Sub Standard Woman

Somehow apparently, A woman's ability to know or not know how to cook makes her a substandard woman. Apparently if she chooses not to know how to sweat and toil chopping, mincing and cutting for two hours in a kitchen she somehow becomes a bad wife and/or mother. She becomes a sub-standard woman.

Apparently working two jobs and birthing babies does not make up for not knowing how to boil and fry. Really?

"Most of the ladies from 1950's mostly had their perfect lives as perfect housewives. Chores were not dull yet the real challenge to show what they were capable of. Glasses polishing might be considered even more difficult than typewriting. On the other way round, if they went to higher education, they were eventually trained to be the best secretaries. Yes, just to assist their men."

Now we're in 2010 and this may surprise you but we can vote, and be mechanics.

Here's my take and I am going to make this short and simple. If I work the same hours as you, you and I will find a way to divide the cooking responsibilities equally. If this doesn't sit well with you, then we will hire a cook if we can afford it. If somehow my children think that my inability to cook or my desire not to, makes me a bad mother then I and my partner have not raised them right. If for some reason my partner decides I am not woman enough for him (assuming I end up with a man here) because I decide not to know how to master the delicate balance between Maggi and salt then I deserve way better.

If I am a housewife, then yes it is only fair that I cook and clean. After all I am doing basically nothing else. If you are unemployed dear husband you would be required to cook and clean. If we're both working, we will both share the cooking and cleaning responsibilities. If this somehow demeans you as a man then I am insulted that you think I am beneath you because if you say this is demeaning to you then I darling husband am above cooking and cleaning too. If you haven't realized that by now we would be equal partners in our marriage.

The possibility that I will bend under pressure and treasure my "womanly roles" someday in the future is possible. I would be lying if I said I would never change into that woman because I don't know. If I do become that woman who works two jobs, does most of the cleaning and cooking because it is too demeaning for my husband to do then please someone please I beg you to kill me.

This is not a power struggle. Notice how I said working hours not earning more. Even if I am earning more but working less then it is only fair I take more household responsibilities and vice versa. Now honey you want to come home to a hot meal already made no? And somehow you expect that if I get home on some days maybe an hour before you I will pull some kind of miracle and whip up dinner for a king? You somehow do not imagine that I must be tired from work and want to collapse in front of the t.v.?

Obviously if we have kids, the working schedule will have to change but it will change believe it or not 50/50 so please hubby if you're are going to be a simple-minded jackass, I require that you do not come close to me. I would rather stay single forever than force myself to be something I'm not because you have some ancient rule book

Now if you as a woman love to cook and think the smile on your kids face from making a perfect pot of soup is somehow just enough for you, then honey go for it. Just remember that you are not somehow superwoman because you managed to add one more unnecessary duty to your board. Do not look down on those that either don't know how or don't want to. They are not less of a woman than you.

Someone is definitely going to say this either as a comment or in their mind "You're only saying this because you can't cook" Well stupid bastard I do know how to cook and well, but do I enjoy it? 80% of the time hell fucking no. First chance we get we're hiring a cook.

"the truth remains .. as a mother its not a good thing you cant cook.. I wish u well." That was said. I want to reply with logic but at the same time all I can think of are curse words that will make most people blush.

"Sex they say begins in d kitchen! D kitchen is as important as d bedroom! A woman must cook!"  This was said by someone I respected. You want to know where that respect is right now? At the bottom of an ocean somewhere. What the fuck kinda quote is that? Sex begins in the kitchen? What logical sense does that make?

If you are going to argue with me please argue with sense and logic. Do not use outdated stances that your mother drilled into you because her mother drilled it into her. Women have been so badgered into what their roles are in life that now they don't need any outside badgering they'll badger their own damn self. You want to know what started this argument? "Ladies, if u don't know how to cook, its not cute. Seek help today!" a girl said this. If she thinks it is her divine honor to cook, cleaan, iron.. hell good for you come and do my laundry for me but when you belittle other women for not knowing or wanting to then we have a problem.

