Posted on 05/23/2003 7:29:29 AM PDT by robowombat
Feminism's Third Wave by Angela Fiori
Last Friday's article on date rape by Murray Rothbard in these pages brought back a lot of college memories (not many of them good). By the end of his essay Rothbard cut to the real motive of the feminists: the campus date-rape campaigns of the early 1990s weren't motivated by a genuine concern for the well-being of women. They were part of an ongoing attempt to delegitimize heterosexuality to young, impressionable women by demonizing men as rapists.
The only point I'd add is that the regulations the feminists were proposing applied only to men, not to the hordes of lecherous dikes teaching in "Wymyn's Studies" departments whose most prized occupational perk is brazen sexual harassment of young women with complete impunity.
What a difference ten years makes. The newest twist of feminism finds men guilty again, but in an exquisitely tortured way (e.g., Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Why There Are No Good Men Left). Taking their cues from Betty Friedan's Second Wave (the First Wave of feminism being suffrage), young women since the late 1960s have increasingly bought into the idea that building a career instead of a home and family are of central importance to their lives during their early twenties to mid-thirties (ironically their prime years for bearing children).
Today's young women thus climb the corporate heights, entering dream careers earning six- and even seven-figure incomes. They acquire beautiful sports cars, commodious homes, and the respect of hundreds to thousands of subordinates in hectic Palm-Pilot worlds.
Sometime in the midst of this material utopia, New Single Woman suddenly finds herself in an epic crisis: she's 35 to 40 and still unmarried with no prospects in sight and rapidly expiring eggs in her ovaries. This leads to a furious hunt for a hubby who's every bit as brilliant, gorgeous, sexy, hip, financially successful, and personally accomplished as she is and guess what? He's nowhere to be found. Ergo, "There are no good men left."
If you think this is a joke, it's not. It's feminism's Third Wave, where women run to expensive relationship consultants like Barbara DeAngelis (who's been divorced 4 times), join speed-dating groups, and post photos of themselves on Yahoo! Personals to few takers. What could be the problem? First, guests who arrive at the party five hours late can't legitimately complain that the buffet has been cleaned out. Gorgeous men (like women) go to the earliest and highest bidders. If you're a 35 to 40-year-old corporate spinster, it's time to give up on Brad Pitt, honey. If you want a hubby bad enough, you'll just have to settle for a...(gag!)...average mortal man. Sorry.
(What's interesting is that absurdly high standards – or inexplicably low ones as we'll see later – is the obvious diagnosis with most of these women, but it's never the diagnosis that our popular culture gives them. It's always, "Oh, you poor thing. You're so wonderful and men are just too stupid or mean to admit it.")
Feminism proclaimed that for women to be fulfilled they had to adopt the career ambitions of workaholic men, the sexual promiscuity of John F. Kennedy, and the cynicism of Gloria Steinem (the pre-married one, that is). Can you think of any demographic group other than women who would have bought into this prescription for complete disaster and then cried victim when the Bunker Buster of Inevitable Biology crashed through the roof and blew up in their faces? Think Wile E. Coyote. No, think of someone much dumber.
Women were designed by God for marriage and motherhood and deep down they have an innate desire for it, no matter how sublimated nature can be to social idiocies such as feminism. What's so remarkable about the feminist charade was how long a run it had before a few women caught on to it. It didn't even pass muster as a leftist ideology, focusing on material objectives such as money, prestigious jobs, and physical possessions. It was utopian ("You can have it all") but in the end really not much more than pseudo-intellectual hedonism.
There's a saying from some older culture to the effect that the quickest way to destroy a rival society is to ruin its women. It's a dictum undoubtedly coined by some man who probably didn't begin to grasp the stunning magnitude of the self-destructive instinct that is so much a part of Collective Woman. (These are the inexplicably low standards alluded to above.) While I have a great deal of sympathy for her family, no one will ever convince me that Laci Peterson didn't see an abundant number of red flags before marrying the creepy Scott. Sociopaths aren't made overnight.
Out here in California the Peterson case is being compared to the O.J. Simpson murders and yet an O.J. verdict is entirely possible if Peterson gets even a majority-female jury. Women on the Menendez jury almost got their wish to free the murderous Lyle and Erik just because they found them handsome. (One female juror actually expressed sympathy for the brothers "because they no longer had parents." Uh, the brothers no longer had parents because they murdered them, stupid!)
As for the Peterson case, forget the grisly discovery of the needle-nose pliers on Scott's boat with Laci's hair in them. Anyone with a brain knows that innocent men don't bleach their hair and beard and run off to San Diego with a load of cash and survival gear. And yet Scott gets dozens of love letters, cards, and flowers every day from women all over the country who want to marry him and have his baby because he's good-looking. It's not easy to imagine a similar phenomenon vis-à-vis men, as down in San Diego all Kristin Rossum ever got from men over the last two years were death threats for running off with her boss and fatally poisoning her husband. Ditto for even better-looking women such as Susan Smith and Pamela Smart.
The problem goes way beyond Laci Peterson, Nicole Brown Simpson, and the 36 women murdered by the handsome but thoroughly evil Ted Bundy. (Michaud and Aynesworth report that scores of beautiful blondes were vying for Bundy's attention at the July 1979 trial in Miami where he was first sentenced to death. Bundy's last wife Carole Boone married him on February 12, 1980, the day of his third death sentence for slitting the throat of 12-year old Kim Leach, mutilating her genitals with a knife, and stuffing her lifeless body under an abandoned hog shed. Incredibly, Boone believed in Ted's innocence until Ted himself finally dissuaded her right before his 1989 execution.)
Earlier this year many men were so taken with the beautiful and supposedly genteel star of The Bachelorette, Trista Rehn. Rehn, who eventually chose handsome firefighter Ryan Sutter as her husband, has to be glad her new hubby didn't look too close into her past. Some of the disturbing skeletons include, among heavy slutting with different men, a significant stint with a very creepy-looking tattooed ex-con. The man, with the ironic name of Brian Bachelor, bears an uncanny resemblance to the tattooed criminal wife beater Tommie Lee, whom the beautiful actresses Heather Locklear and Pamela Anderson both married and divorced.
Average men continue to be outraged by this perennial female adulation of either sociopaths or extremely good looking men who use them up and move on. They see no rationality in such a warped set of preferences. The key word here is rationality. The default mode of thought in women is not rational, it's emotive. Criminals and philanderers are interesting and mysterious – that's the key. It's irrelevant that they offer no real future. In a nutshell, they're crass entertainment like ditzy afternoon soaps. (I know so many of you men were certain there was some stunningly profound answer to this question, but there isn't. Sorry for the letdown.)
All of this is exactly what decent men should wage a revolution against. They are the ones called upon to pick up the pieces of shattered relationships and foot an enormous bill as both stepfathers and taxpayers. Today, the staggering cost isn't just financial in terms of ready-made dads drafted to foot the bill for two or three of another man's kids (or thousands as taxpayers). The cost is emotional as well. Good men don't like to admit it – for fear of being pegged as wimpy – but off the record many express deep resentment at having to struggle to build sexual intimacy with women who have been sexually plundered by so many past partners.
My great interest is in the churches (Catholic and Evangelical alike) where it's an even sadder story in singles groups, where innocent, bookish, never-married men like my brothers who have been in the church since their teens, are perversely brought together with cynical, used-up, divorce-battered women still looking for either criminals or movie stars. The ones who finally wake up (usually in their 30s at the earliest) have nothing to offer these men as they either don't want or can't have any more children. (The age of 27 – not 40 as many women mistakenly think – is when a woman's fertility begins its rapid decline.)
The largest immediate hurdle is that our society is so steeped in feminist double standards that not even most men recognize them anymore. Can you ever imagine a book being written by a man (never mind published by a big New-York house such as Broadway) entitled Why There Are No Good Women Left? You can already hear the howls of indignation from Oprah, The View, and conservatives such as Joe Farah who recently cheered the cause of automobile murderer Clara Harris. (Thankfully Farah didn't express a desire to marry Harris. He'd have to be female to do that.)
Can you imagine Hollywood making a movie such as Shallow Hal (2001), only this time with two average-looking career women who discover that it's better to choose their mates on the basis of their personalities rather than their physical appearance? You can't, and it's not because today's women aren't superficial: indeed, most are now as bad as the worst men precisely because they've so insulated from criticism on that point. It's "sexism" or "misogyny" to point it out. Indeed, the most brazen female superficiality is now sold and encouraged as "female empowerment."
If there is ever going to be any restoration of sanity, it's decent men who have to lead the way back and first by understanding what all the upheavals of the 1960s are now costing them (not just the sexual revolution which turned today's dating women into prostitutes). Keep in mind that running after sociopaths while simultaneously claiming that "There are no good men left" is just the latest twist in this 40-year-old female Superscam – and the tip of the iceberg at that.
