MRS. PILGRIM WRITES:

Your continuing conversation with Ms. Fox has raised some points in my mind.

Ms. Fox is quite, quite adamant that “power corrupts,” and this is why she so vehemently opposes male authority; it might, maybe, could possibly be abused at some point to the detriment of some dumb woman who was fool enough to trust the fellow. This seemed like an interesting line of thought, so I proceeded along with it: Any situation in which one person has another at a disadvantage, requiring that the latter rely on the former for his well-being, must be eliminated in the interests of avoiding abuse of power.

Thus, we must bid farewell to the lawyer, the surgeon, the teacher, the psychiatrist, the architect–anyone who, by virtue of having greater knowledge of a subject than others, might abuse the trust that others would place in him. After all, what if the lawyer sells you out to your opponents in exchange for a healthy bribe? What if the surgeon performs an unnecessary procedure on you? What if the architect designs your house badly? What if, what if, what if? What if we started treating any specialist with the same kind of mistrust as Ms. Fox seems to demonstrate for her own husband (or at least advocates that every woman share)?

I submit that, not only would the economy come to a screeching halt, but our government would utterly dissolve — because, after all, aren’t those “representatives” we elected in a position to abuse the power we just handed them?

Extreme, is it? Ah, but it’s all the same attitude. Where does it stop, this fear of being snookered?

Ms. Fox basically proposes that trust somehow reduces or removes one’s capacity for love, and this proposal should boggle anyone’s mind. What, precisely, does she think “love” is, if relying on someone else to provide something needed can only destroy it? How does she square this “love” with the need to maintain permanent defensive walls against the possibility of being had? She claims that traditional wives “have difficulty relaxing in their own homes as they struggle to care for everyone else,” but how can the egalitarian wife ever relax if she must be on her guard against her own husband?

I think you are certainly correct, Mrs. Wood, to point out that she accuses traditional wives of being mercenary, but the question still remains why she, a very obvious egalitarian feminist, thinks that an emotional response to hormonal fluctuations heightened by temporary infatuation ranks higher in morality or self-interest than a careful consideration of the character of a prospective husband. She is saying, in effect, “Since I have my own paycheck, I can feel free to take up with any jack-leg who makes me giggle when we’re drunk“–and that this is superior! (Also, it raises the question of whether feminism is really about equality, and not about making men into lapdogs and women into wards of the State?)

I submit that, for all her talk, she cannot bring herself to trust Mr. Fox, and rationalizes it as normal and even desirable. I further submit that she undercuts her own feminism by arguing that diversity is not merely unproductive but detrimental to any functional relationship (“We understand each other’s problems at work because we have both had similar experiences”).

And finally, I find her self-contradictory, self-destructive, and arrogant position to be amusing in light of the backhanded compliment she paid you when she first contacted you: “I…initially assumed, based on the ‘Thinking Housewife’ moniker, that I had discovered a new feminist blog! How wrong I was…” Don’t you love how feminists simply assume that anyone who disagrees with them is unutterably stupid?

                                                                           — Comments —

Laura writes:

“Ms. Fox is quite, quite adamant that “power corrupts,” and this is why she so vehemently opposes male authority; it might, maybe, could possibly be abused at some point to the detriment of some dumb woman who was fool enough to trust the fellow.”

Excellent point. Note how this view assumes the stupidity and weakness of women. A typical example of the contempt feminists hold for normal women.

Michael S. writes:

Mrs. Pilgrim writes:

“I submit that, not only would the economy come to a screeching halt, but our government would utterly dissolve — because, after all, aren’t those “representatives” we elected in a position to abuse the power we just handed them?”

Of course they are. And that’s exactly what they do. But alas, the government appears to be as soluble as motor oil in water.

Laura writes:

Unfortunately, at this particular time, the idea of total distrust is warranted. If only our government would entirely dissolve. 

Please follow and like us: