Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   "Being a mother isn't really work"   (theatlantic.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, office complex, feminists, hemlines, Ann Romney  
•       •       •

6896 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jun 2012 at 6:18 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-17 03:34:04 AM  
5 votes:

skepticultist: See, this is what I mean. That's a farking retarded question. You know damn well that the relationship between a husband and wife is nothing at all like the relationship between an employer and employee, and I strongly suspect the only reason you're asking is because you know that it would be ridiculously complicated to give a full accounting of those differences that was not susceptible to pedantic bullshiat needling. And I have no interest in being your pin-cushion, farkwit.


And my relationship with my dog is fundamentally different from my relationship with my garbageman which is fundamentally different from my relationship with the cashier at the grocery store.

Yet in every circumstance, I transact to maintain that relationship.

I treat my dog kindly and maintain her health status in the interest of receiving her love and loyalty and companionship in return.
I pay my taxes so that my garbage service might continue.
I pay for the food I purchase so that I might walk out of the store instead of getting arrested for shoplifting.

At no point in any relationship with anybody do I believe that I'm "special" and that I do not have to give to get in kind. This seems to be the point you're missing or having severe trouble grasping.

Feminism permits a woman the full availability of choices before her, and how to go about interacting with society in how to achieve that.

Maybe she gets a sugardaddy that supports her.
Maybe she busts her ass at a job and gets a paycheque every two weeks.
Maybe she petitions the Queen to live in her majesty's woods and runs through the trees wearing nothing but leaves sewn together with grass, subsisting on nuts and berries.

So. Farking. What? Who cares how she does it? It's her choice.

For Christ's sakes what you're arguing is like arguing that if you're a feminist you must -- MUST -- be pro-forced abortion, China-style, because anti-feminists are also anti-abortion. No, for fark's sake, the point of feminism is that a woman has the right to choose for herself, that nobody, not the state, not society, not men, can choose for her. Even in cases where men do choose for women, like whether to end life support, it's because they're in the position of power of attorney because the woman dictated that they be trusted to enact her will. She chooses for herself.

What she chooses is no business of anybody's but her and the people those choices affect. If she chooses to be a stay-at-home mother, and this satisfies her and gives her happiness, then who the fark are you to call her an idiot? She's happy, she's content, she's fulfilled, she's made her choice for herself and she's done it by having the full option of transactions open and available to her. No man has forced her to do it. No state permits an employer to refuse to hire her for gender. She's employed in a conventional job because she chooses not to be, and the entire farking point of feminism was to give her the choice of the method of her satisfaction. The point of feminism wasn't to say that women who busted their asses full-time as a homemaker were being enslaved, it was that excluding them from the workforce was tantamount to enslavement. That denying them the right to vote was denying them full citizenship. It was that slapping a woman was acceptable discipline.

Yet that in no way suggests that a woman who seeks fulfillment of support by her method is "wrong" to do it in a classical way instead of the avenues that feminism opened to her.
It in no way suggests that a woman who refuses or fails to vote is giving up her rights as a citizen.
It in no way suggests that a woman who likes rough sex is pro-violence against women.

That is all patent idiocy.

THE POINT OF FEMINISM IS THAT EVERY RIGHT WHICH A MAN ENJOYS, SO TO WILL A WOMAN. WHETHER SHE CHOOSES TO EXERCISE IT OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT. THE POINT OF FEMINISM IS THAT SHE CAN, NOT THAT SHE MUST; BUT THOU MUST WERE THE WORDS THAT CLOSED OFF AVENUES TO HER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

How farking hard is that to get? Seriously?
2012-06-16 04:35:18 PM  
5 votes:

Rincewind53: The My Little Pony Killer: Rincewind53: I particularly like how two of the first three responses to her article attacked her femininity.

Did you notice the part where her article attacked everybody else's femininity?

She attacked their devotion to feminism, not their femininity.


FTFA: Let's please be serious grown-ups: real feminists don't depend on men. Real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own.

She does not get to define that for other women. Especially not without nastiness thrown right back at her. Not hers.
2012-06-16 01:20:14 PM  
5 votes:
Nothing to see here, just some slag who thinks that she should be able to define what feminism is for everybody else.
2012-06-16 06:39:18 PM  
4 votes:
Let's please be serious grown-ups: real feminists don't depend on men. Real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own.

Horseshiat. Feminism means allowing women to pursue their happiness in any way they choose. It means not HAVING to depend on men, but if you truly want to be a stay-at-home mom, then no one should make you feel less for doing so.

Mugato: I think she and Janeane Garafalo would get along swimmingly. Not the sweet JG from the Truth About Cats and Dogs but the pissed off, inked up JG of today.


Fun fact: I saw JG do stand up on Wednesday night. She was hilarious.
2012-06-16 04:53:15 PM  
4 votes:
Maybe she should spend time around mothers who don't have rich husbands and nannies, the ones who do work their asses off.

Especially the ones who worked for years before giving up their careers for the sake of having a parent at home.
2012-06-16 11:57:46 PM  
3 votes:
What I'm finding most interesting about this thread is that what really seems to be offending people is the notion that they might not be a feminist.

Reality Check, Ladies: If a man supports you financially so that you may stay home and rear your children, then you are not a feminist. And that's okay.

Not being a feminist is not the same thing as being a bad person. It just means you aren't a feminist. You have opted for the traditional role proscribed for women by patriarchy since time immemorial. You are a traditionalist. You have made yourself dependent on a man, and thus you have surrendered any claim to being a feminist.

It's okay to not be a feminist. Stop freaking out about it.

But please, don't delude yourself. You have chosen a life path that empowers arguments for paying women less, for favoring men in the workplace, for favoring men in politics. You have chosen a life path that empowers, enables and encourages the continuation of patriarchy.

And that, ladies, is not feminism.
2012-06-16 04:55:55 PM  
3 votes:

ytterbium: Maybe she should spend time around mothers who don't have rich husbands and nannies, the ones who do work their asses off.

Especially the ones who worked for years before giving up their careers for the sake of having a parent at home.


You know how I know you didn't read the article? Hint: The headline is "1% Wives Are Helping Kill Feminism and Make the War on Women Possible"

From the article: "Being a rich mom -- even with five sons, bless her heart -- is not even sort of a job. Housekeepers there, servants there: it's not just that being a wealthy wife is not work in the way that being a corporate litigator or a corporal in the Army is work, it's that it doesn't even involve picking up Lego pieces and putting away GI Joe dolls or much of any of the stuff that makes being a mom a job. "
2012-06-16 04:18:17 PM  
3 votes:

Rincewind53: I particularly like how two of the first three responses to her article attacked her femininity.


Did you notice the part where her article attacked everybody else's femininity?
2012-06-17 01:52:46 AM  
2 votes:

skepticultist: No, what's retarded is you trying to act like a person with a job and a male employer is "entirely reliant on a man to provide her with food, clothing and shelter." A person with a job is reliant on themselves to provide those things. Their employer just provides them with money in direct exchange for work.


What if they don't work for an hourly wage? In your illegible mess of Italics, I noticed that was a thing you brought up, a "set hourly wage". What if it's contract work where upon completion within a deadline, regardless of the total time actually spent labouring, the person gets a fixed amount of compensation? Per your statement re: hourly wages, that is not a job.

That would be, of course, because your definition of transaction is stupidly narrow. A transaction is an agreement between two people two exchange each an activity for the other and carry that negotiation to its conclusion.

When I do work for a friend with the expectation that he will give me payment in kind, that is a transaction. When I offer to work overtime to bring in money lost so from my wife not working so that my wife can go to school and get a better job with the future expectation that her contributions to the joint monetary pool will increase for both of us, that is a transaction. When I pet my dog in the expectation that she will snuggle me when I'm feeling down, that is a transaction.

There is nothing anti-feminist about a woman transacting with a man to exchange her labour around the house in exchange for his labour at a career. It is a transaction. It is a mutual valuation of their time and effort with the reasonable expectation that each will see their respective ventures through the mutual satisfaction of both parties.

That does not subvert feminism. That is not antifeminist. Feminism means that a woman is considered fully vested in her mental faculties to make that choice for herself rather than have it thrust upon her by a male-oriented society.

The only thing anti-feminist here is dimishing the woman's valuation of her own choices, accusing a woman of operating at less-than-full capacity for making a decision on her own.

When men mocked and derided women in the workforce for entering into the workforce instead of staying a homemaker, that was anti-feminist. When women and pseudofeminists mock and deride other women for staying a homemaker instead of entering into the workforce, that is also anti-feminist. It diminishes the entire purpose of believing a woman is functionally capable of making those choices for herself.

coco ebert: So you agree with what skepticultist said in regards to Phyllis Schafly? Because if so, then I have no bone of contention. I would just be surprised to hear the definition of feminism stretched so far as to include someone like her. I have no issues with a woman working at home. To me that's just unpaid labor, something Marx himself pointed to as key to reproduction of capitalism itself.


I said it was the point of feminism, not that anything that came from the fruits of feminism was in itself in support of feminism.

The point of freedom of expression means that you tolerate people, like the KKK, who would subvert freedom of expression for others. Just because they miss the point of freedom of expression doesn't mean that freedom of expression misses the point of itself.

The point of feminism is to give every woman a choice equal to what a man's choice would be, without regards to the differences in gender. What they do with that choice may run contrary to that point, it may serve to enhance that point, or it may, in the case of a stay-at-home mother, be totally neutral with regards to the point, neither enhancing from or detracting from it.
2012-06-17 01:19:55 AM  
2 votes:

skepticultist: I'm sorry, but that's just a load of self-delusion. My mom did all of that and worked 40 hours a week. Doing what you clearly would not "require" hiring anyone, because you -- one person -- does it all. No one believes that you are a superhuman capable of doing work that it would take five regular humans to do.


Actually the comparison being made is to those who do the discretized, dedicated chores necessary to being a home-based mother to those who do them professionally, for a living. So yes, in fact, it would require all that, for the reason that seamstresses are not chauffeurs, and accountants are not chefs. Outsourcing the time spent at home to a dedicated worker would require multiple hires due to the nature of wanting bonded, credentialed professionals to accomplish the tasks.

skepticultist: Oh yeah, you're totally sticking it to the patriarchy. Sure you are. You're a strong, independent woman who is entirely reliant on a man to pay the bills (ooh! but you get to decide which order they get paid in! you're contributing!)


So? If a woman "relies on a man to pay the bills," is that not two spouses in a transactional relationship whereby the male exchanges monies and chattel in fair and mutual valuation for the woman's labours? How, in that regard, does a homemaker's life differ in any way from a career woman's?

What feminism gives is choice. It gives woman a choice in how to transact for their labour. It doesn't dictate that one transaction is better than another, because indeed that obviates the choice.

Just like freeing the slaves in the United States was not a condemnation of black people working in agriculture but about black people being forced to work in agriculture as chattel or near-chattel themselves, so too is feminism not a condemnation of a woman who chooses to focus her labours on home life instead of transacting with an outside entity for remuneration. All relationships, then, are transactional and materialistic: A woman is liberated by having the maximum amount of choices of transactions available to her, equal to those of disparate genders, different in kind from men but in no way limited by that.

What she chooses to do with those options is not a subversion of feminism, it is the point of feminism.
2012-06-16 11:26:01 PM  
2 votes:

YELLOL: Liberals and especially liberal women refuse to give in on this subject.

They are convinced that raising children is about women staying home and sleeping until noon then dropping the kids at a daycare center while you get a pedicure only to come home pour a glass of wine and watch daytime TV. It's shameful to treat women like this. Raising kids is a 24 hour a day stress marathon if the mother is a good one.


As a liberal Mother who works from home so I can raise my kids might I just say...

You are pretty much full of shiat.

Yep.

///Stop trying to speak for people like me, it makes me stabby.
2012-06-16 10:36:18 PM  
2 votes:
She is correct about the lack of "real work" involved in being a rich mother who has housekeepers and nannies. I am not remotely rich. I worked full time when my first son was born, but my husband landed an excellent job by the time my second child rolled around and we agreed that it would be a good time for me to stop working, go back to school, and raise the kids full-time until they start elementary school. Before having children, i worked my way through junior college and supported myself working 60-70 hour weeks at a nursing home for disabled kids where I got scratched, bitten, and abused for years. I am currently primarily a stay-at-home mom with my two kids.

My point is that I did REAL work for years, and I have been a non-rich full-time mom. Being a mother is far more demanding. What I do would require hiring a maid, accountant, seamstress, chauffeur, nanny, and cook. I handle our finances. My husband and I make important choices together. I am hardly enslaved by him.

For this woman to try to define my choice to spend a few years away from paid work to care for my children in their early years as some kind of betrayal of feminism is absurd. Her version of feminism is not freeing women from oppression, it is merely changing the form of it. Instead of being chained to our homes and hearth, she wants us chained to a career. I will not be tied to either path based on anyone's notion of what my sex should or shouldn't be doing, thank you very much, be they a chauvinist or a feminist.
2012-06-16 07:49:07 PM  
2 votes:
My mother was never rich enough to be a housewife, nor were either of my grandmothers or any of my great-grandmothers. Most of them were French-Canadian immigrants or immigrants' children who worked long hours for little pay in New England mills, but they still managed to raise large families (being Catholic, very large families,) of children who didn't grow up to be felons. When a priviliged coont like Ann Romney tries to act like she deserves some kind of credit or respect for raising children while not working twelve hour days, six days a week, it makes me want to slap her for belittling my ancestors. She's a parasite and she should feel bad, and her draft-dodging chickenhawk shiatbag of a religious lunatic husband should feel bad for supporting her worthless ass.
2012-06-16 07:27:37 PM  
2 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: Rincewind53: The My Little Pony Killer: Rincewind53: I particularly like how two of the first three responses to her article attacked her femininity.

Did you notice the part where her article attacked everybody else's femininity?

She attacked their devotion to feminism, not their femininity.

FTFA: Let's please be serious grown-ups: real feminists don't depend on men. Real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own.

She does not get to define that for other women. Especially not without nastiness thrown right back at her. Not hers.


Yeah, what's up with that? So women who don't have money or means of their own are not or cannot be feminists? Or if you want to be a feminist you have to 86 your husband or spouse and go earn your own money, biatch? And what if the stay-home mom is a lesbian raising the kids with her woman partner? Is one of them a de facto feminist and the other one not?

She also seems confident that every stay-home mom is a 1%-er who is pretending to raise her kids so she can live a cushy spoiled life. I'd like to introduce her to several of my friends who are stay-home moms at considerable sacrifice to themselves and their families so they could stay home and raise their kids. They didn't spend their time getting pedicures and shopping at high-end department stores. They raised their kids.

What a nasty coont, and I rarely use that term. No wonder she's a "feminist", no man would want to spend time with her.
2012-06-16 07:24:20 PM  
2 votes:

megalynn44: A job that anyone can have is not a job

Other jobs that are not jobs:
Fast Food Worker
Tomato Picker
Janitor
yada


Wrong. Everything you mentioned gets paid. How much did you make for watching your own kid last year? That's right... those of us that stay home with the kids are not "working"; we are taking care of our children. Stop feeling like other people have to appreciate the shiat you do you whiny fark. Take care of your kids. That is the reward. IT IS NOT A JOB!

/stay at home parent
//what I do is not work. It is taking responsibility for my child.
2012-06-16 07:10:07 PM  
2 votes:

sleeps in trees: ytterbium: Maybe she should spend time around mothers who don't have rich husbands and nannies, the ones who do work their asses off.

Especially the ones who worked for years before giving up their careers for the sake of having a parent at home.

This. I gave up a lucrative career to raise 2 boys (one with a disability) My husband is out of town 3 weeks out of the month. I get the looks from other women all the time. I'm ok with it. I've never judged them, so I don't care. I wanted these little monkeys and I intend to raise them.

We have older vehicles, a small house and live a very financially conservative life.


I always wonder about why Im not hit with more hate for my lifestyle from other women... I own my own business, but work mostly from the house. I get to raise my kiddos, AND make enough money to support us (I am not rolling in cash, but the bills are paid, we have food to eat, and I get to spoil them from time to time)

As a single mom who has to shoulder EVERYTHING, I say Im doing pretty freaking well so far. If other women don't like it, fark em I say! Getting to be home with them 90% of the time beats the hell out of just getting to kiss them goodnight every night :/

///No I don't "sort of work" I bust my ass
///Freelance, Corporate Photography pays better than weddings anyways :P
2012-06-16 07:04:00 PM  
2 votes:
Here's the deal. raising kids is important. Because my wife does it, we don't have to pay someone who may be a pedophile, doesn't like my kids, probably doesn't have the education, intelligence, and nurturing nature that my wife has to do it.

Frankly, the wellbeing of my kids is worth more than cash.
2012-06-16 07:01:45 PM  
2 votes:
So Subby misrepresents the article by making up a quote and completely ignoring the writer's qualifier and now we've got a thread that's complete crap. Way to go, people.
2012-06-16 06:40:29 PM  
2 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer:

FTFA: Let's please be serious grown-ups: real feminists don't depend on men. Real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own.

She does not get to define that for other women. Especially not without nastiness thrown right back at her. Not hers.


What in the jimmy fark? *goes back to actually read the article* WHAT THE JIMMY fark?

no, no, no. Feminism means having the right to make what choices are best for an individual woman's life, even if that means wearing pink and wanting three kids. Holy shiat, that writer is pants on head stupid.

She's not helping.
2012-06-16 04:30:24 PM  
2 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: Rincewind53: I particularly like how two of the first three responses to her article attacked her femininity.

Did you notice the part where her article attacked everybody else's femininity?


She attacked their devotion to feminism, not their femininity.
2012-06-16 02:04:19 PM  
2 votes:

AbbeySomeone: Holy sh*t, another article by some homely b*tch that hates women who have it better than her.


kwikwee.com
Oh my god, so hideous!

I particularly like how two of the first three responses to her article attacked her femininity.
2012-06-16 01:59:35 PM  
2 votes:
Holy sh*t, another article by some homely b*tch that hates women who have it better than her.
2012-06-18 12:24:25 PM  
1 vote:
The writer of the TFA should mind her own goddam business. What a tool.
2012-06-18 02:56:45 AM  
1 vote:

And just to further the point:

Redstockings, who are real feminists, back when feminism actually meant something, were fighting for equality. They understood that women could never have equality in a world where motherhood was used against them.

When they wrote "We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants, and cheap labor. We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance men's lives. Our humanity is denied." they were talking about the traditional role of being a housewife. This is not the manifesto of a group of women who think that staying at home, doing housework, having children and raising them is a meaningful and fulfilling existence for women. This is a group that describes that as oppression. As a fundamental denial of their humanity.

Note that they are not talking about being mothers, they are talking about being housewives. About being stay-at-home mothers. Mothers whose only "job" is being a mother.

The programs they supported -- programs like universal national health care, universal public childcare, paid parental leave, a shorter workweek, etc. -- all have something in common. If all those programs are in place, then do you know what a woman with children doesn't need?

A man to support her.



She doesn't need a man for the healthcare benefits he gets from work - she has healthcare from the government. She doesn't need a man to pay her bills because she can't work because she has to be with the children all the time - she has childcare from the government. She doesn't have to worry about being fired because she has to leave work to take care of her children in an emergency -- she has parental leave. She doesn't have to worry about missing out on her children's childhood -- she has a shorter work week that gives her plenty of time to be with her kids.

All of what they were fighting for serves one goal: Empowering women to live independently of men. Transforming society so that having a child is not life sentence to dependence on a man.

Do you know why they failed? Do you know why we don't have these things? Why we don't have universal health care and universal child care and paid parental leave and all the rest? Do you know why the movement to change society and get women those tools, those tools that would free them from patriarchal dominance, failed?

Because of women like you. Because of women like you who decided that liberation was just a state of mind. Because of women like you who decided that choosing to be a sex object, a breeder, a domestic servant, and cheap labor was every bit as valid a choice as choosing to be free. Because of women like you that said choosing to live on your knees is the same as choosing to live on your feet.

And that's why you lost. Because men saw the women of Redstockings coming and they turned to their wives and said "That feminist says you're no good. She says you have no value. She hates you. She looks down on you. You should stand up for yourself." And you did. You snarled and leapt to the defense of the chains that keep you down. You raged and howled and you said "How dare you question my choice to live in chains!?!"

And so men won, like we always win. Because you're weak. And you have no loyalty to each other. You hate each other as much as you hate yourselves, and we know it, and we use it against you, and we win out over you every single time.
2012-06-17 06:08:00 PM  
1 vote:

sendtodave: skepticultist: I meant to say... patriarchy... patriarchal... patriarchy... conservative patriarchal... reality.

Radical feminists in Western society assert that their society is a patriarchy in which men are the primary oppressors of women. Radical feminists seek to abolish patriarchy.


You know what the difference between a radical feminist and a feminist is?

Nothing. There is no difference. Radical feminism is feminism. Radical is just a term that people who want to call themselves feminists without actually changing anything about themselves or the world throw at feminists who are more dedicated to feminism than they are.

Radical feminism is just feminism some idiot disagrees with.
2012-06-17 01:03:08 PM  
1 vote:

Moonfisher: For this woman to try to define my choice to spend a few years away from paid work to care for my children in their early years as some kind of betrayal of feminism is absurd. Her version of feminism is not freeing women from oppression, it is merely changing the form of it. Instead of being chained to our homes and hearth, she wants us chained to a career. I will not be tied to either path based on anyone's notion of what my sex should or shouldn't be doing, thank you very much, be they a chauvinist or a feminist.


Support
2012-06-17 12:38:02 PM  
1 vote:

KiplingKat872: I had a co-worker with a degree in engineering from Perdue. She did not find the professional world personally satifying and quit to become a (married) full time mom of two. She is happy, and a patient, stable, encouraging influence in her children's lives. She's a far better mom than I ever could be.

So the author of this article can go fark her narrow, self abdorbed, elistist notions of what "feminism" is. To me feminism is the confidence in myself as a woman outside the gender roles and stereotypes pushed on us by the media, the ability for women to chose their life path/to have agency in their lives, and equal respect in the world and work place as men.


Actually the author is correct. She is a feminist. You kids today seem to be thinking feminism is gender equality. Feminism is a bad thing. It isn't gender equality, it's feminazism. It's WOMAN > man. It's not equal pay for equal work, it's a role reversal of the genders from the 1950s.

The author is absolutely a feminist and she is absolutely right in everything she says from the standpoint of feminism. Normal, well-adjusted women raising families kill feminism. They do not kill gender equality, they kill feminism.

You're actually mistaking feminism for a good thing. You're mistaking feminism for gender equality.
2012-06-17 12:22:02 PM  
1 vote:
The world will never have the economic equality the author is working for as long as women like her put more economic value on what men are biologically better equipped at competing on.

Of course her dividing women between those that choose motherhood and not to compete in male dominated area with those that want to compete with men using the rules set up by men, is not going to help her cause either.

Frankly women need to change the game to win the way the author wants. Instead of society putting more value on the masculine traits start putting more or equal value on the feminine.

Getting frustrated that women have a choice and sometimes choose "wrong" (in the author's eyes) seems like a stupid way to approach the issue.

The fact that women can't compete at the same level as men in professional sports must really frustrate her...if she worked to make men frustrated because they can't compete with women on professionally developing a child she could actually achieve something of her goal.
2012-06-17 10:32:23 AM  
1 vote:

cabbyman: "Being a mother isn't really work" - Barack Obama


"Corporations are mothers, my friend." - Mitt Romney

"I like being able to fire mothers." - Mitt Romney

"I'm not concerned about mothers. We have a safety net there." -Mitt Romney
2012-06-17 10:15:59 AM  
1 vote:

cabbyman: "Being a mother isn't really work" - Barack Obama


I don't know what's more pathetic, the fact that you're imagining liberals actually believe this despite the amount of liberals in this thread that have condemned it, or the fact that you're deliberately attempting to misattribute the quote to Barack Obama.

I took the liberty of submitting it to FightTheSmears.com, so with a little lottery-level luck your Freeperesque attempt to make the President and liberals look worse by virtue of something he never said will become a talked-about lie that makes you, and by extension your politics, look like deranged sociopaths in comparison.

