I wish now that I had bought the magazine for future reference. The article seems to mark a significant shift in attitude; it was, after all, at exactly this time that the very long phase of first wave feminism finally came to an end.
I wonder too if we have now reached a similar turning point. It's possible that the shorter, but more intense, wave of feminism which began in the early 1970s and peaked in Australia in 1994 is now really starting to turn.
Older feminists seem to have become disillusioned with the disruption caused by feminism to their own personal lives; instead of a stridently orthodox feminism it's now increasingly common for political women to reassert the traditional in relationships, or even to express regret at some of the effects of feminism on society.
I'll give two recent examples. Jill Singer is the resident left-wing columnist for the Melbourne Herald Sun (possibly in her mid 30s, though I'm not sure). In her recent article on masculinity (Latham Shot Down 02/20/06), there's a clear shift away from the usual feminist support for role reversal and raising empathetic men. Nor is there talk of traditional provider-type men being dinosaurs or oppressors. Instead we get this:
While there's a growing number of women fortunate to have supportive stay-at-home husbands, the majority probably still prefer their man to be a traditional bread-winner.
Just as men hanker for women who are more gorgeous but less clever than themselves, women will generally keep seeking men who can provide for their family in material terms.
I hear many women complain they feel dudded in their relationships, that gender equality means women's workload is made unbearable by both work and home duties.
Their husbands apparently benefit from their wife's income but don't put in more at home themselves.
We're not just talking about caring for children, but old-fashioned domestic duties that men used to do such as household repairs. Sure, there are lots of good handymen out there, but they're not married to anyone I know.
It's pretty sad hearing a bunch of educated, well-paid, busy working mothers fantasising about their husbands repairing a door hinge.
Women might melt at the sight of men who are good with children and doggies, but what really brings us undone is an old-style bloke who knows one end of a spanner from the other and black from red in a balance sheet.
... Snags are for nagging, not shagging.
What women really want, sugggests the very left-wing Jill Singer, is an "old-fashioned bloke" rather than a feminist new man.
Then there's the recent contribution of feminist novelist Fay Weldon. Now 75, she too has broken with the feminist orthodoxy of the past. Instead of promoting gender role reversal as a "liberation" for women, she now worries that,
many women are failing to accept that, hormonally and physiologically, they are programmed to experience life differently from men.
I think we need to make the most of being women as women, not aspirational men. The assumptions we all make now as to what comprises a good relationship are upside down. The differences between men and females are what we should be celebrating.
Fay Weldon even appears to feel some guilt for her own earlier feminism. A near death experience convinced her of the existence of an after life, but she wrote that "It is not all sweetness and light over there, at least it won't be for me." A journalist for the Melbourne Age sought clarification on this and asked her if she had a sense that she was being held responsible for doing something bad. She answered,
Yes. Because contempory culture is (partly) my fault. If you help shift the balance in gender, you feel a vague responsibility. Because at the time people shook their fists at you and walked out on you because you were doing that and they may have been right.
I'm not suggesting that feminism will go away entirely. There will still exist feminist academics and a layer of femocrats in government employment (just as there was in the 1950s).
But hopefully some space will open up for family formation, just as it did in the post-War period. If this does occur, the challenge then for conservatives will be to weaken the influence of the underlying liberalism which keeps generating fresh waves of feminism (when the personal costs have been forgotten).
It seems to me that much of this could be solved if men and women were just more polite to one another, more considerate, more respectful. I think some women were pushed towards feminism by the boorish behavior of men: snide comments and assumptions that women were less capable, less smart, and really only competent in the kitchen and bedroom. Watch movies from the 1940s and 1950s and you see plenty of this sort of condescension towards the women in the films. "Don't you worry your pretty little head about it", etc.
ReplyDeleteIf people would just treat others with common respect and without that kind of belittlement, perhaps women could fully engage in their traditional, genetically-driven roles and behaviors without feeling like it's caving in to male oppression. The fact is, women aren't as smart, aren't as competent in some areas, and do get more emotional about things that men don't. But there's no need to shove that in their faces and cause a backlash.
Interesting that you mention 1994 as the year that feminism peaked in Australia.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking to myself the other day that feminism probably peaked in the early to mid 1990s.
That was about the time that the word 'political correctness' entered mainstream discourse and when feminists were coming under attack from US commentators like Camille Paglia.
Leftists intellectuals seem to have moved onto multiculturalism and the disabled as their main object of focus.
Mark, I've seen the kind of films you're talking about. I think you're right that they can't have helped much (though modern culture has done much worse in disrespecting women: think of those gangsta rap videos).
ReplyDeleteNZ Conservative, it's interesting how the left tends to move on from one cause to another.
