In a recent “Review” section containing a variety of lifestyle content, the Wall Street Journal chose to give front page real estate to a short essay by Erica Jong, the author and pioneer of a certain feminist sexual frankness. The piece in question was an attack on attachment parenting (which has features such as babies sleeping in the bed with mother and father) and environmentalism (of the type which would urge the use of cloth diapers). Jong’s critique is broad and encompasses more than advertised. For example, at one point she expresses her frustration with Gisele Bundchen’s declaration that all women should breastfeed.
Of course Jong is upset. She is from a generation that eagerly embraced things like bottle-feeding and formula so as to gain a degree of freedom from the immediate needs of the infant. The important thing, from the ideological perspective, was that the child not get in the way of the aspirations of the mother.
Her attitude is summed up nicely here:
Women feel not only that they must be ever-present for their children but also that they must breast-feed, make their own baby food, and eschew disposable diapers. It’s a prison for mothers, and it represents as much of a backlash against women’s freedom as the right-to-life movement (italics mine).
Jong repeats the tired old libel that the REAL reason for the existence of the right-to-life movement is that SOME people want to keep women down, keep them penned up in a kitchen or chained to a vacuum cleaner. It could never be that such people have some greater concern for, I don’t know, the right of an unborn child not to be arbitrarily killed. Nah.
The type of feminism on display is one which believes completely in doing what comes naturally when it comes to sex, but not with regard to reproduction or the nurture of children. To the extent that people such as Angelina Jolie or Gisele Bundchen (both singled out for criticism by Jong) represent a backlash against such callous attitudes, I say rage on.
December 2nd, 2010 | 1:12 pm | #1
The Ugliness of Seventies-Style Feminism
Regrettably, the “Ugliness of Seventies-Style Feminism” has also infected the theology and practice of some/many churches.
December 2nd, 2010 | 2:51 pm | #2
This demonstrates again the distorted thinking that comes from viewing the world through one narrow lens–militant feminism, in Jong’s case.
Are Christians susceptible to narrow-lens distortions, too? This is one of the beauties of theism. I don’t know how to do justice to the next phrase, but it goes something like this: God is as not-narrow as is conceivable.
December 2nd, 2010 | 8:13 pm | #3
The Letters to the Editor for that article are quite good.
December 3rd, 2010 | 9:48 am | #4
Thanks, Gary. That was a good addition.
December 3rd, 2010 | 11:22 am | #5
I’m tempted to say that feminists have rotted our society to the core. But it goes back further. Feminists merely suckle at the teat of the same narrow-minded, ego-centric, broken-compass, post-Christian despair that has been feeding the intellectual elites of the west since before any of us were born.
December 8th, 2010 | 2:54 pm | #6
I’m tempted to say that feminists have rotted our society to the core. But it goes back further. Feminists merely suckle at the teat of the same narrow-minded, ego-centric, broken-compass, post-Christian despair that has been feeding the intellectual elites of the west since before any of us were born.
Wow, completely disagree.
I’d like to warn anyone posting on this blog of the dangers of saying “feminism is this” or “feminism is that.” Feminism is a very broad ideological constellation that features varied systems of beliefs about the role of women. Many feminists disagree with each other about the nature of sexism and/or what steps need to be taken in society to promote women’s equality. There are, of course, “radical feminists” who are much more extreme than most other feminists. But those few are hardly grounds for calling feminism a “rotting of our society to the core.” The basic idea of feminism, that men and women are fundamentally equal, is important. That goal should always be pursued. Moreover, sexism has and still does exist in our society, and that problem needs to be addressed. I appreciate Hunter’s article for distinguishing a certain type of feminism, but I’d appreciate it if the subsequent comments didn’t assume all feminists believe the same thing.
Now, do I believe that being pro-life is my elaborate scheme to oppress women? No. That conspiracy rings almost Glenn Beck-ish. I think women are naturally meant to be the vessel of childbirth, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. But certainly most feminists don’t believe this.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact