truly sexually autonomous beings. That means making choices with regard to sex from a set of options that aren’t limited by patriarchal social conditioning.”
(You are telling people to be ashamed. Repeatedly and often, with colorful words. Your goal, as far as I can tell, is not to allow women to be sexually autonomous beings, as evidenced by your agenda to not allow women to choose how to express their sexuality when that choice doesn’t match yours.)

“Men will keep that up until we refuse to allow it. Feminism is women’s movement, not men’s. They’ve got no reason to give up privilege, so we have to make them.”
(Way to lump all men together. Kinda like how you claim men are lumping women into sexually submissive beings and can’t see them for anything else?)

“Sexual repression has generally been an element of patriarchy, especially when it comes to women’s sexuality. [...] and I suppose my goal is to eradicate the warped-ness and the repression and see if we can’t find something more healthy to do.”
(The only thing I see you doing is trying very hard to replace mens supposed sexual repression of women with your own standard of sexual repression of women. How on earth does that equal “healthy” to you? Your goal to eradicate my style of sexuality? Pretty fucking repressive, in my book.)

“I think that this particular choice wouldn’t be made as often if we weren’t told that our sexuality is shameful and that we ought to have to be led into enjoying sex and/or punished for liking it.”
(Then how’s about you stop telling me that my sexuality is shameful. You’re not setting yourself apart from the men who are suppressing women -if they even exist on the scale you imagine them. You are *joining* them.)

“I genuinely believe that if we were to achieve the end of male supremacy, of shaming women for enjoying sex at all, of the expectation of women’s submission to degradation and domination, that these sorts of desires might not exist at all.”
(Really? Really?? I just… wow. Because, totally, as soon as someone tells me it’s not okay to feel this way, it just goes away!)

“What all of you seem to be missing here is that I’ve never given female subs shit for what they’re into.”
(Lies. Bold-faced lie. Not to mention how she very rudely slammed quoted pieces of a couple of female sub’s blogs that she copied and pasted on her site. But she’s not giving them shit for being into it. No. Not at all. Good ol’ sweetness and light ND!)

“People torturing each other shouldn’t be a part of human sexuality. I’m all for women being free of the shame that society tries to attach to their enjoying sex, but this is not a freedom from that, it’s a result of it. If women weren’t ashamed of their sexuality, they probably wouldn’t develop the desire to be dominated (which removes the responsibility for liking sex from them), forced (same deal), or humiliated and hurt (which works as a sort of penance for enjoying sex).”
(*sigh* Why do you get to decide what should, or should not, be a part of anyone’s sexuality as long as they aren’t a)forcing it on YOU, or b)forcing it anyone else?)

“Men who enjoy torturing women or who enjoy seeing women tortured are the enemies of womankind and the enemies of feminism.”
(Well, I guess all you men can stop supporting feminism now. Relax and throw off that mask and reveal yourselves for He-man Woman Hater’s Club members that you are!)

“And it (the shot/words of the woman proclaiming her extreme enjoyment of the scene that just finished) comes last because I can imagine a guy having an orgasm and _then_ being a bit worried about/disgusted with himself for enjoying this stuff (at least at first). That post-orgasm shot of the women smiling is his palate cleanser.”
(Could not *possibly* be the woman’s genuine reaction to something she thoroughly enjoyed, could it? Nah. Can’t be that. Impossible. She’s too stupid to know what she enjoys. I forgot.)

So, being a submissive is an oppressive role that I have been forced into by society, apparently without my knowledge. A role that she and her femi-nazi followers have missed. I haven’t yet found where she explains how she was able to sidestep what thousands of other women like me were too stupid to notice. She is the special snowflake.

Most surprisingly and, in my opinion, most intellectually dishonest, she continues to categorically deny that she’s the one dehumanizing women in the same breath that she says we’re not *able* to make these decisions for ourselves. I genuinely fail to see the difference between a)someone telling me I’ve been conditioned to not have a choice or that b)I am too ignorant to make that choice. Both seem equally demeaning and dehumanizing.

She does not recognize that women have the emotional and mental capacity to decide whether or not they want to be in BDSM relationships, while claiming it’s men and society who are opppressive. Personally, I find a group of women fighting to criminalize the way I’m living my life to be pretty darn oppressive!

In fact, she advises that us sick fucks should “go kill ourselves”. Now isn’t it a good thing we have her on the side of humanity, working for the greater good of society? Where *would* we be without people like her (besides happier and safer, of course)?

~cunt

1 person likes this post.

Like

Unlike

Respect My Authoritay!

