Well, If It’s For My Health…

Exador sent me a link to this story about how being equal to men is bad for women’s health.  Well, golly.

Clearly, we must immediately do away with feminism!

I have taken some steps.

1.  I’ve called all the major credit companies and listed myself as Exador’s wife on his accounts.  While he’s working hard, I’m out spending his money on high-heel fuck-me pumps.

2.  I’m giving Nathan Moore a quarter for every dollar I earn.

3.  I’m walking three steps behind Mack and kissing the ground every seven feet, in thankfulness that the Lord has seen fit to put such a man in my life.

4.  I will not look Kleinheider in the eye, but will demurely look down at my feet whenever I have to speak to him.

5.  I’m going to be a stay-at-home mom!  This will be the most difficult part, seeing as I don’t have kids.  I will have to break into Sarcastro’s house, find his kids, and stay at home with them.  Hopefully, if I play it right, it will be a few days before Mrs. Sarcastro notices that the kids aren’t going to school.

6.  I’m going to support all of Campfield’s legislation.  My little brain is too small to question his wisdom.

In fact, I declare today to be “Doing Without Feminism” Day.  Ladies, act like you don’t have any more than an eighth-grade education!  Some of you, pretend to be dead.  Act like you’ve been pregnant twenty times, but the kids you have are the only ones to survive infancy.  Encourage your spouse to beat you.  No matter who calls you on the phone, put them through to your husband.  Quit your job and mooch off your parents or your brother if you’re above 21 and not married.  If you do have to work, spend all day coming up with an appropriately female title for your job.  You’re not a teacher, you’re a teachress!

And, at the end of the day, come with me to Exador’s house, where we have a little ceremony (I’ll make the doilies!) and declare him King of the Patriarchy!

Come on, women–it’s the healthy thing to do!

43 thoughts on “Well, If It’s For My Health…

  1. Pingback: Nashville is Talking » Show Your Cleavage and Giggle at World News

  2. Well, all right, then, Mrs. Coble. YOU can make the doilies for the “Exador is King of the Patriarchy!” Day celebration. I’ll make the potato salad.

  3. What the fuck did I do?

    Hey Ex, stop getting my ass in trouble because of your Patriarchal leanings. I’ve evolved already! Wait, did I just capitalize patriarchal? Is that even a word? Shit.

  4. Mrs. Ivy, you’ll have to forgive me. Exador only allows me to do ten minutes of independent thinking a day and clearly, I am out of practice. I didn’t mean to belittle the choices we make. I meant to insinuate that, if your husband doesn’t make enough money for you to stay at home with the kids, he’s not doing enough to thwart feminism!

    Which, of course, needs to be thwarted!

    Miss B.

  5. I hate to interupt a good, sarcastic rant, but the article in question has a headline that doesn’t match the article.

    The jist seems to be that having a management job (regardless of gender) is bad for your health. Having been in management once or twice, I understand completely.

    But anyway, back to sarcasm and binary thinking…

  6. I have comments and answers about this but my husband doesn’t like me to be too close to electronics and technology. He says it’s bad for my brain. He’s my hero for keeping that evil cancer inducing tv remote way away from me.

  7. Awww. I left my pearls at home. They didn’t go with my earrings.

    But I’m wearing a pink collared shirt, and I’m a secretary… surely that counts. I’m only a little over 21, and I forward all the calls to my boss so he can make the decisions.

    Of course, I’m also the sole income-earner for my household, and my desk is a mess, I’m wearing pants and flats, and I haven’t been able to get this education out of my head no matter how hard I try. Do you think I can fix it with more lipstick?

  8. I was looking at Kleinheider’s cell phone, but I had to stop upon reading this. You see, it wouldn’t be very ladylike for my delicate eyes to take any pleasure in such a sight. Of course we all know, ladies, that sex is only our wifely duty and we are forbidden to take any pleasure in such things whatsoever. If you are not married, genteel ladies take no part in such debauchery. Why, if you reveal that you actually like sex you are nothing but a whore, and will be treated as such.

    Therefore, I must refrain from staring at Kleinheider’s cell phone, Mack’s dreamy eyes, or Hutchmo’s color tv.

  9. *whispers* Pssst! Slarti: did you read their explanation for why management jobs were bad for both genders? “Negative effects of this unfinished equality might be found both for women, who have become more burdened, and men, who as a group have lost many of their old privileges.”

    This suggests that, rather than management being bad overall, it was bad because women still did double duty, and thus were more stressed, while men weren’t doing enough in the private sector to live the way they did with steady streams of unpaid labor supporting them. To go from that to the statement that the article title was just being silly and sensational and that the article was really making the innocuous statement that “Management is haaaard!” is, well, disingenuous. It extrapolated from the article/study that since expansion of women into the public sector was proving difficult, then “feminism” or gender equality in the workplace was a bad thing, despite the explicit claim in the source material that:

    “Sweden may have reached a critical point where further one- sided expansion by women into traditionally male roles, spheres and activities will not lead to positive health effects unless men also significantly alter their behaviour.

    (emphasis mine, of course)

    It’s not innocently suggesting that management is hard and women are just finding that out. It’s suggesting that because men haven’t expanded as much into the private sector/learned to take care of themselves without a wife running things/society hasn’t restructured itself around both genders working, this is somehow women’s fault for wanting that danged equality. The Daily Mail article tries to balance it by adding such qualifiers as:

    Anastasia de Waal, head of family policy at the British think-tank Civitas, urged caution in interpreting the findings.

    “The danger is that the data will be interpreted as a warning against shaking up divisions of labour,” she said.

    “In fact, what Sweden needs is complete gender equality with, for example, men entering the private sphere to the extent that women have entered the public.”

    However, in the context of an article headed “Why feminism ‘could be bad for your health'” and sprinkled throughout with statements like: “researchers have found that parity between the sexes may be bad for your health,” it is hard to take those qualifiers seriously. That is disingenuous. It takes an argument for greater parity (or at least one against thinking that this is the final result – see “unfinished equality” above, and statements like “equality has not yet been fully achieved in society and that these effects are part of a transitional process on the road to fairness”), and makes it out to be an argument that gender equality is doomed to fail. Women wind up doing more and men don’t get taken care of as much, so … obviously, women should get back into the kitchen and stop whining. That’s not fair, not true, and not a good reading of the study at all.

    Ahem. Sorry. See what I mean about all that education just bopping around? I can’t get it out! I know I’m supposed to defer to Slarti because he’s the man and he just told us we’re being silly and reading it wrong, but I just can’t! I let the actual words of the article get in the way of all that. Silly me.

  10. > 4. I will not look Kleinheider in the eye, but will demurely look down at my feet whenever I have to speak to him.

    Those aren’t your feet. You’re looking at your boob freckle. Harlot!

    > And, at the end of the day, come with me to Exador’s house

    You make it sound so easy, but didn’t forget the step about “beg a male relative to drive/escort you to Exador’s house”?

  11. Although I must say that within specific religions, discussions of which women are and aren’t supposed to cover their heads can get, um, hairy.

    And I don’t want to ignore the goodness of what Magni says about how to frame discussions of raw data so that you miss what the data says. Perhaps Magni is a sybil, a vessel transmitting the voice of the (male) all-knowing?

  12. Any of you gals that show up at my house tonight, get a playful smack on the ass for a job well done.

    At least that’s what my secretary gets in lieu of a raise, and she seems perfectly happy.

  13. Yes, that must be it, nm. I knew that cloud of sweet-smelling smoke emanating from that fissure in the ground looked a bit masculine! Clearly, I’m just transmitting the truth of the universe, straight from His mouth, without any (re-)framing of my own.

    Alternately, I could just be repeating what my (male) Research Methods/Stats professor taught me about studies. All that Chicago School man-teachin’ broken down into words short enough for me to parrot!

  14. within specific religions, discussions of which women are and aren’t supposed to cover their heads can get, um, hairy.


    And yes, it does. I no longer wear prayer caps, even though this may damn me to hell.

    But may I just say that it delights me to see we can now buy prayer caps and other plain folk wear on eBay?

    I just love my heritage!

  15. Yeah, that’s pretty good. Have there been any buggy accidents caused by the driver web-surfing?

    My favorite account of veiling debates, though, is a presentation I heard once (how I wish I had taken notes) on early (we’re talking 5th century or so, IIRC) communities of nuns arguing with their bishops on whether they had to (or got to, in cases where the bishop was trying to forbid it) be veiled, because they weren’t married but weren’t ordinary virgins, either. Talk about splitting hair-coverings. (The real issue, of course, which no one involved ever stated, was whether communities of women got to decide what their members got to wear, or had to be given a dress code by men).

  16. 1)I’m still confused about the stay-at-home mom statement. My husband does make enough money for me to stay at home BUT it is also my choice, it’s where I want to be. I really have no problem being a kept woman (how well I’m kept is another topic). I don’t think my entire life is defined by this particular choice. Right now, I’m a stay-at-home mom. In five years or so, I’ll hopefully be in graduate school. In ten years or so, I’ll hopefully be doing some sort of work with that degree. Life goes on from here.

    2)I’m married AND I like sex. Why is this such an abnormality?

    3)When have you ever stared at Kleinheider’s feet?

  17. Ha! That’s a cool example, nm. I certainly don’t know much about 5th century nuns, but it’s an interesting argument to think about. I wonder how the argument came out? Most of the habits that spring to mind involve head coverings of some sort… but I don’t know if the ones I’m thinking of (mostly the Carmelites, Dominicans and Franciscans) are in any way related to the ones you’re talking about.

    I think my answer would have been one of practicality; if it was cold, there should be a habit variation that covered the head and was suitably modest. If it was hot, it should not be required. Which, theologically, would have rested on the argument that their habits proclaim their vows to the world, superceding the need for a veil. If you have a giant neon sign above your head yelling “Hey, I’m Married to the Lord!” you don’t need another one saying “Which, if you were confused, also means that I’m not a harlot either.” If, however, the nuns in question wished to wear the veil for reasons of modesty (helping the unreformed/their brothers in Christ to curb their fleshly urges), that is to be commended and allowed. Not required, as the habit ought satisfy the bounds of propriety, but certainly permitted as an extra service.

    I just waaaay overthought that, didn’t I?

  18. Not nearly as much as they did.

    The arguments came out different ways in the early days of monasticism. The orders you’re familiar with are way newer, and there have been at least three general church councils (4th Lateran in the 13th century, one I can’t remember the name of in the 19th century, and 2nd Vatican) that completely overhauled the regulations on clothing for women (and men) religious. In the time these arguments went on, clothing for monks and nuns was (as it is again today) not that much different from ordinary clothing of the time, but more modest and less costly, and each community (they weren’t yet organized into orders) had its own habit/uniform. So you’d recognize a nun by her dress, but she wasn’t wearing anything way different from the neighbors. You know, when wimples were stylish nuns started wearing them. And then there was a council that said that from then on a wimple was part of the habit, so they were stuck with them. And monks got stuck with cowls.

  19. ‘Cuse me little lady,know where I can get a pair of them “pumps” for one of my wives.

  20. ‘Cuse me little lady,know where I can get a pair of them “pumps” for one of my wives.There for one of the younger ones,I don’t think even new shoes can fix the old battleaxe,you know!

  21. Hunh. Strange to think that things were different, then. I mean, that’s silly… of course things were diffferent then, that’s why it’s then and not now. But the ‘traditional’ monastic/cloistered life, as we’re familiar with it, is written and talked about as being sooooooo old, it’s hard to imagine anything coming before it. Like, there was History, then there was Jesus, then there were Cloisters…with nothing in between. You know, He ascended into heaven, and all the super devout women looked around, declared themselves married to Him, and seceded from the rest of society without a peep.

    Or maybe I’ve just read too much Cadfael. Man, I miss that show. The books are great too, of course… but it was neat to be able to see all that taking place onscreen, too.

    I’m such a geek. =p

  22. Don’t worry, everyone. I’ll be sure to slap mags around a bit when she comes home. And then make her wash all the dishes I made dirty today. And make dinner. And then wash the dishes again.

    Long live the stay-at-home-patriarchy. All the fun without the fuss of working.

  23. And doncha know, dear Cap’n, that all shoe questions can be answered by The Manolo? After all, he is the authoritah in women’s shoes. If we didn’t have him to thank, how would we know where best to spend our husband’s hard-earned cash? *bats eyes*

  24. And to break with the derailing bit…. Malia, I don’t think Aunt B. meant to disparage stay-at-home-ness in itself. It’s not a bad choice (or, I’d argue, even an unfree choice) in all cases; it’s something you should totally be free to do if your circumstances permit it.* Under the particular patriarchical system she’s referencing, however, it was/is the only choice (again, circumstances permitting).

    More specifically in this context – if we accept the premise of the article (as stated in the title) as true, that trying to be equal and working outside of the home is inherently damaging, then what is the remedy? For women to stay home and not have outside jobs. (Or, even accepting Slarti’s amendment that it’s only management-level jobs, that we should stay in our pink-collar, part-time boxes) That means staying home with the kids, should there be any kids to stay home with. And given the fragility of status that a stay-at-home-spouse/partner (of either gender, though disproportionately women) enjoys, there is a higher likelihood of those children existing (or at the very least, of children being concieved on the schedule of the officially employed parent, rather than a compromise or on the timetable of the unofficially employed parent).

    Thus… cracks about staying home with the kids. What else are you going to do if the very desire to work is injurious to society at large?

    (Not to mention stressful and harmful to your personal health. Seriously… who wants to do something that’s going to make them sick, disabled, die early, or whatever, because of the “greater opportunities for risky behaviour as a result of increased income combined with the stress of longer working hours.”)

    * I’d also argue for the greater availability of circumstances which truly permit this, for both genders; the ability to have one spouse/partner at home (not the ability to barely scrape by while one spouse/partner is home, but the abilty to actually live on one income) is an ability premised on certain privileges of time, flexibility of position, and money that are not extended to (in my opinion) enough people. That they also come with an unpleasant tangle of strings and traps attached is a major contributor as well. To this end, I’d advocate … well, a lot of sweeping changes to everything. But this was about not digressing, wasn’t it?

  25. …the ability to have one spouse/partner at home (not the ability to barely scrape by while one spouse/partner is home, but the abilty to actually live on one income) is an ability premised on certain privileges of time, flexibility of position, and money that are not extended to (in my opinion) enough people.

    SOOOO true! Our economy today makes it nearly impossible for one of the parents to stay at home. I salute those of you who are able to do it. My ex-husband insisted that I stay at home w/ my daughter her first year. (Because that’s what his mother did.) I would have loved that had I been able to justify that we were getting further and further in debt because we couldn’t afford to survive on his salary.

  26. Pingback: Shoot The Moose Binary Thinking «

  27. Pingback: Remedial Feminism « Tiny Cat Pants

  28. Pingback: Doing good on the backs of others - it's not that simple « Feline Formal Shorts

Comments are closed.