Posted on 04/22/2002 4:40:48 AM PDT by kattracks
Talk about dumb broads
Posted: April 22, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
If women are so smart, why are they so dumb?
And before you get your panties in a bunch, I'm entitled to criticize females because the last time I checked, I'm one of them. Katie bar the door, I'm about to be incredibly politically incorrect.
Women have been sold a bill of goods, which they bought hook, line and sinker. Ever since the '60s, when the brunt of feminism hit the media, the message was clear: Go for it! You can have (be, do, experience) everything!
There's only one problem. It isn't true. Never was. Never will be.
But men knew that. Lost in the burst for female "freedom" was the ugly truth that men, who supposedly had "everything" that women were being denied, were really victims of a system that kept them prisoner.
It was the price they paid for being men. Their role in life was to be the breadwinner, the master of the home, the head and protector of the family, the person ultimately responsible for the survival of his tribe and the soldier-protector of his country.
He had to be brave, smart, hard working and supportive of the family. He had to be husband, father, son, sibling, uncle, neighbor, friend. He had to work to earn the means to play all those roles, and he had no choice.
This isn't to say there weren't scoundrels. Of course there were men who deserted their women and children, who drank or gambled the family earnings, or womanized their way through marriages which hung together for "the sake of the children."
Guys like that aren't new and are still around. In fact, women's liberation has been great for men who prefer to chill out, and societal changes make it easy.
Want sex? Take your pick. Chicks are there for the asking; in fact, they'll compete to be the "chosen one" for the day. Or night. No questions. No promises. How great is that?
Don't want kids? No worry. There's all kinds of prevention (sounds like a plague, doesn't it?) with most of the responsibility on her. And if they don't "work" and a new life gets in the way, just get rid of it. It's legal, private and accepted. And if she's really a "today woman," she might not even tell you and just "take care of things" on her own. What a gal! What a life!
Don't want marriage? Duh. Just live together. Get the bennies and avoid the legal technicalities. Get tired of that? Leave. Hey, the door is always open.
Women's liberation freed men from responsibility. It encouraged women to "find" themselves. They were urged to "go for it" careerwise.
Of course they could do it. Women are smart and able to work hard and succeed. But by doing it, they walked right into the trap that men had been in all along.
Now they find themselves in careers that are time-consuming, require travel away from home and envelop their lives. In that sense, women turned into what they originally disliked about their men and in the process, made the ugly discovery that a major tradeoff was the signature of their femininity. They gave up or lost the opportunity to be a wife and a mother. Why weren't they smart enough to see that?
A new book by Sylvia Ann Hewlett, "Creating A Life," comes to the conclusion, after surveying nearly 1,200 high-achieving career women, that they missed life. One was quoted as saying "I forgot to have a child."
Forgot? Give me a break! Any woman who "forgets" so basic a part of the female psyche isn't smart enough to be considered a high achiever. Either that or today's standards aren't what they're cracked up to be.
Women always had to choose. The choice for career meant sacrificing the family role. And that is the key. Sacrifice. Women are supposed to have been liberated from sacrifice. They are supposed to be able to have and do it all. Except for the fact that it doesn't work.
The real tragedy of Hewlett's findings is the real, human loss to those women. By the time they realize the loss, they're too old biologically to have a child, and too old socially to find an appropriate man to marry. If she's been divorced or earns too much money, it's even harder.
As for the men, as the old saying goes, why buy the cow when the milk is free?
It makes you wonder who women's liberation really liberated?
Barbara Simpson, "The Babe in the Bunker" as she's known to her KSFO 560 radio talk-show audience in San Francisco, has a 20-year radio, television and newspaper career in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
My grandmothers and my mother brought me along to be a homemaker and while I largely ignored it early on to work, I found that I couldn't squelch the female instinct to "nest" and let the man pull the weight.
And to the woman who wanted to deck the mouthy crow for insulting her as a "do nothing" homemaker, I'll tell you my husband is fast, but I don't think he's quick enough to stop me from clawing her eyes out! Homemaking isn't hard if you're well organized, but if you don't have a clue what is involved in making it look easy (undoubtedly like the mouthy one) it can be many times harder than a 9 to 5! Homemaking is a 24/7/365!
No one has to do any such thing. The generally accepted morality that we've abandoned is a loss to society as a whole, especially to the out-of-wedlock children these casual relationships produce which is almost as bad as the soul-deadening fact of a million-plus abortions performed in American every year, most on white, middle-class women who are not married.
Serial sexual 'relationships' between unmarried young adults are ultimately depressing and the fact that this is now considered 'normal' does nothing for the men and women involved who end up wondering why (eventual) marriage is no big deal and often divorce in a few years as the marriage was just a nother 'relationship' and held little meaning after all the sexual affairs that came before it. It's sad and although there are always exceptions, this tends to be quite common in today's 'anything goes' society where sex between unmarried young adults is taken for granted, if not expected.
Forty-plus years ago young adult men and women still had casual relationships, sometimes many before marriage, but sex was not automatic or expected, although of course some did engage in it. There was no perceived need to 'try it out' much less play house and pretend it was a committed relationship - except that either one could flee at the first sign of a problem, boredom or a better sexual partner.
We've lost something important as a society in the name of, what else? Freedom. Well, we're free alright. Free to be promiscuous and call it a 'relationship'. Free to have a million abortions a year. Free to contract STD's by the millions and many women are free to face thirty-five unmarried and feeling used with all illusions shattered and possibly a fatherless child in tow.
No, no one is forced to remain chaste before marriage (and it was never a law in America that anyone had to) but with the permissiveness and frat-boy mentality we've adopted when it comes to sex between unmarrieds and the meaning of 'relationships' being one of sex and convenience and little more, we've lost a lot, even if it was voluntary.
Freedom to indulge our baser instincts without the slightest concern about the results of those excesses is not pretty and I don't find that equating 'freedom' with hedonism a compelling argument but a society gets what it wants and we opted for the Playboy mentality writ large and so, we have it.
I'm well aware that many see this widespread hedonistic behavior as a splendid expression of personal freedom. I do not. I see it as an abuse of freedom in order to excuse crass sexual indulgence and to even mock sexual virtue as 'old-fashioned' and of course to utter the well-worn cry; 'You can't shove your morality down my throat', as if the social expectation of mere circumspect behavior was some terrible oppressive imposition to bear.
I have no desire to codify sexual behavior and that is not the real point. Western society set norms for sexual behavior, including marriage expectations, based on experience over many centuries. Some took them to extremes, of course, but American society was never a Taliban society as some like to hint at. Most Americans agreed with the societial norms of forty or so years ago and were glad to have them in place, as they prevented much of the grief - physical and emotional - we see now as a matter of consequence following the abandonment of sexual mores by most, especially the young.
We cannot turn back the clock, as it were. I believe that eventually the obvious shallowness and bitter fruit of sexual freedom taken to the extremes, as it has in America, will cause society to recede from the edge and re-establish some sensible norms that most of our people can agree to, without feeling some precious freedom has been oppressed. Maybe not. Society is fluid, changing with each generation. The base instincts will always be there and unleashing them in the name of freedom may eventually be seen as the mistake it was. Only time will tell us that and most of us, unfortunately, will not be here to witness that change, should it ever come. Meanwhile, the STD's, the abortions, the fatherless children and the abandoned mothers will continue, and the youth of our nation will continue to rush headlong into meaningless and shallow realtionships that usually end in nothing. Marriage withers, extreme sexual expressions grow and thrive and we call it freedom, and celebrate the consequences in order to justify them.
Well, I contend that the 'sexual freedom emperor' indeed has no clothes on and eventually we'll simply admit it and return to a more sensible and less harmful view of what sexual freedom means beyond indulging in sex anywhere, anytime, with almost anyone, at a whim, and calling it a 'relationship'. Chasity, male and female, and a certain value on it will be seen as a positive attribute, not a hurdle to be jumped to win a prize. Respect for the opposite sex as a fully human being, not simply a sexual object, will return. Marriage will be honored beyond the wedding day. Sex will be seen as a special gift of intimacy sincere, committed, loving people give to each other, hopefully in marriage only, not simply a recreational pastime used to imitate true intimacy. One can hope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.