Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Sexist Reporter? Try Sexist Feminist.

Everyone seems to be liking this little clip, here.  Well, I'm not.  And I'll tell you why.  It is, to me, yet another example of how feminism has, once again, made "the neighbor lady who made you chocolate chip cookies" feel like her role is "less than".  Do you hear the disdain in her voice and see the hatred in her eyes as she's saying that?  In that one statement, she summarily stomps on hospitality and on loving, kind, hard-working homemakers everywhere.

To take it further, she then goes on to chastise the reporter for setting up the interview to remind people that she is a woman.  Notice that she is the one disdaining her own gender at this point.  What in the world is wrong with being a woman, or more specifically, being a woman associated with those things?  In my mind, the home, the tea, the cookies, etc., are pillars of feminine virtue and strength, especially to any woman in this millennium who refuses to bow to the feminist, dehumanizing illogic which hates to be associated with them.  She's basically saying she must be viewed as a man in order to be taken seriously; in order for people to vote for her.  Is there a better way than that to hate your own gender?  How about seeking respect because of the differences between men and women instead of foolishly seeking to hide those differences?

In my life, it never has been men who made me feel like they consider my role as homemaker to be inferior (quite to the contrary, the men in my life have always elevated my role); it has always and forever been feminists who have worked so hard to let all the homemakers out there know that they believe we are inferior.
"Feminists who ceaselessly inveigh against their own oppression by men (often hardly specifying its exact nature) would ignore how they themselves have oppressed ... feminine women.  It oppresses a woman who could delight in domesticity to tell her that her domesticity makes her a parasitic inferior to men.  It oppresses a woman who yearns to stay home with her children to tell her she is worthy only insofar as she achieves in the workplace." - F. Carolyn Graglia, A Brief Against Feminism, Pg. 349

And, of course, here's G. K. Chesterton (my favorite on this subject):
If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home,…but if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets cakes, and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute.

For more on this subject, click here.

No comments:

Post a Comment