My good friend Mitch Berg claims to routinely "
fisk" one of our local columnists, Nick Coleman, of the
StarTribune. Coleman is an unabashed liberal, and while his radio
persona was
uncompelling, his writing usually is more interesting. Whether Berg or Coleman writes the better analysis, and which offers more snark than critique in the balance, I leave to the individual reader of their words.
Berg routinely claims that Katherine
Kersten, the puritanical voice of the local right-wing media, is not fairly
criticized for her content, but merely insulted by her detractors. Berg leaves the reason for the failure to focus on content unstated, but it may be inferred it is because Berg believes
Kersten is rarely in error. To Berg, the left is essentially incapable of validly criticizing a conservative. Because Berg doesn't directly defend her writing, it creates the
impression he believes she is correct, and that all that is 'left' for the left is insult her rather than to fairly fault her writing.
I'd like to address both
Kersten and Berg's sophistry. In the Saturday October 3rd, 2009 edition of the
StarTribune, Jeremy Powers
skillfully takes
Kersten to 'school' about her repudiation of classical literature such as "The Grapes of Wrath" and especially "The Scarlet Letter."
Kersten advocated that there are meaningful, modern
equivalents which should replace many of these historic classics.
Powers artfully shreds
Kersten's assertion, and exposes
Kersten at the same time. First of course, there is good reason such books are classics. To be a classic, the moral of the book is timeless, and the writing is significant on a multiple levels. If it were so easily replaced, it would not be a classic. It allows us to understand the historical contrast of that society to our own; and to read the views of the individuals living in that time, instead of our information about the world past and present being filtered only through our own modern bias.
In fact it is one of our common mistakes to think our solution, our problems are restricted only to our date and time. It makes clear to the student that 'new' issues of today, are in fact, not so new. In the case of the Scarlet Letter, the moral was, as Powers points out, that society's morals often are hypocritical, built up to ensure the powerful are excused, protected, and even offered justification for their indiscretions - while the penniless and powerless receive the heaviest penalties.
In the Scarlet Letter, the character of Hester
Prynne has an affair with a powerful, influential man, a member of the clergy which gave him both social and political influence at that time, in addition to his financial status. The man is able to avoid any penalties and responsibilities for his actions by remaining anonymous, while
Prynne bears the burden of the consequences for their action alone. Her treatment by the colony, and her conduct during her adversity, strongly indicts the enormous inequities inherent in Puritanical New England. Ironically, given
Kersten's puritanical approach on sex and child-rearing, it exposes the unbridled hypocrisy of Puritanism, which sneeringly condemned adultery while tolerating the
uncharitable nature of the town, in stark contrast to the commitment, simple dignity and
hard work of
Prynne.
In what may have been a planned irony against the backdrop of her column today,where she discusses the unhappiness brought about by the women's liberation movement of the 1970's, Powers rightly points out such books instruct us that the 'past' is often not glorious or fair. Classics also often teach us why we have changed society in the ways which we have, and remind us that our forefathers and
foremothers fought battles which we no longer have to fight, because of their sacrifices. While I suspect
Kersten didn't mean to say so, her objection to "The Scarlet Letter," and offering up of more current example, also conveniently and blithely glosses over the realities of those supposedly more moralistic days - and so we fail to learn from the history between the covers of those classics. In probably the funniest element of it all, it points out very clearly that a 'lack of commitment' to marriage and family, both by the Clergyman and
Prynne's actual husband is hardly anything new.
In stark contrast to Power's erudite criticism of
Kersten's narrow, and poorly reasoned understanding of the study of literature, was
Kersten's repudiation of feminism on the opposite page of the same Editorial section.
In her column,
Kersten made three basic claims:
1. In what was probably her most meaningful point, Ms.
Kersten notes that the Wharton study shows that women
aren’t really any happier, perhaps less so, with the new ‘freedoms’ offered by the liberation movement. She says the Wharton study shows that despite not really appreciably working more hours due to now having both job and family to juggle, women
aren’t finding that golden pot at the end of the ‘liberty’ rainbow. This fatigue factor is something called ‘second shift’ effect which was the claim of feminists as the cause of unhappiness and which the Wharton study apparently disputes.
2. That sexual liberty caused women to begin to be objectified by men - and men consequently became less interested in commitment. Thus, the objectification was heightened by, not
lessened by, the liberty discovered in the 1970's and later.
3. That economic and professional opportunity has shown women that, essentially, they now know what men already knew, namely that the professional world is rough and tumble, full of stress and bad bosses, situations which lead to shorter life expectancy for men.
She summarized by
stating that, "Maybe we women got the whole happiness thing backward...we assured ourselves of a golden road ahead if we could throw off.. those ties themselves - those 'prisons' of family, marriage and other fundamental obligations." In short, that women were naive', they simply didn't know how rough the real world was, in what certainly seems like condescension, that women didn't really understand what they were biting off. Moreover, that they were failing to see how their obligations and bonds brought them closer to their 'true goal.' (Unnamed goal, but fill in your own blanks - I suspect she means happiness achieved through motherhood and maternal responsibility).
The sneering contempt which seems to drip from Ms.
Kersten's words is so shot through with fallacy it is almost beyond my feeble capacity to fully reply, but I will try, in hopes that while perhaps I
should't "worry my pretty little head" about such things, maybe if I do, something meaningful will result.
In a big-picture reply first - as for Ms.
Kersten's underlying premise, namely that the reason for the feminist movement was mostly about sexual liberty and economic achievement. Certainly it could not possibly have been about women seeking to, as men have done for
millenia, leave their mark on this world in an enduring way, and in a way beyond raising children for and washing the coats of their husbands.
I suspect if we challenged most Americans to name 25 women from history who weren't the relatives of the very powerful or authors, they could not do so. Perhaps there were and are women like Louisa May Alcott, or Jane Austin or Jane Eyre, who were not the wives of powerful men, but desired to be artists, or architects, or scientists, or theologians. Indeed it really is only as authors, and to a far lesser extent painters, where women were allowed to pursue without recrimination, so long as their works didn't stray into the heady areas of science or theology. Perhaps there were women who sought to stake out their own claims to thought, reason, and charity which stood apart from their husbands or fathers. Sometimes the truth is simple, sometimes, perhaps it is not their naivete' speaking, but rather their desire to be seen as something deeper than the object wrapped around the arm of their spouse.
As for Ms.
Kersten's second premise, namely that men began in 1970 to objectify women and became less inclined to remain married. I would refer her to read please oh, "The Scarlet Letter" - where in the late 1600's, a women was the object of a man's affection - used and eventually cast aside. HE certainly didn't objectify her did he? Oh, certainly not, that never happened prior to the sexual revolution - nor did we have belly/go-go dancers dancing in the Alabama State Courthouse in the middle 60's with the pious, Christian white, male 70 year-
olds shakin' 'their grove
thang' along with them. In fact of course, objectification of women was the NORM prior to the 1900's.
While
Kersten COULD have made a reasonable argument that women (young women) of today take a more
cavalier attitude about sex because pregnancy is so much less likely an outcome, and could have argued reasonably that such an attitude is in the long rung morally self-defeating, teaching the BOYS and the girls with them that our bodies are simply there for pleasure rather than affection - she instead presented a
fallacy, namely that commitment just started dying in 1970, and that objectification is a new phenomenon. Had she availed herself of a myriad of books, from the
Illiad to the story of Lady Godiva - she might have understood the historical bedrock screaming out against the rape and tyranny visited upon women throughout the ages by these highly committed men, such as those of the 2
nd Crusade who, upon reaching Constantinople and hearing of their poor prospects in Palestine, instead decided to sack the city,
killing all the males, raping and slaughtering their wives and daughters, and taking the riches of this Christian city for themselves. I think rather than smirk so self-
satisfiedly at her peers, perhaps Ms.
Kersten would do well to pick up a history book and understand the lesson of classics is timeless because it survives the cultural variance to remind us of our greatest hopes and most commonplace of failures and frailties.
