Feminists have always been fascinated by power. In some
cases they seek men who have it. In other cases they want to have it for
themselves. Being recycled Nietzscheans--
though they probably do not know it—they dream of the day when they can
impose their will on the male of the species. They believe that men have
oppressed women. Therefore, the solution is for women to oppress men.
We must note, in the interest of fairness, that feminists
have been singing from this hymnal for decades now. They have made a verbal
fetish of locutions that denote women as strong and empowered. The result: the
media have been flooded with stories depicting women as weak, vulnerable and
harassed. Apparently, all the talk about strong empowered women has not made
women strong or empowered. The feminist reaction to the wave of sexual
harassment has been to pretend to be strong and empowered by filling the
airways with agonized cries of impotent rage. Nothing quite as powerful as
impotent rage.
One must note, in the interest of fairness, that the
godparents of the wave of sexual harassment are Bill and Hillary Clinton, the
harasser-in-chief and his enabler-in-chief. Those who have declared culture war
against men are happy to do so in the name of Hillary Clinton. And they blame
it all on Donald Trump. Perhaps if they seek more responsibility in society
they should first master the art of thinking clearly and cogently.
If that is their goal, they should not take any lessons from
New York Times columnist Jill Filipovic. By the terms of her muddled column,
having more women in power will magically transform the meaning of the concept
of power… making it, one supposes, kinder and gentler.
She wants to divest power of its connotations of manliness
and infuse it with softer feminine qualities. As for whether there might be a
reason why power is associated with the sex that is invariably constitutionally
stronger, Filipovic has nothing to say. Clear thinking is not her stock in
trade. As for the larger question: whether the exercise of authority and the
acceptance of responsibility can be reduced to power, or to the will to power,
as Nietzsche put it, Filipovic has nothing to say. She has found her
philosophical hobbyhorse and will ride it into the sunset.
And yet, lurking over the philosophy of the will to power is
the simple constatation: namely, that if power is associated with potency, it
makes precious little sense to discuss female sexual potency. Male sexual
potency, for example, has some basis in reality; female sexual potency does
not. Moreover, if that is not enough, Nietzsche’s concept falls apart when we
ask whether any man can will himself to sexual potency. We should have known,
from reading Augustine, that biological realities make it impossible. Thus,
Filipovic and other pseudo-thinkers are marching to the tune of a beaten-up
drum. And one that is seriously out of tune.
Filipovic opens with this:
But the
women of the 116th Congress are redefining what it means to be powerful and
reshaping some of the most dearly held American fables in the process.
One does not know which fable she is discussing. She is
introducing a straw-man—or must we say straw person—and seems to believe,
absurdly, that only in American society do men exercise most of the power. This
is too idiotic to note it, but, in the interest of fairness, we will mention it
anyway.
She continues, ginning up the absurdity:
According
to this script, power is meritocratic; those who earn it do so individually
through their own hard work. Power has a particular look and a particular
sound: tall and deep-voiced. Power is all-encompassing: a partner and children
are the backdrop for a life centered on the pursuit of greatness; family
indicates that the powerful person is grounded enough to be trusted, but the
family is fundamentally a body that benefits from the powerful person, not a body that benefits him and
fundamentally enables his success.
This tells us that Filipovic is obsessed with power. It
tells us that she cannot distinguish power from authority and responsibility.
And it also tells us that no one really earns their position in society.
Meritocracy suggests that authority and responsibility are distributed
according to earned achievement. Of course, Filipovic does not believe that
power is ever earned, and does not believe that the male voice and the male
body commands more respect. She thinks that it’s a vast right wing conspiracy.
And that it has nothing to do with hard work. Good-bye work ethic.
And, of course, Filipovic does not consider the possibility
that women might not want to rise up the rungs of corporate status hierarchies,
that they might have better things to do with their time. She does not mention
that competition is vicious in the worlds of corporations and governance… and
that anyone who engages in the struggle should be prepared to put in a lot of
extra time and effort.
The promise of meritocracy is fairness. Naturally, Filipovic
misses the point and decides that it’s all about equality. It was never about
equality. It has always been about offering opportunities. Success depends
in some part on hard work, but it does not necessarily reflect hard work. It
also depends on attitude, aptitude and talent. To state the obvious, if you have no
athletic talent you can work as hard as you want and as long as you want. You
will never become a star athlete.
Meritocracy offers incentive. It is the antidote to dynastic
politics and hereditary aristocracy. It is also the antidote to a world where members of elite groups gain
and hold power in order to advance their own interests:
Within
this story of meritocracy is the promise that anyone can achieve political power
and success if they are good enough and if they work hard enough; that elected
offices have for so long so wholly rested in male hands suggests simply that
men have long been more worthy of them.
As a
result, and by necessity, barrier breakers have largely followed this same
script, from the practical to the descriptive to the aesthetic. When women and
people of color did gain political power, their ascension was often used to
prop up the existing meritocratic narrative: They had achieved, and so anyone
can. The subtext: Perhaps the dearth of women and people of color in office
meant they hadn’t worked hard enough for it.
