BERT PERRY writes:

It’s worth noting that when the women’s Olympic hockey team prepares for the Olympics, they do not play women’s’ college teams.  Not quite good enough.  That said, neither do they play teams from the NHL or its minor leagues, or college teams at any level.  They are too good.

Just right? They play good boys’ high school hockey teams from northern Minnesota, but make sure that checking is not part of the game. In the same way, the best competition for elite women in running is good high school athletes.  The women’s world record in the mile run would place decently at most state meets for the boys, but would not win. Except for the fact that the jostling that happens in any high school boys’ race might not be exactly welcomed by elite women runners, of course.

— Comments —

Pete F. writes:

Bert Perry’s observations concerning the U.S. Women’s Olympic hockey team track closely with my own. I played hockey all through my child, teen and young adult years – including some time at the college level before hanging up my skates. I have also followed hockey avidly for over forty years.

The present U.S. women’s Olympic hockey team would have had a tough time beating the junior varsity squad at my high school – especially if physical play/checking was allowed – and they would have stood little chance against a varsity-level squad. The female Olympians actually are fairly well-developed in terms of their ability to make plays; they seem to “think” the game and “see the ice” (i.e., see plays unfolding and developing as they happen) reasonably well also. However, they can’t skate nearly as forcefully or quickly as their male counterparts, nor do they shoot the puck as hard or as-accurately as men do. They also lack the ability to stop, turn and reverse direction as well as male players. Obviously, since fighting is absent from the female game – that component is also missing. The goaltending by the female net-minders was also lacking in comparison to their male counterparts; not as quick nor as athletic.

The hardest slap shots by the female Olympic  hockey players approach the velocity of a decent wrist shot or snapshot of a male high school player. By the time I was a senior in high school, my slap shot was topping out at 90 mph – and I was not even an elite player. (The very best NHL pros have slap shots which top the 105 mph mark). I’d estimate that the hardest shots by female hockey Olympians were a good 30-35 mph slower than that or roughly equivalent to what a typical junior high/high school guy could manage.

All in all, watching the female Olympic hockey players compete is enjoyable, but it reminds me of nothing so much as seeing a middle-school or high school junior varsity squad playing. For the most part, that is the level of play and my overall impression of these games.

Hockey is a beautiful game which, when played at its highest level, demands the ultimate in skill, coordination, teamwork, strength, endurance and toughness. However, it is also occasionally a brutal and quite violent game. When men play, it is routine for blood to be shed during hockey games. That’s not hyperbole but fact.

Hockey players are legendary for their toughness and ability to withstand pain. Examples abound.

During game six of the 1964 Stanley Cup Finals, defenseman Bobby Baun of the Toronto Maple Leafs blocked a hard shot by Red Wings forward Gordie Howe – breaking his ankle. Baun was carried off the ice on a stretcher. However, he insisted upon being taped up and returned to the bench. He later scored the game-winning goal in overtime, which won the championship for his team.

During the 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs, Chicago Blackhawks defensemen Duncan Keith was hit in the mouth by a puck and lost seven teeth, but – after a brief period of treatment by team trainers – remained on the ice and finished the game.

Boston Bruins center Gregory Campbell blocked a shot during his team’s playoff series against the Pittsburg Penguins; despite sustaining a broken leg (fractured right fibula), Campbell finished his shift and managed to make his way to the bench under his own power.

During my modest career as a school-boy and collegiate hockey player, I was cut numerous times, was knocked nearly senseless on more occasions than I can count, and sustained a near-concussion and severe laceration from a swung stick which hit me in the face. These injuries – far from being atypical – were pretty much standard fare for guys who played.

I should add in closing that while I respect the dedication and skill of these female hockey players, such as they are, I cannot escape the feeling that they – as women – are intruding into what is fundamentally a man’s game and a man’s world. Some would call me a dinosaur for expressing such sentiments, but I would be less-than-honest if I did not admit having them.

Laura writes:

Thank you for your comments. Here are mine.

The whole thing is theater.

It’s dress up. It’s make believe. It’s a masquerade that has little to do with reality. It’s political theater — and there is a major infrastructure of well-funded support behind it. The point of it all is to flatter women in a sick kind of way, to make them competitive and aggressive so they won’t cultivate their real powers, which are a threat to the powers that be. And of course, the point is absolutely to destroy that man’s world you mention and to castrate men.

In other words, the point of it all is to further the revolution.

Abigail writes:

I have read your blog with interest for years now, but your post on the women’s Olympic Hockey team (“Women’s Hockey: Not so Equal After All”) has finally moved me to respond.   I am a 41-year-old woman who has enjoyed a lifelong love of sport both as a spectator and as a participant.  From that perspective, the comparison between male and female athletes is wholly irrelevant.  Quite simply, when we women pursue sport, It’s not about men. 

My own sense and, from what I’ve picked up from the many girls and women I’ve done sports with over the course of more than 30 years is that the love of competition and physical exertion is deeply ingrained in the human psyche.  Not everyone is athletic, but for those who are (and that includes millions of girls and women), the exultation of a victory based on skill and grit after a sweaty, aggressive, hard-fought competition is one of the great pleasures of life.  An activity that promotes a love of life needs no further justification (I posit) but sport also promotes a number of virtues — discipline, healthy living, good sportsmanship, a sense of humility, and a comfort with one’s body.  In the case of women, sport counteracts the often pervasive social sense that one’s body is primarily decorative or sexual.  It’s no coincidence that female athletes are far less likely to become pregnant in high school.

Mrs. Wood, when you say that the purpose of women’s sports such as hockey is to destroy a man’s world and to metaphorically castrate men, I read with my mouth agape that anyone could think such a thing.  To men who are inclined to agree with this thinking, I say, “It’s not about you. Really, it’s not.”  The disparity in men’s overall average ability compared to women’s is of absolutely no significance to the experience of women who play sport and those of us who love watching women’s sports.

That said, realism is important — and it goes both ways.  Sure, I went through a phase (which I outgrew at about age 12 or 13) when I was troubled by the knowledge that my male classmates could now outstrip me in most athletic endeavors.  As a mature, realistic woman, I accept facts, and I go on to live my life in the fullest, most productive way I can without sobbing into my pillow about the fact that there are physical differences between the sexes that are to men’s general advantage in athletic competition.  Women with similar attitudes (and far greater discipline and ability than mine) have gone on to smash expectations of women’s physical capabilities in a number of different areas.  Men who are inclined to feel emasculated by this fact should learn to accept the facts of life too.

I’ve participated in co-ed road races all my life, and have always defeated (and been defeated by) a number of men, as well as women.  I remember once as a teenager,  a young U.S. Marine I’d defeated in a 10K race after a sprint to the finish joked with me that he felt “totally emasculated.”  But he took it like a man.  Just as I must accept the fact of men’s generally greater physical prowess in most areas of sport, and just as I do not let that fact discourage my endeavors, a man must accept that in some areas of sport, he will be defeated by a woman who trains more, trains better, has greater fitness, etc.  In the particular example I gave, the Marine understood and accepted that his male body, his strength and the time he spent in the weight room did not translate into the ability to outrun a 16-year-old girl in a long distance road race unless he were willing to train more to that end.  I have no doubt that mature men can accept the fact that women are people too, and thus that women love sport too, and also that women can sometimes even defeat them.  Mature men should be able to accept these things (and generally do in my experience) without becoming undone and feeling “castrated” and useless.

 Laura writes:

Thank you for writing. I was writing specifically about women’s hockey, which is inherently a masculine sport and cannot be made a feminine sport no matter what you do. It is an aggressive, fast-paced, violent contact sport and there are very few women who are drawn to it, which is why I say the whole thing is theater. Very few women were ever longing to play ice hockey.

I did not condemn all athletics for women. But sports and physical fitness in general are given far greater importance than they should be. I think many women have a hard time being mothers and wives when they get off the athletic treadmill. Their femininity has been suppressed.

Women are encouraged today to be far more aggressive and competitive than they need to be.

Yes, women should enjoy sports in their own way, while doing nothing that compromises their dignity or modesty. Unfortunately, a woman athlete today is often turned into what would have been called a showgirl in ages past, i.e., someone who is exhibiting her body to crowds. Modesty is important to a woman’s character. The soul is more important than the body.

Tyro writes:

I find this denigration of women’s hockey strange to say the least. Women’s ice hockey is not new and has existed for more than a century, being especially popular in Canada. Hockey does not have a “nature” outside of it being a game played on ice skates with sticks meant to hit a puck into a goal net. Outside of that, the rules are up to the determination of the players. In high school and college in the 1990s, I myself new several recreational and varsity women’s hockey players.

Yes, it is true that there are few women that are interested in it, but in a country of 300 million people, a small fraction is still a lot of people, and certainly that adds up to enough around the world to have competitions between women’s teams, just as there are competitive field hockey teams, women’s tennis, and other sports.

I will grant that I grew up in a northeastern academic culture where participation in amateur sports was an expectation of both boys and girls, but I can imagine that this may not be a cultural norm in the rest of the USA.

 Laura writes:

I don’t know what recreational hockey is like in Canada, but hockey played at the national level is a rough game and has always been that way.

Pete wrote:

During my modest career as a school-boy and collegiate hockey player, I was cut numerous times, was knocked nearly senseless on more occasions than I can count, and sustained a near-concussion and severe laceration from a swung stick which hit me in the face. These injuries – far from being atypical – were pretty much standard fare for guys who played.

 That has to do with the inherent nature — and the culture — of the game.

Mr. Perry writes:

With regard to the comments from Abigail and Tyro, I mean no disrespect to women playing hockey, but rather to simply point out that whatever the joy of the game, the women’s sport is simply different.  It’s not as fast, not as rough, and so on.  Suffice it to say that my daughters do not understand the joy of a good check or block in the way my sons do.  It’s innate.

And since world class women tend to end up  playing, more or less, like good high school boys, but absent the contact, we ought to consider what this means for women in other physical professions like firefighting, police work, and the military.  Is the move to welcome women in these professions a good thing, or is it simply a good way to get a lot of women—and men—hurt and killed?

Abigail writes:

Thank you for your response to my response! I would like to clarify that my response was written specifically with women’s ice hockey in mind. You say that “very few” women are drawn to hockey but what, I wonder, qualifies as “very few?” I don’t know what the numbers are overall, but I know a number of girls and women who play here in the Northeast. Somehow I don’t think they are putting in all that work and practice and determination just for “theater.” No, the violence and aggression of hockey were among the aspects of sport I was considering when I said that women also relish the joy of competition.

Your comparison of the modern female athlete to a showgirl is interesting. Are you saying that showing one’s body in the course of athletic competition is akin to being a showgirl? If so, I couldn’t disagree with you more. A showgirl is essentially saying, “Is my body not pleasing to you, the male spectator? Please reward me for pleasing you!” A female athlete, in contrast, is displaying the strength and skill of her body and the fruits of her hard work, and the results are based purely on merit in most sports. That surely is the epitome of dignity, even if a woman is showing some skin in the process or winding up a bit bloodied at times.

I am much more sympathetic to your point, however, if you are referring to the phenomenon whereby an attractive female athlete, like Anna Kournikova, is elevated to public prominence based more on her sex appeal than her merit as an athlete. Ms. Kournikova was certainly an accomplished tennis player but she was never highly ranked enough that her athletic merit on its own warranted the endorsement deals and fame she achieved. Other prominent female athletes have also presented themselves in highly sexualized ways to advertise products or sell magazines (though, of course, male sex symbols like David Beckham have done the same). I have mixed feelings about that issue — but I think the situation today is certainly a vast improvement over my own childhood in which it always seemed as if women were only prominent in popular culture in the Miss America pageant or as football cheerleaders or in show business.

Last, I don’t see any conflict whatsoever between engaging in a physically aggressive sport versus being a wife and mother. Surely you don’t expect a hockey-playing mother to respond with a tremendous growl and a body slam when a three-year-old is acting up? This leads me to ask you a NOSY question your blog has always made me wonder about. You yourself engage in activity that many throughout history would assert is unfeminine and inappropriate for a woman. You seem to have a love of public disputation and intellectual discourse, and you deliver some tough talk to your ideological opponents. In short, while your work on this blog may not be physical, you do like to mix it up. You are very assertive. This is a quality in you I admire, but I wonder how you reconcile that with your belief that women should be “feminine” or that women should take care not to engage in activities that will result in the “suppression” of their “femininity”? How do you go from delivering metaphorical body slams to your ideological opponents to striving towards the feminine ideal of wife-and-motherhood as you understand it? And if you are able to make that transition, why do you believe female hockey players would likely lack that ability?

 Laura writes:

Ha! I like your last question. But your other points first.

Unlike tennis, golf, biking, gymnastics, skiing, hockey is an especially aggressive form of competition and all the movements are masculine and rough — striding on the ice, slamming pucks, pushing and shoving. Do enough of this and a woman becomes rough in personality and manner. Try to imagine any elegant or noble woman from history on a hockey rink and you can imagine how it clashes with her bearing. I can’t even imagine Joan of Arc on a hockey rink and she was a soldier. She was a soldier, but she was not aggressive. The very thought of either of my grandmothers on a hockey rink is absurd because they had so much feminine dignity and were not coarse toward other people. They were hospitable and that air of hospitality was an extension of their lack of outward aggression. I would have been embarrassed as a child to see a photo of my mother as a hockey player. Truly, it would have been mortifying. I adored my mother and such a picture would have lowered her in my eyes. To think of her fighting and shoving —  I would have hated that. To me she glowed with love and affirmation.

