The razing of the village

anti_feminist[3]Via Chuckles. I always sit up and take notice when a woman writes about women in a sane way. In fact, there are so many such women now that they’ve become a sub-culture – most subversive.

Shhhhh, don’t tell anyone but these ladies enjoy being … well … ladies and real women and mothers and having families and are therefore desirable. And don’t mention feminism in their presence coz it sort of … means nothing to sane people.

Here’s one such lady on the razing of the village:

We don’t want to look too closely at what happened to the villages our grandparents tell us about, because we don’t want to confront how we were complicit in their demise, or what it would require to bring them back.”

By the ’90s, new advice greeted the college-bound women of Generation X. We could still have it all, just not all at once. But our mothers still worried about women’s professional resolve in the face of motherhood. As a result, the new advice replaced the Feminine Mystique, the old assumption that a woman must fulfill wife and mother duties before all else, with the Career Mystique, the new assumption that we must establish our careers first.

Dutiful and optimistic daughters, we embarked on fabulous careers, which were plentiful and well paid in the late ’90s and early 2000s.

And that’s when we razed the village.

It was a slow burn. Over the next 20 years, the “career first” advice brought fewer children to become older siblings, cousins, aunts, and uncles—essential members of the childcare village of old. Our career pursuits often led us far from family, anyway. The career building single doesn’t need a village. We didn’t need it, and didn’t miss it until we started a family.

We didn’t need the village and didn’t miss it until we started a family. But it was gone.

Salting the earth behind them:

With this newest assumption, that we must do it all ourselves, we salted the earth. The village isn’t returning, because we won’t participate in it. We can’t participate in it.

We spent our early adulthood dedicated to our professional life. We were told that it was the measure of our worth. It was our identity. From Betty Friedan’s movement-launching The Feminine Mystique:

But even if a woman does not have to work to eat, she can find identity only in work that is of real value to society—work for which, usually, our society pays.

Freidan was writing as a woman who already gone through early motherhood, someone who was looking for identity in addition to the mother identity she had already established.

Her history tempered that “only”. Indeed, our society is paying a price for that work women were supposed to seek outside of the home, though it is hardly the fulfilling and beneficial financial remuneration Friedan hoped it would be.

This is the motif I’ve been on about at this site for so long – that in that grasp for those things the feminists said women must aspire to, women lost the plot, lost the village which is a prerequisite for nurturing without migraines. Now, in a frazzle, they refuse to accept from a man that this is an unsustainable course for them – don’t oppress me with your patriarchy.

Sigh.

Advertisements

4 responses to “The razing of the village

  1. That is all very well and so. And from the woman’s one-eyed POV. Frankly the usual whine. Always someone else’s fault, except this time it does not blame men. Indeed it does not even mention men.

    I have a rather more colourful way of saying this in ‘men’s rights’ company. Women shat in the bed. Men may fart from time to time, at which women will complain. But soiling the bed has been the great crime of women for the past half-century.

    They not only destroyed the village and denigrated motherhood (from Simone de Bouvoir onward) drove men away. There is no cobbler, no blacksmith, no baker. They left, disgusted.

    The ‘article’ points fingers, all very gently’ at the Betty Friedan’s of the Feminist movement -but what of the women who marched and screamed abuse? That screetching movement barely gets a mention. What of the millions of column inches of crap denigrating everything male in sight and demanding privilege under the lie of ‘eeekwalleteee’. It was not Betty writing it all. It was women.

    Men were and are disappointed, dismayed, demeaned and dismissed. Men built the sodding village in the first place.

    No village: no bed. Men moved out. And in all the wailing and gnashing of teeth we hear the familiar refrain that it is all someone else’s fault. Men’s usually.

    Don’t ask men to fix it. We wanted to. But what we got was …. “It’s NOT about the nail.”

  2. Oi, Amfortas – you can’t run the nail yet – it’s Sunday’s post! 🙂 It hasn’t gone, it’s in the holding bay.

    ………..

    Concerning the article, in a less colourful way than you put it, she is saying that women did s*** in the bed. In a female article intended for female eyes, this is about the only way she can do it.

    No one can acknowledge fault, least of all women and the way we do it as men is not dissimilar to this lady. For example, if a footballer is guilty of smashing another player and has to go up before the tribunal, he usually says something like: “Well yeah, it was a bit ordinary, I suppose.”

    That’s about as much as anyone’s going to publicly get. In a confessional, he’d be more forthcoming. My reading of this lady is that she was doing one thing and now she is pausing and thinking: “Yep, that was a bit ordinary,” and that’s all we’re going to get – still far short of the sackcloth and ashes.

    We may differ on this but these, to me, are the first green shoots of acknowledgement. In our eyes it’s not nearly enough but then again, we need to be realistic. If we were to try to wring a full confession out of her for what “her kind” have done, she’d be just as likely to backtrack and say, “Well you lot are no angels,” and then we’re back where we were.

    And “her kind” are not going to be kind to her anyway. She’s put herself out on a limb – unaccepted as a measly acknowledgment by men but equally castigated by the rabid branch of women called feminists for even conceding anything at all and as you say, she never mentions men – so that’s an advance in her eyes but her sisters don’t see it that way.

    When I ran the series of youtubes by Christie O, in one she mentioned how she had even received death threats from a group of female bullies and the bile directed at her because she acknowledged men was eye-opening. She read some of it out verbatim and it was grim. This was also the case with Erin Pizzey – she had to even go into hiding – from women.

    In this, she came across as a strong woman and a fair one and the rabid sisters were far lesser people, much lower quality women than she was.

    I believe many women are starting to see what was done with the collusion of government and yes, what kickstarted this was realizing they’d soured the place where relationships form, their own space so to speak, with men simply walking the other way. But feckless men like Hollande also abound now – we concentrate on the feminist here but this is the male version – having his fill and never accepting responsibility for the “love” children.

    I’ve seen this many times at close quarters and those girls, now alone, were no feminists. They were abandoned because of what the political swamp has brought out in people. There is this element of the female always going for the bad boy and we could say it’s her fault, her foible but we now get into another area which is very tricky for us men.

    To castigate women the way you have is actually non-misogynist because it starts from a place where you view her as an equal sentient adult [supposedly] and when she doesn’t act that way, you get stuck into her. For two equals, that is what would happen, just as between two mates, two women.

    However, my softly softly approach is actually more misogynist in a way. In saying, “W-e-e-e-l-l-l, that’s all you’ll get from a woman in the way of an apology, it’s all they’re capable of, apology-wise,” and in my ongoing chivalry, that actually masks an attitude that in certain things, we’re very much non-equal, so why act as if we are? So who’s the real misogynist here – you for saying women shat in the bed or me for saying w-e-e-e-l-l, that’s enough for an opening acknowledgement?

    The cad who knows how to treat her well when it suits him, by his very manliness, is tacitly saying he’s perhaps not singing from the songbook of equality and certainly not from the songbook of sameness. In fact, there’s an arrogance in his love ’em and leave ’em and yet he’s the one they go for and the man accepting PC equality and sameness utterly is of no use to the woman.

    It’s the eternal conundrum, the paradox of Woman.

    And Man.

  3. I am an old meany. You are right. She has walked into the lionesses den and yelled, ‘TIGER’. I will give her 7/10.