SUNSHINE MARY: Bossy feminist Newspeak advocates demand that we “Ban Bossy”.
Sheryl Sandberg . . . yet again takes time to lecture the women of the world about how we are supposed to be just like her – finding all our Personal Fulfillments in being enslaved to a corporation that does not care about us.
A reader sent me a link to a story in the WSJ which includes an interview with Sheryl Sandberg and Anna Maria Chávez in which they discuss how it is really the existence of the word “bossy” in the English lexicon that is responsible for the fact that there aren’t more women willing to essentially abandon their families in order to be corporate slaves who rise through the ranks of power. . . .
Ask yourself this question, reader: What might Sheryl Sandberg’s motivation be for saying that our country’s economic growth depends upon having women “fully engaged in the workforce”? Why would she be so eager for married mothers to place their children in day orphanages and be concerned about their boss’ wants and needs rather than their families’ wants and needs?
G.K. Chesterton in 1927 wrote of “a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands.” In a way, that’s feminism in a nutshell.
Related: Don’t Hate Her Because She’s Successful.
The most important– her words– advice Sandberg has to offer women is… to choose your husband carefully. . . . How on earth could I choose whom I fell in love with? . . . Perhaps the logic is that I shouldn’t marry anyone except one who is compatible with my goals, good advice– except why, a priori, is one’s middle management career at General Motors more important than one’s marriage? . . .
“No, she just means when you get married, to pick someone who supports your goals.” In other words, a business relationship? Arranged marriage, only this time by Match.com’s algorithm? “No, a marriage based not on passion but on mutual respect and shared values–” Stop, listen to what you are saying. Why would you want a man who agreed to this? Why would a man want a woman who thought like this?
Keep in mind, her message is not for future COOs, her message is for the rest of you organ donors who need to be transitioned from 9 to 5 to 8 to 6, e.g. the Cosmo demo[graphic]. The Time Magazine demo[graphic] already gave up on love, after a decade and a half of a narcissistic marriage they only need to be convinced to work Saturdays or spend more. Either will do.
The single greatest obstacle to turning women into fully productive members of the workforce, i.e. batteries, is not men obstructing them . . . If the thing that is keeping women out of the underpaid labor force is “family”, then family must go, and if what pulls them towards family is love then love has to be a fantasy.
I know what you’re thinking. You’re worldly, you’re cynical, you[‘re] skeptical. You don’t go for all this love crap…. You’ve figured out that love was a construct pushed by the patriarchy to keep women tied to the home . . . You think you’ve figured out that true love doesn’t exist, that it’s all been a kind of romantic lie sold by TV and the media, that real life isn’t like that; but what I am telling you is that you didn’t figure this out, you were TOLD this. Now, constantly, by every modern TV show, by Lori Gottlieb and the zombies at The Atlantic, by your friends, by your parents– the trick was to get you to think you figured it out on your own. . . .
The system’s ideal woman is the single mother, she’s produced with her uterus and is willing to go all in on production/consumption, she has no choice. I’m not saying she wants to be a single mother, I’m saying that’s what the system wants her to be. That’s feminism. You can get married too, as long as he’ll make it so you get in at 8. . . .
Love is dying, the system is killing it. The only acceptable portrayal of fulfilled love is with vampires and BDSM billionaires, not because those men are great but because there’s no worry you’ll meet one, enjoy your little fantasy. Now back to work, whore, you need fulfillment.