The blatant anti-woman, anti-mom attack on Ann Romney by WH propagandist Hilary Rosen is par for the femisogynist course. Starting back in . . . oh, who the hell knows, but it was decades ago . . . “feminists” started attacking “traditional gender roles,” demanding that women be “free” to . . . well, to fit their mold as pseudo-men (being a stay-at-home-mom was right up there with being a “bitter clinger”). Anyone not adhering to this new policy of “women have to be men to succeed” was to be ridiculed and shunned.
Crystal Wright over at TownHall has a good analysis of this:
In an attempt to explain why a generation of women born in the 1960s and 1970s are finding themselves living lives of solitude, a male friend emailed me All the Single Ladies, thinking I’d buy into the writer’s load of crap. The 39 year old single woman spends an endless amount of ink trying to convince herself and single women everywhere they are happy living empowered lives of solitude, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
This article is depressing and full of denial. Thanks to the 1960s Feminist movement which spawned theory of patriarchy, hatred of all things male, and re-engineered traditional gender roles, American culture from academia to business world led women could be all things to themselves: provider, wonder woman, and in some cases mothers without men in their lives. While some women may genuinely want to live alone, I believe most women, including the author, don’t want to live in solitude or be independent women.
Unfortunately, this post sexual feminist revolution compelled women to enter the work force with this mindset they should not only compete with men but act like them, out earn them and convince themselves they don’t need them. The grand result of this revolution waged by the likes of Gloria Steinem, Kate Millet, Chris Weedon, Bell Hooks and other horrid, male hating women is a generation of barren, single women because the gender roles have been thrown into chaos. Since 1976, the percentage of women in their early 40s who have not given birth has nearly doubled and marriage is on the decline. As Atlantic Kate Bolick wrote “Gloria Steinem said, in the 1970s, “We’re becoming the men we wanted to marry.” I doubt even she realized the prescience of her words.
Unfortunately, Wright goes a bit off topic talking about “Peter Pan” men and . . . well, who knows? It’s nuts. But her points about the teaching of “feminism” (actually femisogyny) in higher education are reflective of my own experience (except I was the on the wrong side, much to my own chagrin):
During my senior year of college at Georgetown University, I was forced to take a feminist criticism seminar as part of my Honors English major and hated it. I and other women in the class couldn’t understand why we were required to re-evaluate the great works of DH Lawrence, Shakespeare, Bernard Shaw and others as male demons who exploited women. Of course this couldn’t be further from the truth books like Madame Bovary and plays like Romeo& Juliet gave women a voice reflective of the times in which they lived.
You can’t deconstruct these great literature and impose a twisted patriarchal narrative upon them, sorry women aren’t stupid. We also had to read lots of lesbian feminist theory for the seminar, which was even more hateful of men but curiously weren’t assigned any theory written by women who denounced this feminist jihad on the arts and every other aspect of life.
What she writes is true, from whatever side (student or professor/lecturer/et al.). I’d teach this craziness, even though I had my own doubts about it, and smile at students who challenged me. Happily. I wanted the rigor of independent thinking, the challenging of pat (too pat) ideas and ideology. I wanted my students to think for themselves. (My university, however, was not happy about this. But that’s a blog post for another day.)
Universities, those in the top tiers anyway, discourage free thought. Actually, they discourage any thought. Well, that’s not completely true, they encouraged fantasy and weirdness. For example, early on, “feminists” loathed Ernest Hemingway. Loathed him. They “found” all sorts of white, male, patriarchal “evidence” (of some anti-woman “code”) in everything he wrote (this was made possible by the nuts who took the “isms,” married them with “deconstruction,” and smashed all that into a “post-structural” theory omelet to “prove” . . . oh who the hell knows what . . . it’s all Marxist crap at root, but they like to add layers in the absence of actual critical thinking). But Hemingway scholars were loathe to buy into this, careers at risk and all, so they made him not the macho, He-Man hunter- fisherman, they made him the effeminate, gender-bending “androgynist” (this crap permeated Hemingway studies for a decade, but it made him acceptable to contemporary literary theory) . Yep, Earnest was a great big gay who wished he was a woman. Uh-huh. That’s how they teach him now. Not his literary merit (huge) or his skill with narrative (also huge), but as a great big woman, who didn’t get the free “health care” he needed to be the woman he always wanted to be. Crazy? Sure. Who cares if he’s gay, straight, or whatever? Oh, right, leftists bent on division. Got it.
So, if your favorite fascist-supporting white male writer is “un,” how do you make him viable? Oh, I know! Make him gay. Ish. But this is typical leftist crap. “Feminists” champion women’s rights . . . unless that right is to be a stay-at-home-mom or any other role that fits their “traditional gender role” tripe. Oh, and it’s tripe. When “feminists” aren’t trumpeting the rights of women to . . . well, never marry, have countless abortions, and receive “free” birth control, they simply ignore any and every abuse of women around the world.
Being a stay-at-home-mom is laughable, a joke, something to be diminished and admonished. But actual feminists (not the post-70’s crop of femisogynists) didn’t believe that; they supported women who chose to stay at home; they supported women who wanted to be women (oh, yes, according to those dated, oppressive, white, male-dominated “socio-cultural” norms); they never sought . . . hatred for women. But that’s what the leftists today are all about. Hating women who don’t fit their mold (those obsolete, male-dominated molds are so oppressive), and trying to force them into that mold, oblivious–as always–to their own totalitarian oppression.
I’m sick of it. Sick. Of. It.
When Scott Brown was running for Senate (for Ted Kennedy’s, aka “The People’s Seat”), I saw again–and this is not at all unusual among “feminists”–the same wrong-headed craziness, lack of logic/critical thinking skills, and plain old-fashioned bullying. Some group, whose founder I actually like (she’s nuts, but in a way that you can respect), said that “we” needed to vote for Croakley because . . . she’s female. Seriously. Of course, as I pointed out to them, this vaginal consideration did not extend to Sarah. Or any other conservative. Just liberal women have acceptable vaginas, apparently.
To femisogynists I say, screw you. We have your number; you don’t give a crap about women, never have, never will. You diminish and disparage women who don’t fit your mold, whom you believe to be . . . what? Gender traitors? You’re laughable and shallow and useless. But then, vesting your entire existence on an anti-intellectual “treatise” would lead to embarrassing failure. Try reading something not grounded in Marx. Really, try it–that’s quite the challenge at any college or university.