http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/feminists-love-divorce_b_825208.html
The Conservative Grand Dame and the "No-Bull Mom" have teamed up to write a new book. The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know - And Men Can't Say. As part of the publicity of the book, Beverly Willett, in conjunction with Huffington Post, interviewed the two co-authors about the ills of modern feminism and the reasons it is hurting modern America.
When asked why many marriages, not just of feminists, fail, Schlafly responded that marriage and motherhood are not taught as aspirations anymore."The result is women don't think of marriage and motherhood as fulfilling in and of itself. It's silly to think there's something wrong with being in the kitchen--everybody has to eat!" Schlafly said. She went on to say that the feminist movement has not reaped "a single benefit" for women" and that, "Feminists demeaned marriage and motherhood even though most women want marriage and motherhood." When asked to respond to quotes like "You can't legislate morality" in terms of divorce reform, Schlafly responded, "That's ridiculous. We have adopted thousands of federal and state laws to legislate morality. What do you think the criminal code is?" Venker also chimed in, claiming marriages are not viewed as lifelong commitments as they were in the past and that "feminism also taught women that men are idiots".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Schlafly is the reason I will never buy a Schlafly-brewed beer, even if it is a moniker of my hometown of St. Louis, Missouri. It really pains me to see such ignorance from someone who has so much influence in the conservative media, though I guess I should not be surprised with the likes of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly running around. I think it is necessary to make a few points clear to the Grand Dame. First of all, modern feminism does not downplay the significance of healthy marriage and raising children. The opposition two both is their place as near social REQUIREMENTS in society. Yes, there is nothing wrong with wanting to raise children, have a healthy, happy marriage, and live your life in that manner. There is ALSO nothing wrong with never wanting children, living independently as a single woman (or man), and disowning the social history of marriage. Of course everyone has to eat, Ms. Schlafly, but that does not mean women HAVE TO make all their food for their family, or have a family of their own. I grew up around conservatism, Ms. Schlafly, and I have seen first hand the problems it can cause. I am not hereby endorsing "liberalism" as the way out, but let us not forget that the feminists women has made HUGE strides for the equality of women and continues to defend the inalienable rights of all. Also, your legal moralism is not an uncommon stance, but it is not the stance of the United States government, nor has it ever been, and we cannot force people to stay in marriages they do not want to. As a child of divorced parents, I am OVERJOYED my parents got a divorce. They could hardly stand talking to each other in my household without yelling at the top of their lungs or remaining on separate floors for the entire time they were home together. There was no physical abuse, addiction, or extreme conflict other than the fact that they did not LOVE or even LIKE each other anymore. Should they have pushed through 6 more years of my brother, sister, and I going through high school, and "toughed it out"? By my estimations, Ms. Schlafly, they seem a lot happier now then they ever did during my late childhood and adolescent years.
Ms. Venker, I do not think your criticism views the whole picture. Yes, I think you are right to say that marriages are not viewed with the undying certainty that they once were. I think there are many reasons for this other than a decline in moral values. If I may be so bold, can we not chalk this up to realism? You are right to point out the high divorce rates and even to call for divorce reform (although I believe your approach is extremely limiting and constrained), but it is wrong to accuse younger generations of not realizing the lifelong commitment marriage entails. We just understand that things change, people grow apart, and sometimes love is lost. It sucks, but at least we are facing it head on instead of acting like it never happened and are not encouraging our young women to stay in marriages they are dissatisfied with. As a philosopher currently studying topics of sexuality, and also legal issues like marriage, should we not question the universal nature of the legal contract of marriage? I think we should. It is the only contract that does not change its form for different circumstances, and that, I believe, is absurd. Furthermore, feminism did not teach women that all men are idiots, it taught them that all women are not subservient to men or meant to be their co-dependent, as the lovely Biblical creation story would show.
I think we can chalk up a point for that pesky liberalism here. Those crazy feminists liberals seem more like realists and compassionate human beings than Ms. Schlafly and Ms. Venker. There is an understanding that women MAY want to become mothers and marry (and only, for the conservative right, if it is in the oppposite order that I listed), but that sort of social hierarchy is rooted in oppression, and while it may not be so today, it does no good to call for the "glorious" values of the 1950s and much, much before, and not let women live socially acceptable lives free from marriage and motherhood. It is about choice, and, although that is a word the conservative right does not like to hear since they immediately chalk it up to abortion, that is a fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment