Sarah’s Daughter apparently waded through the commentary over on Alpha Game wherein an individual who idolizes “freedom” (particularly from social responsibilities to others, and especially from intimate social responsibilities) showed how utterly alien and empty the “freedom” feminist meme really is. I missed out on that comment thread while it was running, but found it illustrative to read!
I mean, I worked for a paycheck, and let me tell you something straight up: my golden cage is several orders of magnitude better and more “free” than slaving for a corporate master. The feminist in question commits the usual “apex fallacy” error, in which the “freedom” of a career means that women will receive the benefits of fame and fortune and power, just like men.
Ahahaha. Except most men aren’t famous, aren’t rich, aren’t powerful, and quite a few of them are homeless drifters with no paycheck. Better living under a bridge and eating at a soup kitchen than married in a loving traditional man/wife relationship? You’d have to be crazy! But that’s what the feminist thinks: anything is better than traditional marriage, as long as you call it “freedom” and ignore all the natural constraints inherent to the non-marriage path.
The strawman that vanir uses is one that a lot of feminists like to use as a boogeyman – a submissive wife means a controlling husband. Uh, how about “no” on that one. Feminists know nothing about submission; they refuse to acknowledge anything but the most degrading, micro-managing, sadistic control as “submission.” Out here in the real world, however, my husband is way less controlling than my boss ever was!
Let me tell you what it’s like to work as a cog in a corporate machine, in a low-skill entry position for a paycheck, which is supposedly better than being a traditional wife since it’s more “free” to depend on an employer for your living than on a man who loves you. You have to be at work at a certain hour, and if you’re late, you’re penalized. You have to stand in one place and do exactly as corporate training taught you, smiling on command, saying certain phrases on command, wearing only certain kinds of clothing which are dictated to you – or face penalties. Your every break is given to you by your superior. You cannot even go to the bathroom without permission from your superior. The “protections” lauded by the feminist for workers just means that your boss has to give you a break of a certain length (short) at certain times (far apart) and has no bearing on whether or not you are physically exhausted and in pain. Your corporate master trains you and guides your every action for the eight hours you are at work; and let’s just add two more hours that it controls, for commuting and going-to-lunch-and-coming-back-on-time. Nearly half your day is consumed by the corporation’s control.
They’ve literally replaced cashiers with “robots” – computers – at some stores. Robo-wife? More like robot employee! Sure, being your own boss is better – but most people aren’t their own bosses. Sure, if you compare the best situation you can imagine with the worst situation you can imagine, that worst-case scenario looks pretty bad – but that’s entirely circular. Of course the best is far better than the worst!
Now, let’s take a look at what it’s like to be a traditional wife. I get up in the morning when I please, for the most part. I don’t have to “clock in” anywhere except for events of my choosing and my scheduling. (Mostly. Obviously when engaged in social events sometimes other people choose the time of the event – but I can choose whether or not to go.) Nobody is standing over me telling me exactly what to do and when to do it and to do it with a smile and a cheery greeting all day long. I pick my own priorities based on my own goals. I can take a break any time I want and I don’t have to ask permission from anyone.
In a corporate job, I worked in an environment where every detail was chosen and controlled by my superiors. As a wife, I work in an environment that I choose. Literally. Who do you think shopped for a house with the realtor while my husband was at work? That was me. Who do you think decorates the house? That would also be me. I cannot think of a single piece of furniture or a single decorative choice in this house that I did not have input in choosing, and most of them I picked out myself. My “gilded cage” is gilded to my desire and specification, and is quite a bit larger and more comfortable than a cubicle.
And what are my obligations in return for my husband’s financial support and provision? Cooking? Sure, most of the time. But then, I’d already be cooking for myself, and adding a few more ingredients to my shopping list is trivial. Cleaning? I clean the house – but then, everybody has to clean their living spaces. Sex? Since when is access on demand to a sexual partner who knows what you like and wants to please you a negative?!
So let’s recap: zero net extra work cooking than what I’d already do for myself – the effort I put in to cook extra and make sure we have ingredients is offset by the cooking that he does for us. Zero net extra work cleaning than what I’d need to do, at the very least, because he’s neater than I am. I don’t “have to” share a bed with someone else, as relationship-challenged feminists like to claim, I get to share a bed with someone else. Sure, living with another human being means making compromises. Especially if you live with someone you care for even a little bit, much less your own lover! But then, every facet of life is full of adjusting your desires to cope with reality as it is, and for most women, the benefits of being a wife far outweigh the costs. That’s why they want to get married in the first place!
Does being married influence my choices? Well, DUH! That’s how relationships work. Every interaction between individuals involves their choices being influenced, because that’s how social group interaction works, not just for humans but for ALL social animals. If I weren’t married, I would have a slightly different set of constraints and necessities to influence my life choices, but my choices would still be constrained by my circumstances. By choosing to marry and take on the role of a submissive wife, I trade “freedom” – ie, the set of potential choices that doesn’t involve a husband’s provision and companionship – for “slavery” – ie, a different set of choices that includes opportunities and benefits that I wouldn’t have as a single woman working a 9-to-5 job to support herself.
Because I chose my husband with an eye to my own life goals, being a submissive wife isn’t about “giving up” anything I desired for my future. It’s about having the opportunity to become the kind of “empowered” woman I want to be. Sure, the careerist feminist is going to come along and denigrate me and my sisters for living our lives on our terms and not theirs, since the feminists hate the part where we choose to follow our husbands’ lead. They’re going to try to shut us up when we tell young women how to find a happiness well within their reach – unlike fame and fortune and power. Those are out of reach for the vast majority of humanity, men and women alike. But a happy marriage? That’s doable. A lot of people can manage that. The feminists are going to use straw men and say that a submissive wife is one who is nothing more than a robot whose husband makes all the decisions, rather than a woman with her own life goals, making the choices she considers best and exercising her agency in the way that she chooses to do so.
A helpless, robotic slave? Hah. I’m a submissive wife with a minor in leadership studies! Ignorant feminists should educate themselves about what “submission” means to us submissive wives rather than invent things out of their own fevered imaginations. Wifely submission is not about control or dominance. It’s about love. But then, feminists are notoriously stingy with love; is it any surprise that they can’t – won’t – understand it, and prefer to falsely characterize traditional marriages as dysfunctional relationships?