feminine-genius

From a dedicated gender feminist

This will surprise very few of you:

Now that I am at home with [my children] my style has relaxed quite a bit.  I spend most days in shorts and a t-shirt because it is comfortable and suits my lifestyle.  I recently ordered a summer skirt from e-bay.  I love long flowing skirts but have not actually bought one in a long time.  Each time they see me wearing it, their eyes get as big as saucers and they are both quick to tell me how pretty I look. The baby in particular loves it when I wear anything pink.

Though we have tried to raise the boys in a gender neutral manner, they have still internalized many ideas about what it means to be male or female.  This can materialize in their chants of penis power, or telling me how much they love it when I wear “girl clothes”.  We have tried to impart the idea that there is nothing inherently female about a beautiful blouse or a skirt but it’s not like the unhusband is going to put one on to reiterate the point. [snip]

As we parent, even in the most aware households, we actively teach gender.  For my boys, pink and long flowing skirts represent femininity.  As their mother and female role model, it is comforting to them, to see me perform womanhood as they have seen in the media and their interactions with the outside world. 

No matter how we try to disturb gender roles in our home, they have been indoctrinated like everyone else.  I have come to understand that one cannot completely erase the concept of gender because we all perform it in various ways.  Perhaps, what is more important is thinking critically about the limitations we impose because of our understanding of gender. Realizing that though we are trained to believe that some acts are inherently female may not necessarily be bad as long as we understand that these are equally important to that which we consider inherently male. This does to some degree mean embracing an essentialist view of gender, however; I am not sure at this point, that there is any other way to negotiate it differently for young children.

Now, I would argue that the "indoctrination" that she bewails is actually a form of hard-wiring. I would even suggest that, despite her efforts to the contrary, she's hard-wired to melt a little at her children's delight in her beauty. That is why the last couple of sentences -- I submit -- are very different than what she thought or would have written pre-children. (I have no way of knowing, 'tis true.) My guess is the "femininity is a social construct has melted a little into "femininity is equally important" -- about which we would agree.

[I'm not providing link because I don't want to start a cat fight; I just want you to know what cultures are created in other homes, for kids to deal with.]

UPDATE: Now that I've wandered about a bit with this post in my head, another thought occurs to me. There is a similarity between these gender feminists and Christians -- both try to deconstruct the popular culture. While we remind our children at every turn that the materialism and pan-sexuality that they see in movies, hear about in their music and follow in the tabloids isn't God's will for His children, the gender feminists are telling their children that male and female are not what they appear to be. While we don't want our children to bring home confused notions about lust, other parents are more worried that their children might think that dresses are for girls. We're both swimming upstream, but two different rivers. At least I get a sense of their level of frustration.

A view from the outside

If you can handle serious vulgarity then you might try these links -- but consider yourself duly warned. In following feminist blogs, one must steel herself for astonishingly gutteral images and expressions -- I cannot do it in large doses. That said, I do regularly follow these blogs mentioned because I'm sincerely perplexed by radical feminists and their world view(s).

So here we have a perplexing mix of commentary on Sarah Palin which both defends her and simultaneously trashes Christianity. Violet's point is that feminists should like her despite her Christian and pro-life beliefs, never for a moment stopping to imagine that Christianity might naturally lead to a dignified view of women. A snippet:

When I first started investigating Palin, I was very relieved to discover that she’s not nearly as nutty as she might be, given that she’s a Christian. I was pleased to learn that she’s not one of those fundies who thinks wives have to submit or that Adam and Eve rode on dinosaurs. She’s not into that whacked-out purity or abstinence-only stuff. That’s good. It’s good that she’s not a nutjob. So…why aren’t other feminists also happy that she’s not a nutjob? Why do they, in fact, spread lies to make her seem worse than she is?

Are people simply confused about the differences between Christians? Do they think all Christians are alike? I doubt it. I’m no godbag and I personally wish that Christianity would evaporate from the face of the earth, but I still recognize that not all Christians are alike. I think most other people do, too. I think most people in this country understand that Tennessee snake handlers don’t go to Catholic mass, and that the Quiverfull people are not the same as the Episcopalians. Being a Christian, even a conservative Christian, doesn’t automatically mean you’re a young earth creationist in a calico dress with a purity ring on your finger.

Besides, I know for a fact that the feminists spreading the lies about Palin knew they were spreading lies. Not to tell tales out of school, but: they knew. They were supplied with the correct information, and they chose to lie anyway. Why?

