Feminism as a “movement” in America is largely played out. The work here is mostly done.
At a time when education matters more than ever, more American women attend college than men. More women graduate, with better grades and more advanced degrees. As Kay Hymowitz writes in her new book, Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys: “For the first time ever, and I do mean ever, young women are reaching their twenties with more achievements, more education, more property, and, arguably, more ambition than their male counterparts.”
Advertisement
Even the fight for “pay equity” is an argument about statistics, lagging cultural indicators, and the actual choices liberated women make — to take time away from paid jobs to raise their kids (never-married women without kids earn more than men) or to work in occupations like the nonprofit sector that pay less.
These are the fruits of feminist success. And, as the father of a little girl, I’m grateful for many of feminism’s achievements. And as a conservative, I’m delighted that so much of the energy and passion on the right is fueled by women, a fact that causes no small amount of cognitive dissonance on the left. For instance, when Sarah Palin was tapped as the second woman on a presidential ticket in American history, University of Chicago professor Wendy Doniger fumed that Palin’s “greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”
That is the kind of thing intellectuals say when they have nothing worth saying anymore.
The good news for those who want to continue the fight for women is that there is plenty of work left to do — abroad.
The plight of women in other countries is not only dire, it’s central to global poverty and the war on terrorism. Jihadism is largely a male problem. This shouldn’t be a surprise, given that jihadis commit mass murder in pursuit of a virgin bonus in the afterlife.
Islamist extremism and oppression of women go hand in hand. And while the correlation between poverty and terrorism is often overstated, the correlation between prosperity and women’s liberation is profound. Female education is tightly linked with GDP growth, lower birthrates, and even higher agricultural yields.
It’s also tightly linked with human freedom and decency, which is why no Islamic “spring” is possible without a feminist revolution. Countless Islamist countries practice gender apartheid and countenance wife-beating, honor killings, and female genital mutilation. Islamist radicals have thrown acid in the faces of young girls for trying to go to school.
In Turkey, long the crown jewel of secular, modern, and moderate Islam, the murder rate of women has gone up 1,400 percent since the country lurched toward Islamism, notes my American Enterprise Institute colleague Michael Rubin. In Egypt, those who hoped for a secular and democratic revolution are dismayed by the army’s burgeoning partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood and reports that the military forced “virginity tests” on female protesters taken from Tahrir Square.
After being admitted to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, Iran shepherded to passage the only resolution this session aimed at a specific country. Apparently Israel holds back Palestinian women somehow.
Meanwhile, as Omri Ceren of Commentary has noted, “Iranian prison guards rape female dissidents before executing them, lest their victims go to heaven as virgins. Iranian men get to avail themselves of temporary marriages, de facto legalizing the institutionalized slavery and rape of prepubescent girls. Iranian women are consigned to the backs of buses, have to shroud their bodies from head to toe.”
But there are signs of hope as well. In a widely circulating video, Veena Malik, a Pakistani model and actress, tears apart a smug Islamist mullah berating her for being “un-Islamic.” Not only does she stand up for a modern, humane Islam that can tolerate women and “fun,” she tells the cleric, “I am more angry with you people than you are with me.” Malik offers heroic moral clarity that should cheer anyone who has lamented the lack of moderate Muslims willing to condemn the extremists.
And she offers a reminder for us all that the real war for women’s equality is now a battle to be fought in foreign lands.
It's a lot easier to complain about Israel and to protest until your college's endowment divest itself of anything Israeli than it is to actually attempt to change women's rights for the better in the middle east.
A relative of mine was studying to be a teacher in a northeastern state. When she asked her feminist, liberal female professors about the plight of Islamic women, their response was that it was a 'cultural' issue.
Very odd to see these far left types making excuses for Islamic male repression. I suppose they think if Sharia law takes hold here, they'll somehow be granted exceptions to the provisions governing female behaviour - being the rulling elite and all.
Mr. Goldberg is right that feminism in the U. S. is "played out." I would go farther and say that, in any meaningful sense, it played out in 1920, with the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. This was the culmination of so-called "first wave" feminism . . . and, in my humble opinion, the only legitimate wave of feminism in the U. S. "Second wave" feminism, the Friedan-Steynem-Ireland sort, had very little to do with "liberating" American women--as if they were slaves or children who required emancipation--and everything to do with setting up a shakedown racket and spoils system, by piggybacking on the collective sense, at least among the intelligentsia and journalistic class, that the Civil Rights Movement elicited. That is why American--and other Western-- feminists have shown no inclination to come to the aid of their oppressed "sister" in Muslim lands. There's nothing in it for them! The feminist shakedown racket only works on properly cowed, milquetoast little guys, who don't want trouble and just want to get on with their business . . . like storekeepers who pay local toughs to leave them alone. Good luck trying that approach with the "religion of peace" crowd!
Did David Brooks write this? Jonah wouldn’t make post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments like these. Feminism doesn’t cause prosperity; it’s a byproduct of prosperity. Patriarchy doesn’t cause cruelty to women in the Middle East; Sharia does. And feminists couldn’t care less about the plight of Islamic women. When was Jonah last seen alive?
Did David Brooks write this? Jonah wouldn’t make post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments like these. Feminism doesn’t cause prosperity; it’s a byproduct of prosperity. Patriarchy doesn’t cause cruelty to women in the Middle East; Sharia does. And feminists couldn’t care less about the plight of Islamic women. When was Jonah last seen alive?
Couldn't agree more. It's puzzling and disheartening that today's American femimists seem to have so little to say on the status of the plight of Muslim women in the Mideast.
Jonah, you are SO right! And, I have a plan for taking this feminist equality overseas, as you put it. For this, let us keep in mind that the primary US influence overseas is military might, as exemplified by the current yet-another intervention in the internal affairs of a foreign country.
1. The Constitution does not call for a male militia. Indeed, in this era of gender equality, I honestly don't think that only men should register for Selective Service and be drafted. So, first we register the women for Selective Service.
2. Next, we need an affirmative action program to compensate for historical injustice in gender equity. In my generation, hundreds of thousands of men were sent to Vietnam for no discernible purpose, and thousands died or were maimed. Very few women were in that category. This is unfair! So, let us start another pseudo-war (or maybe get Congress involved and make it a real war). The cause doesn't matter; Libya will do, but I suggest a larger country with more opportunity for morass. Then, draft a few hundred thousand women (not men), send them there to fight, and don't stop until an equitable number are killed and maimed. The purpose of the war, win or lose, doesn't matter; it's the gender equity thing.
3. Be sure that companies tell young women that they don't want to hire them unless they've already served in the military, because the company doesn't want to invest in training someone who might be drafted. That's how it was in my generation. The women of that same generation went on to be feminist college professors and complain about injustice (to themselves only).
Jonah, as the father of a young girl and a conservative who I suppose generally supports US military interventions, it is your duty to take the lead on this. Have Santa bring your girl a toy automatic weapon and a camo suit, later this year. Tell her that it's OK to drop out, because the Army will teach her a useful skill. That's the way it is for a lot of boys.
I'm a liberal, and I have to agree at least on this point. It baffles me when my liberal friends call themselves feminists (which they are perfectly sincere about), but then tolerate a stance of "moral relativism" towards things like this. I don't how you can entertain both ideas in the same head...
Memo to Mark Steyn: How's about asking Jonah what feminism has done to the white birth rate in this country? And (see Kay) does feminism have anything to do with why U.S. males are becoming so much excess baggage? I'd like to see a schism among conservatives here. And can you throw in a parody, say the Four Seasons singing "Sharia. Sharia baby, yeah yeah yeah"? Just spitballing here.
I think this has to do with the fact that most feminists (at least those eejits on college campuses) are multiculturalists and postcolonialists. They seem to think, that because of the 'sins' of the West, no Westerner has the right to judge ANY action/behaviour of people who were once under a colonial yoke. Be it flogging, genital multilation, stoning, mandatory veiling, etc. - since they believe it is fueled by the men's outrage at their former colonial masters. - it must be justified.
I have been saying the same thing for YEARS, Jonah. Why we did not simply empower the women to get rid of Saddam, Bin Laden, the list goes on and on, is beyond me. What assassins have not been able to accomplish in decades, empowered women could have fixed (for free) any evening they were "summoned", if you get my drift.
When Middle Eastern women have the power to raise their own children is when we will see an end to Jihad, in my humble and feminine opinion. I hope I don't put too much faith in them. Looking at what kids think "femininsm" is here these days is disturbing, to say the least.
Actually, in a sense feminism does 'cause' prosperity. In every third world country where women have been given more rights, especially regarding contraception, it has been a tremendous boon for quality of life and the economy of those countries.
Everywhere women have been treated as nothing more than something to constantly be popping babies out, the countries have fallen off the face of the earth.
We live in different times.. one good reason among many is for women to join the educated workforce in every country. It's always a net benefit.
Also @bruce wolf - since when is birth rate evidence of prosperity? Line up the countries sorted by highest birthrate side by side with a list of the poorest countries. You'll, apparently, be shocked.
It is certainly true that equality of women in a society leads to greater prosperity. If half of the working population is excluded from engaging in productive labor, then the limit to growth of that society's economy is clearly lower than it could be. Moreover, a society which embraces women's participation in the labor market is a society which is undoubtedly embracing other moves toward liberalism as well.
For those interested in how one organization is working on this topic, go to womenforwomen.org. I'm the economist there (and probably the only NR subscriber in the building), and I can say in all truth and candor that the program really does help people.
The average income of a woman in our program is about fifty-five cents a day. We work with her for a year, and our objective is to raise her income to one dollar a day within a year of graduation. With 44,000 participants in eight conflict effected countries it is ambitious program, and it's worth a look.
relaxok: In order for your thesis that feminism is the cause of our wealth you would need to show that there was little economic development in the west prior to the advent of feminism.
That is, you would have to show that prior to, say, 1950, people were living pretty much the same way they were in say, 500BC.
I worked overseas in microcredit for years, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and several other Muslim countries. As a woman, I've thought about this issue a lot - that in many countries this is less a women's rights issue and more a human rights issue.
Dishearteningly, I also came to the conclusion that those sorts of societal changes can't be exported or imposed. They're ingrained too deeply and the women, like mass victims of Stockholm syndrome, frequently buy into the idea that they are less than human and deserve to be treated as such.
But, there are glimmers of hope. I used to love to go to a beauty parlor in Islamabad (before it was blown up with the front half of the Marriott Hotel) where I'd get my hair done while reading english-language Pakistani women's magazines. They had the usual makeup and fashion tips, but they were also filled with polite articles reasoning why men shouldn't throw acid in women's faces, why women shouldn't be beaten by the men in their family, why honor killings were bad, etc. Part of me wanted to cry and the other half wanted to cheer. Granted, these english-language magazines were written for educated women who could read them (and the vast majority of the country could not), but the conversation was starting.
During the Ike era, women certainly worked, but they did not work as much as they do nowadays. Were families less wealthy then? Did they feel less wealthy? I think not.
So, if primitive (pardon my expression) nations have women who earn fifty cents per year and crank out babies, may I ask why? Don't give me the religion thing; religion follows what the populace already does, since time immemorial. It's a matter of access to birth control, often culturally determined.
If you look at recorded history in (say) European Middle Ages, and even more recent times in America, you will find that women worked quite a bit, even those with children. They knitted, they spun, they sowed, they cooked, and did numerous things that were highly productive. I mean productive in the most serious sense: hat they did would have cost a lot of money if someone had to be hired to do it for them.
The key is that what they made, they kept. They were not working at market wages for some employer who hired and fired at-will according to cheapest available labor and business cycles.
As Marx and (I hope) Hayek would both agree, the central point is that the female family workers had a capital interest in the good hey produced, for their own consumption and sometimes for trade with others. They were not alienated from their labors.
Those micro-investment "entrepreneurs" in primitive countries": Are they alienated from their labor, or not? Are they producing what they can use? Is their value doomed to limits imposed by the free market price from other micro-invested folks?
The liberated women in developed countries, such as the girls from one-child middle-class families: Do they go into careers that are productive, such as pipe-fitting and welding, or do they become unproductive parasite such as lawyers and "studies" professors?
To tell you the truth, all you need to do is scratch a neo-con libertarian type with one female child, and there's a quota system pro-socialist hiding underneath. Why, when the local working class runs short of cheap labor due to limited family size and more opportunities for women, then it's time to open the borders and allow in primitives who crank out the babies. Keeps the labor costs down, and in many cases supports rental prices.
Just think of where the USA would be if there had not been a deluge of immigrants starting in the late 1960s. Then, many cities were closing down schools due to the end of the post-WWII baby boom. Now, they're closing down overflowing schools (no habla ingles) due to lack of funds.
Follow
