Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What the F@%&?! And more feminist outrage...
The BUST Lounge > Forums > The F-Word
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
xposted on the Corn Cob thread: Hollaback against street harassment

Unmarried Family Can't Live Together

Allowing employees to bring newborns to the office may sound crazy, but it helped my business thrive.

The moms were so thrilled to be close to their babies that none ever dropped the ball when it came to work. When one had to run to a meeting, another babysat. We made sure employees who couldn't stand the sound of crying babies didn't sit near the "romper room."
I must say I find this very interesting...thoughts? from

First, the Barbie Doll thing. At twenty-five, Paris is relatively young. She is surrounded by looks obsessed, intensely critical people and lives in constant public scrutiny. Much as I have problems with the bullshit Barbie Doll ideal, here again I have a larger problem:
The problem of anyone, really, telling women How They Should Dress.

Ten years ago, I may have done a “Take Back the Night!” march in platform heels, full makeup and crazy-long Mariah Carey hair circa 1990. Today, I would do the same march sans heels, but with eyeliner. Ten years ago, being rejected by more “serious” women at a TBTN march due to my overly girly appearance would have broken my heart. Today, it would piss me off — and break my heart.

I’m guessing most women feel some pressure, to varying degrees, regarding how we should or should not dress. Some of us may eschew shaving our legs, others may abhor makeup, and others may have big problems with cleavage. Some of us may feel more comfortable with our beloved eyeliner, take pride in ample cleavage, and love heels.

We may or may not cast off some of these “trappings of the patriarchy” or “fun girly stuff,” depending as we view these — but this is a personal journey each woman must make for herself. For any of us feminists to waggle our fingers and tsk tsk at these mislead, girly-girls reeks again a bit too much of “Naughty Girl, Bad Girl!” for my liking. Perhaps even a teeny bit like “Whore or Slut!”


Moreover, I will not slap the blame on the female celebs who choose this route, although I admit it would be nice to see more of them say no to this pressure.

I put the blame on the bullshit society that not only accepts and encourages this, but basically mandates this behavior for female celebs. The Jodie Fosters of Hollywood – women who get tons of respect for their acting alone – are few and far between. Think about it.

In closing on the Top Five, I like Paris mostly because she makes no apologies for herself. No matter how much the media and the public demand she change her ways, ‘fess up, apologize and keep her damn legs crossed, she keeps right on smiling for the camera and doing her thing. You gotta give her some credit for possessing a certain kind of Fuck You here – and I respect that in any woman.
katiebelle2882 ming-science-as-smear-campaign-against-carbon-dioxide/

this is unbelievable really. please watch the ad, i dont even know what to say about it!
gah. i'm a little speechless...
Their website has 2 commercials. They're pretty ridiculous. I love the tagline - "Carbon Dioxide: They call it Pollution. We call it Life." Give me a break.

gah indeed.
seriously? Seriously?!! get f-ing REAL. OMG.

anything for a buck eh? anything at all.
Well... I mean... it IS part of life.

(runs away)
Hi, this is back to the whole purity pledge thing-I just found this article:

June 2006, Vol 96, No. 6 | American Journal of Public Health 1098-1103

Reborn a Virgin: Adolescents’ Retracting of Virginity Pledges and Sexual Histories

Janet E. Rosenbaum

Janet E. Rosenbaum is a student in the Health Policy PhD and Statistics MA programs at the Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, Mass.

Objectives. We examined retractions of virginity pledges and of sexual histories among adolescents taking part in waves 1 and 2 of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

Methods. Logistic regression analyses were used to compare respondents’ reports of virginity pledges and sexual histories at waves 1 and 2.

Results. Among wave 1 virginity pledgers, 53% denied having made a pledge at wave 2; after control for confounders, pledgers who subsequently initiated sexual activity were 3 times as likely to deny having made a pledge as those who did not initiate sexual activity (odds ratio [OR] = 3.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.04, 5.04). Among wave 1 nonvirgins who subsequently took virginity pledges, 28% retracted their sexual histories at wave 2; respondents who took virginity pledges were almost 4 times as likely as those who did not to retract reports of sexual experience (OR=3.88; 95% CI=1.87, 8.07).

Conclusions. Adolescents who initiate sexual activity are likely to recant virginity pledges, whereas those who take pledges are likely to recant their sexual histories. Thus, evaluations of sexual abstinence programs are vulnerable to unreliable data. In addition, virginity pledgers may incorrectly assess the sexually transmitted disease risks associated with their prepledge sexual behavior.