Authoritay - Word use to show authority but in a bigger more dictatorial way, used by people who have more power over others or people that think they have more power than others. ~ Urban Dictionary

Awhile ago I was going to do an entry about the tv show “Wife Swap” but trashed it. A recent testy discussion over at Fetlife has resurrected my wife swap thoughts.

Wife Swap, if you’ve never watched it, is where they take one family and then find another family that is the exact opposite of everything held near and dear to them and then – duh- swap wives for two weeks.

During the first week, the wife has to live by the rules of the family. In the second week, she changes up all the rules and tries to enforce her way of life on them.

It’s all very dramatic and soap opera-ish, and of course, during the 5 minute follow-up flair, they’ve always learned valuable lessons about themselves and changed for the better – blah, blah, blah.

Many, many, *many* episodes feature a submissive wife (and they even use the word “submissive”) who has to swap with some corporate-climbing, fiercely independent, career woman who would rather eat dog shit than wait on some man.

My daughters, while watching the submissive wife episodes and seeing the dramatic conclusion where the dominant husband “sees the light” and stops expecting his woman to file his toenails, will hassle me about going on the show.

They joke about Master having to get his own drinks or fix his own plate. Even though we’ve (the kids and I) talked many times about it being my choice to serve him that way, etc. etc., it’s become a topic they like to razz me about.

They accept, with some amount of.. distaste, I suppose… that the lifestyle of a submissive woman, this old-fashioned arrangement, is what makes me happy. They also say that it is NOT the path for them.

And it doesn’t have to be. Master and I are not training them for it, nor do we push it on them as a “preferred” or “superior” way of being. It is *for us*, and we live it without shame, but it is not, obviously, for them.

God bless women’s lib. God bless the power of choice.

That is why Wife Swap would fail to make Master “see the light”. In that show, those dominant men and submissive women don’t see it as a choice. In many episodes, they are training their children to emulate their lifestyle. Whether due to religious or moral beliefs, they feel their chosen way of living is the superior one and they *want* their children to copy it. They deny them even the exposure to other options.

Those men believe they are, or should be, dominant over ALL women. Those women believe they should be submissive to ALL men. That that is the Natural Order and anything else is undesirable.

Master and I don’t believe that. We don’t preach that, we don’t think that, we don’t even come *close* to raising our kids with that philosophy.

We believe that it works for us. Specifically for us. He is dominant over me – not over women in general. I am submissive to him – not to men in general.

I will, mostly, respect the dominant position that a male, or a female, has chosen. I will respect it based soley on some imagined (to me) hierarchy in my world. Not to mention that Master himself expects that I respect another’s dominant position, male or female. (But that respect is within reason, which will be further illustrated in this post.)

Master treats dominant women, submissive women (except for me), dominant men and submissive men as his equals. He affords the most gentlemanly courtesy to everyone. He does not think himself “better than” any one of those groups of people.

Master doesn’t resent women in positions of power. He doesn’t have issues working along side, or even under, a female. He doesn’t trash-talk women, he doesn’t disrespect women, he doesn’t find them useless or worthless. (He does think women are lousy drivers, though. Man, that just burns my ass! But that’s another topic for another day.) He doesn’t think they can only function in the kitchen.

Neither do I. I do not think that woman’s lib is to blame for the breakdown of society. I don’t believe that only men can successfully navigate the corporate world. I don’t think my daughters are foolish to dream of better things than housewife drudgery.

Gone are the days when a woman needed a man to survive. Long, long, long gone. That caveman-esque way of life is no longer needed in today’s world. A woman’s only path to fulfillment is not to serve a man. If it ever was!

Probably some of this may sound at odds with other things I’ve said in the past. My views on a female president, for instance, certainly could have been misconstrued as mysoginistic or in support of male power. But as I tried so hard to express in that post, my views and where my comfort level lies are specific to me, and me only. I don’t, because I’m a smart cookie, include anyone else in those views. I don’t even expect anyone to agree with me. I don’t try and convince anyone else that I am right and they are wrong.

And I don’t raise my girls, or my son, to accept my word as gospel. Or to accept my choice as their only option.

We are very different, my girls and I. While my comfort lies in being dominated, in living my life according to the supposed “Natural Order”, while my path to happiness is heavily laden with servitute and submission, I do not think that any other chosen path is “unnatural” or a mistake.

My two girls’ path could be *anything*. My son’s path could be anything. What I make sure they get are options.

Take chores, for instance. In the households on that stupid tv show, the chores are divided up according to girl-chores and boy-chores. They are training their kids to follow that path. The Natural Order path, the path where boys do boy things and girls stay in the house and cook.

I don’t do that here with my kids. There is no differing between boy/girl work. B-man does laundry and dishes, the same as the girls’ do. And the girls can take out the trash and mow the lawn just like a boy.

There is no difference between my expectations from them either – at least not based on gender. I tailor my expectations, and how I relate to them, based on their individual personalities, needs, and wants.

If my son even so much as hints that he “deserves” to be waited on because he’s a boy, I’ll smack him down quicker than shit. Nobody “deserves” anything based solely on the genitalia swinging between your legs.

My girls don’t deserve to be servants merely because of their gender and my son doesn’t deserve to be dominant because of his.

Neither will my son have “squandered away” his supposed birthright to dominance should he choose to be an equal to his mate. There is no birthright to dominance and submission.

There is choice. There is personality. There is personal happiness.

What makes someone dominant? I have no idea. I don’t think it’s a penis and ball sack, but beyond that I really have no opinion. I spent enough time trying to figure out why I was a submissive that I no longer waste the time trying to figure out why anyone else is what they are.

The question that sparked the heated debate over on FL was essentially – “Since the primary role and path to fulfillment for a female is to serve a man”, [...] is it a waste of time (to educate) girls as they are raised?

The question itself, I thought, was ignorant. Quite frankly, it pissed me off. I abhor the very idea of “grooming” children toward a certain path. Denying them exposure and opportunity is, imo, appalling. Absolutely should not be tolerated or condoned or even entertained as semi-acceptable.

(At that point right there, and then further evidenced by subsequent posts from the same OP, that respect that I mentioned earlier that I’m supposed to show another dominant? Gone. No longer required. I have my own (and Master’s) pre-set, pre-defined acceptable standards of dominance, and that just violated all of them. Not only is that dominant no longer my superior, he’s beneath me – in character, in integrity, in values, and frankly, in brains. I will not speak to him like he’s entitled to my submission, I will not offer him niceties or curb my tongue based on his imagined position. I’ll speak to him like the ignorant ass that he is showing himself to be.)

If indeed, one believes in the natural order of things, that men are naturally dominant and women are naturally submissive, if that’s how things naturally occur, then there would be no reason not to educate your children and expose them to other ways of life. Because wouldn’t they “naturally” fall in line with the “natural order”?

I mean, let’s be serious here. I long to have lived in the Victorian era, when women were property, and options were limited and rights didn’t exist. I’d give my left tit to have a society in the present day where one could live outwardly with those principals. But I would never, ever wish that for my child. What makes it so alluring to me now is knowing what else is out there. It’s having been exposed, having *lived* as an independent woman. Why on earth would I want to take that away from someone? Why would anyone even consider narrowing another’s options?

I’m submissive because I choose to be. If I were submissive because I *had* to be, would I find it nearly as fulfilling? I don’t think so.

God. That topic just gets my goat.

….

….

I was asked “What gives a man the entitlement to require submission from a woman, if it is not his gender?”

My answer – Nothing. Absolutely nothing entitles a man to require, expect or deserve submission from a woman. Entitlement and birthright have no place in my world. I think it’s a ridiculous notion.

Master is dominant for reasons known only to him. In order for me to believe that dominance is a birthright entitled to him by his gender, I’d also have to believe that my own son is entitled to my submission (by birthright -ain’t gonna happen), that my doctor is entitled to my submission, that my brother is entitled to my submission, that my neighbor is –

Or worse, I’d have to believe that any male who isn’t an egotistical dominant ass is flawed in some way. Any male who didn’t want my submission was “unnatural”.

And I don’t believe that. I believe in personal choice, by both parties. I believe in mitigating circumstances that lead some people to D/s. I believe in pairing up with the person whose personality fits yours.

Why is he dominant? Because I submit to him. Without the other, we would be “nothing more than an egotistical arrogant self important bastard taking advantage of someone else who to stupid know better.”

Or worse, he’d be an egotistical ass thinking he deserves something that he doesn’t.

Personally, I think all doms are egotistical asses. I think it comes with the territory – a requirement, almost. I think the “flawed” part comes in when they con’t control it and begin thinking they can dominate outside of their little circle.

So I was admonished in the group for being disrespectful and rude (who? me? mouthy and opinionated? *le gasp!*), which wasn’t surprising because my hot-headed reply for that kind of dom to kiss my ass didn’t fall in with the “natural order” of female submissive-ness.

See where that sense of entitlement bites ya? I rather felt I was entitled to speak my mind since I’m not one of them “natural” submissive who falls to my knees at the sight of the big burly caveman and he felt he was entitled to lady-like, submissively-worded, gentle objections.

