Barefoot and Pregnant

August 22, 2009 at 4:48 pm 2 comments

When I was growing up, one of the more effective accusations made by the feminist movement against the “Patriarchy” was that the MAN wanted women to stay in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.  Now certainly there were (and still are) individuals that believe this, but it was never the majority.  Most of the population of this country for most of its history have had to struggle to survive, and while large families were prevalent, women did a lot more than just cook and pop out rug-rats.

So I’ve been thinking:  what exactly does “Barefoot and Pregnant” mean?

To be barefoot is to be vulnerable.  We wear shoes to protect our feet.  Shoes allow us to walk or run over rough ground, across hot or cold surfaces and they allow us to kick more effectively, whether a football or an assailant.  Stripping a person of their footware weakens them, making them dependent.

To be pregnant means to produce a child, someone to carry on the family bloodline.  In earlier times, a child was a ready resource for bringing in crops, cleaning the home, washing clothes and other necessary labor.  The pregnancy provided necessary resources for preserving the family.  Keeping them in the kitchen supports this analysis; the woman’s labor providing sustenance for others.

So being kept “Barefoot and Pregnant” is to be dependent, yet required to provide the resources for the future.  Implied by the accusation is that there is no recognition and no respect, but only sacrifice and enslavement for the benefit of the MAN.

So what does this mean today?

The Progressive Vision:

  • Self Defense/Gun Control:  you must depend on the government to protect you as well as those around you.  Don’t get involved.  Call the police and just be a good witness.
  • National Health Care:  the government will make medical decisions for you and will punish you if they don’t approve of your lifestyle (tobacco, alcohol, drugs, diet, etc).
  • Punitive taxes:  the government will decide how much of your money you deserve to keep.  From each according to his gifts; to each according to his needs.  But who trusts the government to decide what anyone needs?  And what about things we just want?  Does anyone need a Corvette or even an iPod?

In other words, the Progressive Vision is to treat all of us the same way that they claimed women were being treated by the evil Patriarchy.



Entry filed under: Politics.

What He Said … Before We Nationalize Healthcare …


  • 1. Brigid  |  August 22, 2009 at 8:11 pm

    Brilliant analysis. I

  • 2. Brigid  |  August 22, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    I hit send button too quick.

    I’ve been reading Ayn Rand’s Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal today, a little known book and one that got me thinking very much as to our situation as a country.

    In “Roots of War” Rand explains that, outside of voluntary charity there are two ways to acquire something: you either just take it, or swap something for it. Conquest or trade the only options. Government is the agent of conquest, capitalism the agent of trade, both logically progressing. If we are in a conquest driven society, the shoplifter would beat the honest merchant, but the robber would beat the shoplifter, and the murderer would soon beat the robber.

    She had another good point in that a welfare state is not based on altruism, but very much the opposite . A welfare state will eventually collapse or look elsewhere for plunder.

    In a trade society, those with the best product wins, while the welfare based society simply borrow upon the backs of it’s people until such time as no body wins.


%d bloggers like this: