From a Boomer’s lens: Rethinking feminism today - Paddi Clay

Key topics:Helen Andrews warns of feminisation’s impact on U.S. institutions and culture.Boomer feminist reflects on women’s rising power and historical liberation goals.Discussion on gender differences, political influence, and societal balance..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here..By Paddi Clay*.… after listening to a Helen Andrews speech on the threat feminisation poses to the United States.Can one be concerned about the extent and outcome of the feminisation of the culture of democracies and, simultaneously, be angry at the suppression of Afghani women who may no longer be educated or train as doctors?Is it OK if you feel no guilt about not donning purple and lying down in a public park to protest against GBV, because this won’t move the dial and you’d prefer the South African Police Service to get on with processing the rapist DNA lying around in their labs?As a boomer who identified as a feminist in the 70s and since, I tend to question myself on such issues to check where I may now lie on political spectrum questionnaires.I was preparing dinner for two, on my own, last month, when my husband wandered past the area of action, as husbands tend to do, and proffered an old podcast for my listening pleasure while I slaved over the hot stove. He also poured me some wine. It’s these little things that keep a marriage stable. I accepted both offerings.The podcast was in fact a video of Helen Andrews’ s address: ‘Overcoming the Feminization of Culture’, to the National Conservatism convention in Washington DC in early September.I was interested in listening as I had been ranting at what I perceive to be the current fixation by the creators of movies and TV dramas on making any US President character female. (If it’s a vice-president, that’s okay with me because Julia Louis-Dreyfus was magnificent in Veep.) I know this casting default is because there is a complex woke quota system in place in the US for entertainment productions wanting to enter for industry awards, but I suspect it would probably be on Netflix’s vision board anyway, because of the annoying ‘if you can vision it, it will happen’ magical-thinking of many younger women wanting to get ahead these days.I was also particularly interested because it was the night after Zohran Mamdani had just scored his victory in the New York City mayoral election, thanks to women voters, and had announced his all-female mayoral transition team. .Foaming far-right.Was Andrews exhorting a return to ‘traditional home-maker roles’ for women, as some on the foaming far-right in the United States are proposing?No woman who had a liberated mother, Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, and Gloria Steinem to influence her in the 70s would countenance such a rollback. Nor would Mamdani’s supporters.I did a quick search on Andrews while listening to her. She is an American conservative commentator and editor, and the author of a book called Boomers: The men and women who promised freedom but delivered disaster.Boomers, like me, but particularly the American breed, are currently coming in for plenty of criticism from Gen Z, Millennials and Gen X, who just missed being boomers, for the state of the world they are bequeathing to us.As a liberal who believes in letting others speak their mind, I am constantly on the lookout for insights into exactly what my generation is supposed to have done that was so wrong. It’s likely that I will have a look at Andrews’s book soon.Andrews looks like someone who doesn’t fuss about clothes and could try a more flattering hairstyle. She is certainly not a boomer and has reportedly told an interviewer she self-identifies as ‘mean’ – which I find rather endearing. Andrews contends that the ‘great feminization’, the markedly increased representation and power of women in politics, is unprecedented in history and began happening somewhere between the fall of communism and invention of the internet.She points out that US law schools are majority female; medical schools, college faculty, ditto. 46 per cent of managers are female. Newsrooms are 40% female or gender-equal. The publishing industry is almost 80% female.Should these statistics be music to my ears as a boomer feminist eager to see women rise to combat the male grip on power and authority?Perhaps. But Andrews says feminisation equals wokeness because “The epiphenomenon of democratic feminization is empathy, safety over risk, conformity and cohesion over competition.”