One of the more interesting ideas of feminism is that women’s happiness is a type of used as means of currency to be exchange. Interestingly the counterpart of happiness is unhappiness and discontent which is the foundation of feminism. Feminism teaches that women are entitled by their birth-right to be happy, and they certainly would be if the patriarchy did not suppress their own happiness with unbearable discontent. Discontent is like debt placed upon others to enslave them to the task of making women happy. This phenomena is easily observable in this election cycle as politicians are eager to validate women’s discontent and pander for their happiness. Their happiness leads not just to their vote, but for the approval of others for their acquisition of the female-happiness-currency . It is equally easy to observe the practice in action within marriage where the slogan” if momma is not happy, nobody gets to be happy” is the default method of controlling the husband. Husbands are taught and encouraged to live their lives to make their wives happy or face consequences like forced celibacy, divorce or the prospect of an unhappy wife who is bent on making those around her unhappy.
Betty Freidan wrote about women who were loved and lived lives of comfort, but they had an existence of discontent. Thus the modern age of feminism sought to validate that women’s unhappiness and change society so that women are entitled to happiness. Laws were changed to pay off thedebt of discontent, but simply making payments is not enough. Keeping society in perpetual debt means perpetual power for those who are collecting. A happy woman is berated by other women simply because her happiness fails to validate other women’s discontent.
Women are entitled to happiness is perhaps the essence of the feminist ethic. If something makes her discontent it must be changed. If she has an unhealthy body, she must make society accept her/love her for the fat girl that she is; meanwhile it is the healthy bodies that are disparaged for creating body image issues among the Haagen-Dazs crowd. If a discontent woman wants to be a CEO, rather than compete against the men, like every man must do, she simply starts a campaign about glass ceilings that make her unhappy. She is entitled and if men will not make her happy then the government will. She is entitled to be defended by men for her safety, but if she wants to be in the military or a police officer nobody should threaten her happiness in such an unsuitable position. She demands: sexual license without judgement, free birth control, the right to change her mind on any sexual encounter at any time including afterwards, extended pregnancy leave, subsidized daycare, abortion on demand, no-fault divorce, forced child support under threat of jail, and the right to fight against men and the moral indignation to punish any man who dares fight back. When men fail to give her the entitled happiness, the government insurance kicks in to underwrite her debt by the FDIC Female discontent insurance corp.
It is not just the Betty Frierdans of the world that advocate the currency of female happiness, much of “conservative” Christianity agrees. Al Mohler writes that a husband must earn his access to the marriage bed; what in essence he is saying is that a husband must first pay his wife in the female-happiness- currency before she will agree to sell him sex. This is a form of prostitution advocated by the church, where the wife can negotiate the price of sex and if discontent refuse her husband. She may trade mowing the lawn, vacuuming, flowers or dinner, but these are just acts to acquire the true currency of Female – happiness bucks. I have heard a dozen times at weddings that men are required or have a duty to provide happiness to their wife. This sold as love, but loving and producing feelings of happiness are very different. A simple example should illustrate this point. Christ loves His church and is sovereign over the events of history, but she often is unhappy with persecutions and trials that He brings to her. Is it Christ that is unloving or is the church? Yahweh loved OT Israel and lovingly sent her prophets to lead her to repentance, yet she was unhappy with the prophets of God and in her unhappiness she killed the prophets. Would any dare call the God who is love deficient because he failed to produce happy feelings in Israel? Likewise a husband in scripture receives no imperative to make his wife happy, but he does receive the imperative to love her or better stated perform acts of love toward her as Christ does toward His elect.