Book
review by Christina
Hoff Sommers:
Friday, January
27, 2006
Swedish newspapers
recently ran an unusual story about
the misdeeds of feminist professor
Eva Lundgren. Lundgren, a gender
scholar who holds a chair in sociology
at the prestigious Uppsala University,
had been investigated by a university
committee for maligning Swedish
men. She had publicly claimed to
have proof that bands of male Satanists
had ritually murdered hundreds of
the nation's infants. She also "found"
that fully half of Swedish women
were victims of male violence. Members
of the committee investigating the
professor's sensational assertions
found them baseless, but they absolved
her of deliberate fabrication. Still,
they said there were "serious
problems in Lundgren's research,"
and they faulted her for failing
to be "critical and reflective."
What is extraordinary about this
episode, from an American perspective,
is that a reality-challenged women's
studies professor who made outrageous,
bizarre, and wholly unsubstantiated
claims was censured at all. In the
United States, she would get a grant--and
a raise--to help her pursue her
"courageous" and important
research.
Kate O'Beirne's
acute, funny, and irreverent new
book introduces us to the armies
of Eva Lundgrens who have been marching
unopposed in sisterly solidarity
through America's major institutions
for more than three decades. O'Beirne
cites such leading feminists as
Gloria Steinem, Eleanor Smeal, and
Kate Michelman, along with celebrated
political figures, including Hillary
Clinton and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She also introduces readers to a
large network of gender-equity apparatchiks
who work tirelessly behind the scenes
to transform American institutions
according to strict feminist specifications.
These women fervently believe they
are improving the world--but, as
O'Beirne clearly shows, they are
adding to its miseries.
O'Beirne deploys
a tactic that orthodox feminists
consider grossly unfair: She quotes
them and highlights their claims.
Then she responds. Here is feminist
author Anne Wilson Schaef lamenting
the ravages of the American patriarchy:
"To be born female in this
culture means that you are born
'tainted,' that there is something
intrinsically wrong with you that
you can never change, that your
birthright is one of innate inferiority."
Oh really? says O'Beirne. "She
should have been on Knickerbocker
Road in Manhasset, New York. In
our conventional, 1960s middle-class
culture, we girls ran the neighborhood.
We'd jump rope by the hour, with
one end of the rope anchored to
the bumper of a Rambler and some
hapless little boy turning the other
end until we released him from his
duties."
O'Beirne brings
wit and common sense to bear on
the weird and rancorous world of
orthodox feminism. She is a veteran
editor at National Review and was
a longtime member of the now (sadly)
defunct Capital Gang debate program
on CNN. Her new book explains to
readers exactly what it is these
impassioned women believe and how
they have changed and will continue
to change American society as long
as they remain unchallenged.
In O'Beirne's book,
readers will meet American women
who make Sweden's Eva Lundgren appear
restrained. Profs. Dee Graham and
Edna Rawlings, for example, are
University of Cincinnati psychologists
who report that "all male-female
relationships [are] more or less
abusive" and that "women's
bonding to men, as well as women's
femininity and heterosexuality,
are paradoxical responses to men's
violence against women." Both
Graham and Rawlings, notes O'Beirne,
received large grants from the Justice
Department and are featured speakers
at training workshops for police,
prosecutors, and judges. They and
their like-minded sisters even managed
to get an expensive federal program
of their very own: the Violence
Against Women Act.
This $1.6 billion
initiative has been aptly described
by Rutgers University anthropologist
Lionel Tiger as a "civic celebration
of antipathy to men." As O'Beirne
explains, domestic violence is a
serious problem and we need good
policies and good law enforcement
to deal with it; what we do not
need is an expensive federal bureaucracy
that rewards and employs fanatics
like Graham and Rawlings. Yet that
is what we got. Why? Because no
member of Congress dared oppose
Big Sister. No one mentioned the
fact that the bill was based on
feminist propaganda, as opposed
to reputable research.
O'Beirne reminds
us of such truths, and more. She
shows us a modern women's movement
that has contempt for the women
it claims to represent. Rather than
find out what women want and help
them achieve it, professional feminists
take it upon themselves to decide
what women's goals should be. "NOW
Knows Best," says O'Beirne.
Most women want children and the
time to take care of them, but the
major women's organizations--such
as the National Organization for
Women, the Ms. Foundation, and Planned
Parenthood--are focused on instructing
women how not to conceive a child,
how to abort it once conceived,
and how to place it in full-time
daycare should it actually materialize.
Women Who Make
the World Worse documents a 30-year
war against the idea that the mother/child
bond is unique. O'Beirne quotes
the public comments of Supreme Court
justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a committed
feminist, on the topic of maternal
love: "Motherly love ain't
everything it has been cracked up
to be. To some extent it's a myth
that men have created to make women
think that they do this job to perfection."
In a similar mood, Yeshiva University
professor Louise Silverstein called
motherhood an "idealized myth"
invented by men "in an attempt
to encourage white, middle-class
women to have more children."
