Feminism isn't dead, but a new book wounds it badly

Jewish World Review ^ | Jan. 13, 2006 | Mona Charen

[rhema]

Some women protest, "I'm a feminist, just not a radical feminist." Kate O'Beirne is impatient with such qualifications. She is not any kind of feminist, and when you finish her sparkling new book "Women Who Make the World Worse," you won't be one either.

Feminism, far from promoting the happiness and well-being of women and society, has instead left great swaths of melancholy in its wake. O'Beirne cites "One large study of well-being data on one hundred thousand Americans and Britons from the early 1970s to the late 1990s found that while American men had grown happier, women's well-being had dramatically fallen during the period . . . women were 20 percent less happy."

The so-called "women's movement" was and is a misnomer. Most women reject the anti-male, anti-family bias of the professional feminists. But a dedicated cohort of humorless, bitter, crusading women — mostly from miserable families — was able to dictate policy in some of the most important realms of life.

Feminists now claim that they were never against marriage and family. But O'Beirne has kept the quotes in her files. In 1971, Ms. Magazine founder Robin Morgan called marriage "a slavery-like practice," adding that "We cannot destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Australian feminist guru Germaine Greer recommended that all women leave their husbands in search of more satisfying "rambling organic structures" (sounds vaguely unhygienic). And Jessie Bernard, a Pennsylvania State University sociologist, asserted that the "destructive nature" of marriage was both figuratively and literally making women sick.

Strangely, while feminists were burning with indignation toward men, they also enthusiastically endorsed promiscuity. O'Beirne quotes Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon, who notes that early feminists who sought the vote and other rights "saw that the ready availability of abortion

[GermanBusiness]

By the way...a whole pile of left wingers has polluted the Amazon comments section over the past 24 hours. They reverse "freeped" Amazon.

Any of you with Amazon accounts, please comment. The link is above in the article.

My problem with the comments are 1) that none of them have read the book and 2) most of them bring their opposition to the Iraq War into the picture as usual.

I wouldn't mind negative comments that came from actually reading the book and staying on subject. I already stated above that I disagree with two premises stated in the article about the book...it is possible that this book can be ripped apart on its merits/demerits. But I will have to READ it first.

[pettifogger]

Oh, my. That last one is a doozy.

Gotta love that Mel.

[BibChr]

I am not listening that closely....

Typical.

(c;

[GermanBusiness]

[The common factor with both is that the males (each child has a different father, a total of 4) had their fun and left.]

I could list a dozen major bad things about "feminism", but I never saw "feminism" as encouraging men not to take responsibility for children and/or not to pay child support.

Still, I know where you are coming from. You are saying that "nihilism" among many male individuals has resulted from the "sexual revolution."

But there are still many responsible single conservative males who would give the Democrats 100 Senators and a Democrat President before they allowed anyone to try to re-institutionalize a distaste for premarital sex in American society. It is a red line that no Republican politician ever wants to cross. The single male vote is huge. One shouldn't mess with it.

[agere_contra]

I have freeped all 112 reviews. 90% of them are astonishingly shrill: the 11 or so sensible ones stand out.

[Chanticleer]

Good morning, Ladies.

Your thoughts?

[GermanBusiness]

[I have freeped all 112 reviews. 90% of them are astonishingly shrill: the 11 or so sensible ones stand out.]

That is true. To read the left wing comments on this book...is to get a great picture of where feminism is in today's America: socialist, against Iraqi freedom as a priority, against the idea of actually reading things they might not agree with.

[Alia]

Sadly, the feminists who claimed to want open minds to OPEN the doors of jobs and education; are the same feminists who can't abide anyone having views not in lockstep with their own. Feminists have become what they said they hated: Oppressive, dictatorial, tyrannical, bigots.

[LRS]

Feminism has won the right for women to be a obnoxious as men. Some victory...

[Chanticleer]

The liberals got some things right: the weekend, child labor laws, women being able to ask men out for coffee.

I don't know if I'm ready to give credit for these things to liberals. The weekend -- don't know the history, but the Sabbath rest was God's idea.

Women asking men out for coffee -- history shows that women have been pretty adept at this sort of thing. In some eras, women could be pretty open about it. In others, they might have to make the man think it was his idea. Either way, we usually accomplish our purpose -- whether through bold conversation, wit, beauty, guile or good cooking!

