Feminist Fact Or Crap: “We Wuz Housewivz” edition

It’s time to play everyone’s second-favorite game, “Feminist Fact or Crap” (with everyone’s first favorite game of course being How Many Ways Can Feminists Use Images of Their Vaginas and Call It “Art”?)!
Farm Boy quotes Megan Rivera:

Plenty of “modern women” who are into equality with their partners enjoy cleaning and making their home look beautiful. Plenty of modern women who are Feminists enjoy decorating and cooking. Feminism isn’t about demeaning women for being femme, a huge focus of feminism is making sure people have the ability to choose how to live their own lives without harsh judgements of the outside world, and would never dream of looking down on a woman who was a mother, homemaker, domestic, whatever. There are a LOT of women who are Feminists and homemakers, and posts like this and the comments afterward make me feel sad because so many people have a deep, fundamental misunderstanding about what Feminism is and looks like and how Feminists operate. For that I’m truly sorry.

Just as No True Scotsman would ever…so apparently No True Feminist would ever bad-mouth traditionally feminine women or housewives.

Is this claim Fact or Crap?

Let’s go right to the horses’ mouths, shall we? Without further ado, the founding females of modern feminism:

[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. – Betty Friedan

Housewives are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” – Gloria Steinem
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” – Simone deBeauvoir

Oh dear! It turns out Ms. Rivera’s claim is in fact…


Just like all of feminism is crap.

Women didn’t need feminism in order to work outside the home. Women have always been able to work outside the home.  I work outside the home, and I loathe feminism.

Feminism is NOT about giving women “choices”. Feminism is about the destruction of femininity, the enslavement of women to corporate masters, the sexual degradation of women, and the destruction of family bonds.  Women are objectively worse off now than pre-feminism.



Ladies, don’t fall for the lie that you owe feminism anything just because you have a job. You don’t.   And definitely don’t believe that feminism supports (or ever supported) women who are housewives.

That is utter crap.

33 thoughts on “Feminist Fact Or Crap: “We Wuz Housewivz” edition

  1. Few tasks are more like the torture of Sisyphus than housework, with its endless repetition: the clean becomes soiled, the soiled is made clean, over and over, day after day.

    -Simone de Beauvoir

    Liked by 1 person

  2. No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.

    –Simone de Beauvoir

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Here’s a youtube presentation from the horse’s orifice itself about how to feminism. It’s very clear that ‘choice’ and ‘feminism’ aren’t compatible, the herd has its requirements


  4. Over at Spawny’s commenter Ame wondered why no one took issue with the comment from Mega Rivera. ZI have to admit tthat I had other things on my mine. As in avioding the wrath of certain people who would take issue with whatever position I took.


  5. Perception. Everyone has a different opinion of what feminism stands for and what it doesn’t. I think it’s pointless to argue about it anymore. I respect women who choose to be housewives. I’ve tried to the role for myself and I know it’s not for me. I am happy with shared roles in my relationship, but that doesn’t mean I look down on women who choose to be housewives. I hope for the same consideration. We are lucky and should appreciate that we have the choices in life that we do.


    • I would add that there are many different kinds of feminism–you’ve got classical Susan B. Anthony feminism that a lot of fundagelicals like myself would agree with (at least in part), proto-sex-positive feminism, modern Gloria Steinem feminism, modern sex positive feminism….it’s all really kind of bewildering. I mentioned some things I’d read in Ms. magazine back in the 1980s to a young feminist gal today (not sure what variety), and I might as well have spoken to her in Bangladeshi. The experience was that different.

      That said, I do disagree almost in toto with Barack Obama “you get the fun, the nuns get the bill” feminism.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Bike Bubba,
        I think that feminism is in touble. We all know that they are hard on the boys. What I am geting the sense of is that they are going to have to play defense with women. I have a post in the the line at Spawny’s that may begin to address it. As always, the meat will be in the comments.


      • Thank you for pointing this out. There’s a whole history behind feminism. Throughout time, it has stood for different things, but I’m starting to run into more and more people from all parts of the spectrum who don’t seem to care. They either want to identify themselves (either feminist or anti-feminist) based on how they feel about the ideas of rape culture, patriarchy, and wage gap. Meanwhile, they don’t even realize how many benefits they enjoy from feminist efforts of the past on a daily basis.


  6. Pingback: The marks of convergence | Dark Brightness

    • Back in the day, a woman couldn’t own property or access the courts except in very limited cases. My own family got a nice parcel of land for not much when the so called “guardian” of a widow sold her land to my great-grandfather for a song. Happened in about 1912–we’re not talking the Stone Age here.

      Love the land, but I cringe at what the system did to a widow. Doesn’t the Bible say something about protecting the rights of widows and orphans?


      • No, the law actually said that a married woman’s property belonged to her husband because he was completely legally responsible for her and the children…and I do mean completely. He could be gaoled for not doing so.

        If a woman was not married she could hold property, the age at which she owned it and was thus responsible varied between jurisdictions within the Anglosphere. Young women were under the responsibility of her father until the varied age of majority. Those laws all went back to the Norman legal system intended to protect women. Feminism has been lies and half truths for many generations.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I am beginning to form doubts about benfits of unbridled hypergamy.While it may be great for cads who have short term relationships and young women who think may partners is exciting. I don’t think that it works out all that well for women in later life. Cats are fine, but they can’t be your only companions.


  7. This is a bit long. Hopefully it is useful. My immediate response to the Sarkeesian video.

    Final words of the Sarkeesian video: “We are all bound together under the oppression of patriarchy … We have a responsibility beyond ourselves. We have a responsibility to each other. And we have a responsibility to work for the collective liberation of all women.”

    I presume she meant “liberation from the bonds of patriarchy”.

    Has anyone defined anywhere what that liberation looks like, so we know how to recognize it when it is achieved? And, it’s OK to be bound by the bonds of poverty so long as we are liberated from the bonds of patriarchy? (trade in husband for the poor house?) Just some of the questions that immediately spring to mind from a conversation that is extremely ill-defined (in this video and elsewhere).

    The reality is this: every woman who ever lived, including today, has been free to go out into the middle of the forest by herself and establish her life there (just as many men have done). There she would be totally free of the bonds of patriarchy. That is the quickest and simplest way to achieve the liberation that Sarkeesian and other public voices like hers say they want.

    Yet these public voices never offer that as an option. And therein lies the truth that destroys their public calls to jointly fight for liberation. They don’t have to fight for it. It is there for the taking. Yet they don’t take it.

    You never really get to know a person until you’ve had a chance to see the choices they make. Here are all these public voices claiming that they want liberation, liberation is their’s for the taking (move to the forest, build their own town), and they refuse to take it. Choices.

    Guess they actually want something other than liberation after all. (e.g., control)

    Life is difficult. That is a verbal shortcut that points to something larger that requires many more words to explain: the Law of Entropy (aka the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). (Google it) Without the application of energy from outside the system, all systems tend toward decay over time. That is true for the life of a sun, a teenager’s bedroom, and the life of a dike built to keep
    out the ocean if it is not maintained. This is reason why humans must keep pushing that Sisyphusian ball the Simone de Beauvoir refers to in the quote posted above. To counteract the reality of the Law of Entropy. That is as true for men as it is for women.

    Videos like the Sarkeesian video posted above make it clear that these public voices want to live behind the dike that men built to keep out the ocean while being free to poke holes in the dike with no repercussions from the men. They have no idea what happens when you don’t keep systems from running down (messy houses, sewage running through the streets, town washed away when the dike breaks, etc.). And they don’t want to be called to account for behaving in a way that hastens the running down of the system.

    But most men know and care. They know the work that is involved in holding the Law of Entropy at bay. So they will pass laws that prohibit women from poking holes in the dike, and punish them when they do, as a deterrent. Patriarchy. There is a reason patriarchy has always existed. There is a reason why it always will. The reason is nothing more complicated than the Law of Entropy, and what is required to hold it at bay (energy that most women don’t have, but men do for the most part). Can’t have a civilation without holding the Law of Entropy at bay. Therefore, we can’t allow folks to go around poking holes in the dike (or letting the household deteriorate into chaos). Men will do what is necessary to keep the physical and social systems of civilization from running down. Even if that becomes a MGTOW civilization.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Abortion and a dog is right, Sunshine. And yes, they actually do bring their dogs into their beds with them. I like critters, but yeeikes and ick.


  9. I think the distinction is truly between Radical Feminism and Choice Feminism. As a Choice Feminist, a Modern Gender Traditionalist, and a Homemaker (it’s not a contradiction, I promise) I and most of the Choice Feminists I have met fully support and encourage Women to find their own paths- whether that’s the path of the Housewife or otherwise. However, I was also a Radical Feminist for a long time, and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that militant Radical Feminism (at the very least) is virulently opposed to traditional anything- including being a homemaker; I’ve spent time in both groups, and I swear on my grandfather’s grave that there’s certainly a difference- and that such a difference doesn’t reflect all feminist ideology or schools of thought which exist under the feminist umbrella.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s