Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Misogyny and the Sexual Revolution

The whole Sarah Palin affair and the reaction of the media to her has been rather instructive, hasn't it?

One of the things I've been pondering is how deeply misogynistic many on the left are revealing themselves to be. One example is this one posted by Matthew Archbold at CMR, who as a stay-at-home dad is particularly upset by the notion being expressed in the mainstream media that women really should learn that their place is in the home...

This is the twenty-first century, right?

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm a big supporter of traditional motherhood. As I've written before, though, I recognize that some women some of the time may find it possible or even necessary to make different arrangements for their families. I would never, for instance, criticize the Archbold family for the decision they have made, and I once met a lovely woman who was in the Navy but whose husband was a true homebody and, if I remember correctly, an artist or musician. It wouldn't work for every family--but it definitely worked for them!

It seems a bit surreal to hear the talking heads on the morning shows wondering if Gov. Palin can really be a mom and a governor, or a mom and a vice-president. It seems especially surreal coming from the I-am-woman-hear-me-roar-I-can-be-a-wife-and-mother-and-doctor-and-lawyer-and-Native-American-chief-and-still-have-cookies-for-the-bake-sale contingent of liberal feminism which exudes like an unlikely perfume from the emanations of the mainstream media.

But there's a reason for all the sudden apron-waving and shoe removal among the left and its feminists.

Sarah Palin isn't a threat because she's a mom and a governor, or a mom and a potential vice president. Sarah Palin is a threat because by her actions and example, and those of her family, she rejects the values of the sexual revolution.

Think for a minute about what the left is always saying about sex and reproduction. It boils down to the fact that they're in favor of sex but not of reproduction; more specifically, they insist that for a woman really to be free she must be able to, as they put it, control her fertility, with pills and plastic, implants and shots, and with cheap easy abortion as backup so that she'll never have to put her life or dreams or talents on hold because of an inconvenient pregnancy.

Now, I don't know the details of Sarah Palin's life nor of her church's beliefs on the matter of birth control. But you don't generally have five children by being strongly committed to the contraceptive mentality, and the left has picked up on this.

So Sarah Palin is a threat to the misogynistic left because she does not appear to have "controlled her fertility," and yet she is the Governor of Alaska, and soon, God willing, could be the Vice President of the United States of America.

Sarah Palin illustrates by example that the women of America have been sold a lie. You don't have to "control your fertility" to follow your dreams, to live the life God calls you to, to use your talents, and to achieve whatever you set your mind to.

I could have told them that, of course. The women of America could look at my amazing mom, or at other women like her, to learn that the bearing and raising of children doesn't even remotely turn you into some kind of drudgery-absorbed cretin who knows nothing of the outside world and can't converse intelligently on any topic more challenging than diaper contents or proper cleaning methods. The myth of the stupid shiny housewife, incapable of independent thought or action, would have died an ignominious death a long time ago if the pro-abortion, pro-contraception feminists of the world hadn't take such pains to keep it alive. The lesson still being taught to young women today is this: you can be your own person, have your own life, and be a success so long as you take our magic pills; otherwise, you'll be like one of those women on TV who is agonizing about spots in her toilet or wringing her hands over the ring around the collar.

And behind that attitude is, of course, a near-pathological misogyny that only loves women when they've taken chemical or other means to make themselves just like men, but hates and fears women deeply when they retain their most intrinsically female property, the ability to conceive and bear children.

Sarah Palin stands as a sign of contradiction. She didn't have to stop being a woman, or stop being a mother, to do what she has done. She didn't have to buy into the contraceptive mindset, and she absolutely refused to "choose" abortion when the delightful surprise named Trig came along. Simply by her existence she threatens the contraceptive ideology that has always been more against women than it is for them, though too many women embraced it and sought to make its poison their food.

The welter of vehement rage and scorn being poured in her direction is proof of this. Those who hate Sarah Palin the most are terribly afraid of her, because they're afraid that other women will also suddenly recognize the ugly misogyny that has always lurked underneath the contraceptive imperative of the sexual revolution.


matthew archbold said...

You nailed it.
I'm really looking forward to her speech tonight. Palin will never get a fair shake from the media but she's got an opportunity to speak directly to the people. She HAS TO hit a homerun.

volpecircus said...

Brilliant. The media is not afraid of women, they are afraid of happily pregnant women, they are afraid of grateful and fulfilled mothers. Very well put.