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 fundraisingaudience “I’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
