Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy » Wendy McElroy

A Different Look at Betty Friedan’s Legacy

Wendy McElroy — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:45:06 +0000

The Feminine Mystique does not contain the Marxist rhetoric that characterizes later gender feminist writing but its message is no less radical.�

Betty Friedan (1921-2006) died last Saturday at the age of 85. Eulogies have stacked up quickly for the feminist icon: Friedan founded modern feminism; she rescued women from the ’50s; she pioneered the brave ‘new woman’ who now strides through society.

I disagree with those eulogies about the content of Friedan’s legacy. The disagreement contains no malice; however, because Friedan is a public and now-historical figure, an accurate view of her social impact is simply necessary.

Accuracy may be especially important as the impact of her death is already being used (or abused) by various political organizations and groups to promote their agendas. For example, the press release from the National Organization for Women, which Friedan was instrumental in founding in 1966, reads like a fundraiser. At the other end of the spectrum, some “masculinist” groups “rejoice in the fact that her hateful voice is now silenced.”

A starting point of consensus on Friedan is possible, even among extremes. She was a remarkable woman who deeply influenced the culture of her time. But for better or worse? — that’s where battle engages.

Some of the ‘facts’ and assumptions about her life advanced in the eulogies demand closer examination.

Assumption One: Friedan was an apolitical housewife who had an ‘aha’ moment.

The New York Times sums up its eulogy with the observation that Friedan will “be forever known as the suburban housewife who started a revolution with The Feminine Mystique,” her best-selling book published in 1963.

Although The Feminine Mystique capitalized upon, and thus acknowledged, Friedan’s ivy-league education, it also presented her as a basically apolitical homemaker who stumbled across political truth through viewing her own domestic circumstances. This is myth.

In his award-winning 1998 book Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminist Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War, and Modern Feminism, Professor Daniel Horowitz of Smith College documented Friedan’s ideological roots. From her college days through to her mid-30s, Friedan was a consistent and committed Marxist. She was a veteran labor journalist and union activist/pamphleteer with extensive publishing savvy.

Rather than suddenly drawing political conclusions from her domestic experience, Friedan clearly brought prior conclusions to her experience, which she interpreted through them.

Assumption Two: Friedan was representative of American women.

The Feminine Mystique argued that Friedan’s reported experience of being caged in the oppressive, dehumanizing role of mother and housewife was shared by millions of American women. In the book’s preface, Friedan stated, “Gradually, without seeing it clearly for quite a while, I came to realize that something is very wrong with the way American women are trying to lives their lives today.”

The very history of her book refutes the claim that Friedan’s experiences were representative.

As part of her 15th reunion at Smith College, Friedan conducted a survey of graduates, in which she asked them about their satisfaction with their lives. The resulting article, which focused on the dissatisfaction of those who became homemakers, was widely rejected by editors. Friedan eventually expanded the article into The Feminine Mystique.

Thus, the book reflected the subjective evaluation of an elite class of women. Indeed, Friedan employed a full-time maid to pursue her career as a writer. As Rosemarie Tong remarked in Feminist Thought (1998), “Friedan seemed oblivious to any other perspectives than those of white, middle-class, heterosexual, educated women who found the traditional roles of wife and mother unsatisfying.”

More recent scholarship questions whether Friedan even accurately represented the domesticity of upper or middle-class white women. (See Joanne Meyerowitz’s “Rewriting Postwar Women’s History 1945-1960.”)

Although The Feminine Mystique clearly inspired women who wanted more independence, this is not to say that Friedan’s life was representative. In the ’60s, everyone seemed to demand “more;” everyone blamed society. And men may have been equally unhappy with their role as sole provider.

Assumption Three: Friedan was a moderate within feminism.

Friedan’s reputation as a moderate springs largely from her rejection of anti-male rhetoric and of lesbianism as a feminist issue. She believed both would harm feminism’s mainstream appeal. Friedan’s stand against “the bra-burning, anti-man, politics-of-orgasm school” led other prominent feminists like Susan Brownmiller to denounce her. But neither her rejection of lesbianism nor the criticism of colleagues makes Friedan moderate.

The Feminine Mystique does not contain the Marxist rhetoric that characterizes later gender feminist writing but its message is no less radical. The chapter entitled “Progressive Dehumanization” draws a lengthy and explicit parallel between housewives and prisoners in Nazi concentration camps, both of whom are “walking corpses.”

Friedan’s assessment of the housewife may well have been instrumental in the decades-long devaluation of women who chose that option. She wrote, “Housewives are mindless and thing-hungry…Housework is peculiarly suited to the capabilities of feeble-minded girls; it can hardly use the abilities of a woman of average or normal human intelligence.”

As writer and professor Carol Iannone remarked, for Friedan, “submitting to the traditional feminine role was nothing less than an embrace of nonbeing.”

Assumption Four: Friedan was crucial to sparking a revolution in women’s status.

Without access to parallel realities as a basis of comparison, who knows how feminism might have evolved without The Feminine Mystique?

I believe “women’s liberation” was an idea whose time had come. I think it sprang from a combination: the economic freedom women acquired during World War II; a post-war prosperity that encouraged personal growth; and, the unwillingness of a new generation to accept old values. A surge of feminism would have occurred with or without any particular individual.

But, as an individual, Friedan did influence the direction of that surge. For doing so, many offer eulogies. All I can say with honesty is “rest in peace.”

Kidnapping Plot Robs Father’s Rights Group of Credibility

Wendy McElroy — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:15:10 +0000

Fathers for Justice founder Matt O’Connor� claims that voices of rage have started to dominate and destroy the fathers’ rights campaign in England.

Last Wednesday, the media decried an alleged plot by fathers’ rights extremists to kidnap Prime Minister Tony Blair’s 5-year-old son Leo. Subsequent reports have skidded from outrage to skepticism, from the death of an organization to the birth of a movie deal.

What actually happened and what does it mean to the fathers’ rights movement?

On Wednesday, the front page of the UK newspaper The Sun announced, “Plot to kidnap Leo Blair. Cops foil Fathers 4 Justice extremists.”

The F4J group is infamous around the world for pranks that involve flamboyant costumes and for making security police look like idiots. For example, last September an F4J member dressed as Batman breached security at Buckingham Palace to unfurl a banner from one of its balconies.

His protest, along with other F4J stunts, was intended to publicize the need of estranged and responsible fathers to have equitable access to their children. Indeed, one of F4J’s stated “campaign objectives” is to “establish a legal presumption to contact” for all parents.

Skepticism quickly surrounded the Sun’s report of a kidnapping plot.

The Guardian, a competing newspaper, called it “self-evident tripe” and wondered why, if the report were true, no arrests had occurred. The Telegraph asked why police were “blathering” to the Sun “when all [other] stories about the security of the Prime Minister and his family are rightly blanketed in official secrecy?”

Conspiracy theories have floated. For example, the report was payback by a humiliated police force, members of whom had infiltrated F4J and pushed for violence. Or, the story was politically planted on the same day that Blair’s Government declared a radical new plan to rein in “absentee fathers who fail to pay for their children’s upkeep.”

The government proposes to turn that debt collection over to private companies from its much-criticized and disliked Child Support Agency.

On the other hand, some have suggested that the Sun’s editor and staunch feminist Rebekah Wade might just be getting back at men’s rights activists who crowed when she was arrested for assaulting her husband.

Whatever motives may lurk in the shadows, one thing is clear. The alleged kidnapping plot itself seems to have consisted of vague pub chatter that was reported to or overheard by authorities. The police later said they did not take the ‘plot’ seriously because they did believe F4J could pull it off.

Nevertheless, F4J’s founder Matt O’Connor disbanded the UK group within hours of the Sun’s report. O’Connor told Channel 4 News that the group could not continue due to negative publicity from the incident. (The Dutch branch has suspended operations but it is not clear how other branches will ultimately respond.)

O’Connor also claimed that voices of rage had started to dominate and destroy the fathers’ rights campaign in England. He told the Times that “extremists” had wanted to “take out” opponents by running them over with cars and “about three months ago there was a serious threat to firebomb a Cafcass (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) office.”

He spoke of a father who threatened to commit suicide in front of Tony Blair.

What does this mean to the fathers’ rights movement, especially to the branches of F4J in the United States and Canada that still operate?

One meaning is as a cautionary tale against using violence as a strategy for social reform.

Unless revealed as a set-up, the alleged kidnapping plot discredits the UK group and validates the worst predictions of its enemies. The plot justifies repressive measures of control: for example, the private and more efficient collection of the child support debts that F4J believes are unjust unless coupled with reasonable child visitation.

Indeed, the very spectre of violence may have erased much of the progress achieved by earlier non-violent activism.