As for child labor, I think we've perhaps overdone it with the laws. I'm not saying I support labor for very young children, sweat shops, or parents using children to support them in their laziness. But my father worked various jobs from the age of 12, and he did help to support his widowed mother and large family. I believe it built tremendous strength, character and common sense in him.

By contrast, my 17-year old son and many of his contemporaries believe everything should be given to them. We had to force our son to get a job. (Weeks before his 17th birthday, he accused us of forcing him to grow up too quickly! He's 6'7", making his statement even more comical.) He is prevented by law from working during traditional school hours, even though his particular educational schedule leaves him open during some of these hours. (We're looking into applying for permission.) But in the few weeks he has been working, I've seen tremendous improvement in his attitude.

[catroina54]

"I could list a dozen major bad things about "feminism", but I never saw "feminism" as encouraging men not to take responsibility for children and/or not to pay child support. "

their promotion of promiscuity,contraception-"reproductive freedom "and belief that men are not necessary in raising children--released men from responsibility .

[RSmithOpt]

God Bless you for your compassionate efforts and I hope the young women turn out well. Funny thing happened the last 25 years:

A lot of women (for some reason) have turned blue in the face trying to shun men while trying to be more like a man, however, God didn't make us that way. Also, on the other hand, a lot of men have become more like spoiled defenseless oversensitive little brats that refuse the concepts of responsibility, integrity, old-fashioned chivalry, courtesy, compassion, self-sacrifice, etc., in vain attempt to do something called 'getting in touch with their feminine side".

I see it as a fiasco from a social standpoint.

Don't get me wrong, there are many many women (single moms too) that are so together with their positions in life, that many men cannot stand in the same sun with them. Sadly, a whole passel of young boys have been raised without fathers and have not had that physical role model as to what being a real man is......it ties with the concepts above.

Overall, thank God for women and their inherent emotional strengths and instincts, even though, sometimes they can be a real pain in the butt. ;)

[GermanBusiness]

[As for child labor, I think we've perhaps overdone it with the laws.]

Oh yes, you're right! I forgot about that. The liberals did take this issue too far (as they do with everything).

Here in Germany my best friend's kids were a fantastic Brady Bunch type band called "Fresh Paint." They flashed on the scene 8 years ago with a major hit. They could have been the German Partridge Family.

But Child Labor Laws in Germany put them out of business right quick. The proceeds from their one hit will trickle in as pocket change for the rest of their lives now. But the proceeds they could have earned from getting 9 or 10 hits during their teenage years...could have given them all more than just pocket money to enjoy their adult lives with (and to raise their own children with).

The liberals always go too far. And, yes, even with their concepts of sex, as seen in "Sex in the City."

[GreenAccord]

A number of left wingers just hit the Amazon site today and started disparaging the book WITHOUT READING IT...which is typical for liberals.

I meandered on over to Amazon and indeed, 100+ reviews, all in the last day, with 1 star and a few lines of hate. Interestingly, many of the reviews have "45 of 48 people found the following review helpful", yet they were written in the last day. There is obviously an organized effort on a few DUmmies to bury the book via the Amazon ranking system.

I did my part and clicked the NOT HELPFUL link on the reviews.

[music is math]

The liberals got some things right: the weekend, child labor laws, women being able to ask men out for coffee. No need to reverse any of these improvements.

The liberals didn't do any of that, in keeping with their historic inability to do anything right. In this piece, the author sets things straight:

In the US, the average work week was 61 hours in 1870, compared to 34 hours today, and this near doubling of leisure time for American workers was caused by capitalism, not unionism.

The shorter work week is entirely a capitalist invention. As capital investment caused the marginal productivity of labor to increase over time, less labor was required to produce the same levels of output. As competition became more intense, many employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Those who did not offer shorter work weeks were compelled by the forces of competition to offer higher compensating wages or become uncompetitive in the labor market.

Capitalistic competition is also why "child labor" has all but disappeared, despite unionist claims to the contrary. Young people originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families. But as workers became better paid—thanks to capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements—more and more people could afford to keep their children at home and in school.

[GermanBusiness]

[their promotion of promiscuity,contraception-"reproductive freedom "and belief that men are not necessary in raising children--released men from responsibility]

Excellent point. Logical argument even to those who might not agree with it. But, now how many Republican candidates for national office would dare to say something like that?

Would use of the word "promiscuity" cost, for instance, Senator George Allen the 2008 election against Hillary?

[music is math]

A number of left wingers just hit the Amazon site today and started disparaging the book WITHOUT READING IT...which is typical for liberals.

No need to worry - the book is (as of right now) #38 in Amazon's top-selling books list.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

And I'd bet the ranch he's much more than "vaguely unhygienic".

[Lucky Dog]

…I *still* do not agree with this author's premises…If the author wants a society without premarital sex... FReeper males who aren't "Paulist Christians" can decide for themselves if that is "in their interests" or not …

The discouragement of, or prohibition against, if you will, premarital sex has been around in a huge number of societies around the world, throughout history, not just those espousing "Paulist Christian" tenants. Logically, it would seem that there is a human-nature-based and/or broad societal benefit to such a position.

…FReeper males who aren't "Paulist Christians" can decide for themselves if that is "in their interests" or not…Howard Dean found the winning formula to beat President Bush in November 2003 when he went after Bush's adult abstinence program...

Bush's adult abstinence program as you termed it, was merely a reflection of a societal norm that has been effect in the US for its entire existence as a country, and before that as a colonial entity. Your postulation that Dean’s position would have been a winning formula is extremely unlikely. This unlikely position is buttressed by the fact that the Democrats poll, or “focus group,” test every position they publicly espouse. Given that the Dean and the party abandoned this position, it would seem that their research showed it to be a losing position, contrary to your opinion.

The liberals got some things right: the weekend, child labor laws, women being able to ask men out for coffee. No need to reverse any of these improvements.

This comment is irrelevant to the discussion topic: feminism.

… From what I have heard, women have been heroines in combat in the two Gulf Wars …

Again, this argument is irrelevant to the topic of feminism. There have always been exceptions to the no “women-in-combat” general rule. (Joan of Arc, Molly Pitcher, etc.) Additionally, the argument against women in combat does not rest on the false argument that their sex generally lacks courage. The prohibition is routed in practicalities as well as human nature. No amount of “feminist howling” can change the unremitting practicalities of military operations or the general demands of human nature.

And I have also heard that males in combat can actually be more heroic than usual when there are women on the field whose lives depend on them …

I don’t know to whom you have been listening, but they have passed along a truly unfounded rumor. I commanded a unit during the first “Gulf War.” My direct experience was that the presence of women in my command (and I had them) created problems of unit morale and effectiveness. In general, these problems had less to do with the general performance of the women that it did with human nature. Nonetheless, those problems were real and burdensome.

So I think the women of the two Gulf Wars have collectively raised the estimation of women in American society today.

Your estimate may be true of those who are poorly informed (as in dependent only upon the MSM for their information) or those whose thinking is so warped by ideology that they can not thinking logically. However, for those who depend upon unvarnished facts and rigorously apply logic, your assertion is certainly not the case.

Meg Ryan is normally a sappy liberal to me. But the character she played in that Gulf War movie...really impressed me.

I suggest you avoid making generalized judgments purely on the basis of exceptions, especially those portrayed in a movie or TV Show. On an exceptional basis, women should have been place in combat positions immediately after Joan of Arc. Why do you suppose such did not occur?

Perhaps, you were also impressed by “GI Jane,” another “exception from the “world of movies.” One this basis, would you immediately integrate women into our elite special forces?

Alternately, perhaps you are unaware of the damaged morale (and resulting reduced effectiveness) of male service members passed over for plum assignments and promotions purely in the name of “feminist” advancement.

I submit that in no case, would it be wise to formulate a general policy applicable to an entire armed force, especially when such a policy overturns a precedent based upon thousands of years of human history. Please do not interpret my comments to mean that precedent should never be challenged or overturned. However, precedents that have been in place for thousands of years and firmly rooted in human nature should greatly respected and overturned, if at all, only with the greatest of caution. Furthermore, such an overturning should take place only with the strongest of evidence that such a move is a truly wise course of action. I further submit that the movement to put women in combat received no such careful consideration.

[Warren_Piece]

I can't believe you're trying to start this straw man argument all over again. There is no movement, nor was there ever, to ban premarital sex. If you don't want to be criticized for it, too bad. The US and the internet still have free speech. Now drop it, nobody's buying what you're trolling.