That is very interesting. And disturbing… i.e. don’t have sex with someone who has taken an abstinence pledge, cause they are more likely to be less than honest about their sexual history.
ok, to hark back to previous posts about the pre-pregnancy article... i read the savage love column for this week, and couldn't resist quoting him here:

"There is a bright side in the CDC's announcement: If we're going to regard all females as pre-pregnant, then we can, as my friend Gomez points out, regard all virgins as merely pre-fucked."

hee hee hee...

i am sorry i am always the one putting up fucked up shit on here. but so much makes me mad. rape as a weapon of war. while i am happy its the lead story on, it is something that feminists have known happens for decades now. honestly, it made me cry.

so many interesting quotes. the girl who has a daughter from rape "i look at her and all i see is him"-if that doesnt prove that having a rapists child fucks you up, i dont know what does. what do we do? i just feel so helpless.
I know that the conversation is further down here, but I said that I would post more information on the use of DNA when solving rape cases and here it is.
This is an Adobe reader file/article from the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
Does anyone else miss the PMS bars? What happened to them? Does anybody know? I loved the raspberry kind. :-(
Sorry...I just noticed you are discussing some important stuff on here, so ignore my posts. I just created a new thread for the candybar thing.
PMS bars? Never heard of them, but sounds interesting. Do you recall the name of the company that made them or what was in them? Maybe the naturally healthy thread would be a good place for this, or barefoot & precocious. Oh how 'bout the where can I find... thread.
I have no idea where to post this, but i was reading in another forum (craig's list) and there is this total dumbass guy who made this statement:

"by and large, is to consider what "romance" is to women. It's the emotional equivalent of pron."

and then....

"Romance is *emotionally* stimulating. AND it's
mostly a fantasy and distortion. Especially the range of it that women have far more appetites for than men. The "kinkier" versions are more like not just the "romance" but the stuff of daytime "soaps". WAY exaggerated and/or marbled with other stuff, too.

I use the analogy, since women largely immediately can experience their own appetite for at least some degree of "romance" (while probably regarding it as perfectly normal and natural) that exceeds men's natural inclinations, in general.

That's why it's such a perfect likening. Just about the opposite is true for men."

Ok, after you stop laughing, what do you think? Have you heard this argument before? Or, should I just laugh at it and be done?
i kind of believe him unfortunately. i think everyone has their own idea of romance, but the one i find *most* women to adhere to is something that is silly, ludricrous and delusional to a point. even worse, its something that their partners feel obligated to do instead of actually wanting to do it.
i also think the modern idea of romance and how so many women (especially) have come to expect it contributes to the divorce rate and ultiumately ends up being oppressive to all parties.
i would not, however, agree with the idea that it is as detrimental to an entire sex as porn can or has been.
i think the analogy, especially regarding the exaggerated hyperbole of reality that both romance (in the media) and porn portray is relatively valid

this is not to say there are no exceptions, or that socialization doesnt play a part in the fact that women like romance more and men are more into porn and visual sexual stimulation. however, i do think it is not a bad analogy when speaking of reality, regardless of how that reality came about.

i also found this
on a particularly annoying website as well. stay at home wife? no kids, nothing and she stays at home? i mean what?! read it you will want to hit your head against a wall.
Ha! That link was funny Katie. You know, if I found the right man I totally would be a house wife if finances allowed, I'm not very career-driven. Shes lucky (for now anyway) that her husband can support the two of them, but I dont see how her article is against feminism. Its frustrating that these women think feminists hate house wives. Its the husbands who acted out first, either cheating on their wives or drinking to much or being abusive, that chased women out of the home and off to fend for themselves. Feminism was a reaction to oppresive men, not submisive women. These women have the wrong idea if they think we are against them.

this one is particularly bad. i think the issue is, women wouldnt be submissive unless they bought into the oppressive ideas of the patriarchy. its not so much that shes a housewife (although generally-feminism aside-i think its pathetic for a woman with no children to stay at home unless shes doing some serious volunteer/charity work) but that she completely and entirely defines herself by her husband.
That scares me. Really, really scares me. Not only does she define herself by her husband and children - yet she's not married, she lives with her parents - she's not actually doing anything. She's not even doing anything charitable. How is she going to cope when her kids (should she ever have any) start growing up when she's never had any experience of the world outside her house? How is she going to be able to give them any adivce? You want to be a stay-at-home wife? Go for it. But what the hell will you do should he leave?

There is nothing wrong, imo, with being - or wanting to be - a housewife. The problem I have is when the woman ceases to be defined as anything other than "john smith jr's mother, mrs john smith".

I wholly agree with greenbean too...
"I cannot find one example of a lovely, God-fearing woman in the Bible who went off to college or a job to fulfill her longings and desires."
Omigawd that made me laugh! This is so funny!
That poor girl. She prolly won't even find a guy who wants to marry her because shes so boring!

just to note, while say I would be a housewife if it was an option, I certainly wouldn't make it be the only definition of my identity, and I certainly wouldnt boast that I'm "doing the Lord's will" *snicker*. Its like bragging about being lucky, and she is lucky if her parents havent kicked her out of the house yet. "Um, mom, dad, I'm not going to go to college or get a job. I'm just gonna, um, stay here and help with the dishes until I find a husband." pshhh!
I just think it's sad. Really, really sad. She has no identity.
Unfortunatly greenbean, there are a lot of men out there looking for a blank slate of a woman that they can project themselves onto. My ex was one of these. He soon got kicked to the curb.
Well, the woman did not become that way in a vaccuum, so I'd bet her parents are fine with her staying at home until she can be properly given to a suitable man. Apparently her identity is as a potential homemaker/helpmate. I'm not sure what she even went to college for, maybe to learn to speak on interesting subjects to entertain her husband a la 1950's?

I don't really have a problem with any woman who actually *wants* to do what she's doing, my whole concept of feminism is based around the idea of choice. I have a very major problem with anyone telling me (or any woman) that I have to do "x" because they think "x" is the only proper thing to do. Screw that! I would be bored silly keeping house and tending gardens all day, but if that floats your boat, then more power to you.
Yeah, feminism is all about choice. I've never had the desire to be a firefighter or a ceo or a politician, but I sooo want women in those fields if they are good at it. I'd want to be a house wife-mom cuz I love projects and crafty stuff, not cuz I want to be a housekeeper/stepford wife. It would be cool if I could make stuff all the time for my family and friends and not for making money. That said, I do think I'm doomed to always having a job. Life is so expensive, its hard to live on one income anymore.

I do love college an learning tho, and I think most young women want to attend college. This girl is in the minority if she is actually against college. She sounds amish.
i guess its unclear to me that if you dont have children and you are a "housewife". then what is your identity other than someone who does stuff only for her husband? i mean, the name housewife says it all.
i suppose charity and volunteer or home business. but if you are only tending your house and making dinner for your husband and other mindless tasks (and you have no kids) i would actually think that you should reevaluate why exactly you have no other ambitions.
i also agree that a definition of feminism is a woman doing what she wants, but if all you want is to have no children and keep house for your husband, i think maybe understanding why that is something you should think about. you know the whole socialization thing and everything. i mean i have to question everyday why i do and feel a certain way when it comes to men, bc sometimes i think its what i want, and then after thinking about it more i realize its not.

of course, i guess its totally possible that maybe some people really do, and that its just such a foreign notion to me to even consider being a "housewife" (not stay at home mom) that i cant wrap my head around it. or maybe, its bc this girl certainly doesnt seem to be involved in any charitable or volunteer outside her house, so i dont understand what good shes doing anyone. who knows.
the thing that really gets me about these people is that they think leaving the house will corrupt you. its li9ke, if your morals and faith are SO easily breakable, you must be a REALLY good example of your religion. (note sarcasm). the strongest people can be faced with anything and still hold on to what they believe. clearly, she thinks that women have too delicate a constitution to withstand alll that moral bombardment.

also, these people homeschool their kids. wouldnt a college education be helpful for that. any guy i date would want me to be able to carry on an intelligent conversation, i guess all these guys want is to hear about how she gardened all day.

ugh, are tehre really that many people out there like this.
see greenbean, i dont consider what you want to do being a housewife. i think we need to come up with another term for someone who stays home, esp for creative reasons. if you are doing crafty stuff, that is a job and its part of who you are, you arent a "housewife" ya know. these terms are too constricting, bc all this girl wants to do tend to her husband and no one else
meh, i wanna be a housewife and i don't care what anybody thinks about it. i love all of those "traditional womanly" things, cooking, cleaning, organizing, daily planning, gardening, sewing, childrearing (i'd even homeschool, mine AND the neighbours if i could), i love all of that crap. i've been living on my own and working since i was 16, i do it because i have to certainly not because i want to. and while i might enjoy doing some volunteer work that would really just be extracurricular activity for me. if i EVER find a man who wants to bring home the money and leave me at home with the kiddies you better believe that i'll scoop that prince charming up lickety split.
fight ya for him.... :o)
it is actually starting to shock me how many women at bust are content with that. i guess whatever floats your boat. personally pepper, i would have no problem finding a guy like that where i live, most guys i know want someone who will slave away at stuff that they dont have the time nor the inclination to give a shit about bc they are out changing the world as opposed to their gardens.

but i guess feminism is really giving women the choice about what they want and the ability to go to work if they so choose without getting shit for it.

i just think that women need to be changing policy and fixing this world which wont be done by scrapbooking. men have been ruining it for far too long and it drive me insanes so i guess thats why i almost get upset when smart women rather not contribute. childrearing, well thats a whole other issue bc i think its one of the best ways to contribute to changing this world.

there are many many different ways of contributing as well, so maybe i am being myopic about it.
katie, i think maybe your myopicosity could be due to what we're all told feminism is supposed to be about. we're supposed to 'throw off our chains', so to speak. but not everyone thinks the same things are chains. like, people remark on how 'feminist' it is of my not to shave my legs, but in reality i'm just lazy about it, while my going to school in a mostly male university program (math, and maybe compsci) isn't really seen as a 'feminist' decision (not that it is, i just like math). women are still expected to shave their legs, but it's fairly common for women to go to university in whatever program they choose

so, right now because feminism has been fighting so hard to get away from 'the woman should be in the home' way of thinking, wanting to be a stay at home mom or housewife is viewed as un-feminist, but really it's just another choice we all get to make. personally, i can't wait for the day where a woman's choice to stay home or have a career is no longer viewed and questioned as a reflection of her being a feminist or not

but your comment on women fixing the world as opposed to scrapbooking really hit a nerve with me, katiebelle. i mean, what if i, personally, don't want to be one of the ones doing the changing? what if i love to scrapbook and that makes me happier than a pantsuit and power lunches? isn't doing stuff that makes ourselves happy the most important thing to do? it's kind of like when people tell me not to waste my intelligence on doing something perceived as 'lesser', like people told me not to throw away my math abilities because i was considering hairdressing as a career for a while. who are we to say what other people should be doing with their lives, goals, and abilities?

women who think they need to be in the home because 'that's a woman's place' are another peck of pickles alltogether, and i think need help and education, and need opportunities given to them. me? i still maintain that i would be happy to marry rich, live a comfortable life resplendent with too much makeup and too many fedoras, and dick around doing whatever it was that made me happy for the moment, so long as *i* didn't feel i was wasting my life
its all true what you say tyger, it really is. i guess that whatever makes you happy makes you happy, and that is the most important thing. but in some ways, that is also selfish. even though ideally its how i would like to live my life. i mean, in some ways i am with you in marrying rich and just dicking around, but honestly, you may be happy, however it doesnt change the fact that its selfish and lazy. i guess these are the things we all struggle with in terms of being a feminist.

the one thing i do wonder is, what started the second wave was the feminine mystique which held that most women thought they would be happy in the home, but it turns out that when they were older, the truly regretted it. i have talked to countless women like that who are my mothers age and older, so i cant help but wonder if its something you "think" will make you happy, but when you are 80 you will realize that "hey, i could have helped out at even a soup kitchen, but bc scrapbooking (ok i am using this term as an example you could put anything here) made me happy at the time, and now i realize that i didnt do much for anybody".

but why do so many men want to change the world and be involved but not women? i mean logically this argument could end up with the same conclusion that anti-feminist have which is "women are truly more happy in the home doing girl things". i am just asking if people think long and hard about it and challenge their assumptions. which most likely, most people dont but some people do.

i dont know, but what i do know is that i have talked to countless other feminists about this shit and we all struggle with it.
this also extends to being feminist in a relationship which i think is also a very interesting topic.
A note from a guy, here...

Very few of us are "changing the world" at any given time. Most guys - single or committed, married, kids, no kids, white collar, working class, whatever - work because they have bills to pay and obligations to meet. A small percentage are fortunate enough to get paid for the kind of work they'd do for free and an even thinner slice get to change their own corner of the world, let alone make a dent in humanity's problems.