A good start would be to look at how the 52% female portion of the population got classified as a minority and thus eligible for unofficial affirmative action. A second interesting question is how the sex with the higher life expectancy got its own wing in most hospitals (along with children). A third angle would be a comprehensive study of the family court system to see how the average man's probability of winning custody of children stacks up to the average woman's. After that take a look at which demographic group is most fervently eroding the Second Amendment and leading the charge toward the full federal takeover of U.S. health and day care. (All of these latter horrors would never have been a reality in Canada without the decisive support of women at the ballot box.)
Maybe not with respect to marriage, but in terms of resistance to all this escalating nonsense, the question of where all the good men went is a valid one. To the decent men, if you think you're getting the shaft economically and socially now, just continue to sit back like a bunch of feminine cowards and let things continue to deteriorate. You ain't seen nothin' yet.
God forbid! I'm one of those bookish, never-married men (I'm going to turn 23 on Independence Day). I think I have enough sense to not allow that to happen. Still, the fact that this happens scares me. I have met two smart, conservative, Catholic,beautiful, and young women since the year began, but one has a boyfriend and lives out on the Left Coast and the other I just met last week in DC, where I work. Who knows what may happen with her. I leave it in God's hands.
I think this is about half-right. Women, in general, are much better at establishing intimacy than men are. Multiple sexual partners destroy the tendency for women to bond emotionally with men.
When women are no longer capable of doing so, men suffer. Most men, though, are unable to determine that intimacy is the missing ingredient in their failed relationships. For anyone who doubts this, I suggest they read the never ending gripes posted by men on this very site.
Virginity-- a subject that even most women will recoil from today--perhaps should be reconsidered not so much in terms of purity as in terms of wholeness.
There seems to be a particular type of anti-feminist that enjoys doing just that--probably because she likes the attention from men.
It's interesting how many of the corporate spinsters still insist on "marrying up". They can be very feminist, very into equality but still believe only men making more money than they are worth their time.
My advice to any young woman - don't wait until your late 30's to suddenly decide that you want a husband and children. Never put a career or "having fun" before this because (at least from my experience as from friends that I know), a man does not want "old baggage."
Tell it to my law school class, which is half women. Few of them seem to understand that they're taking themselves out of the marriage market. I have no desire to hitch myself to a competitor, and neither do most men.
My eperience tells me something different. How many male law students date female law students?
I was just talking this past week to a beautiful, smart, traditional, moral woman who also happens to be a lawyer. She's 35 and her marriage prospects are not great. The ironic thing is that she'd be a great catch in today's situation, but men are too gun-shy to even think about marrying a lawyer in most cases. Also, I don't think she has come to grips with the fact that her own decisions have resulted in putting her in this situation. Many of us don't wake up to the realities of life until our late 30's. But for women, that can be too late.
I still disagree with what you said earlier. In fact, in some of the more presitigious firms, it is considered quite a faux pas not to have a wife without a certain pedigree.
I couldn't agree more. I just don't hear that from Fiori. And as long as we're on the subject, another female writer with long blond hair and a bone-thin body comes to mind...
Why does this remind me of the setup for a joke?
You know... the one about a tombstone request for "Here lies a yadda yadda... and a lawyer"?
And they guy tells the requestor that it's illegal to bury two people in the same grave... :)
Neither one of them will ever be successful in convincing women who don't already agree with them. And both of them have a mean streak which should be a turn off to gracious, non-bitchy women.
I'm more interested in women who can formulate a message that your average, non-political junkie, adult female will recognize as true.
My vote goes to Pia de Solenni.
I happen to like both Ann and Angela. They can be firebreathers but that's called for from time to time, and was refrained from for much too long a period of time, IMO. Passion convinces many who can be influenced.
No serious social movement happened by impetus of bland reason. Everyone loves a good speaker because a good speaker can move them.
The passion of Christ is what made me love him, not the parables, as beautiful as they were and are.
Uh-huh. Do you have any female friends or colleagues who are liberals, who are pro-abortion, who have gone through very bad divorces, who are lesbians, or just generally couldn't care less about politics? My guess is that most American women fall into one of those categories. Or do you mostly interact with people who think just like you do?
What does this have to do with my point about bland reason not being as effective as passion to persuade those who can be persuaded? How many pro-abortion women are going to give that one up easily, most especially with the tool of bland reason? My guess is that most women who have gone from pro-abort to pro-life have done so because of something vibrant and not bland. Uh-huh INDEED!!
My guess is that most American women fall into one of those categories.
So what? Again, how does that prove against my view of the benefit of a passioned response?
Or do you mostly interact with people who think just like you do?
Why that question lacks definite grace, and has a bitchy component to it. We don't agree, so what?
Try not to let a little word like bland set you off, especially when your expounding on the efficacy of prosaic formulation as a superior method of persuasion for the average, non-political archetype you've created.
Try not to indulge your insecurities, it'll make your mind even more 'independent'.
The default mode of thought in women is not rational, it's emotive. Criminals and philanderers are interesting and mysterious – that's the key. It's irrelevant that they offer no real future
Brilliant.
There's a saying from some older culture to the effect that the quickest way to destroy a rival society is to ruin its women. It's a dictum undoubtedly coined by some man who probably didn't begin to grasp the stunning magnitude of the self-destructive instinct that is so much a part of Collective Woman. I think the author misses the point here. No one picked up on this. But when you have a culture of women coarsened as described above, they make terrible wives and mothers. They don't teach their daughters (who will be the arbiters of the relationships they form with men) to have lofty ideals, to fear God or to be good friends. The only thing they know is getting whatever they can out of life--by hook or by crook. This makes for the next generation being quite short-changed.
Not to digress, but it's no wonder the rational takes back seat to the emotive--the educational system fosters just this approach. Consider a typical "thought" question: You are a slave at Jefferson's Monticello. What do you think about his idea that 'all men are created equal?'" While it is true that thinking is becoming more and more emotive, it still remains a particular trait of the debased woman.)
I didn't follow the Laci thing, but from what little I know she appeared to be a happy young wife and was not disordered. It's very sad. Sometimes bad things do happen to good people. Not true of Nicole, whose life was tragic, but it sounds as if her value system was quite scewed as the women mentioned in the article.
Double standards abound, but the real tragedy is that the standards, they are a-changing to be anti-standards. The only resistance to this is to remember that the ends don't justify the means, to think for the long-term over the short-term and to espouse holy ideals.
Sad as these twisted people have, with significant support from the left, made great progress in destroying the family.
No, no, never believe this. Feminism is inherently evil. There can never be a "good" feminism anymore than there can be a good Marxism. In its root and branch, from its origin, in all of its works, in all of its resulting death, depravity and destruction, feminism is evil. Here is what pope Pius XI said to those who thought you could have a "good" socialism (just replace "socialism" with "feminism" and the same argument holds):
One section of Socialism has sunk into Communism. Communism teaches and seeks two objectives: Unrelenting class warfare and absolute extermination of private ownership. Not secretly or by hidden methods does it do this, but publicly, openly, and by employing every and all means, even the most violent. To achieve these objectives there is nothing which it does not dare, nothing for which it has respect or reverence; and when it has come to power, it is incredible and portentlike in its cruelty and inhumanity. The horrible slaughter and destruction through which it has laid waste vast regions of eastern Europe and Asia are the evidence; how much an enemy and how openly hostile it is to Holy Church and to God Himself is, alas, too well proved by facts and fully known to all.The other section, which has kept the name Socialism, is surely more moderate... The question arises, or rather is raised without warrant by some, whether the principles of Christian truth cannot perhaps be also modified to some degree and be tempered so as to meet Socialism half-way and, as it were, by a middle course, come to agreement with it. There are some allured by the foolish hope that socialists in this way will be drawn to us. A vain hope! Those who want to be apostles among socialists ought to profess Christian truth whole and entire, openly and sincerely, and not connive at error in any way.
And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.
It is also a lie put out by certain feminists that the original founders of the feminist movement were "pro-life." Read this article by Carol Iannone to find out more about these original founders:
Feminism has no Moderate Side
Here's an excerpt:
"It was here that the Seneca Falls "Declaration of Sentiments" was signed, setting forth the ideals of the women’s rights movement... Much of the Declaration smacks of today’s "Feminazism" — owing less to the American Founding than the French Revolution, redolent less of 1776 than its own year, 1848, the year in which the Communist Manifesto was first published.Think of the "consiousness-raising sessions" of the feminist movement of the sixties and seventies. There is a direct line from the Hegelian view of history to the Communist Manifesto to the Feminist movement.The Declaration advances a Marxian view of the total oppression of one sex by the other from the beginning of time, proclaiming that the "history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her." Also Marx-like, it portrays the curious willingness of woman to cooperate in her own "social and religious degradation" as a type of false consciousness imposed on woman by man.
If Pia de Solenni is a "Christian feminist," check out post #46.
Excellent point. We can see it happening all around us. The upcoming generation of girls are incredibly coarsened already. I think the author would agree with you. When she said, "a dictum undoubtedly coined by some man who probably didn't begin to grasp the stunning magnitude of the self-destructive instinct that is so much a part of Collective Woman," I think she was referring to exactly what you described, although this sentence wasn't very clear.
How many of them will have twentieth anniversaries?
Being married is different from having a boyfriend that won't dump you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.