Language matters when conveying the reality of oppression and far too often soft and subdued language is used when describing the reality of women's oppression and this causes a massive disconnect and misrepresentation, especially when not everybody is educated on the nitty gritty details of our history as women.
One thing I see liberals and liberal feminists do consistently is saying things of the effect like, "oh well you know in the past it was womens ROLE to get married and pop out babies just like it was mens role to be the breadwinner" the difference being the absence of choice in this equation. I hate that word, role, because when used this way it makes it seem like A. It was just how things were and what women did and now that has changed or B. Women did this simply because they felt immense societal pressure to be mothers and wives
Either way it is not an accurate depiction of the situation. It is far more accurate to say that women were forced into marriage and motherhood due to financial coercion that severely restricted their opportunities.
While men did experience pressure to be the primary breadwinner and father several children, they could still choose to be forever bachelors and financially support themselves and whatever they wished to pursue.
Women could not have bank accounts under their own name. There was no legal recourse for marital rape as the law did not even recognize it as a crime. Women could not get divorced if they wanted to end a marriage they were unhappy in.
So in order to support themselves and their own wellbeing they needed a husband and there was nothing they could do if their husband felt like raping them and forcibly impregnating them as many times as he felt like.
So it doesn't do any of this justice to describe it as a "role". This was reproductive servitude and it's time we start describing it as such.
janainaart
ellievsbear
vaporwave
kaledo-art
andulkaphoto
discoholicmusic
