|
Academics
Departments Special Interest
Navigation
|
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
A Response to Evangelical Feminism
Wayne Grudem and John Piper
[ Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]
The Inevitability of Failure
The Assumptions and Implementations of Modern Feminism
David J. Ayers
It was late in the day. Just as I was preparing to go home, a single woman who was a staff member at our college walked into my office. A part-time editor for a major Christian publishing house, she had a "technical" question regarding a book manuscript that had been assigned to her.
Apparently, the hapless minister's wife who had submitted this piece had asserted that innate differences between the sexes existed and should be respected if marital harmony were to be obtained. A feminist professor in our psychology department had assured this editor that "no evidence whatsoever" existed for this claim of biological differentiation. Sexual differences, universal as they are,{1} are all caused by culture and socialization and thus are malleable and subject to redefinition. So she claimed. Based on this, the editor had quietly removed the offensive section from the manuscript. Now, she'd had second thoughts and was seeking another opinion.
I presented to her what I thought was an impressive set of documentation to the contrary, including anthropological evidences for the universality of many sex role differences, diagrams of male/female brain differences, and photographs comparing male and female nerve cells. While alternative arguments existed, I pointed out, there was extensive and reputable evidence in favor of what the minister's wife had written. In fact, historically, it was the psychologist's view that was novel, and it was difficult to sustain logically and empirically as well. The editor might personally disagree with this viewpoint, but to dismiss it uninspected and even censor it as if it really were pseudo-scientific and poorly documented would be unfair and unwarranted.
The editor listened intently and asked appropriate questions. Then, she startled me with her decision{2}---the debated passages would remain deleted!
My career in evangelical academia had begun only months earlier. Since then, I have continued to be alarmed by a growth in the kinds of phenomena I witnessed in that encounter. All the elements of censorship, intolerance of opposing viewpoints, fallacious reasoning, and argument-by-assertion that I have seen in contemporary feminism are evident in the "new" feminist evangelicalism.{3} This seems to be growing in influence. Evangelicals are, just as the general public is, increasingly accepting feminist portrayals of reality and prescriptions for change, even where these contradict not only Scripture but also their own personal experiences and aspirations.
To ignore competing arguments in an area of such broad ramifications as male/female differentiation is more dangerous than the Soviet refusal to debate Marx. As in Communism, we have seen repeatedly that if wrong assumptions and the theories flowing from them are not challenged, they will be accepted and applied. But they will fail. Naturally, proponents attempt to hide or discount these failures and the human misery associated with them. Still, denial can't last forever, and reality will have its day. But at what cost?
As we shall see, feminist ideology has profound implications for the family, business, the economy, politics, the military, marriage, sexual preference and identity, childrearing, and education. The mechanisms by which society has prepared, placed, and sustained each generation are being called into question. The requested changes are not just "reform"; they are truly revolutionary and are presented by feminists as such. Such alterations are far-reaching. Common sense demands, then, that they be seriously debated. But the truth is, enormous de facto censorship is directed toward any work questioning the basic tenets and consequences of feminism, and a decidedly slanted picture of this movement is being presented in the media.
For example, a recent "evaluation" of feminism in Time was written by an admitted feminist.{4} Amazingly, the widely recognized feminist neglect of the needs of full-time mothers and housewives was presented as overstated, and the idea prevailed that feminism was really "for" all women. This contradicts the views of feminist writers themselves, who tend to support theories and agendas that would completely eliminate such traditions as full-time mothering and male support of women and children, viewing women who live in such conditions as deceived, oppressed, and retrograde.{5} As late as 1981, "moderate" NOW founder Betty Friedan referred to stay-at-home mothers and male breadwinners as "obsolete." Her friend, feminist leader Simone de Beauvoir, asserted in 1975:
No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. . . . Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.{6}
Yet this author continued to present feminism as a true "women's" movement that desires only "freedom of choice." This is a misnomer recognized clearly by their so-called "reactionary" targets at home with the children! That is why the article in Time failed to explain the widespread support for anti-feminist figures like Phyllis Schlafly and Beverly LaHaye and organizations such as Right-to-Life among precisely these women.{7}
Short on criticism and long on praise, the Time author punctuated her article with "objective" statements like those describing the "ERA" and "lesbian rights" as "noble causes." Not one interview with an educated critic of feminism was included. Although widely available, no alternative interpretations of the "feminist triumphs," "male feminization," evidence of "gender discrimination," etc., were considered. The term "women's movement" was used synonymously with "feminism," a highly inaccurate designation sociologically.
For poll items purporting to show positive responses to feminism, none dealt specifically with "hard" items like lesbian marriage, "unisexism" as an ideal for children, or placing women in combat. Like most popular media, the article dealt more with a "soft" image than with the real goals of feminists. In fact, as Nicholas Davidson has pointed out, the feminists' "dream" ticket of Mondale and Ferrarro in 1984 gave voters a meaningful referendum on the specifics of feminism and failed miserably to register with women.{8} As with the ERA struggle, poll data like those used in the Time article are biased and fail to detect the true feelings and practices of American women relative to most of the specific tenets of feminism.{9}
Such bias is understandable. A large number of studies have documented the strong and unrepresentative leftism, including pro-feminism, of the "social-cultural specialists," a group that includes artists, people in media and communications of all types, social and behavioral scientists, and to a lesser degree human service professionals and educators (especially those in the upper echelons).{10}
The result is that, as Davidson has pointed out, "No aspect of modern life has been so inadequately debated as feminism. Every year, thousands of feminist books pour off the presses. . . . In contrast, books that present opposing viewpoints are rare, and the 'Lace Curtain' of networked feminists make sure that they seem even rarer."{11} Feminist pressure makes the publication of works that challenge their position arduous and costly. Publishers are often hard to find. Many agree to publish, only to alter their decision later under external or internal feminist pressure. Two authors who, using respected and widely available studies, confronted the myth of male predominance in domestic abuse were threatened by feminists with loss of research grant monies.{12}
There is a price to be paid by any social scientist who challenges feminism. But the stakes are high, and the truth must be stated. Feminism is based on presuppositions that are simply indefensible. The analyses and bromides of modern feminism flow directly from these false assumptions. As a result, the application of feminism, while producing some positive benefit, has been coercive and tremendously destructive to society at all levels. It is to these issues that I now turn.
The Assumptions of Feminism
I was conversing with a friend at a party recently, a conservative fellow whose wife is a full-time mother and home schooler. Neither he nor his wife has much use for feminism. Yet, when I explained my deep concern to him that Christian feminism would produce the same kinds of fruit as the secular variety, he expressed some incredulity: "But they wouldn't believe all the same things as secular feminism, would they?"
His reaction is fairly typical among evangelicals---feminism in the church will take relatively benign forms. But this is to hope against hope, as so many Christian feminists have proven in recent years. Ultimately, this is because they make the same basic assumptions as do secular feminists, and these assumptions have logical correlates.
The foundation of feminism was stated by the feminist psychologist on my college's faculty, whom I cited at the beginning of this chapter: general sexual "non-differentness," full cultural determinism of sex roles, and the undoubted changeability of sex roles. States Levin:
Feminism in its contemporary form is an empirical doctrine leading to recommendations for social action. The doctrine has three main tenets:
1. Physical differences apart, men and women are the same. Infant boys and girls are born with virtually the same capacities and if raised identically would develop identically.
2. Men occupy positions of dominance because the myth that men are more aggressive has been perpetuated by the practice of raising boys to be mastery oriented and girls to be person oriented. If this stereotyping ceased, leadership would be equally divided between the sexes.
3. True human individuality and fulfillment will come only when people view themselves as human repositories of talents and traits, without regard to sex.{13}
Generally, this is a pure "nurture" argument, reflecting a school of thought that sees all human morality, thought, and behavior, ultimately, as products of culture and socialization. Referred to broadly here as the "cultural determinist" school, this implies an extreme relativism. All aspects of human life, outside of necessary physiological functions (breathing, eating, etc.) are seen as subject to variation.
Given the evidence, some feminists do admit to some innate biological difference, but they minimize its impact and relevance. Most, however, ignore it entirely or deny its existence. This is a fatal mistake, "since if there are important biologically-based differences between the sexes, the rest of contemporary feminism falls apart . . . what is obviously unattainable cannot be the object of rational human effort. In this sense, if the factual assumption of feminism is wrong, the rest is irrational."{14}
In fact, all the major positions of feminism can be traced back to the assumption that there is no significant difference between the sexes. To feminists, all (or almost all) such social dissimilarities result from male dominance and oppression, and "justice" requires the eradication of such "unnecessary" differences. This is the basic theme of the Time article described above. Its headline statement, "And baby, there's still a long way to go,"{15} indicates more than bald support for feminism. It implies a march that must go on until female and male average wages are equal (which, of course, requires female participation in full-time work to the same extent as men); until all educational outcomes are exactly the same; until an equal distribution of males and females exists in every occupation, at every level; until our children's "subjective gender identification" is unisexual or at least completely nonpredictable based on their biological sex. All "gaps" must be eliminated, whatever the cost, because no gap is "chosen" or "natural"---gaps are all products of male oppression, they all prevent true actualization of self.
But if men and women are truly different, the vision crumbles. If a "unisexual" world is unnatural, only force can maintain it, only failure and misery can accompany it.
Are the Feminist Presuppositions True?
The fundamental feminist assumption is increasingly being shown to be fallacious. In spite of tremendous pressure and even bias, professionals in the biological and social sciences are generating findings that support the traditional viewpoint that healthy individuals and societies express, rather than deny, the complementary differences between the sexes.
As these facts steadily reveal feminist error in theory and practice alike, soul searching occurs, and some adjustments are made. For example, a "neo-feminist" reevaluation and glorification of femininity is emerging, based on the extensive research that uncovers the distinctive psychology of female cognition, morality, and behavioral response.
Still, on the whole, writers in these areas steadfastly refuse to apply a biological anchor to their findings and continue to believe in the possibility of an egalitarian, unisexual world.{16} Like our feminist psychologist friend, most have stuck with the theories of cultural determinism, "nurture," and male oppression to explain sexual differences.
But their belief in cultural determinism is simply incapable of standing up to logical, systematic observation of reality. Universally, social outcomes reflect what one would expect, given the kind of neurological, hormonal, and other physical sex differences uncovered by biologists and physiologists.{17} Stephen Goldberg, an expositor of the universality of sex role differentiation, has used empirical studies on humans, mostly anthropological, to sustain and defend this position through about seventeen years of intense debate. He states: ". . . the sexual stereotypes now so derided turn out to be basically correct."{18}
The arguments over the universality of sex differences are crucial and represent more than mere academic quibbling. Only through such discussion can biological differences be established as having social relevance. If, across the dazzling variety of cultures, such similarities consistently emerge, it is a distortion of logic to assume that each society has found an essentially similar way through socialization alone.
Mechanisms for evolving such universal sex role differences have been discussed, but none stands up to logical evaluation.{19} Socialization alone, though essential to human development and carried out in very different ways, cannot produce the same basic patterns of relationships and divisions of labor between the sexes without some innate qualities shared across cultures and time. The cultural determinist school, says Levin, ". . . ignores the question of why every society has chosen to do things the same way. . . . Given the universality of sex-role differentiation, the feminists' 'taught' collapses into 'innate': it is evidently an innate feature of human beings that they will train their male and female offspring differently."{20} Thus, feminists are left to abandon the nurture argument altogether, which requires denying their vision or proving that the universality of sex role differences is wrong after all and can be gotten around. Attempts at both of these, however, have failed.
The primary examples of universal male/female differences lie in the areas of male dominance, superiority in status achievement, and patriarchy. These have been accompanied by sexual division of labor, in which men are generally "instrumental" and oriented toward mastery of the external world, while women are "expressive," relationship oriented and directed toward domestic concerns, particularly child rearing.
Anthropologist William Stephens states:
. . . these are the apparent near-universals of husband-wife rules:
1. A standard division of labor by sex.
2. The "essential femininity" of some tasks, such as child care, and the "essential masculinity" of other tasks, such as fishing.
3. Power and privilege: the husband's status is either equal or higher than the wife's; matriarchies are rare.{21}
Even this statement, powerful as it is, is probably too qualified. True matriarchies are non-existent; within all societies, on the average, male status is higher. Still, his three rules are cultural universals. This point has been extensively made by Goldberg.{22} In fact, Stephens points out in his own work that if there are any societies that even come close to full sexual egalitarianism, ours comes "as close as any."{23}
Scores of societies are put forward by angry feminists as evidence of a reversal of one or another of the above rules. All fail a review of their respective ethnographies. In fact, the evidence for universal sex role differentiation is often found in the same documents that were used by feminists to demonstrate the contrary.
For example, many Communist societies, based on their egalitarian rhetoric, have been put forward as "sex-neutral." Most commonly heroized have been Cuba, China, and the U.S.S.R.. All have turned out to be more than stultifying, cruel, and economically retarded. They are also far more patriarchal than the average Western nation!
One interesting example of a futile attempt by cultural determinists to disprove universality was the Arapesh. Margaret Mead wrote, "We found that men, as well as women, were trained to be co-operative, non-aggressive, responsive to the needs of others. We found no idea that sex was a powerful driving force either for men or for women."{24} But, in the same ethnography, Arapesh males were shown to abduct women, follow an all-male leadership,{25} and "oppress" their women by according them a more central role in childrearing.{26} Despite much "press" to the contrary, while Arapesh males were more child-centered than most, they did not behave like Alan Alda!{27}
Such findings, amazingly, have not deterred feminists from looking for evidence of cultural determinism as a basis for what they believe to be widely varying sexual roles. In order to disprove the inevitability of sexual differences, they have found an unusual arena in which to demonstrate new "possibilities" for female involvement---crime.
Universally, males predominate in criminal activity. In cultures across the world, women rarely exceed 20 percent of total arrests and are usually a much lower proportion than that. Like all universal sex differences, this fact contains the obvious implication that innate qualities of the sexes make an enormous difference in social outcomes. Thus, it has been of paramount importance to feminists that a gender-crime connection prove not to be inevitable. One solution has been to show that, to the extent that men and women participate in similar activities, they will have similar rates of crime. Since this has occurred to some extent in the U.S. over the last twenty to thirty years, feminists have predicted that Americans would witness just such a shift.
In fact, some feminists believe that this has occurred. For example, as part of an attempted refutation of Goldberg's "universality of patriarchy" thesis, Cynthia Epstein wrote in 1986:
Increasing convergence of gender role behavior is also seen in studies of crime. Girls' crime rates show increasing similarity to that of boys. Girls and boys both commit violent crimes and exhibit increasingly similar criminal histories.{28}
Epstein emphasizes violent crime, and this is appropriate, since such activity would be most closely correlated with innate male aggression and dominance patterns, if these actually exist. The problem is, her assertions are patently false.
Even if there had been some increase in female participation in violent crime, relative to men, the female crime rate would still be a drop in the ocean compared to the male rate. Until there is a very strong and prolonged increase, any discussion of "convergence" is grossly premature.
Yet, as Wilson and Hernnstein demonstrated in a highly regarded work published a year prior to Epstein's statement, the female proportion of the most frequently measured violent crimes remained steady from 1960 to 1980; about 10 percent. From 1965 to 1977, a time in which many of these alleged changes in violent crime and sex roles were said to have occurred, the female arrest percentage for murder dropped by 3.5 percent! Any "convergence" is minuscule in the various violent crimes, as in other categories of crime traditionally dominated by males. And while the female percentage of property crimes had increased a great deal, approaching 31 percent in larceny and almost 35 percent in fraud for the period 1973-1979, these increases are far more attributable to family breakdown and the resultant stress of single-parent homes than to any increased similarity in sex roles{29}9
Ultimately, the authors rejected any notion of a female revolution in sex roles or crime:
Just as the gender gap in crime has survived the changes of recent decades, so also have the major sex roles, and most probably for similar reasons. The underpinnings of the sexual division of labor in human society, from the family to commerce to industry to government, may not be rigidly fixed in the genes, but their roots go so deep into the biological substratum that beyond certain limits they are difficult to change. At least until now, the gender gap in serious criminal behavior has fallen outside the limits of change in the sexual division of labor.{30}
The failure to find exceptions to patriarchy and sexual division of labor, even in crime, has not stopped feminists from looking, but their attention has turned to a more creative task---constructing an alternative. After all, as feminist Alice Rossi has anguished, "Even if they are sorely handicapped by lack of testosterone, it is inescapably necessary for women at this stage in human evolution to move to equality in society."{31}
How this might be done (legally) in the area of crime is a tough question. But with regard to other forms of social change, the answer seems clearer, at least to feminists: environmental and cultural alterations thorough and consistent enough to overcome any (insignificant) biological predispositions and especially the large residue of "sexism." This means eradicating male ideology in favor of an egalitarian, feminist one; providing unisex childrearing and universal day care to enable all women to work at "meaningful" (i.e., paid) jobs; providing equal access to all occupations and status positions, including political ones, and strongly encouraging female participation in these; downgrading the centrality of marriage and family life in favor of community work and individualized expression; and heightened sexual freedom (at least for adults). Such an experiment is best attempted with a highly dedicated group of egalitarians first, in order to demonstrate its viability. Then, once superior results have been demonstrated, it can be transferred to the larger society.
The problem for the feminists is that such an experiment has already been tried---the Israeli Kibbutz. And, at least from the standpoint of feminist egalitarianism, it has failed.
As Davidson points out, the Kibbutzniks sincerely and carefully "sought to implement a unisexist conception of equality between the sexes. The actual conditions of life in the kibbutz closely parallel the changes feminists advocate to eliminate gender distinctions in America."{32}
American conceptions of the Kibbutz, influenced by feminist dissemination of early research findings that favored their utopian expectations (and hostility to later ones that did not), provide an idealized picture of the alterability of sex roles. Feminists and cultural determinists of all types were exulting in the Kibbutz as "proof" that marriage, family, and sex roles were not universal. In 1954, Spiro claimed "the family . . . does not exist in the Kibbutz." Yet, four years later, he admitted that there was some minimal family life there; his earlier work had used too narrow a definition.{33}
By 1979, Spiro had completely rejected his earlier view and had begun a critique of feminist ideology itself.{34} The reason, as Tiger and Shepher documented in 1975, is that by then the Kibbutz had "reverted" to "male domination" in the political and economic sphere, sex-biased occupational patterns in the labor market, and disproportionate female attention to home and family. Worse (from a feminist point of view), the females in the Kibbutz had led the way, demanding more time with their children, insisting on larger homes and time to work in them, and asking their husbands to stay out of the "female" jobs at home! Women began to turn down "status" occupational and political opportunities consistently in favor of time at home, even where these were insistently offered, and even where female candidates had better qualifications than the available males. Thus, male "political oppression" and "sexist divisions of labor" were being demanded by ideologically committed, egalitarian women!
In contrast to feminist assertions to the contrary, Tiger and Shepher point out, there was no evidence of overt or even subtle coercion by males. Instead, the men often exerted great pressure on the women to forego children and home in favor of work and politics. The drive for "familism" in the Kibbutz was initiated and sustained by female pressure.
This was a surprise. After all, the Kibbutz system had professional child care and provided adequate living space for couples, so there was no "need" for wives to be domestically oriented. Compared to earlier times, there was less "need" for larger numbers, or more personalized care, of children. Also contrary to feminist ideology, childbearing obligations did not automatically prevent female out-of-home involvements. Women were choosing to have larger families and homes and voluntarily relinquishing available day care in favor of personal contact with their children.{35} The problem was not insufficient dedication to feminism, pervasive sexism, or female fear of success, as feminists tried to assert. If so, such "cultural residues" certainly would have prevented other aspects of the Kibbutz vision from being carried out. The realm of sex roles and child care simply seemed peculiarly resistant to change.
Many mothers, pulled between work and children today, could explain what the feminist critic finds incomprehensible. Day care and career opportunities aside, domesticity is uniquely desirable to women. As one Kibbutz woman exclaimed to Tiger and Shepher about the authors' supposedly "incredible" findings: "Why is it all so surprising? What did you expect women to do?"{36}
The feminist response to reports of the "failure" of the Kibbutz was typical---blame the men or question the good sense of the women. For, as with Marxism, those who fail to believe feminist tenets are thought to be suffering from oppression, or to be "mystified" by "false ideology." The authors state that the typical feminist "explanation" of the actions of Kibbutz women
assumes that men are the center of all things, and that women, lacking any autonomy, must forego thoughtful and independent choices. . . . [Yet] they are not only independent of men in the Kibbutz, but willing and able to act in important ways frowned on and unsuccessfully opposed by the men. . . . [P]eoples' actions are not necessarily the unhappy performances of the duped and confused, and may well reflect what people wholeheartedly want to do. . . . As for those who claim that women who are eager to bear and raise children are tyrannized and obsolete, they can see for themselves how contemporary women on the Kibbutz are.{37}
I am glad that the Kibbutz was attempted. It not only supports universality of patriarchy but also humanizes the data to reveal the choice, even joy, in fulfilling many traditional roles. The complementary interests and aspirations of men and women seem to be not only functional but downright pleasurable, especially in comparison to the barren unisexism of the feminist.
Still, the Kibbutzniks, like all of those who have expended time and effort in an ideological crusade against common sense, might have foregone the pain. They were attempting to do what has never worked, and what most human beings have not even found desirable. No less an anthropologist than Margaret Mead, the leading advocate of cultural determinism and (until her death) reigning queen of American anthropology, stated in 1973:
It is true . . . that all claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed. . . . Men have always been the leaders in public affairs, and the final authorities at home.{38}
With regard to her earlier work on the Arapesh, Tchambuli, and Mundugumor, cited by feminists like Epstein as "proof" that arguments for universal patriarchy are wrong,{39} Mead states, "Nowhere do I suggest that I have found any material which disproves the existence of sex differences."{40} Writes Goldberg,
Just as patriarchy, male dominance, and male attainment of high status roles and positions are universal, so is the association of nurturance and emotional socialization with the women universal . . . [and] in every society it is women who are responsible for the care and rearing of the young.{41}
It is doubtful that we should lament this fact. Kibbutz women found it in their hearts to demand and celebrate it. Not only is it conducive to individual happiness, but the division of labor that exists in the supposedly "oppressive" Western system and nuclear family seems to do an excellent job of redirecting potentially harmful passions toward the common good, spurring human productivity, and producing the kind of attachment to children and home that insures a viable next generation.{42} This "oppressive" family also provides a basis for political and economic freedom.{43} While people do not want to be forced into sexual molds, it seems fair to say that, given a choice, most decide to carry out their lives in very stereotypical, but pleasant, ways.
Implementing Feminism: Utopia, Spirituality, and Coercion
The feminist project ignores both man's fallenness and his God-given qualities and limitations. Like Marxism, it works against human nature rather than with it. And, also like Marxism, by replacing Biblical realism with humanistic utopianism, it will bring failure in the long run and coercion in the short run. Further, as with all such systems, to continue as a viable movement, feminism will find it necessary to employ censorship and propaganda as well, both to disguise failure and coercion and to encourage acceptance of its ideas.
As Levin points out, the reality of sex differentiation will not stop the feminist from pursuit of the unisex goal, even as repeated failure requires sterner action. Because, in the process, "evidence will have to be ignored," alternative ideologies suppressed, and "persuasion will give way to coercion."{44} Allan Bloom, author of the well-known The Closing of the American Mind, points out that the feminist vision ultimately favors equality over freedom. Its goals are so "unlimited and unconstrained" that it "ends, as do many modern social movements that want abstract justice, in forgetting nature and using force to refashion human beings to secure that justice."{45}
As utopians and advocates of state intervention to eradicate what they see as "inequality" produced by "male oppression," feminists show a remarkable affinity to Marxism and socialism. This includes a tendency to view "private" realms, such as voluntary associations and families, with great suspicion. These are seen as places where, because they are beyond the reach of the state, "male oppression" can be used against women without restraint.{46}
These coercive tendencies, like the presuppositions and comprehensive vision of feminism, are shared by so-called Christian feminists as well. They have the same tendencies toward education and "reform," the same suspicion of full-time motherhood, the same support for abortion, the same sexual "tolerance," etc., as the secularists.{47} They differ only in their special focus on applying these within the Christian community.
