The Sterility Of Feminism

REMEMBER the Sixties? Back then our liberal friends were sneering at “uptight” conservative men in gray flannel suits and celebrating creative people in flowered shirts who “did their own thing.”

Now uptight feminists are sneering at creative conservative women who decide to “do their own thing.”

But things were different then. Back then, the “uptight” conservative patriarchy was oppressing everyone, especially minorities and women, as it had for millennia.

Some people, African Americans in particular, resist the notion that women were ever as oppressed as blacks. All humans on the left are oppressed, of course, but some are more oppressed than others.

It is certainly true that feminism has never really been a movement of the oppressed willing to die for the principle that all men are created equal. It is more accurate to call it a movement of high-born women determined to liberate themselves from the humiliation of getting their hands dirty with domestic trivia—in the way that men have always seemed to have done.

The German sociologist Georg Simmel had understood this a century ago, according to Jerry Z. Muller in The Mind and the Market. It was not centuries of oppression that powered the feminist movement, but “the psychological effects of market developments,” the new technologies that “made for less labor in the household” for those that could afford them. The unaccustomed leisure provoked unease, even frustration, in middle-class women, and in response they sought activity outside the home.

Simmel understood that in the short term the public sphere for women would be defined by the rules “created by men and for men” but that eventually women would transform the public square to suit “a more feminine sensibility.”

The public square has indeed been transformed to suit a more feminine sensibility, but in a curious way. It has been transformed to suit a particular middle-class feminist agenda, rather than a more general feminine sensibility.

But this was what the middle-class feminists wanted. Like many well-born women down the ages, they wanted to farm the care of their children and their homes out to the paid help. What these women wanted, to deal with their guilt, was a society that told everyone that it would be better for leave the home and seek paid employment like men. And they got it.

Then Sarah Palin came along and drove the whole project into the ditch.

Many people still think the feminist project is alive and well. That’s what The Economist’s Lexington columnist thought last week:

[I]f feminism means, at its core, that women should be able to compete equally in the workplace while deciding for themselves how they organize their family life, then Mrs Palin deserves to be treated as a pioneer, not dismissed as a crackpot.

Oh dear. Haven’t we got beyond that kind of binary thinking at The Economist yet? Really, some people today are no better than the Puritans that Max Weber sneered at in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism:

Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved.

The success of the feminist agenda depended upon rigid control and compartmentalization of women’s fertility. Some have called this a death wish, but is more like an antiseptic sterility. The challenge that Sarah Palin poses to the “nullity” of the center-left culture is the challenge of fecundity. Conservative women do not aspire to the sterile life of the tenured academic sinecure or the strained consciousness of the government-funded “arts community.” They do not select from The Economist’s menu of competing equally in the workplace and/or organizing family life. They open themselves to Life itself, its risks, its joys, its sorrows, its faith, and, above all, its call to loving service.

The world we live in today is designed to make the world safe for cultural liberals and feminists. Resting comfortably upon their government sinecures and the flattery of their media courtiers, these people lash out with fury against anyone objecting to the wonderful world they have built. But theirs is not the only way to live.

The feminist way replaces the organic safety net of family and neighbors with rational, bureaucratic institutions that deliver social services to the needy, but without spirit and without heart. In particular the social services most important to women are sterilized into rigid bureaucracy: schools, health care, and relief of the poor.

The bureaucratic model is a male-oriented and goal-oriented culture. It is the structure of the army and of one-size-fits-all that orders everyone to serve a single goal from the top. It is hardly adapted to the community of women. Women’s culture relates less to fixed goals and more to the detection and satisfaction of particular needs in the welfare of families, the care of children, and the relief of the poor.

The chaps at The Economist assert that in the emergence of Sarah Palin feminism has won. They could not be more wrong. The flap over Sarah Palin points to the emergence of the genuine “feminine sensibility” projected by George Simmel and the exposure of uptight, sterile feminism as a dead end.

Christopher Chantrill blogs at americanmanifestobook.blogspot.com.

Buy his Road to the Middle Class.

print view

To comment on this article at American Thinker click here.

To email the author, click here.

TAGS

Chappies

“But I saw a man yesterday who knows a fellow who had it from a chappie that said that Urquhart had been dipping himself a bit recklessly off the deep end.” —Freddy Arbuthnot
Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison

Hugo on Genius

“Tear down theory, poetic systems... No more rules, no more models... Genius conjures up rather than learns... ” —Victor Hugo
César Graña, Bohemian versus Bourgeois

Education

“We have met with families in which for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.”
E. G. West, Education and the State

Faith & Purpose

“When we began first to preach these things, the people appeared as awakened from the sleep of ages—they seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible beings...”
Finke, Stark, The Churching of America, 1776-1990

Conversion

“When we received Christ,” Phil added, “all of a sudden we now had a rule book to go by, and when we had problems the preacher was right there to give us the answers.”
James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh

Postmodernism

A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ’merely relative’, is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.
Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy

Faith and Politics

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable... [1.] protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; [2.] recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family... [3.] the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
Pope Benedict XVI, Speech to European Peoples Party, 2006

China and Christianity

At first, we thought [the power of the West] was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity.
David Aikman, Jesus in Beijing

Religion, Property, and Family

But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family. Thus the outlook for communism, which is both anti-property and anti-family, (and also anti-religion), is not promising.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit

Conservatism

Conservatism is the philosophy of society. Its ethic is fraternity and its characteristic is authority — the non-coercive social persuasion which operates in a family or a community. It says ‘we should...’.
Danny Kruger, On Fraternity

US Life in 1842

Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism

Society and State

For [the left] there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance.
David Cameron, Conference Speech 2008

Home

American Manifesto

Chapters

Chappies

roadtothemiddleclass

presented by Christopher Chantrill

Follow @chrischantrill • Contact