It is a standard rhetorical device of feminists to always and unfailingly make token nods to the domestic woman, as if to say, “I’m not against domesticity. I only want women to have the freedom to choose.” This is a lie. They do not want freedom, but the transformation of female nature.

A perfect example of this is Joanne Lipman’s recent editorial in the New York Times. Lipman, former deputy managing muckety-muck at the Wall Street Journal, expresses outrage that women’s progress has stalled because women overall are not making as much money as men; boasts at length of her career triumphs; and states that the authentic woman is one who demands a raise or a promotion. She argues that women “need to take risks” and, in what is suppposedly an essay on the general position of women in society, only mentions motherhood or marriage when bragging about her ability to fit them in around a high-powered schedule. There is not a single positive reference to them.

But, Lipman then remembers the obligatory gesture. She remembers that she must not appear to be saying what she is in fact saying: that the highest goods a woman can achieve are power and money for herself. And, so she makes the standard acknowledgement. She says, “Women define success differently; for some it may be a career, for others the ability to stay home with children.”

When feminists say they want “balance” for women or they want the freedom for all to define themselves as they choose, they are counting on the gullibility and passivity of ordinary women. It is not possible for society to affirm two radically opposed ideals. It cannot encourage the young in two entirely different directions at once.  

Please follow and like us: