Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Angry Young Feminists

Mark Judge read it, so I don’t have to. Give him some extra credit: now you don’t have to read it either.

I am referring to a new book, The Book of Jezebel. You remember Jezebel from Bible study. She tried to entice people to worship idols instead of God, to forms cults instead of religions. Wikipedia summarizes her story:

 According to the biblical accounts, Jezebel incited her husband King Ahab to abandon the worship of Yahweh and encourage worship of the deities Baal and Asherah instead. Jezebel is said to have persecuted the prophets of Yahweh, and to have fabricated false evidence of blasphemy against an innocent landowner who refused to sell his property to King Ahab, causing the landowner to be put to death. For these transgressions against the God and people of Israel, the Bible relates, Jezebel met a gruesome death - thrown out of a window by members of her own court retinue, and the flesh of her corpse eaten by stray dogs.

Nowadays, for those who missed Bible study and are connoisseurs of contmeporary feminist thought, Jezebel is known primarily as a website that traffics in feminist rage.

To be fair, Jezebel’s editor, Jessica Coen is an exceptionally talented writer. Her site would be better if she would fill it with more of her own writing and less feminist boilerplate.

Personally, I have long found the site a wonderful supplier of self-discrediting feminism. It shows us what feminism has become. Considering how influential feminism is, those of us who have not bought it can read Jezebel to find out what the other half is thinking. Or, should I say, to see whether the other half is thinking.

Being a dedicated reader to the Jezebel website I feel that I have earned an exemption from reading The Book of Jezebel.

According to Mark Judge the book is organized alphabetically—very original, that—with C following B following A. Under each letter you will find, Judge assures us, several items indicating what you, if you are a Jezebel, must hate and several items you must like.

It’s like an encyclopedia, get it:

Under A there is Madeleine Albright and Christiane Amanpour, Allure magazine and Isabel Allende. There’s also Biblical Adam, who represents “male supremacy based on primordial male precedence.” And Adoption, which would be OK – maybe – except “antichoicers would have you believe this is a relatively easy process and a morally superior alternative to abortion.”

What's wrong with adoption? The people who defend it as an alternative to abortion are opposed to abortion. Thus, there shall be no more adoption.

Want to read more about the dread anti-choicers? The Book of Jezebel offers this:

… antichoice does fail to reflect the breadth and depth of the fear and loathing expressed by antichoice activists when it comes to the subject of women having sex without paying a terrible price, either at the end of a coat hanger or in being forced to march down the aisle to marry a guy who sole husbandly qualification is that he turned you on after a few rounds on a Saturday night.

Antichoicers hate women who have sex, women who like having sex and women who hookup. Precisely why the patriarchy would not want women to enjoy having sex is, I suspect, never addressed. Its’ an article of faith, to be accepted as dogmatic truth

People have debated the issue of abortion—when, where, why—for decades now. Yet, anyone who disagrees with the feministically correct position—which means... abortion on demand—whenever, wherever a woman wishes—is branded a misogynist who fears women’s sexuality.

One wonders whether The Book of Jezebel contains, under the letter G, an entry for Dr. Kermit Gosnell?

And then The Book of Jezebel defines anti-feminists as:

People who object to feminism’s goals, i.e. people who often (willfully) misunderstand feminism and/or huge assholes. Notable examples include Phyllis Schlafly, Camille Paglia, Caitlin Flanagan, the entire “men’s rights” movement, proponents of wifey “surrender,” hard-core religious fundamentalists, teenagers who just discovered Andrea Dworkin, Bart Stupak, Mike Pence, and the pope. Not to be confused with thoughtful people who believe in women’s equality but object to the mainstream feminist movement’s tendency to focus on middle-class, white, heterosexual women to the exclusion of everyone else.

If you are not a feminist, you are an ignorant asshole. That pretty much sums it up, don’t you think? It shows how much the Jezebels respect differences of opinion.

Actually, the writers do accept that some people might believe that today's feminism is insufficiently leftist and multicultural.

Other than that group, anyone who disagrees with contemporary feminism is an ignorant asshole.

Who is this book’s target audience? Perhaps the authors are writing for fellow fanatics who believe that the world should be divided into good and evil, between those who share their extreme zealotry and those who, because they reject it, deserve to be drawn and quartered.

One is struck by the mindlessness of it all. One is struck by the shameless display of raw emotion.

Remember the time when feminists insisted that women be respected for their minds? Now they have gotten over that wave of feminism. They want to tyrannize people with their righteous rage.

Why would they be trying to convince us that they, being women, can only make histrionic displays of emotion? Why haven’t they gotten over that shopworn stereotype?

Forty years ago second-wave feminism washed up on our shores. One must say that it has accomplished many of its objectives. And yet, the dumbed-down feminists of Jezebel are in a white-hot rage.

The world that these junior feminists are living in today is a world that feminism, in very large part, has created. Modern women have seen their lives altered by feminism. If they don’t like it, they should start blaming themselves and their feminist foremothers.

The followed Gloria Steinem’s advice and grew up to become the men that they had wanted to marry. They had every right to do so. Now, it seems that they are surprised to have discovered that the men who might be willing to marry them are not the men that they want to marry.

Having become the men that they wanted to marry feminists are facing men who are trying to become the women these feminists did not want to be.

You may want to consider it a crushing irony. You do better to consider it poetic justice.

If their inability to respect the difference between the sexes has made their dating and mating lives decidedly unsatisfying feminists are learning the hard way that you shouldn’t mess with Mother Nature.

No wonder they are angry. It’s all projected self-loathing. It’s time to get over it.

In his review Mark Judge offers his own explanation for the feminist rage he so aptly describes. Unfortunately, he relies on the authority of one Robert Bly, a poet turned men’s-rights activist who created the Iron Man movement a few decades ago.

I would call it an unforced error.

Judge admits that invoking the name of Robert Bly is not going to lend very much credence to his argument. In that he is right. He would have done better to find a more substantive writer, even a research scholar whose work might have buttressed his argument: feminists are angry because there are no more fathers around.

It is altogether possible that feminists are enraged at the absence of father figures. But it is equally possible and perhaps more probable that they are angry about the manifest failure of their own ideology to provide what it promised.


Unknown said...

I guest the "absence of father figures." is better than blaming on moms.

Lindsay Harold said...

What I think it comes down to is that feminists are getting what they asked for...and they don't like it. But they will NEVER admit that the results of their grand ideas failed to make them happy. It must be that they haven't yet implemented their plans fully, or that there is still too much patriarchy keeping them down, or that men are somehow still to blame. It couldn't possibly be that feminism is wrong...

Dennis said...

"Happiness resides not in possessions, and not in gold. Happiness dwells in the soul."


The fact that feminists do not understand what constitutes happiness is why they will always be angry. Without the anger, ululations and rage they cease to have any value to themselves.
Mostly this comes from the dissonance created by a dislike manifested in a transference of traits and characteristics to the other gender that in most cases applies to both genders equally. This while trying to be what they supposedly hate.
It does not follow that one can spend so much of their lives in hate and disliking others that happiness will naturally happen. Life is an interesting thing because one either descends into hate or one grows up into the enjoyment of life and the people that make it possible.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bizzy Brain said...

Age old rebellion against the curse. Genesis 3:16. To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And HE SHALL RULE OVER YOU." [My caps.]

kherman said...

Bizzy: Well, it is a curse not a blessing. When you put it that way, why shouldn't women rebel?

Sam L. said...

Can you say Standard Leftist Twaddle, boys and girls? Yes, I thought you could!

Anonymous said...

kherman @8:27 AM:

The same Genesis narrative didn't turn out too well for men, either. That's why it's a problem for humanity, not just women. It's really a pretty even-handed story when you do a deep dive into the Scripture. Sure, there will always be idiot men who think this gives them carte blanche over their wives. But defaulting to the stereotypically brutish male is a fraud that has powered women's studies departments for decades. It's based on a shallow understanding of the responsibility demanded of men in Genesis. We are fallen creatures. Human beings are not perfectible. Now what do we do?

Feminists act like they have a monopoly over suffering. They're pissed-off because their identity is that of perpetual, perennial victims. It's silly, juvenile and requires no responsibility or effort. So they concoct a women-centered mythology, complete with mystical powers of sexual dominance, Gaea the Earth goddess, Margaret Mead studies of exotic matriarchal tribes, libertine lesbian heroines, and fascination with the culture of elephant herds. Meanwhile, all life's problems are someone else's fault, and isn't it convenient to put them at the feet of half the population of the world? No need to work at anything, it's just blame, blame, blame.

Feminists refuse to look at themselves as the source of their anger and powerlessness. They are so busy formulating grandiose obsessions of selfhood that they have no time to explore the other side they've demonized. Perhaps it's a "phase," but it is certainly a destructive, disempowering one.

Men need women just as much as women need men, for similar and distinct reasons. Yes, it's a blessing and a curse, but that's life. Women seek security and respect, and are frightened of having all the responsibility. Men seek achievement and admiration, and are terrified of being useless and impotent. When you have a man and woman who are committed to serving and honoring each other and are committed to a lifelong relationship, you get a win-win outcome. It's beautiful. But such "archaic" ideas don't sell books and credit hours, do they? The traditional view isn't about this adolescent idea of love purely as emotional exuberance (now that is truly a curse!). True, deep, growing love is based in intentional, sustained action that honors the spouse. That's maturity, and it's something in short supply today.

We hear "It's still a man's world." Okay, let's try that on... Don't like the way men rule the world? Think women could do much better? Think equally dividing domestic responsibilities has been a success? Think the idea of women in the workplace has delivered on its alluring promise? Think boys and girls are able to learn as much when they attend integrated high schools? Rubbish. How do we know? Well, when we look around, we can see that the results are in. In the main, I see most women are angry and exhausted, and most men are checked-out and lonely.

Once again I go back to my favorite, most-reliable poll: take a random sample of women of childbearing age (read: not your girlfriends) and ask each whether she would rather work for a man or a woman. The results will tell you something.


Anonymous said...


You may not like the "HE SHALL RULE OVER YOU" bit in this day and age. But when you look at the poor emasculated wretches who grovel to their wives and are subservient in their own domicile, I suspect you might cringe as much as I do. It is not just unjust, it is unnatural. Men need a place of importance in society, just as much as women. Yet let's be clear, a woman's importance is natural and existential -- it happens, and motherhood has enormous power, contribution and gratification. Even if they don't bear children, they are respected for that life-giving power. On the other side, men grow into their status and power, and it used to be conferred by other men. Look what happens when that goes away and mothering of boys never ends. That's where we find ourselves today.

I'm not saying man has dominion over woman, but I am saying that men and women each have a role to play that seems to naturally fit, and both are completely necessary for the survival and civilization of the species. If they take selection of a mate seriously, they will enhance the possibility of a long, happy life. If they choose to create the opposite sex as an unjust competitor, we can expect more of the same anger, hostility and power-crazed agendas we've been "enjoying" the last 50 years. If one wants to rebel, one should be responsible for their rebellion if they want to be taken seriously.

I cannot take angry young feminists seriously.