by Connie Chastain*
I don't know many bona fide radical feminists. I've run into many women, both in cyberspace and terrestrial reality, who call themselves feminists but not radical feminists.
They acknowledge the progress women have made due to feminism in the past fifty years -- usually in the area of choice, as in the freedom to choose a career rather than being locked into wife-and-motherhood. Or the freedom to obtain an education, which was denied to women throughout most of history. They talk less about the choice of ending pregnancy thanks to "reproductive freedom" but acknowledge that it, too, is a positive for women bestowed by modern feminism.
Most of these women are married with children and most of them work outside the home, so they haven't actually chosen between two alternatives they've been presented with. Point out to them the beliefs and goals of radical feminists -- the ones who direct the movement -- and they're likely to say the radicals are few, unknown and relatively powerless, and hold themselves up as examples of true feminism.
I once had a self-described feminist tell me that because she, a teacher, had never heard of Carol Gilligan, then Gilligan was basically unknown and had little influence. Now, Gilligan almost singlehandedly transformed education in America to accomodate the way girls learn, and develop hostility to the way boys learn. But she didn't have much influence, according to my nonradical feminist acquaintance.
These women that I call quasi-feminists claim to love their families, and feel a responsibility to raise their children to be happy, productive, well-adjusted adults. But I wonder how any woman who loves her sons and daughters would expose them to such a soul-destroying philosophy during their impressionable youth. Regardless of what these women say in defense of feminism, even small doses of it teach girls to despise and reject motherhood, and boys to despise and reject their manhood.
Two appalling and heartbreaking examples are found in the lives of Rebecca Walker, daughter of feminist icon Alice Walker who wrote The Color Purple, and Edgar van de Giessen, son of a leading feminist in Holland. Their stories are online, and serve as a warning to all who refuse to see the ultimate effects of radical femnism on children.
Rebecca Walker's story appeared in the UK's Daily Mail in 2008. Blissfully happy in her role as mother of a three-year-old boy, she says she "...very nearly missed out on becoming a mother - thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman. You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women...."
And it wasn't just motherhood Alice Walker despised. Her daughter's very femaleness, with its potential for motherhood, earned her wrath. "As a little girl, I wasn't even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery..."
The short article in the Daily Mail gives a stark glimpse into the life of a child raised by a radical feminist who saw her as "a calamity." The emotional distance from a woman who was incredibly self-centered, the early sexual activity, the longing for a traditional home with a loving mother -- Rebecca relates her experience with hearbreaking honesty. You can't help but cheer for her embracing motherhood and loving her son as she was never loved.
Van de Giessen's story is just as appalling. "I would like you to imagine," he says, "how it is for an growing boy in the age of ten to hear every day from his mother that men are the cause of all trouble in the world, that men are guilty of all crime and war and repression in the world, that all men should be castrated after their semen has been deep-frozen to ensure the existence of the next generation, that men should live in different cities than women, so that they could all kill each other and so solve the problem of their own existence."
As a result of his mother's teaching, van de Giessen developed a deep distrust in himself, and in male authority. And is it any wonder that he doubted his lovability -- or that he required "...25 years of therapeutic and spiritual search and deep emotional healing..." to begin finding self-value and to develop relationships with others?
Both Walker and van de Giessen use the term "rabid feminist" to describe their mothers -- worse, even, than radical feminists, indicating that there are degrees of the poison inherent in the philosophy. The self-proclaimed femnists of my acquaintance would certainly not describe themselves as either radical or rabid. They profess to love their children, including their sons.
The inherent selfishiness of feminism, exhibited to a shocking degree by Alice Walker, pervades the entire philosophy, just as feminist influence pervades society -- and can blind women to the harm it does to their children. Maybe their lives aren't as poisoned as Rebecca Walker's or Edgar van de Giessen's. But they're harmed nonetheless. And we who aren't blinded by feminist selfishness see it all too clearly.
Rebecca Walker's story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021293/How-mothers-fanatical-feminist-views-tore-apart-daughter-The-Color-Purple-author.html#ixzz1S94yyV4n
Edgar van de Giessen's story: http://www.theohumanity.org/storage/articles/son-of-a-feminist.html
*Connie is an FRS contributor. Her personal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
"Or the freedom to obtain an education, which was denied to women throughout most of history"
We often forget that apart from a small minority of privileged men education was also denied.
Historically the overwhelming majority of men left school at 14 or younger, the same age as women. Educated men don't work down mines or dig roads. This is an over played Feminist canard.
The overwhelming factor for discrimination in education was class not gender.
As usual a great article Connie.
"Or the freedom to obtain an education, which was denied to women throughout most of history."
I have never seen any evidence of this. In fact, in the 1930's, 30% of all college degrees were obtained by women.
There are records I have too, of women who were doctors and dentists dating back to the 1800's.
http://contentdm.library.unr.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/hom&CISOPTR=5&CISOBOX=1&REC=5
http://contentdm.library.unr.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/hom&CISOPTR=17&CISOBOX=1&REC=9
http://contentdm.library.unr.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/hom&CISOPTR=7&CISOBOX=1&REC=18
How could they possibly have obtained these careers if they were "denied an education"?
http://www.rip-factor.com/formen/bwash/nodegree.html
http://www.rip-factor.com/formen/bwash/nocareer.html
I am sorry, but I see no "progress" at all.
What I see is regression, because women now, instead of striving to learn and improve themselves now feel entitled to things. When they don't get them - its patriarchy and sexism.
This is not progress.
Scarecrow, the quasi-feminists I'm talking about go back to the beginning of recorded history to show how women have been shortchanged... then they move up to more recent centuries to show how publishers wouldn't publish stuff written by women... and how girls couldn't study math or whatever. You know. The usual bellyaching.
@Connie.
That is what I thought you meant.
the phrase, "women were denied education" has become quite cliche today.
It is just wearing.
What many women were denied they were denied by the matriarchy. For example; voting. Many of the matriarchs didn't believe women should vote. Why? They believed women had more important things to concern themselves with. Plus they believed it was the job of men to send their sons' off to fight in wars.
Exellent article Connie.
Perhaps a majority of women and girls will learn much from you.
Connie- Ever seen that manboobz.com blog? I wonder what would happen if you went on there and started kicking up some dust? That blogger gives me the creeps!
"They acknowledge the progress women have made due to feminism in the past fifty years -- usually in the area of choice, as in the freedom to choose a career rather than being locked into wife-and-motherhood. Or the freedom to obtain an education, which was denied to women throughout most of history."
To the extent that these things were true, they were largely forced upon society through economic necessity rather than being a result of some dastardly conspiracy by men to keep women under the thumb.
It's true that women in the past often had fewer opportunities in relation to education and employment. But in societies where resources are scarce, they need to be allocated to their most efficient use. Because women typically spend fewer years in the workforce over a lifetime, and tend to be less focused on career advancement, educating females typically delivers a lower 'return on investment'. Moreover, in the distant past most of the jobs that educated women typically do now (such as white-collar, public sector jobs or jobs in the 'helping professions') were much rarer than today.
Similarly with employment, in the past a larger proportion of jobs were often dirty, dangerous, boring or unpleasant. Consequently, the world of work was less attractive to women, and people believed it would be better if men were able to earn enough to support families without the need for women to work outside the home. Restricting the number of women taking jobs was actually part of a social contract and division of labor that benefited most women. Indeed, if a man lost a job to a woman then the man's wife or mother would have probably been more unhappy about it than anyone else.
[to be continued]
[continued]
It was really (primarily male) scientific, technological and economic progress that did more to liberate women from traditional gender roles and being kept barefoot and pregnant than feminist influence. The idea that social progress is largely due to political influences rather than economics, science and technology is the kind of simplistic thinking that appeals to the gullible and feeble-minded (the main target audience for feminism and most ideological movements). It is a bit like the obtuse claim one sometimes hears that if it were not for trade unions, workers would still be living and working in the same conditions as the 19th century.
Feminism and female independence is largely a luxury of a healthy economy. The only reason it has gained such influence in western countries is that they are wealthy enough to pay the costs of the inefficient policies and social downside that such policies entail.
Yes, David Futrelle gives me the creeps, too.
Women have also historically had less opportunity to get their dumb asses blown apart in the wars that were being fought to protect them. Just a tiny perk!
Thank you Connie, and "damn you".
Damn you because I already have no time in the day, and articles like this make me want to come back and read more.
But honestly, thank you.
Post a Comment