Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Brains Not Boobs: Re-Formulating for Feminist Success

"Strengthen the female mind by enlarging it, and there will be an end to blind obedience." - Mary Wollstonecraft

by
Susan L.M. Goldberg

Bio

December 3, 2013 - 3:30 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

wollstonecraft

Last week, Leslie Loftis hit the ball back into my court in our ongoing discussion on the future of feminism. Her conclusion is simple, but profound: ”Abroad we need action. At home we need to bury the hatchet.” How many on the right would be willing to agree?

“I was troubled to see some comments on my original post wondering why we should care about feminism’s woes. Feminism, the term, or the Marxist influences hidden inside it, true, those will not be missed by the right.”

The boorishness of the comment my counterpart is referring to did, in part, motivate my response to her first piece. Simplistic right-wing criticism of cultural Marxism has become like flatulence riddling otherwise productive conversation on this side of the political spectrum. It’s all well and good for commentators to disavow socialism in the political sphere. It is even more important for those with first-hand experience of Marxism to tell their stories publicly. But for the average reader to dismiss every single aspect of American cultural life as the bastard child of the liberal lie is, quite frankly, defeatist. And, as Loftis so eloquently points out, by dismissing feminism as so much Marxist claptrap, critics of today’s feminism are dismissing every woman born after Steinem as well:

“But despite its modern reputation as a leftist faction, most modern women’s lives are guided by feminism. …The lives of modern women are built upon feminist ideas. As feminism collapses, we need to worry about what comes after.”

The time for silver-tongued lashings has passed. If anything, a real critique of feminism requires the reclamation of classical liberalism from the clutches of contemporary socialism’s PR machine. This begins with the embrace of feminism’s powerful history. In an era nostalgic for social revolution we would be wise to ditch Steinem’s vaginal definition of female inferiority in favor of Mary Wollstonecraft‘s drive for gender equality through education. Put simply: We must re-frame the debate in terms of brains, not boobs.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Ms (?) Goldberg, I thank you again for a provocative article. As interesting as it is, you missed a central point as to what a woman is, let us say, the BEING of a woman (and implicitly of a man).

But, first, some personal credentialls re woman's lot to the lot in America. My mother was born in 1898, was one of the first women to graduate from UC, Berkley in Latin and math with straight "A"s. Her education was oriented at the time to making her attractive for the right class of men, my father being a Navy officier. In the 40s and 50s she was politically active in the GOP and was treated like Blacks in the Democrat Party, i.e., do work and stand aside for the men. Eventualy she was on her own without the formal credentials necessary for a decent job. Without my aid, he waning years would have been ones of impoverishment. So, personally I am aware, at least vaguely, of problems for women in the US. <<>> On the other hand, as a prof. at a US uni. I experienced a vicious Feminism with its quotas (and I was not impressed with the quality of those advanced) and, in my case I faced a virulent feminist of total imcompetence and no publishing, though promoted because she was, well, a "she" to Dean of Research. Her use of academic force on me in the name of Feminism, her almost successful attempts to eliminate me for more women eventually ruined my health such that I left for Europe (at the time not yet infected by Feminism--now yes). <<>> I hope you have an insight into where I am coming from. Now to your failing!!!!

In Germany (where I live) there were in 2000 15.2 million Germans 18 and younger, in 2011 only 13 million. Extrapolate! German women (and men) have a birthrate of 1.4 children per woman. 22% of women beetween 40 and 44 have never had a child. Period! The German population (also Euorpean) is DYING OUT!!! Germany has followed the call of Feminism with legal force. Now a quota system for women bosses in big business is coming. Germany is marvelous for women and more paths will be open. One draw back: Germany is dying out! And feminism is play a role. If a species cannot reproduce itself, it is evolutionary unfit. Agreed? German culture of the PAST, e.g., 50s with the ideal of woman's place at home, cooking and CHIDREN, etc, reproduced at over 3 children per woman. However wonderful for women in Germany of TODAY, Germany does not reproduce itself!!! I conclude -- and please contradict me if you can -- that the German culture of the 50s was EVOLUTIONARY superior to today's German culture of death.

What IS a woman, re species survival, and what is a man, re species survival? Before a feminist, even a Biblical one, can worry about the improvement of woman's lot, she must support some values (or are there any?) that guarantee that the woman of the future will even be born and not contraceptiviely blocked or aborted. Your answer to the BEING of women is ...?
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
My mother-in-law is a Feminist. My wife is not. My mother-in-law hates men. My wife does not. My mother-in-law is supremely unhappy. My wife is not.

Feminism is its own curse.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"We must re-frame the debate in terms of brains, not boobs."

You might need to be a bit more specific, because having sat through a feminist of the education sort was a very bad experience for me. She basically bashed Christianity and males, and one of her lectures had her implying that until the 1960s, females couldn't even get an education, certainly not control history, and inferred that the only ones who could do that were "Rich White Males." I even have the recording in case you are interested. I've been taught that sexual exploitation is wrong, and had believed in women being given equal standing with us men, but after that lecture and countless abuses by her, I've basically given up on that. Chaucer was even worse, where the teacher claimed Christianity, specifically Saint Augustus of Hippo, had invented misogyny.

If you're going to tell me feminists need to be so in terms of intellect, I strongly suggest you be a lot more specific in what you mean, because from my experience, intellectual feminists are just as bad as prosty feminists (prosty being short for prostitute).
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (28)
All Comments   (28)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The problem is in differentiating marxist-feminism from women's suffrage. Marxist-feminism (as I believe Kathy Shaidle has repeatedly pointed out) "empowers" women by lowering them to mere sex objects and tells them that "equality" means adopting the lifestyles of the worst of men; hedonistic sexual "liberation" provided by the taxpayers in the form of free birth control and on-demand abortion into the third trimester. Women's suffrage, on the other hand, asks for equal treatment in the workplace and academia.
Marxist-feminism champions the rights of women at the expense of the rights of men, where women's suffrage demands equal opportunity without being given a pass on responsibility for one's actions.

Margaret Sanger's eugenicist Marxist-feminism, coupled with Lyndon Johnson's welfare plantation has led us to where we are today: with the majority of Black babies murdered in the womb and the majority of those lucky enough to be born seeing the inside of the criminal justice system. Fatherless homes typically lead to poverty and crime. Marxist-feminism destroys families and attacks faith systems that lift people out of poverty and provide social stability. Women's suffrage was not about that.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
The issue is not brains vs. boobs but preventing political movements from hijacking the education of everyone's children.

If the separation of church and state means anything it means that no established church, religious or secular, gets to dominate the education of the nation's children.

If crazed feminists want to educate their girls into career-oriented man-haters, let them. But hands off MY girls.

If crazed evangelicals want to educate their girls into God-loving mothers, let them. But hands off MY girls. Etc.

That's why we can't have a government education system, because it always means that the ruling class gets to impose its religion, secular or religious, on all our children.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm having trouble charting a cogent path through your piece. Your bottom-line thesis seems to be that we should stress "brains not boobs." Kinda crass, but anyway, how has this not been the focus all along? Maybe I missed something. If you look at the first wave of feminism it was all about property and political rights. Women couldn't control their own property or vote. Most men and women agree that these common sense reforms were needed and guess what, these "person's" rights have long since been accomplished. Beginning with Betty Friedan it all changed and has been going to H&LL since then. Nothing that has come since then has helped society or women. I see no use for Feminism at all. The term itself is offensive as it creates a "club" based on anatomy alone. Why all this hand-wringing and angst about the future of Feminism? The only discussion should be how to put a bullet into it's brain and kill the beast.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
You ought to look at the reality that feminists have tried to create an artificial "sisterhood" which is a repudiation of the biological fact the reproduction depends upon the contributions of a "non-sister", specifically a man. In this anti-competitive effort, feminists have taken to emasculating males, particularly boys. Feminists long ago declared a "War on Men".

Mother Nature has made women competitors in the urge to reproduce. Women are the greatest enemies of other women. You will not find a more treacherous environment that a coven of teenage girls, as demonstrated by such pop culture phenomenon as the film Mean Girls. And observe the current status of the star of that film, Lindsay Lohan.

Males did not do the damage to her personality, it was females that did the work. And that work was done to tear her down, not build up women and girls. Which gender suffers most from anorexia and other self-image problems? Females.

Feminism is just the prime example of the "crab bucket", where those inside maximize the effort to pull back any who may try to escape to create a "sisterhood" of grievance. It is no coincidence that the feminists are Democrats. If you want a solution, get women to look for help from their brothers to form a brotherhood rather than continue to wage their War on Men..
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ms (?) Goldberg, I thank you again for a provocative article. As interesting as it is, you missed a central point as to what a woman is, let us say, the BEING of a woman (and implicitly of a man).

But, first, some personal credentialls re woman's lot to the lot in America. My mother was born in 1898, was one of the first women to graduate from UC, Berkley in Latin and math with straight "A"s. Her education was oriented at the time to making her attractive for the right class of men, my father being a Navy officier. In the 40s and 50s she was politically active in the GOP and was treated like Blacks in the Democrat Party, i.e., do work and stand aside for the men. Eventualy she was on her own without the formal credentials necessary for a decent job. Without my aid, he waning years would have been ones of impoverishment. So, personally I am aware, at least vaguely, of problems for women in the US. <<>> On the other hand, as a prof. at a US uni. I experienced a vicious Feminism with its quotas (and I was not impressed with the quality of those advanced) and, in my case I faced a virulent feminist of total imcompetence and no publishing, though promoted because she was, well, a "she" to Dean of Research. Her use of academic force on me in the name of Feminism, her almost successful attempts to eliminate me for more women eventually ruined my health such that I left for Europe (at the time not yet infected by Feminism--now yes). <<>> I hope you have an insight into where I am coming from. Now to your failing!!!!

In Germany (where I live) there were in 2000 15.2 million Germans 18 and younger, in 2011 only 13 million. Extrapolate! German women (and men) have a birthrate of 1.4 children per woman. 22% of women beetween 40 and 44 have never had a child. Period! The German population (also Euorpean) is DYING OUT!!! Germany has followed the call of Feminism with legal force. Now a quota system for women bosses in big business is coming. Germany is marvelous for women and more paths will be open. One draw back: Germany is dying out! And feminism is play a role. If a species cannot reproduce itself, it is evolutionary unfit. Agreed? German culture of the PAST, e.g., 50s with the ideal of woman's place at home, cooking and CHIDREN, etc, reproduced at over 3 children per woman. However wonderful for women in Germany of TODAY, Germany does not reproduce itself!!! I conclude -- and please contradict me if you can -- that the German culture of the 50s was EVOLUTIONARY superior to today's German culture of death.

What IS a woman, re species survival, and what is a man, re species survival? Before a feminist, even a Biblical one, can worry about the improvement of woman's lot, she must support some values (or are there any?) that guarantee that the woman of the future will even be born and not contraceptiviely blocked or aborted. Your answer to the BEING of women is ...?
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hello Prof. lw, I have admired your comments for some time now. A bit of hope in your gloomy picture: Among Christians the birth rate is very high. In our church the birth rate is 3.36. The rest of society dying off may not be such a bad thing, eh?
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
ddcan, my statistics were all-inclusive. Some from German sources and some from David Goldman ("Why Civilizations Die?). Goldman has noted in his books that "religious" groups, seriously religious and not liberal, are, indeed, reproducing themselves. Much to the joy of Goldman the libera Jew in America is, well, dying out. In Israel Modern and not so moder Orthodox Jews are reproducing and have reversed the shrinking Jewish population there. Some secuarlist, I forget whom, said to his sorrowful dismay that the future belongs to the "fundamentalists". Goldman's opinion for the reproductionn++ birthrate is that religous people love life, but see it as a way to fulfilment beyond. It fascinates me to observe such facts, e.g., the high birth rate of your church (which one, if I may ask?). I freigthens me to observe knowledgeable Germans and/or speak to some that, despite their demographic worries go on demographicing all downward. Life just seem to be too good to waste time with children (sic). --By the way we here in Germany are only happy being a bit pessimistic. Perhaps that is why I get a perverse kick out of a dying civilizaiton.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I belong to an independant, evangelical church of about 375-425. Of the 55 families I counted (not including older families whose children are out of the home) there are 185 children (defined as those living at home and includes adopted children). Our family with 3 children is "small". Our church is probably not typical, however. Another interesting statistic: We have attended for 12 years and are familiar with the situations of most families there. I know of only two divorces and in both cases there was an unbelieving spouse who initiated the divorce. So, we stay together here and have lots of happy kids!
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wonderful!!! Although not an Evangelical (somewhat moving towards Russian Orthodoxy) I am most pleased and inspired. Were I ever again to be in America it would be a pleasure, an instructive pleasure, to converse with you and members of you church. I sense love of life, here and beyond!

By the way, if you are curiousabout Orthodoxy look up in YouTube "Steps to the Sky", Part 6 (of 7 parts) and you have a presentation of monastic life on the little island of Valaam in the Lagoda Lake north of St. Petersburg. Though Orthodox religiosity is different from Evangelical style, I think you ccould see the fundamental commitment in both religions. I have been there and want to return. Vaya con Dios.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am very familiar with Orthodoxy as I am a Russian linguist by profession. I respect Orthodoxy very much and call those in that church brothers and sisters. Look us up if you are ever here. www.saec.org
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
So are you looking to make a distinction between woman as mother and woman as worker? If so, why? Because contemporary Marxist feminism makes that distinction? Your argument reads as if education somehow hinders a woman from her "natural duty" of procreation and reproduction in service of the state - which is a pagan idea I've discussed previously (http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/07/14/single-issue-goddess-the-war-on-womens-intellect/2/). Good education encourages procreation because it is based in the idea of putting another before one's self. I think the confusion here is in the idea of what "education" means -- you, like many other readers, are interpreting "education" to mean contemporary feminist-fueled education. Why are we defaulting to that definition?
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am making no such distinction. Not in the least!!! I am simply noting a fact. I praise German culture (a culture in which women are educated and with more success than with men), I find it great that women can work. A culture, primitively considered, consists of a system (usuallly not tightly knitted) of values that, in the last analysis, induce its members to affirm the ongoing-ness of the culture (and the more educated a German woman is, the more likely not to have children--so much for education). Whatever the reason (and I find it hard not to hold German/European Feminism as a very active and effective contributory cause -- an ideology that has really alienated me with its malicious critique of male sexuality), German culture affirms DE FACTO policies that limit, decrease or simply not augment in any significant fashion the non-reproductive birth rate and this, mathemaically speaking, leads to the species suicide of the culture. Despite worries here in Germany, most people, or the few with awareness including politicians, continue on acting as usual as the day of reckoning approaches. That seems to me to be a FACT. Agreed? I make no moralisms at all. I do extrapolate demographics and conlude mathematically to societal extinction. With ever declining population, is that a false conclusion? Tell me, please. Please to NOT play the "pagan" card on me (and pagan societies such a Greece and Rome lacked often in reproduction -- Augustus reminded his Republican opponents or their dying out culture). I make no significant ontological distinction between women as a mother and as a worker (that was the reason I told my mother's story and why I am angry that her brilliance was blocked from work). I simply note that if the worker-calling is so great that the mother-calling fails in its reproducitive function, then, well, extinction is the extrapolation. No? I would suggest, and this is plain Darwinian and not marxist, that a culture whose values justify non-reproduction in its members, this culture entails speicies suicide as a value. I conclude: Whatever a woman IS (note my ontological terminology), there must first EXIST women and for women to exist they must be conceived and born. Where there is no reproductive sufficiency, women disappear like men. No more and no less has been proposed! Disagreement? I would think that a Feminism that does not adequately, if at all, consider the "woman as a reproductive factor and mother" has a shortcoming in its feminist theory. Reproduction is a biological presuppostition for the continuance of a society and must enter as a cultural value, yes? So, what is the evolutionary fuinction of motherhood in a femiist society full of worker bees? Whatever the answer is, it touches upon the BEING of feminity. I had hoped you would offer some reflections upon the problematic, but instead I am accused of paganism. Salve!
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
You're creating a dichotomy between work and motherhood - which is exactly what got feminism in trouble in the first place. Moreover, your argument puts women in the position of being forced to choose reproduction for the future of the state - which is pagan. (Quite Roman, actually.) My argument is against a sexually-based feminism and in favor of an intellectually-based feminism ..how that exercises itself in the form of reproduction is dependent upon the education being received. And if the education trains women to reproduce for the sake of the state, it is just as destructive as an education that tells women not to reproduce for the sake of their careers. So, what's the difference?
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I used to believe in an intellectually-based feminism, but that died out around the time of Spring 2011, when I had a militant feminist professor teaching World History up to the 1500s, who basically bashed Christianity and men (such as implying the only reason the "dancing girl" idol was given its name was because some teenage males located it and didn't think any better due to chauvinism), and as mentioned before, in one of the lectures while covering Japan or Asia, she even had the gall to infer that women weren't even allowed to have an education until the 1960s, and the only ones educated were "rich white males." Honestly, I could give you a full list, but there's little time. I could give you all the lecture materials from that class, including specific times, but only if you either give me your email address or otherwise give me some other way to digitally contact you and send you the recordings, because they have to be heard in order to be believed. When "intellectual feminists" frequently bash Christianity and males, infer women were basically property and stupid until the 1960s, infer women weren't allowed to read or write until the modern era, among other things, you can pretty much guess why I'm currently against feminism now. Heck, these alongside my Chaucer class's comments on the matter even led me to become distrustful of, if not hateful of Belle from Beauty and the Beast, that's how affected I was by these teachings.

Also, I'm also not too trusting of education, especially considering how one of the biggest pioneers of education, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (via his treatsie Emile), was directly responsible for the massacres of the French Revolution, and also abandoned his children to orphanages, which at that time were basically the dog pound, as bad as you have heard. I did go through an education course under the naïve belief that I could take back what the Weathermen and other radicals stole from us, and resupply pro-American, pro-Christian/pro-God elements into the education system, but after the class I've gone through pretty much pushed left-wing things, not to mention doing my own independent research on education, I can say with certainty that education must be abolished, especially seeing how it led to destruction of civilizations.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
By the way you failed to answer my evolutionayr question. From an evolutionary point of view where reproduction is a necessary factor, which German society is evolutonarily fit and which unfit. I contrasted the Grman society of the 50s with women at home reproduction and society today with women in the work force and suicideal birth rates. Whis societal form as a ongoning culture is not evolutionarily fit? No ideology, just math. And your response?
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Simply put, I don't believe in evolution, nor evolutionary fitness through reproduction for the state as these are ideas rooted in pagan ideology. A culture's fitness to survive into the future has nothing to do with birth rate and everything to do with what kind of ideology they pursue - which is where education comes into play.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Repetition of a misunderstanding does not make an "understood". I am talking math applied to demographics. 1 - 1 = 0. Yes or no? A "culture's fitness to survive into the future has noting to do with the birth rate..." ???? Whatever the reasons effecting the birth rate is irrelevant--TOTALLY so -- to a birth rate of 1.4 children per woman when 2.1 is necessary for mere numberical maintance of a population. A sub-reproduction rate means that a simple act of mathematical subtraction gives the mathematically answer of less population. Extrapolated on the assumption of continued demographics results, by a simple process of math, to the inevitable conclusion that there will be one day "0" members of said population.

I agree with you that education plays a role in motivating people, women and men, freely or forced to have children and families. Alas, your contention is TOTALLY irrelevant to my mathmatical thesis just given in the above paragraph. Math question: German society of the 50s with women at home with the kids produced 3+ children/woman. German society today, following in part feminist ideology, produces 1.4 children/woman. Which societal form will continue indefinitely on into the future and which not? Give me a mathematically grounded answer, all ideology aside. I await your mathematically grounded demonstration.

It is clear that it is established that adequate reproduction of members is necessary if the population with its culture is to continue on into the future. This truth is a FACT of cultural survival (called evolutionary condition), not to speak, of flourisching. Right or wrong?? Right of course! Question: Any -ism, including state-use of women (which failed in the late Roman Repblic and in Athens), must take up said fact and place it with in a value system. My question to you has been to do so more profoundly for me in light of your "Biblical Feminism" (which I have found attractive). Ms Goldberg, I am not talking about the "state", I am talking about an ongoing "society". Keep your "your are a pagan" jazz out of any evaluation of my mathematical problem presented above. Alas, you have dodged an feministic response to this problem, particularly one formulated in the ontological terms of "What IS a woman". Finally, you need to learn more about societal psychology and sociology. At least that is my impression. I thank you sincerely for the "crossing of swords" and pray that you continue on informing me of a feminism that I do not detest, from bitter experience.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
FYI, the front page story of today's Philadelphia Daily News was how pole dancing empowered women.

Gloria Steinem and Larry Flynt support the same candidates and causes. I really think Larry is the one getting his way.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
The good parts of feminism are technology based -- really, you think you could work outside the home if 90-percent plus of the work involved lifting heavy objects 60 hours a week?

The bad parts are communist (cough community organizer) based.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Worked in a warehouse which was brutally physical. Mandatory 54 hr. (on occasion more) a week over months without end with 6th days mandatory. Literal tons and tons lifted and your muscles sang like violin strings on your day off.

600 guys, 3 women, and they came in when the standard years before was far less brutal and they now had the seniority to ride loaders in whatever building they pleased.

No one questioned this "imbalance." Everyone knew it was simple reality.

If you look at that warehouse as an analogy to 5 thousand years of incessant physical warfare, the reality of bringing in crops and being pregnant, the so-called marginalization of women was a reflection of reality.

It is no coincidence the rise of feminism coincided with an America that was safe and protected by two oceans and the protective warfare of its men. Reverse that out and feminism will fall back into a hole.

The irony is that modern feminism is part of a cult that relentlessly advocates immigration, legal or otherwise, from failed nations that will almost certainly throw us back into a more war-like footing in fifty to 100 years by compromising the technological superiority of our military. If that's true, then feminists are materially contributing to their own destruction. Why wouldn't it be true? Feminists threw out a Guest of Honor at a convention because she had lightly criticized a Muslim culture that often horribly mutilates its women as a matter of course. Be careful what you wish for and choose your friends with more care.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Camille Paglia has gotten tons of flack from liberal feminism for her proclamation that we should love men because without them we would have no infrastructure -- they're the ones doing the heavy lifting.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Feminism is the attempt to turn yet another "oppressed class" against the existing social arrangement. It is not so much that feminism is a form of Marxism as that both feminism and Marxism are tools invented by the wreckers to attack what they cannot control. But you seem to be perfectly willing to fall for the trick.

If it were up to women (which it was), Barack Obama would be President. If it were up to married women, Mitt Romney would be President. So, the issue is not, where do the interests of women lie. The issue is how men and women who wish to continue living in a state of civilization are to deal with those who are unwilling to make the sacrifices required by that objective, but nonetheless insist upon sharing in the rewards. Your notion that we will do so by uncritically accepting their analysis seems to me a bit unlikely. The Little Red Hen was not a feminist, she was a capitalist.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
You embrace vague metaphor as well as Karl Marx.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Can women make that decision for themselves? Yes."

Should women be able to make that decision without some regard for the other half of the equation? No. Except in the cases of rape and incest.

If a man's decision to not wear a seatbelt is an attack on society then so is a women's decision to not use birthcontrol or abstention.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
My mother-in-law is a Feminist. My wife is not. My mother-in-law hates men. My wife does not. My mother-in-law is supremely unhappy. My wife is not.

Feminism is its own curse.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All