Bulk Book Review

The Ungodly Rage of Feminism and Feminist Theology

Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism, 1994, Simon & Schuster

Rene Denfeld, The New Victorians: A Young Woman's Challenge to the Old Feminist Order, 1995, Warner Books

Donna Steichen, Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, 1991, Ignatius Press

Betty Steele, The Feminist Takeover, 1987, Tercet

Philip Davis, Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality, 1998, Spence Publishing

Reviewed by Jeffrey Stueber

"It's the penis, stupid!"

No, this is not a cruel parody of Bill Clinton's campaign slogan of the 1992 presidential election campaign year: "It's the economy, stupid." Nor is it the punch line of a wicked sexual joke. It's a correct assessment of the ideology of what conservatives would call "radical feminism" or perhaps what would describe the world view of Rush Limbaugh's "femiNazis." Actually it's the view brought out in the expositions on feminism of Denfeld and others.

When Denfeld talks about the "new Victorians" in her title, she is alluding to a time when sexual activity was meant for marriage and women were pure and paragons of virtue. Voting rights and free speech were not for them and women were often treated more like property than marital partners. Supposedly the sexual liberation movement achieved a release from this oppression. Denfeld was born a year after the National Organization for Women was founded and hails many of the changes the feminist revolution has wrought. "We have it much better now than our mothers ever did," she says. This is because abortion is legal, ERA was passed, battles against sex discrimination in the workplace were successful, the woman's health movement was launched culminating in more medical knowledge than ever before, and more women achieved high stature in business than ever before. The first wave of feminism has achieved so much that one might wonder what is left for it to accomplish. It turns out, to the new Victorian feminists, there is much more, but not anything that is likely to lead to more cooperation between man and woman. More likely it is to lead to more aggression, anger, and perhaps even rage.

What puzzles Denfeld is that, given the nature of feminism's "birthright" to many women her age, so many women refuse to join the woman's movement. They won't even call themselves "feminist" perhaps because these women understand the true aims of Denfeld's new Victorians. In a March 1990 survey in Seventeen magazine, 72 percent of young women said they don't consider themselves feminist. Denfeld quotes plenty of feminists she has spoken with, and spent time with, who feel that this new feminism does not speak for them. "The personal is political," so they say, and everything in life reflects the supposed subordination of women. Or more specifically, the problem is patriarchy, a term Denfeld finds is poorly defined like the modern understanding of the term "racism" which can be applied to any group of people, or one person, whom you seek to brand akin to a bacteria infesting a sore. Because women assume that modern society was crafted by patriarchy, then capitalism and any hierarchy in our society must have been due to men's dominance (as if women would not have come up with hierarchal systems and capitalism if they were in charge throughout our history). The proper analogy to draw is between feminist theories/reasoning and a plugged toilet and Denfeld takes it.

This type of circular reasoning is the basis of feminist theory on the so-called patriarchy. Starting with the unquestioned assumption is that our culture is patriarchal, feminist theorists then set out to prove it. Since women obviously do have economic and political power (from the consumer dollar to the ballot box), leading theorists have decided that the value underlying our social structures must be patriarchal. Why are they patriarchal? Because men control them. How do men control? By imposing "masculine" values. What makes them masculine? Because they're hierarchical. What makes them hierarchical? Because they're based on linear thinking. Why are they based on linear thinking? Because they come from dualism. What does dualism come from? From a society shaped by patriarchy. Just what makes it a patriarchy? Because men control it. How do they do that? By imposing masculine values, you dimwit. This is the philosophical equivalent to a clogged toilet bowl, with terms like masculine, ethos, dualism, hierarchies, paradigms, and dyads, swirling in a meaningless whirlpool with no beginning and no end.

How far might this feminism go? I was not surprised to find Denfeld citing quotations from Louise Chernin, co-president of Seattle NOW, saying "Men are the enemy." I was also not surprised that Denfeld quotes feminist Andrea Dworkin as saying that sexual intercourse is an act of male dominance over the female (Sommers has already told me as much in her book). What I was surprised to learn is that some feminists are condemning abortion, something that once was the "holy grail" of feminism. This is because the problem is, frankly, the penis. Abortion tends to make some women more apt to have more intercourse with males and thus while many feminists have lauded the sexual revolution as enabling women to have sex with whom they choose and as often as they choose, they now find that their anti-male campaign runs head on against the results of what feminist have wrought: more sex between man and woman. Because some like Andrea Dworkin go so far as to attribute male-female intercourse as an act of male dominance, they now must find they must destroy what they have accomplished. Women are now told to become chaste once again in the old Victorian style. Only this time what second-wave feminists would really like is the abolition of all sexual activity between male and female. That means a culture of lesbians who don't need men. These feminists are a small cult but have a great voice and it's doubtless whether they will ever garner the support of most women.

This is all nonsense, of course. When women have to argue so ridiculously, the only possible explanation is that they lack a certain goal in life which their brand of feminism seeks to fill. In essence, this brand of feminism is a religion of sorts to them, or more specifically, an ideology. Religious beliefs can be falsified provided the religion at least attempts to speak of reality in concrete terms, but these feminist beliefs are anything but falsifiable. What would make reasonable sense to these feminists, and the rest of us, is to promote equality with men and value each and every life, whether unborn or born. This is perhaps exactly what these feminist would never choose to do.

This brings us to the religious aspect of the feminist movement, something both Denfeld, Steichen, and Davis speak of (with Davis speaking of it in more depth). More to the point, what I am about to speak of is what might be called "feminist theology" and it goes something like this (per Davis). During the Stone Ages, particularly between 40,000 and 3,500 B.C., humanity first achieved civilization. The earliest civilizations worshipped the Goddess which symbolized life, nurture, growth, fertility, and rebirth. Most societies were not man-centered and hence were very peaceful. These societies, however, were defenseless against the onslaught of roving barbarians who were mostly Indo-European and Semitic who fought over nearly everything. They squashed whatever cultures they came in contact with and eventually forced their patriarchal system upon the systems that were formerly Goddess worshipping. Hierarchal systems were forced upon these societies and Goddess worshipping had to go underground. This is where we find ourselves today.

Davis finds little evidence for utopian-Goddess societies and cites several books that were used to prove that such a society existed (Elizabeth Gould Davis' The First Sex, Merlin Stone's The Paradise Papers, and others). What Davis finds is a peculiar twisting of the evidence, an ignoring of facts, and far-fetched linguistic speculations. No societies really show signs of displaying a true matriarchal society and not surprisingly, says Davis, a large portion of Goddess books come from artists and art historians. This suggests that those who deal more closely with the histories of these cultures - anthropologists, archaeologists, and others - have nothing concrete to say about the existence of a true ancient Goddess culture because there is no hard evidence of any such Goddess-loving culture. Only wild speculation can fill the void of evidence.

Goddess feminists crave to take over former patriarchal land in a theological way almost as much as Hitler craved to take over neighbor's land in a quest for "living space." This makes the feminist movement at times more worried about their quest against patriarchy than solving today's women's problems. Denfeld tells a story of when her and her feminist friend Anne attended a women's conference - what looked like a "feminist Disneyland" in Denfeld's words. Included was literature advocating feminist theology, Goddess worship. Anne asks Denfeld, "Just what does any of that goddess stuff have to do with feminism? With things like my daughter, her education, health insurance, child care?" The answer is, strangely enough, "nothing." Second-wave feminism is not about solving everyday problems women long to have solved. It's about taking over alien territory - everything and anything that smells of patriarchy.

Strangely enough, Goddess anti-patriarchal feminism has invaded Catholicism in ways no Pope could ever imagine. Here Steichen proves useful and I would do well to let her define feminist theology in her own words.

