Vacuuming, The Road to an Enlightened Future

Betty Friedan’s original call to arms compared housework to animal life. In The Feminine Mystique she wrote, “[V]acuuming the living room floor -- with or without makeup -- is not work that takes enough thought or energy to challenge any woman’s full capacity. ... Down through the ages man has known that he was set apart from other animals by his mind’s power to have an idea, a vision, and shape the future to it ... when he discovers and creates and shapes a future different from his past, he is a man, a human being.”

I do not take assaults on vacuuming lightly. Although, Miss Friedan is no longer with us, her inferiority complex is still alive and well, and may well show up at your doorstep in the middle of the night to force you to get a job outside the home. Only then will you be fulfilled. You are just too stupid to realize it right now.

Vacuuming, it seems, is not challenging or intellectually stimulating to Miss Friedan. Women who vacuum are accepting their roles as oppressed, helpless ninnies. How does the quote from the "feminist" bible illustrate my assertion of this being a matter of an inferiority complex, rather than evidence of oppression of women?

Assume for example, that it is the repetitive nature of vacuuming that she objects to. However, pretty much every occupation, from the lowly janitor to the awe inspiring investment banker, has some degree of boring, repetitive tasks in their job description. Yet because these jobs are performed outside the home, they are somehow more worthy than repetitive tasks performed by women inside the home. (Yes, the investment banker has other responsibilities, but housewives don't vacuum 24/7 either, now do they?)

For some reason, mowing the lawn seems to be ok, despite the obvious similarities of pushing a noisy electrical device across a flat surface for the purpose of making said surface look better. I can't recall a mannabe ever complain about the oppressive qualities of lawn mowing. (As most of us know, lawn mowing is usually a man's job. )

Additionally, I would like to take issue with the statement that vacuuming is unworthy because it doesn't require much thought. It is precisely that reason that I love vacuuming! I do some of my best thinking when I vacuum. The idea for the Retro Housewife site was conceived and developed while removing dog hair from the living room floor with my trusty Dyson. Where else can you get such extended periods of uninterrupted thought? Phone rings? Don't hear it! Solicitor at the door? Can't hear that either! Other household members (including the dogs), hold off their requests and questions until you are finished. You are truly alone with your thoughts... if you actually have any thoughts, that is.

Maybe that was Miss Friedan's real problem?

RH

Hooking Up, Mannabes and Other Morons

Mannabe n, (s): Moronic homo sapian females, typically self identifying as feminists, who reject everything intrinsically feminine and adopt stereotypical male behavior without judgment or assessment of the value of such behavior. Often employed by newspapers and institutions of higher education.

Here I am up in Lake Tahoe enjoying an impromptu winter vacation with my family, when I happen to pick up a copy of a small local paper with the intention of perusing the real estate ads and dreaming about owning a vacation home up here. I had to postpone my day dream, however, because the cover story "Hooking Up - Have Relationships Been Replaced?" was just too tempting to pass up.

I flipped to page 14, where the cover story article was promised, and read the title "New book draws fire for claiming that sex hookups can damage young women". I had to read the title three times to make sure that I was reading it correctly. My common sense told me I was misreading it, because I was interpreting it to mean that the book was saying frequent casual sex was bad for young women, and somebody was criticizing that. OK, THAT certainly can't be, it must somehow be that somebody wrote a book favorable to "hook ups", and sane and reasonable people were criticizing that premise. I re-read it again, one word at a time, and sure enough, my initial understanding was correct!

HEH?

Have people lost their minds? The author of the book, Laura Sessions Stepp, apparently was so bold to imply that today's teens and young tweens' practice of frequent, noncommittal casual sex may not be in the gals best interest. Sounds reasonable enough, I mean we expect to have our own fork at a restaurant, right? You wouldn't tap the guy at the next table on the shoulder and ask him for a sip of his water, or the lady in front of you at the ice cream stand if you could have a lick of her ice cream cone, (I mean unless you knew them well enough to do so.) It seems to follow that it would be just as silly to get hot and sweaty between the sheets with somebody you barely know or feel little or no obligation towards (and vice versa!).

It seems to me hygiene alone should make people at least cautious, I mean, even an amoral, atheist robot should agree on that point, right? Not to mention the fact that anyone with an iota of self respect would use discretion when allowing another person into their most personal sphere! For God's sake, a landlord will run a background check on prospective tenants, and will demand at least require a 30 day notice when they move out! But to expect to know the last name of the person you just had sex with, or expect to hear from him again is asking too much?

But apparently, certain so-called feminists decry this viewpoint as anti-feminist, as a throw-back to an earlier, restrictive moral climate and one which instills sexual shame. Men, so their warped rational, get to be promiscuous so women should be able to too! Hmm. I wonder whether, if men cut off one of their toes every leap year, whether these feminists would do so as well...? dunno, but it wouldn't be surprising given their idiotic stance on this hooking up thing. And it just irritates me that they call themselves feminists, because they are anything but. They want to be men. (And it doesn't seem to matter whether they are like good men or bad men, because both exist in the world, you know..)

They are simply Mannabes.

Girls, and women for that matter who try to convince themselves that they can have sex with a man without consequence or emotional attachment are big, fat, fuzzy liars and should repeat to themselves "denial, ---- ain't just a river in Egypt" at least 10 times every morning. (If they can, it only means that they have managed to dehumanize themselves enough to do so.)

Women who are defending this practice suffer from low self esteem, and are the type who would take a few puffs of pot or other drugs just because their friends do and they just want to fit in, and now they have to justify the whole mess somehow, so they claim it makes them free and equal and liberated, because more than anything, misery loves company, and misery is actively looking for company amongst the naiive youngsters of today. It is a load of Bull. There I said it.

RH