It is certainly strange that a set of ideology claims that women do not claim to have known exactly what their role was once. But it did. And boy, it was a coup, and in the league it wasn't a sunfish that they should not persuade the Eagles they shouldn't fly or swim. In fact, generations of women have been sold out careerist lies – to their own disadvantages (and our civilization).
So commentator and new mother, Sarah Wilder, says: As she wrote on Sunday in 1819, news:
There is an entire generation of women who have been sold for certain lies.
Sixty years after the second wave of feminism of women like Gloria Steinem, there is the idea that women must have a career that looks like men to avoid wasting their brains and talents. The daughters of women who grew up under Steinem's brand of feminism realize that, while there is an undeniable advantage of having a child, they do not shake up the sense of giving up on something that is, at least if not so good, when sacrificing their careers.
In this environment, women suffer a bit of whiplash when they realize that the same career standards applied to men and women are very difficult for her to meet.
I'm at home – and home?
In other words, you can't really “have everything.” But this doesn't stop many women from trying, even in Congress. As Wilder writes about a good example:
US Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) leads a bipartisan group of lawmakers advocating remote voting options for lawmakers who have recently given birth. Parading her newborn around the Capitol, Petersen gives floor speeches and TV interviews to highlight what she sees as the absurdity of the requirements for in-person voting.
Wilder then presents the following video of Petersen doing it.
Wilder also laments the number of Republicans gathering behind Petersen. Don't worry about remote voting clearly unconstitutional. Don't worry that the representatives understand and understand the decoration of the giant bill parliament, even when they are fully paying attention. Feminism spoke. Why, then, a female pilot (also a daymand) can fly a jumbo jet remotely while smoking a babe. Women can multitasking, right?
Wilder points out that Republicans oppose Petersen's mission have mentioned in-person workplace orders (a little less controversial than I do). But that's all they mention. What they don't do is say what Wilder calls “obvious.”
Petersen “respects her own biology and can get out of this intense role in the first place,” she writes.
But it would require a great feminism to oppose. And listen, comedian/commentator Bill Maher once said, “If you cross the gay mafia… you'll get banged.” Well, the big feminist hit “male” (and women) makes the former look like a Piker. (Example: the “trans” agenda awakened, unhindered, marching unhindered, that is, until stepping on the sacred cow of feminists: women of sport and women's opportunity, generally. Then, as Darth Vader puts it, we learned about “the true power on the dark side.”
Sacrifice and sanity
Wilder points out that true devotion to motherhood requires the sacrifices of Petatersen's career, making sacrifices that the writer knows firsthand. Her decision to be fully present for her baby means she's merely a part-time commentator. (For example, she is no longer the daily caller.)
However, Wilder emphasizes that women who are realistic about the orders of motherhood generally enjoy greater happiness than victims of careerism. They certainly seem to bear obviously enduring the Petersen of stress and inner conflict, as evidenced by the pleas of her miserable home floor.
On Petersen's side, she talked about what she cherishes in her speech. She said it was one of her “big honors” to be a mother. It is also one of her “great honors” in Congress.
But should she probably decide which is bigger?
(And more importantly, it is only just by her.)
In this regard, Petersen can help rule the country. Or, as it is said, think of it as “the hand that shakes the cradle rules the world.” Of course, she can do both part-time as well.
The cradles and nannies are then rocking the cradle.
Big and big
But perhaps no one explains the beauty of motherhood better than the happy philosopher GK Chesterton. As he wrote in his book, what's wrong with the world? (1910):
For example, if domesticity is called drudgery, all difficulties arise from the double meaning of the word. If that means drudger works horribly hard, I'll admit that the woman drowned at home. The man droves at Amien Cathedral and droves behind Trafalgar's gun. But if it means hard work is heavier because it is a trivial, colourless, a small import into the soul, then as I say, I give up on it. I don't know what the words mean. Become Queen Elizabeth within a clear area and decide on sales, banquets, labor and holidays. To become a Whiteley within a particular area, you will provide toys, boots, sheets, cakes and books, and become Aristotle within a particular area, teaching morality, manners, theology and hygiene. I understand how this exhausts my mind, but I can't imagine how it can narrow it down. Why is it a big career to talk to other children about the rules of three, and a small career to talk to your own children about space? How can it be broadly the same for everyone and narrow it down all to someone? No; women's functions are tedious, but that's because they're huge.
Some of Chesterton's references are of course dated (though their meaning is clear from the context). But ideas are timeless.
Other options
Of course, you can hear about people like feminist icon Simone de Beauvoir. She said women should not be allowed to stay at home. But beware of something when you contemplate who is right and that it is a greater calling. There's a reason why there's a movie called I Remember Mama.
