The Envious Feminist

By Selwyn Duke

People are emotional beings, often governed more by feelings than reason.  And this is never truer than with leftist people.

If you want to understand liberals, know that most of their ideology is simply a pseudo-intellectual justification for what feels right to them.  As for these feelings, the one stereotypically associated with the left is compassion, which supposedly manifests itself in mercy, charity, forgiveness and temperance.  In reality, though, a feeling that far better characterizes the left is envy.

I’m not the first to observe this.  Winston Churchill called socialism “the gospel of envy,” and this Daily Mail piece cites research showing that leftists are in fact consumed by the fault.  It is true, and it explains the real motivation behind their redistributionist tendencies: It’s not that they care so much that the poor have less.  They simply can’t stand the fact that others have more — than they do, that is.  But there is something they do want to share with their fellow man, a thing they have in abundance: misery.

Misery does love company, and this brings me to feminism.  While the ideology certainly has its justifications — the various grievances, real and imagined (all groups have some grievances) and its spin-cycle theories — these are not truly the wind beneath its wings.  For that you have to search the emotional realm, and, if you do, one thing you will certainly find there is envy.

It’s impossible to comprehend man’s behavior without understanding the powerful force that is envy, as it influences so much of what people do.  For example, I once had a friend who was a very accomplished tennis player.  One day he told me that his non-tennis-playing friends would ridicule his sporting endeavor, saying that it was stupid or “You’re wasting your time.”  I immediately told him what I absolutely knew to be true: His friends were simply jealous of him.  When people deride a legitimate ambition or activity, the motivation is usually envy.  It is the same reason why A-students in the black community are sometimes scorned for “acting white”; it is an accusation used to justify a very dark motivation.

Of course, many of these green-eyed monsters would protest, claiming they have no desire to engage in the “stupidity” they mock.  And the irony is that sometimes this is the truth.  Sure, many lack the discipline to develop a skill and would take the one in question if it were simply a matter of snapping their fingers.  Others simply don’t want it badly enough to put in the necessary effort.  Yet others recognize the thing in question as an accomplishment and, not having a corresponding one in their lives, are jealous because they’re either bereft of triumphs or are one accomplishment short.  Then there are some who may simply not want others to have any “good” that they don’t have.

This brings us back to feminism.  It’s well-known that vanguard feminists look down on traditional motherhood and the sphere in which it’s found, the family, and they have tried their utmost to undermine the two.  For example, Simone de Beauvoir, author of The Second Sex, once said, “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children.  Society should be totally different.  Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”  Robin Morgan, founder of the radical feminist group W.I.T.C.H., opined, “We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”  Feminist Linda Gordon once disgorged, “The nuclear family must be destroyed . . . .  Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.”  And Rebecca Walker, daughter of Alice Walker of The Color Purple fame, wrote about how her mother disowned her when she became “the sort of woman 64-year-old Alice despises — a mother.”  The Color Purple?  The elder Walker knows more about the color green.

This brings us to a truth about classical feminists: They hate traditional motherhood — which, dare I say, is true motherhood — because they are jealous of traditional mothers.  When they ridicule a woman who tends to hearth and home, it’s not so much because she is kowtowing to the patriarchy or not taking her place in the phalanx of the sisterhood.  It is because the mother has a good that they, for some reason, cannot have.  And women are notorious for being jealous of one another.

Some will point out that devout feminists don’t view motherhood as a good, but this is irrelevant.  A thing has certain inherent qualities, and they aren’t a function of others’ perception of them.  Motherhood is a good by nature, and people will, as a group, desire what is good (on some level, even if they hate it on another) — and be envious of others who have it when they cannot.  It’s also true that devoted mothers are exhibiting virtue — they aren’t sacrificing family on the altar of careerism — and this serves as a reminder to many feminists of how they’ve failed in that regard.  Traditional women make them feel bad about themselves.

Another mistake is to think that anti-motherhood feminists’ attitude is merely the result of a lack of a maternal instinct.  Most women thus disposed (be it nature or nurture), and I’ve known a few, are only concerned about avoiding motherhood, not ending it.  They live and let live, and when they see a woman busily tending to a gaggle of children are only likely to chuckle and think, “Whew!  Better her than me!”  It’s much like the difference between a communal monk and a communist: One aims to purge himself of worldly desires, the other to purge the world of the desirous.  One has taken a vow of poverty, the other vows to destroy the wealthy.