So here we have a significant crack in the liberal front -- a fissure that takes note that one element is lying to another. Now, the "girls shouldn't trash other girls with lies" isn't a Christian concept -- we'd rather say "people shouldn't trash people with lies" but then we rely on Universal Charity rather than a Benighted Sisterhood, but it's a start.

The revelation that there are different strands of Christianity is another good start, although watered-down feel-good pap packaged as Christianity is the only palatable form to these feminists. Since Christianity isn't going to "evaporate from the face of the earth," these sorts of anti-patriarchal feminists are never going to be completely happy, but they are looking for ways to make peace.

To understand all of these rants and tears, one must understand that patriarchy is the arch-enemy of those who are sumbersed in lies. Feminists, environmentalists, abortionists, sexual utilitarians, gender police, Marxists, Wiccans, radical Islamicists, etc. Each is coming from a different angle, but they all end up beating their fists at the reality that is our just but loving Father-God. Their fundamental lie is to confuse what fatherhood is and, by proxy, to stuff God down the memory hole as the fundamental abusive experience. YKW is stirring the pot everywhere and the tide is washing over swaths of people who can only suffer grievously the loss.

Back to our honest feminist:

Think back to the reactions to Sarah Palin’s speech at the convention...I can honestly say that, aside from Nixon’s resignation speech, Sarah Palin’s address at the convention is the only Republican speech I have ever enjoyed. Or even been much interested in. I don’t agree with Republicans on politics — not by a long shot — but as a person, I found Palin charming in a Harry Truman, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, Erin Brockovich kind of way. How could you not? Especially after the goons had spent the previous weekend in a misogyny fest of lurid speculation and grotesque sexual insults about her and her family. I was proud of her for her courage, as well as for her personal accomplishments as a working-class regular person who went into politics and succeeded.

Her speech also delivered some welcome punctures to the national gasbag known as Obama. And that’s another thing: it has not escaped my attention that many of the things Palin is accused of, falsely, are actually true of Obama. This is a guy who, as a U.S. senator from Illinois, didn’t even know which Senate committees he was on or which states bordered his own. (And don’t even get me started on Joe “The Talking Donkey” Biden, who thinks FDR was president during the stock market crash and that people watched TV in those days.) I’m not saying Obama’s a moron, but he’s sure as hell no genius. People say Sarah Palin rambles; excuse me, but have you actually heard Obama speak extemporaneously? As for being a diva, surely we all remember the Possomus sign and the special embroidered pillow on the Obama campaign plane. The fact is, Obama is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with a thin resume who’s lost without a teleprompter and whose entire campaign had all the substance and gravity of a Pepsi commercial. Yet people say Sarah Palin is a fluffy bunny diva.

So: are we back to Obama after all? Is this a transference thing? Are people subconsciously frustrated by the fact that Obama is an empty suit, and are they transferring that rage to Palin? One plausible explanation: Sarah Palin is the Designated Hate Receptacle for self-described feminists. They know they’re not supposed to hate other women, but they do anyway because their feminism is not quite as strong as their patriarchal brainwashing. Sarah Palin is the culture’s designated Hate Receptacle.

So there is a "patriarchal brainwashing?" You bet. Is this displaced hatred? I still don't think so. It's a good explanation, but mine has always been different. Given that there is an Anti-Patriarchy Gene Gone Wild, I still say that her cheerful and effective collaboration with her husband is the source of the hatred. Yes, she's pro-life, yes she's Christian, but at the heart of it, she's never signed onto the "zero-sum" game that says feminist dreams have to be realised over the corpses of happy marriages and children. Nor does she sign onto the fear that the differences between men and women are toxic constructs that have to be obliterated (pace: Twisty). She's done it in a Christian mold which brings the whole [traditional] family forward, considering the needs of all -- mother included.

So if you're still with me (and poked around a bit) you see how Christianity (and patriarchy) are viewed from other camps. Carry on in faith and do what you can in your own small way to counter the lies with truths, and show how the dignity of all is found in Christ.

Whither scouting?

A very good piece was put on World Net Daily last week, concerning the newer influences on Girl Scouts which have less to do with first aid and tying bolands and more to do with sociological trends that should alarm some parents:

When many parents think of Girl Scouts, they imagine young girls in uniform selling Thin Mints and Tagalong cookies – not learning about stone labyrinths, world peace, global warming, yoga, avatars, smudging incense, Zen gardens and feminist, communist and lesbian role models. But that's exactly what many of 2.7 million Girl Scouts will learn about with a new curriculum called "Journeys" released last year.

Well, the institution is simply mirroring the popular culture, which is how they stay relevant and inviting to the next generation, right? The author, Chelsea Schilling has done a lot of digging and it becomes clear that there is less mirroring than mentoring, as usual, and the guiding lights are not looking to forward the cause of motherhood and apple pie.

Her most important details concern those who are promoted as role models, the bulk of whom would gladly separate intimacy from traditional marriage -- meaning radical feminists and lesbians. They are offered the likes of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn (communist, feminist), Simone de Beauvoir (sexual liberationist), Rigoberta Menchu (Marxist), and then Billie Jean King, Ethel Mary Smyth, Frances Perkins, Rachel Carson, Barbara Jordan, Martina Navratilova, Shirley Chisolm, Dolores Huerta and Bette Midler (all lesbians themselves or activists for "homosexual" rights).

Remember, the key tie between Marxist/Communism is the belief that the next level of the dialectic is the male-female struggle that leads to the androgynous or pan-sexual panacea. Patriotism (which is fatally tinged with patriarchy, doncha know?) has been replaced with a squishy love for the World (more likely than not with goddess overtones) and men are scarce, save for Kofi Annan (long-since disgraced for his financial irregularities at the UN, but touted no doubt for his global perspective).

An alternative is offered: The American Heritage Girls. Worth considering if your daughters are interested.

Some honest questions

Christine Hoff Summers offers the feminist gains in a nutshell -- with women closing ranks and surpassing men in education and job proficiency (without mentioning, of course, the bazillion babies sacrificed in the process). She then asks some honest questions:

In Friedan's day, women were clearly the second sex. Not so today. Yes, many women are struggling with the challenge of combining family and work. But men do not have it easy either. They are increasingly less educated than women. They are bearing the brunt of the recession. The New York Times recently reported that "a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men." Reuters referred to the surging male unemployment rate as a "blood bath." Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's "FastStats" show that men are less likely than women to be insured—and more likely to drink, smoke, and be overweight. They also die six years earlier than women on average.

Why are there no conferences, petitions, workshops, congressional hearings, or presidential councils to help men close the education gap, the health care gap, the insurance gap, the job-loss gap, and the death gap? Because, unlike women, men do not have hundreds of men's studies departments, research institutes, policy centers, and lobby groups working tirelessly to promote their challenges as political causes.

I don't think those conferences will be booked any time soon, because feminists don't give a fig about the demise of men. For them, life has been a zero sum game and they've finally gotten to the top of the hill. Tough luck to those whose flag has been supplanted.

Interestingly, she makes clear that the feminists are still gnashing their teeth over their inability to "re-engineer" women completely -- that maternal instinct keeps messing with the statistics.

This is peace?

A shocking story out of New Guinea:

The Papua New Guinea jungle has given up one of its darkest secrets - the systematic slaughter of every male baby born in two villages to prevent future tribal clashes.

By virtually wiping out the 'male stock', tribal women hope they can avoid deadly bow-and-arrow wars between the villages in the future.

'Babies grow into men and men turn into warriors,' said Rona Luke, a village wife who is attending a special 'peace and reconciliation' meeting in the mountain village of Goroka.

The women now are torn with guilt and mourning. Their effort at "peace" was only war through another means. It's vaguely reminiscent of "every child a wanted child," which didn't lead to an expanded embrace for all children, but simply killed the ones who weren't "wanted." In this way, we will kill those who threaten to be killers, which makes the mothers every bit as heinous as the worst warriers.

Worse, because they killed the newborn innocents, while the men chose to engage each other in battle. Now how they plan to reproduce themselves in the coming decades is not explained. Sorcery, which is blamed for the violence, would indeed explain the complete loss of common sense in this matter.

Interestingly, this same philosophy is fleshed out in women's studies programs across the US. Women routinely teach that war is a product of patriarchy, and if we can just feminise the men, we'll all live happily ever after. The same eventual extinction comes, not as a result of killing the men, but simply castrating the women. And they choose it freely.

The Furies Unleashed

Miranda Divine has a very good piece in the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) which reveals the "weird, visceral rage" and "entrenched psychic pain" of women who despise Sarah Palin. [Not for those offended by vile and graphic insults.] She brings out two images in particular that are excellent:

There is an echo of bitchy high-school jealousy of the popular queen bee from the snarling, self-mutilating nerd and goths who vainly lusted after the cute boys she snared. The consolation for the losers is that homecoming queens are meant to get married, get pregnant, get fat and lose their looks so the self-made strugglers such as Bernhard and Madonna can patronise them at school reunions. Palin, by having it all, has cheated. Not only was she Miss Wasilla 1984, but she married her childhood sweetheart, Todd Palin, kept her figure, had five attractive, seemingly well-adjusted children and was successful in her career.

