Cosmopolitan is a surprisingly long-lived monthly fashion magazine that was first published in 1886. At some point in the 1960's or 1970's or so it became essentially a feminist propaganda platform, promoting so-called 2nd-wave feminism, and which was extremely influential and has had an effect on western society ever since.
Recently one of their main writers, who was very prolific in the 1970's, has come out telling that what she wrote in the magazine in the 70's were nothing but a bunch of lies. Everything she wrote about "the sexual liberation of women", all the rants against traditional housewives and how women should have careers outside the home, and about equal roles for the husband and wife at home and so on and so forth, she didn't believe herself. In fact, while she wrote all those things in the 70's she was a traditional stay-at-home mother and housewife herself. She didn't practice what she wrote, nor did she believe any of it. She says that she was essentially coerced into writing all that feminist propaganda by the higher-ups.
I must commend her for coming out and confessing all these things, especially in this day and age (when it requires real courage to do so).
It's actually incredible how popular and widespread these notions have become. They have become almost universal.
Ask random people, and start talking to them about how you value the role of the traditional stay-at-home mom, the traditional housewife, while the husband is the breadwinner of the house who goes to work, and in 99% of cases they will strongly disagree. And that's the mildest reaction to be expected. Disgust and scorn are probable.
Yet, ask for a logical reason why a woman choosing to be a stay-at-home mother is bad thing, and they will probably struggle to present anything rational that's not just based on dogma. It's a bad thing because it's a bad thing. It doesn't need arguments or rationale.
Many studies have shown that happiness among women has steadily decreased since the 70's, and that stay-at-home moms tend to be happier than the women who kill themselves with stress by having a career. And why wouldn't they be happier? When you think about it, what exactly is so wrong about that kind of life? Work is not something that pretty much anybody enjoys, and it tends to be very stressful.
Yet, it has been ingrained into our society that women staying at home caring for the children is a bad thing, somehow. They can't explain how, but it just is. And you better believe it, lest you be considered a horrible monster.
But consider for a moment what the ideology is actually saying. Why should a woman have a long successful career? What are professional careers for? To earn money.
So what they are saying is that killing yourself in a job in order to earn money is better and more important than being a mother who spends all her time caring for her children. Being another cog in the capitalist money-making machine is better than being happy, at home, with your children. Having a long illustrious profitable professional career is better, even if it makes you ultimately stressed and unhappy, and is time away from your own well-being and that of your children. Wealth is more important than happiness. Social and professional status is more important than happiness.
Why?
Comments
Post a Comment