feminine-genius

Reaping the whirlwind

I believe that feminists have sown the wind, in their rejection of the traditional family, esteem for motherhood and collaboration with men. In that sense, having deconstructed so much of the societies in which they live, is there any wonder that they've found themselves filled with furious anger?

Like our love, women’s anger — the simmering rage toward our families, our mates and assorted males that can turn even the calmest woman’s expression into The Death Look — is always there. Even when it’s the last thing on our minds.

Wow. I can honestly say that I have no such simmering, pervasive rage, even on the worst days--nor does anyone I know. Perhaps something's very very wrong in the way they've ordered their lives? My take is at Catholic Lane.

The "work-life balance" myth

Suzanne Venker has posted a very good piece at NRO about why careers will naturally be negatively impacted by decisions that prioritise family. It's the nature of reality.

What we never talk about is where this feminist utopia [of balancing work and family] leaves employers. Employers can not — they must not — be responsible for helping parents manage their family lives. If employers can afford to offer part-time employment, fine. If they can afford to allow their employees to take off an endless string of days and still make money in the meantime, more power to ’em. But come on: such businesses are few and far between. Employers are in business to make money. They may be sympathetic to the The Problem, but they cannot solve it.

This piece is similar to what I found in her new book, The Flipside of Feminism. While I promised a review, I'm not usually in the habit of doing negative reviews (at least not for the "good guys"). The book was good -- as far as it went. It was hard-hitting, enjoyable and completely conservative, but also entirely secular. There was a thin veil of Protestant virtue about it, but that veil hasn't sufficed to keep the country on track thus far, and it wasn't enough to recommend the book (though as a gift to non-religious recovering feminists, it would be great).

We know how America is supposed to work, and we know what rules should govern the workplace. All of that was covered very well, but Catholics know that there's more to life than a secular work-life dichotomy, and that secular paradigm never attempts to factor in vocation, a family wage, the hidden cost of vice, and the priorities that faith demands, etc. Apart from realigning the public sphere along Godly principles (which isn't going to happen any time soon) we will have to settle for these secular guidelines -- while providing a witness for something transcendent in our own lives. A challenge, indeed, but this wasn't the book to help with that quest.

Two aging feminists

They may have burned their bras, but that didn't mean that they really wanted to go natural. Natural fibers, yes; natural aging, no. Organic food, yes; organic fertility, no. Shunning the conventions of the traditional family and a God-centered society certainly didn't mean shunning their own conventions once they were established -- and their own included as much sterile sex as possible with whomever they chose. The sexual revolution has hinged on the belief that intimacy need not lead to babies, nor should it be reserved for life-long marriage. Unfortunately, that premise has utterly changed the landscape in our world -- and not for the better.

Gloria Steinem has few regrets:

[She] wishes she’d “fought harder” for things she believed in. One of the choices she doesn’t regret, however, is not having had children.

“I was in Mumbai at a women’s center a few years ago, and they asked whether I regretted that,” says Steinem. “I thought, if I tell them the truth, I’ll lose them. But there was no point in lying, and so I said, ‘No, not for a millisecond’ – and they applauded. Because they don’t have the choice.”

I do commend her for fighting against female genital mutilation and for showing the dark side of Playboy's bunny ranches, but her advocacy for women obviously comes on her own terms, which is based on a zero-sum game. According to gender feminists, women can only succeed at the expense of their motherhood. That undermines both complementarity and healthy families.

Jane Fonda, another icon of empowered women, has made her own beautiful life of cosmetic surgery and artficial hormones -- so that she can still frolic with male friends despite her age:

In one of her most candid interviews, Fonda, 73, happily tells of taking the libido-boosting hormones and advises other women to try what is still a controversial treatment.

"Here's something I haven't said publicly yet: I discovered testosterone about three years ago, which makes a huge difference if you want to remain sexual and your libido has dropped," she says.

"Use testosterone. It comes in a gel, a pill or a patch."

But she adds: "I had to stop because it was giving me acne. It's one thing having plastic surgery, but it is quite another to have adolescence acne. That is going too far.'

Well, one must set some boundaries, I suppose. The trickle-down effect of examples like these is found all around us, in the promiscuity of youth, the broken families, the cohabitation (not only of the young, but with the parents of many children, who endure living with virtual strangers in their own homes). One might be confused by the seeming "good works" of Ms Steinem, who does go beyond herself to work on behalf of so many other women, but if you study the issues, her goal is singular: to free women from the shackles of culture, marriage, and children.

The heart of the difference is whether they advocate for persons or individuals. The former are social creatures integrated in a larger society, while the latter are atoms, floating freely and seeking their own goods. The Catholic message is always to remind us of the personhood of others, and through that prism to promote that which supports human dignity and a strong society. Ultimately, feminists have agitated for abortion, contraception, no-fault divorce, sexual license, micro-loans for women, and [many of them] for legalisation of prostitution. None of these things advance the dignity of the human person, nor do they strengthen relationships between men and women, and often they harm or kill children. But then, feminists don't think about the children, "no, not for a millisecond."

It's not over yet, and there is always time for repentance. God grant these two and their adoring fans the wisdom to see the truth about love, the rewards of selfless generosity, and the beauty of "man, fully alive."

"You'll have to ask a woman"

Talk about a major dodge. Timothy Geitner was either 1. aware of the predatory atmosphere around DSK and the IMF and did nothing; or 2. unaware of it, being incredibly obtuse. But remember? When he was nominated as Treasury Secretary, Obama insisted that he was so smart that we had to overlook his delinquent tax record. Here is that brilliance on display:

 

Simple courtesy. One learns manners as a form of charity, to be kind to others. Treating women with respect has historically been intrinsic to being a gentleman, but now knowing what women like and don't like is as mysterious to men as whether or not there's been life on Mars.

Is this the fault of women who send scrambled messages about what's appropriate, or is there a higher code, still embedded in the Good Ol' Boy network, that says randy men get a pass when they're successful--either at slaying woolly mammoths or dragging wimmen back to the cave. 

ADDENDUM: I just saw Matt Archbold's excellent comments --

It seems to me that this faux feminism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Here's the thing Timmy boy -a real man stands up for women when they need standing up for. I'm not saying a woman can't stand up for herself but a man turning a blind eye to a predator isn't a man. He's a coward.

The Swedish utopia -- aint.

 

Nothing shocking, but only a confirmation of what we instinctively know about family relationships and what makes children (and parents) thrive. Full article here, including this discouraging information:

Sweden has offered a comprehensive daycare system since 1975; since the early '90s, negative outcomes for children and adolescents are on the rise in areas of health and behaviour. While direct causation has been difficult to prove, many Swedish health-care professionals point to the lack of parent involvement beyond the first 16 months as a primary contributing factor. Psychosomatic disorders and mild psychological problems are escalating among Swedish youth at a faster rate than in any of 11 comparable European countries. Such disorders have tripled among girls over the last 25 years. Education outcomes in Swedish schools have fallen from the top position 30 years ago, to merely average amongst OECD nations today. Behaviour problems in Swedish classrooms are among the worst in Europe.

After some more Q & A's with Mr Himmelstrand, we discover this plaintive voice in the combox:

Thank you Mr. H for telling it as it is!!! Here's a newsflash from a grown-up child who was in F-T daycare her whole childhood: Being outsourced makes you feel unloved, like your parents want to get rid of you in order to do more interesting things than spending time with you. Even if your parents *say* they love you, their actions speak louder. Parents, ask your little children what they think about daycare. If they scream, ''Mommy, daddy, don't leave me! Don't go!'', listen to your children!!! You'll save them from real emotional scars that last all life long, and here's talking from experience.

A bundle of excuses

This man describes what he calls his "fall from grace:"

If you had said to me then that in a year's time I would be departing our impressive London home for a bedsit nearby, my marriage in ruins, I would have stared at you in disbelief. And now here I am, aged 44, out on my tod on Sunday February 14 2010, banished from my home, wifeless, making bleary-eyed contact with a dad tending to his two year-old at the next table while his partner bottle-feeds her infant brother. I feel a mixture of sadness, envy, embarrassment and utter remorse. It is all my fault.

My happiness that St Valentine's Day last year camouflaged a problem. I had begun an affair with another woman. It began as innocent flirting in the school playground, which evolved into popping around to her place for morning coffee.

He agrees that he was guilty of lust, but the analysis of what women's success in the workplace is very interesting.

There is a cultural revolution going on here. A generation of women have emerged who are not only brilliant at work but also run their homes in the same utterly efficient way that they run their businesses. The staff (husband/nanny) are given tasks they are expected to perform and their execution is constantly assessed. Men haven't adjusted to this change. They are not used to being monitored in the home, which was once a place where they could do what they wanted. They are in a sort of cultural limbo where they have relinquished one role (being the sole provider) but haven't properly replaced it with anything else. Work defines us. When men were dominant at work and at home, women found themselves having to kowtow to them and their self-esteem was slowly eroded. In many families the boot is now on the other foot.

He almost allows this to be an excuse for his bad behaviour (there is none) but he steps away from that conclusion. It did give a glimpse into a man's mind about shared parental responsibilities, but showed more than anything how little graciousness and good will there was about each little action for others. 

While he admits to his wife's utter humiliation by his affair, he misses completely (or ignores) what it does to his children beyond complicating their child care.

Rearing children is a bit like a round of golf. Lots of irritation and scuffling about in the rough, all the mess, constant disruption and the tantrums. But one drive down the middle – a cherubic face, a funny observation in the dentist's waiting room, a tickling session at bedtime – make it all compelling. It's far deeper and more fulfilling than the brief thrill from illicit passion. I knew that before. Now I really feel it.

He said it wasn't worth it, and perhaps it will stand as a cautionary tale. I imagine he'll be sowing this whirlwind for the rest of his life -- as will the poor children. 

GEARing up for disaster

For those who are wondering about the Beijing + 15 meetings taking place at th UN headquarters, Joan Robinson brings us the discoraging news (on your tax dime):

Going up to New York for the Beijing + 15 meeting at the U.N., I expected to be on the hunt for the hidden agenda behind dull, bureaucratic rhetoric. But attending the 54th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), I found that this year's radical feminist agenda was everywhere emblazoned onto lapels, laptop cases and hatbands. The printed slogans shouted a single message: GEAR UP!

GEAR is short for the Gender Architecture Reform Campaign, whose goal is to establish a new radical feminist superagency with a billion-dollar budget.

The superagency would consolidate four existing U.N. women's rights entities: UNIFEM, OSAGI, DAW, and IN-STRAW.1 Vaulting gender equality to the top of the U.N. agenda, this new agency would influence global policy, control funding, and run the UN global, national and regional women's programs.

On the opening day of this CSW, lesbian activist Charlotte Bunch and her collaborators held a GEAR campaign rally, making absolutely clear that the chief goals of the new U.N. superagency would be (1) the eradication of traditional genders and (2) the universal use of reproductive health care, which is to say, the family planning package of abortion, sex education, contraception and sterilization.

Executives from the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) were in closed-door meetings with Denmark as the conference progressed, strategizing on how to promote the superagency. IPPF is a leading member of the GEAR campaign, perhaps because it sees that the new agency's abortion and reproductive health programs would pour hundreds of millions of dollars into IPPF's pockets. Denmark is among the states that are backing it.

GEAR campaigners at the CSW have already garnered the support of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon for the establishment of their new “hybrid” agency devoted to gender equality and women's empowerment. The Obama administration, Mary Robinson—the former President of Ireland—and Spain's Prime Minister José Zapatero are among other open GEAR supporters. They point to General Assembly Resolution 63/311, passed last fall, which calls for “strengthening the institutional arrangements for support of gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

Endnote

1. UNIFEM (UN Development Fund for Women), OSAGI (Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues), DAW (Division for the Advancement of Women), and IN-STRAW (International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women).

Sadly enough, women around the world who simply want to survive childbirth and to see their children ahve a sporting chance in life will be subject to this inane project. The good news is that very countries that are too poor to help their own citizens are unlikely to sign onto this expensive project in place of structural reforms, and there is a significant pro-life, pro-family block in place in South America to slow its progress there.

This year will make or break the initiative. If the radical feminists do not get nearly unified support for GEAR at the current CSW, at the upcoming ministerial meeting, and from the various nations of the world before the next U.N. General Assembly in September of this year, then IPPF's vigorous push for a superagency may well fail.

Still, what the UN imagines in its own pipe dreams have a sneaky way of finding their way into the lesson plans of the NEA minions in the public schools. Pray for many to have the courage to say no, and to build on the "male and female He made them" construct of the Judeo-Christian truth. The battle continues at a furious pace, and millions of lives are at stake.

My Sister in Christ (I think)

I didn't have the heart to dig into this, but thankfully Father Z has ably parsed the silliness in Sister Joan Chittister's latest column on Mary Daly (RIP).

I had my fill a couple years back in reviewing one of Sister Joan's books, which she wrote as a primer on embracing the beauty of old age. 

What is "aging well," according to Sister Joan? Examples are sprinkled throughout almost every chapter, as she reminds the elderly of their responsibility to be "funny, silly and irresponsible," to stroll and "explore small boutiques, meet new people." Old age, she confides, brings with it a "giddy sense of possibility," and after having "suppressed" our thoughts for so long (she wrote that, evidently, with all seriousness), we are now obliged to do one "outrageous" thing a week, to live impetuously, "with an edge, with strength, and with abandon."

As Rush would say, I read this stuff so you don't have to. Mature Christians would wince at the adolescent hubris of such a view. That she can compare Mary Daly to the Virgin Mary is only icing on the cake.

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.