This doesn't mean we all shouldn't pitch in and do what we can, but "what we can" for some people might indeed mean being a good parent or caregiver.
when i say change the world, it could be in a way thats as small as a community. you are right, most people arent. but even volunteering somewhere to me helps out more than filling up your life with things that only make you happy, and no one else.

and i already said that one of the best ways to do this is to be a good parent.
generally speaking men are more active due to their biology. it's the testosterone, and i'm not kidding. they have a deep seated need to be out conquering, it's way back there in the reptilian brain. and women tend towards nuturing, hence the whole "woman's work" thing. the point of feminism for me is to have the freedom to do whatever it is that makes you happy, to have choice in the matter and to be honoured and valued for your contribution. women fought for equality because they were considered property, less than men, and not afforded the same human rights and freedoms as. women set out to prove that we are all equal human beings regardless of our sex, that we are all capable of doing the same jobs, being as intelligent and active as eachother, etc, by integrating into a "man's" world and making it our own. i don't think woman set out to get away from being housewives per se, but to get away from being in an imposed role of lesser value and/or seeming subservience.
to some the job of being a housewife/mother/caregiver may still seem like that kind of work but for many, myself included, it is not. it is a position of honour and value, it's the job that makes all other jobs possible, it's the thing that i can do with my life and my energy that makes the MOST difference in this world, in the lives of those i care about. doing what i love and being great at what i do, being happy in that, well, that's just fine with me. no need to scale mountains and jump out of planes to prove what a trooper i am. i know what i am, i don't have to prove a thing.
now, this may be because i grew up with a RADICALLY feminist mother and that afforded me the space to be settled in my own version of same. for me i think that a woman who wants to stay home and does just that regardless of popular (or unpopular) thought on the matter is the most radical feminist of all.
katiebelle, its seems (imho) that you are assuming women should be helping others to have a truly fulfilling life. Isn't that the same old "a woman's place is nurturing others" argument? A woman shouldn't be happy wanting to just take care of her house and her husband, but should want to help everyone else too or she is "selfish and lazy"?
It's a big old circle, isn't it? Feminism is about social and political equality, which begets autonomy and choice...but if you make a "traditional" choice, some people see you as a sell-out and traitor to the cause. How can anyone enjoy their lives when we do nothing but criticize people who make different choices than we do?

Personally, I was convinced at a pretty young age (I was a cynic in the womb) that corporate capitalist culture is ANYthing but conducive to living the life I truly want. It isn't terribly forgiving or accomodating of those who choose something other than the daily grind, whether it be working 8-6, stay-at-home-parenting, or volunteering 24/7 at the domestic violence shelter - there is this insane puritan work ethic at play, in the US at least, proponents of which believe that if you are not being useful to other people constantly, then you are worthless.

How many people actually get to work in a job they love for money that makes them comfy? How many jobs give time off to people for long periods of time for anything other than childbirth? I'm thinking very when the situation arises in which one of the aforementioned people, man or woman, is cool with footing all the bills so their partner, whose particular talents don't tend to run towards political activism or banking or counseling or whatever, can stay home and follow their bliss, I think it's great.

But mayhaps that's just 'cause that is my own particular situation at the moment and all my opinions, obviously, come from my own experience. Not that I can't be open to others'.
good points luci,
however, i dont think staying at home with no kids is a traditional choice. in fact all stay at home mothers i know worked until they had kids despite the fact that their husbands had money. i agree that there is a puritan work ethic that makes people unhappy in this culture. i am not speaking of the type of "career" that is corporate or anything like that, i am simply talking about sitting around all day, not volunteering (even for a few hours a day) while your husband goes out and works. i am just wondering, what exactly is the point? is it ONLY for your own self. i hardly believe that anyone on here would think that only thinking about yourself all the time is a good thing.

i think all people should be helping people six. i also think they should do things for themselves as well, there has to be a balance. i dont think you need to be "helping people 24/7". that would be ludicrous. but no, i dont believe being selfish is ok. also, pepper would be the one who actually stated the "women tend towards nurturing" in no uncertain terms.

i dont think women, or men need to be constantly helping others, bc you wont find personal happiness if you entirely neglect yourself.