Then, some will ask why these feminists simply don’t have families themselves.  But, harking back to the example of my tennis-player friend, people are often their own worst enemies.  Perhaps these feminists are too selfish to devote themselves so completely to others, maybe life has dealt them a hand that made marriage unlikely, or perhaps hatred for the good overwhelms maternal instincts.  Whatever the case, these are women who could never have the white-picket-fence lifestyle, so they picket the lifestyle.

Evidence for this is that so many devout feminists are oddball, malcontent women.  When young, Simone de Beauvoir was a bratty girl who threw temper fits to get her way (that she could get away with it was indicative of bad parenting).  She had a father who wanted a boy, and it pleased her when he said that she thought like a man.  Her father also told her she would never be married because she would have no dowry.  And, although she carried on a long polyamorous affair with Jean-Paul Sartre, she never did marry and had no children.  Feminist icon Gloria Steinem conceived a child as a young woman and then aborted him.  She would later marry — but not until she was 66 years old.  Then, you should read the article I linked to about Alice Walker, as a more horrible person cannot be imagined.  And all three of these women had lesbian affairs (in de Beauvoir’s case, with underage girls) perhaps telling us why feminist Ti-Grace Atkinson said, “Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice.”   

As for the theme of this piece, some will say that you cannot attribute all of anti-motherhood feminists’ behavior to envy — and I don’t.  While they are odd, they are people and as such are complex.  And people can, and usually do, have multiple motivations when pursuing a cause, and it’s folly to paint every member of a group with precisely the same brush.  I also realize that feminism is used by some as a vehicle through which very dark aims can be realized.  As feminist Catherine McKinnon has admitted herself, “Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in [sic] the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.”  But is this a surprise?  Envy helps drive communists as well.  It drives both feminists and communists to hate the successful.  And what, after all, is a good mother but the most successful woman imaginable?

     This article first appeared at American Thinker

       © 2010 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[adam]

The problem is the republican party is being taken by feminsts. The Democrats are for African American marxism and the Republican party is for Feminist marxism. In fact feminists of all stripes were very racist because blacks voted before they did. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are playing to female envy of men which is why they like a henpecked man like Beck and an unsuccessful politician like Palin.

Some feminists did have kids but their followers did not. Just as many socialists had property although their followers did not. Feminism is a combination of envy of men and as a result of focusing on this envy they detest women that don't envy men and focus on the area's they have more leverage in and G-d also feels they have more knowledge and that is in being a wife and a mother. The bible when it came to Issac and Jacob the women knew more then the men and the men respected this as well and didn't envy the women.

At the same time in other area's the man knew more and the women had to follow the man's lead.

[S Wesley Mcgranor]

I am white man, and i am reason.

[yoyo]

Interesting that under selwyns conception of the family fathers have no role. The only good woman is a stay at home mum (perhaps like the Yates? hmm), while father can go out and do, well whatever, appears to be the answer.

PS the straw woman feminist was very amusing....and you guys keep talking about the left as "haters"?
Really femeinism is nothing more than the idea that women should be the best that they can be, for some that will be stay at home mothers, other will run countries (Maggie Thatchers any righties?), others will be soldiers and defend their countries as in Israel. What is abundently clear is that countires that supress the gifts of 51% of the population are demographically and ecconomically benighted eg: pretty much any middle eastern country.

Anyway the genie is out of the bottle, you may rail and wail but you will not get rid of women's sufferage no matter how much it annoys you.

[Philip France]

Yoyo missed Selywn's point entirely (as is usual). For penance, she should read the Biblical chapter of Proverbs 28, which deals with and describes what Selwyn alluded to: the virtuous woman.

[yoyo]

Philp my sweet, yes re-reading proverbs would indeed be a penance. In return you may like to read any of the sites especially http://nolongerquivering.com/ of women and children recovering from the quiverful movement (mostly christian but not all) and the absolute damage done to womens and childrens health by the implementation of the idea that women are just wombs in the service of the lord. Just take a little peek, I dare you! Somehow I find it hard to be envious of "complementarian" lifestyle where my husband has the role of intersessor with god and my children and I are to be "helpmeets", arrows in his quiver etc.

More than that, on a international scale can selwyn really argue that countries without a feminist movement, countries where women are forced into ONLY the domestic sphere are happier or more successful?

Let's see, can you philip or your BFF Selyn name one, just one single country, where women are restricted, either thru social pressure or thru law, to childcare duties solely,and that country ranks in the top 10 on ANY single indicator?

[yoyo]

PS Just read 2 different versions of psalm 28 (always prefered the King James) no mention of virtuous women, all in terms of men maybe you are refering to a different psalm, just hope it isn't 127. LOL

[Henry]

Umm, it was Proverbs not Psalms, but I think he meant Proverbs 31, not 28.

