Definition of muffin top: A slang term used to describe the phenomenon of overhanging fat that spills over the waistline of pants or skirts in a manner that resembles the top of a muffin. Those who posses this unwanted flab often go to great lengths to hide it under loose fitting tops or bulky sweaters.
Wurtzel is accusing educated, women of means who take on the roll of full-time homemakers of “selling out the movement” by not living up to their potential in the workplace. She asserts, “Real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own.” According to Wurtzel, “being a rich mom – even with five sons (like Ann Romney) is not even sort of a job,” because Romney is able to hire some help.
She goes further in her diatribe, proclaiming that being a mother is not a “selective” position. (What happened to their holy grail of abortion?) and “a job that anyone can have is not a real job. It’s part of life.” Oh!
Suffice it to say Wurtzel is single and childless. Despite all this whining and moaning she insists, “I am happy!”
Wurtzel blames rich moms in particular for the so-called “war on women” because of the “trickle down effect.”
Her bottom line: “Who can possibly take feminism seriously when it allows everything as long as women choose it?”
This reflects the ideology of one of her feminist idols, Simone De Beauvoir, also unmarried and childless. In 1949, De Beauvoir, who was infamous for leading her underage students into lesbian relationships, wrote a feminist manifesto, “The Second Sex.” Here is her bottom line: “No woman should be allowed to stay at home to raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
Following Wurtzel’s diatribe, The Atlantic published Slaughter’s 22-page tome, “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All.” Slaughter, who left her high-powered dream job in the Obama State Department to spend more time with her family, tried a bit too hard to earn a feminist “get out of jail free card.”
Slaughter should be commended for realizing that her teenagers required more maintenance than her job at State would allow, even with fellow feminist Hillary Clinton at the helm, even with a selfless husband at home who was doing his best to raise the boys in her absence. It wasn’t working!
Slaughter admits “The feminist beliefs on which I had built my entire career were shifting under my feet.” However, Slaughter is not your typical stay-at-home mom. She is the next best thing, an academic with tenure. (Some would say that this is not a real job.)
Wurtzel and Slaughter unwillingly reveal radical feminism’s soft underbelly that spills over as muffin top. Although they worship at the altar of “choice,” they want to take away many of the choices available to American women, particularly the choice to be a full-time homemaker or the choice to work part-time or to take a job that doesn’t leave them used up at the end of the day. The wage gap they decry as part of the “war on women” is the end result of those free choices.
Despite the fact that women earn more advanced degrees, fewer than 5 percent of the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and 16 percent of corporate executives are female. Feminism was supposed to free us from the boredom of pushing mops and strollers. Today, with more women in the workforce than ever before, studies show we are less happy than we were in the boring ’70s.
Slaughter believes that the answer to our problems is to “close the leadership gap: to elect a woman president (presumably one like Hillary Clinton) and 50 women senators.” Then, we can “create a society that genuinely works for all women.”
The world envisioned by Slaughter and Wurtzel is fatally flawed. It is a world in which all women are in the workforce by necessity and by law in order to support their utopian “nanny state.” Children would be raised in licensed 24-hour childcare centers. Parents with high-powered jobs could drop them off for days at a time. They could be picked up like a Gucci purse to be paraded at family outings, barbecues and the like. The children’s value system would be the state’s value system, which would, of course, be the perfect value system.
That is a world most women would gladly do without.