A good critique of two antifeminist 'tracts'

Strangely, while growing up, I was surrounded by the very sort of role models admired by the two antifeminist writers mentioned in this critique, except that they were not exactly upper-class/upper-middle class women. But they were women who lived for their family and children, and in the process, became very uptight and 'unfun', from the eyes of the child. I used to view my married but working aunt as having more freedom and interests outside the home, family and neighbourhood, compared to the non-working moms I know. And strangely, despite balancing between the home and work outside the home, she seems to have MORE free time than the homemakers I know, who always complain to each other about how busy they are (I overhear such conversations from family and church friends). And her husband, my uncle, helps out with the housework. Here's a married couple practising feminism without even knowing what that word means. I also have an aunt who was never married but she's far from being a bitter, old maid who hates younger women because they reminded her of what she once was but am one no longer. Instead, she took early retirement after saving up quite a bit, and started to travel and do things that she wanted to do instead of subjugating her life to work. ANd speaking of work, I suspect that many of my peers are harbouring dreams of becoming 'home-makers' because they despised the drudgery of their jobs (I understand that feeling because I feel 'tied-to-the-desk' and can't wait for the weekends most of the time but I decided to vent my feeling of frustrations through interests outside work and vivid dreaming ;)). And despite having working mothers, I don't think the children turned out any worse, whatever the anti-feminists/conservatives would like to say. In act, having a working mother provides a role model, and helps the young woman growing up to feel that she can achieve what she wants. For me, it is more about having open communication between parents and child, and teaching the child a sense of responsibility. In fact, having a mother who does everything for the child is bad, because the child is unable to be independent when he/she grows up (i've seen that effect on both men and women). Though my mom used to do literally almost everything for me, she still insisted that I took on some responsibilities, and do the tasks she might do for me if she sees me lounging about. And I have to help out in the garden, with the cleaning, the kitchen (which is difficult as she's very exacting) and whatever if I've time, and I think that was good training for me. Despite being a homemaker and a Christian from a conservative church, she did not actually taught me what the role of a woman is, but instead, help me see that there is no such thing as a separation of sphere (women can do repairs do work outside the house as well as men, if such need arises). In fact, most of my training about a 'woman's work' came from the society most of us live in. And the irony of it all is, the more conservative and insistent a society (be it a religious organisation/institution, a home, workplace, etc)is of gendered roles, the more likely you will see the kind of roles expected of a man or woman to do by nature of their sex, nevermind that the guy who rather be doing the cooking because he just loves to cook, or the woman would rather be teaching theology because it is an area she is passionate about.


The reason why I mentioned the women in my life will become obvious as you read on. And the kind of polemic advocated below were the same advice dished out my Christian missionary wives to my mother and other women of my childhood church (minus the cheesy mills-and-boons and obvious inexperience of one of the young authors. Though like her, I did not have a public school education, and was relatively sheltered from sexual knowledge while growing up (though I did read certain texts on the reproductive system and also a sex manual written by a medical doctor as a teenager), this young author (Shalit) seems rather naive about the ways of the world than I was at that age (and that age was not that far from my current age). Surprising for a woman with a privileged upbringing and early access to things I could only dream about as a kid (and am still dreaming to have, to a certain extent), as well as one of the best education one can buy (if it isn't free) in a first world country, which I envy her for, since I didn't have one, having to go through state schools with mostly indifferent teachers (with the exception of a few) and an underfunded, illiberal state university (this brings me to the subject of education in third world countries, which I'll talk about later)where thinking isn't always allowed (or even understood). For all the good start in life she had had, I expect her to be a lot smarter than I am, and maybe I'll read her book to see if the critique has misread her, since someone else seems to think she makes a lot of sense, though I am a little wary of this "someone's" intellectual capacity from the way the review reads...

So, here you go...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990329/phillips-fein