[DaisyDeadhead]

Is this what passes for original thinking these days? Didn't Freud already offer the "penis envy" theory, like, early last century? Why are you presenting stale psychoanalysis as some new idea? (((yawn))) Shulamith Firestone already did Freud.

The "American Thinker", we see, borrows heavily from "The Viennese Thinker"--LOL.

[DaisyDeadhead]

Apologies for not registering before commenting.

Then, some will ask why these feminists simply don’t have families themselves.

I'll raise you two grandchildren and a marriage of 23 years duration. How about you? How long have you been married?

[Dustin]

There is no envy like demanding equality for others! It shows how badly you wish you owned so much because you are so envious of the rich. Oh wait, no. It means you care for others. I wonder how the hell that got mixed up with envy. Probably because being able to write well doesn't automatically make what you write hold any weight more than a really bad hypothesis.

[Philip France]

Yoyo,

I went to your cherished site. Some sad stuff indeed. To that I reply that it is written:

Yer do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.

[Sticks n Stones]

I'm not sure why Mr. Duke writes such researched articles. It is evident by many of the posts that people ignore the reasearch and attempt to pass-off their preconceived theories as truth.

This is not an article about a husband's role; this article shows the downfall of a society when stay-at-home mothers become an extinct personality. He writes of the virtue of being a mother; that there is no shame, regardless of what feminists and lesbians (see Mr. Duke's quotes above) may proclaim.

"Really femeinism [sic] is nothing more than the idea that women should be the best that they can be"

Hahaha! So you call Ti-Grace Atkinson a liar when she said, “Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice."? Or Gloria Steinem and Simone de Beauvoir, who had lesbian affairs, that they missed-the-mark on what the movement they began was really all about? Are you always this arrogant or just really ignorant of truth?

Can any of you say you'd be here without your mother giving birth to you? Didn't think so. Give thanks to God your mother wasn't one of the above mentioned women!

Yoyo, you're oh-so-tolerant of everything evil and show your real personality; a lack of tolerance when anyone points out the truth of your limited ability to accept opposing ideas and a deep love of moral relativity.

A few more years of a society filled with people like you and you will yearn for the good ole days when you could speak freely and not be condemned for political incorrectness. What society gave you this freedom to be a jerk by abusing freedom of speech? In your foolish idylic society, they will run out of Jews and Christians to come for, and you'll be next. So much for progressive thinkers who are really morally relevant tolerant idiots! Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees!

For you, and some, I say, grow up and accept that there is something seriously wrong with our society. Only then will real "change" occur (internally). Let's hope it's not too little too late to save our children.

Mr. Duke, Keep the Aspidistra flying!

[Mel]

This started out okay, but honestly it's a little offensive... I've seen way too many chicks from my high school class make it their entire life's goal to become a wife and a mother because they think it's what is 1) expected of them and 2) a quick fix to make them happy as opposed to trying to find out who they are and deal with their own emotional issues before making the decision to have full responsibility of another entirely dependent person. And honestly, if that's their decision, cool, but.... the kid's what's really to worry about. I've seen some turned out pretty ****** up as a result of the mother thinking that hurriedly fitting into their "ultimate role" or whatever in society will fix whatever issues they might have. It's really difficult to deny that some guys tend to think of women as beneath them or view them as being little more than sex objects, hell--I've dated them, but I can see how crazy and rampantly malicious some feminists get. However, instead of bringing out a well-thought out, logical argument this article kind of degenerated into quickly slapped together example/attacks as opposed to anything fluid and cohesive. Generalizing makes you seem uneducated about the subject and frankly kind of pompous. :-/

[John]

Gee Mel, 'offensive'? Well we wouldn't want to offend your little liberal sensibilities. Would we? Of course there are women who rush into motherhood who have messed up kids. There are also women who rush into careers who end up having messed up kids. Having a happy marriage and family is tough and there are many things that must fall into place for it to happen. But the ideal is still the ideal. Anyway, Duke's article wasn't about rushing into motherhood. He just pointed out one reason why hardcore feminists put down motherhood. Reading what's written actually helps.

We all hope you can function the rest of the day in your terribly offended state.

[Mel]

That's not what I got out of it at all. Using terms like "sacrificing family on the altar of careerism" kind of stipulates that a woman can't have a career and a family at the same time, or it's always the right choice to have kids as opposed to having a career. I'm just saying he's simplifying it too much when the situation's a lot more complex. Being snarky's only making you seem like just as pompous as he is lol.