Philosophy, Feminism and Little Girls

I'm told that I am not a feminist, because of two reasons really: One, I think there is such a thing as an objective feminine identity; and two, because I don't support abortion. I know, blasphemy against all those who "present as women."

But I also have three young girls now sleeping blissfully beneath lovely pink quilts in the safety of my suburban home. What am I told today about how I am supposed to raise them to ensure that they can express their feminine power, whatever "feminine" can mean?

First, I am told that they should be free to discover and define themselves. My girls have not been designed by God for any particular purpose, according to the feminists I have heard. I am supposed to raise them to be open to all possibilities, including the possibility that they will not be Christians, that they will not choose to be married, that they will not choose to be female.

It is confusing, because I often wonder if I'm supposed to take away their dolls. They like to play hair stylist also. Should I have them play feminist professor? I'm sure Toys-r-Us has a section for postmodern toys. Should I not leave them totally unbiased, in a state of valueless neutrality? I could buy them a "feminine" toy and a "masculine" toy every time I go to the store to leave them open to "options." Next time they are flitting about dancing with exuberance, I should give them a head-butt, just to force gender recalibration.

Second, I am told that if they desire to assert their sexuality, I should not stifle such a natural urge. Sexuality is now freed from repressive norms. Men in our society are told the same thing. They are told that their desires are normal and natural and that they should express their sexual freedom. And if they desire to make a woman their exclusive sexual interest, then that is okay as well. Now don't over think what I just said. No conflict in society will emerge at all if you tell men and women to express sexual freedom and also to express their desire to make another human being their exclusive sexual interest. Oh, and it does not contradict any logical norms either. Human beings are built for monogamy and for unfettered sexual freedom as well. (Sexual freedom is here defined the way the culture now defines it: doing whatever the individual wants to do provided others are willing and no one gets hurt, whatever that means.)

Third, I am told that femininity is not tied to sexuality, but to power. I should teach my daughters to be wholly independent of men, to change their own oil, to fix their own pipes. But I should not stifle their inclination to use their sexuality to manipulate men either. Sex can be a tool in extending the reaches of a woman's power, especially if she is attractive, which I should also always encourage my girls to be, or so says the advocate of the popular cultural perspective.

This third point hinges on them being attractive to men. That could mean behavioral conditioning, but it mostly means purely physical attributes in our day. The society is teaching me that my daughters, to get ahead, must frequent the gym, purchase expensive cosmetics, retain an overpriced gay hair-stylist and so forth. If they don't, then perhaps they can write a bunch of columns for The Guardian whining about how no one treats plain-looking intelligent women as women. And that can be a substitute for powerful womanhood, but it won't be as fulfilling as a Sex and The City lifestyle, where the attractive smart women get to do it all.

Fourth, I am told that Aristotle and the Bible are oppressive shackels of a bygone era. Oprah tells us that a woman must be whole before she considers marriage. She must discover her own unique voice and assert her own unique life vision before she joins herself to another. In fact, she must be autonomous. Marriage in no way completes a woman. And neither do children. No woman is condemned to a life of domestic obscurity, unless of course she chooses it for herself. But who would choose "domestic obscurity?" You can either do something with your life or dissolve into oblivion in the home. The home is an embellishment, an accessory, to the whole woman. Does it not seem that for many women today, the least feminist thing one could ever do is to be a mother, especially the stay-at-home variety?

This is also why abortion must always remain a tool in the belt of the newly liberated woman. She can always escape the sentence of subservience to some parasitic fetus (another person) thanks to abortion.

Fifth, I am told that falling in love is an electrifying emotion, and an experience that will one day allow my girls to feel their womanhood deeply. And it is quite irresistible. As Lewis facetiously says, "It just happens to one, like measles." But we are cautioned by the intelligentsia to remember that while love is so captivating, it cannot take the place of "self-actualization." Women today speak of how unfulfilling it must be to give one's whole life to a man and to children while also speaking about how unfulfilling it must be to give one's whole life to a career. Women want the best of all worlds. Actually, they don't merely want it; they are told that they are not women unless they possess it all! The only successful woman is the one who can do everything. The only good woman is a great woman. Everyone else is another nameless, faceless, irrelevant human animal descending into obsolescence.

Does it not seem that the architects of the popular culture are most often childless children of the modern university or clones of the popular culture? They study feminism. They come from places like San Francisco, Manhattan, Seattle or Bolder, where the local dialect is derisive sarcasm. Their entire being is summoned in the service of ridiculing Christians or other "traditionalists." They advance no compelling vision of womanhood, or family, or society, because they don't have one. They are just against mine and every other Christian's.