A WOMAN'S PARADISE

My response to this poorly written and poorly punctuated piece * of sexist twaddle.  
 
   
Oh joy of joys!  
My husband’s getting early out of jail.  
And when he is back home,  
how quickly he’ll ensure I come to know  
my “proper” place inside his house:  
a bonded servant to his will, without the means  
(since I'll not be allowed to work)
to buy and flee into another home even if I wanted to,    
a woman quiet as a mouse,  
subdued, restrained,  and thankful for it, too,  
even if he beats me black and blue for any disputation  
of his wants and whims (oh such a sin!)  
as men within my country feel that it's their right to do,    
domesticated,  stationed, pregnant, in the kitchen  
dealing with my children all the while,  
and ever waiting for his approval and his smile    
(the things he thinks are all I need to make me happy, whole),  
and always ready for his call for me to come  
into, and avidly, his bed,  
even though the Bible states  
that I’m a “helpmeet” fit for him  
as God himself proclaimed  
that he is for all men.  
   
Oh yes, according to my culture’s sexist attitude  
and writings of some Josephed poet’s backward ken,    
I’ll be once more in Eden then  
with crowns upon my head!.  
   
Perhaps.  
But oh so solemnly I now proclaim:  
If I am plunged into this “paradise” by his parole,  
it’s certain I won't feel the bliss    
that blinkered men  claim is the fate  that issues from  
adoption of the "role" that  God and "nature" surely give to me,  
but that I'll know that I am being suffocated,  trapped  
within an ever clamping,  desiccating, vise  
and see myself become a withered soul.  
   
* How is "What satisfaction is that women have?"  good English?  
 
If you meant to ask "what actually satisfies a woman?" or "What is the satisfaction that women want?",  you haven't done so.  
   
*How is "All what's they're after is their house and love" = "all what is they are after is their house and love" good English?  
   
If what you meant to say here  "all that they are after is their house and love"   or "what it is that they are [all] after.. ", you haven't done so.    
 
And why would a woman take pleasure in, let alone extol, "the actual linguistic behavior or performance of an individual in contrast to the linguistic system of a community."  if this is what you meant to describe with "parole"?  
 
   
  

1-Can you tell me what is wrong with: What satisfaction is that [which] women have?

"Can you tell me what is wrong with: What satisfaction is that [which] women have?"

Is that what you wrote?

As to what's wrong with this new question, it's that it is hardly clear just what it is that you are asking about and that you should have written  "what is the satisfaction that women (and not men?) have?" or "What satisfaction IS IT it that/which women have [when they have a home]?" not to mention then gone on to answer your question.

And what's with "True smiles on husbands' face are all their needs."  To be grammatically and conceptually and rhythmically correct and meaningful this line should read "True smiles upon THEIR husbands' faceS are all that THEY really need" or "."True [as opposed to false?] smiles upon THEIR husbands' faceS MEET/SATISFY their needs".

And do you realize that when you say  

"Love for home and what it confers on life  
have got all what [sic that] she has..."

you are claiming that a **concept** has come into possession of all the things that belong to the woman.  This is an absurdity.

In any case, how nice of you to dodge the other questions I asked you.

Yes, that is what l wrote. Can you write what the change is?
According to the second line, what is wrong with it? I don't want to write your not rhythmic line.

You did not have the relative pronoun "which" in the line I asked you about.  Apparently you think that was clearly implied.  It wasn't.    
 
But send it in to PFFA to see whether the moderators and commentators there think it is.  If they say so,  I'll admit I am wrong in saying what I say.  
 
And given your concern for measurement, and you're claim that your question is answered (is it?) in your next line), then your question should have been written "What satisfaction DO THOSE women have? "

Is that womEn is a solecism.

There is no need to send anything to anybody as long as we know the obvious GRAMMAR RULES. If you don't know it l can explain it to you. Just ask me. I'll explain it to you in details, not as long as your boring ones. If you don't want me to explain it to you, you ask that site. There is no need from my side to ask them.

In details??  And my details are long and boring??  And the fact that one knows the rules of grammar does not guarantee that he/she will employ them in what one writes -- as you frequently demonstrate.

In any case, you are showing yourself to be a coward. I cannot post your submissions to that site without breaking their rules.

Isn't this ad hominem to address me as a coward, Mr Baldwin? You ask them as a common question, or ask me and l explain briefly. If you don't understand, l explain in details.

I'm only stating what is the warranted implication of your reluctance to post your submissions to a critical, not a vanity, site, namely,  that it's clear that you fear that you'd be shown up there by people qualified to do so that you are not the poet you think you are. I mean if you do indeed write as well as you claim you do,  there's no reason not to post there and plenty of reasons to do so. The moderators and contributors there are not reluctant to praise pieces that are well written and to give encouragement to keep at it.  
 
BTW, the expression is "I explain in detail".  
 
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-grammatically-correct-in-detail-or-in-details  
   
And speaking of knowing the rules of grammar, didn't you show that you don't know them very well (or at least do not always apply or observe them) when you wrote "as long as we know the obvious GRAMMAR RULES. If you don't know **it** [sic ,] l can explain **it** to you."?  Given that "rules" is a plural noun,  you should have cast the sentence that follows "Rules" as "If you don't know THEM [,] I can explain THEM to you.".    
   
And the question is not whether you know the rules of grammar, but whether you've violated them at certain points in your sexist piece.

If you don't know IT, l'll explain it to you. IT: here is the point in question.  You surprise me, Baldwin. You impose yourself as a corrector to points, and your understanding is very slow and extremely limited. Why don't you send your writings to to those moderators and get your praise from them instead of begging it from me?

Did you mean to say "if you don't know what IT refers to ..."?  And isn't the antecedent of IT "grammar ruleS"?  
 
In any case, please point out to me where I have ever sought, let alone "begged" for,  your praise.  
 
And look at your dittography. "Why don't you send your writings to to those moderators".