A Different Look at Betty Friedan’s Legacy
A Different Look at Betty Friedan’s Legacy
Post by khankrumthebulgar on Feb 8, 2006, 10:02pm
A Different Look at Betty Friedan’s Legacy
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
By Wendy McElroy
Betty Friedan (1921-2006) died last Saturday at the age of 85. Eulogies have stacked up quickly for the feminist icon:
Friedan founded modern feminism; she rescued women from the ’50s; she pioneered the brave ‘new woman’ who now strides through society.
I disagree with those eulogies about the content of Friedan’s legacy. The disagreement contains no malice; however, because Friedan is a public and now-historical figure, an accurate view of her social impact is simply necessary.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Different Look at Betty Friedan’s Legacy
Post by scholarlee on Feb 9, 2006, 8:27am
interesting reading, kktb!
For what it’s worth, I think Friedan was revolutionary, but not particularly radical, creative or relevant to the vast majority of American women. I think her book was written in a way that was provocative enough to turn a massive profit, and the ideas espoused in it were widely disseminated, but I don’t think she should be canonized as the patron saint of womanhood, nor reviled as the embodiment of all evil.
however, I am intrigued by the following:
“As writer and professor Carol Iannone remarked, for Friedan, ’submitting to the traditional feminine role was nothing less than an embrace of nonbeing.’”
according to Antiriad, who in turn is influenced by Weininger and others, masculinity is presence of substance and femininity is absence of substance.
so, “embracing one’s nonbeing” is a correct analysis of what it means to be female. yes?
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Different Look at Betty Friedan’s Legacy
Post by Niall CBB on Feb 9, 2006, 9:07am
Why is it that we are always being told that either feminazis didn’t say that or if they did they didn’t really mean it or that they were just being ‘polemical’ or some other nonsense.
In terms of human misery caused this women is worse to me than Hitler and I mean that quite literally she and her ’sistas’ have destroyed a whole civilization. Everyone is fucking miserable included the women!
Feminazism is male hate. NOW is a lesbian dominated organization that would have all men tagged from birth if it could.
Will be looking for her grave so I can piss on it before I die.
Still hoping for that monument in Washington to Dworkin. Somewhere to crap whilst in our nations capital.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Different Look at Betty Friedan’s Legacy
Post by scholarlee on Feb 9, 2006, 9:32am
you know – I went back and researched the claim that Dworkin never said “all sex is rape”. turns out she did. you already knew that. in my heart, I already knew that. but in the event that I was mistaken, I had to go back and check for myself.
I don’t like revisionists of any stripe.
this means that although I have no respect for those who would say “oh you terrible woman-hater! Dworkin never said that!”, neither do I have respect for the president’s speech writers who tell us that Bush’s claim to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025 “should not be taken literally.”
my point is that any published work can be properly quoted, accidentally misquoted, purposely distorted for personal or political gain or just plain misunderstood. I don’t think it is exclusively the province of jackbooted feminists.
a large part of the problem is that people don’t do their own research. they believe what they’re told, and the truth goes down the memory hole.
but more to your point (that Friedan and her ilk caused the downfall of a great civilization): as I said, her book was revolutionary. I think she picked a rather insignificant cultural scab (the boredom of the upper-class educated woman), which promptly got infected.
consider this – in the early 1960s one did not just stroll down to the local publish-o-mat and whip out a book or two. Friedan would have had to come to the attention of a publisher. this was not hard, since she lived in new york and her husband was well connected and she was already writing for magazines. but, to be sure, the individual with final say as to whether or not she would be published was a WW Norton Co. executive – in 1963 I’m willing to bet money that individual was male.
was he a bullied, henpecked, pussywhipped mangina? probably not. more likely he saw something that would cause controversy and sell books. he made a business decision that was quite successful. it surely is not his fault that the whole thing blew up like a cultural neutron bomb. if it wasn’t him, it would have been someone else.
No, I’m not trying to push the blame onto her publisher. I’m saying that she did not singlehandedly topple over the social tower. she had help. she had collaborators who backed her not because they agreed with her, but because she could increase their bottom line.
however, this all makes me think that “feminism” is more a media construct than a useful philosophy.
hey – If I can prove that, I could write a book…
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Different Look at Betty Friedan’s Legacy
Post by Niall CBB on Feb 9, 2006, 10:35am
Lee,
You should really read Dworkin works. Some of her stuff is so bizarre that if a male published it he would be sectioned or jailed. In particular check out her views on the benefits of incest.
And this women is an icon?
As for Bush don’t change the subject. A lot of women come her saying “I’m a democrat you’re all horrible Republicans.”
We are not, we know all politicians are trash and we also know that VAWA was renewed unanimously. We will get no aid from that direction.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Different Look at Betty Friedan’s Legacy
Post by scholarlee on Feb 9, 2006, 10:45am
Feb 9, 2006, 10:35am, Niall CBB wrote:
Lee,
You should really read Dworkin works. Some of her stuff is so bizarre that if a male published it he would be sectioned or jailed. In particular check out her views on the benefits of incest.
check. done. how else could I be sure she was NOT being misquoted?
again, I think she got ink because her views were sure to generate much controversy, making much money for someone.
Feb 9, 2006, 10:35am, Niall CBB wrote:
As for Bush don’t change the subject. A lot of women come her saying “I’m a democrat you’re all horrible Republicans.”
We are not, we know all politicians are trash and we also know that VAWA was renewed unanimously. We will get no aid from that direction.
my point was that revisionism can be perpetrated by anyone*. maybe that was a bad example.
guess I’d better call my congressman…
*even me…I just edited this post!
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Different Look at Betty Friedan’s Legacy
Post by scholarlee on Feb 9, 2006, 2:42pm
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Different Look at Betty Friedan’s Legacy
Post by logic101 on Feb 9, 2006, 8:23pm
Feb 9, 2006, 2:42pm, scholarlee
share and enjoy.
Nice job Scholarlee.
“anonymous” sounded like a real ‘piece of work’.
-Logic 101
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Different Look at Betty Friedan’s Legacy
Post by scholarlee on Feb 9, 2006, 9:26pm
oh thank you!
seems I got the last word though – nobody wants to play with me…I’m a little disappointed.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Different Look at Betty Friedan’s Legacy
Post by scholarlee on Feb 10, 2006, 9:20am
Feb 9, 2006, 9:07am, Niall CBB wrote:
Why is it that we are always being told that either feminazis didn’t say that or if they did they didn’t really mean it or that they were just being ‘polemical’ or some other nonsense.
In terms of human misery caused this women is worse to me than Hitler and I mean that quite literally she and her ’sistas’ have destroyed a whole civilization. Everyone is fucking miserable included the women!
Feminazism is male hate. NOW is a lesbian dominated organization that would have all men tagged from birth if it could.
Will be looking for her grave so I can piss on it before I die.
Still hoping for that monument in Washington to Dworkin. Somewhere to crap whilst in our nations capital.
more fun with Betty -
re: lesbians and NOW – strangely, Friedan herself was rabidly anti-gay. it was her vision to create the National Organization for White Straight Educated Upper-Class Women and was horrified – HORRIFIED – that lesbians would even want to be included. In fact, she felt that the CIA and FBI had infiltrated her movement with lesbian provocateurs and spies, and was quite indignant about it.
——————————————————————————–