Perhaps this is why O’Connor admitted to Channel 4 that F4J had been a failure and told the BBC, “I am very angry and upset that this organization has been undermined by the very people it is supposed to serve.” The people to whom he is referring are presumably the estranged fathers who choose violence as a strategy.

Meanwhile, an added twist has heightened skepticism about F4J, the alleged kidnapping plot, and O’Connor himself.

The London News announced last Friday that Disney-owned Miramax has bought the story rights to a proposed F4J movie that O’Connor says “will be tragedy but…very funny.” The script will end with the demise of F4J. The deal has reportedly been in the works for at least two years. O’Connor is also working on an autobiography.

And, so, one last conspiracy theory arises. Was the kidnapping plot and media-soaked collapse of F4J just another flamboyant stunt to promote a movie and a book?

I doubt the truth will ever be known. Even the comparatively easy-to-verify reality of the ‘kidnapping plot’ is unlikely to emerge since no one seems interested in an investigation.

If an investigation does occur, the victim it will reveal is probably the man-on-the-street. He is the average and responsible father who is estranged from his children. He gets up every day with a hole in his heart and tries to summon enough stamina to plead one more time with the family court or a government bureaucrat to see his son or daughter. This man needs compassion, solid arguments, publicity and justice…not violence.

It is this man that violence as a strategy damages the most.

Abuse of Temporary Restraining Orders Endangers Real Victims

Wendy McElroy — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:49:29 +0000

The recent order issued against David Lettermen is further evidence that frivolous or baseless restraining orders and TROs have become commonplace in the American legal system.

On December 15, Santa Fe District Court Judge Daniel Sanchez signed a temporary restraining order against CBS late-night host David Letterman, requiring him to keep his distance [...]

PBS Continues Probe into Biased Film

Wendy McElroy — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:13:52 +0000

According to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Ombudsman, the producers of Breaking the Silence "apparently do not subscribe to the idea that an argument can be made more convincing by giving the other side a fair presentation."

On November 29, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting issued a report on the Public Broadcasting Service documentary [...]

PBS Film Controversy Continues

Wendy McElroy — Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:18:04 +0000

The producers of Breaking the Silence made an egregious error in casting a physically abusive mother as a wronged heroine.

The Public Broadcasting Service documentary Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories portrayed Sadiya (Sadia) Alilire as a heroic mom who was abused by her husband.

Two controversial questions persist. Did producers ignore the extensive court [...]

Girls, Get Your Guns

Wendy McElroy — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 01:58:36 +0000

Issues like same-sex marriage, Hurricane Katrina, the price of gas and many other pressing questions are currently eclipsing gun rights. When the issue reassumes center stage, some will be surprised to see that it wears a somewhat different face — a more feminine face.

The spotlight on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito’s position on abortion has shone so brightly that the issue has overshadowed another controversial question: Where does he stand on gun ownership?

It is just one example of how gun rights have been temporarily pushed aside. Issues like same-sex marriage, Hurricane Katrina, the price of gas and many other pressing questions are currently eclipsing gun rights. When the issue reassumes center stage, some will be surprised to see that it wears a somewhat different face — a more feminine face.

One thing is certain: The issue of gun rights will keep emerging not only because it has highly organized advocates and detractors, but also because the average person has become more concerned about personal safety in a post-September 11 world. Recent events have heightened people’s concern.

For example, when the infrastructure of New Orleans collapsed in the wake of Katrina, many remaining residents were left without police protection. News reports of roving bands that looted, raped and murdered — whether those reports were accurate or not — made people reflect on how fragile police protection might be.

When the authorities in New Orleans systematically confiscated lawfully owned firearms, many commentators protested against leaving residents defenseless. They echoed Dave Kopel, Research Director of the Independence Institute, who declared in Reason Magazine: “To the extent that any homes or businesses were saved, the saviors were the many good citizens of New Orleans who defended their families, homes, and businesses with their own firearms.”

Now those same good citizens were deprived of self-protection.

New Orleans may be one reason that Gallup’s annual Crime Poll, released in mid-October, revealed that people’s confidence in their local police to protect them from violent crime fell from 61percent last year to 53 percent this year, which is a 10-year low.

Whatever the cause, a grassroots movement toward self-protection is quietly growing; in short, people are arming themselves. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, some 60.4 million firearm transactions were approved between 1994 and 2004. According to the National Rifle Association, a gun advocacy group: “The number of NICS checks for firearm purchases or permits increased 3.2 percent between 2003-2004.”

