Are we entering a feminist down phase? Some years ago I was browsing through a pile of American magazines from the late 1940s in a second hand bookshop. The most interesting article I found was written by a female columnist (the magazine was from around 1946 or 1947). She argued that women had had enough of the hardships brought about by feminism (loneliness, childlessness etc) and that it would be a relief to return to more traditional values. Which is what women did in the 1950s, thereby ending the first great wave of feminism which had begun (roughly speaking) in the 1860s (there had been individual feminists before then, but it seems to have been in the 1860s that feminism was first taken up as government policy in Great Britain). I wonder if we are now poised on the brink of another feminist down phase. There seems to be a similar weariness amongst women - an unwillingness to continue shouldering the burden of overwork and poor family outcomes which are associated with modern feminism. This wearing down of feminism from within is especially marked in a recent article in the Daily Mail by Amanda Platell (The Silent Conspiracy, 28th January 2006). The entire article is worth reading as evidence of a change in attitude, but let me cite some of the most revealing passages. Here is Amanda Platell explaining that despite her glamorous career and lifestyle she wishes to question the feminist legacy:
Another revealing part of the article begins when Amanda Platell seeks a comment from author Fay Weldon, once a feminist icon:
Then there is the following extraordinary admission which Amanda Platell obtains from Tessa Jowell, the Minister for Women:
(This last statement of Tessa Jowell is the most significant. It represents a truly heretical thought within the church of liberalism: that perhaps we can’t choose to be anything we will ourselves to be, because science has proven the reality of gender difference. Gender, in other words, can’t be made not to matter, because our distinctive masculinity and femininity is hardwired into us.) Time will tell whether Amanda Platell is representative of the spirit of the age, and that we really are to get some relief from feminism. I’m not suggesting that institutional feminism will go away. Even in the 1950s there were UN women’s officers jetting around the globe to various conferences and no doubt this will continue. But perhaps at ground level some more space will open up for romance, marriage and motherhood. Comments:2
Posted by Mark Richardson on Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:19 | # Nice comment Amalek. The only thing I’d add to it is that the financial benefit to couples of women working is undermined by a number of factors. First, it must have contributed to rising house prices in Western countries, as it has permitted couples to service larger mortgages. Second, a considerable portion of the female wage is taken by spending on childcare, nannies, home help and so on. Third, women working has arguably lowered male wages by increasing labour supply, demotivating men and restricting career opportunities. 3
Posted by Lauren Smith on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 06:36 | # I as a young woman would prefer the days of old. Feminism has ruined what was once a beautiful country. Children used to come home to mom making cookies, or cooking, or doing what women should be doing, being a mother. What a great childhood! And we wonder why the teenage pregnancy rate is outrageous, mommy is too busy out playing Neo-con! 4
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:56 | # Lauren, thanks for the comment. I know that I appreciated my mother being home when I was young. It’s one reason I couldn’t understand the feminists of the 1980s and 90s arguing for female careerism. I used to think to myself: don’t they want their own children to have the benefits that they themselves enjoyed? Have they forgotten what it was like to be a child? 5
Posted by Amalek on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:32 | # Here’s a glimpse of the old age of a militant feminist. Seventy-two this year: http://www.katemillett.com/pages/1/index.htm and here’s another, from the mare’s mouth: http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/m-fem/1998m07/msg00000.htm “Child-free” sisters are not much cop at supporting each other in the twilight of their lives. 6
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:10 | # Most interesting read, Amalek. And to think that Millett brought such misery on herself for such a destructive cause. 7
Posted by martin on Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:32 | # “One favourite myth peddled by feminists is that the women who assisted the war effort were driven back into the home by men returning from the forces. “ Who cares if women were thrown out of work. The men had been risking their lives, many were killed or permanently disabled, to defend the citizens of their country, and women are citizens too! The men were entitled to preferential treatment when they came back. Post a comment:
Next entry: Swedes and Danes and people with beards - more on those damned cartoons.
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Amalek on Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:30 | #
One favourite myth peddled by feminists is that the women who assisted the war effort were driven back into the home by men returning from the forces.
However, more recent research has found that most of those women, while not regretting that they did their bit, were very glad to be back full time with their children: in an environment they controlled rather more than that of the lathe and the typewriter with its male bosses and foremen.
Of course in those day’s one breadwinner sufficed to bring up two or three children in reasonable comfort. Later, under the tutelage of ugly lesbians, women discovered that they needed to put off childbearing until 10-20 years past the optimum biological moment, and that it was ‘stifling’ them to be a housewife and mother when they could be performing routine tasks in factory or office. Besides, they just had to possess all those lovely shiny things they saw on the TV, even if the old man couldn’t buy them without getting into debt. They had to own their homes at the price of near-eternal indebtedness, like Bangladeshi peasants but unlike most younger Swiss or German mothers. And they could not think of any way of meeting and exchanging notes with other women that did not entail dumping their kids with strangers when they could barely walk.
Ms Platell’s lament for what she and her sisters were taught to devalue and discard is all very well, but unless women (and their ‘partners’) can be persuaded that a simpler, poorer life can be more satisfying than the one exalted by gossip magazine and TV commercial, there won’t be much of a reversion to hearth and home.
The “Having It All” fantasy is only the feminist variant of the cult of the Glorious Individual In All of Us: that genius which cannot be held down in the name of such fuddy-duddy concepts as faith, race or nation. For about 200 years we have been told ad nauseam that selfhood is the highest good and ‘self-expression’ the most solemn obligation. For me, self-expression is what people do in lavatories, and few have much else to express.