This may sound like a very simple question.
Like, one that a child might ask. A slow one at that.
But as I am finding out, nothing in this world is simple. At least not anymore.
I ask again: what is a woman for?
Perhaps the ladies who have been married may be best placed to answer this question for me.
Of course, I would be pleased to hear the opinions of any men who wish to help me out with my 'explain it like I am a 6 year old' type question.
:-)
I ask this in all seriousness.
I want to clear something up in my mind once and for all...
The inspiration for this post came from...work.
At work, things break down once in a while. Nothing to do with me :-)
We have to call in engineers to fix the problem.
It is always a hilarious occasion for me for several reasons.
(Another of my guilty pleasures).
The first is that for some bizarre reason, their presence always reminds me of this ad:
Which is odd, because our engineers look nothing like this hunk.
Rotten luck :-)
The other reason is that when they arrive, my male colleagues ask the guys relevant intelligent questions.
The women pick up random tools from their boxes and ask, 'what's this for'?
OK, I speak for myself here.
Occasionally, my question turns out to be a good question.
Although my function is not in a technical capacity, it helps me to understand what I do better if I understand a little bit of the engineering side.
More often than not though, the tool I thought was unfamiliar and really 'high tech' just turns out to be a spanner or something.
Um.
Yes.
*facepalm X2*
But the point is, everything has a use.
I have never felt the need to ask this question: 'What's a man for?'
Ever.
Because it is pretty clear to me what men do.
I do not think anything's changed for centuries.
Men have built civilisation and continue to do so. No doubt on that one.
But, now I am not so sure what women are for.
Its a bit confusing, actually.
Because according to what I see around, and also what I read on Manosphere blogs, it is not clear ...
Now, I include myself here of course.
I am going to forget everything society tells us about what a woman is for, just for a minute whilst I listen to what our little community has to say on this matter.
And I am thinking aloud here. These thoughts are mostly unedited and may appear 'sexist' at first glance. But I don't believe they should be, at least at second glance.
A man who comments here (you know who you are!) recently said this to me:
And I paraphrase:
A man only needs 4 things from a woman (in no particular order):
(And I am guessing by this he meant, if he is to commit and therefore give up his freedom to one woman):
Food, Faithfulness (i.e. loyalty and respect all rolled into one), Family (this means children) and ...there was fourth 'F' too...
Do the men here concur?
If so, why are women being systematically trained to reject these attributes?
Whilst men are still expected to be...men?
There may be a gross mismatch here...
Food
In a recent conversation with a male friend, I was informed that it is no longer expected in society that a woman cook for her family.
He had an eerily neutral (and therefore scary) facial expression as he said this to me.
It was scary to me because I thought it was something that ought to be a joke.
But unfortunately it wasn't.
This particular man had come to accept this situation as a status quo in his country.
And his lack of reaction to this made my hair stand on end for some inexplicable reason.
But is this situation even feasible longterm?
Can a family live on microwave dinners or restarant food for years on end with no adverse consequences?
Where did childhood obesity come from?
Whose responsibility is it to ensure that everyone eats a nutrional home-cooked meal?
In some communities, if a girl cannot cook a meal independently past the age of 12, she is considered a failure whatever her future career aspirations might be.
Fact.
In some communities, a new bride can be returned to her family of origin if it is discovered she cannot cook.
Fact.
Sure, both of these examples are not from 'Western' society. These communities are considered 'backward' in many ways.
But...do they have a point?
Who is best placed to cater to the gastronomic needs of a growing family?
It's a woman, no?
I think there are many reasons for this.
I am sure the married women here will chime in here, but cooking for a family is not a simple matter of putting ingredients together in a pot, on a fire.
It is an act which has other unseen consequences.
They do say that the family that eats together stays together (or was it prays together? I forget :-)
Family eating time is about 'family time'. In the hustle and bustle of daily life, even if both parties work, someone has to coordinate 'eating time'.
Maybe this is heresy, but I think as a married woman, I would feel some level of shame if this were not me.
There is a biological drive in women to do this sort of thing.
Feminism tries to drive this out of us, but it is nonetheless there.
It is like the female drive to create things of beauty. A man's bachelor pad may be 'minimalist' until a woman moves in...
Cake decoration is another example. We are not content just to have an edible cake. It should look nice too.
Women are supposed to be decorative too, no?
In settings where men are men and women are women, men wear suits, usually all of one colour.
:-)
And ladies wear a variety of colours and fabrics. Like at weddings.
This is normal.
Faithfulness
I understand now when men go on and on about high 'N' and how it translates into a diminished ability to bond with subsequent men in their lives.
I think I see this play out quite a lot in the modern hook-up culture.
But I also think that a woman can be faithful even with a high 'N'. Many women from previous generations were. And they weren't all virgins at marriage, I am pretty sure.
But I guess it is one of those things that would be hard to demonstrate to a man.
He either has to believe in her, or go for a long 'trial period'. I think more and more, the latter option is becoming the strategy of choice. So commitment is delayed...
Is this good or bad?
Family
If I am not mistaken, an important reason why a man might choose not to GHOW would be if he wanted children...
The best person to carry children is a young, fertile woman.
But what if the young fertile woman doesn't want to carry children even when she is in a positon to, i.e. is in a committed relationship, and all things being equal, has no other biological impediments?
But, in fact, there are usually bioloical impediments.
It takes a while for a woman who has been on The Pill to become fertile again once she stops taking The Pill. Like years, in some cases.
Some women never recover their fertility.
The Pill is also potentially fatal. This is rare, but not negligible.
And if it is true that 90% of Catholic women are on The Pill, then I would expect a higher percentage of non-Catholic women to be on it.
That's a lot of women who are preventing what their bodies are designed for...
Then there are the social constraints:
Work, hobbies, financial matters...
Yes, some of these are male-driven or at least jointly driven by both parties.
A man who says to his wife: 'We are not having children for five years after we marry until I have X job, or X amount of money coming in every month...'
This same man, if his wish to have children is not fulfilled by his wife, if her acquiescing to his will leads to problems later, will have no problem finding another who could give him children.
But it is usually a woman's choice. It is her body, afterall. And this is not a bad thing...
But...as with everything in life, there should be limits. Everyone has their 'place' where they draw their own line...
The last F is self-explanatory.
But why do so many fail at this....er... marital obligation? Including all that comes before - such as simply being attractive to the one who matters?
There has to be a universal reason.
I don't think 'life got in the way' is an acceptable answer.
There has to be a better answer than that.
I would love to hear it.
Now, I ask this particular question specifically with the woman who had no problem complying before commitment, in mind.
What happened?
Why is this scenario so common?
If a woman cannot provide each of, at least some of the above, is a man to be blamed if he doesn't take her on?
Manosphere men are trained to think, on encountering a woman: 'What does she bring to the table?'
That is the same question as 'What is a woman for', no?
My thoughts:
If there is anything interfering with 'what a woman is for', it should be sought out and eliminated by that woman, such that the woman can function as a woman.
You know, like the 'if your eye causes you to sin, take it out' bible verse.
But this may be a bit drastic, I admit :-)
Perhaps my thoughts here could induce seizures in people who are used to hearing things like this:
It's about me and my life. (Nevermind the needs of the family).
I didn't spend ten years in college and post grad to become a housewife.
Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen was for my grandma's time. I am way better than that.
He and I should be equals...in everything...
What did my grandma and her friends fight for when they burned their bras? So that I could end up as some man's slave?
Why are we so hell-bent on defeminising ourselves?
Who told us that men wanted men as wives and girlfriends?
Why do we take every opportunity to take a pill or put on a gadget that will enable our advancement in masculine ways and matters?
Why are we trained to see men as oppressors and adversaries?
Why are we constantly being bombarded with the message that to be what a woman was intended for is demeaning in some way?
Does it help any?
If ever there were rhetorical questions...
