Misha, this was a thoughtful piece. I think I have encountered both: women who gave up careers for kids and vice-versa. Most often, women who tried to do both (e.g. my mom), but always something had to give a bit. Overall, having kids is "safer", and would recommend it to 90% of even smart women, but a sort of "bitterness" is there. Especially because, as time goes, husbands become less excited with their wives so there isn't even that anymore. the other thing we do not realise is that, as economies have become more specialised, it's much harder to have contact with the real world as a SAHM. If you were a Queen you could hope to influence events via family connections.... Now, that it basically impossible without some sort of career to speak of.
I do not think there is a solution.... My advice for young women would simply be to find the best man available, that will dictate how much you can do. That means a combo of capable/ambitious and actually empathetic man (again, hard, these two traits do not go well together.) The good thing is that high quality men feel your piece without having to have it spelled out, so they will try to help as much as they can. But these men are not that abundant....
Good piece. I agree deeply with your assessment that the feminists' critiques are correct- women have historically and continue to have it particularly hard, in ways that are unique to them- but their diagnosis/reaction to it is incorrect, largely because contemporary feminism is committed to denying the biological foundations of the patriarchy, which means there is a very hard limit on how much we can socially engineer the patriarchy out of existence.
As you said, Germaine Greer wrote in "rebellion against the conditions of womanhood." I also had the same realisation very recently- the original feminists of the 1970s were not rebelling against patriarchy as much as they were rebelling against *being female* and femininity itself. They hated being female and the way it was the essence of their political and social subordination- thus they were motivated to reject femininity as a real and valid social identity (see Judith Butler), and to deny that men and women are meaningfully psychologically different (see Julie Bindel). Which is of course nonsense.
This also explains why so much of modern feminism as a project has bought into the premise that women are merely suppressed men- that the ultimate success criteria for the modern woman is to what degree can she attain the markers of success that have been typically reserved for men- money, status, political and economic power: the corporate girlboss. This has been genuinely great for all the intelligent women who have always yearned to be more than a housewife- but I'm not sure it has really translated to improved life satisfaction for all the women who *dont* have ambition or aspiration- i.e., the majority of people.
This is not to argue that emancipating women wasn't good or just, but rather that it hasn't materialised in expected or desire outcomes, like so many other social revolutions. I think part of the reason is that contemporary feminism is just based on the denial of harsh realities. Men and women are different, and these differences aren't going to go away because we want them to. Thus, the question of women's role in society remains unresolved.
Overall good piece— good to put yourself in other’s shoes from time to time— but the ending “Life is hard. And the woman’s burden is hardest” really left a sour taste in my mouth. No one can truly have the experience of the opposite sex so men-or-women-have-it-harder type statements ring hollow
Just chiming in: Durant's perspective (1935) that women's physical conditions and roles in reproduction led to their subjugation is a common theme in older anthropological and historical theories. This views underestimated the bargaining power of women in social interactions. Current research in anthropology and history often takes a more nuanced view of gender roles in ancient societies. While it is true that many societies exhibited gender hierarchies, the nature of women's social positions varied significantly across different cultures and historical periods.
Perineal tear is just the name of any kind of tear in that area. What you’re referring to is the degree of the tear- first degree is superficial up to fourth degree which is really devastating. Also, enjoyed the piece, haha (Signed, someone about to give birth who’s heard the spiel about the tears in several birth classes)
Enjoyed the piece - thank you. It seems to me that there is a high correlation between the amount of "work" something is and its "reward" (material or mental) to the doer of the "work". And while there is no guarantee that a "hard" path in life will result in good mental health, an easy path will certainly result in a poor mental outcome throughout. At least that's the bill of goods I'm selling my kids!
Misha, this article here one reason why Kvetch is one of my most cherished subscriptions on substack. And I can't believe it is free. This was a very thoughtful and thought provoking read. Thank you!
This is good, but more bleak than it should be. Children make the parents happy in ways that nothing else can do. Parents really do love their children, and their children really do love them. And the love of the members of a family for each other is the best thing in the world. This is my personal experience. Your mileage may vary. But this outcome is possible.
What a disgusting, deranged article. He acknowledges that pregnancy is hard, goes on to state that woman are choosing to not get pregnant and then somehow blames man for their weakness?
>Women are not free of vice, and they have their derangements and means of driving their husbands mad. But man is born to vice; woman merely adopts it.
Woman merely adopts vice from man? Oh boy, he must never leave his house or look up actual facts because I’m preety sure nowadays the most mentally destroyed people in the world is the single white woman.
Nobody asked for woman to enter the workforce, well, at least not me. They entered it by their own free will and they have rendered themselves hysterical, anxiety driven, emotional, irrational and unable to accomplish basic biological tasks like reproduction and mental sanity. I’m not saying a woman can’t work and bear children, I’m just saying that if your definition of work is a dead end 9 to 5 job doing some meaningless task for a faceless corporation there is little doubt that she won’t be able to reproduce or even find a mate that is willing to put up with her mental illnesses.
Such a long, long text to end it with blaming the lazy, weak, vicious, vice prone man as the root of all evil…
Misha, this was a thoughtful piece. I think I have encountered both: women who gave up careers for kids and vice-versa. Most often, women who tried to do both (e.g. my mom), but always something had to give a bit. Overall, having kids is "safer", and would recommend it to 90% of even smart women, but a sort of "bitterness" is there. Especially because, as time goes, husbands become less excited with their wives so there isn't even that anymore. the other thing we do not realise is that, as economies have become more specialised, it's much harder to have contact with the real world as a SAHM. If you were a Queen you could hope to influence events via family connections.... Now, that it basically impossible without some sort of career to speak of.
I do not think there is a solution.... My advice for young women would simply be to find the best man available, that will dictate how much you can do. That means a combo of capable/ambitious and actually empathetic man (again, hard, these two traits do not go well together.) The good thing is that high quality men feel your piece without having to have it spelled out, so they will try to help as much as they can. But these men are not that abundant....
Good piece. I agree deeply with your assessment that the feminists' critiques are correct- women have historically and continue to have it particularly hard, in ways that are unique to them- but their diagnosis/reaction to it is incorrect, largely because contemporary feminism is committed to denying the biological foundations of the patriarchy, which means there is a very hard limit on how much we can socially engineer the patriarchy out of existence.
As you said, Germaine Greer wrote in "rebellion against the conditions of womanhood." I also had the same realisation very recently- the original feminists of the 1970s were not rebelling against patriarchy as much as they were rebelling against *being female* and femininity itself. They hated being female and the way it was the essence of their political and social subordination- thus they were motivated to reject femininity as a real and valid social identity (see Judith Butler), and to deny that men and women are meaningfully psychologically different (see Julie Bindel). Which is of course nonsense.
This also explains why so much of modern feminism as a project has bought into the premise that women are merely suppressed men- that the ultimate success criteria for the modern woman is to what degree can she attain the markers of success that have been typically reserved for men- money, status, political and economic power: the corporate girlboss. This has been genuinely great for all the intelligent women who have always yearned to be more than a housewife- but I'm not sure it has really translated to improved life satisfaction for all the women who *dont* have ambition or aspiration- i.e., the majority of people.
Indeed, I think a deeply interesting and under-explored event is that the emancipation of women has *not* translated to widespread improvement in the happiness of women in the western world: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Stevenson_ParadoxDecliningFemaleHappiness_Dec08.pdf
This is not to argue that emancipating women wasn't good or just, but rather that it hasn't materialised in expected or desire outcomes, like so many other social revolutions. I think part of the reason is that contemporary feminism is just based on the denial of harsh realities. Men and women are different, and these differences aren't going to go away because we want them to. Thus, the question of women's role in society remains unresolved.
Overall good piece— good to put yourself in other’s shoes from time to time— but the ending “Life is hard. And the woman’s burden is hardest” really left a sour taste in my mouth. No one can truly have the experience of the opposite sex so men-or-women-have-it-harder type statements ring hollow
Just chiming in: Durant's perspective (1935) that women's physical conditions and roles in reproduction led to their subjugation is a common theme in older anthropological and historical theories. This views underestimated the bargaining power of women in social interactions. Current research in anthropology and history often takes a more nuanced view of gender roles in ancient societies. While it is true that many societies exhibited gender hierarchies, the nature of women's social positions varied significantly across different cultures and historical periods.
Perineal tear is just the name of any kind of tear in that area. What you’re referring to is the degree of the tear- first degree is superficial up to fourth degree which is really devastating. Also, enjoyed the piece, haha (Signed, someone about to give birth who’s heard the spiel about the tears in several birth classes)
Enjoyed the piece - thank you. It seems to me that there is a high correlation between the amount of "work" something is and its "reward" (material or mental) to the doer of the "work". And while there is no guarantee that a "hard" path in life will result in good mental health, an easy path will certainly result in a poor mental outcome throughout. At least that's the bill of goods I'm selling my kids!
Misha, this article here one reason why Kvetch is one of my most cherished subscriptions on substack. And I can't believe it is free. This was a very thoughtful and thought provoking read. Thank you!
This is good, but more bleak than it should be. Children make the parents happy in ways that nothing else can do. Parents really do love their children, and their children really do love them. And the love of the members of a family for each other is the best thing in the world. This is my personal experience. Your mileage may vary. But this outcome is possible.
I thought this was brilliant. When I shared it with my wife she said "oh not this guy again, the kiddmaxxing guy".
Piece
I’d recommend Norah Vincent’s _Self-Made Man_ for contrast.
A magnificent peace 👏
What a disgusting, deranged article. He acknowledges that pregnancy is hard, goes on to state that woman are choosing to not get pregnant and then somehow blames man for their weakness?
>Women are not free of vice, and they have their derangements and means of driving their husbands mad. But man is born to vice; woman merely adopts it.
Woman merely adopts vice from man? Oh boy, he must never leave his house or look up actual facts because I’m preety sure nowadays the most mentally destroyed people in the world is the single white woman.
Nobody asked for woman to enter the workforce, well, at least not me. They entered it by their own free will and they have rendered themselves hysterical, anxiety driven, emotional, irrational and unable to accomplish basic biological tasks like reproduction and mental sanity. I’m not saying a woman can’t work and bear children, I’m just saying that if your definition of work is a dead end 9 to 5 job doing some meaningless task for a faceless corporation there is little doubt that she won’t be able to reproduce or even find a mate that is willing to put up with her mental illnesses.
Such a long, long text to end it with blaming the lazy, weak, vicious, vice prone man as the root of all evil…