by 
With all that feminism has tried to do to get girls and women to see themselves just like men, a survey of young women in England say that they do not see themselves working past 40 and would like to marry someone with money than to make it themselves.
The pendulum seems to have swung. It seems that the more that feminists tried to change who women were the more that girls are now wanting traditional roles. They are leaving the workforce. They are homeschooling their children. And they are thinking about marrying to get someone to support them financially.
Now, I am not promoting gold digging or marrying for money, but I am saying that it’s interesting watching it all bounce back. I find it interesting, and I cannot explain, how women as a whole worked so long to get to this point in time with this set of freedoms only to choose to do what they were doing in the first place. For every action that was taken, it seems like almost the opposite was what was desired.
Women wanted men to treat them as equals, but then when they got that they missed chivalry. They wanted to have a place in the workforce, only to now choose to give up these jobs to stay at home with children– or to desire to stay home with their children and cannot because they believe that they cannot afford it. Women desired the right to vote, but then some decide that they will let their husband take care of politics.
I know– these are not the rule, but generalizations. I know exceptions to each of these. It makes me wonder how much we’ve truly lost in the name of progress.
LOL An easy life? Anyone who thinks that staying with the kids full time and homeschooling is an easy life has not walked a mile in a woman’s cross-trainers.
I support freedom, and equal pay for equal work. Yes, I am a homemaker and when the children arrive, that will be my full time occupation, but I will fight to the death to support my sister or cousin or friend’s right to choose differently.
Women want men to treat them as equals, yes. Chivalry has nothing to do with it. Ask my husband. He treats me like an equal partner, but opens my doors and pulls out my chairs. He pays my tuition at college, and I cook for him and look for ways to serve him at home. We have a traditional Christian marriage, and he would also support my desire to make a career for myself.
It’s not about women not being able to decide what they really want. It’s about ALL women having the freedom to CHOOSE what they want, not to be forced into marriage just to have a viable way of surviving.
😀 Can you tell this is one of my little pet issues? LOL
I’m all for women having the freedom to choose career over marriage, marriage over career or both at the same time… The bone I like to pick is that women bought this lie that femininsts have spewed over the years that they can have it all and be good at it.
My hat goes off to women who successfully juggle a full time career, family and home. I honestly don’t know how they do it unless they are making enough $ to afford a maid and to eat out a lot. Or maybe they don’t need six hours of sleep at night.
I think it’s the LIE that women are now turning their back on by returning home and/or homeschooling their children. They can see the cost and they’re not willing to pay it anymore.
It’s sad how many women would love to stay at home but can’t because 8 years down the road they are still working to pay off their college tuition…I have a sil and a friend who both cried buckets for weeks when first returning to work after giving birth. They felt they had to…
And it’s no wonder. We get our higher ed, our great paying job, buy a home we can barely afford and fill it with new appliances and furniture and then we’re trapped into needing 2 incomes for the next 30 years as we pay for it all. It’s the American Way.
I think what’s missing here is that the study cited shows that the particular women in the UK polled want an actuall easy life. They don’t just want to return home and homeschool or have a traditional marriage; they want easy street.
That’s something different altogether. I’ve already written about this on my blog, but I’d like to hear your thoughts as to what this means.
Min, feminism has won a victory of the old way with each woman that chooses to go back to the home, simply and totaly because she made that choice for herself. Nobody had the right to force her to do what she didn’t want to do. She was able to choose of her own free will and no one elses that she prefered to be one place instead of another. That study is not a show of how feminism is losing but a show of how it has won.
The new feminism must say this, but the old feminism said that in order to be fully woman you must have it all– both the career and the family. Those that have chosen to stay home, chosen to remain modest, and have chosen to respect traditional values are the antithesis to those that say that you must work and you must “be a man” in order to be a woman.
We’re two complimentary types of individuals, each with strengths and weaknesses that make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Feminism seeks to make them the same, realism says that they’re different.
I don’t think that any feminism — new or old — wanted all women to “have it all” feminism just wanted women to have that opportunity if they so chose. And many women, after trying it, realize they want to stay home with the children until they’re at least school-aged — they want to stay and make a nice home for the husbands they love.
Unfortunately, as Mary said, we’ve often gotten ourselves into a big mess by then with the two cars and DVR upgrade, so we have to join the workforce and get college educations just to be a manager at Wal-Mart…not that there is anything wrong with a college education, I wish I had finished mine.
And chivalry is lovely. But a true lady would be as eager to open a door as to have one held for her. Preferrably on her way to the voting booth 😉
“Preferably on her way to the voting booth”…great one, Heather…
Very interesting. I agree with almost all of the ladies. We each pointed out that it has much more to do with choice. God gave us choice, so you can imagine that having man withhold it from us was a great injustice.
I also understand that the first wave of feminism, which the older feminists still believe in, indeed wanted us out of the house and into the work force- being equal with men. They have a hard time understanding that true feminism is about the power to choose which path in life you’ll take.
And I like what Heather said about women opening the door as well as men. Seems like the Christian thing to do , correct?
An interesting hypothesis, Heather. I could certainly find it reasonable that some of the early feminists sought the openness of opportunity, but I would also think that an in depth study would find the leaders or those that were in front of the movement were those that wanted to “have it all” rather than those that wanted to choose being stay at home moms. I mean, logic would say that this has to be the case, since the latter was the majority of moms before the feminist movement.
I’m not quite sure you’re the final arbiter of what a lady would want. I’ve read a fair share of articles that posit that chivalry is not dead, and women like it when a man holds the door or does different things. I know that one of the things that caused a good opinion of my wife’s ex-father was that he held the door, and that women are effected by flowers, and all sorts of things that don’t effect men the same way. In fact, I don’t feel that I’m doing my job as a man (or feel awkward) if I don’t hold the door for a lady.
Why? Because I’m supposed to honor women as a weaker vessel– not physically weaker, but like a priceless vase. Something that’s not common. I think that if we had more chivalry (controlling the tongue, not sitting until a lady sits, etc) in our lives I think you’d find less women willing to strip it all off for a webcam, having oral sex because they feel that it’s required, and that you’d have less self esteem issues– but I digress.
Mary– I’m still not totally sold on the voting thing. No, I’m not saying women shouldn’t vote, but I’m thinking that the whole standard we have right now of who should be allowed to vote is flawed, and I’m not sure the advantage of two people in the same house voting… Seems like it could be a recipe for trouble, or just a duplication.
Bonnie– Does Christianity have something to say about the occupations of men and women? Certainly, but it’s not as cut and dried as some would like us to think. I think that you’re totally right that we should be free to pursue whatever God-honoring activity that is available.
MIn, I’m glad there are still some chivalrous men out there, you and my husband and others no doubt. Also thrilled that there are dads of sons out there training them in these great ways to honor women. I wasn’t agreeing that a woman was any better for holding doors open, in fact, if I had to hold a door open for a man (other than a failing-in-health or elderly gentleman) my regard for him might go down a few notches!
I’m not used to anyone but my husband holding doors out for me, etc. When it does happen, I really notice and appreciate it. It’s definitely a considerate gesture, one I’m not dismissing lightly! I just got a chuckle out of Heather’s wording it around the right to vote.
In this day and age, I’m sure glad for the freedom to vote. For our first few years of marriage, my dh wasn’t even registered to vote, so my vote represented our household. Being married to me for that length of time converted my hubby somewhat, he now won’t miss an opportunity to vote, and we’re glad to get two votes in on our candidate of choice. I have friends whose votes cancel their husband’s votes out, as they vote different political parties. Definitely a lot to consider about the whole subject.
Hey MIn, Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear by trying to be too clever 🙂 I “demand” chivalry from my husband and before him wouldn’t have dated a guy who didn’t show me those niceties and I teach my daughters to expect the same. I do think, however, that a woman should certainly hold the door for an man or pick up his dropped belongings if it would be more convenient for her do to so — like if she were a few feet ahead of him she would open the door and either allow him to go through first or hold it until he got it or if he had arms full of stuff she would be the one to do the fetching. Does that make sense? If it’s very cold or very hot or rainy I will lean over and open my husbands car door from the inside after he has me safely installed. Those are things a true lady would do, rather than sit around waiting for the world to wait on her.
I do agree that we would probably have less self-esteem issues and all the actions (promiscuity, pornography) that stem from it if we were treated as valuable by the men in our lives — but what on earth does oral sex have to do with anything?
I think the criteria for voting should be: of legal age, registered to vote and able to read the ballot. I can’t imagine what other sort of “standards” you would like to impose.
Upon reflection I realized that MIn and Bonnie are right about the women’s movement starting out much more briskly and wanting to push more women into the workforce.
There’s a line there between teaching kids to be self sufficient and teaching them to be princesses. You’re right on there, Heather. If we train girls to look at other people (esp men) as their slaves than we’re just as wrong as if we teach them not to expect certain things from men.
And the opposite is true too– we need to be training our boys to be the kind of men we want our daughters to marry.
Of course, you add onto that the whole notion that they are watching you and copying what you are showing them and you end up with a really exhausting job for parents!