First, I wanted to love this book. I wanted to be on Venker's side. I knew going in that this book would address some things that I have felt for a long time needed to be addressed. I also knew I would run the risk of having my review jaded because I already agree with some of her precepts.
However, the first chapter was so harsh, she almost lost me. In fact, some of the members of my book club stopped reading after the first chapter. Venker comes out of the gates strong, rallying for a fight, and I appreciate her passion to give a voice to women who have been silenced for two generations.
I do believe that women who choose family over careers and spotlights are without a voice. We are too busy being the mothers and wives that we want to be; the administration of a household requires a great deal of energy, intelligence, creativity, frugality, ingenuity and most of all, time. Writing a book demands those things, and many of us are not willing to split our time and energy between the two tasks.
I take pride in the job I do in my home. I like it to be neat and orderly, and efficient. I enjoy the work of caring for and teaching my children. My job is much too important to be set aside so I can go rallying in Washington D.C. to make policy changes. I am not alone.
There are many women who are doing the exact same thing - putting their families above all other earthly things; money, fame, prestige, etc. We think liberal ideology (by this term I mean "free for all" not a reference to a political party) is generally ridiculous. We think the ideas, such as late term abortions, easy-peasy divorces, tax penalties for married couples, marriage that is anything other than one man & one woman, for example are so ridiculous that they won't possibly happen. But, then, they do, and we are shocked. We sigh, and we pray, and we're disappointed in the people who are supposed to represent us. But, in the end, we refuse to sacrifice the most important job in the world to go do their job. We'd love for our husbands to do it on our behalf, but they are too busy working double shifts to earn enough money for our families to survive in a world where all the prices reflect households with two incomes. So, we lament. And, mostly, we are silent.
Venker is trying to break that silence. I think her first chapter is meant to be a rallying cry to these women. Or maybe it is meant to incite the opposition. I'm not sure which. Likely, it's both.
Some of what she says speaks directly to my own experience, particularly the extreme feminist ideology in public education. I saw many of the same things twenty years ago as a high school and college student, again five years ago as a returning adult student, and even today as I listen to my daughter talk about her college experience. I don't think these situations are outliers. I think they are the norm.
**Anecdotal evidence does not a good argument make, however.
By chapter 3, she gets to the meat of her argument, so hopefully you make it that far.
She tries to answer questions like, If we listen to the message that casual sex is "liberating" for women, and we pass out condoms in elementary schools like this one in Massachusetts, or this one in Oregon, what does that do to our society?
Chapter 4 is about marriage. Venker asks questions like What happens to marriage if we tell women that their number one priority in life should be their own personal happiness? If we tell children to only do what feels good, what happens to our neighbor?
My favorite quote from this chapter is this one by George Gilder, "The crucial process of civilization is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality. In creating civilization, women transform male lust into love; channel wanderlust into jobs, homes and families; link men to specific children; rear children into citizens; and change hunters to fathers. The prime fact of life is the sexual superiority of women."
Why would we willingly give that up?? What fantastical ideas must we have to make us think there is something more valuable to chase after than what we already had?
Venker tries to answer questions like, what happens when we tell girls that they can't possibly WANT to stay home with their children? That if she thinks she wants it, the she must be delusional, brain-washed or under the influence of old-fashioned and backwards ideas.
But, we are not just sitting around watching the world go by. We are teaching our children, as best we can against the tirade of media messages that oppose us, Truth. And, we are finding each other. Secret groups are popping up all over the internet for women to share their experiences, have conversations about these issues and figure out how to bring them to light without abandoning our families.
Women who believe that one marriage to one man is enough. Women who believe that children are a blessing, not a curse. Women who believe caring for their home and family is the most important job they will ever do in their lives. Women who believe their husbands are good men who provide for their families and that's exactly what they want their husbands to do. These women are from all over the globe reaching out to one another, encouraging and uplifting one another.
They are not alone.
But, they are also not loud.
Venker is screaming on their behalf.
If you feel like feminism has chipped away at all that makes women feminine, and that the conservative woman (conserving means to keep the same, not a reference to a political party) has been silenced for too long, then you might love what Venker is doing here. I appreciate what I think she is trying to do.
In Chapter 5, she tackles the concept of the working woman, two-income households, and the ultimate decline of overall care for the raising of children.
In the 1960's, feminists proposed a narrative that women were being forced into what they equated as slave labor by men who got them pregnant, trapped them in tenements, and spent all the family money on booze and binges. Someone needed to step in on her behalf because she was certainly unable to defend herself, and feminists said that someone needed to be the government.
First and foremost, the only way for her to really get out of her predicament was to eliminate the children that she had to care for. The simplest way? Kill them before they are born.
They didn't use the word kill, of course, because they weren't stupid. They knew a campaign of "Kids wearing you down? Hit man for hire. Cheap!" would not have gone over very well. But, it's essentially the plan they had in mind.
By the 1980's (my growing up years), the message was Girl Power! - Girls can do everything boys can do and girls can do it better. Men are unnecessary, so leave them behind; children are a trap, kill them before they kill you. By then, it was pretty clear that a human fetus is an actual baby - not a fish/lizard evolving in the womb (remember those old health class videos?). So, the messages were more along the lines of 'It's human, but it's really a parasite because it can't survive without a host.' Parasites are bad, right?
Today, the message is 'you poor, poor woman' You could have had it all, if only you hadn't gotten knocked up (more birth control needed), or if you hadn't had to keep the baby (more accessible abortions needed). But, don't worry, you can still have it all. Just, don't marry the baby's father, and sign up for these government programs: free food, free health care, free job training, free day care and free schools. You still don't need a husband, the government will be your provider.
Women who do get married are still portrayed as victims, with popular sitcoms making fun of wives who must always 'fix' the mistakes of their buffoon husbands.
And, there I go, rewriting her book. Which is probably a good lead in for my conclusion. In our book club discussion, this question was posed: If conservative women feel silented in the public media, and if these women want to have a voice in the public square, is Venker the voice they want to represent them?
Yes. - I want the passion and commitment she brings to the table.
No. - She does not cover all the issues that I think matter.
Yes. - She does speak to my own experience.
No. She makes some strokes that I think are too broad, and her research is not deep enough.
Yes. - There are not enough voices. Many of us are unwilling to sacrifice our family time to pursue such a project.
No. - One voice will never speak to all the issues.
Yes. - Someone must be the voice, why not Venker?
If you want to read it for yourself, and I think you should, you can find it here. The Flipside of Feminism by Suzanne Venker
No comments:
Post a Comment