Marxism in a Frumpy Dress

Time for a bad idea to die

“If women of the world unite, and get to work, they may flourish more fully in the private and the public spheres.”

So ends a Slate review of Linda Hirshman’s Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World, by Meghan O'Rourke. Just in case you think that Marxist allusions are misplaced, there’s more:

" ‘Deafened by choice, here's the moral analysis these women never heard,’ she says: Until there is more equity in the cultural norms for child-rearing and household tasks, each time a woman decides to ‘opt out’ she is making a political decision that reinforces an already ingrained social inequality. Women who believe otherwise suffer from a mixture of false consciousness and impractical idealism.”

False consciousness is the preferred Marxist diagnosis for those “deafened by choice.” Another way of viewing “deafened by choice” is that it is “what happens when people leave you alone to make your own damn decisions.” Like true Marxists everywhere, Hirshman and all committed feminists simply cannot stand the idea that women may not agree with their take on gender politics. Don’t get her wrong, she is all in favor of choice, as long as it is the same as her choice. It is other people’s choices that seem to bother her.

Did you catch that bit about a decision to raise kids being a political act that reinforces an already ingrained social inequality? How dare you, Silly Housewife, presume to know what is best for you and your family! You are a traitor to the cause! You are a traitor to all women, indeed to all humanity! Off with your head! Well, she didn’t say that last piece, but it sure is inherent in the logic.

To continue from the review: “Staying at home, Hirshman argues, ‘allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women.’ ” Here, in a nutshell, is the essence of the feminist illusion. The ur-premise. Stay-at-home moms cannot be “fully flourishing humans,” whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Apparently, we are supposed to believe that “human flourishing” is a function of the sum of one’s daily interpersonal encounters with casual acquaintances and strangers. This is the premise on which all of feminist theory is based. Whatever men do or have that women do not do or have as much of is precisely the thing that defines human happiness and fulfillment. Call it the “Grass is Greener” theory.

The second gross assumption in the quote above is that raising children is not the natural or moral responsibility of women. I suppose. Nothing could be less natural than a female mammal raising her young. This is another aspect of feminism that makes it clear that it is an ideology fiercely struggling to maintain relevance in the face of certain doom. How can any theory, especially one based on human behavior, survive when it is based on so many blatantly unnatural premises? Virtually every species of animal on the planet displays significant physical and behavioral differences between male and female. And in those species most closely related to our own, females overwhelmingly bear, feed, raise, teach and fiercely protect their young. What kind of obtuse, well educated, idiocy permits feminists to believe that they can force that to be different in humans, and that the result will be greater happiness and fulfillment for all?

Obviously, all of this has no particular bearing on what specific social customs are required to support our sex-specific behaviors. That’s where that pernicious “choice” come into play. I along with most Americans am entirely comfortable leaving it up to individual women to define how best to fulfill their natural behavioral and social imperatives. Want to stay at home an be a full-time mom? Great. Want to work part time outside the home so as to get some of that precious human flourishing? Great. Want to work full time and use day care? Great. Hubby wants to stay home while you work? I’m not so sure that I agree with that approach, but hey, it’s your choice. So, great.

I must be deafened by choice, eh? But that is to be expected, being a man and all. I probably want to reinforce patriarchal privilege.

One more, from the review: “Unlike others, she is willing to come out and say, in no uncertain terms, that the luxury of making our own decisions as if they had no larger implications isn't ethical at this point in time.”

Wow, man. What an insight. The only thing that prevents this from being a fatuous truism is that you know she isn’t referring to a general sense of looking out for the big picture. What she means is that it is unethical to act out of synch with the feminist zeitgeist.

Thus is betrays a core problem with Feminism and all true leftist ideologies. They are based on assertions. Not facts, not proof, not evidence, not observed behavior, but mere assertions. Marx and Friedan are more akin to the ancient prophets than to serious thinkers. They are deductive rather than inductive, and so betray the sins of flawed deduction. They simply assert that x, y and x are so, and then build fabulous palaces of theory around the assertions. For the feminists, Linda Hershman has no greater intellectual obligation than to speak in “no uncertain terms.” Those who agree with her assertion cannot fathom how others could disagree. Annoying certainty becomes the hallmark of the serious leftist.

No ideology based on this trifecta of envy, unnaturalness, and illogic can possibly bring happiness, fulfillment or even its stated goal of equity. All it gives us is a bunch of Marxists in frumpy dresses desperately trying to share their unhappiness. I know that the post-feminist age is evolving. I wish it would hurry up.

Archives of "The View from the Ground"

Send an e mail to Patrick J. Shanahan

Visit his website at: