Feminism doesn't delete "womanly" responsibilities

Oh man. How many comments will be made before anybody reads anything other than that headline? How many people will accuse me of being a chauvinist? How many others will never notice their missue of the word? (For the record people look that fucking word up. Yes, the french one, right there. Go look it up)

Screw it you're too lazy and I know it. Here we go (courtesey of the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary):

chauvinist

Main Entry:
chau·vin·ism
Pronunciation:
\ˈshō-və-ˌni-zəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French chauvinisme, from Nicolas Chauvin, character noted for his excessive patriotism and devotion to Napoleon in Théodore and Hippolyte Cogniard's play La Cocarde tricolore (1831)
Date:
1851

1: excessive or blind patriotism — compare jingoism
2: undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged
3: an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex ; also : behavior expressive of such an attitude
— chau·vin·ist \-və-nist\ noun or adjective
— chau·vin·is·tic \ˌshō-və-ˈnis-tik\ adjective
— chau·vin·is·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

(Hrm, talk about a word our society has twisted about...)

But let's get back to the point. Feminism was originally, essentially, the idea that women should be free to pursue a life and a career outside the home as equals to their male counterparts. That's a great thing. God knows I wouldn't have been able to set foot in my field without this concept being firmly rooted in our society.

Trust me, the last thing I am asking for is for people to jam women unwillingly back in the kitchen so they can proceed to do nothing but pop out a few more babies and cook a few dinners. There was just one little problem with randomly deciding women could simply drop everything and go out and have a career, or a life, or whatever you want to call it.

Women were already doing something. They were raising kids.

Instead of seeking to redistribute "womanly responsibilities" we just abolished them. Now both Mom AND Dad can become nothing more than a paycheck and a pat on the head every evening. That's equality isn't it? That's the American dream?

So who raises your children? Their school teachers, their summer camp councilors, the endless parade of team sports coaches you systematically have them shipped between as after-school activities so they don't get home before you get off work. No? Maybe it is the television, or that bubble-gum chewing brainless high school girl you hire to babysit them. Maybe you both work enough to afford to hire a nanny or a maid.

There is one problem with this: none of those people have the kind of vested interest in your children that a person raising them probably ought to have. I'm pretty damn sure your television for one doesn't. Additionally, your children are unlikely to spend enough time with any one strong potentially parental figure to develop a significant bond. Hell, you think a soccer coach is likely to be able to tell when a kid is having a bad day? He probably only sees the kid twice a week for an hour and a half, the other days being filled with other activities. Even if he does, to have the time to take to try to make the kid feel better when there are 20 other kids on the field? Even if he can, is it appropriate? Does he know the kid well enough to know how?

Now I understand that sometimes life is hard, money is tight, and both parents must work to make ends meet. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a pair of married grown children who essentially treat their own children like accessories while both simultaneously vying for high-power fast-paced careers simply because they enjoy it or because they enjoy the lavish lifestyle that comes with it. That's not equality! That's both of you being immature assholes. Don't have kids if you can't work out time between the two of you to raise them.

It gets better though!

Now stay at home moms are opting for having their children be raised by coaches and teachers. They don't want their child to be left out of all the social fun their peers are having so they just buy in and ship their kids off too. Then they use their free time to enjoy themselves, free from motherly responsibilities. That's not feminism. That's you being lazy and self-absorbed. Never mind it is probably well outside the family's means to try to spend on their children for all these time-consuming activities at a rate which rivals the dual income families. Your kid obviously would rather rather go to years of summer camp, sports teams, private lessons on instruments they don't even like, and whatever else you fill their lives out with "for enrichment" than go to a good college. And that's pretending you don't spend a dime on yourself in your new-found freedom and spare time. Oh, what's that? You expect a generous scholarship for Junior and are not very worried about saving for college? Let me tell you something: if a college is begging your child to attend by throwing piles of money at his feet it had better be at his dream school. Otherwise it means he probably could have gotten in and attended someplace better or that he liked more if only he could pay for it. You sold Junior short for a daily latte and monthly manicure. Congrats.

The other horrible effect of this is that parents are getting upset that their cheap parental replacements are being bad parents. You shouldn't expect your child's summer camp counselor to teach your little brat to share. It is not your child's school's responsibility to teach your child sex-ed. Your child is not suppose to learn morals form a television set, nor that disputes can be settled non-violently from a video game. Your child is not suppose to learn how to care for himself from a maid. These are lessons you as a parent are suppose to teach your kid. Some things are important enough, and parents fail often enough that other groups have stepped up to the plate to try to do your child some good such as the sex ed talks, (agree with them or not you have to admit the presenters mean well.) That doesn't really let you off the hook though.

I don't care if the man raises the kids, the woman does, or if they both shave a few hours off their work day and they take turns. The grandparents could raise the kids for all I care. All my point is that somebody has to. All I want to say is that just because our society decided that these burdens were "keeping women down" does not mean they suddenly disappeared just because we determined them inconvenient.