Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Basically, this news article proves what anyone with half a brain already knows: women aren't that interested in feminism. Certainly, there are some vocal feminists among the female population, but these are the minority, and they are usually those marginalized by society: shrill, unpleasant busybodies with a lecture ever at the ready, warding off imagined patriarchs and would-be rapists. The majority of women, however, simply lack the drive to become full-time providers. They would much rather spend time as caretakers and homemakers, which is what their biology dictates. (It is not, as feminists loudly proclaim, social conditioning.)Ultimately, the only way that feminism achieves power is through repetition and social conditioning. By telling women that they are oppressed, women come to believe they are oppressed. By silencing any dissenters--calling them sexists or misogynists, or by invalidating their opinions because they have "male privilege"--feminists create an echo chamber where reality has no hold and their ideas can flourish in peace. Much, I suppose, like the old USSR.
What is particularly striking about this piece is that feminists are not content with their achievements. Nor will they ever be, much like anyone else subscribing to identity politics. Dutch women have freedom unprecedented in the civilized world--the freedom from want that their socialist system provides, the freedom from sexual mores that feminism provides, the freedom from traditionalism that progressivism provides--and what do they choose? They choose to be feminine. They reject the long hours of the corporate workforce and instead bear and raise children, just as God and nature intend.
To the feminists, however, this is unacceptable. When a male student asks what's wrong with a wife staying at home, Heleen Mees expresses shock. "What's going on here?" she asks. To her, the very idea of a woman staying at home is appalling. As the article notes, she believes that women have a moral obligation to be feminist activists and become a part of the corporate machine. This tacitly admits the grand lie of feminism: it's not about freedom, it's about an agenda.
When women reject feminism, they are happier. And why wouldn't they be? An ideology that tells them they are powerless, that they are enslaved, that they should be outraged, that they should pursue unfulfilling careers--how could this possibly lead to happiness?
What is most striking about the article, however, is that there is the admission of why the wage gap persists: women work part time and take time off for their children. It is plain as day, and yet feminists like Mees will continue to rail against it because their entire ideology is founded upon ignoring reality in favor of whining and sloganeering.
Most women would be happier in the 1950s than in 2010s. Their desire is for their husbands, who rule over them.
One of the five best posts I've read in my time here.