 Sometimes it can be necessary to cultivate assertiveness in women and some girls who are very timid do need to be encouraged to be less so. But there are ways to do that without putting them in boys’ sports.

In any event, the Olympic women’s hockey team is, I maintain, more a reflection of athletic affirmative action than of a widespread audience for the sport or attachment to it by women. Besides, it isn’t just that the women who play are un-feminine, it’s the degree to which it cultivates a lack of femininity in women at large by virtue of being a public spectacle.

As far as the modesty issue, it doesn’t matter that a barely-clad athlete is not purposely exhibiting her body, the fact is, she is exhibiting her body. A woman’s modesty is connected to her sense of privacy. Immodesty devalues privacy. Moreover, women set the tone and atmosphere of life for the people around them. Semi-nakedness lowers the thoughts of men and draws attention from the face of a woman, from her eyes and smile, where her inner qualities radiate outward. A woman’s eyes are the mirror of her soul. I could look forever into the eyes of the women I love the most. Women in tight and skimpy clothes are very conscious of their bodies. Watch a woman who is scarcely dressed and you see that she is conscious of the various parts of her anatomy. A woman who is fully dressed is free by comparison, less narcissistic, more self-contained, liberated really, not always before a mirror. It’s interesting how feminists boast of the intelligence of women and yet don’t see how immodesty conflicts with the intellectual virtues and don’t see the subtle, damaging effects it has on a woman’s dignity, which is so connected to her mental balance.

You write:

Last, I don’t see any conflict whatsoever between engaging in a physically aggressive sport versus being a wife and mother. Surely you don’t expect a hockey-playing mother to respond with a tremendous growl and a body slam when a three-year-old is acting up?

So much about intensely competitive, rough sports conflicts with the qualities needed to be a good wife and mother over the long term. Rearing children is not a results-oriented project. It takes patience and holding off; it takes careful study and watching to understand the personalities involved so that discipline and education can be attuned to the person. Children are complex beings. A home is a place of the interpersonal. Humans submit to management, impersonal efficiency and the constant demand for results everywhere.  They should not experience these things to the same degree at home. A music teacher I was talking to recently said he declined to put one of his eight-year-old students in a recital because she wasn’t ready. The mother snapped at him, “But I want to see results!” Hockey and highly competitive sports demand action; forcefulness; quick decisions. Unfortunately, many women today bring a competitive and very structured way of life to motherhood and home. As a result, children are so highly engineered. And, the slow pace of home life is unsatisfying to those who have left the high-paced arena, which is sad because there are so many riches to be found there.

You write:

How do you go from delivering metaphorical body slams to your ideological opponents to striving towards the feminine ideal of wife-and-motherhood as you understand it? And if you are able to make that transition, why do you believe female hockey players would likely lack that ability?

Well, first of all, my children are grown up. They are 20 and 25 years old. I don’t have to worry now that when I limp out of battle, I will throw them across the room. And I have many years at home behind me, which is not to say I am a paragon of feminine virtue, but I have gone through the all-important phase of cultivating over many years some of the inner dispositions needed to be a woman at home in her home. I was once in the highly competitive world of newspaper journalism. I didn’t like what it made me when I later came to adjusting to being a wife and mother. In retrospect, I would gladly trade those years to have had more children.

Secondly, I don’t consider this the ideal situation for me anymore than I would consider it ideal if I were shooting bandits from my front window. There is a difference between what I am doing and playing team hockey. Many traditionally-inclined women have, out of deference for others or timidity, preferred not to engage in warfare. Meanwhile the fires have been lit around their homes. The enemy has been lobbing hand grenades from the front yard. I’m afraid the enemy cannot be appeased by simply being ignored.

Militance is not necessarily un-feminine. All women should have some militance to defend the things they love. Humility and militance are essential. Anyway, this is not a sport. I wouldn’t mind laying aside my weapons for more genteel literary activities, but the front lines seem awfully thin at the moment.

Mary writes:

It’s a matter of seeing the bigger picture. One of the problems that has surfaced through drawing aggression out of young women via heavily competitive sports is that they want to compete in boys sports. In my area there is a girl on the boys wrestling team which is quite obviously problematic, as boys are put in the position of either letting the girl have it and hurting her or of holding back in order not to hurt her and losing the match (to a girl). It would be difficult or impossible to determine whether she legitimately won or not. Not to mention that she is a shapely girl dressed in a skin-tight wrestlers uniform and the boys, in order to wrestle her, have to press their bodies against hers, hold her down, put their arms between her legs, and her theirs, etc etc. It stirs male aggression but not against another male but against a woman – totally unnatural and in opposition to chivalry and mutual respect between the sexes. I realize the women hockey players don’t have this problem, but it’s all part of the same mindset. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

I enjoyed reading Pete’s comments.  The first time I attended an NHL game, I didn’t have a clue what to expect, as I, at that point, was not interested in hockey.  Well, was I in for a surprise – and a hell of a good time.  I was awed by the speed at which the players could reverse their skating direction, especially Federov,  and by how fast they could make it right across the ice.  Also, there was a major fight – and God forgive me, it was wonderful. A  donnybrook, complete disorder, with 1/2 a dozen players bareskinned, shirts, equipment and bloodstains all over the ice, busted sticks, you name it. What’s wrong with me – I had so much fun.

On the negative side, NHLers are able to perform this well only because their lines are replaced every minute.  I’d like to see the NHL teams really show what they are made of by starting and finishing with the same six.  In any case, I think it’s fine for females to play hockey if they enjoy it; but the topic here is Olympic Women’s Hockey and how very phony it all is. Just catering to pressure from cultural Marxists.

Pete F. writes:

Thank you for a lively discussion and your comments – as well as those of your readers concerning women’s Olympic hockey.

Re: “The whole thing is theater. It’s dress up. It’s make believe. It’s a masquerade that has little to do with reality. It’s political theater — and there is a major infrastructure of well-funded support behind it.”

There is an element of political theater here – I fully agree. Cultural leftism, which is now the dominant ideology in the western world, has as one of its major tenets that all distinctions which used to exist in traditional Judeo-Christian civilization and still exist in the natural world – differences in sex, race, age, intelligence, creativity, etc. – are to be obliterated.

Re: “The point of it all is to flatter women in a sick kind of way, to make them competitive and aggressive so they won’t cultivate their real powers, which are a threat to the powers that be.” Laura, I’d like to see you elaborate upon this point further, in particular the last half of your statement.

Re: “And of course, the point is absolutely to destroy that man’s world you mention and to castrate men.In other words, the point of it all is to further the revolution.”

The so-called “Frankfurt School” (The Institute for Social Research) – which was founded after World War One in Germany and became one of the main wellsprings of modern cultural Marxism/cultural leftism – had as one of its goals the erasure of distinctions based upon sex. What does this have to do with women playing ice hockey? To answer that question, a brief historical digression is in order.

Marxist-Leninist ideology predicts that the workers (the proletariat) of the world will sooner-or-later rise up against their exploiters in the bourgeoisie and ruling classes. The workers would refuse to fight in the wars started by their leaders and would otherwise work to realize the world-wide communist revolution and utopia. However, that isn’t what happened in WWI; instead of rejecting their leaders calls to go to war, countless ordinary people took up arms and died in the millions fighting for the very things that communist theory said they would not. How was this failure of Marxist theory to be explained?

The men who later formed the nucleus of the Frankfurt School – Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno and others – came up with an answer. Communism had failed to ignite a European/worldwide revolution as predicted because it confined itself strictly to the political and economic sphere. What was needed was a form of Marxism translated into cultural terms which could then be used to attack traditional western civilization at its foundations – namely, the home, the family, tradition marriage, traditional roles for male/female, and in churches and schools. Thus was born the critical theory movement. Critical theory can be summarized as – anything that benefits or promotes the Marxist revolution is to be praised, elevated and advanced; anything that opposes it is to be ridiculed, attacked and torn down.

The long march of cultural Marxism through western civilization, which began a century ago, has been almost completed. The transformation of traditional western society into a post-modern secular leftist utopia of today has been so gradual and subtle that most people are unaware that it has even taken place. That includes the young women playing hockey for various Olympic teams; I would very surprised indeed if even one of them knows the explicitly ideological roots of the activity they are now pursuing.

Abigail wrote, “Quite simply, when we women pursue sport, It’s not about men.” Abigail, I am quite certain that is correct in the sense of individual female athletes. There have always been female athletes who weren’t satisfied playing with other girls, and wanted to compete with the guys; in my day, we called them tomboys (yes, I am that old!). However, it is important to understand that there is an explicit ideological and cultural agenda behind the drive to erase distinctions between men and women, including such differences in sport. Whether you know it or not; whether you like it or not – you are a participant in the revolution of cultural Marxism.

Laura writes:

Your last point is so important. It’s not about the effect of ice hockey on any one woman, although that is a significant issue, it’s about the ideology behind this. Again, this is political theater.

Tyro writes:

I think I understand where you differ from me and other readers– you are treating “men’s hockey” as the platonic ideal of hockey and regard women’s hockey as merely something to be judged on its ability to imitate men’s hockey. This is the wrong way to look at it. Hockey has been played by women since the late 1800s and involves skating on ice while trying to shoot a puck into a goal with a stick. Women’s teams competing against each other in this contest does not have anything to do with men. One can draw analogies with the difference between men’s and women’s lacrosse or the existence of field hockey. As I implied earlier, many of us in the Northeast (and Canada) inherited an academic tradition from the British school system which developed a strong tradition of women’s athletics. Only now do I realize that this tradition isn’t a universal expectation across the USA.

Laura writes:

Women’s athletics is very big in this country. In fact, there is a whole system of government-enforced affirmative action for women, which has entailed the closure of some men’s teams to ensure equality. That is partly the backdrop of my comments.

You may be right that women’s hockey is often played in a much less aggressive way. But it seems to me that there is a very small audience for it so I don’t understand why so many resources are devoted to making it an Olympic sport.

Paul writes:

Of course you know “why so many resources are devoted to making it an Olympic sport.”  Pete F. pointed out it was Leftism.  Pete’s point is further illustrated by the recent attempt to remove men’s wrestling from the Olympics.  It was among the sports of the ancient Greek games.  The Leftists have taken the opportunity to remove a traditional sport—fundamental to the Western games and replace it with female hockey.

One might counter that wrestling lacks mass appeal in the USA.  That is true because of cultural reasons and the need to see up close, which stadiums don’t allow but TV does allow and still ineptly fails to stay in the clinch.  (The TV needs to be up close at all times, and audio would help suck the viewer in.  The guys are breathing like bellows because it is a long, long sprint.)

In Northern USA colleges (e.g., Iowa, Michigan, PA), wrestling is huge.  (Southerners are a split-second late because they don’t start in grammar school.  Southerners are playing baseball and football outdoors all year in grammar school.)

However, wrestling is far more popular than female hockey and many other Olympic sports.  For example, I am a sports fan and never knew female hockey existed until your article and don’t know why it is in the Olympics just as I don’t know why beach volleyball is there.

No one in the bourgeois West cares about women’s hockey or beach volleyball even though both are fun to the participants.  Again only Leftists and anti-American sentimentalists want to stick it to the bourgeois West by including these challenging but uninteresting female sports.

The ancient Greek Olympics were not devoted to further traditional Western values.  They simply reflected Western values.  The modern Olympics are devoted to destroying traditional Western values.

And the ad hominem attack on you is typical of secular-progressive Leftists, an often redundant label.  Should Our Lady remain in Heaven and speaketh not?  Catholics say no.  Catholics say Our Lady has appeared and spoken many times authoritatively.  Our Lady is not waiting for a man to come forth to take her place.  She already birthed a man to take a place above her, and He said all there is to say.  You are simply trying to explain it to unbelievers who need our example and love.

Mary writes:

Pete F. wrote: “However, it is important to understand that there is an explicit ideological and cultural agenda behind the drive to erase distinctions between men and women, including such differences in sport. Whether you know it or not; whether you like it or not – you are a participant in the revolution of cultural Marxism.”

Exactly. It’s not about men, or women either, it’s about all of us. When men and women lose an understanding of male/female complementarity we all lose and the cultural agenda advances a little more. There is a stronger androgyny emerging in the last few decades, not just in dress but in manner, on the part of both women and men. Drawing girls into heavily competitive athletics is one of the ways to promote this androgyny. Young women and men feel more alike than they ever have before, and I don’t mean that in a good way. They can have the same jobs; fight side by side on the battlefield; they can now play the same sports, even compete against one another. They have been told they experience desire and sex in the same way. Yet any objective view cannot help but note their differences. It is obvious that our bodies are designed to be complementary in order to procreate. Why is not also obvious that our natures, too, are complementary? The heart of life lies in that complementarity.

There is wisdom to be found in the long, healthy marriages of our parents and grandparents. The wives have a compassion for and understanding of their husband’s masculinity, which they will nurture and promote and strengthen. They are not intimidated or offended by it; on the contrary, they depend on it and recognize its role in marriage and in the world. In those “old fashioned” marriages husbands have a deep respect and an abiding tenderness for their wives, not because their wives are like them but precisely because they are not: they allow men access to the other half of life, they complement them. Is all of this perfect? Of course not. And of course there are areas of overlap, but especially today young women should take care not to lose their softness or refinement, which will always be attractive to good men and will in turn refine them. Now more than ever those qualities are needed and men don’t generally have them. I guess a man can be refined but the last thing the world needs is a soft man.

On the subject of emasculation, which was mentioned earlier: there is nothing more touching to me as a mother of sons than to witness my young boys as they find their way to manhood, to watch them working out their masculinity. So sweet, so beautiful, so healthy: so not something to laugh at or discourage. We never promoted masculinity per se, never had to: it emerged in the most natural way possible. Most of it is a boy trying it out on you to gauge your reaction, which is ever so important: Is this how I do it, how I become a man – is this what men do? (yes!) Look at me – I can run fast! (uh huh!) Look at my muscles! (said the skinny six-year-old) A girl beat me at arm-wrestling… (said the 10-year-old, contorted face, trying not to cry – devastated. No one told him to be. He just was, he just knew.)

Masculinity and femininity both should be treated with great respect; our dignity is at stake.

Abigail writes:

I am delighted by your answer to my nosy question, and the rest of your reply.  Part of my curiosity, and the reason I read your blog, is that it is hard for me to imagine what would be like to be a woman who supports traditional gender roles.  As you can tell, I am very much from the other side of the aisle.  It sounds to me as if you equate your position (and that of other outspoken traditionalist women) to the situation at the time of Deborah, forced to take on a “masculine” role due to the evil of the times.

I was also delighted to see you defend “militancy” in a woman who acts to defend the good. Obviously “militant” is often used by traditionalists to describe feminists in a derogatory way.  It appears that we agree that “militancy” in itself is not a problem in women. We disagree as to what is good, what ends our energy and “militancy” should serve, and when “militancy” is appropriate.

Your description of your mother is beautiful.  I am also lucky to have an incredible, loving mother, with whom I share a close bond to this day.  It is hard for me to imagine how my mother would have been “lowered” if she had played ice hockey at any point. Indeed, a formative memory for me was watching her take up distance running at a time when women were only just starting to participate in that sport, a time when it was still novel for women to run, sweating, along the roads and street.  I was very proud of her, and used to love accompanying her to the track or the jogging path, where I would sit on the grass and read a book, or sometimes jog along with her.  Was she sometimes subjected to whistles, catcalls, and lewd comments?  Yes, and she kept plugging away.  By the time I started running myself only a few years later, the sight of a female jogging along the road was so mundane that  I think I have only received rude comments once or twice over the course of decades of running.

I suppose that leads me to another issue.  I agree that many men may well be inclined towards sexual thoughts when they see women engaged in sports, particularly in sports that require or encourage skimpier dress. Honestly, this does not strike me as an issue of particular concern.  From what I understand men (and women too for that matter) are inclined towards sexual thoughts quite a bit as it is!  Certainly, modestly is an important value to a certain point – it would be rude to inject sexuality or too much skin in an inappropriate context.  But women’s interest in pursuing the work and pleasure of life far outweighs the harm (if it can even be said to be harm) of a man a feeling sense of admiration or lust for a woman’s body.  To force or encourage women to treat their bodies as precious objects to be shielded from men’s gaze at the expense of the woman’s ability to behave as a subject in the world is the ultimate in the objectification of women.  I’ve noted elsewhere in your blog, your readers sometimes equate “objectification” with being the object of lust.  Sure, that’s a kind of temporary objectification, but there isn’t a woman who won’t be subject to that at some point regardless of what she does (and it’s not always a bad thing).  Objectification of the kind feminists complain about is the kind that defines a woman’s entire worth or existence as an object of the lust of others.  Those who exalt  female modesty above female activity are guilty of objectification every bit as much as a pornographer.

 Laura writes:

I agree that many men may well be inclined towards sexual thoughts when they see women engaged in sports, particularly in sports that require or encourage skimpier dress. Honestly, this does not strike me as an issue of particular concern.

Ah, okay. I thought you held to the feminist view that women should be considered for their higher qualities. I see you do not. I think it is a serious problem when women are attracting men’s attention in this way. It creates a social climate that’s just less civilized. As I said, nakedness lowers the thoughts of men, not just in regard to any one woman but in general. Also, your comment seems oblivious to the male tendency to jealousy, which cannot be eradicated simply by wishful thinking.

In any event, this is a big topic that has been discussed here before. I cannot fully revisit it at this time. Fortunately for you, most people today would agree with you. The cultural manifestations of this view are everywhere.

As for your mother, we have entirely different conceptions of a mother’s role in life. To me a mother is the gateway to truth. She introduces us to the highest things in life through her love and knowledge. A mother who is undignified is incapable of filling this role. That’s not to say mothers should never exercise, for heaven’s sake, but pushing and shoving on a hockey rink or wearing skimpy clothes? No.

Mary writes:

I get it now. Reading Abigail’s comments left me with the impression that she was quite a young woman grappling with a young woman’s role in the world today. Hence I was confused by her comment about the marine that she beat in a road race at sixteen – that “he took it like a man”. It sounded like there was a little edge behind that comment. But at the same time the comment illustrated that Abigail was indeed aware that men experience the world differently than women. It also revealed a lack of respect for that difference. Feminists have demanded respect from men for decades now; it is high time for them to communicate that same respect.

I realize now that Abigail is 41 and fully formed in her ideas. They sound like the ideas of a girl right out of college because there is no accumulated wisdom reflected in her words and this is not her fault. Most people, man or woman, have been “untaught” the very real differences in male/female sexuality, hence they can’t understand why common sense modesty is necessary to well-functioning society. As Laura said, most people today would agree with Abigail and that is a nice, easy world to live in. The lack of awareness of how our healthy instincts have been deformed in the last half century is what makes the march toward nihilism such a success. Men and women look different to feminists – at least they have different reproductive organs – but in every other way they are the same. I can only wonder at how feminists can simultaneously besmirch masculinity in men and encourage and celebrate it in women through imitation.

I was raised with the understanding that a woman is the heart of her home. Women who don’t understand this are, ironically, missing out on a tremendous source of power in the world, unique to women, and since feminists are focused on the accumulation of power in women one might think this would be important to them. But in truth it is masculine power that the feminist desires, power that has to be out in the world and have a paycheck attached to it or it’s worthless. The feminist wants the role of breadwinner, leaving the role of forming the heart of the home unfulfilled and with no instinct to understand that the role of a true breadwinner is often fraught with trial and suffering. I realize to most women today, being the heart of the home sounds hopelessly corny and meaningless. So be it.

We will soon reach a sexual critical mass in this country; everything is accelerating. I won’t list all the gory details but epidemic sexual disease alone, with the need to vaccinate young girls at age twelve, should give the most ardent feminist pause. It shouldn’t but still does surprise to me when women discuss things like modesty – “it would be rude to inject sexuality or too much skin in an inappropriate context” – as if the damage is not already fully underway. “But women’s interest in pursuing the work and pleasure of life far outweighs the harm…”. Does it? Or should I say, has it? The results are out there for all to see.

John writes:

Abigail likes combative women, and dislikes traditional sex roles. Well, there is certainly one woman that none of us should ever mess with. Her name is Mother Nature. Try to erase her traditional roles, and sooner or later you lose.

Abigail writes:

I read Mary’s response  to my post with interest.  I wanted to respond to at least a couple of her observations. She says:

“Hence I was confused by her comment about the Marine that she beat in a road race at sixteen – that “he took it like a man”. It sounded like there was a little edge behind that comment. But at the same time the comment illustrated that Abigail was indeed aware that men experience the world differently than women. It also revealed a lack of respect for that difference. Feminists have demanded respect from men for decades now; it is high time for them to communicate that same respect.“

I am surprised that my comment was interpreted as a lack of respect for the Marine.  My point was the opposite –  to convey respect for the Marine and his ability to accept his loss in the race with grace and clear-sightedness, despite the widespread belief among men that there is shame in losing an athletic competition to a girl.  Just as I accept the reality of men’s general athletic superiority in a mature way, he too accepted the reality that such superiority is not absolute  or applicable in all cases.

My phrasing  that the Marine took his loss “like a man” was confusing to Mary I think, because I was switching frames of reference in an attempt at irony. If I had been writing from my own frame of reference, I would have said, “He took it like a grown-up.”  But I have noticed in traditionalist writing that certain attributes such as rationality, intellectual honesty, stoicism, and the facing of hard truths are framed as “masculine” or “the qualities of a man.”  Yet traditionalists seem to believe that certain truths — that a lot of women enjoy the rough-and-tumble of rough sports, that many women are competitive or aggressive in certain areas of life — are too much for men to bear, and are experienced as a symbolic “castration” or “emasculation.”  My phrasing was intended to highlight this apparent contradiction in traditionalist thinking (though I can understand how my thought process might not have been obvious).

“The feminist wants the role of breadwinner, leaving the role of forming the heart of the home unfulfilled and with no instinct to understand that the role of a true breadwinner is often fraught with trial and suffering.”

The latter is an extraordinary observation — extraordinary in its condescension and its assumption that vast numbers of women must be hopelessly stupid.  Certainly the fact that a way of life “is often fraught with trial and suffering” is no argument against it.  Surely, Mary would also agree that the life of a wife and mother raising young children in the home is also “often fraught with trial and suffering.”  In fact, it is the traditionalist lifestyle — not the feminist one — that is promoted with unrealistic fairy tales promising a life “happily ever after.”

“We will soon reach a sexual critical mass in this country; everything is accelerating. I won’t list all the gory details but epidemic sexual disease alone, with the need to vaccinate young girls at age twelve, should give the most ardent feminist pause.“

Neither feminism nor overt sexuality cause sexual disease to spread.  Syphilis epidemics, and other venereal diseases, were common in far more patriarchal and “modest” eras than ours.  If there were a vaccine to protect girls (and boys) from sexual diseases in past eras, they would have been just as necessary.  There have been perfectly chaste wives who have contracted syphilis from their straying husbands.

Laura writes:

Regarding your first point, Mary did not say you showed disrespect for the Marine; she said you showed disrespect for the difference between men and women.

You write:

But I have noticed in traditionalist writing that certain attributes such as rationality, intellectual honesty, stoicism, and the facing of hard truths are framed as “masculine” or “the qualities of a man.”

Given that these points were not made in this discussion, I’m not sure why you felt the need to frame your comment that way. Also, just to clarify, I don’t object to women playing Olympic ice hockey because it somehow offends the pride of men.

I don’t find anything extraordinary about Mary’s comment about the desires of feminists.

Finally, feminism in the 1960s did cause an immediate uptick in sexual diseases. From this report:

In general, data on reported STDs in the USA showed steady increases during the 1960s, with a levelling off or decline of most of the bacterial STDs but continual increases in viral STDs and genital chlamydial infections during the 1970s and 1980s. National reports of gonorrhoea and syphilis began declining at different times and at different rates in all industrialised countries during the late 1980s and 1990s. During this time, the male to female rate ratio for these conditions also declined, suggesting improvements in prevention and control efforts and reductions in disease incidence among men who have sex with men (MSM). Chlamydia diagnoses and prevalence have varied over time, in part reflecting the impact of chlamydia control programmes in many jurisdictions. However, since the turn of this century, a number of these declining trends have reversed.

It doesn’t matter whether syphilis was common in the past; it’s not a good thing and promiscuity increases the likelihood of contracting it.

Abigail writes:

Mary writes:

I will address a couple of Abigail’s interesting responses.

“…despite the widespread belief among men that there is shame in losing an athletic competition to a girl”.

To Abigail, the shame is a “widespread belief among men,” not a legitimate reaction to an event. To her, it only makes sense that if women have to lose to men, some men also must lose to women, too, to make it fair. And it’s very important that they not feel ashamed – for she rightly senses that their shame suggests that something is fundamentally wrong, calling the woman’s win into question and reducing the good feelings of accomplishment and equality. No, women know better and will congratulate “mature” men who respond properly by stifling their shame. This thinking is a good illustration of how the flattening of sex differences has reduced the understanding of male/female dynamics. Human nature cannot be rewritten as simply as erasing a blackboard and starting again, nor should it be reshaped according to the latest societal whims.

“…vast numbers of women must be hopelessly stupid.”

In using the term “vast numbers,” Abigail’s response suggests that every working woman who heads up a household is a feminist who has triumphantly forged her way into the workforce. In fact, most female heads of households with children are in that position by default through broken marriages and have nothing close to their dream jobs; “vast numbers” of these women loathe having the full weight of breadwinner on their shoulders. It is often crushingly stressful and I say this as a child of divorce. I was addressing the feminists who work in dream jobs while other women clean their toilets and babysit their children; these are the women who are triumphantly celebrated by the press, as Laura stated. My point, which Abigail failed to address, was that in either situation the role of the woman as the heart of a home is left unfilled or only partially filled and that this is damaging to family life and in turn society. Stay-at-home fathers can make up for this but they are in the minority; most female heads of households are single mothers.

“Surely, Mary would also agree that the life of a wife and mother raising young children in the home is also ‘often fraught with trial and suffering.’”

I certainly do. But the point was that countless men get no credit from feminists when they are true breadwinners, supporting their families not with dream jobs but with soul-deadening daily work. Having a healthy home to return to has tremendous value and importance to these workers. The balance of the feminist focus is totally off-kilter, as can be seen in some of Abigail’s comments: the focus is on the happiness and fulfillment of self, not on broader, proven principals and standards of behavior which positively affect everyone – women, men and children – and bring if not individual happiness, stability, harmony and balance to human society in general.

“In fact, it is the traditionalist lifestyle — not the feminist one — that is promoted with unrealistic fairy tales promising a life ‘happily ever after.’”

The cynicism underneath the feminist philosophy always emerges if you give it enough time.

For your information, Abigail, here it is in all its glory from the CDC website, an unprecedented crisis:

“In February 2013, CDC published two analyses that provide an in-depth look at the severe human and economic burden of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States. CDC’s new estimates show that there are about 20 million new infections in the United States each year, costing the American healthcare system nearly $16 billion in direct medical costs alone. America’s youth shoulder a substantial burden of these infections. CDC estimates that half of all new STIs in the country occur among young men and women. In addition, CDC published an overall estimate of the number of prevalent STIs in the nation. Prevalence is the total number of new and existing infections at a given time. CDC’s new data suggest that there are more than 110 million total STIs among men and women across the nation. CDC’s analyses included eight common STIs: chlamydia, gonorrhea, hepatitis B virus (HBV), herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, and trichomoniasis.”

Where is the feminist outrage? Woman are sick by the tens of millions. I would say “social limitations placed on women and the promotion of a culture of modesty” is a great place to start.

Feb. 25, 2014

Abigail writes:

1) My disapproval of traditional gender roles (which go far beyond physical differences) is not an insult to men or a dishonoring of male soldiers.  Calling my attitude an “insult to men” doesn’t it make it so.  I do not believe that the only way to respect men in general, or male soldiers in particular, is to cultivate an attitude of traditionalist femininity.

2) Laura, you asked a couple of specific questions I will answer. Yes, of course, I would support drafting women if a draft were ever needed in the future — whether for combat roles, if feasible, or for the many necessary military support roles.  I share your horror at the thought of a young mother dying in battle or losing her legs, but I would feel the same way about a young father.   In terms of dangerous or yucky jobs, yes, of course I am utterly opposed to discrimination against women in trades like construction or plumbing.  I am not why you might think otherwise, why you assume there has been no feminist activity in this area, or why you assume that such jobs are wholly undesirable.  It’s not as if the men who take on these jobs are doing so simply out of the goodness of their hearts in order to help society — for certain demographics, these jobs are highly desirable because they are the best paying jobs available.  Women have certainly fought for integration of the trades.

3)  Castration — I give up.  You say, ” . . .it is castrating to make every masculine activity co-ed.”  I have no idea what that means.

4) Mary’s argument that feminists seem to have no instinct that career life involves “trial and suffering:” Sure, we live in a culture that promotes women’s access to careers as a positive thing.  But everyone knows that having a job involves WORK and that work involves toil and setbacks and frustration and sacrifice.  Everyone knows that being in charge of providing for a family is stressful and difficult.  That’s precisely why feminists feel so strongly about integrating the professions.  Women have always had to work.  My 19th and 20th foremothers worked – out of necessity – as housecleaners, factory workers, and secretaries.  I think it’s a positive thing that women now have access to jobs that provide better pay and more social influence, rather than being perpetually stuck in jobs that are BOTH “yucky” and “low paying” with no hope of upward mobility.  But neither I nor anyone I know has ever thought that any profession is simply a walk in the park.

5)  Other women cleaning my toilet:  I pay a woman to clean my toilets at home and a man to clean my toilets at the office. I do not apologize for this. Cleaning toilets is honorable and valuable work.  It allows an opportunity for people to earn a living.  Paying someone else to do it frees me up for other tasks.  I don’t apologize at all, and as a woman, I certainly don’t think I have any more reason than a man to apologize for having someone else clean my toilets.

6)  Mary suggests that a man feeling “shame” at losing an athletic competition to a girl is a “legitimate reaction.”  But it is a reaction that is both unfortunate for the sufferer, and unnecessary.  Men wouldn’t feel that kind of shame if we as a culture didn’t hold exaggerated and inaccurate views about sex differences.  (Things are changing, however; for example, most male now runners understand they are likely to be defeated by a number of women.)  It is illegitimate, however, to expect women to cater to the shame a man might feel at losing to a woman by expecting her to truncate her activities or to cultivate an exaggerated feebleness.  I am not saying anyone is suggesting that since I still don’t understand what it means for certain female activities (such as hockey) to “castrate” men.  I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that Laura was arguing that such activities do some injury to men’s psyche.

7)  Mary says that I ignored her argument that something significant is lost when women are no longer in the home full-time.  I didn’t address it because I simply don’t believe that a happy home life requires the woman to work at home full-time in an unpaid capacity.  You say tomato, I say to-mah-to.  I avoid these conversations because women-at-home often seem to interpret the very fact of my different lifestyle as a personal slap in the face, as if by pursuing a career I have expressed contempt for them.  So when this issue comes up, I generally back very slowly away and find a baby to chuck under the chin.

8)  Lastly, Mary asks why feminists aren’t up in arms about STDs.  Answer is that they are.  They are the ones advocating for sex education and the availability of condoms and the administration of the HPV vaccine to young girls.  You may not agree with their tactics but you can’t say that feminists are silent or unconcerned.  Certainly there are better approaches than demanding that women refrain from certain sports in order to avoid “lowering” the thoughts of men, or locking college women up in their dorms at 10 at night.

 Laura writes:

Unfortunately, I can’t respond to every last point you make. It has taken me a couple of days to get to reading your email because it is long, and I had other things to do, but I will make a few quick points.

I do not believe that the only way to respect men in general, or male soldiers in particular, is to cultivate an attitude of traditionalist femininity. 

Fine, in general, I do believe traditional femininity is respectful of men.

 Yes, of course, I would support drafting women if a draft were ever needed in the future — whether for combat roles, if feasible, or for the many necessary military support roles.  

Then I would say you lack a fundamental grasp of the importance of womanly character in the world. When women are encouraged to be aggressive and kill other human beings, they automatically lose or damage the ability to fulfill their other all-important roles, which require traits that are at odds with aggression and physical combat. A woman nurtures. She sustains life. She does not kill.

 In terms of dangerous or yucky jobs, yes, of course I am utterly opposed to discrimination against women in trades like construction or plumbing.  I am not why you might think otherwise, why you assume there has been no feminist activity in this area, or why you assume that such jobs are wholly undesirable.

The only feminist activity in this area has been lawsuits by individual women trying to break into certain trades. Among the thousands of articles published every year glorifying female careers, I have never seen a single one glorifying the work of a female plumber. That’s because women just don’t want to be plumbers. It’s a lonely job that requires a great deal of strength and going into stranger’s houses. I’ve never met a woman who wanted to be a plumber. And that goes for a host of other jobs in the trades too. None of the major feminists wrote about those kinds of jobs.

Women have always had to work. My 19th and 20th foremothers worked – out of necessity – as housecleaners, factory workers, and secretaries.

They have never been encouraged (and forced) to leave their homes in such large numbers as they are today. In the 1960s, most married women with children did not work outside the home. I entirely agree with you that women have always done things in addition to caring for children. However, never has doing these things been so glorified and in conflict with caring for children and sustaining a home.

 I didn’t address it because I simply don’t believe that a happy home life requires the woman to work at home full-time in an unpaid capacity.  

Ultimately, as I have said many times before, it’s not a question of happiness, but of doing our duty and what is best for the rearing and educating of children and the sustaining of the generations. The demographic decline we have experienced will be a burden for future generations, who will feel the economic consequences. Economies run on consumers, not air. Leaving that aside, human life is sacred and good. Not everyone should marry, and the life of an unmarried woman, who is celibate and devoted to some intense work, is honorable, but for those who are married, there is nothing higher than creating life and raising children well to glorify God.

