One of the aims of feminism is to transform the world from a patriarchy into a matriarchy. In the late 19th century, the daughter of feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Harriot Stanton Blatch, following in her mother’s footsteps, stated in a speech that some form of matriarchy would be the best system for “human improvement” to “be carried to a high point of perfection.”
Feminists then and now have drawn more on their own feminist ideology than on anthropological research to support their belief that in prehistoric times a matriarchy existed. Friedrich Engels may have latched on to this theory, but anthropologists and archaeologists have not. The evidence just isn’t there.*
“My prophecy is that men and women will be much more like each other, mentally and physically, both approximating a type far higher than the distinct sex types of today.” –Miss Henrietta Rodman, President, Feminist Alliance, in a 1915 New York Times interview
The topic of the “feminization of men” gets discussed from time to time by various conservative commentators. An example is an article written by David French for the National Review in May, “The Feminization of Everything Fails Our Boys.”
French’s article is yet another toothless treatment of the subject by a conservative writer that fails to look the problem square in the eye.
“However carefully a woman may have organized her life, a husband and children are necessary to make her complete. It’s like going about with one arm or something, you see, you’re missing something.”
This is a line from a 1939 Madeleine Carroll and Fred MacMurray film, Honeymoon in Bali. At the beginning of the film, Carroll’s character seems content as a career woman. Then, she meets and falls in love with MacMurray’s character and realizes she wants marriage and motherhood, not a career.
In these days of the dictatorship of political correctness—the culmination of the ideology of liberalism brought into the world at the time of the French Revolution—those who call themselves “conservative” or “traditional” have supposedly embarked on a war against the dictatorship. However, there is one topic subject to political correctness that even the most stalwart of warriors against the dictatorship either avoids, fails to recognize the importance of, or fails to address properly: the role of women.
The pro-life movement has Donald Trump under a microscope—they helped elect him, so he had better implement the promises he made to them. This is a pattern in the relationship between the pro-life movement and Republican politics, with the inevitable let down at some point in a Republican president’s term. Trump, however, is said to be different—leading the “most pro-life administration ever.” It is a “new dawn for life” in America, as counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway said at the recent March for Life in Washington.
So far, most of the coverage of Trump’s presidency on pro-life news sites can be characterized as “cautious praise.” The microscope of the pro-life movement may need some focusing, however. When one looks at Trump’s position on protecting the lives of the unborn, there is a dire need for criticism. Continue reading
The following is an article written by the 19th century Catholic writer Orestes Brownson. This article was written in 1869 in the early stages of the woman suffrage debate in the U.S. and provides excellent argumentation against woman suffrage, and can also be read as a general statement against feminism.
What Brownson writes regarding the effects women in politics would have on the family can also generally be said about women entering the workforce as the competitors of men.
Please note, the emphases are mine.
The Woman Question (Catholic World, May 1869) by Orestes Brownson
The Woman Question, though not yet an all-engrossing question in our own or in any other country, is exciting so much attention, and is so vigorously agitated, that no periodical can very well refuse to consider it. As yet, though entering into politics, it has not become a party question, and we think we may discuss it without overstepping the line we have marked out for ourselves- that of studiously avoiding all party politics; not because we have not the courage to discuss them, but because we have aims and purposes which appeal to all parties alike, and which can best be effected by letting party politics alone.
Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump’s campaign manager and now his de facto spokesperson during his transition to the presidency, is not liked by those who identify as feminists.
It is being noted by some that Conway should be celebrated by feminists as a successful woman who holds one of the most influential positions in America. “Conway was the first woman in history to successfully manage and win a presidential campaign in America. She was promoted from Trump’s senior advisor and pollster to campaign manager, and successfully did what no one believed was possible,” writes columnist Melissa Lantsman in the Toronto Sun.