Another aspect of modern feminism strongly related to their utopian optimism is their increasing attention to Eastern mysticism, pagan beliefs, and New Ageism to create a spiritual dimension for their movement. Belief in androgyny (possession by each individual of masculinity and femininity in equal parts) is seen, for example, as a helpful way of overcoming the old "patriarchal" monotheism that Judeo-Christian beliefs represent. Old heresies like gnosticism and the Kabbalah are "celebrated." These are seen as more fully expressing the "femininity" in the divine. The essential sexual nature is seen as bisexual. In the quest to overcome old "rationalities" that lead to domination and to "transcend gender," androgyny becomes a "guiding principle of the New Age."{48}
Such a celebration of the feminine as a new spiritual force is not simply part of the backwaters of feminism. It has found a respected place within the mainstream feminist social agenda{49} and is strongly evident as a growing movement within Christianity, including evangelicalism, as well.{50} The growth of a spiritual component to feminism is understandable, given the historic barrenness of secular thought systems. But it is not comforting. These provide a "faith" basis for the utopian vision and increasingly denigrate what they see as "male dominated" tendencies toward rationality and order in favor of personal experience and "relationship" as mechanisms for determining truth.{51} This places the tenets and results of feminism outside the realm of logical debate. The extremely relevant and consistent evidence for sex differentiation becomes irrelevant. For the New Age feminist, it is simply a nuisance to be magically transcended rather than a reality to be seriously grasped and grappled with.
Implementing Feminism: The "Fall-out" of Abortion
Feminists continually talk about the idea that their input into the world will counteract what they see as a persistent violence and dominant spirit inherent in masculinity. The "feminization of culture" is presented as a bromide to cure everything from child abuse to ulcers, nuclear proliferation, and war.{52}
This not only exaggerates enormously the extent to which males are the source of the world's problems but also is negated in the very actions of feminists themselves. For, as they themselves claim proudly, feminism has been a major force behind the legalization, proliferation, and even government financing of abortion. And abortion itself must be seen as the baldest form of coercion of all.
Less obvious is the extent to which abortion is associated with the feminist denial of biology and the universal "nurturant" female sex role. They view their reproductive capacities as their only meaningful differences with men and as the barrier to be overcome for full participation in the male world. Particularly when combined with the feminist emphasis on sexual "freedom," abortion becomes a necessary component of the mainstream feminist vision. Abortion technology makes possible the full emancipation of women from home and male authority.{53} Nurturance and relationship orientation, then, to the extent that they are acknowledged as a special contribution of women, can be turned toward the public arena rather than "wasted" on home and children alone. Feminist sociologist Kristin Luker, in a lucid and fair comparison of pro-life and pro-choice worldviews, recognized the clear role of the rejection of biology and sex role differentiation in promoting abortion:
. . . whereas pro-life people believe that men and women are inherently different and therefore have different "natural" roles in life, pro-choice people believe that men and women are substantially equal, by which they mean substantially similar. As a result, they see women's reproductive and family roles not as a "natural" niche but as potential barriers to full equality. . . . [M]otherhood, so long as it is involuntary, is potentially always a low-status, unrewarding role to which women can be banished at any time. Thus . . . control over reproduction is essential for women to be able to live up to their full human potential.{54}
This deadly legacy, instituted in the name of equality, is the saddest "contribution" of feminism. Intricately tied to the basic assumptions and visions of their thought system, it is, predictably, being advocated increasingly by Christian feminists as well.{55}
Economic Coercion
Abortion, then, is a necessary social requirement for female participation in the marketplace, according to feminist ideology. This is an area in which their tendencies toward socialist-style coercions and utopian fantasy and denial seem particularly obvious. Their actions are informed by a strong belief that the traditional family, along with the idea that mothers and families are the preferable caretakers of children, is obsolete. In a recent seminar held by Ladies Home Journal, participants roundly rejected the idea of a female return to home as "a retreat to unreality" and "a return to Disneyland."{56} In spite of the strongly contrary evidence presented by cross-cultural studies and the Kibbutz, feminists persistently maintain that, given the right support, even mothers of small children and infants will gladly leave the home to pursue career-oriented lives in the marketplace.
Besides entailing a persistent negativity toward the intelligence, character, and worth of full-time homemakers, these views severely under-represent the extent to which women, like the Kibbutzniks, willingly forego status and career aspirations in favor of child care. A recent study found that only 19 percent of American families followed the "careerist" pattern advocated by feminism (dual-career couple with children cared for by an unrelated person). Fully four out of ten families followed the traditional pattern of a full-time mother and provider father, and another 18 percent were families in which, while both partners worked, child care was always provided by one of the parents or a close relative. The rest were "single parent" homes.{57} Fully 65 percent of American homes with children under five provide day care primarily though the parents. Some use flexible scheduling, but 54 percent of those primarily use mothers at home.{58} Furthermore, a recent Harris poll indicated that full-time motherhood is an ideal for the vast majority of Americans. Fully 82 percent felt that the best child care is that provided by a mother at home.{59} Clearly, while times have changed, the brave new world of feminism is not an ideal for most Americans. Many, including a large percent of those misleadingly classified by the Department of Labor as "working" or "full-time working" mothers,{60} are turning down material rewards in favor of the next generation, just as the Kibbutz women did.
In spite of the fact that almost all of the alleged "discrimination" in pay and promotions can be traced back to these kinds of choices (along with the natural effects of recent arrival in the work place and decreased experience), feminists continue to promote government intervention in order to create "equalization," i.e., near-complete female participation, in the workplace.{61} The most popular and well-known path is universal day care, a social policy proposal that has been growing in political support. Providing universal day care is, to them, an issue of basic "justice" and of meeting "huge unmet demands."
Through direct and indirect pressure, feminists have attempted to exaggerate support for day care and to suppress research that might reveal the extent to which such care is questionable in its effects on children, as pointedly shown by former leading day care advocate Jay Belsky.{62} Yet, this is a suspicion shared by fully 68 percent of the respondents in a 1987 Gallup poll on the subject. In fact, where day care is required, 75 percent of Americans state a clear preference for child care by relatives and 12 percent for care by neighbors. Only 13 percent see formal, group day care as the preferable option.{63}
Their concerns are well-founded. Such centers have been strongly related to the transmission of diseases such as hepatitis, meningitis, cytomegalovirus, and other illnesses.{64} Increasing evidence of negative psychological effects such as disruptions in maternal bonding, aggression, impulsivity, selfishness, and later school discipline problems is emerging in the research literature. Marked anger and a sense of rejection are seen in many day care children. There is also a growing recognition that many "findings" of positive day care effects were found in idealized child care situations, such as university-based centers, rather than in the kind of care that could reasonably be afforded and expected by average parents.{65} The potential harm of a broad emphasis on day care goes beyond the possible negative impact on children, however, and it is more than a probable waste of tax dollars. Government-sponsored universal day care would increase the favored financial status treatment of wealthier, two-career and single-parent families relative to the struggling majority, creating an economic and tax climate that would cripple the wage-earning power of primary (usually male) providers and further punish stable traditional or semi-traditional families. Eventually, as in Sweden, mothers would be forced into the workplace by financial pressures, and many would find marriage and childrearing themselves to be increasingly unprofitable options.{66} One recalls Simone de Beauvoir's statement that feminism should act to prevent women from having a "choice" to stay at home. Universal day care is a vehicle toward that end. By increasing the already disproportionate tax burden on traditional families,{67} the classic socialist advocacy of taxation as a tool for engineering the new order would be evident.
Another feminist-supported program to decrease "gaps" in the labor force is affirmative action for women. However, the idea that women should be proportionately (50 percent) represented in all or most occupations is unrealistic. As long as many women are not aspiring to be in the labor force as full-time career people (with hourly demands that often exceed 40 hours per week), there are likely to be serious "shortfalls" of women in many job categories. Furthermore, due at least partly to inborn differences in physical strength, aggression, status aspirations, and capacities and interests in areas like math, theoretical logic, mechanics, combat, etc., even stiffer quota problems will be likely to continue in areas that are traditionally male and favor male tendencies. Women simply avoid many "masculine" jobs, and high turnover generally prevails among women who enter them.{68}
The obvious result, which has already occurred in the armed services, military academies, and police and fire departments, is drastically lower standards for women to fill quotas. This has several insidious effects. First, it is discouraging to those who have met the traditional, higher standards. Second, it unnecessarily stigmatizes those women who have earned their jobs fairly, since an assumption of favoritism tends to emerge in jobs and population groups subject to massive affirmative action. Third, where specific skill superiority is critical, as in combat, police, and fire work, decreasing standards can also lead to negative performance and even loss of life.{69} Finally, organizations that are unable to fill quotas are consistently faced with the threat of government intervention and even lawsuits, a kind of constant sword of Damocles hanging over them.