Thank you, it's always nice to see conservatives support liberal causes any way they can.
2012-06-17 09:48:26 AM  
1 vote:
I never found it to be that much work, and I have a psycho ex who made my motherhood an issue for 18 farking years. Challenging sometimes--confusing sometimes, but work? It's a labor of love. You only get your kids once, don't screw it up.

the psycho ex can still go f*ck himself, though.
2012-06-17 09:30:07 AM  
1 vote:
I don't see how TFA's wrong.

Yes, there is a time when you have to be a stay at home parent. But once the kids are at school for the majority of the working day, that "stay at home" does absolutely dick-all. 14% difference between time spent with the kids sounds about right.

My mother had the fortune to be able to be a "stay at home mom", as my father was a civil servant earning a middle class wage. That seemed to mean that when we went to school, she went out with friends or watched TV all day, maybe did a few chores of a 20 minute duration, such as vacuum. Maybe the next day she'd clean the bathroom. Scrub the kitchen floor the next day. Nothing strenuous. Of course once we got old enough "to learn some responsibility", the chores, including making meals, was spread out so everyone got to do something. And she did even less. And less. And less.

There's a bunch of reasons I don't watch television. But even if I had the time to do it now and most of those other reasons went away, I wouldn't. Every time I look at a television, I get an image of my mother, getting more and more fat, snacking on crap and staring at the tube, watching everyone around the house do what little cleaning needed to be done, being a "stay at home mom".
2012-06-17 08:48:17 AM  
1 vote:
HAPPY FATHERS' DAY!!!
2012-06-17 04:50:39 AM  
1 vote:
I also disagree with the idea that holding these beliefs makes them not true feminists. You might not want these beliefs associated with feminism but they very much are.

I hate when I hear the word "true" followed by a group. God knows how many times I am going to here someone talk about how Muslims are terrorists and I bring up Christian terrorists and they tell me they are not "true" Christians. It is just used to ignore people in a group you participate in that you do not want to be associated with.
2012-06-17 04:32:01 AM  
1 vote:
Well see, under some definitions of radical feminism, you could be a radical feminist and think women need to wear burkas, pop out children, and listen to their husband as long as you thought it was in the best interest of the sex.

So care ethics, eco-feminism, marxist feminism, existential feminism, etc. are not feminism according to you. Fascinating. I still don't understand what impact your minor in gender studies has on your views...because I still see no signs of knowing what you are talking about.
2012-06-17 04:30:50 AM  
1 vote:

Thorny: A friend of mine had a serious health condition and was going bankrupt trying to deal with it. She was in a long term relationship with a man who got insurance through his employer but would not marry him because marriage is a patriarchal construct. She ended up giving in...and many of her close friends did not support her decision.

Actually, among some of the hard core feminists, I think they might actually jump off a cliff...or at least have to think about it long and hard.


Again real feminism -- the belief that every woman has every right enumerated to men -- is incompatible with that. Basing your actions on what other people think, even to do the total opposite of it, is still basing your actions on what other people think.

To think that is compatible with feminism is as retarded as retarded as becoming pro-murder because you're a republican. After all, people who murder others are punished for breaking the King or Queen's Justice. So clearly punishment for murder is a monarchist construct.

Or maybe, just maybe, sometimes things are in one's own self-interest regardless of who thinks what of it or why.

Thorny: Actually, among some of the hard core feminists, I think they might actually jump off a cliff...or at least have to think about it long and hard.


Yes well, we saw the same stupidity from some pseudofeminists like Andrea "All Pornography is Rape" Dworkin. farking unadulterated stupidity, of course. If a woman is manipulated into pornography, then she is being raped. If a woman is using her sexuality to manipulate men into giving her a whole lot of money, well...
2012-06-17 04:25:42 AM  
1 vote:

skepticultist: Dr. Mojo PhD: skepticultist: The patriarchy wants you to stay home. You are staying home as the patriarchy wants you to.

FARK LITTLE THEATRE

[i.imgur.com image 240x338]
"Women must not jump off cliffs. It is a sin."

[i.imgur.com image 240x338]

FIN.

Herp friggin' derp.

It is extremely sad that a person who purports to support feminism has made an argument that is literally "YOU SHOULD DO THINGS BASED ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK OR WANT."

Yeah, except for one little problem: The patriarchy isn't actually telling women to jump off cliffs. The patriarchy is actually telling women that their place is in the home rearing children.


What was that about context and reality?

That is the context and reality. A religiously ordered patriarchy (hence my use of an actual patriarch and the inclusion of the word "sin") regularly tells women to commit suicide. That doesn't mean that defying them is in a woman's self-interest.

A woman's self-interest ought to be decided regardless of what "the patriarchy" or anybody else wants. Regardless. Independent of. Removed from. Totally unrelated to. Not "DO THIS BECAUSE MEN WANT YOU TO" or "DO THIS BECAUSE IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT MEN WANT YOU TO DO." Because both of those are taking actions solely because a third party thinks something, which is not acting in a woman's self-interest.

skepticultist: As a side note, I can't believe that I -- who am usually on the "Feminism is a bunch of stupid hooey and I mock it like the mockable thing it is." -- am on this side of the argument.


Oh I see you're just trolling to be a dickbag and trying to make feminism look ridiculous. Never mind then, you're beyond reason by your own personal choice.
2012-06-17 04:14:14 AM  
1 vote:

Dr. Mojo PhD: skepticultist: The patriarchy wants you to stay home. You are staying home as the patriarchy wants you to.

FARK LITTLE THEATRE

[i.imgur.com image 240x338]
"Women must not jump off cliffs. It is a sin."

[i.imgur.com image 240x338]

FIN.

Herp friggin' derp.

It is extremely sad that a person who purports to support feminism has made an argument that is literally "YOU SHOULD DO THINGS BASED ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK OR WANT."


Yeah, except for one little problem: The patriarchy isn't actually telling women to jump off cliffs. The patriarchy is actually telling women that their place is in the home rearing children.

Context. Reality. These are the things your argument is glossing over.
2012-06-17 04:11:37 AM  
1 vote:

Dr. Mojo PhD: Feminism permits a woman the full availability of choices before her, and how to go about interacting with society in how to achieve that.


Ah! I think we have found the flaw in your reasoning. You, apparently, do not live in the real world. I will grant you that in a perfectly free world where all choices had equal social consequence, that some concept of feminism would do as you say. But this is not that world.

Feminism is political, it is struggle, it is movement towards a goal. It has a necessarily radical and progressive component that moves towards a world where all choices by women have equal weight and merit. But feminism in this sense is still incomplete, and thus one can rightfully say that making choices that are patriarchy approved -- making choices that do no conflict with the choices patriarchy would make for women -- is not feminist and thus women who make such choices are not feminist.

You compare a man choosing to stay at home to be a full time parent with a woman choosing to stay at home to be a full time parent as if those were equal choices. But they are not equal at all! It is a radical transgression against the presumed social order for a man to choose to stay home and be a full-time parent. It is...uh...shiat...whatever the opposite of a radical transgression (I've been drinking, sue me) is for a woman to make that choice.

You are operating in a world of pure ideation that has no connection to the real world as experienced. A world in which announcing you're straight is as meaningful and transgressive as announcing you're gay. A world in which screaming "Down with the state!" at a politician is no different than shouting "Long live the king!" A world completely devoid of context.

And that's why you're both wrong and a dummy.
2012-06-17 03:55:37 AM  
1 vote:

Moonfisher: The childish insults and angry responses do little to support your argument.


They aren't supposed to, dummy.

There certainly are women who are still oppressed by their husbands, and guess what - they are not all stay-at-home mothers. My own mother worked full time, as did my father, and she kept house, raised her kids, and then he came home and knocked her around if his dinner wasn't perfect or he had a bad day at work. But she was a career woman! She could support herself!

Which has fark all to do with my argument. I never said nor implied that stay at home mothers are oppressed by their husbands. I said they were operating with a patriarchal paradigm and not feminist.

My point is, and has been, that the author is two one-dimensional.

Too not two.

There are plenty of women, like myself, who choose to stay home without oppression or selling out to the patriarchy.

But that's exactly what you're doing. The patriarchy wants you to stay home. You are staying home as the patriarchy wants you to. Why you are staying home, whatever happy little lies you tell yourself, you are doing exactly what the patriarchy expects of you. That is not feminist. That is the point.

One is not a feminist because of their choices. They are a feminist because they strive for equality.

Yeah, and how exactly is staying at home like the patriarchy wants you to "striving for equality?"
2012-06-17 03:15:05 AM  
1 vote:

skepticultist: You appear to be claiming that feminism is about women being able to make choices and that feminism does not allow for any judgment of those choices, because to judge those choices would be to diminish the act of choosing.


That's exactly what I'm claiming. I don't understand how it follows from that that you believe every choice that comes from that must therefore be pro-feminist, or necessarily part of a feminist agenda, or cannot be judged.

A Jewish First Amendment lawyer can certainly defend the First Amendment rights of Neo-Nazis without diminishing either his own Jewishness or the purposes of the first Amendment or even agreeing with those Neo-Nazis. We judge them because they are human scum and because we are capable of making moral judgments exclusive of their right to free expression, not because the First Amendment is the sum total of our experience or conversely totally not related to us at all. What you're arguing is as profoundly stupid as arguing that a person who does not devote their entire existence to freely expressing themselves is therefore against the purpose of free expression. It's moronic and incoherent.

A person can exercise the rights given to them to make a positive, neutral, or negative impact on the philosophy they derive those rights from. Diminishing their capacity to exercise that choice diminishes the purpose of offering that choice in the first place. And frankly, being a stay-at-home parent with a spouse is neutral towards feminism.

skepticultist: your pedantic nonsense about stupid little corner cases like contract workers that only demonstrate your ability to be a obtuse, obstinate farkwit.


"Little corner cases" that you brought up. You were the one that started blathering about W2s and defined benefits packages and hourly wages.

You wanted such an obtusely stupid and narrow definition of what constituted a transaction of labour. Well, you got it. Don't cry because you got the world you wanted and were rightly mocked for how dense that world was.
2012-06-17 02:55:12 AM  
1 vote:

skepticultist: Summarize, or GTFO.


Ok: If a woman "relies on a man to pay the bills," is that not two spouses in a transactional relationship whereby the male exchanges monies and chattel in fair and mutual valuation for the woman's labours? How, in that regard, does a homemaker's life differ in any way from a career woman's?

What feminism gives is choice. It gives woman a choice in how to transact for their labour. It doesn't dictate that one transaction is better than another, because indeed that obviates the choice.

Just like freeing the slaves in the United States was not a condemnation of black people working in agriculture but about black people being forced to work in agriculture as chattel or near-chattel themselves, so too is feminism not a condemnation of a woman who chooses to focus her labours on home life instead of transacting with an outside entity for remuneration. All relationships, then, are transactional and materialistic: A woman is liberated by having the maximum amount of choices of transactions available to her, equal to those of disparate genders, different in kind from men but in no way limited by that.

What she chooses to do with those options is not a subversion of feminism, it is the point of feminism.
2012-06-17 02:21:00 AM  
1 vote:

skepticultist: Sabyen91: skepticultist:

Then she's not really a stay-at-home mother, she's a mother who works out of her home, same as my mom. Those are not the same thing. A stay-at-home mother is typically defined as a woman who has no source of income and is financially dependent on breadwinner father.


Yes... Yes I am. I stay at home, I cook, I clean, I do laundry, I take the kids to and from school... I just also work my ass off between all that.

But the REASON I do it is because I wanted to be home with my children... Because they deserve that.
2012-06-17 01:56:34 AM  
1 vote:

Need Help Soonish: skepticultist: Feminism is about empowering women to stand as equals with men, and "choosing" to be a stay at home mother is choosing to be under the power of a man.

Im sorry, but as someone who can be classified as a "Stay at home mom" I can tell you your full of it. The man I live with does not lord over me in ANY way. If he tried, he would no longer be my mate.


How would you support yourself if he tried it and you left him? How would you support your children, or would he get custody? I guess what I'm asking is: How do I know that you're actually independent, and not just kept on a leash long enough you can pretend its not there? How do I know that you aren't just reporting from a state of pure delusion?
2012-06-17 01:00:39 AM  
1 vote:

Moonfisher: My point is that I did REAL work for years, and I have been a non-rich full-time mom. Being a mother is far more demanding. What I do would require hiring a maid, accountant, seamstress, chauffeur, nanny, and cook. I handle our finances. My husband and I make important choices together. I am hardly enslaved by him.


*snerk*

I'm sorry, but that's just a load of self-delusion. My mom did all of that and worked 40 hours a week. Doing what you clearly would not "require" hiring anyone, because you -- one person -- does it all. No one believes that you are a superhuman capable of doing work that it would take five regular humans to do.

For this woman to try to define my choice to spend a few years away from paid work to care for my children in their early years as some kind of betrayal of feminism is absurd. Her version of feminism is not freeing women from oppression, it is merely changing the form of it. Instead of being chained to our homes and hearth, she wants us chained to a career. I will not be tied to either path based on anyone's notion of what my sex should or shouldn't be doing, thank you very much, be they a chauvinist or a feminist.

Oh yeah, you're totally sticking it to the patriarchy. Sure you are. You're a strong, independent woman who is entirely reliant on a man to pay the bills (ooh! but you get to decide which order they get paid in! you're contributing!) who does half the work my mom did and thinks it would take five times as many people to fill her shoes.

You're not a feminist, you're a joke. A caricature.
2012-06-17 12:38:27 AM  
1 vote:
I guess I'm a little surprised so many people bit on this troll.

Elizabeth Wurtzel is a known mental case, she wrote several books about her struggles with depression(most famously Prozac Nation) and addiction(seems like she was a coke addict, Ritalin, some other stuff). If she writes an essay about what it's like to go cold turkey, I'd say it has some relevance. Otherwise, the 'choices' she's made in life, appear to have been pretty much determined by what she was addicted to at the time. But I guess that's 'feminism' as opposed to what people do of their own free will.

I'd guess from the rambling and disjointed nature of the piece, she's probably back on the sauce.

Still, I'd give her an 8/10--she really did get a lot of bites.
2012-06-16 07:50:16 PM  
1 vote:

calbert: [download.lardlad.com image 320x213]

"Parent's occupation ... please note, homemaker is not allowed, as it is not real work, that's why you don't get paid for it".


The article wasn't talking about the Marge Simpsons or any of the women in the 99% who are full-time moms. That is why the author specified the 1%. She is talking about women who say they are full-time moms, but spend most of their time working out, getting facials, and trying to be pretty to keep their husbands. She is talking about ladies who lunch. She is talking about women who have expensively appointed kitchens with all the latest mod-cons, but who order or go out to a restaurant most of the time. She is talking about women who have maids to clean and often have nannies, you know, people to do the work of child-rearing. That type of mom is not a full-time mother; she has outsourced the job so that she can attend yoga five days a week.

Again, the article is not talking about stay-at-home moms who cook, clean, volunteer in classrooms, take care of sick children, run errands for everyone in the house, make appointments, pay bills, help with homework or any of the myriad of other things my mom did for her many children. The article is only talking about the rich lady who visits with her children for, perhaps, a few hours each week. That woman is more properly known as a "socialite," not a full-time mom.
2012-06-16 07:44:19 PM  
1 vote:
So remember this:

if you didn't go to a private, liberal arts college in the northeast and then get your masters at a place like NYU or Princeton
If you dont have a blog
If you arent living in Chicago, LA, Boston, Philly or NYC
If you arent on contraception
If you are married
If you have a child AND there's a father (your husband) in the house
If you make less than $70,000/yr

Then you're not really "one of the girls" and are making things harder for the rest of us.
2012-06-16 07:35:41 PM  
1 vote:
The wife now works, as I stay home and take care of one partially blind child and one with a form of diabetes that the doctors have yet to understand. I also watched twin girls age 6 months and an 18 month girl during the day. I didn't get much for watching the three girls, except for the satisfaction of watching kids grow up that I didn't have while in the Navy. Deployments were nothing compared to getting the house clean, doing laundry, helping with homework, changing diapers, making dinner, and everything else that came up. Do I deserve a paycheck for that? No, it was a choice to have kids and stay at home. Is it still a job because I'm not getting paid? Hell yes it is. Anyone with kids who have done it know it is. But it was still a choice and I don't go around moaning and complaining about how hard it is because it was my choice to do so. Everyone who judges or says differently can EABOD. I'm comfortably retired and enjoying watching my kids and other kids grow up.
2012-06-16 07:30:03 PM  
1 vote:

Uberdeity: megalynn44: A job that anyone can have is not a job

Other jobs that are not jobs:
Fast Food Worker
Tomato Picker
Janitor
yada

Wrong. Everything you mentioned gets paid. How much did you make for watching your own kid last year? That's right... those of us that stay home with the kids are not "working"; we are taking care of our children. Stop feeling like other people have to appreciate the shiat you do you whiny fark. Take care of your kids. That is the reward. IT IS NOT A JOB!

/stay at home parent
//what I do is not work. It is taking responsibility for my child.


It's work. Deal with it. Instead of money you're getting the rewarding experience (supposedly) of being a parent and saving a shiat-ton on daycare. That doesn't magically make it not work, or a job.
2012-06-16 07:29:33 PM  
1 vote:

Uberdeity: megalynn44: A job that anyone can have is not a job

Other jobs that are not jobs:
Fast Food Worker
Tomato Picker
Janitor
yada

Wrong. Everything you mentioned gets paid. How much did you make for watching your own kid last year? That's right... those of us that stay home with the kids are not "working"; we are taking care of our children. Stop feeling like other people have to appreciate the shiat you do you whiny fark. Take care of your kids. That is the reward. IT IS NOT A JOB!

/stay at home parent
//what I do is not work. It is taking responsibility for my child.


Furious troll is furious! Calm down buddy. I was merely making fun of the author's failed logic in the quoted statement.

/also by watching your own kid you saved your family a very sizable amount of money in childcare costs, so yes you did make your family money
2012-06-16 07:22:09 PM  
1 vote:

Need Help Soonish:

I always wonder about why Im not hit with more hate for my lifestyle from other women... I own my own business, but work mostly from the house. I get to raise my kiddos, AND make enough money to support us (I am not rolling in cash, but the bills are paid, we have food to eat, and I get to spoil them from time to time)

As a single mom who has to shoulder EVERYTHING, I say Im doing pretty freaking well so far. If other women don't like it, fark em I say! Getting to be home with them 90% of the time beats the hell out of just getting to kiss them goodnight every night :/

///No I don't "sort of work" I bust my ass
///Freelance, Corporate Photography pays better than weddings anyways :P


You own your own business, that's the very definition of doing it for yourself. Doing that as a single parent puts you into Goddess territory. If your get any static from other women, it's probably just lame-ass ladies wishing they could be as effective at life.
2012-06-16 07:16:56 PM  
1 vote:

Car_Ramrod: swahnhennessy: So Subby misrepresents the article by making up a quote and completely ignoring the writer's qualifier and now we've got a thread that's complete crap. Way to go, people.

How about this quote: "A job that anyone can have is not a job, it's a part of life, no matter how important people insist it is" Or any of these other passages people have been quoting? She is being incredibly condescending to women who choose to be stay at home parents. She doesn't consider them to be real adults or something stupid like that. Feminism is not about how much money you make. There is nothing about this article that's able to be defended.


I can sort of see the point where she drones on about the Princeton-educated woman who stays home and eats bonsbons(total strawman, of course). You see somebody with all this training for a particular field, and then instead of being a rocketsurgeon she's changing diapers. Not that different really from a guy who goes and gets a law degree, and then decides he'd rather ditch it and be a gardener or a poker player. Somewhat of a lament for lost potential.

The thing is, if we're going to have more people to come after us, *somebody* is going to have to change diapers, wipe snot, and teach them how to be human. The question is who does this until they're old enough to go to school: Mom, Dad, an auntie, or a daycare worker? You can't wipe a baby's ass in a manufacturing facility, so someone has to do it away from the general run of the economy...
2012-06-16 07:12:43 PM  
1 vote:
Also, if this whole "feminists control their own economic destiny" thing is true, then let's take 2 couples, and each husband makes a decent wage. In Couple A, the wife is a teacher, so makes less than the husband. In Couple B, the wife is a lawyer (like the author) and thus makes more than the husband.

Does this make Wife B more of a feminist than Wife A? Does your salary determine how much of a feminist you are? That's extraordinarily classist.
2012-06-16 07:04:43 PM  
1 vote:
SLMGTS

Real feminists hate men and could never establish a relationship with a man that would see them allowing any sort of dependence on said man. Oh sure, you can trust them enough to have their babies but NEVER trust them not to screw you over financially. TRUST NO ONE!!!!

+

Motherhood has completely no value and is not work and why would you ever kid yourself that you are worthy enough to be considered your husband's equal if you can't even produce a paycheck. Only paycheck producing people are humans.

=

Motherhood ain't work

/fark you lady for making me take the conservative's side
//this author is provoking my feminist rage more than Stephanie Meyer and EL James combined.
2012-06-16 06:54:22 PM  
1 vote:
I really want to know how she feels about stay-at-home dads. Does she consider them "less than" for choosing that lifestyle? Or is her anger only directed at women in that position?
2012-06-16 06:44:18 PM  
1 vote:

herrDrFarkenstein: I think my wife, with a Masters of Science, who is currently pushing a mop and a stroller without pay, because we both decided that's what we would do for our kids, would shove said mop and stroller up this author's tight, bitter, ironically classist ass.

And rightly so.


No offense, but why is she pushing the mop and stroller and not you? Sounds like she's obviously qualified enough to be the breadwinner.
2012-06-16 05:13:42 PM  
1 vote:
FTFA Who can possibly take feminism seriously when it allows everything, as long as women choose it?

Wow... Feminism is a bust because women get to choose lifestyles that other women don't approve of?

Lets try that sentence in another flavor: Who can possibly take feminism democracy seriously when it allows everything, as long as women voters choose it?
2012-06-16 04:32:14 PM  
1 vote:
She's just as bad as conservatives who think women who work are leading a war on stay at home moms. She feels "betrayed". Oh, STFU.
2012-06-16 03:33:01 PM  
1 vote:

AbbeySomeone: Rincewind53: AbbeySomeone: Rincewind53: AbbeySomeone:
Because that's what women do; hence all these other issues.

See how it works?.

That's what people on Fark do, you mean.

No, it's also an IRL, pervasive issue but maybe you don't know any women.

It's not just a woman thing, it's an entire society thing; when a woman says something people disagree with, they attack her femininity. That there is a stereotype that it is only "catty" women who do this sort of thing doesn't mean that women do it more than men.

And I have more female friends than male friends, in case you're curious.

Femininity or sexuality are the first to be attacked. IE, I met a contractor friend for drinks while Mr.S. was at work so obviously I'm a whore. Yes, I heard some old b*tch say that.


Now there's a true stereotype; regressive old ladies think women these days are whores.
2012-06-16 03:29:31 PM  
1 vote:

Rincewind53: AbbeySomeone: Rincewind53: AbbeySomeone:
Because that's what women do; hence all these other issues.

See how it works?.

That's what people on Fark do, you mean.

No, it's also an IRL, pervasive issue but maybe you don't know any women.

It's not just a woman thing, it's an entire society thing; when a woman says something people disagree with, they attack her femininity. That there is a stereotype that it is only "catty" women who do this sort of thing doesn't mean that women do it more than men.

And I have more female friends than male friends, in case you're curious.


Femininity or sexuality are the first to be attacked. IE, I met a contractor friend for drinks while Mr.S. was at work so obviously I'm a whore. Yes, I heard some old b*tch say that.
2012-06-16 03:24:41 PM  
1 vote:

AbbeySomeone: Rincewind53: AbbeySomeone:
Because that's what women do; hence all these other issues.

See how it works?.

That's what people on Fark do, you mean.

No, it's also an IRL, pervasive issue but maybe you don't know any women.


It's not just a woman thing, it's an entire society thing; when a woman says something people disagree with, they attack her femininity. That there is a stereotype that it is only "catty" women who do this sort of thing doesn't mean that women do it more than men.

And I have more female friends than male friends, in case you're curious.
2012-06-16 02:33:31 PM  
1 vote:

AbbeySomeone:
Because that's what women do; hence all these other issues.

See how it works?.


That's what people on Fark do, you mean.
 
Displayed 63 of 63 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report