Then, Filipovic notes that men only exercise power for their
own self-aggrandizement. This tells us that she understands nothing about men
or about the exercise of authority. And she certainly does not to see women gaining political power by competing in elections. You see, competition is a guy thing. It is beneath the dignity of the distaff gender.
Fillipovic sees women as
kinder and gentler, as more cooperative and congenial… thus as reconstructing
the meaning of power. No more competition. Welcome to the world where high
self-esteem and feminist cabals, which used to be called covens, rule:
But as
more women have entered the political realm, they have created more space for
authenticity over self-aggrandizement. This is especially true as politicians
come from a wider diversity of communities and backgrounds, each with different
norms around authority.
Today’s
rising female politicians tell a very different story than “I worked hard, and
so I got here by myself.” One by one, they credit those who inspired their
success, supported their ascent and cleared the trail so they could walk
further still.
By her lights, men do not care about doing good. Only women
care about doing good. Men only care about themselves. Women, being the softer
and more caring sex, want the world to be run more like a church, to be dedicated to the task of charity. Why Filipovic thinks this is an original thought is beyond me.
In her words:
From
these women, the message is clear: Their strength comes from collaborative,
generational efforts to move toward the good. The promise of America is not the
possibility of individuals going at it alone and achieving in a high-profile
way as a result, and the purpose of politics is not personal empowerment. The
gift of power requires the responsibility of appreciating who came before you
and how you might do your part to push forward. Powerful men have always
considered their individual legacies. These powerful women seem more interested
in their role in improving an evolving and complex ecosystem.
Just in case you thought that Filipovic could not go any
lower, she trots out, as exemplary of the newly empowered women, two notable
anti-Semites, Rashida Tlaib, great supporter of the Palestinian cause, great
hater of Israel and of Jews in general. Of course, Filipovic does not mention Tlaib’s anti-Semitism. Nor does she mention the simple fact that Tlaib
gained notoriety for defying male norms and calling the president a
motherfucker:
Rashida
Tlaib, a new representative from Michigan and one of two Muslim women now
serving in Congress, showed up to her swearing-in in a thobe, a traditional
Palestinian robe, asserting that her story is not one of American Horatio Alger
achievement but of a particular, and particularly marginalized, place in the
world.
And, let’s not forget another notable anti-Semite, Ilhan
Omar, who Filipovic compares to suffragettes.
Ilhan
Omar, the other Muslim woman now in Congress, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of
New York wore suffragist white on the day of the swearing-in because,
Ms. Omar tweeted, it “was a small way we could honor those
that paved the way for us.”
You recall Omar’s infamous tweet: “Israel has hypnotized the
world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”
If that’s what girl power looks like, I think we could use
less of it. If Filipovic does not understand the pestilence that these bigots
are bringing into Congress and into the Democratic party, she should shut up
and stop pretending to think.
6 comments:
Leave it to a womyn to discuss a swearing-in ceremony in terms of the clothing the individuals were wearing.
:-D
"If that is their goal, they should not take any lessons from New York Times columnist Jill Filipovic." I would say, take no lessons from the NYT, no matter who wrote them.
"Fillipovic sees women as kinder and gentler, as more cooperative and congenial… thus as reconstructing the meaning of power. No more competition. Welcome to the world where high self-esteem and feminist cabals, which used to be called covens, rule:" Never met Nancy Pelosi, I'm guessing.
"Of course, Filipovic does not mention Tlaib’s anti-Semitism. Nor does she mention the simple fact that Tlaib gained notoriety for defying male norms and calling the president a motherfucker:" The NYT would NEVER allow that to happen.
Women will never gain power over men. Genesis 3:16 "Then he said to the woman, 'I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.'”
A will to power? I admit it is sometimes hard to think of what exists besides power, even if they say love is something different.
I recall feminist Starhawk defined 3 types of power - power-over, power-within, and power-with. Power-over is about fear and estrangement, where competition is needed in zero sum games where there has to be winners and losers in every interaction. Power-within is about self-mastery so you don't always need power-over others to get your needs met. And power-with is about cooperation and influence among your peers, having a voice to speak, and the ability to find agreements that get everyone's needs met.
Political power surely contains some of all three. And power probably always creates a lot of projection, so you see and blame in others what you yourself are doing.
Stuart talks about the will to power in shaming, which represents a power-over attempt, and if you can see that, you can find ways to not play reactively, and use your higher skills to redirect your own participation away from that.
AOC: When does nonstop
criticism of me by the Daily Caller
rise to the level of “harassment”?
Let us not forget the powerful "Taco Barbie's" approach.
Fourth type is Intellectual Power: e.g., making sense of the world with Dr Seuss and Starhawk the Magic Witcchan.
:-D
I think I'll talk about that for my next Ghostmasters Table Topic.
Post a Comment