Regardless,
Kersten profoundly misses the reason for the women’s liberation movement. She presents her column as a “they
didn’t know how good they had it” kind of commentary. In what is nothing short of striking irony,
Kersten pretends to suggest that the sexual objectification and slackening of commitments was somehow CAUSED by the liberation movement opposite an editorial about a book EXACTLY detailing a story of sexual objectification and lack of commitment from the 1600’s! And worse, a book
Kersten says we don’t need to learn from because modern stories serve just fine to teach us all the lessons we need – well apparently, Ms.
Kersten, not quite all the lessons.
The truth is the liberation movement effectively began in reaction to effective birth control pills. Women could, with the advent of ‘the pill’, chose the time and place of their pregnancies. They were not bound to cycles of pregnancy and recovery, nor were they reliant upon men using prophylactic protection, a reliance which was dicey at best. With that independence they could, should they so choose, ‘be with’ men as they desired, in much the same way as some men were, and still are, often sexually active with whomever they can get into bed. It’s not perhaps wise or even ethical, but any of us who have been or knew teenage boys or men in their early 20’s, the fact is commitment
wasn’t the first word out of their mouth.
This independence helped pave the way for the ‘free love’ movement of the 1960’s, and along with it many of the long-standing social mores of the day were brought into question. Among those was the idea that women
weren’t bright enough, or serious enough, or strong enough to co-exist in a business world. In truth, it was also that employers feared hiring a young woman who was both likely to get married and likely to leave permanently when she had children. The attitudes changed in the 1960’s, both in that women
weren’t necessarily interested in marriage and family first, and second in that employers truly had less to fear.
But the key element, the thing which drove the ‘liberation’ movement, and in counterpoint to her third
fallacious argument, was that women were finally in a position to live independently. Ms.
Kersten rightly identifies that divorce has skyrocketed, but since WHEN?? The simple answer is, since World War II, not since or certainly not just since 1970. Women were finally free to leave abusive relationships without fear that their children or they would starve. They were no longer required to put up with husbands who would beat them, perhaps rape them – since no law really would bring a husband to justice for assaulting his wife. Women, due to the 1930’s welfare state and the liberation impacts of many women in the work force in World War II –
didn’t have to STAY married no matter what.
Perhaps
Kersten thinks that’s bad, I doubt it, but I don’t. She has here causal effects wrongly placed – women’s liberation
didn’t bring down marriage and commitment – men and a society which silently tolerated impossible relationships deserve the lion’s share of credit. Women no longer have to stay in those
relationships and they don’t. Now if we want to talk about a change in commitment attitudes, I’m all for it, but then let’s talk about the me/greed generation of the 1980’s and what effect it had on commitment, on responsibility, etc… in the same breath.
So, in the end, perhaps women
aren’t happier, but that was hardly the point.
Seeking joy (happiness) in life is a laudable, even penultimate goal, but it is hardly the only goal. Women’s liberation was about the liberty to stand on one’s own two feet, out of the shadow of another, to see and experience life as it came, proving to herself that she was strong, and to see her accomplishments given the credit they deserved. With it has come the realization that things
aren’t always greener on the other side, to be sure, but it is also the case that with it we see FAR less sexism in the workplace, far less objectification there as well, and spousal abuse, in-marriage rape, child abuse, etc.. have ALL been brought into the public eye in ways that never happened before about 1970. Issues long unaddressed now are treated with the seriousness they deserve. Not everything in life is about happiness, sometimes it is about justice and simply doing what is right.
Women are brilliant, equally so as men certainly, and they are plenty smart enough to have been able to decide whether they wanted equality in the workplace and in the bedroom – and anyone with the audacity to say ‘See, you don’t know how good you had it” I suggest is the more ignorant one – and needs to go read Louisa May Alcott to gain some perspective of what life WAS like, or perhaps The Scarlet Letter, or perhaps maybe just go tell a black man how much better he had it when his race were slaves – for while it’s not the same thing (slavery vs. subordination) – the comment is equally reflective of the sneering ignorance of the speaker. Liberty is rarely about ‘ease’ in life, and everything about self-determination.
