ABIGAIL writes:

I had to chuckle at Paul A.’s statement that “[i]f you summed up [the feminist] movement, the slogan would be, ‘Non Serviam!’ (I will not serve!)”  Those uppity feminists failing to accept their place, I tell you.  What a bunch of harpies.  If women would only just be “delicate, fragile, modest, and retiring” like the Virgin Mary, the world would be a much better place – at least for men like Paul A.

My father of all people (a somewhat waffling feminist at best) warned me early on to be very suspicious of people who tell me that if I only  act in the way that’s most pleasing and convenient to them, they will respect me so much more.  That’s the very con played by a male-dominated Church that reveres the meek and de-sexed image of the Virgin Mary they have promoted.  This is a de-humanized image of what they wish women to be.  And the bill of goods they sell is that somehow women will be much more “powerful”  if only we humbly submit to male domination.  Uh huh.

Of course, failing that, the next line is usually to attack feminists for supposedly being obsessed with power and status.  But feminists merely protest systems and institutions – such as the Church – that enshrine a strict hierarchy of male domination.  Who exactly is obsessed with power and hierarchy? It is the Church that insists on portraying Mary as subordinate to Jesus, her own Son (as feminist Simone de Beauvoir, one feminist who certainly talked about Mary, famously pointed out).

In any case, as an average feminist woman, I am not striving to be venerated, adored, or placed on a pedestal by the men in my life.  That would be silly, not to mention unsatisfying.  I simply want to work and be respected in my chosen profession in a manner commensurate with my contributions, enjoy a loving relationship at home, and to have an equal voice and opportunities in our society, as well as decision-making power over my own life.  Am I opposed to serving?  Not in the least, and I like to think I pull my weight in all my dealings with the community and with others. But I am opposed to having totalitarian, male-dominated institutions dictate to me what my essence is (i.e. what femininity is), what my role should be, and how it should be expressed.

Laura writes:

What a bunch of harpies. 

Yeah, okay, you’re right.

If women would only just be “delicate, fragile, modest, and retiring” like the Virgin Mary, the world would be a much better place – at least for men like Paul A.

I’m sure Paul A. secretly wants nothing more than to be waited on hand and foot. That’s what he’s all about. He has probably worked most of his life and, if he is like most men, he has worked in large part to serve and support women, but I’m sure he wants nothing more than to sit back and enslave. Unfortunately, he will be disappointed. Even in the age when the Virgin of Virgins was most honored, men spent most of their lives waiting on women through obligatory hard work. We all serve, one way or another. Women were created to be the helpmates of men, so they do serve more, and there’s nothing shameful about that. Good men are worth serving. Civilization is worth serving.

By the way, the Mother of God is not fragile in the sense of weak. She was destined from all time to “crush the serpent’s head.” No weakling could do that. “It was through Mary that the salvation of the world was begun and it is through Mary that it must be consummated.” (St. Louis de Montfort) She is rightfully referred to as Queen, queen of the whole universe, because of her singular perfection and because of all creatures she is the most closely united with God. She is no weak monarch, given her supernatural role as intermediary between man and God.

But she is fragile in the sense that her heart feels the travails of humanity. She is the Queen of Mercy, and her intercessions are motivated by supreme compassion and tenderness. St. Thomas wrote, in his preface to the Canonical Epistles, “that when the Blessed Virgin conceived the Eternal Word in her womb, and brought him forth, she obtained half the kingdom of God; so that she is Queen of Mercy, as Jesus is King of Justice.” (Source.)

My father of all people (a somewhat waffling feminist at best) warned me early on to be very suspicious of people who tell me that if I only  act in the way that’s most pleasing and convenient to them, they will respect me so much more.

Follow your father’s advice. Be suspicious of feminists.

That’s the very con played by a male-dominated Church that reveres the meek and de-sexed image of the Virgin Mary they have promoted.  

I’m not surprised you despise virginity as a spiritual calling. But I was not speaking to people like you when I wrote of the Virgin Mary. You are dead to things of the spirit so they can have no meaning to you. No institution in the history of the world has done more to elevate the condition of women than the Catholic Church.

This is a de-humanized image of what they wish women to be.  

You’ve got it backwards. Human beings have souls not just bodies.

And the bill of goods they sell is that somehow women will be much more “powerful”  if only we humbly submit to male domination.  Uh huh.

The world is, and always will be dominated by men. That fact is neither good nor bad. It just is; it’s part of the natural order, and no one, not even tens of millions of feminists, could change it.

The many women who hold positions once held by men are, despite their often considerable talents, essentially under the dominion of men. By virtue of their superior physical strength, their aggressiveness, their competitiveness, their preponderance in fields of abstract reasoning, their strategic thinking, their mechanical skills, their temperaments, and their freedom from the physical and emotional responsibilities of women, men will always rule the world. They rule the corporate world. They rule the political world. They rule the religious world.

And they rule the physical world. Even your plumbing and electricity and the roads you drive on are male-dominated. Do you want to do away with them, since you abhor male-domination? I challenge you to get through a single day using technology invented, implemented and maintained by women. I know: You think it’s okay for men to dominate trash collection and sewer lines, but not other fields or you think women can become plumbers even though you’ve never met a single woman who wanted to become one or was motivated to become one. Harp on. This world just isn’t the paradise you want it to be.

Who exactly is obsessed with power and hierarchy? It is the Church that insists on portraying Mary as subordinate to Jesus, her own Son (as feminist Simone de Beauvoir, one feminist who certainly talked about Mary, famously pointed out).

All power is as nothing compared to the well-being of a single soul. The Church proclaims other-worldly values. You are blind and out of touch with reality, and cannot comprehend its values.

Simone de Beauvoir was famous, by the way, because some men liked her message and published it and spread it around the Western world. Her publishers were not female-dominated institutions.

In any case, as an average feminist woman, I am not striving to be venerated, adored, or placed on a pedestal by the men in my life. 

If you don’t want to be adored, something which I definitely support as I never spoke of adoration of women, but adoration of one woman, then why don’t you dwell a bit on the failings of women?  Feminism is institutionalized flattery. If you don’t want women to be adored, encourage feminists to write books about all the women who have abused, exploited and cruelly abandoned men.

That would be silly, not to mention unsatisfying. 

I don’t see why. You get a kick out of it when it comes from Simone de Beauvoir.

I simply want to work and be respected in my chosen profession in a manner commensurate with my contributions, enjoy a loving relationship at home, and to have an equal voice and opportunities in our society, as well as decision-making power over my own life. 

Well, that’s great. But you’re going to die someday. And your career life is a moment in eternity. You don’t seem philosophically inclined, but you might start with Aristotle’s argument for the immortality of the soul, which can be proven with reason.

But I am opposed to having totalitarian, male-dominated institutions dictate to me what my essence is (i.e. what femininity is), what my role should be, and how it should be expressed.

Then join with me and reject totalitarian, male-dominated feminism.

— Comments —

Paul A. responds:

Perhaps Abigail can explain to me why it is that feminist goals always seem to be about usurping male position? Grrl Power seems to be all about becoming like a man, or even exceeding him in his own roles. The women who seem to enlarge and deepen their own feminine roles are never labeled feminists and are often looked down upon.

Why does it appear that the more successful a feminist becomes, the more angry and combative she becomes? And why are there so many examples of women who like being feminine, and seem to be quite happy, satisfied, and fulfilled in traditionally feminine roles?

I wonder if there is some underlying issue with being a woman that drives the typical feminist? Perhaps, but I suppose that is too much trouble to look into. A much easier explanation is that Paul A. just wants someone to bring him a sandwich.

Laura writes:

You brute.

Laura adds:

Paul writes:

I wonder if there is some underlying issue with being a woman that drives the typical feminist?

By arguing that everything and anything that a woman does is good, feminism gives women the courage to be manly.

When men became alienated from God, they became less manly. Masculine strength is grounded in the supernatural.

When men became less manly, women panicked (they are in a natural state of dependence) and sought for the strength to become men. With their strong intuition, women knew men were weakened and that they couldn’t rely on them as much.

They had to stifle their consciences and qualms in order to spend less time and energy on the things, such as marriage, children, charity and beauty, that mattered most to them. Feminism, with its constant flattery since the 19th century, helps them silence their inner objections.

Terry Morris writes:

Excellent post!

Your answer to Paul’s query may well be the very best explanation for “feminine manliness” I have read or heard to date. It certainly deserves a great deal of attention in my view.

I personally would likely never have seen this, or thought of it for that matter, had I not taken the time to read the comments following the original post. So I thank you! There really is such a thing as “a woman’s intuition.” I of course have never denied this, but it’s rare these days to run across fine examples of it as in your reply to Paul.

I’ll be sure to turn as many women (as well as men) onto this post I can. Thanks again!

Laura writes:

Thank you.

College-age women, by the way, being as they are on the threshold of adulthood, often have this intuitive grasp of the draining away of masculinity in an especially acute form, which is why some of them, intelligent and sensitive women even, are in a state of virtual hysteria today, in some cases even imagining that they have been raped (some of them, a very small minority, have been raped, of course) or are about to be raped. They realize what horrible demands modern androgyny is placing on them. They will have to be both women and men! They become mentally ill from the stress and abnormality of it. They become workaholics and often lead a double life as nihilistic hedonists, which means they have split personalities. They are schizophrenics.

That’s androgyny for you.

What is the cure?

She is there, waiting for us. As our advocate, she will lead us with her tender intercessions out of this valley of death. She will crush this serpent’s head. God will not deny his sweet mother’s interventions. One thing is for sure, we cannot cure ourselves. We cannot cure ourselves anymore than an entrenched alcoholic or drug addict can emerge from his misery by his own un-aided power.

 

The Memorare

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession was left unaided. Inspired with this confidence, I fly to thee, O Virgin of virgins, my Mother; to thee do I come; before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me. Amen.

June 1, 2016

Abigail writes:

I hadn’t realized until just now that you responded to my post. I’d thought you’d chosen not to. Thank you so much for reading and responding. As usual, you leave me absolutely flabbergasted with how differently we view the world. I can’t respond to everything at any length, but I will say this:

(1) The biggest strawman (strawfeminist?) in your piece is your insistence that I and other feminists claim that everything a woman does is good. That claim is absolutely 100% absurd. If anything, it’s the other way around. It’s those who oppose feminism who argue that women must be perfect in order to have any moral claim to equality or positions of power. And it was Gloria Steinem who said, “We’ll only really know we’ve succeeded when a mediocre woman does as well as a mediocre man.” You should also be aware that feminist artists — authors, actresses and directors – are constantly creating or seeking three-dimensional female characters, i.e. characters with both positive attributes and serious FLAWS. The whole point of feminism is for women to be treated as equals, as full-fledged human beings with the full array of human strengths and weaknesses.

(2) You state, “The many women who hold positions once held by men are, despite their often considerable talents, essentially under the dominion of men.” Come on, now. Obviously, unless a person becomes a supreme dictator, he or she will be under the authority of others in some facets of their lives. But your statement is misleading in two respects: (1) Such a woman is not “essentially under the dominion of men,” these days, but rather in some respects under the dominion of others, who may be male or female. (2) That truth applies to both men and women. So what? No feminist is trying to become supreme dictator. We all have to live in a complex society. I think your point is a typical anti-feminist tactic of trying to devalue the formerly male-dominated roles feminist women have won — devalue them once women hold them, that is.

(3) You mention that Simone de Beauvoir became famous because some men who were in a position to publish her liked her message. I should hope so! So what’s your point? I’m not being snarky. I am genuinely at a loss as to why it matters whether Simone de Beauvoir’s publishers were male. From my standpoint, it makes sense that a lot of men would respond favorably to a brilliant woman who had something important to say. It also makes sense that in a male-dominated society, her initial publishers would have been male.

(4) You claim that in order to be consistent in my opposition to male domination, I should give up the roads and technology we all rely on that are largely built and maintained by men. Again, I struggle to follow your line of argument. Are you saying that because many important things in our lives were brought about by the efforts of men, feminist women should give them up? Or that the price for women to enjoy these things is to consent to a subordinate position in society? I just don’t see how that follows at all. How about we just advocate for equal access, equal training and equal pay in those important jobs – as feminists have done for decades?

(5) You point out that I’m going to die one day! And that my career is just a short moment in eternity. But that’s true of everyone’s life and everyone’s efforts. Again, this is typical anti-feminist rhetoric. When a man works hard in a career, he is honored among anti-feminists. When a woman does the same, it’s pointed out that this is just a blip in eternity and a completely unimportant since we are all going to die.

(6) Lastly, Paul A. asked me some direct questions: “Perhaps Abigail can explain to me why it is that feminist goals always seem to be about usurping the male position. Grrrl Power seems to be all about becoming like a man, or even exceeding him in his own roles.” I disagree completely. I am very much [an] embodied female, and there is nothing about the roles I play in my family and in society that makes me less female than a housewife. There is nothing about having an equal role in my marriage or working in the professions that makes me “like a man.” I deny that these roles are inherently male. Nothing I do requires any attributes or capacities that I lack as a woman. I am not usurping anything or becoming male in any way. Paul also asks, “Why does it appear that the more successful a feminist becomes, the more angry and combative she becomes?” I think it appears that way to Paul and others who share his views. It doesn’t appear that way to me. Not that there is anything wrong with being angry and combative! Sometimes, it’s appropriate to be angry and combative, as I am sure you, Laura, would agree. Paul finally asks, “I wonder if there is some underlying issue with being a woman that drives the typical feminist?” Nope! No issues with being a woman, just issues with the social roles expected of women. There’s a difference.

Thank you again for the combative and “unfeminine” conversation.

Laura writes:

You’re welcome.

Debate is not necessarily unfeminine, but debate between people who have entirely different premises can’t go very far. You never mention God. For you the world is all, and the supernatural does not exist. You offer no real explanation for why we are here. For you, life is everything, but you offer no plausible explanation for its origins.

You have benefited from a great civilization that held the things I believe as true. Your values have never built a great civilization. Their track record is extremely poor, as all around us we see social devolution, if we look at things like suicide, divorce, drug addiction, street violence, war and childlessness. I see your values as essentially parasitic. You can only hold them because the values you debunk have created something that can be destroyed. The values I now believe in (after having held feminist values myself) lead to families of many children who are taught that if they mistreat other human beings, if they mistreat their wives for instance, they will go to hell for all eternity. You have nothing in the way of humane, flourishing civilization to compare to that.

But just a few quick points in response to your arguments:

As usual, you leave me absolutely flabbergasted with how differently we view the world

You have been reading this site, at least on and off, for a while. The shock should have worn off by now. : – )

It’s those who oppose feminism who argue that women must be perfect in order to have any moral claim to equality or positions of power.

I’m not sure whom you are talking about, but obviously it’s not me because I have never argued that women should claim equality or positions of power. Therefore, I have never said that women must be perfect in order to claim equality (in the feminist sense) and positions of power.

And it was Gloria Steinem who said, “We’ll only really know we’ve succeeded when a mediocre woman does as well as a mediocre man.”

Gloria Steinem measures success entirely in materialistic terms. To her, a poor woman who has done nothing or who has raised lots of children is a failure. Women will never “succeed” at the same rate as men. They have other priorities and duties. They choose not to “succeed.” Steinem, the former CIA operative who now lives alone with a three-legged cat, is not really someone most women want to be.

You should also be aware that feminist artists — authors, actresses and directors – are constantly creating or seeking three-dimensional female characters, i.e. characters with both positive attributes and serious FLAWS.

Really? Do those flaws ever include mistreating men and neglecting children?

The whole point of feminism is for women to be treated as equals, as full-fledged human beings with the full array of human strengths and weaknesses.

Well, then why does feminism support killing female children in the womb?

For you, worldly success confers the status of “full-fledged human being.” You dole out these incredible insults to most of the women of history, implying that they were not full-fledged human beings because they were not making as much money as men and not doing things that you consider important. (They always have worked in paid employment as long as paid employment has existed.) Really, this is what I mean about feminist hatred of women. You honestly believe women have not been “full-fledged human beings” because they couldn’t be human resource directors or dermatologists.

But your statement is misleading in two respects: (1) Such a woman is not “essentially under the dominion of men,” these days, but rather in some respects under the dominion of others, who may be male or female.

No, what I meant was that, in general, women are under the power of men. For example, secret societies (Freemasonry is a worldwide organization of great influence) and powerful, non-governmental organizations are overwhelmingly directed by men and the world’s financial and military resources are under the direction of men. At the end of the day, women just don’t have the same power, and never will. Men rule the world. It’s a question of whether women will be under the control of a good male-dominated system or a bad one.

I think your point is a typical anti-feminist tactic of trying to devalue the formerly male-dominated roles feminist women have won — devalue them once women hold them, that is.

I’m not sure how I have devalued any specific positions. The work of a conscientious doctor or manager, for instance, is in itself good, whether it is performed by a man or a woman. I have never said that women should not hold any paid positions of larger influence or professional importance. During the age when Mary was most honored, women did all kinds of different things. They ran businesses, and they had their own guilds and they were valued artisans. They were scholars and sometimes ran enormous enterprises in the form of monasteries and convents, which were not only religious houses but centers of productive activity. (See Regine Pernoud’s book Women in the Days of the Cathedrals.) Virginity was honored and thus women who didn’t want to marry had other opportunities that were esteemed. The difference was that women were not so encouraged to act in conflict with their roles as mothers and wives. They didn’t seek equality, in the feminist sense, because they had plenty of opportunities and they had the equality that matters most: spiritual, moral and personal equality. Women still had less authority and less worldly opportunity, but that was good because it gave them the opportunity to cultivate their souls and to make real the truth that the Kingdom of God is within, not out there.

You claim that in order to be consistent in my opposition to male domination, I should give up the roads and technology we all rely on that are largely built and maintained by men.

I was just making a rhetorical point and not seriously suggesting that you give up technology. My basic point was that you harp on about the power that men have without ever acknowledging that they do the vast share of the grunt work that keeps the practical and mechanical world running. You’re not seriously upset about the under-representation of women in plumbing, trash collecting and electrical work. You suggest that it’s unfair that men have dominance in more important fields without acknowledging the unfairness of their dominance (and responsibility) in the most dangerous and dirty fields. For you men have just hogged all the power. You show no gratitude for their sacrifices and no womanly sympathy for the fact that they have to work and thus maybe deserve the best opportunities, given that their lives are just work, work, work (no maternity leaves, no long sabbaticals, usually no rushing home early to be in the arms of baby). Instead, you’re all hung up on this idea that someone is going to take your job or your opportunities away.

You point out that I’m going to die one day! And that my career is just a short moment in eternity. But that’s true of everyone’s life and everyone’s efforts. Again, this is typical anti-feminist rhetoric. When a man works hard in a career, he is honored among anti-feminists. When a woman does the same, it’s pointed out that this is just a blip in eternity and a completely unimportant since we are all going to die.

That’s quite a distortion. I don’t argue that women who work hard deserve no credit for their hard work. The feminist program is to make material accomplishment the measure of a woman’s success.

I disagree completely. I am very much [an] embodied female, and there is nothing about the roles I play in my family and in society that makes me less female than a housewife.

A woman can be feminine while raising a family and holding a job, but it is very difficult because the demands of being the heart of the home are so different from the demands of busy careers, which call for assertiveness and lots of will. The careerist must be in control and highly organized. When she brings this structure and will home, it is not suited to the demands of managing children and domestic life. (That’s leaving aside the basic issue of time.) Children are not employees. They can’t be structured and controlled in the same way. They come in so many different personalities, which require time and attentiveness to understand, love, discipline, civilize and bring to the true end of life, which is to know and love God. Being a mother and wife requires attentiveness and receptivity. These are forms of passivity, but not idleness or doing nothing. The devouring, all-consuming industry of the family under capitalism furthermore enervates the will of developing human beings, who often see no point in all this ceaseless activity and end up in a swamp of nihilism. Womanly passivity (in moderation) provides balance and harmony.

One of the big differences between women and men is that women are in general more strong-willed than men. Perhaps this is God’s way of giving them the metal to bring life into the world and sustain it. Modern careerism, egalitarian education and feminist values cultivate the will while traditional ways moderate the feminine will so that it doesn’t destroy and can be used to the highest purposes of the feminine heart, which is to nurture body, soul and mind. One big example of the female will unleashed is abortion, which leads women to destroy what they most want.

Women are also more passionate than men. That passion is good, when it’s used in the right way.

Being both providers and nurturers, leading this extremely pressured life and being able to “do it all,” seemingly transcending nature itself, gives women this weird, creepy euphoria. Due to the pressures of it all, they are literally blind to the fact that all around them the world is being drained of love.

Womanly love, which takes a variety of forms and isn’t just emotion, transforms and civilizes the world. It’s not just an extra little thing, tacked on at the end of the day or on weekends. It’s the thing. Basically, women like you just take for granted all that women of the past have done (emotionally, intellectually and practically) to build up civilization. You think it was nothing, or that it could be done while doing the things men do too. The proof is in the pudding. The world has gotten worse. But whether the world is worse or better is not the important thing. The soul is more important. God is everything. Man is nothing.