Prof. Gretchen Ritter, director
of women's studies at the University
of Texas, goes so far as to condemn
full-time mothers as harmful to
children: "It teaches them
that the world is divided by gender."
The good news is
that women don't seem to be paying
attention to the self-appointed
feminist mentors. Nor is Mother
Nature cooperating. O'Beirne notes
that mothers continue to fall madly
in love with their babies in ways
even the most devoted fathers do
not. Despite two generations of
"wage warrior" feminism,
only 10 percent of mothers with
young children want to work full-time.
Hardliners are exasperated by such
"stereotypical" behavior:
Until a majority of mothers work
full-time, or men stay at home in
equal numbers--as orthodox feminists
insist is only fair--the sisterhood
will not be able to realize its
dream of a unigender society. Until
women become like men (or better
yet, men like women), the pay gap,
caused mostly by women's "excessive"
preoccupations with their children,
will remain significantly wide and
the glass ceiling won't shatter.
Ignoring the spurious
scholarship of the gender experts,
O'Beirne cites a large body of empirical
research that documents the advantages
of marriage for women. The standard
feminist view of traditional marriage
was stated with dramatic succinctness
by women's-studies pioneer Jessie
Bernard in 1972: "Being a housewife
makes women sick . . . To be happy
in a relationship which imposes
so many impediments on her as traditional
marriage does, women must be slightly
ill mentally." For these and
other such insights the Center for
Women's Policy Studies now awards
the Jessie Bernard "Wise Women
Award."
Full-time mothers
and traditional wives are not the
only targets of feminist disapproval.
O'Beirne exposes a relentless campaign
against boys and young men: "We
parents of boys have meekly allowed
gender warriors to treat our sons
like unindicted co-conspirators
in history's gender crimes."
When her son was in third grade,
the teacher had the children perform
a newly written, politically correct,
nonsexist fairytale. The kingdom's
empowered girls slayed the dragon
and defended the castle while the
boys stood by passively and absorbed
the lesson. O'Beirne tells readers
that that was the day she resolved
to "move him to a friendlier
kingdom."
Today, says O'Beirne,
"Women make up 57 percent of
undergraduates and earn a majority
of all master's degrees. But feminists
aren't content with this remarkable
educational success, because female
students aren't playing sports to
the same extent as men." They
become furious if anyone brings
up the possibility that boys are
by nature more interested in watching
and playing sports than girls. The
fact that millions of men--and relatively
few women--subscribe to sports magazines
or watch athletic events on television
(including women's basketball!)
signifies nothing to the feminists,
except the power of sexist conditioning
under the patriarchy.
These gender feminists
have succeeded in enforcing their
point of view in the nation's high
schools and institutions of higher
learning. Most coaches find they
cannot attract men and women in
equal numbers. To avoid lawsuits,
many have had to eliminate men's
teams. "The result," says
O'Beirne, "is that men's participation
in sports is capped at the level
of women's interest." Such
policies please the radicals, but
no fair-minded person can believe
they are improving our society.
O'Beirne also introduces
readers to a noisy pack of lobbyists
and legislators who rail against
the military's "warrior culture"
and demand that women be fully integrated
into all combat positions. Reasonable
people can disagree about suitable
roles for women in the modern military;
unfortunately, the feminist ideologues
make reasonable discussion impossible.
They want full parity. Police and
fire departments face similar pressures
from equal-outcome feminists. But
the fact is, only the top 5 percent
of women can perform at the male
median. According to one study of
ROTC cadets, cited by O'Beirne,
the typical woman in her twenties
or thirties has the aerobic capacity
of a 50-year-old man. Our world
is not improved when women are forced
into roles they cannot properly
perform.
For O'Beirne, much
of the mischief that modern feminists
have wrought in our schools, workplaces,
and social institutions is traceable
to their success in convincing educators
and political figures that gender
is a social construction. To counter
this idea, O'Beirne points to a
vast and growing literature that
suggests that many gender preferences
have a biological basis. But it
is clear that nothing will persuade
the hardliners to change their position;
their angry march continues apace.
Meanwhile, how
has the so-called patriarchy responded
to the feminist onslaught? "The
fearsome male patriarchy,"
says O'Beirne, "folded like
a cheap Kate Spade knockoff . .
. The shrill feminists who made
men the enemy took shrewd advantage
of the fact that men hate arguing
with women." It is therefore
fortunate for us that O'Beirne loves
to argue and does it with style,
logic, and humor. Unlike the gentle
Swedish academic committee that
delivered a mere slap on the wrist
to their outrageous feminist colleague,
O'Beirne does not hesitate to deliver
harsh verdicts. She won't be winning
the Jessie Bernard "Wise Women
Award" any time soon. But she
has written a rousing, scintillating,
and badly needed book.
Christina Hoff
Sommers is a resident scholar at
AEI.