The Vatican newspaper says that perhaps the washing machine did more to liberate women in the 20th century than the pill or the right to work. This newspaper article really got me to thinking: how in the world can this be true? I can think of a few items, events, and inventions that could possibly be considered the most Liberating thing that Women experienced in the 20th century.
Let me first address a possible reason why this newspaper mentions Washing Machines. If washing machines did anything for women it was probably free up a shit load of time. Laundry has come a long way from washboards, clotheslines, and irons that could only be heated by an open fire. But would you really consider a time saving invention a liberating item for women? You can make the same argument with TV diners, frozen vegetables, and microwaves. I'm sure if the washing machine was never invented, Women would still be pretty much still be liberated in this country, there would just be a whole lot of domestic disputes over who's turn is was to do the laundry.
Consider the Birth Control Pill. Trust me, this gave women the final say in the "power of conception," but when you really think about it, this was probably more liberating for men than women. No offense to children or anything (fuck, they shouldn't be reading this anyway) but what could be more "Un-liberating" than the general task of parenthood? I bet the pill seriously reduced the number of Single Mothers and Would-Be Dead Beat Dads. I bet it sucks being a single mother and dead beat dads...well they just suck.
Consider World War II. This was the golden opportunity for women to step up to the plate and say "Hey, Fellas, we'll hold down the Fort while you are off to war," and that's what they did. They had a chance work and hold positions that were formerly unavailable to them. We are talking factories, offices, and even military positions opened up and the Women workforce was never looked at the same again afterwards.
You can't consider Women's Sufferage (the right to vote) a huge milestone. The 19th Amendment wasn't ratified until the 1920's and back then, no matter who they voted for, the president would most likely be a male chauvanist. I think of chauvinism a lot like racism: it may not be as bad as it was, but it will always exist.
Hey: What do Veggie Burgers and Dildos have in common? They are both substitutes for real meat. All jokes aside, let's please consider the Dildo. Ok one more joke: What do Dildos and Men have in common? They both could care less whether or not she enjoyed it. Ok...no seriously, I'm not sure when it was "officially" invented, but if it was in the 20th century, I'm pretty sure it would be a shoe-in for the award of Most Liberating Thing to Happen to Women in the 20th Century. Sexual Liberation is often overlooked but should be just as much as a factor as Financial liberation (Oprah Winfey), Social liberation (Ellen DeGeneres), Judicial liberation (Judge Judy), Economical liberation (Suze Orman) or Political liberation (Hillary Clinton).
5 comments:
I totally have to share the veggie burger joke with my vegetarian mother-in-law, lol!
I have to agree, the washing machine couldn't have been the most liberating thing for American women in the 20th century. But, maybe since you were reading the Vatican newspaper, they were talking about their country, not ours? If I had to choose, I'd say the WWII thing. Don't get me wrong, I have plenty to bitch about with my job, but it sure does beat staying at home doing laundry all day :-)
Birth control...not so much. There's always abstinence (haha, yeah right) We may have the right to say we don't want to have babies and take pills, but we should still be responsible and not spread diseases.
Woman's suffrage should definitely be on the top of the list. Although, it never really made a whole lot of sense to me, why all these slave owners would give the right to vote to the slaves before women? I guess they liked the slaves better than their wives? I dunno? I really think women and slaves/immigrants should have been given the right at the same time.
Hello there crys, I'm glad you comment. As far as the Women & Slave/Immigrants, when it came to the minority vote, it was only extended to minority men. Either way, if you weren't a White Male, voting back then wasn't all that easy no matter who that right was extended to. Kinda like Florida back in 2000 (yep...I went there).
LOL! I think I'm still a little confused when it comes to voting. Does the popular vote even count? Or isn't it all just based on what the electoral collage votes? Sometimes I feel like it doesn't matter at all what the popular vote is, it's the electoral votes that really count. But I'm not really sure. That's one of those things that have never been really clear to me. The reason I say that is because, even though we now know as a country we can elect someone who isn't a white male, it still doesn't feel like "the people" always get their choice. (i.e. George W.) Oh, and when our votes do pass a law, someone is always screaming at the supreme court to change it. I don't know how current you are on California news, but last November, we voted to ban gay marriage, but now all these faggots are fighting it. What was the point of us voting for it? Not to start a whole new topic but...another thing is, I don't understand why gays and lesbians want to be "married". Marriage is a promise between a man and a women to God! If these people believed in God why are they gay? I understand that they want the same "benefits" (if you want to call it that, lol) as married people, but they already have that here. It's called a domestic partnership or common law marriage. Now they're trying to pass a similar bill that says that gay's have the right to a "domestic partnership" which is pretty much marriage, but no promise to God, so I'm ok with that (they should have done that in the first place). I do think that if the "domestic partnership" bill passes, these people should have to pay the same amount of money it is for a marriage license, and have to get a "domestic partnership" license. I also think that if they ever want to end their domestic partnership, they should have to pay the same fees as a heterosexual couple would for a divorce. That's all :-)
P.S. I really enjoy your blog, and being able to comment. Out of all of my friends, you're one of the few I feel like I can have these kind of discussions with!
Gay marriage is a very touchy subject, but I thought it would have turned out a little differently in California. My view on Gay marriage mirrors Peter Griffin's of the Family Guy (my favorite show) "If gays want to get married and be miserable just like the rest of us then go ahead." I really don't give a damn what they do because it really does not affect me or my paycheck. Are the Homosexuals asking for the right to marry each other or are they asking Webster to change the definition in the dictionary? If I was in California, I would be worried more about Non-citizens not paying taxes than Homosexuals exchanging vows.
Crys-maybe you should start a blog site too. If feels good to clear your head and get shit off your chest. Give it a shot, I'll read you.
Yeah, but you're probably the only one who would read my blog, lol. I post blogs on myspace when it's really necessary. This works out better anyways, you provide the topic, I'll join in the debate. Speaking of debate...that's the only class I did extremely well in in college, lol.
You're right, Peter Griffin said it best! Honestly, I really could care less what other people do, and I really shouldn't judge them anyways. But, it's just one of those things that I feel like I need to either speak up or shut up. And I have a big mouth sometimes :-) Another good saying...'Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink!' All I'm really saying is, if you wanna be gay & be with one person for the rest of your life, don't call it marriage, call it something else please. Because when this comes back to vote with gays having the right to a "domestic partnership" you bet your ass I'll vote yes for it. It really sucks that all these gay rights activist think that everyone who was against gay marriage is also against people being gay. I don't give a damn! I'm not going to have to answer for those people when I pass through those pearly gates.
Post a Comment