I guess we were both let down based on our misplaced sense of entitlement.

At which point I left the group. Not necessarily in an “I’m taking my ball and going home” huff, more of an “I don’t think I fit in here” kind of way.

Honestly, I really really do like and admire the moderators of that group. (Just not that particular OP) I have the utmost respect for them, as a couple.

I think she is just about the hottest thing on two legs.

I don’t have to agree with their views any more than they have to agree with mine. I have no interest in surrounding myself only with those who agree with me. I sincerely DO hope there hasn’t been damage done to what is, to me, an invaluable friendship.

But I really only bite my tongue for one person. I accept that my unwillingess to play by other’s rules may be costly. I accept that how we do this, the allowances he gives me, aren’t acceptable for others.

I guess I don’t know what else to say about it.

Be the first to like.

Like

Unlike

A child’s justice — that the world be as one wishes it for oneself.

It used to be that women had no choice in their lot in life. A woman had to agree to serve, honor, and obey a man.

Women had all been brought up to believe that our role and purpose in life was to please men and look after them and their children, and to put their needs ahead of our own. There was a clear, unspoken expectation that we would derive our satisfaction in life by getting married, and thereafter living our lives vicariously through our husbands, supporting them, sharing their triumphs, subjugating our hopes and dreams to theirs and exchanging our sexual and domestic services in return for their financial support. Psychiatric theory at the time assumed there was something wrong with a woman if she wasn’t perfectly adjusted to marriage and motherhood, because getting married and having children was thought to be a naturally fulfilling state for all women. (From: here.

There is no question that the women who fought and sacrificed to erase that expectation are to be commended. There is no argument that the Women’s Liberation Movement needed to occur.

But the assumption that all women wanted this liberation is insane. To claim that all women were stifled under the oppression, that all women resented being forced into that domestic role, is pure propaganda. There were, there ARE still, many women who thrive on, and choose to be, domestic, “oppressed”, feminine souls.

It’s come full circle. Women worked so hard to ensure a choice, to create opportunities, to secure that their sisters and daughters and granddaughters would not be boxed into something that they *had* to be defined merely by their gender. Only to come to find out that they’ve been boxed just as deeply into something else entirely. Under the name of fighting to secure choices, the only choice acceptable to the masses is the choice of independence and strength.

Oh people want to say that’s not true. People want to say “your choices are fine! Live how you want. It’s a free country!” But that’s followed up with the warning to keep those choices quiet. “Keep your (shameful) choices under the rug where no one else has to see them. Do not, under any circumstances, voice that opinion of yours. After all, we don’t want our daughters to actually SEE you living like that! We don’t want to influence them *your* way. Only *my* way. Not yours. Yours isn’t wrong, I didn’t say *that* exactly, it’s just.. not right.”

What are they afraid of? That we who choose to live in a traditional role are going to turn the tide our way again? We’re going to somehow cause a return of the oppressed woman? Now isn’t *that*an insult to women’s intelligence everywhere.

The women on the forefront of the liberation movement were subject to intense name-calling. Bra-burners, dykes, unhappy bunch of lesbians with chips on their shoulders, man-haters. They were accused of destroying the foundation of society, ruining families. Now, we get called names. Under-achievers, lazy, ignorant, traitors, weak, doormats. We are accused of poisoning the minds of young girls everywhere.

Women have every ’right’ to be completely outraged when they become aware of the kind of outright and subtle oppression they suffer and that their sisters throughout the world suffer. They have every ’right’ to be outraged at the indifference of men to their plight, their willingness to reap advantages until it is no longer possible. But just as might does not make right, nor does right make right. That is, one does not then have the right to play the same game with the tables turned. If one does this, one is playing society’s game, for that is what this society is all about: absorption is its game. (From: here)

The reaction given to those of us who like our choices, who live our choices with pride and confidence, the discrimination we experience from society these days? You’ve become that which you fought so hard to destroy. Why is it not okay for my opinion to exist just as strongly as yours? Most of us who *choose* to live in a traditional role are well aware of the prices paid for that choice. We’re grateful for, and thankful to have, the freedom to make that choice. As such, we return that gratitude in kind to our own children, raising them with full knowledge of the choices waiting them when they reach adulthood. Making them aware of why they have that choice, and hopefully, assuring them that whatever choice they make for their own personal happiness is not one to be ashamed of. Not anymore. Not in this day.

Though I am not so sure of that now. Shame is assigned. And that’s sad.

