Pages

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Feminism's Monstrous Fairytale



In 1992 feminist Anna Quindlen won a Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.  A year later, she followed up the award with a speech to the Twin cities Chapter of the Betsy-Tacy Society where she announced to the world (or at least to a room full of young girls and their mothers, because boys rarely read the stories of  Besty, Tacy and Tib) that Elizabeth Warrington Ray was a feminist icon. 

I found out a week ago.

Not being of the feminist persuasion, I rarely run across them in my studies of the Bible, non-fiction literature and the rare piece of classic fiction.  (Taylor Caldwell is an admitted weakness.)  So I had no idea who Anna Quindlen was when I purchased a copy of the recently republished Betsy and the Great World / Betsy’s Wedding (HarperCollins) with Ms. Quindlens’ speech in the foreword.  I know now.

Feminism is about choices, Ms. Quindlen takes great care to tell us early into her speech.  A point, she claims, that has been grossly distorted over the years, lied about, twisted and generally just misrepresented.  She may be right.  Every time I see someone proclaim they are a feminist (even Christians), they always say feminism is about equal rights.  The right of a woman to do anything a man can do.  That’s all, they say.  But I think Ms. Quindlen is more precise.  Feminism is about choices.

“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15

Betsy is the feminist icon, readers are told, not because she made choices, but because she never had to pay for her choices.  In other words, she lived the feminist fairy tale.  She had the “organized and conditioned” life such as described by feminisms' founders like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, regarding the development of the Declaration of Sentiments, and no one ever told Betsy “no”.  No hardships entered her life; she married the handsome, successful guy.

The icon of girlhood, Anne (with an "e") Shirley, was excluded from the running because she was an orphan.  And Jo,  Jo March.  Stalwart, sensible Jo with her heart of gold who cared for orphans (see Little Men and Jo’s Boys,) was deemed unworthy because she didn’t marry the prince.  

Fairy tales do matter in feminism, and if you make the wrong choices (like choosing the wonderful Professor instead of the flighty Laurie) you’re out of the club.  That’s the place in the foreword where I stopped reading, fetched my Exacto knife and did irreparable harm to.a.BOOK.

“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of  the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15

Perhaps the most important choice in feminism is to be or not to be a mother.  In 2006, Ms. Quindlen, a self professed patient,  told a Planned Parenthood fundraisingaudienceI’ve discovered that motherhood is so challenging and so critical to society that to force it on a woman is immoral”.  Roe v. Wade, the legalized killing of preborn infants, was probably the highlight of the second wave of feminism.  Or so they say.  It doesn’t take much observation of the history of feminism to see that even these most abhorrent post modern ideologies have really been present since the beginning.

In 1896 Martha Cannon became the highest female government office holder when she won election to the Utah state senate.  She was a suffragette (feminist): “Women are better than men.  Slaves are always better than their masters”; a Mormon: “A plural wife isn’t half as much a slave as a single wife”; and of course pro choice: “Someday there will be a law compelling people to have no more than a certain amount of children, and the mothers of the land can live as they ought to live”.
The appeal of sacrificing children on the altar of better things, whether it is rain for the crops, defeat of the enemy, or promotion up the corporate ladder, has been a feature of nations down through history.
 “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15

If you become the first generation of Americans to accord women full equality instead of grudging acceptance, will you not have done better than we did?” Ms. Quindlen asked the graduating class of Wesleyan University in 2009.  Equal rights, such as women's suffrage, characterized the first wave of feminism following the Civil War. But it was not, and is not the foundation of “choice” Ms. Quindlen and her predecessors want.  Egalitarianism is what they are after. 

Beyonce, mainstream artist and Presidentially approved role model, has set the tone of the third wave of feminism.   While she acts out the intimacy of her marriage onstage, in song and on national television, feminists applaud “the Boss’s”  courage to say women should express themselves sexually just as freely as men.  Like all aspects of feminism, it is not a new ideal.  The sexual equality appeal rose to prominence in the Free Love movement fostered by Frances Wright early in the 19th century.

No, the right to vote was never the main act.  It was just foreplay.   Is this third wave, choosing to sink (perhaps naked, on a wrecking ball) unreprimanded, to the lowest rung of male crudeness, where true egalitarianism will be found? Is this where the happily ever after for women begins?  

The defining moment of the third wave has not yet happened.  I, for one, do not look forward to its climax.

 “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15

No comments:

Post a Comment