Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Unsolicited Reflections's avatar

Good piece. I agree deeply with your assessment that the feminists' critiques are correct- women have historically and continue to have it particularly hard, in ways that are unique to them- but their diagnosis/reaction to it is incorrect, largely because contemporary feminism is committed to denying the biological foundations of the patriarchy, which means there is a very hard limit on how much we can socially engineer the patriarchy out of existence.

As you said, Germaine Greer wrote in "rebellion against the conditions of womanhood." I also had the same realisation very recently- the original feminists of the 1970s were not rebelling against patriarchy as much as they were rebelling against *being female* and femininity itself. They hated being female and the way it was the essence of their political and social subordination- thus they were motivated to reject femininity as a real and valid social identity (see Judith Butler), and to deny that men and women are meaningfully psychologically different (see Julie Bindel). Which is of course nonsense.

This also explains why so much of modern feminism as a project has bought into the premise that women are merely suppressed men- that the ultimate success criteria for the modern woman is to what degree can she attain the markers of success that have been typically reserved for men- money, status, political and economic power: the corporate girlboss. This has been genuinely great for all the intelligent women who have always yearned to be more than a housewife- but I'm not sure it has really translated to improved life satisfaction for all the women who *dont* have ambition or aspiration- i.e., the majority of people.

Indeed, I think a deeply interesting and under-explored event is that the emancipation of women has *not* translated to widespread improvement in the happiness of women in the western world: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Stevenson_ParadoxDecliningFemaleHappiness_Dec08.pdf

This is not to argue that emancipating women wasn't good or just, but rather that it hasn't materialised in expected or desire outcomes, like so many other social revolutions. I think part of the reason is that contemporary feminism is just based on the denial of harsh realities. Men and women are different, and these differences aren't going to go away because we want them to. Thus, the question of women's role in society remains unresolved.

Expand full comment
Ruxandra Teslo's avatar

Misha, this was a thoughtful piece. I think I have encountered both: women who gave up careers for kids and vice-versa. Most often, women who tried to do both (e.g. my mom), but always something had to give a bit. Overall, having kids is "safer", and would recommend it to 90% of even smart women, but a sort of "bitterness" is there. Especially because, as time goes, husbands become less excited with their wives so there isn't even that anymore. the other thing we do not realise is that, as economies have become more specialised, it's much harder to have contact with the real world as a SAHM. If you were a Queen you could hope to influence events via family connections.... Now, that it basically impossible without some sort of career to speak of.

I do not think there is a solution.... My advice for young women would simply be to find the best man available, that will dictate how much you can do. That means a combo of capable/ambitious and actually empathetic man (again, hard, these two traits do not go well together.) The good thing is that high quality men feel your piece without having to have it spelled out, so they will try to help as much as they can. But these men are not that abundant....

Expand full comment
33 more comments...

No posts