Reading a feminist article against traditional gender roles. Direct quote:
There is no person more boring, or bored, than a stay-at-home wife. I would recommend such a role only for women who have small brains, small hopes, small potential and small personalities... The wretch believes that her highest virtue lies in giving the greatest attention to the smallest things: the dustpan, the oven, the crib, the sink – and the contents of her husband’s underpants...She is good at organising the home, judicious with her children’s upbringing, efficient about the family’s comings and goings, savagely chic when entertaining. But she is dependent for her survival – and that makes her submissive. If she doesn’t please her lord and master, she has nothing to fall back on. In order to survive, she must turn herself into a giver in the bedroom, a maid on the landing, a cook in the kitchen, a nanny in the nursery, a secretary at the desk, a housekeeper in the pantry and a hostess in the lounge. No matter what reflected status she may gain from her husband, at the core of it she herself is merely a geisha: there to serve. She exists to be exploited for her sexual, social and physical labour but, as a dependent subordinate with no power of her own, she can be bullied, hurt, disparaged.
What if this describes the woman in question? What if being a Stepford Wife is the best use of such woman and the best existence to which she could aspire? Then wouldn't this be the perfect life for her?
|
