Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Treating "The Feminine Mystique" As An Equal Male

aka "holding it up to logic, reason, reality and sanity."

ie- treating it like a male.

I don't like to read.  And the heck if I was going to read "The Feminine Mystique."  but Davis Aurini and Sunshine Mary are going to read it and give it the once over from a non-feminist mind.

Davis' assessment of the first chapter here.

Sunshine Mary's assessment here.

A piece of me wants to say say your stereotypes ere wrong, that there is indeed something in "The Feminine Mystique," but already it looks like the typical whinny blathering of a spoiled American who didn't appreciate what she had.  Someone who BLATANTLY values a career more than her children or family.  Somebody who (if I weren't so lazy, I'd look up the author and her background) would probably score a 3 or higher on The Clarey Test.

Naturally detractors will claim we're all sexists and can only view things from a male/patriarchical mind/blahfreaking blah blah blah.  But the great thing about The Manosphere is that we're done with the "trying to be understanding, open-minded, and cognizant of our unconscious biases."  These people are unrepentantly devouring the book and making blunt, truthful, and direct assessments of "The Feminine Mystique" and don't give a damn about trying to be "fair."  Their assessment is going to be what it is without remorse or the consideration of people's feelings.

And that should scare the hell out of feminists that for once some adults are dissecting it.

Regardless, it's just more proof why Bill Burr's "Most Difficult Job on the Planet" is pure brilliance.


Anonymous said...

Quick point: Before the advent of grade inflation in the past 40 or so years, so-called "soft" degrees required a fair amount of rigor, critical thinking and very hard work. So even an English major in college during the 60s probably had to haul ass in order to do well.

JS Mill said...

From memory: Betty Freidian was a writer for communist newspapers and newsletters for years before she wrote the Feminine Mystique. She was never a bored housewife lying cold and alone in the dark with a husband she only married out of duty (Though there too, I believe she divorced her husband a few years after writing her magnum opus).

How exactly that scales on the Clarey Test, I cannot say, however.

White Knight Leo #0368 said...

The good captain ought to be reminded that Betty Friedan was never actually a housewife (according to her husband, they lived in a mansion with numerous servants for her entire marriage), so she really didn't know what she was talking about.

And just to further the parallel with Karl Marx, she was also a Stalinist Marxist, who worked for many years as the editor for a Stalinist newsletter.

Unknown said...

But they were BORED captain.

Unknown said...

I just had a thought. Betty is really the 1960s version of Eve. Adam+ Eve were in the garden whereby everything was perfect and yet Eve rebelled. Similarly the 50's/60s were the height of womens agency. They didn't have to work although they could do so if they chose to. On the other hand things were almost too easy for women. It's like they rebelled against not feeling suffering in exchange to feel more human, which they had mistaken for work. Adam, as Davis pointed out in his last video, was the white knight. He represents men of the 2nd wave Feminism. He does nothing other than warn them and gives them (women) what they wanted (work, Feminism).

Now we are living in post-garden territory. There is a longing to go back and at the same time a fear that going back will bring back the boredom of non-pain. On the other hand for men it is not so much a longing to go back, but a longing for something different altogether. The garden may have been paradise for men in comparison to what we have today (confiscation of children), yet it was no paradise for him.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Galt said...

Anyone else here accepted the fact that reason and sanity have NO PLACE in our current society?

Peregrine John said...

Accept? I dunno about that. I sure as hell start with it as an assumption, though.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget, too, that Friedan was clearly a schizophrenic, if you read the various descriptions of her bizarre behavior. Her viewpoint was one of a mentally-diseased person's warped lens of reality.

This is a common theme among leftist-feminazi leaders: a history of serious mental illness. Susan Sontag, Naomi Wolf, and Elizabeth Wurtzel all have been shown to have clear mental problems; yet, for some reason, the left never acknowledges that their logic-less declarations were in any shaped by their detachment to reality. The history of the crazed female author of the SCUM manifesto---and yet how the SCUM Manifesto been taken seriously by leftists "academics" speaks volumes as to the paucity of leftist critical thinking and their inability to admit basic truths.

JS Mill said...


You forgot the author of the Dialectic of Sex, who obviously had serious daddy issues, a phobic fear of pregnancy and other issues that probably escape me... all of which required all of society to change so she wouldn't have to deal with them, and yet the book is still much beloved of many feminists and proto-feminists.

Of course, it was like so many other seminal feminist works, a singular effort never repeated by the author, who died about two years ago, a lonely crazy cat lady, not even mourned by the women who treated her book as some sort of inspirational holy text.

sunshinemary said...

Thanks for the mention, Cappy.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence that actual housewives (as opposed to radical Marxist journalists pretending to be housewives, such as Friedan) were actually miserable.

The data shows that there has actually been a significant decline in happiness for women since the 1970s, which coincidentally is when second-wave feminism really took off among the female masses.