It’s been months since my last post. I actually have those old butterflies that I would get when I first started blogging. Getting back into it, is almost like starting from scratch again. I sympathize with Martel. I never really intended to take that long of a break. I got burned out and just couldn’t find the inspiration to write. Then life stepped in and I was mostly off the internet for more than a month (I did read for maybe 5-10 minutes a day things like Drudge and Vox Populi, but that was about it.)
During this time, I had a vague knowing that some new thing was going on called Women Against Feminism, but I had no idea what is was (I basically still don’t as I have read little on it yet). In just hearing about it and reading a couple of the signs the girls were holding I had opposing feelings about it.
Joy. Finally. It’s happening. I knew it was coming. Women stating their feelings about what feminism has become. I don’t think most women hate men. Rather, I think most women actually very much like men. Many simply won’t admit it to themselves as they don’t know how to not follow the herd. Today’s feminism is hogwash and I think that most women today have definite cognitive dissonance about what they are reading, and that many outright rejected it, but just didn’t have the courage or even the knowhow in how to combat this. Now that there is a new herd, a new rebel crowd in which to go to for safety in their feelings, they can comfortably voice their opinions.
Wary. Wary because, well, Women Against Feminism is comprised of women. Being against feminism isn’t going to change what women as a whole want. It will just be a different way of going about getting it. This doesn’t have to necessarily be a bad thing. But there is always great potential for it to turn so.
I tend to agree very much with what Martel has written on this. These women, right now, are an ally. I won’t agree with everything they stand for and as I come across these things I will write on them. But, this is a start. A new herd, or place for women who have had reservation or even flat out disagreed with feminism to find likeminded people. More than that, it growing so quickly and with such popularity, it will bring in many, many women who are simply drawn to power. Who are drawn to the mere popularity of this. Even if these women are changing because of reasons they don’t even understand, if they go so far as to begin to learn what men want, to learn to begin to not see men as the enemy, to learn to care and nurture their husbands and families, it is a step in the right direction.
As ar10308 says:
although many of these WAFs are very Egalitarian, this will probably cause a number of them to look even further into anti-Feminism and possibly consider more traditional roles for themselves.
Most women are going to always find themselves pretty much in the middle ground of this battle. But as more and more women are slightly shifting sides, more will find themselves wanting to move further and further in the opposite direction. These numbers will be relatively small, but the more we find moving that way, the more the balance shifts.
And the balance is shifting more and more in our favor.
** I also left this comment at Martel’s yesterday. I don’t really have time to try to incorporate it as I would like into this post, but it further describes my thoughts and reservations about this movement (Edited for silly typing mistakes).
Women Against Feminism, the Red Pill Women’s reddit, and so forth are a new herd. The rebels. They are demonstrating a new power dynamic and that growth in power will attract more and more women in and of itself, regardless of the message. This is just the fact of the matter. As you’ve demonstrated, there are pluses and minus to this.
The plus being, that it is a demonstrable shift in thought and its popularity is only going to grab more women’s attention. As it becomes popular to love men again, more women will love them and support them. The problem being, as you said, they’re still women. This love and support for men will be through the realm of womanhood. What this means today and that this support will come from a bunch of women who grew up entrenched in feminism.
Let me see if I can coherently explain. There has always been a female imperative (there always will be). However many years ago you wish to go back (to the 1950’s or the 1850’s) there was an imperative there. But it was different than today’s. The women were brought up in a patriarchal society and their imperative reflected that. These women today, there imperative was developed in a matriarchal, men bad/women good, society. And while they may want to learn to support men, their ability to to this is far more hampered than women of the past.
I’m not explaining it as well as I would like, but hopefully you get the picture. I support these women, I applaud the courage of those who began it. I will support them in their efforts but will always do my best to point out their flaws as they grow in popularity and their message flows back toward feminism. As ar10308 said, many will hopefully look even further into antifeminism. It will be a minority, but the more numbers we can add to this minority, the better chance we have. Men, I think, can have an enormous impact on the size of these numbers.
Finally, it all makes sense.
I’ve seen time and again commenters at many of the Christian sites say they no longer attend church because they cannot find one that is true to scripture. This is something that my husband and I struggled with a bit as well until last summer. We are Catholic and used to attend the Novus Ordo Mass (Vatican II) and while the church we attended was mostly accurate to Scripture, it would avoid that which was uncomfortable in today’s culture and we would often leave rather frustrated or feeling as if something was lacking. At the beginning of last summer, we began to attend the Extraordinary Form or the Traditional Latin Mass and the difference is stark. The Mass is quite masculine in it’s nature (in the discipline of it, the delivery and in other aspects which I cannot quite put my finger on right now) and what I’ve noticed is that there are other aspects of the Mass and the Church itself which are beautifully feminine as well. The two seemingly opposites come together in such a way as to feel complete (where have we heard this before?).
Anyway, for those of you who might be interested, EWTN will be debuting a new series (independently produced),
that showcases the beauty of classic Catholic sacred art, architecture, liturgy, and music. Special emphasis is given to the Traditional Latin Mass, also known as the Extraordinary Form or Tridentine Mass. This historic form of Catholic worship has enjoyed a resurgence in popularity in recent years, especially among the young, and is a rich source of vocations to the priesthood and religious life.
There is more information about this at the link above. The first episode will air on April 14 at 4:30 EST. Going live this evening at 5:00pm EST is a website supporting the program. There will be previews for each episode there as well as resources for those interested in learning more about the Traditional Mass. For those of you wanting to learn more and to be able to discuss this, they will have a Facebook page offering discussion of not only this program but will be answering questions regarding Catholic tradition (www.facebook.com/ExtraordinaryFaith). For those of you who do not have cable, each episode will stream on the Extraordinary Faith website linked above.
Of note as well,
To further help promote Sacred Tradition, members of the Extraordinary Faith team will also offer on-site training for priests, servers, and musicians who wish to learn the Tridentine Mass. No fee will be charged for the instruction or travel costs involved, but parishes who take advantage of this service will be required to commit to offering the Extraordinary Form at least once per month. Details about this service will be posted on the web site.
I’m a bit of a sucker for Disney movies. I’ve always been. While I see them through a much different light now and understand the drivel that they teach, the music, the singing, the handsome man and he beautiful girl, it all can still pull me in (for moments at least. The girl power will forever ruin them for me). In all of these films, there is always a theme of love. Love conquers all. If you just love enough, you can get through and do anything. It comes to a climax, to prove this point of true love, with a moment of enormous sacrifice. Then this true love is proven and they live happily ever after. In that moment of sacrifice, the audience *feels* this love and goes away from the movie confusing love for what they feel rather than what was done. Those good feelings we experience are not the love; the sacrifice is.
For us, in our lives, we’re very likely not ever going to have that moment of ultimate sacrifice to show our love. And we soon discover that those feelings we began with, that ache in our heart, that excitement of seeing our husband walk in the room, it will wane. By it’s very nature, it cannot be constant. That does not mean that love is gone. It only is if we let it be. Something that those Disney movies do get right (in a very dramatic and impossible way) is that it is sacrifice that is love. It is doing for our other what is best for them regardless of what it means for us. It often means sacrificing not only our time and our effort, but often times what we mistake as ourselves (I was taught to look after me! What about me?!?!).
And this love takes work:
20 years in, the depth of emotion I feel for my husband can still catch me by surprise. This man can make my knees weak. Still. And still, I have to work to consistently maintain a right attitude. No matter how perfect things seem to those on the outside looking in or how committed you are to the vows you took, marriage requires effort.
This is not a bad thing. It’s just reality. Anything worth having in life is worth working for. We often expend far more energy on things of far less value. The fantasy that you can live with another human being and never have an off day, a disagreement, or disappointment is exactly the reason why so many marriages crash and burn; that fantastical notion that love is something we feel rather than something we do.
We all want those intense feelings to stay with us and to believe that they can get us through any storm. We want to believe if we feel strongly enough that love will unthaw a frozen heart or that our kiss is somehow magical. But, at the end of the day, those are just feelings. They can’t do or create anything. They can’t soften your heart towards your husband whom you might not see properly. But what you do for him can. If you’re willing to sacrifice your pride and let yourself see, if you’re willing to sacrifice your time and do for him what he needs, and if you’re willing to sacrifice your fear and give your marriage your life then you will love. In every sense of the word. And this love, it can conquer.
The very beautiful thing, is that through this love, this willing of their good, we often start to see things differently. We see things that we hadn’t before and our hearts change. And while, again, it will never be constant, the feeling, the ache and the excitement, it comes back. Different and better than before.**
**As always, this is a just a consequence of loving, not the reason to work so hard at it. We work hard at it for our men, for their sake. Not to make the feeling return. As if you grasp for it in that manner, it will likely never come.
Originally published in The Illustrated London News, 18th December, 1926.
The recent controversy about the professional position of married women was part of a much larger controversy, which is not limited to professional women or even to women. It involves a distinction that controversialists on both sides commonly forget. As it is conducted, it turns largely on the query about whether family life is what is called a “whole-time job” or a “half-time job.” But there is also another distinction between a whole job and a half job, or a hundredth part of a job. It has nothing to do with the time that is occupied, but only with the ground that is covered. An industrial expert once actually boasted that it took twenty men to make a pin; and I hope he sat down on the pin. But the man making the twentieth part of the pin did not only work for the twentieth part of an hour. He might perfectly well be working for twelve hours – indeed, he might have been working for twenty-four hours for all the happy industrial expert generally cared. He might work for the whole of a lifetime, but he never made the whole of a pin.
