Posted on 10/08/2003 11:14:12 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
A recent CBS poll revealed that three out of four women described the word feminist as an insult.
Another study found that the number of working women who believe that a career is as important as being a wife and mother has fallen 23 percent since the 1970s.
What has caused such a dramatic change in women's attitudes?
Cindy Crawford, the supermodel, dislikes the word "feminist." An interview in the September 2000 issue of George magazine explains, "The word feminist has such negative connotations to me."
Cindy is not alone. Experts agree that women are growing more and more uncomfortable with the current feminist movement.
What has happened to a movement that was supposed to make it possible for women to "have it all?"
Feminism has gone the wrong way, baby!
Feminism is out of step with mainstream women.
"Having it all" -- for most women -- doesn't mean: hatred for men, lesbianism, and radical politics. -- most women can't relate.
I could spend our time together giving you facts and data about the outcomes of modern feminism.
Instead, you can access and study that data in a report I wrote called, "Gaining Ground: A Profile of American Women in the Twentieth Century," which can be found on our website: www.cwfa.org. In that report you will find 100 years of data about women's well-being -- much of it previously unpublished.
But let's make it more relevant to your own lives. Your generation has seen the personal disaster of the feminist movement and so-called sexual freedom in the lives of the women you know. Many of you are yourselves children of divorce. Many of you have helped a friend deal with a surprise pregnancy -- perhaps even walked that friend through her abortion. STD's . . . broken hearts. . . the list could go on and on.
Let's ride the feminist wave backward a bit, and revisit the foundations of modern feminism, back to the Second Wave of the Sixties and Seventies. Let's look at the effect feminist ideals had on the lives of three founders of modern feminism. You know these women's writings; they are feminist icons. But how much do you know about their personal lives? As they say, "The proof is in the pudding."
Betty Friedan -- Friedan, the mother of the feminist movement, gave us "The Feminine Mystique" -- and the "problem that has no name." That problem - according to Friedan - is that women are victims. Being female means having delusions and false values and being forced to find fulfillment and identity through husbands and children. Friedan worked 9 hours a day - declaring that being a wife and mother was "not going to interfere with what I regarded as my real life." Even her friends describe Friedan as difficult, ill tempered, disagreeable, ego-driven, rude, nasty, self-serving and imperious. Unhappily married for 21 years, her three children had to undergo therapy to deal with what was called "the emotional fallout."
Gloria Steinem -- Steinem was the beauty queen of the feminist movement. Steinem, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate, was engaged to her college boyfriend. After breaking up with him and discovering that she was pregnant, she had an abortion. Later, Steinem founded Ms. Magazine and coined two phrases -- "reproductive freedom" and "pro-choice" -- bringing a brilliant sense of marketing to a movement that glossed over the realities of promiscuity and abortion and propelled so-called "sexual freedom" into the mainstream. Steinem famously declared that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. She remained single until her 60s -- when she recently married a divorced man with grown children.
Germaine Greer -- Known as the diva of feminism, Germaine Greer is, like Gloria Steinem, now in her 60s. Greer has two books: "The Female Eunuch" kick-started her fame and "The Whole Woman," published recently basically repudiates everything Greer had said previously. Known for her bawdy diatribes, Greer preached that sexual liberation is the path to fulfillment. Greer has had "several" abortions -- leaving her unable to have children. She was married -- briefly -- for a week, during which time, she brags, she cheated on her husband 7 times. She has stooped in recent months to getting attention by being an apologist for female genital mutilation. Greer was married once for three weeks. She bragged that she cheated seven times that week. But at age 60, she mused: "The finest time in your life was when you fell asleep in someone's arms and woke up in the same position eight hours later. Sleeping in someone's arms is the prize." Inevitably, she sleeps alone.
What do these women -- and other disparate personalities like Patricia Ireland, Alice and Rebecca Walker, Hillary Clinton -- have in common? All of these women are Utopians. They scorn the lessons of history.
The First Wave of feminism won the right to vote and the right to own property.
The Second Wave won no-fault divorce and abortion on demand.
The Second Wave drove their political ideology, but its not just about being Democrats. I want you to think beyond partisan politics and see the motivating ideology at work.
Tonight, look beyond the surface debates over the issues that capture the headlines and roil the waters - abortion, gay rights, eating disorders, comparable worth -- and think about the animating spirit - the gravitational pull, if you will -- that keeps the waves crashing on the beach.
Perhaps that is why the Organization of Women Leaders has as part of its mission statement to rewrite the definition of feminism, transform people's perceptions, and challenge the conventions about women's roles. You are a group of remarkably gifted, talented young women. The goals and aspirations you have for your lives are exciting. And you will, just as you have planned, change the world in many ways. Living in American society today offers unprecedented opportunities for women. These opportunities were hard-won. We owe a great debt to the early feminists. Because of their work years ago, women today have incredible horizons.
But from my vantage point, having walked ahead of you through many of life's opportunities and challenges, I am equally aware of the pitfalls you face because modern feminism ignores the relationship between decisions/choices and consequences. For instance, more than 10 times as many women cohabitate now as when I graduated from college. And most have no idea that these relationships generally last a mere 18 months. Most are clueless about the fact that when living together turns into marriage it is almost always the guy who makes the decision and those marriages are 50% more likely to end in divorce than are the marriages where the couple did not live together before marriage.
So, the so-called sexual freedom -- a basic tenet of modern feminism -- has been disaster for women. Your generation recognizes that even better than mine. And, you are leading the effort to reconstruct feminism, to repackage, and reposition the movement into a Third Wave of feminism. I understand that OWL recently had a discussion about "what is feminism?" I am going to guess, from looking at your goals and activities as an organization, that you would broadly describe your agenda as falling under a rubric of empowering women. Frankly, most people would join you in that admirable goal. As you pursue that laudable goal, I want to challenge you NOT to repeat history.
To that end, tonight, let's review two historical 20th century Utopian experiments -- communism in the east and feminism in the west.
Origins
Both movements originated as a result of discontent with flawed social, economic and political systems.
Communist Discontent originated over the barely subsistence wages given to labor and the unequal distributions of wealth. Marx, in writing "Das Kapital," his monumental critique of capitalism, argued that capitalism was fundamentally exploitive and so hopelessly flawed that it would collapse under the weight of its contradictions. Marx offered a shining vision of an egalitarian socialistic society where the output of the community would share according a noble, altruistic principle: "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs."
The feminist theorists of the mid 20th century also put forward a Utopian vision of the "good society" based on often-savage critiques of the existing progressive social order. Feminist Discontent originated in women's dependence on men and their unequal opportunities. The feminists' Utopia was a blend of sexual and economic equality, borrowed from earlier First Wave champions of women's rights, and social justice borrowed from the civil rights movement, which had just come into full flower with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
Obstacles
Both movements rebelled against deeply entrenched obstacles.
It is worth noting that communism first came into being via the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 -- a rebellion NOT against a system of free market capitalism -- but against the dictatorial monarchy of Tsar Nicholas II.
The Marxist rebellion, then, was against a dictatorship and a cruelly class-stratified society; it was an attempt to end poverty. To communist thinkers, once the workers' paradise was fully established, poverty would disappear and the temporary dictatorship required by the transition to socialism would become unnecessary and the state would wither away.
The feminist revolution rebelled against inequality and the domination of patriarchy. To feminist thinkers, the great obstacle to progress toward a sexless, egalitarian society- where women could be free to realize the fulfillment of their heart's desires-was patriarchy and all elements of the social order that supported it, particularly marriage and religion. The males in society had to be reeducated as to their proper roles relating to women and, where necessary, coerced into letting women pursue their professions on a "level playing field." In the event that sexual activity resulted in an unwanted pregnancy, abortion on demand would be readily available. In those instances where a woman chose to have children, institutional arrangements had to be put in place so that the rearing of those children would not be burdensome or interfere with career aspirations.
Note that in both of these systems of thought, the source of the problems-the obstacles to progress-were faulty institutional arrangements, factors external to the individual. Defective institutions produced defective behavior that produced negative outcomes. The solution was not individual moral accountability for greed, oppression, and exploitation. The solution was to change the institutional arrangements, which would then produce positive behavior and outcomes.
Outcomes
Who is not inspired by the thought of an egalitarian society, where an equal distribution of wealth, power and influence is the norm . . . and NOT a mere utopian dream? Who is not inspired by the elimination of poverty? The elimination of patriarchy?
But, everywhere that Communism has ruled, it has been via a totalitarian regime established by force, never by free elections. As Mao famously said, "All power comes from the barrel of a gun." Well, let us visit Utopia and see the outcomes. Let us ask the residents of Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia.
Stalin is quoted as having said, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." Utopian schemes produce a lot of statistics.
Let's try to grasp those statistics:
How ironic. Marx had promised: Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.
It didn't work out quite that way.
The Marxist rhetoric was high sounding and noble, but in the forced labor camps, individuals are insignificant and expendable.
How does this relate to feminism? We are confronted with another utopian ideal, whose animating principles ---- women's rights, sexual equality, and the fulfillment of women's potential- are high-sounding and noble.
But like the tragic irony of communism, feminist ideals have betrayed us and produced massive damage both to women and to their children:
How is possible to start out with high sounding, noble ideals and end up with so much wretchedness? What are we to learn for the examination of these two massive Utopian experiments? There are two sources of difficulty.
The first is metaphysical: the origin and nature of evil. I've already alluded to this issue by my observation that both of these systems of thought ascribed negative, evil outcomes as being the result of faulty institutional arrangements external to the individual.
The second source of difficulty is the fact that you cannot ignore nature, specifically human nature.
The Utopians deny the fact that human nature makes demands on all of us -- that there are realities that we all have to deal with in life. They naively believe that they can shape the world to fit their utopian vision. They want a world where they can control both their actions and the consequences of their actions.
But of course, choices do have consequences and we have to lie with them - for good or ill. We frequently use that phrase when we want to emphasize avoiding negative consequences. But tonight, I want to emphasize to you, that there is a tried and true path to positive consequences in your life. Not to Utopia - but to a life of fulfillment and positive accomplishment that benefits both you and society.
I chose a different path than Gloria Steinem, Betty Freidan, and Germaine Greer. But my circumstances were not all that different; nor were the ambitions and inner drive any less compelling. I want to share my story because your generation needs to hear from someone in my generation how you CAN just about have it all.
THEN ALONG CAME GIL
Gil Crouse decided that he wanted me for his wife and he set about to win my heart.
THEN ALONG CAME KIDS
From this brief overview, you can see that the things motivating me were not different from Betty, Gloria or Germaine. You can also see the different values, priorities, and the different choices we made and the different outcomes. All four of us started out with the same hard-driving ambition, but we had different priorities and different goals.
WHAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE?
What do I think is wrong with feminism? I think somewhere along the way, feminism lost its way. The movement forgot that "having it all" included the personal dimension. Life is not just profession and career. Success is not measured JUST in paycheck and status.
The 2003 young businesswoman of the year, Gabrielle Molnar, explained that she didn't want to be called a feminist because feminism doesn't support the cause of women.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Feminism has lost sight of what it is that women REALLY want. Most women want to love and be loved. They want the freedom to be all they can be and they want to be treated with dignity and respect. They also want the opportunity to have meaningful careers and productive lives -- but most aren't willing for their ambition to harm their relationships or damage their children.
I'm grateful that you are working to change people's perceptions of women - bright, talented women have plenty of opportunities for professional growth today and you have more flexibility than the women who preceded you. What is needed most -- at this point in history -- is the chance to revel in being feminine and to relish a fulfilling personal life.
More power to you as you take all that into account as you redefine what it means to be a woman and what it means to "have it all."
I'd like to conclude with a brief story:
A couple of years ago, I was speaking at a liberal arts college convocation. The President of the college and I stood at the front of the auditorium watching the students as they arrived. He turned to me and said, "Janice, do you realize - THERE IS THE FUTURE OF AMERICA?"
I'm tremendously impressed by your ambition; by your talent and your dedication to excellence.
I admire your willingness to accept the challenges of leadership.
BECAUSE:
Tonight as I look out at you, I am very much aware that:
"YOU ARE THE FUTURE OF AMERICA."
May God bless you and, through you, may God bless America.
Been to Northampton, Massachusetts lately? Home of Smith College?
So Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, & Germaine Greer represent an inconsequential fringe of feminism??? Are you really saying that their arguments & philosophical framework did not drive feminism to what it is today?
I guess then, that "real" feminism developed into the society-changing movement it became because of different people driving it? Who are these people who were the real (yet secret) driving forces of feminism, if not Friedan, Steinem, & Greer, et. al.?
Like it or not, that is what the feminist movement has been for thirty years. Run by the radicals, and based on the leftist ideals of continual Revolution, powered by various causes du jour. I can't even watch sitcoms anymore because the male bashing gets on my nerves.
Artificial empowerment of ANY group via legislation is not freedom. It's totalitarianism.
The biggest feminist mistake was to set themselves up as the hizbah - morality police - and enter our homes and places of work, forcing us to no longer act like human beings and causing all of the social problems so prevalant between men and women today.
I don't need and have never needed their help. I can defend myself and make it on my own, without special legislation forcing me to behave one way and men to behave another, neither of which ways are in our nature. I LIKE having doors opened for me, and I EXPECT it. I understand and respect that a man my height (5' 10") is stronger and faster than me. I accept that I cannot change genetics. It doesn't mean I'm not capable of defending myself, just that the only REASON I am capable is the understanding that men are physically stronger and faster than women, and when fighting a stronger opponent, etc.
Women have been taught that men are the enemy and men that women are. The problem is the COMBATIVENESS. Fighting the ENEMY. Who's idea was battle of the sexes? The feminists. Who set up the field then? Feminists. What have they really accomplished except for a generation of therapy dependant, lonely people in bitter divorce situations AND fat paychecks for themselves via their lobbying groups? Exactly, precisely, nothing.
Are you calling NOW radicals?? /sarcasm
;)
The majority of feminimsts, like the majority of Americans are moderates politically. They take a look at all sides of issues and always come back to the middle ground. Have we not learned this by now? The largest political party in America are Independents, people who listen to the ideas proposed by the poles of both ends of the political spectrum ... and take ideas from both sides to form the vast middle ground of politics. Feminism is the same.
The author of the piece posted even admits that feminism in name does not appeal to the majority of women, however, it is inarguable that women have political clout and use it, just as any other large constituency does, to their perceived advantage. This is what has propelled feminism forward. The theorists pro and con on all sides of all issues form the poles of opinion from which people decide for themselves. Basically the vote is what has propelled forward everyone who is allowed to vote and who excercise that right.
You see the same thing happening on the world stage right now and historically. The extremist positions on both sides are being repudiated for the middle ground. Yes, the Sadaam Hussein's of the world ARE influential ... just not in the exact way they had hoped.
I agree with you. I have the same resentments. What are you going to do about it?
The only way to take the mic back is to find a different name. Feminism has sold itself and voluntarily entrenched itself as The Enemy.
Are you the only one who really understands?
Legislative representation is how our system works. If you're going to be consistent, you'd have to have the same opinion of all PAC's in Washington and in state government ... like Farmers and Big Oil and Small Business Association ... etc.
I do agree that special interst legislation has gotten out of hand. But don't single out feminism for that. Let's look at the big picture. PAC's are a reality in our political system. If we want to overhaul that system, let's get busy and do it. Campaign finance reform anyone?
The reality also is that even without PAC's, numbers matter in politics. Since women are 50% of the population, and since there are 9 million more women registered voters than men ... women have tremendous political clout. Now there is no gaurantee that any group with political clout will use it wisely. That is why we have a two-party system and, in general, the middle outweighs the extremes politically.
If we want to eliminate equal representation in government, one individual one vote, that's a different matter entirely. Until then we have to live with the reality that numbers matter in politics. (We just got a good lesson on that in California). Even without a PAC, when enough people feel the same or similar way about something ... they will hold sway in elections and legislation, particularly in places with more direct referendum style democracy such as California.
Unfortunately, by agreeing to live in the USA, you do have to put up with legislation you don't agree with some of the time. The alternatives are to get out there and make your opinion heard LOUDER ... or move to a different country. Just sitting around whining about what other people have been able to influence politically is not a sound strategy for change. :)
By the way, did you know that women were the decisive factor in the so-called Republican sweep in the 2002 elections? And they are poised to be the deciding force in the 2004 presidential elections as well. And there is ample evidence that women are moving more to the conservative side politically.
Ain't our system great? I love it !!! even though I have to put up with the "tryanny of the majority" sometimes doing things I don't agree with. If you step back and look at the big picture, overall it balances out to the middle ground and we are still the best country in the world. I wouldn't live anywhere else. It's not perfect but it is the best.
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The pendulum swings both ways and is weighted toward the middle. I personally don't want extremists on either side getting ultimate control of my life. :)
Same thing I HAVE been doing for thirty years: argue against the socialist/totalitarianist message of so-called "feminists".
I'm the ultimate "feminist" and possibly so are you: I am comfortable with my gender, my physical limitations and with men. I both deserve and expect respect. This isn't a result of a feminist "movement". It's the result of my personalty and accomplishments. I simply work very hard to make sure my predictions are right.
All of my life I have argued against what some women were saying, against the message of feminism, and predicted that everything which has come to pass in our screwed-up society WOULD happen. In fact, it's way worse now than EVER I predicted.
"Feminists" are not me, and probably are not you. That is THEIR term. The name of the Enemy and it is a name I don't want.
I do. And unions. Don't forget the unions.
Well, personally, I'd like to see where that statist comes from. But, assuming for a moment it is true, women still overwhelmingly believe in core feminist values , which coincidently are the same as the values in our Declaration of Independce and in our USA Constitution. I don't see 3/4 of US women rushing out saying "Please, take away my equal opportunity in America".
Are you the only one who really understands?
It's highly doubtful I am. There are entire organizations in this country and all over the world who are not marching in lockstep with NOW and who nevertheless use the terms feminist and feminism to describe their beliefs.
Oh, was that a rhetorical question? :)
Been to Northampton, Massachusetts lately? Home of Smith College?
Or Wellesley ?
The hatred for men is the saddest part. It's based on feelings of inferiority, and an inability to acknowledge the differences between men and women, let alone appreciate them.
Exactly. The point is and has always been that men alone and women alone will not survive as a species. Not even with cloning. All we do is get more and more screwed up as long as we fight one another.
Men and women are the two essential parts of the SAME team. Men are offense, women are defense. If an enemy gets past the male offense, it's left to the women, who will kill or die as the last line of defense of our families, of our people. While encouraged in Western culture and discouraged in Eastern, it still happens. It's the way we are made. We are necessary to one another's survival, both physical and emotional.
Two halves of a whole.
I agree completely.
"Feminist" women - the macho bitchy kind - have poisoned the relationship between the sexes, done their best to emasculate men, and used every conceivable trick to gain unfair advantage. "Feminist" men - the castrato kind - thrive on abusive behavior from women, also poison the relationship between the sexes, and act as the cheerleading section for female supremacy.
Constantly demanding dominance destroys the possibility of real intimacy, or real partnership.
Only an idiot male wants inequality of opportunity for women. It doesn't make any sense for me to want my wife treated unfairly in the workplace, or my daughter to be shuffled off into some constrained role she doesn't enjoy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.