However, the most far-reaching and dangerous feminist proposal to date is "comparable worth." Faced with a female population that continues to behave like women in terms of occupational choice and the reality that many of their jobs do not carry high status or high pay (usually for multiple reasons having little to do with discrimination against women), a large number of feminist thinkers have recommended that the government establish standard wages and salaries between occupations to decrease what they see as labor market injustice. These might, for example, command hospitals to lower payments to physicians and increase them for nurses to achieve a better "gender balance."
In practice, if seriously implemented, comparable worth would create extensive socialism. Massive and continuing government intervention, tremendously expensive, would be required to review existing jobs and update wage scales for the new occupational categories proliferating in our changing economy. Establishing a "just" basis for wages would also be arbitrary, and in practice this would become subject to the political activity of pressure groups.
Disguised under a cloak of "fairness," comparable worth would establish an incredible expansion of state bureaucracy and seriously undermine the potency of market forces.{70} It is one of the clearest illustrations of the fact that, even among so-called moderate feminists like Friedan, there is a Marxist-like willingness to brush away choice in favor of an elusive "equality of results." Given the failure of such state control of economy that has produced much of the current upheavals throughout the U.S.S.R. and the Eastern Bloc, that such a policy would be advocated at this time is utterly incomprehensible.
In all the feminist proposals targeted on the marketplace, there is a single unrelenting logic: to free women from the "male oppression" of the private sphere and to create the society that was originally sought in the Kibbutz---one of complete male/female "sameness." In spite of the wide rejections of a "careerist" norm for women, writes Gilder,
Most feminist proposals seem designed to establish the working mother as the social norm by making it impossible for most male providers to support the family alone. The feminist attack on the social security system for giving housewives a right to the husband's benefits after he dies; the subsidies for day care; the affirmative action quotas for women who pursue careers outside the home---all such measures seek to establish the careerist woman as the national standard and incapacitate the woman who tries to care for her own children.{71}
Education
The feminist egalitarian and anti-biological vision is also clearly seen in the educational policies feminists promote. The school system is, for them, the realm in which their visions for sexuality, family, and career can be transmitted to the next generation and in which the often conservative influences of home and church can be overcome:
Unlike other educational reforms, feminist pedagogy does not aim primarily at changing the way in which knowledge is transmitted to children. Rather, it aims to change children's personalities and attitudes toward each other, in the hope of producing children not crippled by sexism, children open to nontraditional goals and the adaption of characteristics once arbitrarily linked to sex.{72}
Sex differences in SAT and other educational test performance have long reflected well-known biological differences between the sexes, such as the male tendency to be more adept at and interested in the manipulation and observation of objects and the female tendency to focus on people, or the male tendency to have stronger motor skills and a predisposition toward "spatial visualization" that provides them an edge "in painting and certain branches of music."{73} Overall, as noted in hundreds of studies and as shown to be universal in cross-cultural studies, "Man would thus appear, on average, to be more gifted at perceiving the physical world and woman that of social relations."{74}
It is difficult, logically, to blame sex discrimination for test score differences such as exist in the SAT. Educational Testing Service researchers have pointed out that, as noted above, "categories designated 'world of practical affairs' and 'science' are typically easier for males, whereas the categories designated 'aesthetics/philosophy' and 'human relationships' are easier for females."{75} Furthermore, in its demand that males curtail their naturally higher rate of physical activity in favor of long hours of sedentary study, and through its emphasis on verbal ability, submissiveness, and regularity in study and attendance, schools clearly favor women. Males have much higher rates of dropout, grade failure, and disciplinary problems, and female students have a higher average performance.{76}
Still, based on their anti-biological theory and egalitarian agenda, feminists are forced to deny the validity of those differences in SAT test results. They have recently begun demanding that many SAT items in areas like science, economics, and math, in which males outperform females, be dropped or replaced as "sexist" and "discriminatory" by "gender-neutral" ones.{77} Not only would such manipulation contribute (conveniently) to feminist censorship of science by erasing a major indicator of sex differences; it is also silly. Given our strong national need to improve performance in these very subjects in order to compete successfully in our increasingly demanding world economy, it is not at all wise to subject measurement, training, or recruiting in these areas to the whims of feminist "sexual politics."
Another goal for feminists has been the effort, often coercive, to eradicate "sex bias" in the classroom. This includes techniques like breaking up even voluntary single-sex groups, avoiding praising girls for neatness, and calling on girls more often than boys to compensate for the female passivity and male aggressiveness that lead boys to raise their hands more often.{78} This occasionally approaches the absurd and the bizarre. Faced with evidence that boys are scolded more often by teachers than girls and receive lower grades, feminist Betty Levy asserted that it was really the girls who were being subject to discrimination! Why? "[T]eacher criticism, a seemingly negative response, may actually lead boys toward greater independence, autonomy, and activity."{79}
The final object of all of this, of course, is to prepare students, ideologically and practically, for the feminist world of full egalitarianism at home and work. With this in mind, feminists have demanded and instituted "unisex" education. This depicts a world in which females and males are equally involved in all activities, from childrearing to the executive suite. It is to be promoted in school texts and the classroom, even where such a depiction grossly distorts reality, as in ludicrous attempts to eliminate the disproportionate historical representation of men as leaders in science and politics. Feminist leader Alice Rossi has even demanded that field trips be eliminated or modified, because "going out into the community in this way, youngsters would observe men and women in their present occupational roles." The goal is to confront children with the world the feminists believe ought to exist. A Senatorial investigation revealed that a committee with the old federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare was, in the late 1970s, "reviewing children's books for 'sexism,' on the grounds that schoolbooks should represent reality 'not as it is or was, but as it will be.'"{80} Such tactics are reminiscent of the Soviet system of brainwashing and censorship.
The feminist agenda in the schools is dangerous. It bypasses the role of parents in inculcating values and worldview to children and often dishonors them and their home by presenting their way of living as backward and unjust. It subverts the goals of education by placing the pursuit of indoctrination higher on the ladder of priorities than the traditional emphases on the transmission of skills, awareness of reality, and pursuit of truth.
Furthermore, it may have other direct and deleterious impacts on children. For example, Levin has submitted the common-sense observation that children will not trust educators who deliberately distort reality and the truth, and this will be plain to most students. Also, for some students, confusion of gender identity may occur,{81} and this is destructive for healthy human development.{82} Finally, children often become quite disturbed at the continual presentation of "non-stereotypical" or "gender-reversed" materials, particularly as they become more aggressive or obvious, simply because these do often violate reality and their innate sense of self. This, even where manifest, does not necessarily deter the teachers, and viewing student reactions as demonstrating latent "sexism" is common. For example, feminist author Judith Bardwick has categorized as "anti-feminist backlash" the anger, resistance, and conflict shown by pupils to school programs that directly attempt (as she phrases it) to "reduce children's sexism" through pointed discussions of "male oppression" and challenges to traditional sex stereotypes. She does not question the value of such programs, but ruefully notes:
Another source of resistance to feminist goals is the conservatism of children. They seem very resistant to changing ideas about what the sexes are supposed to do and be like. This is probably because their gender is the only thing about them that does not change as they grow up.{83}
These reactions are a natural response to deep challenges directed against the most important aspect of human identity, consistent with all that we know about children biologically and cross-culturally. They reflect tendencies evident from infancy and confirmed, primarily, by their third birthday.{84} In light of this, Bardwick's response that these reflect deeply ingrained "sexism" that can and will give way to the feminists' vision is odd but typical. It is this kind of faith that causes feminists to pursue their program in the schools long after the negative responses and protests of the children themselves would make the more squeamish among us desist.{85}
Family
In the Time article described earlier, the fact that 94 percent of participants saw feminism as providing more "independence" for women and 86 percent thought it promised more personal "control"{86} was unashamedly celebrated. After all, female autonomy is "what it was all about."
Affirmative action and comparable worth will assure a job and adequate financial compensation. Contraception, abortion, and day care will secure freedom from children. The educational system will ensure that the next generation will partake of these fruits more fully than we did, by urging them toward their "opportunities" and stripping away the old "sex stereotypes" that might hold them back. And should any get squeamish about this brave new world-well, in Swedish fashion, high tax rates, Social Security reductions for housewives, inadequate child deductions, and special tax incentives for "working parents" will use the stick of financial necessity to lovingly ease us back into the path of dual-career egalitarianism. A great gift is being given, we are told---independence and control, freedom from the millstones of domestic obligation.
