Monday, October 1, 2012

Has America Been Insufficiently Womanized?

Stephanie Coontz demurs. She rejects Hanna Rosin’s idea that feminism has enjoyed great success in womanizing America.

She complains that men still have too much power and privilege, that they still make the most money and that they have not been sufficiently neutered.

Coontz does not recognize the fact that a large majority of women would rather stay home with their children. In her fantasy world when men and women share housework equally they are both happier. In the real world, as a recent study from Norway pointed out, when men and women follow the feminist game plan they are 50% more likely to get divorced.

Coontz does not much care about family life, love life, and other measures of human fulfillment. She is in high dudgeon over the fact the work world has still not yet attained gender equity.

She has no interest whatever in how well the American economy is or is not functioning.

She is upset to see that women entering the workforce seem to be drawn to traditional women’s fields, like teaching and social work. It never crosses her mind that these women might be making a decision that is best for them and their families. She certainly does not recognize that gender identity is an indelible aspect of human nature.

She does not care about what is best for women or children or stable homes. She wants all women to sacrifice their lives for the feminist cause.

When Coontz sets out to find the culprit for this incomplete womanization of America she declares that men are too attached to a masculine mystique. So she wants them to trade in their manliness for the idiotic notion of “personhood.”

In her words:

ONE thing standing in the way of further progress for many men is the same obstacle that held women back for so long: overinvestment in their gender identity instead of their individual personhood. Men are now experiencing a set of limits — externally enforced as well as self-imposed — strikingly similar to the ones Betty Friedan set out to combat in 1963, when she identified a “feminine mystique” that constrained women’s self-image and options.

Although men don’t face the same discriminatory laws as women did 50 years ago, they do face an equally restrictive gender mystique.

Just as the feminine mystique discouraged women in the 1950s and 1960s from improving their education or job prospects, on the assumption that a man would always provide for them, the masculine mystique encourages men to neglect their own self-improvement on the assumption that sooner or later their “manliness” will be rewarded.

How many men do you think will trade their manliness for personhood? And how many women would be happier if they did so?

Stephanie Coontz has shown the chasm that exists between being a woman and being a feminist, between having a true identity and sacrificing your identity for a cause.


n.n said...

A notable outcome of progress has been confusion and fanaticism. Fortunately, a large minority, and perhaps a slight majority, still have a firm grasp of reality. That may be sufficient to control the progression of civil and human rights violations, as well as evolutionary dysfunction.

The Left-wing activists learned nothing from their miserable failures throughout the 20th century. Individuals, cooperatives, and nations who share their mindset are responsible for the greatest loss of life, liberty, and dignity, only second (by virtue of holding power for a shorter period) to the ambitions of Islamic imperialism and fanaticism.

Dennis said...


I would agree with you, but think the number who have a firm grasp is a little higher and is growing. Whether it is growing fast enough to save us from the disaster that awaits us if we don't change from the path we appear to be on is another question.
It is mostly the young who keep trying to equate what was to what is today when trying to justify ideologies like feminism, progressivism and much of what is represented by the Left. I do admit I just love when feminist drivel like this is written because it demonstrates how dysfunctional, morally bankrupt, and corrupt today's feminism has become.
Feminist ideology cares nothing for women except as a useful tool to divide men and women. Notice how much it has in common with certain religions and the defining dictates of those religion. If one does not meet the requirements determined by the religion then there is something wrong with you and one must be destroyed.
To be a feminist today one would have to ignore a substantial piece of feminist literature and actions. This feminist is the norm. It has, in many ways, become a cult with the same dictatorial leanings of other cults.

n.n said...


A majority of the population reproduces in the minority. They have, at best, a tenuous grasp of reality. They lack a vested interest in the viability of our society outside their limited lifespan. This is, of course, not true for everyone; but, voluntarily choosing behaviors which constitute evolutionary dysfunction is evidence that it is true for most.

Perhaps they believe that immigrants, legal and illegal, will adopt their principles? Unfortunately, the evidence is that the rate of immigration exceeds the rate of assimilation and that illegal immigration sponsors corruption of individuals and institutions.

The problem is comprehensive. It entails fundamental (i.e. cultural) corruption, including denigration of individual dignity; selective (and often exploitative) acknowledgement of history, science, and reality; behaviors which constitute evolutionary dysfunction; elective abortion of emergent human life (i.e. devaluation), etc. It is exacerbated by uncorrected exceptional (or individual) corruption.

I believe that there is still a chance for recovery; but, the margin for success is growing ever smaller, not larger. Then again, we may experience a short-term turnaround as we did in 2010. However, for it to be of any consequence, it has to be sustained. We need to stop treating symptoms and address causes. There are many people who oppose this or are too timid to be helpful.

Dennis said...

Many of those immigrants are of Hispanic origin and are much more likely to be religious, conservative and work hard to improve their status. I do think, given Univision's interview with Obama and its subsequent Fast and Furious follow up, that they may become more American than many who were born here. For the most part many of them left their countries to get away from what we seem to want to emulate.
Question, What does one call those with a misplace or excessive admiration for a person or thing, such as a vagina? Unsurprisingly that is the definition of a cult.