According to playwright Zoe Lewis writing in today’s Times, the fact that she’s (yikes, the horror, I can barely bring myself to write it) still unmarried at the grand old age of “nearly 37” is all the fault of the evol feminists:
“I was led to believe that women could “have it all” and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dreams – to be a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no.”
Actually wasn’t it Nicola Horlick who tried to argue you can have it all? As long as you’ve got a megaton of dosh that is, along with an around-the-clock rotation of nannies.
As far as I’m aware, feminists have always argued that while we’re just as capable as men, this is a man’s world, structured to meet their needs and wants, and inherently biased against women. And that as long as it remains that way, women are and always will be unable to achieve their full potential.
I’d love to know what Lewis thinks her “womanly duties” are though…..
“Somewhere inside lurks a woman I cannot control and she is in the kitchen with a baby on her hip and dough in her hand, staring me down. She is saying: “This is happiness, this is what it’s all about.” It’s an instinct that makes me a woman, an instinct that I can’t ignore even if I wanted to.”
Or then again, maybe not.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Cath – I have a confession to make:
I personally prevented Zoe Lewis from getting married using my evol rad fem superpowers. It’s all my fault *hangs head in shame*
Maybe she should read Leslie Bennetts’ The Feminine Mistake. It isn’t about “having it all” and never has been.
I will pray* for her to be reincarnated back in time to where true life involves babes on hips whilst kneading bread (tho’ she will need three hands for this which I hope she understands?) Maybe at the outbreak of WWI or WW11 so she can fulfill her ‘wifely duties’ as she realizes “what fucking ‘golden age'”
*The evol Antichrist.
As far as I’m aware, feminists have always argued that while we’re just as capable as men, this is a man’s world, structured to meet their needs and wants, and inherently biased against women. And that as long as it remains that way, women are and always will be unable to achieve their full potential.
I will be quoting this!
Hmm ‘womanly duties’ now that is a tricky one because patriarchy being the system it is ‘womanly duties’ constantly change according to whether or not patriarchy needs working women to support the patriarchal structure. WW1 and WWII are prime examples of how ‘womanly duties’ were changed so that suddenly it became every woman’s duty to take on men’s work in order that these men could become soldiers.
So, as you say, Cath ‘feminists have ……this is a man’s world structured to meet their needs and wants…’ Definitions of what was supposedly appropriate ‘womanly duties’ certainly changed in WW1 and WWII to meet male needs. In fact even before WW1 patriarchy defined ‘womanly duties’ differently depending on whether women were working class, middle class or upper class.
But then it is much easier and simpler to blame feminism rather than take a very long and hard look at how the patriarchal system operates. And a degree in economics is not mandatory.
Yes Jennifer, and Lewis may also realise that the so called ‘golden age’ which she laments so romantically also concealed an underbelly of domestic violence, incest and other abuses that afforded women and children neither recognition nor means of escape. But this was before feminist researchers uncovered the truth of the patriarchal ’shiny shiny’ times. So if Lewis mourns the image of the babe on the hip whilst kneading dough, then yeah go ahead and go for it – but just remember it was feminism that worked to give you the freedom to call it a day. Our women ancestors were not so lucky.
“and Lewis may also realise that the so called ‘golden age’ which she laments so romantically also concealed an underbelly of domestic violence, incest and other abuses that afforded women and children neither recognition nor means of escape. ”
What was hidden then, is hidden now, the era of chivalry, Sir Robert Peel,
it hasn’t been bettered, as an idea, and more than one UN Rapporteur has recognized that.
Being first in line, on the boat deck, was a good start, giving that up was silly, the objective should simply have been ‘more’.
The gays don’t don’t mind being pampered, they had great PR, more rights, piled on ‘more’.
They don’t want equal, the GLF viewed equal as an agenda of madness. look at Peter Tatchell, say ‘equality’ and watch him smirk.
Feminism has traded away as much as it gained, and being ‘all over the road’, it lobbies against itself.
A frog and a prince is maybe worth having, & etc.
“I should have written that I do not believe that radical feminist theory on BDSM is applicable in all cases”
I got that class quote from F-Word feminism.
Game over, a manifesto, with a list of opt-ins and opt-outs, is jelly.
Pimp that feminism
Yvette
Yeah but Sparks, in the world of journalism, ambiguity, and admitting that perhaps all situations have some advantages and some disadvantages does not exist. We’ve got to believe women were happier in the olden days, rather than that they put up with stuff because they had no choice.
And feminism hasn’t gone nearly far enough. If it had, Lewis could have children and a job. And even a partner who shared childcare equally. It does happen you know, I know people who do it.
Hmmm, “patriarchy”? Mother nature intended humanity to prosper from a gender-based division of labour. You can’t fight nature, especially when it’s against yourself.
A fantastic analysis Drogo. Care to back it up with anything other than a copy of the Daily Mail? And I think you’ll find humanity does fight nature, because if it didn’t you wouldn’t have internet access.
Why is it that when a woman suffers from “grass is greener on the other side of the fence” regrets it is the fault of Feminism?