thedrifter
01-13-06, 02:15 PM
Daughtering Out: The New Feminism
Written by Kate Wilson
Friday, January 13, 2006
Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture bemoans third-wave feminists whose skewed ideas of liberation and empowerment find their pornographic manifestation in the miniskirt and the stripper pole (see Christopher Orlet's review in American Spectator - here). Yet, while Levy laments the degradation of all that first- and second-wave feminists fought for, she seems to miss the fact that feminism's matrons more readily direct young women toward the trap of moral turpitude than toward true liberation. (Perhaps someone ought to explain the difference between liberty and license...)
New feminism needs new focus, but not in order to survive, as it seems fairly obvious that feminist philosophy gains popularity not by its adherence to grounded principles but by precisely the opposite - its disjoint and chameleon character, which allows it to mean anything to anyone.
New feminism needs new focus in order to mean something. It needs to focus on the obvious, that is, the woman who is its object.
A simple comparison between the ideal woman, who is the aim of true feminism, and her counterpart, who is Levy's chauvinist, illustrates the problem. The lady and the ***** - these are the daughters of two discrete approaches to feminist philosophy, and the difference between these women lies most profoundly in their egos, not in the more apparent and perhaps more conspicuously contrasting way they interact with men. The latter is actually the outward evidence of the former.
The ego of the lady is hardly that of the damsel in distress - on the contrary, she's markedly confident in her independence. While the *****'s action is inherently a reaction, a movement completely dependent upon circumstance and based solely upon expectation, the lady's actions are grounded and purposeful. New feminists actually make unconstrained choices. In a departure from the ways of the very women who make their lifestyle possible, perhaps to their horror as well, many new feminists are going to college, completing post-graduate work, marrying, having children and becoming stay-at-home moms. Because she has inward confidence, the lady is able to have an outward focus. She is able to put her life in order and to make decisions based upon what's best for her and for her family. While the *****'s weakness is betrayed by the fact that her existence depends upon that of the scoundrel, the lady's strength is evidenced by her coexistence with and encouragement of the gentleman.
So, while Levy takes exception to what she sees as feminism's failures, those women who have renewed its focus are a success, though perhaps not so in the eyes of their grandmatrons. The movement toward equality of the sexes has too often been blind to the pitfall of rejecting the sexes' differences altogether, but for women who have retained a sense of their own female-ness, the rewards are there to reap. New feminists are taking advantage of what first-wave feminists made possible, even while rejecting their hard-core anti-male, anti-traditionalist attitudes.
Levy’s complaint seems to be that the current slut-culture of feminism simply replicates all the worst traits of male sexual aggressiveness by transferring its slovenly behavior to women. And yet she can't quite seem to criticize it out loud. Women express their independence and freedom by adopting all that in a male-chauvinist culture was originally cause for rebellion. Women in the ‘60’s did not burn their bras because they wanted to be like men; they burned their bras to signal (among other things) their rejection of being forced by a male-culture to conform to an ideal of female “beauty” that was not their own. But the third-wave feminists seem to have adopted that male image of female beauty and express their autonomy by embracing that which was originally understood to be a denial of their individual dignity. It’s as if (though Levy does not really say this) slaves rebelled against slavery not by becoming masters but by fully embracing their status as slaves, saying: I am not a slave because you say I am a slave; I am a slave because I say I am a slave. To which the old Masters say, “Okay then.”
At the same time, the New Feminist—the one who finishes her degree, gets married and has children—seems to have capitulated to the old patriarchal image rejected in the first place.
But here I think the Feminists misunderstand one of the components of their own success. Even if at one time marriage was preferred to the only other choices available to women—the convent or the flophouse—it was not always this and it certainly is no longer the case (in the Industrialized World, in any event). Hence, the New Feminists who choose education, marriage, children, and a career (or not), are not capitulating to anything. They are freely choosing among available alternatives. And such choices are no less an _expression of self-determination than push-up bras and stripper poles. In fact, an increasing number of women would say these more traditional choices are the better portion of feminism.
About the Writer: Mrs. Wilson graduated with a BA in political science from Thomas More College of Liberal Arts in New Hampshire, where she met her husband. Kate receives e-mail at katborse9@yahoo.com.