The personal trend is paralleled by a political one.

The number of “Right-to-Carry” States has risen from 10 in 1987 to 38 currently. Generally speaking, the term ‘right-to-carry’ refers to the right of responsible people to carry a concealed weapon. Packing.org provides a good overview of the differences between states.

Pro-gun women have gradually become more prominent in both the personal and public arenas, though the evidence is largely anecdotal. Statistics on this trend are difficult to locate and confusing; they have become a source of controversy in-and-of themselves, as gun control advocates argue that claims of female gun ownership are often inflated.

Organizations dedicated to female gun ownership are spreading from well-established organizations like Second Amendment Sisters and Women and Guns to relatively new ones like Mother’s Arms, which urges mothers to protect their children with armed force if necessary.

Media accounts abound. For example, on November 14, ABC News reported: “When she moved from California to Arizona, Judy Dutko, had a short list of must-dos upon her arrival in her new home: obtain a driver’s license, join a church and register for a gun.”

Several factors may contribute to the emerging prominence of female gun owners.

One factor is the increased presence of women in the military. More women are becoming comfortable with the feel and use of firearms. And, as the media showcases the role of military women, the general public is becoming more accustomed to — and, presumably, comfortable with — the sight of women and weaponry.

Another factor is the active recruitment of women that has been conducted by pro-gun organizations over the last decade. For example, the NRA founded the subgroup Women On Target. WOT expands women’s use of firearms from self-defense into the traditional male-bastion of hunting and recreational shooting.

WOT states: “There are currently about two million American women who hunt and an additional four million who enjoy target shooting. These numbers are steadily increasing.”

According to NRA spokeswoman Kelly Hobbes, the NRA’s classes for women have grown from 13 five years ago to 200 today.

Female gun ownership has become more fashionable in a literal sense as well, as companies like Browning Firearms illustrate. About three years ago, the 109-year-old Utah firm, renowned for producing quality guns, reacted to market demand by establishing a line of shooting apparel for women.

Another contributing factor: the rise of unmarried women and single moms. Such women may feel more vulnerable to crime and, so, are more open to radical options of self-defense.

Daily life and normal concerns will slowly reassert themselves in the wake of controversies, tragedies and disasters. As this happens, gun ownership will be among the issues to return in full force. Indeed, if the furor over San Francisco’s recent ban on guns is any indication, then that process is well underway.

Some advocates will be pleasantly surprised to see that the feminization of gun ownership has continued throughout the chaos; guns have become a “women’s cause” conducted, as Women Against Gun Control claims, by “ladies of high caliber [sic]” Others will be appalled.

Me? I’ll be on my feet, applauding the women (and men) who are standing up for their human and constitutional right to self-defense.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. Her new book is Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century.� Reprinted with permission of ifeminists.com.

Email Wendy McElroy

PBS Film Ignites Fathers’ Rights Debate

Wendy McElroy — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:39:48 +0000

The credibility of Breaking the Silence may hinge on one question: does it incorrectly portray Sadiya Alilire as an heroic mom instead of a child abuser?

A father is demanding a public retraction from the Public Broadcasting System and threatening to sue for libel after the network broadcast a show that he says wrongly [...]

A White Oppressor? Who, Me?

Wendy McElroy — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 22:14:54 +0000

Attendees at Northeastern University's "Women of Color Dialogue" event said they would feel "threatened … if white women were present."

Your daughter is enrolled at a major university that has well-defined policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race. She decides to attend a campus event. The organizers forbid her entry because of her [...]

Will Science Trump Politics in Resolving Abortion Debate?

Wendy McElroy — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:12:00 +0000

For better or worse, new reproductive technologies are redefining the ground rules of reproduction.

Artificial wombs will be "reality" within 20 years, according to the London Times. Indeed, 20 years seems a conservative estimate given an earlier report in The Guardian, another UK newspaper, which predicted them for 2008.

Discussion of ectogenesis — growing [...]

Is The Boy Scouts of America Public or Private?

Wendy McElroy — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:18:26 +0000

The debate over the Boy Scouts' status is heating up.

On Sunday, President Bush addressed a Jamboree of more than 30,000 Boy Scouts in Virginia.

He stated, "through the generations, scouts have made America a stronger and better nation."

Those critical of the Boy Scouts of America argue that the Boy Scouts' exclusion of [...]