Sunday, October 9, 2022

The Feminist War against Marriage

What hath feminism wrought?

Well, one thing that it has wrought is the breakdown of the American marriage. Impose a set of completely unrealistic criteria on a millennia-old institution and you can break it. I am sure it feels empowering. If you do not believe me, ask that unapologetic homewrecker, Gisele Bundchen.

Since Bundchen chose to make a public spectacle of her divorce during football season, we are obliged to conclude that she was acting out an ultimatum-- playing football or doing the dishes. When the world’s greatest football player decided to go for one more season, the wrath of the Bundchen, a form of recycled toxic feminism, set out to punish him-- and, not incidentally, to punish their children. It’s called being strong and empowered-- not by building a home, raising children and caring for a family-- but by destroying all of the above. And she chose to do so during football season. Apparently, she could not wait to be liberated from the burden of being married to Tom Brady. The prospective boy toys are lining up already.

Anyway, thanks to feminism, the left wing pseudo-intelligentsia is continuing to fight its war against marriage. Now, in the pages of the New York Times, writer Amy Shearn explains that divorce is wonderful, that divorce will produce the kind of egalitarian relationship-- or should we say, non-relationship-- that feminism has been promising and not delivering for decades now.

Now that she has divorced her husband, Shearn has had some remarkable career success, publishing a novel at a place called Red Hen Press. Obviously, you have not heard of Red Hen Press. One hopes that it is not a vanity press, but Shearn is not exactly J. K. Rowling. 

One notes, because one has a slightly warped mind, that a quick peek at Shearn’s pictures tells us that she is quite comely. One understands that women who are very good looking do much better in the dating marketplace-- unless, of course, they are named Amber Heard. But one also notes that Shearn is in her early forties, and one notes, because one has no couth or tact, that getting older is not a woman’s friend. It is not a man’s friend either, but less so. One understands that once the children are out of the house and once Shearn reaches the magic fifty, she is very likely to be alone. There is no such thing as a female adult who does not know that when she reaches a certain age she will not be very successful in the dating game. Marriage was designed, among other things, to provide some stability for women.

Of course, lots of people prefer being alone, but why not consider the possible outcomes of promoting divorce for a solution to a problem that feminism created. Because that is what young Shearn is doing here.

Speaking of children, Shearn, who seems especially adept at propaganda, does not have much to say about the difficulties they underwent as their family broke apart-- that is, when their disgruntled feminist mother broke their family. One understands, because one does keep track of these things, that divorce is bad for children. We have known this for decades, especially through the work of sociologist Andrew Cherlin. It is not equally bad for all children, but disruption and inconsistent parenting is difficult for parents and for children.

If Shearn thinks it’s a lark, she is lying. Keep in mind, it’s one thing to undergo divorce. It’s quite another to stoop to the Shearn level-- and to celebrate it. Why would you want to encourage other women to make your own mistake, if not to feel less alone in the cast-off wives club.

Incidentally, Shearn does not tell us anything about her husband’s feelings about all this. For all we know, he was happy to be rid of his harpy wife. Less complaining might have felt liberating for him. Less demands to do laundry and to wash dishes might have felt freeing for him too. 

Those of us who have an elementary understanding of human psychology know full well that if a man wants to get out of a marriage unscathed, he does well to allow his wife to think that it’s all her idea and that she will do well to be rid of him. Surely, it’s better than to allow her to feel rejected and to feel obligated to make him miserable. In other words it’s meaningless to tally up who initiates more divorces. 

As for how feminism plays into this equation, note the following paragraph:

But for those of us who were raised with the promise of equality between the sexes, educated women with careers and ambitions, the disconnect between that mirage and our reality, combined with complete mental and physical exhaustion, can lead to burnout, shutdown and, eventually, existential crisis. It’s perhaps unsurprising that women tend to initiate divorces more often than men.

If one were inclined to shed some thought on this issue, one would ask a question that Shearn does not ask: have modern women been the victims of feminism, what with its false promises and its unrealistic expectations, or is there something wrong with the institution of marriage itself?

Is her case evidence of feminism’s failure or of the trouble with marriage? Is she the victim of some women’s studies professor or is she insufferably full of herself.

At the very least, and as I have seen on many occasions, today’s modern liberated women do not want to be wives. Men, of course, not being all too intelligent in such matters, believe that if a woman is not acting like a wife, that must mean that she does not want to be married, to get married or to stay married.

In any event, Shearn has chosen the Solomonic solution-- divide the children in two. He gets half; she gets half. See 1 Kings, 3-16-28. Obviously, this form of parenting can be done, though the half and half solution is really not a solution. It is too disruptive to children and does them no ultimate good.

Children need a home base. They need consistency and predictability. They do not need to be bounced for half the week from one home to another. It is disorienting.

About this, Shearn has little to say. She feels like a better mother now that she is only a part-time mother, and yet, feeling does not make it so. We would rather not hear any more about her self-delusions.

Funnily enough, she seems to get the greatest satisfaction from the fact that her ex-husband, the one who apparently did not do enough laundry or wash enough dishes, is now obliged to be more domestic. Dare we mention that making a man more domestic is not necessarily a good thing. It does not necessarily set a very good example for growing boys. But, that will teach him for not being a good enough feminist. If she imagines that this will not come around to bite her children and maybe even herself, then she is more deluded than even I imagine.

And, being a somewhat feeble thinker, Shearn also revels in the fact that her children see her as a human being, not just as a Mom. Seriously, how stupid can you get? The nature of familial relationships is defined by roles. Once you jettison all of the roles and undermine family structure, you produce anomie, not good mental health. If she is not their mother, does that mean that they can date her?

So, Shearn, all by her lonesome, has found the feminist solution. The perfectly egalitarian non-marriage. Because, if you did not realize that feminist expectations were a good way to destroy marriages and families, she has just stepped forth to set you right.

Yet, another battle lost in the war against marriage.


Anonymous said...

The issue came up in the post so my view is this. Women, even women who are not "comely" can still attract a man by simply being good lovers. Women "can" be good lovers but often, especially after age 40 or 7 years of marriage, choose not to be. The irony is that typically when a relationship ends the woman loses weight, dresses up and becomes a good lover to her new boyfriends. So they know the game and the choice to not play the game is an intentional choice. Sure looks count and personality and yada, yada. But nothing beats the great sex that a woman can give her man IF she chooses to. Not just when they are dating but through out the relationship. It's is a choice and once the choice is made the outcome is predictable.

Tellurian said...

Perhaps her desire not to be seen as a mother by her children is because, well, as a mother she's a failure. Can the responsibilities of the role be so easily walked away from? Mr Schneiderman, Sir, perhaps you can explain, based on your professional background, what mental contortions must be necessary to do so. I cannot.

Stuart Schneiderman said...

That's very astute-- the best explanation I have heard. As for the mental contortions-- I don't really think we need to understand what went into her failure. Though, I suggest that perhaps her women's studies courses taught her that there was something degrading about being a mother-- especially when a man did not do sufficient diaper duty.

Bizzy Brain said...

Did Tom Brady knowingly marry a feminist? I doubt it, or he wouldn't have married one. The simplest solution to avoid the pitfalls of getting entangled with a feminist bitch is to marry the direct opposite, a Bible-believing Christian woman.