Ellie
Written by Kate Wilson
Friday, January 13, 2006
Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture bemoans third-wave feminists whose skewed ideas of liberation and empowerment find their pornographic manifestation in the miniskirt and the stripper pole (see Christopher Orlet's review in American Spectator - here). Yet, while Levy laments the degradation of all that first- and second-wave feminists fought for, she seems to miss the fact that feminism's matrons more readily direct young women toward the trap of moral turpitude than toward true liberation. (Perhaps someone ought to explain the difference between liberty and license...)
New feminism needs new focus, but not in order to survive, as it seems fairly obvious that feminist philosophy gains popularity not by its adherence to grounded principles but by precisely the opposite - its disjoint and chameleon character, which allows it to mean anything to anyone.
New feminism needs new focus in order to mean something. It needs to focus on the obvious, that is, the woman who is its object.
A simple comparison between the ideal woman, who is the aim of true feminism, and her counterpart, who is Levy's chauvinist, illustrates the problem. The lady and the ***** - these are the daughters of two discrete approaches to feminist philosophy, and the difference between these women lies most profoundly in their egos, not in the more apparent and perhaps more conspicuously contrasting way they interact with men. The latter is actually the outward evidence of the former.
The ego of the lady is hardly that of the damsel in distress - on the contrary, she's markedly confident in her independence. While the *****'s action is inherently a reaction, a movement completely dependent upon circumstance and based solely upon expectation, the lady's actions are grounded and purposeful. New feminists actually make unconstrained choices. In a departure from the ways of the very women who make their lifestyle possible, perhaps to their horror as well, many new feminists are going to college, completing post-graduate work, marrying, having children and becoming stay-at-home moms. Because she has inward confidence, the lady is able to have an outward focus. She is able to put her life in order and to make decisions based upon what's best for her and for her family. While the *****'s weakness is betrayed by the fact that her existence depends upon that of the scoundrel, the lady's strength is evidenced by her coexistence with and encouragement of the gentleman.
So, while Levy takes exception to what she sees as feminism's failures, those women who have renewed its focus are a success, though perhaps not so in the eyes of their grandmatrons. The movement toward equality of the sexes has too often been blind to the pitfall of rejecting the sexes' differences altogether, but for women who have retained a sense of their own female-ness, the rewards are there to reap. New feminists are taking advantage of what first-wave feminists made possible, even while rejecting their hard-core anti-male, anti-traditionalist attitudes.
Levy’s complaint seems to be that the current slut-culture of feminism simply replicates all the worst traits of male sexual aggressiveness by transferring its slovenly behavior to women. And yet she can't quite seem to criticize it out loud. Women express their independence and freedom by adopting all that in a male-chauvinist culture was originally cause for rebellion. Women in the ‘60’s did not burn their bras because they wanted to be like men; they burned their bras to signal (among other things) their rejection of being forced by a male-culture to conform to an ideal of female “beauty” that was not their own. But the third-wave feminists seem to have adopted that male image of female beauty and express their autonomy by embracing that which was originally understood to be a denial of their individual dignity. It’s as if (though Levy does not really say this) slaves rebelled against slavery not by becoming masters but by fully embracing their status as slaves, saying: I am not a slave because you say I am a slave; I am a slave because I say I am a slave. To which the old Masters say, “Okay then.”
At the same time, the New Feminist—the one who finishes her degree, gets married and has children—seems to have capitulated to the old patriarchal image rejected in the first place.
But here I think the Feminists misunderstand one of the components of their own success. Even if at one time marriage was preferred to the only other choices available to women—the convent or the flophouse—it was not always this and it certainly is no longer the case (in the Industrialized World, in any event). Hence, the New Feminists who choose education, marriage, children, and a career (or not), are not capitulating to anything. They are freely choosing among available alternatives. And such choices are no less an _expression of self-determination than push-up bras and stripper poles. In fact, an increasing number of women would say these more traditional choices are the better portion of feminism.
About the Writer: Mrs. Wilson graduated with a BA in political science from Thomas More College of Liberal Arts in New Hampshire, where she met her husband. Kate receives e-mail at katborse9@yahoo.com.
Ellie