In 1994 the big campaign issue in Australia was domestic violence. The issue was used to attack men, to the point at which even some leftists thought it had gone too far and started to protest (Don Parham, Beatrice Faust, Terry Lane).
Australian feminists never really recovered their position after that, and the left-wing focus shifted to Aborigines (reconciliation) and then refugees.
The left in Australia today seems a bit bewildered. It's still strong in academia, but most younger heterosexual males tend toward a right-wing liberalism rather than leftism.
What women really want, sugggests the very left-wing Jill Singer, is an "old-fashioned bloke" rather than a feminist new man.
ReplyDeleteMy husband, Nick, is competent in a number of areas. And we can both fix hinges, but he's more likely to get around to these things before I do.
Personaly, I really value Nick as my husband, friend, and father of our kids. I don't think it's an either/or.
NZ Conservative, it's interesting how the left tends to move on from one cause to another.
ADD?
It would be the equivalent of blaming pornography for a sex-maniac’s wrong actions and expecting sympathy. “I was betrayed by all those movies where women just wanted a gang-bang”.
bobby n, that's axactly what these kinds of blokes do!
Sorry fellas, I don't believe men are better than women in terms of taking responsibility etc.
We're as good and as bad as each other, I'd suggest. Though possibly in different ways.
bobby n.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that you are confounding we with feminists!
I don't identify with feminism as it has developed. I only believe that men and women are of equal dignity.
If I bristle at some of the things you say it's only because you sound like a sexist pig. Not actually saying you are one, but I wish you could see the tone of your writing.
I am the first to agree that feminism has done a great deal of damage.
My contention is that feminists must take responsibility for their actions – and not blame ‘something else’ for their decisions.
I agree with that, I just thought you were trying to suggest that men who commit rape etc *don't* try to excuse themselves.
You keep saying "women" where I think you should be saying "feminists."
It seems to me that you are suggesting that women are less responsible than men. This is what I resent.
If my husband were to leave me I would certainly expect him to pay alimony, wouldn't you? Why should he be exempt from merely furnishing the material necessities of his own children?
A woman has the final say in whether she has a child or not. She can have an abortion without his consent.
I agree this sucks. I believe abortion is a great evil.
I completely agree with your assertion of feminist double-standards.
I just wish you would not say "women" where you mean "feminists."
As Mark said: It seems to me that much of this could be solved if men and women were just more polite to one another, more considerate, more respectful.
Bobby N.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, there’s a difference between ‘alimony’ & ‘child-support’.
Alimony is the ridiculous notion where a man ‘pays’ only for the woman after divorce even if there aren’t any kids involved.
OK. Sorry, I had that wrong. I agree with you that it's unjust.
I'll just clarify where, in particular, I resented your statement about women.
It was where you said:
we do tend to have a more responsible notion toward those things ‘outside’ ourselves
I just don't agree. The world is full of irresponsible fathers who've left their wives and children. And have given no support.
Yes, there are irresponsible mothers too. Just pointing out that men are not *better* than women.
almost every women walking the streets is a feminist by virtue of the fact that they are happy living by it’s concessions
I understand you. That's a fair comment and I will now address it.
If we understand "feminism" as merely being the assertion of equal dignity of men and women, which was the initial point of it, then yes I am indeed happy to live by any improvements that this may have made in our lives.
If we understand "feminism" as being what it has become - the systematic destruction of the family and society, then I am emphatically not happy to live by such "concessions." These things are a complete abomination to me.
Just to fill you in on where I'm coming from. I'm a Catholic, so I believe that the *family* is the basis of society and that it must be protected by the state. That's the basis of all my own political activism - which is necessarily limited by the fact that my primary work at this point in my life is the care of my kids.
For these reasons I do have a problem being lumped in with feminists.
I, for instance, understand that men have a far greater propensity to be aggressive & competitive which results in a certain ugliness that women are not associated with.
ReplyDeleteThis would never be exhibited in a combox I suppose, Bobby N?
Let's suppose I take things 'personally'. This shouldn't make much difference from your side of the equation because you can just rationally address any criticism I make.
I don't really see that just because I have an emotional reaction within myself, then it necessarily follows I'm not using any reason whatever.
There is no way of discussing men & women with feminists because they take issue with any viewpoint that ‘questions’ the female side.
By your idea that feminist = woman then obviously you think it's not possible to discuss "men and women" with women at all.
Funny, because many other men can manage it.
which, by the way, leads in to your other comment about women going ‘outside’ themselves in society. Most women cannot, because they relate (as you have) to everything ‘personally’.
If you mean that men can more easily "externalise" than women, then I agree. That might mean, though, that men are less likely to take responsibility for their own failings since they might just as equally blame others more readily than women.
Certainly I tend to consider myself responsible for my own actions.
But if you mean that we are totally self-absorbed, then I cannot agree. Women spend most of our time caring for and about other people.