Well, this is maddening, and yet, at the same time I wonder if it’s even worth it to take this woman seriously as she just sounds bitter and stupid:
I have to admit that when I meet a woman who I know is a graduate of, say, Princeton — one who has read The Second Sex and therefore ought to know better — but is still a full-time wife, I feel betrayed. I’m not much of a moralist — I have absolutely no right to be — but in the interest of doing what’s right both for me personally and for women generally, I have been strict with myself about earning my keep. For the longest time I would not date anyone who would now be called a one-percenter because money and power are such a potent combination, and if I am going to be bossed around, I don’t want that to be the reason. When it’s come up, I have chosen not to get married. Over and over again, I have opted for my integrity and independence over what was easy or obvious. And I am happy. I don’t want everyone to live like me, but I do expect educated and able-bodied women to be holding their own in the world of work.
Her whole diatribe reminds me of something Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand said in her book The Privilege of Being a Woman:
Unwittingly, the feminists acknowledge the superiority of the male sex by wishing to become like men. They foolishly want to alter inequality rather than to achieve truth or justice. Femininity is a linchpin of human life; once it is uprooted, the consequences are disastrous.
You see, the problem with radical feminists like Ms. Wurtzel is not so much that they hate men, but that they hate women or, at least they dislike the chief feminine characteristics. That women have been mistreated and considered less than men throughout history cannot be denied. But the modern feminist response has not been one that, I think, has been a great benefit to women or society as a whole. Instead of building women up, their goal seems to be the destruction of authentic woman-hood altogether.
I mean, can someone please explain to me why it is a “war on women” to not want to provide them with something that suppresses the very thing which makes one a woman? Should it not rather be the other way around — that convincing women that they need this kind of poison is the real war on women (a phrase I’m starting to get equally as sick of hearing)?
And then there’s this: Women are more unhappy, despite 40 years of feminism.
I am by no means saying women should never work. But, when young women are encouraged to think about their future and what they want to do with their life, being a wife and mother is never anywhere near the top of the list (neither, it goes without saying, is dedicating one’s life to Christ as a consecrated religious).
Quoting MJ, whose video “Careers vs. Baby Making” I posted here a few weeks ago, “If you’re not a bulldog about your career and that’s not your thing, it’s almost like you’re marginalized.” Indeed. Which reminds me…
This weekend, my local paper highlighted all of the Pensacola area’s high school valedictorians. Out of 15 valedictorians, 11 of them were female. When asked to complete the sentence “in ten years I expect to…” ten of them answered that they wanted to be finishing grad school and starting various careers (lawyer, doctor, physical therapist, orthodontist, etc…) with no mention of marriage or children. One girl, however, actually said that she wanted to “be married and starting a family. I really have no idea what career field I want to go into yet.” Ick! Splitter! What a waste of brains, amiright?
I do have to say, though, I agree with Wurtzel’s final point (which I’ve expressed here before) – while parenting certainly involves a lot of hard work, being a mother, or a father, for that matter, is not a “job.” It is much, much more than that. It’s a vocation. It’s who someone is. They don’t get paid for it and there’s certainly no “quitting time.”
Also recommended: The Bride Who Was Groomed for a Career.
3 Comments on “How Modern Feminists Acknowledge the Superiority of Men”
It’s one of those ironies. For a small percent of well-educated, well-placed women, the answer to “what is the best use of my time?” sometimes is to delegate some of the child-rearing work, in order to run a kingdom, defend the castle and everyone in it. For any woman, the answer could be to set aside motherhood altogether and answer a call to a life devoted to Christian ministry.
But the thing is the feminist movement arose from bored middle-class women finding suburban life tiresome and isolated — for lack of real work to do in providing for and tending to their families. But the result has not been legions of woman finding fulfillment in meaningful work. It has been legions of women abandoned to support themselves and their children in dead-end, monotonous, barely-pays-the-bills-if-that drudge work.
Meanwhile, wealthy women, instead of lifting a finger to defend or assist the poor, bicker over whether it’s okay to break ranks from the the boring, monotonous, power-obsessed world of business and finance and law in order to do something fun, interesting, and what you really wanted to do anyway, if you’re that kind of girl.
(Um, that’s just one giant ditto, Chelsea. :-).
What if Fox news (or EWTN)got Ms. Wurtzel and Dr. Alice on a panel together for a debate-that would be hilarious!! There’s nothing funnier than when stupid people find out that they are stupid!!!
@Jennifer, I agree with your overall evaluation, but I disagree that the feminist movement arose from “bored middle-class women finding suburban life tiresome and isolated.”
Here’s my theory:
There have always been people who measured a person’s worth *solely* by how much money he (or she) takes in. Such people may actually be stealing every penny of it, or otherwise contributing nothing to the nation’s wealth, but they’re doing it legally, and what’s really important is that they’re smart enough and enterprising enough to make that money.
Conversely, anyone who is either too stupid or too lazy (yes, people working hard for long hours are seen as “lazy” because they’re not making money) to do the same thing deserves whatever miserable lot in life they end up with.
In other words, to them people who make money are “productive,” and deserve respect, while people who do not make money are “non-productive,” and deserve no respect.
Children, of course, are seen as the worst offenders in this regard, since they not only make no money but actually consume a good deal of it. Women, then, would of course be in a category right alongside children, since (before the advent of modern feminism) they would not only spend a lot of time with the “worthless” little things, but actually seemed to like doing so.
Modern feminism, then, is more-or-less a complete captiulation to this mentality and value system.