Feminism undermines complementarity

Kirsten Powers has offered an excellent synopsis about the fundamental flaw in feminism. It's not about the qualities of femininity or the strengths of women, but the self-righteous sense of superiority. In reference to Sonja Sotomayor's comment that that a wise Latina would likely reach a better conclusion than a white man, Ms Powers notes:

When I was growing up, the common refrain I heard among my mother's feminist friends and later in college in women's studies classes was, "If women ran the world, there would be no war." Or: "If women were in charge, the world would be a better place."

I don't know what Sotomayor heard about Latinos in her childhood (though I'm sure, like any ethnicity, there was a healthy pride). But the sense that she would reach a "better result" than a white man probably flows more from a feminist influence than a racial one. Indeed, this type of thinking is still fairly mainstream.

Just look at the title of former White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Meyer's recent (and excellent) book: "Why Women Should Rule the World." The flap copy asserts that "women tend to be better communicators, better listeners, better at forming consensus." She says that with more women in power, "politics would be more collegial. Businesses would be more productive. And communities would be healthier."

In "The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women and the Real Gender Gap," Canadian psychologist Susan Pinker asserts that women are more consensus-minded, team-oriented and, yes, better at reading human visual cues, interpreting feelings and maintaining relationships and relationship networks than men.

Such assertions are more the norm than the exception in feminist literature or books promoting women's rights. And, of course, there is little doubt that people of different ethnicities and gender are in fact, different.

But not better. It's time to let go of this outdated canard.

This has long been evidence of feminist schizophrenia -- in that they insisted that there were no fundamental differences between men and women, only cultural constructs. But at the same time, they consistently posited that women were better than men. Makes no sense, but then logic wasn't their strong suit (those would be resentment and vindictiveness). 

Ah well, feminists will rally around this "wise Latina" and insist that to oppose her wisdom is to oppress all women. Not that women are really different, just better. Tiresome, to be sure. The Church has long defended the wisdom of women, which John Paul II coined "the feminine genius;" but never at the expense of men. Each sex has its genius and every person lives it in a unique way. But of course, the Church, being the ultimate "patriarchy," has been thereby banned from contributing to the Canon of Worldly Sense.

The world's loss.

Comments

[Anne France]

Agree with your assessment.

On a lighter note, I'd like to ask Mzzz. Sotomayor: what would we do without men? She forgets the better chefs have always been men despite years of practice by women in the kitchen.

By the way, I read Mzzz. Sotomayor has two young children. Does she have a husband? Her children certainly have a father, don't they?

[Becca West]

Feminism isn’t about hierarchy; it’s simply about equality. Not as in being the “same” but in being equally valued, equal opportunity, social, legal, financial equality. Why is that such a threatening concept?
Both men and women bring something equally valuable to the table. But, unfortunately, because men tend to be more dominant (one of those “differences”) women and their gifts and contributions have historically been devalued and women have been disenfranchised from full participation in society and the church and government. (just one example: women could not vote in this country until the 1920’s). Patriarchy is about male ownership, of their children and women. Women and children as chattel not full human beings.
Sad and strange how most people seem to recognize that a child benefits from the participation and love of both a Mother and a Father in their lives. How there’s something lacking when one or the other missing.
Yet our businesses, society, government dominated by male influences. It’s no accident that the most egalitarian societies are the most civilized and compassionate. Not because women are superior but because their participation and insights are solicted, welcomed, valued and implemented. That’s what Feminism is all about and both men and women and children benefit from women's full participation in "life."

[Teresa]

When I was a young girl in the '70's, The Feminist Movement never spoke of the value of men. The anthem I heard was: "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle," and that men were chauvinist pigs. I was inundated with a theme of "we're better off without men." My generation decided to shack-up, rather than marry, and create children outside of marriage. I know I'm now in the minority, but I believe that is not progress. I believe it destabilizes societies.