But can domesticity ever really be subversive? Self-proclaimed "domestic artist" Jane Brocket believes that in this day and age it has unwittingly become a provocative act. She produces a cult blog, Yarnstorm, which covers cooking, sewing and knitting, and attracts 50,000 hits a week. "Anything which is very personal and behind closed doors and pleasurable for women is subversive these days," she says wryly.

But it is this frisson of the taboo that appeals to a new generation of young women, who seem to love the novelty of baking and dressing up in aprons. Jazz D Holly, 24, an aspiring playwright from east London, is the president of the Shoreditch Sisters, the youngest branch of the Women's Institute, which has 20 members who meet regularly to swap recipes and knitting patterns. For her, domesticity is about rebellion: "I think it is a reaction to 1990s ladette culture and the sense of androgyny around that. I don't like the idea that we are exactly the same as men. I think it is damaging to women's self-respect."

In Holly's case it is also a personal stance. "My parents were punks," - her father was Joe Strummer of the Clash -"so I had a chaotic childhood. You try to be subversive by not doing what your parents did. It was not rebellious for me to go out drinking and taking drugs because that was what my parents did. I've always been fascinated by knowing how to knit but I had to learn it from my great-grandmother because my mother did not do anything like that and my grandmother was part of the whole 1960s women's lib thing."

Naturally, the two sides line up for this one so they can poison it with uselessness.

The left is set to be outraged that women are oppressed by not having the exact same role as men. After all, the left is a revenge movement by the clueless, who use their greater numbers to force/guilt others into handing them things they didn't earn.

The right is set to claim that this is a return to the 1950s, and that our current oblivious course is just fine, because the right is the party of business owners who are trying to keep the left off of their asses. The right believes that if we just let the market take care of things, and cut our costs to the bone, the good people will send their kids to private school and it will all be OK. It is more realistic than the left, but still enables degeneration.

As I see it, the truth of the matter is what women in the article said: they have become displaced from a role that only they can fill, and they're tired of feeling like generic human beings.

Their mothers and grandmothers, believing it to be The Right Thing to Do, worked hard to tear down those social roles. But then they realized they were office fodder like everyone else, and now, the competition has increased massively, so it's sink or work yourself to the bone 80 hours a week for some stupid job in order to have enough cash to be a single woman out of the ghetto.

And we all know where that ends:

"Society says you're old and dried up by the time you've turned 40, and it's such horseshit," Capps says. "We need to celebrate women taking control of their sexual desires. Nobody's getting hurt in these relationships — and shhhh, nobody's gonna tell."
...
She tells Unreal she dated a 21-year-old for two years intermittently while diddling other young studs. One of the more memorable occasions transpired when an eighteen-year-old and a nineteen-year-old helped her move. "They came up with a plan to tag-team me," she recounts. "I said, 'Let's just do it one after the other.'"
...
"I think it comes down to women who wanted it both ways, with careers and families — they got their careers and now they don't have kids. All the men their age want to date younger women, and they're looking around and going, 'You know what, the young guys want it: Why not?'"

Classy. Hide your empty, childless, familyless, successless life by going out and banging clueless younger males. It has all of the elegance of a drive-thru.

Our society rapes women two ways. First, on the right, it makes them possessions. Traditional society didn't do this. Only after liberals challenge traditional society did the right-wing emerge, and their response was more control through money. That didn't work, as history shows us. Second, on the left, society makes women generic and assumes they will be satisfied with the lowest-common denominator, with no awareness of time. "Here. Have an office job, a string of dongs, and some Betty Friedan pamphlets. Now You Are Whole!"

If you want to ensure that your daughter will never run away and have a family, molest her. She will spend the next forty years trying to figure out why she's neurotic.

Society does basically the same thing. Given a choice between being good capitalist possessions, and being dropouts, women opt for dropout, and only find out when they're 48 that they didn't want to be family-less, child-less, generic careerist whores. (Don't worry, feminists -- we'll note in a later article how the same happens to men, with the usual twists required for males to adopt anything.)

After their first fifteen failed relationships, well, why not trying whoring? At least it passes the time, and distracts from those empty, negative, subservient lives.

Has feminism freed women? Hardly. It has made them labor and taken away their sacred roles in families.