Women: Is a Woman's Place In the Home?

Hey, it is not ME. I don't make this stuff up. I have even had to admit--to my shame--that I am more a feminist than almost every leftist out there. I supported BOTH Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton--ultimately refusing to vote for Palin only because of the MALE on the ticket.


Yes, there is evidently an international poll out there that finds amazing support for the idea that the primary role of a woman should be as a wife and mother.


Let us be up front here. Is there ANY woman out there stupid enough to adopt the role of wife and mother, as her primary function in life, because Skip--or Laura Ingram, who does not live that role--thinks that is the proper role of women? Don't be silly. NOBODY thinks that way. Nobody should think that way.


Yet Laura Ingram's radio program this morning--which I never listen to, which might explain why I may have misspelled her name--devoted HOURS to the question of this international poll, and the proper role of women. Further, there was considerable support for the idea that women's place really is "in the home". I could never make this up. It is a LIE, by the way, that feminists are okay with women making that choice. You can't say that and then measure "progress" by success that women have in in the workplace (as "feminists" do).


My position is not that women "should" regard their "place" as in the home. Nor--unlike the arrogant "feminists"--is my position that women should NOT regard their place as in the home. I don't think it is my place to say what will be better for WOMEN.


My position is that SOCIETY and CHILDREN would be better off if most women regarded their main function as making a home for their husbands and children. Yes, this is basically the position that EVERYONE--in the working world--needs a wife, including women. But can women really afford to put themselves at the mercy of men that way? My daughters---lawyers both--would answer "NO" to that question. But are women in general happier in the same role as men? I don't know the answer to tat, and I don't think most women do either.


Yes, I know. Most women these days may not have much choice. But that is part of the problem. If it is accepted that the role of women is to make a home, that does not keep them from working out of necessity. However, if women are EXPECTED to work, or most women do work, that makes it very hard for women to adopt the traditional role. The world is then set up so that most women are FORCED to work. Women may actually have more real choices when it is accepted that most women will be "taken care of" by a man than when it is expected that most women will work. It is NEVER true---always an illusion--that women will be able to choose whatever they want. The world just does not work that way. Society's expectations ALWAYS influence the options you really have, except to the extent you are one of those rare persons who makes his or her own rules.


Do we NEED a class of persons--women?--who regard their main responsibility as "making a home" and "raising the children". I have almost no doubt on this point., We DO need such a class of persons. But will women, as a class, be happier fitting themselves into that role than in moving toward the feminist model (which, as stated, really DEVALUES the "traditional" role, whatever "feminists" may say)? U di bit know whether women, as a class, would be happier if society embraced the traditional role (as society really now does not).


What is clear to me is that--at least in the United States--the role of women will NOT be determined by what I think it should be. Nor will it be determined by what the NOW type feminists think it should be. It will be determined, woman by woman, by what each WOMAN thinks will make her happy. Yes, that may be influenced by society's expectations, and even by opinions of persons such as myself influencing what a each woman thinks will make her happy. But, over time, that "woman-by-woman decision making will move society one way or another. The idea that women, or men, can have infinite choices--in the real world--is both an illusion and a delusion. Society--look up the meaning of the term--inevitably constrains choices. A society cannot measure "progress" by who many powerful (in a male sense) women there are, and then say that housewives" have equal value. The world just does not work that way. Sure, there can be a wider choice than in very restricted societies, but the "choice" is ALWAYS constrained. Among other things, it is easier for husbands to support wives if most women do not work--or at least don't "compete" with the men trying to support their wives.


This poll, and the rather large response to the question on the Laura Ingram radio show, indicates to me that the questuib of the role of women is not "setttled--especially worldwide, but not even in this country. As I have stated, it basically comes down--at least in this country--to what women THINK will make them "happy". And that can change.


Yes, there is no doubt that women CAN be happy as wives and mothers. There may be--and is, as far as I am concerned--some question about whether most women can be happy in a society where men and women have the SAME role. That is because men and women are objectively DIFFERENT. But there are obviously a large variety of roles in which most women can find some happiness--meaning that it is unlikely this "question" will ever be "settled".


I just hope the uncontrolled social experiment we are performing on our children--not only with the changing role of women, but things like sexual mores, marriage and overall morals--does not kill us in the end. As stated, I don't know what is best for WOMEN. But for society at large, I believe it important that SOMEBODY perform the traditional woman's role. If not women, then who?


P.S. Did I really say that women might have MORE real choices in a "traditional" society? Yes, I did. That is not true, of course, in a severely regimented society. But if you look at American movies of the 20th Century--even such movies as the early serials--women were OFTEN shown in "non-traditional" roles. Sure, a woman was not generally going to be a race car driver, a jockey ("National Velvet" aside) or a firefighter. But how many womn really WANT to be those things. But a determined woman could step outside the traditional role. Meanwhile, perfectly ordinary women could be housewives, with no pressure upon them to work other than economic necessity. They were not EXPECTED to work, even if it meant the family did not have as much money. My other, for example, was a registered nurse, but she could be a housewife when she wanted to be without stigma. That choice is fast disappearing for women, EXCEPT those women with truly well off husbands. Have women really gained in this trade off? I wonder.