There’s an article I’d urge anyone with an interest in this to read, if you haven’t already. It’s long, but it’s well written, and from a woman who was accomplished and successful.

Spoiling Eve’s Con Game

(If you choose not to read it, I’m going to quote the last paragraph for you anyway.)

Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women. It is notable that in Communist nations women are exhorted, and compelled, to do what has traditionally been men’s work. American women, some of them, feel triumphant that they have broken down the “barricades” between the work of the sexes. I hope they will still feel triumphant when some commissar forces a shovel or an axe into their soft hands and compels them to pound and cut forests and dig ditches. I hope they will be “happy” when a husband deserts them and they must support their children and themselves alone. (After all, if a woman must be “free” she shouldn’t object to men being free too, should she?”) I hope they will feel “fulfilled” when they are given no more courtesies due to their sex, and no kindnesses, but are kicked aside on the subways and buses by men, and jostled out of the way by men on busy sidewalks and in elevators. I hope that no man will extend mercy to them because of obvious pregnancies, but will rudely tell them that that is no excuse to shirt a day’s heavy labor, and they should be like Russian women. I hope they will be proud when some court demands that they support “delicate” husbands for a lifetime, and pay alimony. I hope, when they look in their mirrors, that they will be pleased to see exhausted and embittered faces, and that they will be consoled by their paychecks.

The decay and the ruin of a nation has always lain in the hands of its women. So does its life and strength, its reverence for beauty, its mercy and kindness. And, above all, its men.

One more article and then I think I’m done with this subject.

What the Women’s Liberation Movement has done for me.

Women’s lib has made America label the stay-at-home mom as an underachiever. Women’s lib has made marriages disposable now. After all, if we’re spending all of our time working on that high-powered career, who has time to work on a marriage? Good marriages don’t just happen. When you and your husband both work 50 hours a week, there is precious little time to work on keeping your marriage together. What if I don’t want “it all”? What if I don’t want a Burger King breakfast on my way to dropping my son off at daycare? What if I don’t want a grande mochachino in the car on my way to my high-powered job that leaves me too exhausted to share quality time with my family at the end of the day? What if I don’t want to microwave frozen dinners for me and my husband before we retreat to our respective corners of the bed to sleep a couple hours before we start another grueling day? Why do I have to have a career AND a family? Why can’t my home and family BE my career? Whoever defined “it all” anyway? Some whacked-out women’s libber who hates women – that’s who! What if I want to enjoy a home brewed cup of coffee in the morning while Regis and Kelly banter and my son coos in the background? What if I want to starch my own shirts? What if I want to throw a tennis ball around for my dog to enjoy? What if I want to bake the perfect 5-layer lasagna for dinner and prepare fresh cannoli for dessert? What if I want to be at home at 6pm to bathe my son, read him a story and tuck him into bed? What if I want to cuddle on the couch with my husband at the end of the day? I consider “having it all” to be having a comfortable, clean home, a happy marriage that lasts “until death do us part” and happy, healthy children. Unfortunately, between Hillary Clinton and all those other woman-hating chicks, my desire to be a homemaker is suddenly suspect and America wonders what is so wrong with me that I would want to remove myself from the world in such a way. Well listen, if my being a homemaker makes me happy, causes my marriage to last more than the average 7 years and is responsible for raising a gentleman who will remove his hat when he enters a building and step aside for a mother and child then I’ve done my part in making the world a better place. In fact, maybe our world would be a better place if women who wanted careers had them and weren’t made to feel guilty for not having children and women who wanted to have children weren’t made to feel bad about not having careers. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a man criticize a woman for being a stay-at-home mother but I’ve seen that same woman have to defend herself to other women. Maybe it is time for us women to stop being our own worst enemies.

It is possible to have a personal belief and hold that belief only to yourself. It is possible to want something for yourself and not make it anyone else’s reality. My preference runs my life, and my life only. I have to wonder why some of you are so insecure in your opinions, in your children’s future, that you attack my opinions so vehemently. I am not worried that your opinion will influence my child, nor my life, nor my future. I don’t feel the need to protect my children from the knowledge that other opinions, other choices, other beliefs exist. I believe in the success of the women’s rights movement. I believe that choices will remain. And I’m confident that they are smart enough and confident enough to do as I did – choose for themselves, decide upon their own beliefs and live happily.

Should that choice be to run a company or to run for president, I’ll support them as much as my own beliefs allow. After that, I expect their own beliefs will carry them, just as mine did.

“It is not he who reviles or strikes you who insults you, but your opinion that these things are insulting.”

~cunt

Be the first to like.

Like

Unlike