my arguement was more towards that i really just dont think its ok if a woman OR a man stays at home while the other one works when there are no children around. to me then, it seems you are pursuing your own hobbies, while the other person goes out and has to work. but perhaps if the other person is ok with it then fine, i just personally wouldnt feel comfortable.

most people dont enjoy working i wont lie. some do. however, does it not make a person feel good to be at least a little productive and influential in the lives of others besides themselves? it has nothing to do with corporate capitalist culture bc i think that truly makes very few people happy.

i like my down time as much as the next person, in fact i most likely like it too much. i am just wondering also, would anyone here feel like they were leeching off their husband if they didnt work and have children? wouldnt you be afraid of what would happen if he died or left you?
i think i would feel uncomfortable solely spending money that wasnt my own, especially when i didnt do anything besides garden or whatever all day, but clearly that would be a personal choice.

maybe it will be different if and when frankly, i get married. i dont plan on having kids, so i dont think i will ever be staying home but who knows i guess right? this is really a chicken or the egg thing. and actually, despite everything i have said, i dont think that a person being a housewife is a traitor to the cause. i would have just as much an issue with it if it was a guy doing the same. really, this almost isnt about feminism in alot of ways for me.
huh, since when is keeping house NOT a full time job? i am severely underslept with all the basic household crap i have to do to keep this joint in order, and that doesn't include all the extras like laundry and shopping and repairs and and and, it never freaking ends (did i meantion my actual job as well?). if i had a car it would make things a teeny bit easier but certainly not enough to call what i do every day in my house to keep thing clean and functioning "following my bliss". i mean, i like cleaning and organizing and that stuff as much as a person Can like it but it's not like it's a breeze or anything. isn't that why women fought for equality and recognition in the first place?
i wouldnt call it bliss either. although you did say you love that stuff.

all i know is my aunt has a gigantic house, all her kids are gone, and i think she vacuums the entire house about twice a day. i mean does a house really need to be that clean? if you have a job of course its going to be harder. but if you dont have kids to mess up a house, and you arent doing fix ups on it, i dont know, i dont think i could find stuff that needed to be done around it to fill up 9 hours of my day unless i was anal retentive about being clean. i dont know. maybe i could, who knows. its all about what you want to do is what it comes down to. thats what women were fighting for.
"however, does it not make a person feel good to be at least a little productive and influential in the lives of others besides themselves? it has nothing to do with corporate capitalist culture bc i think that truly makes very few people happy"

In the first place, yes, of course it feels good to help people and be productive. In the second place, you're right: no, the corporate culture doesn't make people happy. It makes them selfish, unhealthy, dependent, uncreative, dull, ignorant, and wasteful.

But I don't see anyone marching in the streets demanding an end to capitalism.

I don't think I have ever, in my experience, met anyone who literally does nothing all day. Except my crazy alcoholic narcissistic grandmama. She's a joy. :-)

I do understand what you're saying, katiebelle, that in general, people are happier when they are active and productively-occupied. That's no doubt true. But people's definitions of productively-occupied are going to differ.

I love this song. It's called "Just a Housewife" and it's just excerpts, 'cause it's loooong


All I am is just a housewife
Nothing special, nothing great
What I do is kinda boring
If you'd rather, it can wait
All I am is someone's mother
All I am is someone's wife
All of which seems unimportant
All it is is
Just my life


I don't mean to complain at all
But they make you feel like you're two feet tall
When you're just a wife
(Just a housewife)
Nowadays all the magazines
Make a bunch of beans about family life
(My life)
You're a "whiz" if you go to work
But you're just a jerk if you say you won't
(Just a housewife)
Women's lib says they think it's fine
If the choice is mine
But you know they don't
What I do, what I choose to do
May be dumb to you
But it's not to me
Is it dumb that they need me there?
Is it dumb to care?
Cause I do, you see
And I mean, Did ya ever think,
Really stop and think
What a job it was-
Doing all the things
That a housewife does?
so now just wanting to live life to be happy is selfish? we aren't all built to change the foundations of the world. i, for one, am built to make the lives of people i love happier, if only just a bit, if only for an instant. nobody's going to build a statue of me, but my friend will remember sitting around eating marshmallows in the middle of the night on the university campus, and my best friend will remember the time we rolled down the huge hill at the park by my house in miniskirts while trying not to get grass on our popsicles. and when i'm older i want my friends to remember me as that crazy girl who made them smile, because i'm always going to be the fun kind of crazy. is that selfish? maybe. could i be feeding starving children in africa? yeah, probably. i could be giving money to do that now, but i'm going to school. does that make me selfish? that i'm paying for a frivolous (and it is, i'm going simply because i want to learn more. it's not going to lead to earth-shattering discoveries or gender equality) education instead of giving my money to charities that i hold close to my heart. if i lived my life by that definition of selfish than my entire life would be nothing more than a selfish black hole of doom.