Is this a dream, or a nightmare? Reality suggests that there is, perhaps, a dark side to all of this.
The feminist revolution has made an incredible contribution to the soaring divorce rate. This is to be predicted, given feminists' consistently pessimistic evaluations of marriage.{87} Feminists directly promote eased divorce restrictions, a fact usually ignored in the popular media.{88} Indirectly, the kind of practical, often financial independence fostered in the "new woman" has been consistently linked to a heightened risk of divorce.{89} This is aggravated further by the amazing fact that, after having encouraged easy divorce laws (partly to provide a vehicle of escape from "male oppression") and denigrating the institution of marriage, feminists continually stress the need for women to develop the skills and outlook necessary to be able to provide for families on their own. Why? They are likely to have to do so, it is preached, because of the high divorce rate!{90}
Feminist Judith Bardwick has described and lamented the causes of divorce as follows:
We can predict a higher divorce rate when the criteria of success in marriage change from family, integrity, security, and contentment to happiness in which people are to grasp opportunity to feel vital; when compromise is judged to be a sign of inadequacy; when "doing your own thing" and "getting yours" are legitimized. . . . [W]hen divorce is easy to obtain . . . when the negative costs of commitment are emphasized . . . when selfishness is idealized as autonomy . . . and moral responsibility is to the self rather than to the relationship, divorce increases. . . . Commitment involves not only mutual feeling but also interdependent obligation.{91}
Interestingly, she fails to realize how severely she indicts the very feminist system she promotes.
Compare secular feminist Bardwick's ideas with the social-contract marital vision presented by Christian feminists Scanzoni and Scanzoni:
In an equal-partner marriage, both spouses are equally committed to their respective careers. . . . Furthermore, there is role interchangeability with respect to the breadwinner and domestic roles . . . a woman should have autonomy and should find her fulfillment in her own achievement endeavors rather than through second-hand enjoyment of her husbands' success. Under these egalitarian sex-role norms, a woman should be free to pursue her own interests without subordination to those of her husband and children.{92}
At every point, the "dream" of the Scanzonis correlates with the nightmare of Bardwick!
Certainly, divorce itself is bad in its effects. For example, evidence is emerging regarding the long-term psychological traumatization of children from divorced homes.{93} The loss of a complete set of sex-role models leads to confusion in sexual identity for both boys and girls.{94} The single-parent home has also long been associated with enhanced poverty and vulnerability to juvenile delinquency (which, for many, leads to adult criminal careers) among children.{95}
Yet even more important, perhaps, is the atomization of society that is encouraged by feminism, of which divorce is merely a symptom. Like all aspects of feminism, this too is rooted in feminists' rejection of the biological sex role differentiation. Sex-complementarity demands interdependence, and heterosexual interdependence at that. The completion of the two as "one," the essential glue of family and society, implies a mutual need of the other. But where maleness and femaleness are arbitrary and interchangeable, autonomy becomes possible and interdependence is rendered optional and fragile.
Yet we do not work that way. That masculine and feminine strengths and weaknesses are not so easily "reprogrammed" has been amply shown in the failure of unisex and androgynous childrearing strategies.
Androgyny has been presented by feminists as the new goal for healthy parents and children. "Liberated" parents have rejected the old psychiatric orthodoxy that psychological health implies the development of distinctive masculine and feminine traits in children. This is seen as another evidence of "sexist ideology."
Logically, the idea seems puzzling. Many of the traits identified are somewhat mutually exclusive---such as aggression and passivity. To possess both in equal measure would be bizarre, demonstrating confusion rather than psychological health.{96} Yet this caution has been brushed aside. And for some, such as New Age androgynist June Singer, like the outmoded dichotomy of good and evil, androgyny unlocked a spiritual dynamic that was to transcend these puzzling dualities.{97} Early research, conducted mostly among college students, proved promising in its results.
But when data began to be collected on actual parents and children, a different reality emerged. Baumrind, in a very thorough study, found that sex-typed parents and their "stereotypical" children were much more competent and mentally well adjusted than were the androgynous sets.{98} Role reversals did not fare well either. As Carlson states, "[Baumrind] reported clear correlations between feminine fathers and cognitive incompetence in girls, and between masculine mothers and social irresponsibility in boys."{99} In research testing the relationship between androgyny and "neuroticism, . . . assertiveness, and self-esteem," Ray and Lovejoy discovered that "[t]hose who were androgynous were generally low scorers on the three indices of mental health."{100}
The attempt by feminists to prevent "sexism" in children by (forcibly) exposing them to cross-sex tasks and experiences, based on the androgyny ideal, or the similar notion that sex roles are arbitrary and should be "selected," has also fallen on hard times. Showing that little girls acquire their sexual identity (feminine) naturally, but that boys are more fragile, Harvard researcher Dorothy Ullian "warned that cross-sex play and other 'sex role interventions' could psychologically cripple little boys."{101} Sara Bonnet Stein's extensive study on unisex child rearing revealed a tremendous resistance among children to being made to be "gender neutral."{102} For example, when given the same toys, children do different things with them; given blocks, the tendency is for boys to build roads, while girls build rooms and houses.
Culture and socialization do not provide complete answers to this. The children's reactions are too strong, detailed, and spontaneous, appear much too early, and are too reflective of patterns seen across a wide variety of cultures to suggest that they have acquired them through the unwitting and residual "sexism" of their egalitarian moms and dads. They are striving to protect that most permanent and precious seed within them---their sexual identity.{103} And when parents become coercive in their attempts at "enlightened" childrearing, points out Davidson, this seems to prove damaging to the child.{104}
We should be thankful for what Bardwick has, so sadly, called the "conservatism" and "sexism" of children. For if unisexism and androgyny were successful, we would be creating children complete in themselves. They would not need "oneness" with the other sex, and thus (given optional sexual outlets, which they have today) they would not need marriage either. As the sad record of illegitimate children, "single parent" homes, and the pathological violence and personal instability of unattached, single men have shown us,{105} we cannot afford to disconnect people from marriage this way, as the feminists, wittingly and unwittingly, have done. And we certainly can't afford to deprive them of their sexual natures.
The truth is, in a way, as the androgynists claim. The masculine and the feminine do need to be brought together in one body. God has provided us a means, and it produces children, homes, stability, and love. It is marriage.
Our sexual conditions are not crosses meant to be transcended, overcome, or escaped. In this fallen world, we have enough of those. Rather, they were given to us to be celebrated and embraced.
Conclusion
The feminist viewpoint is destructive because it is grounded in a set of false presuppositions regarding the created order. It leads to coercion, failure, and censorship. It contributes, directly and indirectly, to the growing uncertainty and confusion of the post-Christian world.
The feminists' occasional insights, like their criticism of male neglect of the home and masculine tendencies toward violence and oppression and their emphasis on the special contributions of feminine moral viewpoints,{106} are not grounded in a worldview founded on truth. Thus, these illuminations are negated by faulty analyses and misdirected applications. In fact, their disregard for the real needs of most women and children far surpasses that of the old male order that they seek to replace. Their willingness to impose their will through almost any means at their disposal involves an embrace of power that is a match for most of their "male oppressors."
Feminists need to rethink their concerns from a presuppositional foundation that is consistent with reality and reflects a Biblical understanding of male and female. A worldview that is consistent with the order of things will be full of wisdom. It will not constrict us or make us miserable but will lead to greater social harmony and stability and to personal creativity, happiness, and fulfillment.
Endnotes to Chapter Eighteen
{1}This professor admitted such universality of "stereotypical" sex differences in a private debate. She could not explain it through cultural means alone (no one has) but felt sure that such explanations did explain the phenomenon.
{2}Perhaps changed later; I'm not sure.
{3}I put quotes around "new" because feminist ideology bears a startling resemblance to the "old" Christian gnostic heresy. Cf. June Singer, Androgyny: Toward a New Theory of Sexuality (New York: Anchor, 1976), pp. 125-135, a feminist work. She celebrates this rebirth of gnosticism in the feminist resurrection of an androgyny ideal. See also Allan Carlson, "The Androgyny Hoax," Persuasion at Work (Rockford, IL: The Rockford Institute), vol. 9, no. 3 (March 1986), p. 4.
{4}Claudia Wallis, "Onward Women," Time, vol. 134, no. 48 (December 1989), pp. 80-89.