.Celebration parallax.Andrews gives poll findings as her backing: Women are less in favour of free speech, two thirds bat for an inclusive society. The elite consensus on immigration is thoroughly feminised. She admits this is a celebration parallax. It is either good or bad depending on where you stand.She thinks this feminisation is not good.If bedrock institutions are fundamentally feminised, she says, they, the rule of law and the justice system, the pursuit of truth in academia, and even American society could collapse. I’m not entirely sure how she got to that dire conclusion: something about the masculine morality approach to the law versus empathy and the masculine academics’ pursuit of truth through facts, not feeling. Is there really such a dearth of female legal sticklers with this ‘masculine’ morality’ and allegiance to the letter of the law, and excellent female STEM professors in colleges in the US?According to Andrews, if women don’t apply for a job there’s something wrong with the recruitment process, the job is not attractive to them, they’re not inclined to it, or they are not skilled for it. Fair points as far as I’m concerned.It is also quite acceptable to me that she warns of the possible extent of the changes that could come about with complete feminisation of all the organs and institutions of a society. We’ve long accepted that behavioural differences exist between men and women and they have different personality and social traits. It follows that women could bring about significant change if they were the majority or completely in charge.And if women in the US are already achieving parity and more in areas they’re behaviourally inclined towards, are physically suited for and favour, why not put an end to this discrimination in favour of women?.Few people would say publicly.I mostly like the fact, however, that Andrews in this address has said what few people would say publicly in the US, the UK, South Africa or other democracies.If an institution or a justice system or academia is controlled mainly by women, and they are all slaves to the extremist schtick of wokeness, as some think they are, the new regime could be as bumptious and destructive as a jackbooted patriarchy.Andrews’s speech also accords somewhat with what I’ve observed locally, as boards, workplaces and industrial sectors are increasingly occupied by women. Take for instance the Non-Governmental Organisation sector in South Africa.It prompts me to wonder what it was we boomer feminists, back in the day, had envisaged as the final goal of women’s liberation: What would be the indicator of our victory? Was it when we had parity with men or when we took over and controlled what they had controlled for so long?I admit I was never close to being a radical feminist revolutionary. I wasn’t incensed enough by the patriarchy. I rather like men. I was only after just treatment and the freedom to choose my own path, which was in sync with my anti-apartheid stance. Those of us not bogged down by our culture or religion or inclined to continuous revolution have largely achieved what we wanted.Andrews didn’t go so far as to duplicate far-right Arizona pastor Dave Partridge’s recent threat to eradicate women’s right to vote: “…because I love America and American women and want to protect our nation from their suicidal empathy.” But she did suggest taking ‘the thumb off the scale’ that is favouring women. She didn’t explain how this could be done, but presumably it would require getting rid of relevant affirmative action legislation. I’d like to reassure Andrews that female non-progressives do still exist in large numbers in the US and the world. Among them will be found, ‘tomboys’, rational thinkers, A-type personalities, ’mean girls’, lawyers, professors and politicians to rival Margaret Thatcher in masculine toughness..Blonde locks and tattoos.I’d also remind her that in the southern US, in the Bible belts, and backwoods, there are amazing young women with blonde locks and tattoos who fish, shoot, ride and even rap, like North Carolina singer Katie Noel, who publicly support Donald Trump. They ‘re well equipped to rise to the challenge of protecting bedrock institutions from a ‘woke takeover’, if they are called on.The Mamdani win, which a CNN exit poll of 4,000 voters said had 84 per cent of women aged 18 to 29, and 65 per cent of women aged 30 to 45 voting for him, has, however, certainly alerted everyone outside the Democrats to the need to pay attention to women voters, who are in the majority in the US and the most consistent at getting to the polls. Should I still regard myself as a feminist? Does it matter if I am or not?Men and women are equal. They are also different. Sometimes in ways we think are good. Sometimes not. We should aim to balance their numbers in our important institutions, judicial systems and academia. Stability is best for effectiveness and productivity. .*Paddi Clay has spent over 45 years in journalism..*This article was originally published by The Dailyfriend and has been republished with permission.

From a Boomer’s lens: Rethinking feminism today - Paddi Clay

Key topics:

Related Stories