Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Jan 7, 2009
I don't find this play to be all that great as a feminist movement. All the lady did in the play was walk out on her husband and kids to go "find herself" (whatever the hell that means :-/). Women like to think of it as this great and moving play, but truthfully if it were a man leaving his wife and kids it would be an outrage to them.
If she were to have left on good terms and seemed as though she actually cared for her children, then I would be fine. But she left without any real reason.
Women like that have no business having children or getting married.
My evidence, my brother went through a divorce with the mother to his 3 children after eight years of marriage, because "even though he was a nice guy, she just didn't love him anymore". And then she moved back in with her parents who then bought her a brand new car because the BMW my brother gave her for her birthday last year was too old. It's horrible. To hell with the feminist movement if that's what it means!
A man upset wrote, "Women like that have no business having children or getting married." The problem of the era of the play, and a problem that still continues to some extent, is that "women like that" are pressured into marriage and child rearing when it may be the wrong person or wrong choice for them. An unmarried man still carries a great deal less stigma and social disapproval than an unmarried woman. A younger woman sees her odds of marriage decreasing as she ages (whether that's an accurate understanding is another question): should she risk coupling up with someone she's not sure about in the face of the apparent decreased odds?
A man, on the other hand, has his marriage prospects improving as he matures and becomes self sufficient.
This asymmetry is why one traditionally offers congratulations to the groom and best wishes to the bride. The groom is expected to be settled and to have gotten what he wanted while the bride is taking a risk.
I think "a woman calm" is right, and I find her comments to be insightful -- however I think she's wrong about the reasons behind it. She presents these these asymmetries (great word for it) as due to lingering institutional or social inequality. I believe that, today, they are more the result of biological facts of life. The truth is (and feminists hate to hear it) that women who want to have kids only have until, say, 40 to do so. After that things get sketchy, and the chances decline dramatically. That's not a put-down -- just a fact.
I think the "stigma and social disapproval" a 40-year-old unmarried woman suffers due to societal norms is often paltry compared to the disapproval she gets from her own mom! ... who, after all, wants to be a grandma, and is seeing that chance slipping away. That's a common scenario I'm seeing with many women in my generation (Gen X), which has been late to marry and have kids.
Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 2,628 views
Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 983 views
Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 970 views
The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 606 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Express / Weekend Express
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
© 2018 Mountain View Online
All rights reserved.