{5}This is clear in any reading of classic feminist works. A prime example of such views by a supposedly moderate feminist is Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique (New York: W. W. Norton, 1963). An excellent summary of major feminist works, through the most recent, is provided in Nicholas Davidson, The Failure of Feminism (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1988).
{6}Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, p. 17.
{7}Ibid. See also analyses of the ERA struggle in June Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), and Kristin Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984). Both are written by feminists, yet both underscore the tremendous antipathy and sense of threat registered by traditional women toward feminism. The antifeminist vanguard has traditionally been led by women. See also Susan E. Marshall, "Ladies Against Women: Mobilization Dilemmas of Antifeminist Movements," Social Problems, vol. 32, no. 4 (April 1985), pp. 348-362.
{8}Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, pp. 325-356.
{9}Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA. Mansbridge points out that such polls purporting to show overwhelming women's support for the ERA failed to tap women's true complex of feelings on areas that the feminists claimed the ERA would alter, such as the primacy of heterosexual marriage, females in combat, child custody rules, etc.
{10}Steven Brint, "New Class and Cumulative Trend Explanations of the Liberal Attitudes of Professionals," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 9, no. 1 (July 1984), pp. 30-71; Michael W. Macy, "New Class Dissent Among Social-Cultural Specialists: The Effects of Occupational Self-Direction and Location in the Public Sector," Sociological Forum, vol. 3, no. 3 (Spring 1988), pp. 325-356; S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda S. Lichter, The Media Elite (Bethesda, MD: Adler Adler, 1986).
{11}Nicholas Davidson, ed., Gender Sanity (Lanham, MD: University Press, 1989), p. v.
{12}Davidson, ed., Gender Sanity, p. v. See also George Gilder, Men and Marriage (Gretna, LA: Pelican, 1986), p. viii, for a chilling account of the power of feminist editors in major publishing houses to prevent publication of anti-feminist works.
{13}Michael Levin, "The Feminist Mystique," Commentary, vol. 70, no. 6 (December, 1980), p. 25.
{14}Ibid., emphasis added.
{15}Wallis, "Onward Women", p. 80.
{16}Cf. Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, pp. 215-231, on "The New Female Psychology."
{17}The biological and psychological evidence has been adequately presented elsewhere in this volume. In addition to the excellent work and bibliography of Gregg Johnson (Chapter 16), I recommend the following: Melvin Konner, The Tangled Wing (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982), pp. 106-126; Stephen Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy (New York: William Morrow, 1974); Stephen Goldberg, "Reaffirming the Obvious" and "Utopian Yearning versus Scientific Curiosity," Society, vol. 23, no. 6 (September/October 1986), pp. 4-7, 29-39; James C. Neely, Gender: The Myth of Equality (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981); Corinne Hunt, Males and Females (Baltimore: Penguin, 1973); Gilder, Men and Marriage; Davidson, The Failure of Feminism; Yves Christen, "Sex Differences in the Human Brain," in Gender Sanity, ed. N. Davidson, pp. 146-161; Michael Levin, Feminism and Freedom (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1987), especially pp. 70-97. All of these cite, in turn, many other worthwhile studies.
{18}Goldberg, "Reaffirming the Obvious," p. 5.
{19}A good summary and refutation of arguments that admit universality but attempt to deduce a "nurture" mechanism to explain it can be found in Stephen Goldberg, "The Universality of Patriarchy," in Gender Sanity, ed. N. Davidson, pp. 133-146. See also Levin, "The Feminist Mystique," pp. 25, 27-28.
{20}Levin, "The Feminist Mystique," p. 27.
{21}William N. Stephens, The Family in Cross-Cultural Perspective (Lanham, MD: University Press, 1963), p. 305.
{22}Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy; Goldberg, "Reaffirming the Obvious" and "Utopian Yearning versus Scientific Curiosity"; Goldberg, "The Universality of Patriarchy"; see also Konner, The Tangled Wing, pp. 112-113; and Gilder, Men and Marriage, p. 21.
{23}Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy, p. 42; Stephens, The Family in Cross-Cultural Perspective, p. 306.
{24}Quoted in Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, p. 168.
{25}Ibid., p. 170.
{26}Gilder, Men and Marriage, p. 42.
{27}For another refutation of Mead's finding of a supposedly unisex tribe, the Tchambuli, see Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy, pp. 43-44, and Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, p. 170.
{28}Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, "Inevitabilities of Prejudice," Society, vol. 23, no. 6 (September/October 1986), p. 8.
{29}These data are synthesized from James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Hernnstein, Crime and Human Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), pp. 104-125. Wilson is one of the top criminologists in the world today. Their arguments are extraordinarily well-documented, and while I cannot replicate the complexity of their analysis here, I do present a fair and accurate summary of their work on gender and crime.
{30}Ibid., pp. 124-125.
{31}Levin, "The Feminist Mystique," p. 25.
{32}Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, pp. 233-234.
{33}Lionel Tiger and Joseph Shepher, Women in the Kibbutz (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975), pp. 206-207.
{34}Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, p. 366.
{35}These issues are thoroughly discussed in Tiger and Shepher, Women in the Kibbutz, see especially pp. 242-281.
{36}Ibid., p. 260.
{37}Ibid., pp. 276-281.
{38}Quoted in Goldberg, "Utopian Yearning versus Scientific Curiosity," p. 31.
{39}Epstein, "Inevitabilities of Prejudice," p. 12. Deceptively, Epstein implies that Mead did not believe in the universality of patriarchy and sex differences. She stated that while Mead's work on complete sex role changeability had been "questioned," these criticisms are not of "sufficient merit." She does not point out that Mead sided with Goldberg and did not believe that her research demonstrated non-universality at all. For a similar erroneous treatment of Mead's work from an "evangelical" perspective, see Winston Johnson, "Gender, Society, and Church," in Gender Matters: Women's Studies in the Christian Community, ed. June Steffensen Hagen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan/Academie, 1990), p. 228. Although Mead could be inconsistent (see Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, p. 361) her statements regarding gender differences are fairly representative of other leading anthropologists as well, such as George P. Murdock (e.g., Atlas of World Cultures [Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1981] and Social Structure [New York: Free Press, 1965]) and Stephens (The Family in Cross-Cultural Perspective).
{40}Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy, p. 44.
{41}Ibid., p. 47.
{42}A basic thesis of Gilder's Men and Marriage, amply supported by statistics on crime, illegitimacy, drug abuse, and decline of economic productivity in stable vs. broken homes, single vs. married males, etc.
{43}A brilliant and well-documented defense of the "bourgeois" family along these lines is to be found in Brigitte Berger and Peter L. Berger, The War Over the Family (Garden City, NY: Anchor 1983).
{44}Levin, "The Feminist Mystique," p. 25.
{45}Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), p. 100.
{46}Cf. Zillah R. Eisenstein, Feminism and Sexual Equality (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1984); Rosalind Brunt and Caroline Rowan, eds., Feminism, Culture and Politics (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1982). On the feminist suspicion of "private spheres" (such as the family) particularly, see Diane Polan, Toward a "Theory of Law and Patriarchy," in The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique, ed. David Kairys (New York: Pantheon, 1982), pp. 294-303, especially pp. 297-298.
{47}See the discussion of a wide range of Christian feminists in Mary Pride, The Way Home (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1985), pp. 3-23.
{48}Singer, Androgyny: Toward a New Theory of Sexuality.
{49}Cf. the very influential book by Elinor Lenz and Barbara Myerhoff, The Feminization of America: How Women's Values are Changing Our Public and Private Lives (Los Angeles: Tracher, 1985), pp. 138-156.
{50}Pride, The Way Home, pp. 4-9.
{51}Sara Evans, Personal Politics (New York: Vintage, 1979), pp. 166, 214-215.
{52}Lenz and Myerhoff, The Feminization of America; see especially their chapter "Protecting Life!" Also extensively discussed in Davidson, The Failure of Feminism.
{53}Edward Shorter, A History of Women's Bodies (New York: Basic, 1982).
{54}Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, p. 176.
{55}Cf. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We're Meant to Be (Waco, TX: Word, 1974), p. 143; as quoted in Pride, The Way Home, p. 9. Another good example is a recent article by Virginia Mollenkott, "Reproductive Choice: Basic to Justice for Women," Christian Scholar's Review, vol. xvii, no. 3 (March 1988), pp. 286-293.
{56}Ladies Home Journal, vol. cvi, no. 11 (November 1989), p. 58.
{57}William R. Mattox, Jr., "Is the Traditional Family Dead?" Family Policy, September/October 1988, pp. 1-5.
{58}Family Policy, "Who Will Care for the Children?" May/June 1988, p. 2.
{59}Family Policy, "Day Care Attitudes," May/June 1989, p. 5. Nevertheless, there has been a sharp increase in the use of formal day care, and center-based care provides for 15 percent of the day care for children with full-time working mothers. William Dreskin and Wendy Dreskin, "Day Care and Children," in Gender Sanity, ed. N. Davidson, pp. 71.
{60}Nicholas Davidson, "The Myths of Feminism," National Review, vol. xli, no. 9 (May 19, 1989), p. 44.
{61}Some adjustments among moderate feminists have been made. Friedan is now advocating some government support for "mothers (or fathers)" to stay home with children. Note, however, that the assumptions are: a bias toward state action (socialist policy) such as direct cash payments for day care by stay-at-homes; an anti-biological view in which either male or female could provide for the mother role; and a strong expectation that most will choose a dual-career path requiring government-funded day care (otherwise, the policy would be clearly unaffordable). As quoted in Family Policy, May/June 1988, p. 7.
{62}Jay Belsky, "Infant Day Care: A Cause for Concern?" (Washington, DC: Family Research Council, 1986; reprinted from Zero to Three, vol. 7, no. 1 [September 1986]), pp. 1-2.
{63}Family Policy May/June 1989, p. 5.
{64}Patricia A. Farnan, "Day Care Diseases," Family Policy, May/June 1989, p. 1-7.
{65}Belsky, "Infant Day Care: A Cause for Concern?"; Otto Weininger, "The Daycare Dilemma: Some Reflections on the Current Scenario," unpublished manuscript presented at a meeting of the North American Social Science Network---1986; Dreskin and Dreskin, "Day Care and Children," pp. 71-81.
{66}Gilder, Men and Marriage, pp. 151-153.
{67}Ibid., p. 153; William R. Mattox Jr., "The 'Parenting Penalty': How the Tax Code Discourages Parental Care," Family Policy, March/April 1989, pp. 1-7.
{68}Gilder, Men and Marriage, pp. 147-148, 130-131, 144.
{69}On the problems with women in combat, see Brian Mitchell, Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military (Washington, DC: Regnery, 1989); Gilder, Men and Marriage, pp. 127-136; James Webb, "Women Can't Fight," in Gender Sanity, ed. N. Davidson, pp. 208-223; On the problem with female affirmation action, see E. J. Mishan, "Was the Women's Liberation Movement Really Necessary?" Encounter, vol. lxiv, no. 1 (January 1985), p. 14; Levin, "The Feminist Mystique," p. 28; and Levin, Feminism and Freedom, pp. 98-130. For a devastating and thoroughly documented critique of affirmative action generally, see Thomas Sowell, "Affirmative Action: A Worldwide Disaster," Commentary, vol. 70, no. 6 (December 1989), pp. 21-41.
{70}Mishan, "Was the Women's Liberation Movement Really Necessary?" pp. 14-15; Gilder, Men and Marriage, pp. 149-151; Michael Levin, "Comparable Worth: The Feminist Road to Socialism," Commentary, vol. 74, no. 3 (September 1984), pp. 13-19; Levin, Feminism and Freedom, pp. 131-155 (chapter titled "Comparable Worth"); Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, pp. 137-142; Allan Carlson, "Toward 'The Working Family': The Hidden Agenda Behind the Comparable Worth Debate," Persuasion at Work, vol. 7, no. 7 (July 1984) (Rockford, IL: The Rockford Institute) (whole issue).
{71}Gilder, Men and Marriage, p. 151.
{72}Michael Levin, "The Impact of Feminism on Primary Education," in Gender Sanity, ed. N. Davidson, p. 82. See also Levin, Feminism and Freedom, pp. 157-207, for a broader discussion of the feminist program for education at all levels.
{73}Levin, "The Feminist Mystique," pp. 26-27; see also Chapter 16 of this volume; Hunt, Males and Females, pp. 87-105; Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy, pp. 187-218; Christen, "Sex Differences in the Human Brain."
{74}Christen, "Sex Differences in the Human Brain," p. 158.
{75}Chronicles, vol. 13, no. 10 (October 1989), p. 7.
{76}Christen, "Sex Differences in the Human Brain," p. 153; Gilder, Men and Marriage, p. 81; Levin, "The Impact of Feminism on Primary Education," p. 92.
{77}Chronicles, vol. 13, no. 10 (October 1989). See also the excellent discussion by Joseph M. Horn, "Truth, Gender, and the SAT," Academic Questions, vol. 3, no. 1 (Winter 1990), pp. 35-39.
{78}Levin, "The Impact of Feminism on Primary Education," pp. 89-92.
{79}Ibid., p. 89.
{80}The above discussion and quotes are drawn from Levin, "The Feminist Mystique," p. 29; see also Levin, "The Impact of Feminism on Primary Education," especially pp. 82-89.
{81}Ibid., p. 95-96.
{82}This will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
{83}Judith M. Bardwick, In Transition: How Feminism, Sexual Liberation, and the Search for Self-Fulfillment Have Altered Our Lives (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979), p. 15.
{84}Carlson, "The Androgyny Hoax," p. 8; Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, pp. 242-243.
{85}Cf. ludicrous examples presented by Levin, "The Impact of Feminism on Primary Education," pp. 89-91.
{86}Wallis, p. 85.
{87}Cf. Midge Decter, The New Chastity and Other Arguments Against Women's Liberation (New York: Coward, McCann and Geoghegan, 1972); also Bardwick, In Transition, pp. 104-105.
{88}Cf. our Time article, p. 85, compared to Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, pp. 314-315.
{89}Scott J. South and Glenna Spitze, "Divorce Determinants," American Sociological Review, vol. 51, no. 4 (August 1986), pp. 583-590.
{90}Cf. Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, p. 283.
{91}Bardwick, In Transition, pp. 120-121, emphases added.
{92}Quoted in Pride, The Way Home, pp. 18, 21.
{93}Cf. Judith S. Wallerstein, Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children a Decade After Divorce (New York: Ticknor Fields, 1989).
{94}Neil Kalter, "Long-Term Effects of Divorce on Children: A Developmental Vulnerability Model," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 57, no. 3 (October 1987), pp. 595-597. See also Wilson and Hernnstein, Crime and Human Nature, p. 252; though these find that the evidence for such confusion is not unequivocal, there is more of a tendency toward than away from it in the research literature. Also, see Chapter 17 of this volume.
{95}Wallis, "Onward Women," pp. 85-86; Wilson and Hernnstein, Crime and Human Nature, pp. 124, 245-253, 476-481. The relationship between delinquency and broken homes is complex and equivocal but does seem to point more toward an exacerbation than against it.
{96}Carlson, "The Androgyny Hoax," p. 6; Diana Baumrind, "Are Androgynous Individuals More Effective Parents?" Child Development, vol. 53, no. 1 (February 1982), p. 45.
{97}Singer, Androgyny: Toward a New Theory of Sexuality.
{98}Baumrind, "Are Androgynous Individuals More Effective Parents?"
{99}Ibid.; Carlson, "The Androgyny Hoax," p. 7.
{100}John J. Ray and F. H. Lovejoy, "The Great Androgyny Myth: Sex Roles and Mental Health at Large," The Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 124, no. 2 (December 1984), p. 237.
{101}Carlson, "The Androgyny Hoax," p. 8.
{102}Sarah Bonnet Stein, Girls and Boys: The Limits of Nonsexist Childrearing (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983), as summarized in Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, pp. 241-246.
{103}Ibid., pp. 243-234; Carlson, "The Androgyny Hoax," p. 8.
{104}Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, pp. 245-246.
{105}Ibid., p. 187; Gilder, Men and Marriage, pp. 61-68.
{106}Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982).
Copyright 1997 Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. All rights reserved.
[Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood can be ordered online through the CBMW Store.
2825 Lexington Road
Box 926
Louisville, KY 40280
Phone: 1-888-560-8210
Fax: (502) 897-4061
Email: info@cbmw.org
Web Site: www.cbmw.com
copyright © 1995-2009 Leadership U. All rights reserved.
Updated: 14 July 2002