By Rod Van Mechelen
Parkinson's Law can easily be reformulated for the American housewife: Housewifery Expands to Fill the Time Available,...
-- Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique
1992 Bellevue, Wash. - Pop-feminists judge the male sense of household cleanliness by the standards of the Feminine Mystique. This becomes obvious when we compare one of Shere Hite's complaints against men, made in 1987, to an observation Betty Friedan made in 1963:
A recent study found that for every two hours a man puts in on domestic chores, a woman puts in five. -- Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 396)
With some justification, therefore, we might now suggest that, while most men are more casual housekeepers, they are also more efficient.
Toying with the question, how can one hour of housework expand to fill six hours (same house, same work, same wife), I came back again to the basic paradox of the feminine mystique: that it emerged to glorify woman's role as housewife at the very moment when the barriers to her full participation in society were lowered,... -- The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, pp 228 - 229
Most men are more casual about housework because they learn different priorities, different ideals.
Women get their ideas of the ideal house from magazines like Better Homes & Gardens. (Note: Keep in mind I wrote this 20 years ago.) In such magazines, dust and dirty glasses fairly shriek by their absence.
But men seldom read clutter-free magazines. Male-oriented periodicals are filled with megabytes, wrenches, chips, sheet metal, plywood, screws and pistons (and now video games, which are read by many women, too). They read what they know from their common male experience will improve their chances of attracting a mate. In the magazines men read, "immaculate" is more likely to refer to a souped-up car than a man's "space."
The Feminine Mystique
The standard of the Feminine Mystique was an artificial one set by the manufacturers of household products more than 40 years ago. The Women's Movement was supposed to free women from this. Yet, that men don't live up to that standard is a pounded-to-death theme in the pop feminist's assault on men. Why? Are women inherently "better" housekeepers than men?
Betty Friedan, the woman generally credited with starting the modern feminist movement (Second Wave Feminism), might not agree. Like the cowboy movie hero who rides off into the sunset with his six-shooter on his hip -- an image that has influenced the character development of young men for decades -- the Meticulous Mom is a media myth promulgated by advertisers to sell soap, wax, detergent, vacuum cleaners and mops:
Since the Balanced Homemaker represents the market with the greatest future potential, it would be to the advantage of the appliance manufacturer to make more and more women aware of the desirability of belonging to this group. Educate them through advertising that it is possible to have outside interests and become alert to wider intellectual influences (without becoming a Career Woman). The art of good home-making should be the goal of every normal woman." -- The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, pp 200 - 201
Women's standards of good housekeeping did not spring only from a female tradition, but out of advertising campaigns aimed at women. This standard has now become a part of the mainstream female ideology, and pop feminists are accommodating it to the extent it allows them to bash men.
Why should they do this? Why would pop feminists want to emphasize how men don't live up to the standards of a mystique feminists argue generally oppresses women? Do they want to force women back into the oppressive roles of the feminine mystique, or do they have some other hidden agenda?
Wages for Housework
Pop feminists are demanding laws requiring men to pay their wives housewife wages: "In the United Kingdom and other countries, there is a movement, 'Wages for Housework,' which advocates the idea that the husband should pay the wife for her services within the house -- especially if she works fulltime at home, doing the child rearing and cooking, cleaning, etc." (Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 383)
Thus, pop feminist complaints against male housekeeping habits have nothing to do with the work itself, but with manufacturing excuses to force men to support women even more than they already do. Rather than granting credibility to their unwarranted complaints, we should suggest they find out why men marry.
Do men marry for housekeeping services? Unlikely. A once a week maid service could be cheaper and more convenient. Do men marry for sex? No. As Warren Farrell points out, marriage means infrequent and poorer quality sex for men. (Farrell: Why Men Are the Way They Are, Berkley edition/September 1988, Warren Farrell, Ph.D., pp 171 - 172) A twice a week whore would probably be more satisfying and cheaper.
Essentially, pop feminists are trying to reduce women to the role of whores and housekeepers. If they succeed, men might be better off boycotting marriage.
But men already pay their housewives something more valuable than money -- time. Women who don't have a job outside the home have time to do things. Time to read, study, think, create, compose music, invent, and build and reshape the world. Instead, many spend six hours a day doing a job that "can be capably handled by an eight-year-old child." (The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, pp 245)
Women have never had it so good. That doesn't mean their lives cannot be better. But turning them into subsidized housekeepers and whores with "wages for wives" is not the way to do it.
2012 Olympia, Wash. - It should be obvious to unbiased readers that I was not denigrating the institution of marriage, but arguing against the goals of the hate-male campaign, which include destroying marriage. However, a politically-motivated few are taking my snide remark--that "A twice a week whore would probably be more satisfying and cheaper."--to portray me as a misogynist.
Generally, I don't care what such people think or how they try to spin what I've written. But I'm involved in an organization that controls budgets. The feminazis in this organization, whom I call "the sisterhood and their male familiars," are attacking anybody who stands between them and control of this money.
Some of them are psychopaths and sociopaths, a few have narcissistic personality disorder, others simply have borderline personality disorder, and all of them are feminazis who claim that in this chapter I was disparaging marriage.
All writers know that sometimes you need to make a controversial statement to shake people out of their complacency. While I have never hired the services of a "sex worker," and would never encourage anybody to do that, the sad truth is that in America today, where the bias against fathers in family courts is well established and undeniable, it probably would be cheaper in the long run for men to hire an occasional prostitute than to get married and run the risk of their wife demanding a divorce and then child support.
Thanks to feminists, however, few men would ever need to do that. While I have no experience in this (I have no use for bars), thanks to the feminists it's easy for men to get sex at local bars. How do the feminists factor into that? Because they have so tainted the relationships between women and men, that men by the millions are refusing to go along with it anymore. Men are Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). And because women want connection with men as much as men want it with women, women flock to bars and other venues where they make themselves available for one night stands and short flings.
This is not how things should be. In his great book, Men and Marriage, George Gilder explains the importance of Marriage to civilization. But from the outset the goal of Second Wave Feminists has been to destroy marriage, as Shulamith Firestone made abundantly clear in The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution.
To counter this requires strong words. And now the feminazis in our organization are taking my strong words out of context to further their goal of gaining control of our budgets.
The irony is that several of the women who are doing this, are women I very actvely helped to promote into their current positions. Were I the kind of person to hate women, I'd take that as reason to refuse to help any women in the future. But that would be irrational. Just as the sisterhood and their male familiars are irrational. Irrational, and motivated by money, power, attention and prestige to abuse their positions at the expense of our constituents.
Rod Van Mechelen