Now, there are lingering still in the world a number of lunatics, among whom I have the honour to count myself, who think it a good thing to preserve as many whole jobs as possible. We congratulate ourselves, in our crazy fashion, whenever we find anybody personally and completely doing anything. We rejoice when we find remaining in the world any cases in which the individual can see the beginning and the end of his own work. We are well aware that this is often incompatible with modern scientific civilization, and the fact has sometimes moved us to say what we think about modern scientific civilization. But anyhow, whether we are right or wrong, that is an important distinction not always remembered; and that is the important distinction that ought to be most remembered, and is least remembered, in this modern debate about the occupation of women.
Probably there must be a certain number of people doing work which they do not complete. Perhaps there must be some people doing work which they do not comprehend. But we do not want to multiply those people indefinitely, and then cover it all by shouting about emancipation and equality. It may be emancipation to allow a woman to make part of a pin, if she really wants to make part of a pin. It may be equality if she is really filled with a furious jealousy of her husband, who has the privilege of making part of a pin. But we question whether it is really a more human achievement to make part of a pin than to make the whole of a pinafore. And we even go further, and question whether it is more human to make the whole of a pinafore than to look after the whole of a child. The point about the “half-time job” of motherhood is that it is at least one of the jobs that can be regarded as a whole, and almost as an end in itself. A human being is in some sense an end in himself. Anything that makes him happy or high-minded is, under God, a thing directed to an ultimate end. It is not, like nearly all the trades and professions, merely a machinery and a means to an end. And it is a thing which can, by the constitution of human nature, be pursued with positive and unpurchased enthusiasm. Whether or no it is a half-time job, it need not be a half-hearted job.
Now, as a matter of fact, there are not so many jobs which normal and ordinary people can pursue with enthusiasm for their own sakes. The position is generally falsified by quoting the exceptional cases of specialists who achieve success. There may be a woman who is so very fond of swimming the Channel that she can go on doing it until she breaks a record. There may be, for that matter, a woman who is so fond of discovering the North Pole that she goes on doing it long after it has been discovered. Such sensational successes naturally bulk big in the newspapers, because they are sensational cases. But they are not the question of whether women are more free in professional or domestic life. To answer that question, we must assume all the sailors on the Channel boats to be women, all the fishermen in the herring fleet to be women, all the whalers in the North Sea to be women, and then consider whether the worst paid and hardest worked of all those workers were really having a happier or a harder life. It will be at once apparent that the vast majority of them must be under orders; and that perhaps a considerable minority of them would be under orders which they did not entirely understand. There could not be a community in which the average woman was in command of a ship. But there can be a community in which the average woman is in command of a house.
To take a hundred women out of a hundred houses and give them a hundred ships would be obviously impossible, unless all the ships were canoes. And that would be carrying to rather fanatical lengths the individualist ideal of people paddling their own canoe. To take the hundred women out of the hundred houses and put them on ten ships, or more probably on two ships, is obviously to increase vastly the number of servants and diminish the number of mistresses. The only ship I remember that was so manned (or perhaps we should say womanned) was the ship in the Bab Ballad commanded by Lieutenant Bellaye: [Note: The lieutenant is the hero of Gilbert's "The Bumboat Woman's Story". He is so loved that numbers of young women disguised as sailors stow away on his ship.] even there it might be said that the young ladies who sailed with him had ultimately rather a domestic than a professional ideal. But that naval commander was not very professional himself, and it will be remembered, excused his sailors from most of their duties and amused himself by firing off his one big gun.
I fear that the experience of most subordinate women in shops and factories is a little more strenuous. I have taken an extremely elementary and crude example, but I am not the first rhetorician who has found it convenient to discuss the State under the bright and original similitude of a ship. But the principle does apply quite as much to a shop as to a ship. It applies with especial exactitude to the modern shop, which is almost larger than the modern ship. A shop or a factory must consist of a very large majority of servants; and one of the few human institutions in which there need be no such enormous majority of servants is the human household. I still think, therefore, that for the lady interested in ships the most supreme and symbolical moment is the moment when her ships come home. And I think there are some sort of symbolical ships that had much better come home and stay there.
I know all about the necessary modifications and compromises produced by the accidental conditions of to-day. I am not unreasonable about them. But what we are discussing is not the suggestion that the ideal should be modified. It is the suggestion that the ideal should be abolished. It is the suggestion that a new test or method of judgment should be applied to the affair, which is not the test of whether the thing is a whole job, in the sense of a self-sufficing and satisfactory job, but of whether it is what is called a half-time job – that is, a thing to be measured by the mechanical calculation of modern employment.
There have been household gods and household saints and household fairies. I am not sure that there have yet been any factory gods or factory saints or factory fairies. I may be wrong, as I am no commercial expert, but I have not heard of them as yet. And we think that the reason lies in the distinction which I made at the beginning of these remarks. The imagination and the religious instinct and the human sense of humour have free play when people are dealing with something which, however small, is rounded and complete like a cosmos.
The place where babies are born, where men die, where the drama of mortal life is acted, is not an office or a shop or a bureau. It is something much smaller in size and much larger in scope. And while nobody would be such a fool as to pretend that it is the only place where people should work, or even the only place where women should work, it has a character of unity and universality that is not found in any of the fragmentary experiences of the division of labour.