I avoid these conversations because women-at-home often seem to interpret the very fact of my different lifestyle as a personal slap in the face, as if by pursuing a career I have expressed contempt for them. So when this issue comes up, I generally back very slowly away and find a baby to chuck under the chin.

There will always be conflict and division among women, but it has never been like this. I don’t think it has ever been like this in history. It’s sad because women are torn between two entirely different and incompatible ways of life, and naturally they want other women to be in solidarity with them; they want this whether they are women holding jobs outside the home or women at home. Motherhood is a social institution, not just a personal lifestyle choice. It’s a social institution because women very much require a network of support to make whatever they do work well. One reason why so many women work outside the home is because they don’t have that network of support and they flee to the workplace because it’s scary being at home alone. The social institution of real motherhood requires that the unpaid work of being a wife and mother be highly valued, above all else. That way women can help each other make the difficult sacrifices together. Women need each other. They need each other for emotional support and they need each other for practical support, such as mutual babysitting, which makes motherhood so much easier and let’s everyone do things in addition to caring for children.

 If it’s not difficult for women to sustain happy homes while working in paid work full-time, then why the heck are so many people talking about it all the time? Doesn’t the very existence of the tortured conversation suggest it is very difficult to accomplish? People don’t talk endlessly or fight about things that are just second nature. I wonder whether the women you talk to see what you do as a slap in the face, or are merely bored by your talk of your job or sad that you don’t share the same life with them. I have never felt personally offended by a woman who does paid work though I have felt our lives were separate and different. We don’t always share the same interests but my friends can attest that I usually have shown interest in what they are doing and have never, even implicitly, criticized them for working at jobs. But I am not denying there is this constant conflict.

By the way, I said dressing immodestly “lowers” the thoughts of men, not that the mere fact of women engaging in sports lowers the thoughts of men. As for sexually transmitted disease, I’m sure Mary would respond that encouraging promiscuity is not a good way of addressing the problem.

Laura adds:

I believe strongly in an aristocracy of women — an aristocracy of the best and brightest — who are not caught up in the commercial or professional world. It takes a whole society to create the conditions for such a thing to exist and to foster it. This female aristocracy serves the purpose of reinforcing the higher values that go into not just motherhood and home, but intellectual, political and spiritual life. In other words, civilization itself. What we have instead is an aristocracy of careerists and specialists who lack that generalist, non-partisan perspective — and it’s taken a whole society to create it and foster it. The loss is incalculable.

Also, it is impossible for a married woman simultaneously to do paid work full-time (unless she is working out of absolute necessity, which affects the moral status of what she is doing), raise her children and have any kind of meaningful relationship with God. There just aren’t enough hours in the day.

Mary writes:

Laura wrote: “The loss is incalculable….There just aren’t enough hours in the day.”

This is the heart of it. To fulfill the demands of modern life women must suppress the most vital part of themselves, their essence. Laura’s comments are beautiful.

Abigail is going back over some topics that have already been covered, but I will respond to a few of her remarks:

“My 19th and 20th foremothers worked – out of necessity – as housecleaners, factory workers, and secretaries”.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Yes, they had to work out of necessity. But feminism doesn’t help women find good work only when they must work out of necessity. It in no uncertain terms tells young women to choose paid work over the work of the home whether they need the money or not, and promotes this endlessly in the media, public schools, universities and beyond. It is likely that many more of Abigail’s foremothers stayed home with their children. Why does she not follow their example?

Young women are taught to prioritize work over marriage, over starting a family and over family life itself. In Sheryl Sandberg’s bestseller she tells women not to leave work for children or there might not be a job worth returning to – you see, in truth it is the feminist mind that doesn’t believe all work is equal nor does it have respect for humble work, contrary to Abigail’s comments about toilet cleaning. The women who must do humble paid work are necessary casualties for the cause, to be swept under the proverbial rug. The humble work of the home us not deserving of respect or promotion.

“That’s precisely why feminists feel so strongly about integrating the professions”.

Abigail is successful – she pays people to clean her home and office. Since she likes her job and is fulfilled by it that is proof to her that all women have the same power and choice in their lives and hence enjoy working and being away from home every day, all day as much as she does. Abigail is blind to the fact that feminists greatly helped create the world in which many women are forced to work against their wishes by various circumstances in modern life. For feminists to “feel so strongly about integrating the professions”, attempting I suppose to be helpful in some way, is like a doctor infecting a patient and then feeling strongly about what healthcare plan the patient chooses.

Radical individualism has led many to make choices with their own “happiness” in mind over those which contribute to stable societies and, as Laura already said, “…the rearing and educating of children and the sustaining of the generations.”

“It is illegitimate, however, to expect women to cater to the shame a man might feel at losing to a woman by expecting her to truncate her activities or to cultivate an exaggerated feebleness”.

This is silly. All things being equal, such as age, fitness levels, etc, men naturally dominate women in every sport, including running. Men would severely injure women in contact sports. So isn’t truncation exactly what men would have to do in order to play contact sports with women without maiming them? And haven’t standards, in fact, been “truncated” in the military, first responder jobs, etc. to accommodate a woman’s abilities? Why do you ask of men what you won’t abide asking of women?

“They are the ones advocating for sex education and the availability of condoms and the administration of the HPV vaccine to young girls.”

These are the causes of the problem, not the solutions. Is Abigail not aware that the explosion of STDs happened after the advent of sex ed, not before? Astounding lack of insight here. We continue to experiment and toy with human sexuality at our peril.

Mary writes:

I would like to add a few thoughts to my remarks on the STD epidemic:

Abigail is basically saying, “Continue to have as much sex as you want with whomever you want, for, have no fear, feminists will be standing by with pamphlets and condoms and hypodermic needles. We got your back!”

As an athlete I’m sure Abigail appreciates the focus on health in this country, which includes a ubiquitous campaign against smoking and obesity. Cigarette advertising is highly regulated; public smoking has been widely banned; smoking has been all but removed from TV and movies; etc etc. Obesity is written about/spoken of in the media daily; Michelle Obama has made childhood obesity her pet cause; Mayor Bloomberg even tried to outlaw XL cokes in NYC; etc etc. In addition we are asked to eliminate from use language that is offensive to minorities. Etc, etc. In all of these things the focus is on changing entrenched behaviors – whether for one’s own sake or for the sake of others – not on helping the behavior to continue by “inoculating” its bad effects via various methods of enabling.

Keeping in mind that the CDC has outlined the “severe human and economic burden of sexually transmitted infections” in this country, with “America’s youth shoulder[ing] a substantial burden of these infections,” I would ask Abigail to please explain how feminists with any conviction are admonishing women not to simply inform or protect themselves but to change behaviors that would help with this very, very grave and sad situation.

Please follow and like us: