Equality and Ironing.

Wow, what a weird article. Initially, I was thinking it was some sort of parody of the socially backwards male perspective. But then it heads off into kookville, talking about how equal rights are creating more power for women than men. Or I think it does. Could it be parody at a level I can't appreciate?

I guess it's my fault, I initially misread the following paragraph at the beginning:

It is also reasonable that the stigma of being "lefetwa", suffered by women who were not wedded in their mid-20s, has since fallen away because they are now allowed to put career and self-fulfilment before marriage and building solid families.

I read that as women being able to find their own place before getting married and having a family. But on re-reading, it seems that it's obviously biased - as if women can't have BOTH her career and self-fulfilment and her marriage and a solid family, but men somehow can. That it's somehow her job to maintain her marriage and family rather than a shared responsibility.

It's basically saying that it was better before because at least then women stayed at home. It's a silly argument - like claiming apartheid was better because the 8% of minority rule at the time could get better schooling or public hospital care than everyone can now.

But could that still be parody?

I guess my interest was first aroused by the following statement:

Thus it is safe to say that the advent of women's rights - the month-long celebration of their superiority has made marriage an irrelevant and meaningless institution.

Now, I'm a big proponent of marriage. It's just a really good idea (so long as it is an exclusive arrangement between two consenting adults). So marriage becoming an irrelevant and meaningless institution is quite a concern for me. But I can't see it just because women have the same opportunities as men.

So I was becoming pretty sure it wasn't parody.

Skip forward a bit:

Instead, when a woman marries a man, she wants to negotiate the terms of who will do what and when. In many cases, this has unfortunately increased the rate of violence, murder, abuse and even divorce among couple that would have been held together by traditional ways of doing things.

Now, this is an interesting comment. Tradition has never held much power in my world. Tradition isn't a reason for something to occur or not occur in itself. Tradition is often wrong, and in the case of treatment of women, tradition is not something I suggest people bringing up in terms of marriage. Tradition is, in fact, the cause of the violence and abuse.

It's even couched as if it is the woman's fault - surely this isn't parody? And they say the lefties make the oppressor out to be the victim...

In their moment of glory, women are quick to remind us that it is a man's duty to know how to change diapers, to watch the kids on Saturday while they hang out at News Café with "male friends" - and then cook a decent Sunday lunch while they recover their hectic night.

I hate to say it, but if you're some pushover that lets your spouse run around doing things that you don't like, and you don't talk to them about it, then it's not their fault. If your marriage can't deal with personal communication where both partners love and respect each other and consider each others as equals, I don't think you should have got married.

So I'm back to wondering if it's parody again - I mean, the backwards male runs off and does this sort of thing all the time.

But now Women's Day and Month has transformed gender roles. Men who are accustomed to having wives view the advent of the liberated woman as something that they are not entirely prepared for. They increasingly ask themselves: "Why should I marry this high-powered woman if she will not be my wife?"

Chances are, if you don't respect them and they're a high-powered person, they're not going to even consider marrying you anyway.

But as we move into the new age of the "Super-Woman", watch marriage become irrelevant and meaningless while the rate of divorce increases, especially among the new bourgeoisie.

Again, the end of marriage. Maybe it's just me, but marriage seems to be a lot stronger than the author believes.

My contemporaries, of various cultures and religions, are looking for partners with their own interests, their own personalities, their own self-fulfilment plans, before they can talk about shared plans. If there is a generation of men being created who only want wives who will behave a certain way, and there is no matching generation of women who want husbands that expect them to behave that way, then it's mostly the men who will be changing, not the women. Why give up more of your porential and more of your energy than your spouse?

So, I'm just plain confused. What was the point of the article? Was it a parody I just don't appreciate? Is it just the last whines of the backwards male?

(And why does it seem so similar to the arguments used against interracial and intercultural marriage and same-sex marriage?)