Feminism means nothing other than human equality we are told. Women should be “supporting” other women and “fighting” for equal rights. Ah, yes, the privilege of being drafted while pregnant: a vision of radical equality we can all get behind.
Forgetting these interesting minutia for a moment and whether equality as such is desirable, let us consider the claim that feminism is simply a movement for equality. For this to be true, there has to be overt oppression of women by someone, and the only other people besides women are men. Are men by virtue of their maleness in positions of authority and oppressing women? Even though our culture has primed us to respond resoundingly in the affirmative, it is a question worth considering.
There are men who are downright rude to women evidently simply because they are women. Men of an older generation who refuse to refer to accomplished professional women as anything other than their first name, men who presume that women are incapable of a wide range of skills simply because they are women, and there are loads of other examples of some men being rude or condescending. However, does this snub from the old boys’ club really constitute oppression?
What are the features of daily life that plague women, destroy their happiness, and lead them to believe that they are oppressed? “Beauty standards” is a phrase that’s tossed around to express one of the elements of villainous oppression. Evidence is scarce that any grown man with hair on his chest (here meant figuratively) cares about the elusive thigh gap. This is, for the uninitiated, an absence of fat deposits on the inner thigh leading to a space between one’s upper legs when standing with knees together. It’s not men who have concocted such a foolish measure of beauty that drives women to malnourishment: that has the markings of other women.
How can we be so sure? If one listens to the musings of men, it appears many are highly attracted to their wives of average looks and intelligence. Of course, we have to rule out consideration of miscreants permanently deformed by long-term exposure to pornography and other unfortunate scenarios, but this is only fair. If we are going to consider men as a group, let us zero in on the average, the pervasive, the ubiquitous. So back to these average joes: they really seem to like their underwhelming wives. They may voice timidly that they would prefer she not be twice a normal body weight, hardly a punishing or unrealistic standard. Many concerned husbands gently suggest that showering regularly and getting dressed up for special occasions goes a long way to encouraging intimacy.
Beauty standards are an invention of women in competition with each other.
The standard American work week is another pernicious example of how women are oppressed. According to some, the workday was designed for those good-for-nothing menfolk to waltz in the door at five o’clock to find dinner on the table. Historical analysis might suggest that this isn’t exactly the line of development that occurred between the twelve-hour factory day and the eight-hour office stint, but let’s get back to the dinner. Is it really so outrageous to want a home-cooked meal at the end of the day? It seems because we can’t all come home from a full day of work to a set table, everyone must be denied the experience.
This is silly. As the Romans said, “divide and conquer.” Why must we all be mediocre employees sprinting out the door to pick the kids up from child care and mediocre homemakers who never have time to fix a decent meal? It makes a great deal of sense to have focused roles to address the complexity of life.
Additionally, many mothers want to stay home with their children, and it just so happens that making meals and doing the laundry (in a machine, for heaves sake—you’re not marching down to the river to scrub your petticoats anymore) pair quite well with the rhythms of caring for young children.
Many women find it incredibly difficult to give birth to a baby and manage full-time employment. That’s not because some evil sexist jerk invented work hours, but that is simply the reality of having a baby. Instead of tilting at windmills of imagined misogyny writ large, maybe individual women should examine some presumptions that need not be made. Instead of encouraging each other to pretend that sobbing uncontrollably while watching a livestream video of your three-month-old being cared for by someone who is not his mother as you go off to the office is just part of the experience maybe consider a different experience. Working flexible hours or choosing not to work is a realistic option for many people. Financially painful and terrifying? Yes. More human and fulfilling? Also, yes, for many people who dare to try. Obsessively seeking someone else to care for a vulnerable baby that belongs to you, flesh of your flesh, is a fool’s errand. No one is going to care as much for your child, and no one should. Can other people manage a child’s basic needs? Of course, but there is no substitute for a mother.
Expectations of a division of labor in the family are not oppressing women. Such expectations make sense. But, alas, now we have jettisoned women to the prison of their own home to rot in obscurity, never traversing the halls of power and gaining the acclaim they deserve.
Really?
The writer Gertrud von le Fort examined the unique role of woman in her book The Eternal Woman: The Timeless Meaning of the Feminine. Sexist through and through, in the best way possible, le Fort observes how mothers contribute to the forward march of generations. She writes, “If one inquires into the original laws of life, biological research confirms the assertion that woman does not in herself either represent or exercise the great, historically effective talents, but she is nevertheless their silent carrier. If one wishes to find the source of great personal endowments one must not proceed from sons to their fathers, but to their mothers. To this fact a great number of gifted men and their mothers bear testimony. On the other hand, extraordinary men frequently have insignificant sons. This seems to indicate that man spends his strength in his own performance, while woman does not spend but transmits it.”
The role in the home is private but has powerful public ramifications. The feminist obsession with deprivation and exclusion ignores the lack of real barriers, the desire of many mothers to raise their own children, and the powerful and unique role that many women have in determining the course of future generations. Consider the influence of Timothy’s mother and grandmother that St. Paul notes.
There is no need to demand a place at the table if you set the table and decided what is on the menu. You don’t just have a seat, you own the whole table! Men do not exist in a vacuum, and women have far-reaching influence in the lives of the most powerful men, if they choose to accept that position of power.
Women in 21st century, non-Islamic countries are granted such far-reaching opportunity and encouragement, the vague claim that some men somewhere are oppressing them rings hollow. The scheme of hyper-competitive bureaucracies and arbitrary standards for beauty, motherhood, and female empowerment do not bear the mark of men’s imaginings but look suspiciously like the result of women with more power to shape the world than they realize. We will never “free” women from the prison of their own making if we continue to fixate on toxic masculinity, ignoring the toxic extreme of femininity run rampant.
3 comments
Comments are closed.