Dennis Prager elaborates on four of them:
In sum, thanks to feminism, very many women slept with too many men for their own happiness; postponed marriage too long to find the right man to marry; are having hired hands do much of the raising of their children; and find they are dating boy-men because manly men are so rare.
Feminism exemplifies the truth of the saying, “Be careful what you wish for — you may get it.”A lot of the Feminist Revolution boils down to the masculinization of women and the feminization of men...against their natures.
1 comment:
I wonder, has feminism 'masculinized' women. One could say that feminism has made women ashamed of being marriage-minded rather than 'sex positive.'
Women have accepted the validity and even the obligatoriness of 'sex positive' sexual relationships with guys as the only non-mousy non-housewifey foundation for marriage: a marriage that is 'meant to happen' will roll spontaneously out of such a relationship.
Such compliantness seems to me more feminine than masculine -- except, really, that guys are just as culturally manipulable as girls.
I remember white feminists' ostensible frustration that white coeds would listen compliantly to a lecture etc on white males or compliantly read articles on white males that portray'd white males as organizers of oppression, racism, misogyny, sexism, etc, but continue to hope for a happy marriage with a white male in which they would raise not only daughters but even sons, who would become the new generation of war criminals.
In a way, the feminine is both obtuse and subtle. Womengirls seem quite able to feel they are still good Christians even though they still hope to 'marry well' (a guy with worldly prestige, success, power etc) in the Mammon system.
In a way this is stupid. Guys who aren't afraid of their own shadows in sexualness tend to conclude they are not really Christian because they understand that their main psychical occupation at church is girlwatching, and they aspire to success in the Mammon system.
On the other hand, personal identity really is more elusive than male foursquareness makes accessible. The little girl in Carol Gilligan's "A Different Voice" is baffled by Gilligan's "Tell me who you are?" She wants to please the adult, she really tries to come up with an answer, but personal identity eludes her. The little boy, in contrast, readily lists a bunch of characteristics and achievements.
I reject "postmodern" agitprop that one has no identity (on the crypto-buddhist grounds that impermanentness isn't real being: which necessitates the conclusion that only the conceptual negation of sensory experience by a supposedly unreal ego arrives at real being which is a void that supposedly is the same for all non-selfs who experience it -- which is possible only if non-selfs are all the same and can happen untemporally).
Even a temporary eddy in a river isn't "just whatever" -- it is 'an' 'eddy'. Truth is relative (to who we are) because being is relational (each one of us has or is an ego and relates to other egos) and meanings are contextual (in the real contexts in which we live).
Unfortunately, one disadvantage of femininity is the incapacity for direct declarations. (All the women who have spoken out against feminism have done so unfemininely. But a girl can femininely comply with an establish'd cultural trend even if the trend to be agreed with is a slutwalk, which logicks from the principle that attire is never an invitation to sexual violence to a conclusion that attire has no relational contextual meaning. Sc that attire does communicate self-perception to others and includes then perceived sexuo-personal value.
What today's child-less, husband-less womengirls are getting is not what they wish'd for (a smarter more career-successful husband with whom they would raise a wonderful family, mostly while taking a 'mommy track' career path). But since womengirls are feminine, they couldn't declare this.
Wherefore today's situation is guys' fault: we can see that this isn't what they want, and should have said so for them.
As I did in a review ("A Gentleman and a Transvestite") of the movie Tootsie (Crux. Sept 1983, vol 19 #3, pp. 32-36). And then later (1997?) in a review of "The Rules" in the same publication.
Post a Comment