The second image is that attached to her faith:

Abortion is the emotional peg on which Palin-haters hang their hatreds and justify their intemperance. The touchstone issue which makes both sides hyperventilate has become such a bedrock article of faith for establishment feminists that they question it as little as their born-again Christian nemeses question the existence of God.

Even in light of medical advances in foetal surgery, premature baby medical care and prenatal imaging, it is unthinkable that progressive women would rethink abortion, even late-term abortion. For them "choice" is not about choice at all, which is why Palin is such a threat.

What follows is the sad tale of Australia caving to feminist demands for greater access to abortion, because, in the words of one legislator:

"I don't want to cop their wrath … They can be vicious" ...  The Victorian MP Christine Campbell, one of the few Labor women who voted against the abortion bill, identified hostility at the time from "a lot of women in the Labor Party who have personally had abortions and don't want to feel they are criminals."

So we can create a profile of "women against Sarah" as being mean-spirited, jealous, vindictive, vulgar, promiscuous, contemptuous of faith, myopic, selfish, wrathful and capable of malicious threats against those who disagree. Is there anything attractive in that? Is that the model of womanhood which is to be allowed ascendency? Could the family survive with such women at their heart? Is this the model we want for our daughters? Are these the ones we hope our sons marry? Will these women drive legislation by means of threats?

The problem is that the Sarah's of the world cannot do it alone. There must be confident men to collaborate with them and to refuse to be bullied by the harpies. That's why good women must support good men, and not contribute to their emasculation. Both are necessary to restore a culture of love and life; both are diminished by failure in this essential task.

Understanding the invective

I've tried to nail down the animus against Sarah Palin, which runs deeper than simply a disagreement with her pro-life stance. A snippet:

Sarah Palin has forced their hand for two reasons: she allows her children to live and she collaborates with men. While neither is conducive to the NOW worldview, the first is an irrititant, the second is the real outrage. As the nation struggles to understand how feminists could possibly not appreciate this example of hard work, courage, balance and brains, we are invited to look beyond feminism into the back rooms of strange bedfellows. [Read complete article here.]

Along those same lines, here's an interesting exchange on FoxNews between Greta van Susteren and Cathy Young of Reason Magazine. Cathy recently had this piece in the Wall Street Journal which underscores my point made on the Catholic Exchange piece above.

This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New Republic⁴. Mrs. Palin admits to having "an incredible support system -- a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career . . . and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles." Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers.

Mrs. Palin's marriage actually makes her a terrific role model. One of the best choices a woman can make if she wants a career and a family is to pick a partner who will be able to take on equal or primary responsibility for child-rearing. Our culture still harbors a lingering perception that such men are less than manly -- and who better to smash that stereotype than "First Dude" Todd Palin?

Nevertheless, when Sarah Palin offered a tribute to her husband in her Republican National Convention speech, New York Times columnist Judith Warner read this⁵ as a message that she is "subordinate to a great man." Perhaps the message was a brilliant reversal of the old saw that behind every man is a great woman: Here, the great woman is out in front and the great man provides the support. Isn't that real feminism?

Not to Ms. Marsh, who insists that feminism must demand support for women from the government. In this worldview, advocating more federal subsidies for institutional day care is pro-woman; advocating tax breaks or regulatory reform that would help home-based care providers -- preferred by most working parents -- is not.

Reviving Betty Friedan

Christina Hoff Sommers has an interesting piece in the NYSun which takes another look at The Feminine Mystique. She makes some excellent points about the manifesto that still has enormous traction today:

[Friedan's] essential point was both down-to-earth and true: Postwar America had taken the ideal of femininity to absurd extremes. Women in the '50s were encouraged to be childlike, passive, dependent, and "fluffy" (Friedan's word). Popular magazines carried stories with titles such as "Do Women Have to Talk So Much?", "Femininity Begins at Home," and "Why GIs Prefer Those German Girls." Adlai Stevenson, the liberal politician and diplomat, condescendingly advised the Smith College graduating class of 1955 that it was their destiny to participate in politics and world affairs through their roles as wives and mothers. "Women," he said, "especially educated women, have a unique opportunity to influence us, boy and man." The Freudian analyst Marynia Farnham and her co-author Ferdinand Lundberg warned women against the dangers of careers and education: "The more educated the woman is, the greater chance there is of sexual disorder." Helene Deutsch, another esteemed Freudian, told women there was a price to be paid for too much education: "Woman's intellectuality is to a large extent paid for by the loss of valuable feminine qualities ... the intellectual woman is masculinized: her warm intuitive knowledge has yielded to cold unproductive thinking."

Consider the labour-saving devices that changed the lives of home-makers forever. Consider the isolation of suburbia combined with the lack of value placed on the "deeper" things. Consider how many aspired to a single-income household as a sign of affluence. Consider the conformity to which most clung for the sake of human respect rather than virtue. Consider the mass media which peddled "new," "improved," sleek," "shiny," and "modern" as best, deriding the wisdom of the ages, the scars of real life, or the profound lessons in the Book of Job.

Excuse that generation of feminists for thinking that Tinseltown and Madison Avenue had little regard for the real gifts of women. We'll have to take Sommer's word for it that Friedan regretted her disdain for the housewife, but let it be known that the Church has always seen women as Icons of Daughter Sion who happen to create order and beauty as by-products of their authentic vocation. Without a theology to liberate us and give meaning to the incarnate world, polyester and plastic are enough to make anyone revolt!

Images [respectfully!] borrowed from Cathy.

How about Harvey?

I'm liking what Harvey Mansfield says here, and I would hazard a guess that many men are nodding as they read his recent words in Forbes. (Those men who aren't frantically distracted by, oh, bankruptcy details on the other pages). He points to Sarah Palin's support for the man she calls, "my guy," her dear Todd. Then he goes to the root of feminism, which wasn't "equality of the sexes," but androgyny.

The early feminists were radicals inspired by Simone de Beauvoir, who thought it necessary to show that all sex differences were bourgeois conventions or stereotypes. They would show this not so much in regard to careers as in sex itself. They bought into the sexual revolution and decided that women could best show they are equal to men by becoming as predatory as the most wolfish men. This demonstration required the fallback assistance of ready abortion in case something should go wrong; and it gave new legitimacy to--this word is never used--spinsterhood. Single-parent families also gained respectability as women pressed their husbands with newly justifiable equality grievances, often leading to divorce.

As sex goes up in social estimation, love goes down. The trouble with love is that it narrows your options and endangers your independence. If you loved a man, you might actually want to put up with, or even admire, his ways. You may be sure that I am not the first one to notice that feminist women are unerotic.

He's dangerously close to my pet theme. This isn't about motherhood, but fatherhood. Stay tuned.

NOW's true colours

Dorinda Bradlee has an excellent piece at NRO this morning, showing the double standard that NOW exercises in its "support" of women.

As the chair of NOW's political action committee has explained, “I am frequently asked whether NOW supports women candidates just because they are women. This gives me an opportunity to once again answer that question with an emphatic 'No.' We recognize the importance of having women's rights supporters at every level but, like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women's rights.”

I’m just guessing, but it would probably be fair to speculate that when NOW says that Sarah Palin does not support “women’s rights,” they must be referring solely to unfettered abortion rights. After all, no one seems to be challenging Palin’s commitment to women’s rights to fair treatment in the workplace (even in the highest levels of government as well as in the media where she served as a sportscaster). No one seems to challenge Palin’s support of women’s right to vote, women’s rights to resources for their special needs children, or even women’s rights to join traditionally male establishments like worker’s unions and hunting lodges (not to mention the White House).

Women's rights = one over-riding right: the right to jettison motherhood wherever it mistakenly lands, which subsumes into it the right to sacrifice the unborn for the right of the mother to be sexually available without consequences, and the right to disparage men as sub-human trouble-makers. Link this piece to the vile offerings of Canada's government-funded-man-hater, Heather Mallick, and you'll see that the hatred towards motherhood is only trumped by hatred of those who make motherhood possible:

It’s possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she’s a woman. I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys will be guys, obviously.

More bile here, though go with my warning that you don't want to be there. The hatred includes everyone who finds the family a legitimate institution in which to love, laugh, forgive and find a home. What has caused these women to hate love so roundly? What has hurt them to the degree that they go red at the sight of familial affection? What will ever draw them to see men as collaborators in this exile -- as images of the true Father's love.

The prince of darkness has cast a pall over all that is good, and our own sacrifices must be offered to break it. Never, never give them an inch of power over us, but never fail to respond to their aspersions with love. It alone heals all wounds.