Chapter 4

This chapter was sort of like a horrific car wreck to me. I was both highly disturbed and fascinated by it, all at the same time. My blood pressure was through the roof at times, but my curiosity got the better of me and kept me reading.

I think what fascinated me the most was the discussion of our new-found sexual freedom as women. Finally, we have sexual freedom like men do. I know I can be terribly naive at times, but all I could think is that if the men have been sexually free all this time and the women haven't, then who, pray tell, are the men having sex with?

I know, I know. The men could have it and not be judged, whereas their women were no longer acceptable in society. Well, in that case, why "free" the women to act like the men? Why not instead hold the men to a higher standard, and judge them to be as equally shameful as we judged the women to be?

You know, I don't like the sexual repression that denied the deep hunger for love that lies within all of us. But neither do I like unrestrained sex. There has to be some discipline because sex is a very beautiful and very powerful thing. Fireworks are beautiful when they are used safely and correctly, but dangerous as all get out when used without respect for their power.

I don't know if EFG was trying to help us figure out how we should define this new morality that we find ourselves in. I have to admit that I think that the idea of trying to redefine morality to fit our newfound sexual freedom is ridiculous. It's not as though we as Americans used to have one morality and now we have a different one. That's really not up for debate any more than the laws of science are. We are created as we are created. Ignoring that will not make it go away.

Here's how I see it. The sexual repression of the previous generation was an anorexia of sorts. Like if they tried to deny the need it would go away. Of course, the constant denial can lead to a binge/purge cycle with sex as well. The sexual revolution decided that sex was good, and that any sex we wanted was good, so let's go with it all. Like a glutton spiraling towards disastrous obesity. Both are deadly to the body, and we are only fooling ourselves if we think that we can play games with sexuality and end up any better.

Finally!!!

I finally, finally, FINALLY, have my copy (looong story, very boring) and can now join in the fun!! I have been trying so hard to not read any posts so I wouldn't spoil any of the book and now I can catch up and join!! I am so sorry for my absence! Yeah, book club, here I come!!

Chapter 4 - Eugenics Gets One Sentence

I'm actually not really enjoying chapter 4 so far. I mean, I agree with the main points Mrs. F-G is making, but frankly, I am tired of reading and thinking about abortion. As a woman who is struggling to get pregnant, and would like nothing better than to be a mother, I have little patience for arguments from people whose claims work like this: A "fetus" is a human being if it's parents or someone else wants it (adoption), but it's not a human being if "no one" wants it and/or it was conceived in less than ideal circumstances, or has "something wrong with it".

I got seven pages into the chapter (pg. 89) when I had to stop reading because I was throwing up a little bit in my mouth. The reason? Well, what else makes one throw up in their mouth other than moral relativism?

"One woman captured the attitudes of many: "I would say my views are true for me, but I can't put that on someone else. I just can't force my truths on other people." How cosmopolitan and liberated of her. Us poor Christian bumpkins sure could learn a thing or two from her about the truth, huh?

"Many other respondents acknowledged inconsistencies in their views, but then fell back on "that's just how I feel." Oh well then, if that's just how she feels, we have to let her walk away with an inconsistent viewpoint about when and how its o.k. to kill human beings, right? I mean, if that's how she feels, she must be correct. *facepalm*

And following right on the heels of the above quoted gem, is this beauty: "Some admitted - privately - that concerns about overpopulation by "poor" and "minority" children influenced their views." Gosh, folks, don't be shy about your desire to eradicate the poor and people of color. No, seriously. You're in good company. Margaret Sanger, you know, the sainted founder of Planned Parenthood, said some similar things.

"Such class-consciousness points to one important reason for promoting birth control for the unfit -- the burden they place on what Sanger, in Pivot, called "the normal and healthy sections of the community." She claims that the healthy classes unduly bear the costs of "those who should never have been born." Indeed, Sanger's movement only took off when the wealthy elite, including the eugenic Rockefeller Foundation, rallied to her side." -Angela Franz

Here is the above quoted article attesting to the same attitude of eugenics and social control by Ms. Sanger and her organization.

Also, this is a short video clip from a longer documentary called Maafa 21, which was created to raise awareness within the African-American community about the eugenic motives of Planned Parenthood. (This is just one clip of about 15.)





Something funny happened on the way through chapter 4: eugenics got one sentence. Perhaps it is because the initial aims of the Sanger/Planned Parenthood movement were birth control and not abortion, Mrs. F-G didn't want to spend any time discussing the eugenic spirit alive and well in these United States. But I'd say that if there are people responding to a study that they support abortion because there are too many poor and minority people, that's cause for alarm. And perhaps, for more than just one sentence.

Why don't we have anything to say about this chapter?

Until Sarah and Kay posted last night, there were no discussions about this chapter. I was trying to figure out why.

It may be that we've just hit a bit of a lull in the club (maybe we should read more than a chapter a week?) but I suspect it's more a combination of (a) some disappointment in the book so far and (b) we've heard it all.

It's not that my blood wasn't pumping when I read it - whenever I hear about the sexual revolution I get fired up. And yet, while it left me upset, I didn't feel like I had anything noteworthy to say. It's not like I learned anything new. Here's hoping the next chapter has more blog fodder!

Chapter 3 - Shocking and Barbaric

So, I guess I'll break the ice on this week's chapter...

One thing in particular that stood out to me (and I'm sure many of you, as well), was the story of the African American man in South Carolina who, upon discovering his unwed daughter was pregnant, proceeded to lock her in a room and isolate her from her sisters until she went into labor. When her labor started, he refused to call a doctor and the outcome of her hours of seemingly painful labor was a stillborn child and her bleeding to death (pg 61). Talk about barbaric! Not only is the man's daughter dead, but her child is dead, as well.

Although EFG doesn't give a year for this incident, it is presumed to be pre-1960s. The father's motive for this act was reportedly to retain the family's "honor"(?!). Honestly, I'd be curious to hear what happened to the father. I wonder if the family's honor remained intact after his neglect led to two deaths.

Now, enter the question of abortion. Although this incident is presumed to have happened in a time when abortions were not legal, given that the family was of middle-class standing, they would likely have been able to afford an abortion that would have prevented this outcome. They may or may not have chosen this option and the woman may or may not have wanted to give birth to and/or raise the child, but, in any event, the availability of the abortion option, not to mention the greater independence of women that came to be after the feminist movement could have resulted in a very different, and quite possibly more pleasant outcome for this woman.

Video on New Feminism

I found this video of Catholic law professor Helen Alvare , discussing the New Feminism. I know this isn't directly from the book, but I am sure that it is relevant.

I'd love to embed it here, but I don't know how to embed on blogger, so here's the link to the video. I promise it's worth looking at (and about 5 mins. long).

(Edit by Elizabeth - I embedded the video. To do it on blogger, click on the "embed" button to the right of the video on YouTube and copy/paste the code into the post, from the "edit HTML" tab.)



What you think of New Feminism? How do you think Mrs. E F-G would view this video?

Growing Up Feminine -- 20 Years Later

I read all of chapter 2, waiting for her to get to the really good stuff. Then I realized that the chapter was over. Oops. My initial reaction, which I wrote in the margins at the end said, "This chapter is dated, re: lipstick feminism". The point has been made by several other ladies here that the research and information in this book is dated, so I don't think I have to prove myself on that claim. However, I'd like to mention the one part of the chapter that I thought was really interesting, before I talk about what I *wish* had been in this chapter. What I wish she said about being feminine in 2010.

In talking of Naomi Wolf, author of The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty are Used Against Women, E F-G touches on what I felt to be one of the only points from this chapter that still feels like it makes sense in light of the experience of feminism and femininity that I had growing up, and more importantly, that my generation has had since 1996 (when I was in 6th grade and this book came out).

"Wolf echoes the complaints of generations of feminists who, from Mary Wollstonecraft to the present, has criticized the ways that feminine fashion keeps women in thrall to men. Simone deBeauvoir, in The Second Sex, especially deplored women's disadvantage in a culture in which they must always look young and beautiful, while men could grow old in the security that the character and power etched on their faces would only enhance their appeal to the opposite sex." (39)

I read that and thought, yeah! Look at drastic increase in things like botox and plastic surgery, or just that often the mothers of teenagers look like teenagers themselves. I wish this chapter had explored some of the implications of what's called "lipstick feminism" or "sex and the city feminism" for lack of a better term. It's this kind of "feminism" which I think was trying to revive the ideals of feminism, but make them more palatable to women who like to shop, wear makeup, and wouldn't ever dream of going braless outside of their house.

The tagline is all about "empowerment". It's supposed to be empowering to be both sexually aggressive and disdainful of men at the same time. I'm not entirely sure who it is supposed to be empowering though. I say that because I used to live that. I bought into this idea of feminism which suggests that real "freedom" is the ability to sleep with anyone you'd like, at any time, for any reason, regardless of whether or not you even know or care about the man. Something I heard in college that I really internalized for many years was this: "Men should be like Kleenex. Soft, strong, and disposable." Your girlfriends are your loves, the ones who know your heart; men are just people you have sex with." How many women of my generation have taken this to heart?

While the pendulum has swung from "let's all wear flannel and drive fork-lifts and who needs a man" feminism to "let's all walk around half-naked and use men for sex while wearing skirts and heels" feminism, I don't think that the latter is an improvement over the former.

What I'd love to see is a feminism, and a femininity that allows women to be women. Who sometimes like to wear dresses or skirts, or who always love them, or who can't stand them. Who sometimes wear makeup, or always wear makeup, or hate to wear makeup. Who understand that there are more important things in life than lipstick, and 500$ handbags, and putting yourself first. But who also understand that there is something irreplaceable about the feel of a summer sundress and that "just came from the salon" sensation.

In essence, what I'm advocating for is a type of religious feminism. One that helps women to see that their value and dignity as women comes not from their waist size, or hair color, or shoe style, but from being made in the image of God, as a woman. That's true femininity. Everything else, all of the makeup, and dresses, and all of it, is just icing on the cake. Pretty icing. Fun icing. Icing that is an avenue for bonding among women. But icing just the same.

That's what I wish this chapter had been about.