Another woman said this "All he wants is for you to be submissive. Be thankful he’s not assaulting, raping or murdering you, be thankful he’s not leering at you while yelling something distasteful about your assets"

Are you kidding me?! NO, No I will not be "thankful" that a guy is treating me with as much respect as I treat him. I will not be grateful that he chooses not to rape me, I will not look at him and think myself lucky that he has decided not to assault me today. Those things are a GIVEN, they are not things to be thankful for. Just as you wouldn't look at a female friend and feel grateful to her for not scratching your eyes out with her long red fingernails or stamping on your foot with her stiletto heel... I'm sorry, but to suggest we should be thankful for not being raped implies an expectation that it will happen, that the man in question is doing us a favor by not carrying out his rights as a Y-chromosome bearer. I should feel grateful for not being assaulted by someone just because he happens to be a Mike not Michelle.

I cant. I just can't.

I am to say the least mad.

Anyone who has never watched Mona lisa's smile, should. Apart from the star studded cast: Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles and Maggie Gyllenhal, the film gives a new perspective towards femininity and society.

The movie is about a girls' school in late 50's. Depicting how great the education for these young ladies, traditions, and the profound achievement of becoming great housewives when they graduate. When the new art teacher started her first class with her 50's-women-oriented students, the battle of ideas seemed to begin.

I really enjoyed the story line. Being slightly feminist made Katherine, the new teacher, the odd ball. Freedom of sex was even unacceptable, what could be worse than being dubbed as 'a whore' for being independent in sex? When Joan (played by Julia Stiles) refused to apply for Yale Law School against Katherine, her art history tutor (Julia Roberts) suggestion because she didn't want it. She even asserted that being a wife is what she always wanted. It was the most heartbreaking scene to me. I questioned why would women just want to be at home, tidy up, do laundry, and cook at the end of the day? Then I realized my hypocrisy. How could I be a feminist and not allow women make choices? This was my turning point. I realized that being feminist is all about having choices and being able to choose. Either becoming successful professionally or playing a Stepford wife, it is ok as long as your life is filled with happiness.

Feminism is about choice. Make your choice and I'll make mine.

Read this post:  http://livileah88.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/im-living-in-the-50s/I support her view almost 90% even though her goal is to be a housewife. She is making her choice. "I personally would not choose to become a housewife as i don’t think it would fulfill me, in the same you work would probably not fulfill you. As long as a person is not hurting anyone then how they live their life is their choice. I think if u wish to be a 50s housewife good for you, go for it and fuck what others think."

How to Be a Good Housewife

---

Taken from a 1950's American High School Home Economics textbook, the essay is entitled "How to be a Good Wife." It reads in part:
Have dinner ready. Prepare yourself. Touch up your makeup, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people. Be a little gay and a little more interesting. Clear away the clutter -- run a dust cloth over the tables.
Prepare the children: Take a few minutes to wash the children's hands and faces, comb their hair, and if necessary change their clothes. They are God's creatures and he would like to see them playing the part.
Minimize all noise…eliminate the noise of the washer, dryer, dishwasher or vacuum. Try to encourage the children to be quiet.
Some Don'ts: Don't greet him with problems or complaints. Don't complain if he is late for dinner. Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soft, soothing and pleasant voice.
Listen to him: You may have dozens of things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first. Make the evening his. Never complain if he does not take you out to dinner or other pleasant entertainments.

I went to Church..

Disclaimer: This post is not the view of every member of this blog but solely reflects me and my views. It will definitely be offensive and I know this will not stop you from reading but I just want to point that out. I urge you to read objectively and rationally and I welcome all comments negative or not. This is a long post so grab a cookie

I went to church and as you well know this cannot end well.  I tried to pay attention and give the bible a chance and now that I am sane(r), I can now rationally say "The bible sucks". I understand this is a book that means a lot to be billions of people but to me it means nothing. And as thus I am going to give it the same respect as I would to a John Grisham novel.

While the bible does offer a lot of upliftment and encouragement, I can get the same thing from an inspirational novel or one of those self help books. To me, the bible is a sexist pig. Well maybe not the whole bible but the writers of certain parts of the bible to be politically correct. So if I am trying to be correct I should say "Some of the bible sucks". Is that better?

Call me a self righteous feminist but I believe men and women can and should be treated equally. I have uni-sexualised my words and thoughts and behaviors. So when the bible starts with its belief of submission on the part of just women I am immediately defensive. So today the pastor happened to be talking about woman's role in life and as soon as he started reading from that chapter I should have walked out and would have saved myself this whole post but I didn't because well they were serving food after the service (Judge away). So being the open minded individual that I am, I walk up to the pastor later respectfully and ask him if he doesn't think the bible is sexist. He starts off by saying since I am not christian, I cannot understand the bible and all it's complexities, basically he finds ways to bullshit around the whole issue and gives me one or two verses where the bible praises womanhood. I walked away because I could not be bothered to argue when there was good food being served and honestly I was about to start cursing and that would be disrespectful.

I get so tired of this, “You’re not a Christian, so obviously you don’t know anything about the Bible.” I grew up with the Bible. I probably know a lot more about the bible than some of you. I went to Sunday school. I went to church. I went to Wednesday services. I sang in the church choir. I’ve read the Bible.

While, yes, there are some parts of the Bible that do move away, slightly, from the view that women are inferior, there aren’t nearly enough of those passages to overcome the overall view that women are second class citizens in the Christian religion and that the preferred woman is one who is silent, chaste, and submissive.

A big part of the reason why, despite spending 15 years where Christianity was all that I knew, I never could commit to the faith was because of the degrading way the Bible treats women. Over and over and over and over.

Yes, I understand that the Bible is reflective of the culture that produced it, which was misogynistic and believed/treated women as inferior and as property. The issue I have with the excuse that the Bible simply reflects the culture during which it was written is that makes the Bible something that can be dated and more importantly outdated. If they allow for that then how can it really be the true Word? In my mind as soon as someone allows for a less than perfect rating on the Bible - the entirety of it is questionable and their entire religious stance is flawed.

Either own the whole Bible or none of it I say.
(I choose the latter)

However, that only reinforces my belief that the Bible is far more a product of humans than it is of anything divine. And any divinity that honestly advocated for the sort of ideas about women that are so frequently espoused in the Bible is one that doesn’t deserve my worship, praise, and certainly not my obedience.Which is why I cannot bring myself to believe in the same biblical God that Christians do.

I get it. Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible are important and unimportant. While it’s admirable that you choose to ignore the more sexist and dehumanizing passages of the Bible in favor of the more progressive passages of the Bible, because you believe it’s more in keeping with the spirit of Christ, it doesn’t really change the content of the Bible, which says a lot of things that I find deeply offensive and insulting and damaging.

It doesn’t really change the fact that those who hold anti-women views can find more than enough backup to reinforce their views in the Bible…which is far less a matter of what is or isn’t.

So, yeah. I’m not a Christian. But it doesn’t mean that I can’t read the multiple passages that say, “Women, you are to be submissive to your husbands,” and not be able to figure out that what the Bible is saying is, “Women, you are to submit to your husbands.” It’s nice that you read that and go, “Well, it could mean something else,” or “Well, there’s this other part that is nicer to the ladies.” But to argue that these words somehow confused me because I am not christian or that I shouldn't question God is just unacceptable. 

Seriously?

The Bible begins, in Genesis, with putting all the blame for the pain and suffering of humanity on a woman’s shoulders. And then women are punished for all eternity because one lady got down with a serpent.

“Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.”

Women are viewed as subjects of their husbands.

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Women’s value is seen almost exclusively in their ability to keep their mouths and their legs shut.

“A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued.” 

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

“That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

 So does that mean Female pastors are going to hell? Is Benson Idahosa's wife going to hell for not always covering her head or does her weave count as a hair covering? And then there are verses that prevent women from teaching in church. (I Corinthians 14:33-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-12).” Actually, it’s “Thou shalt not SPEAK in church.” At all. Ever. And this time it's from the new testament too. I mean if Mrs Idahosa wasn't going to hell before, she is now and so are your female pastors and deaconesses. I mean really and then you sit there and tell me how I should respect the bible and believe in it?

Take that shit home, bitch (in the words of co-blogger and future mating partner, Realist) and eat multiple dicks.