Continuing from this link,
Belatedly, Friedan realized that the all of the comfortable concentration camp housewifery rhetoric had created a backlash against motherhood and traditional women’s skills, which became the dominant trend for women within 10 years. From the opening chapter of “The Second Stage”:
The feminine mystique was obsolete. That’s why our early battles were won so easily… But the new image, which has come out of the women’s movement, cannot evade the continuing tests of real life. That uneasiness I have been sensing these past few years comes from personal truth denied and questions unmasked because they do not fit the new accepted image—the FEMINIST mystique—as our daughters live what we fought for…
I write this book to help the daughters break through the mystique I myself helped to create—and put the right name to their new problems… For women may be in new danger of falling into certain deadly traps that men are now trying to climb out of to save their own lives. We can’t traverse the next stage and reembrace the cycle of life as women alone.
So it would appear that being a man was not good. It was better for a woman to be a woman. Who knew? Better late than never I suppose.
Back to Ms. Steinem. She battled Frieden for the top post at NOW and won. We can’t have any traitors here, can we? And husbands, children and women themselves have been paying the price ever since. So what has she been up to lately,
Steinem still uses the old shame tactics to get women to comply. That is the root of her comments about young female supporters of Sanders only looking for boyfriends. Tough and independent women would support Hillary. Only boy-seeking, wishy-washy women don’t. You want to be seen as tough and independent, don’t you?
So what exactly is this shaming about? It is about sacrificing for Team Woman over your own needs. If Team Woman was worthy of sacrifice, then perhaps there might be consideration given. But is there anything positive that one can say about Team Woman? Does it stand for anything that is positive? Anything? Furthermore, does anybody believe that Bernie Sanders’ rallies are where one might find industrious guys? Ones that might be marriage material? Maybe artsy poser types; and do they really want them?
Young women’s feminist grandmothers did promise they could be anything and everything, and did not mention the tradeoffs. They inflated young women’s self-esteem to the point that they are now so delicate many cannot even handle open debate
When will reality hit? When will their self-esteem bubble pop? Perhaps not until they start losing their looks, which is all that many really had. How is it that these young women were allowed to go down this path. Were not the “feminist grandmothers” adults?
And they have so convinced young women that they do best on their own—never depend on a man; they will always hold you back, don’t you know—that young women have little idea how to form partnerships with men beyond the sex.
This is really pathetic. What were they thinking? I suppose that there is Daddy Government. But how long will he last?
Of sex, of course, those feminist grandmothers fully approve. Causal and often: that is the way the men do it, so that is the way liberated women should do it—always questing for the zipless fuck.
Though it has been mentioned many times, it bears mentioning again. “The way men do it” only applies to most sexually attractive men. Such a generalization is silly. As everybody knows, most any woman can get sex any time that she wants. Perhaps the expression should be “sex as women do it”.
These are Steinem’s offenses, ever so much more than being a happy warrior for abortion. She is a denigrator of the family, traditional women, and an accomplished misandrist to boot.