therefore, my definition of selfish is wanting others to do what i want them to do. selfish is not being happy because i'm doing what someone says i should be doing as opposed to what makes me happy, because then all i'm doing is making everyone else around me miserable, too.

i don't know, i'm rambling. i just don't understand why doing what you want to do to be happy with your life, and doing what you have to do to be able to sleep with yourself at night became selfish.

(for the record if i married rich i would work my fingers to the bone raising money for AIDS research, fighting for gay rights legislation, and generally being a pain in the ass to close-minded assholes who think they are better than the rest of the world. instead i'm working two jobs so i can afford to stay in school and still buy a bus ticket and take a week off work to go visit one of my friends who moved away. and, short of marrying rich, that is what the rest of my life will contain. working and stealing short moments of joy with people i love. and i think that that is what i want to do)
HOLY BIBLE Romans 1:25-27
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

HOLY BIBLE Romans 1:26-28
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
then, by what i said, you wouldnt be being selfish. i specifically said that you dont HAVE to be changing the world in huge ways to be productive or unselfish. i am saying, that you know, at 5am, when you are supposed to be at the homeless shelter to do your weekly thing there, and while at that moment when you rather be skip it and be in bed the thing that will generally make people the happiest, is if they went. selfish is only always thinking of yourself and i hardly thinking being a person that people just want to to be around is selfish. i think also, that generally good people can do things that make them happy and not be selfish. i dont know, i am rambling now bc i am a little stoned, but i never meant what you think i did tyger:-)
ah, i see, katiebelle. i'm just so used to the 'if you're not changing the world you're wasting your life' people that i kinda jump to conclusions. and then ramble. it's a nasty habit, that one :P
oooh, this really touched on something for me- the idea that i must be doing something "important" or else my life is worthless or something. I definitley feel like I should be out there saving the world, all the time. I feel selfish just trying to live the happiest life I can. What about all the suffering masses? I feel really guilty about the fact that I live better than most people in the world, yet I'm still working on improving my life.

I'm just rambling....I dunno.
**Whew! I haven't been on here for a couple days and I had a lot of reading to do just now!**
I'd like to say that even tho I get into debates from time to time, I think deep down I'm a 'can't we all just get along?' type. I mean, I wish the broader population could all agree that feminists are good people, and not a dividing, counter-culture sect. I hate that feminism gets a bad rep for no good reason, but I suppose it does because definitions vary so broadly. I think the Busties on here that defend housewives arent saying that they want to live to serve a man, but that there is value to being a nurturer and there is a joy in keeping up the homestead. The articles that Katie posted didnt really bother me except for the Christ overtones and the college bashing., but overall I think there is importance in traditional womens roles.

Actually, a couple years ago I would not post something like that. I was very sure that feminism meant NOT staying at home, but being active in traditional "mens" things and professions. Basically, to me feminism meant trying to beat men at their own game. My mom was a feminist-type mother in this way, and had dreams that I would be a scientist, and sent me to an all-girls school specifically because she read that girls did better in math when boys werent around. Unfortch, I was still terrible in math, barely passing, and had no interest in science. I felt bad about it, like I was letting the womens movement down by being a poor math student.

My interest in music and art grew in my high school years, and once I learned about riot grrl stuff I really wanted to start a band and a zine. It was really hard tho because I was shy. I tried to play guitar and messed around with my guy friends bands, but I pretty much sucked. I continued to have the idea tho, that I should be in a band and go on tours without showering and no roadie. That was feminist.
Or be an art star that got more attention then male artists. That was feminist.

These days, and maybe its just a phase because I'm going thru hormonal changes (I'm actually having child-bearing dreams more than sex dreams) I feel like my earlier ambitions were actually more selfish than wanting to be a "home girl". I mean, I still really really dig female artists/bands/scientists,...but am I less feminist because I cant do that stuff/dont have the ego for that stuff? I hope not.

sorry for the life story!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2016 Invision Power Services, Inc.