"Feminist theology" is not the study of what can be known about the true God but justification for the invention of a symbolic deity better suited to their ideological purposes. Its formula is drawn from comparative religion: first the god, then the dance and finally the story; that is, first the subjective emotional experience - interpreted in collective encounters - then the ritual and finally the new religion. Feminist ritual is not intended as worship but as psychological manipulation and political theater. The drive for feminist "liberty" very slightly conceals an intent to impose universal submission to its own rigid orthodoxy. As Brigitte Berger has observed, feminism has become a new imperialism.

The same themes that resonate in Denfeld's book also resonate in Steichen's: patriarchy has oppressed females and imposed a patriarchal religion (Christianity) on everyone. The new feminism must not only overcome; it must obliterate its opponent. Quotations which appear early in the book from female theologian Dr. Rosemary Ruether seem to appear time and time again in different and stranger forms in other discussions of feminist theology, and they frame the anti-patriarchal attitude that reverberates through Steichen's book. We are told Ruether often finds paganism more attractive than Christianity and, not unexpectedly, she finds a lot of evil done in the name of Christ. This shows me the outside air of an inwardly hurt child who is looking for a substitute religion to replace what has been damaged. Ruether says Judaism and Christianity are "linear" religions which see history as moving from past to future "over against the nature and fertility religions, pagan religions" which view life as cyclic. In a 1980 essay, she called for a religious equivalent of the French Revolution to overthrow the authority of the hierarchy. There can't be much left of the Church [large "C"], but nevertheless Ruether has stayed in the Church because, for reasons repeated later in Steichen's book, she feels she can do some good by helping the Church to a brighter future. Ruether is in fact no different than any other revolutionary, working within that which is so terribly hated.

If you bend a stick far enough, it will break. One has to wonder if that has happened to the Catholic faith of many of these women. For instance, Joan Keller-Maresh is an ex-nun who joined up with the Wiccan religion after journeying from her Catholic faith in which she vowed to live for God alone to her worship of the "goddess" in herself. Her previous spiritual life was "a sheltered garden" lacking "a sense of reality." It's no wonder she left it, but perhaps she is now "blown about on the winds of fad" as Steichen puts it. She still goes to Mass, but why? Equally incomprehensible are the comments from Sandra Bot-Miller who, upon being asked by Steichen whether Wicca or Catholicism is true, reverted to an explanation any relativist would find worthy of praise. "I don't use the word truth. I don't think there's one true religion that you're going to be saved by." Yet, Jesus has clearly said He is the way, the truth, and the life and there is no way around this except taking the line Miller does by sacrificing the notion of truth upon the alter of the goddess.

Equally disturbing is the fact that at times Steichen indicates that many women find themselves drawn into paganism because of sex. A workshop called "A Theological Approach to Teaching Human Sexuality" epitomizes the "moral desolation of the feminist search for unrestricted ecstasy" in Steichen's words. She goes on to say that "spiritual feminists" have not learned the same lessons secular ones have: herpes, AIDS, and other plagues decimate unrestrained sexuality. Some of the ideas presented at the beginning of the workshop were helpful, such as the idea that sexuality has been harmed by the belief that it should not be talked about. This is true and sexuality should be talked about. A Mrs. Bartscher and Dr. Timmerman developed the course because many women got pregnant without knowing how, yet assumptions later presented tend to exaggerate the need for sexual fantasy and the view of sex as an integral part of everyone's personality. It's as if sexual activity were on par with the need for the daily breakfast followed by orange juice. The addictive need for sex shows up in a later discussion of grievances presented by feminist Mary Jo Weaver during a weekend conference. Many of the grievances, Steichen says, do not explain feminist rage. For example, why would cautions against sexual activity be condemnations of women? They could just as likely be condemnations of men, and some condemnations in the Bible seem to be more directed at men. Steichen estimates the reason for this may be the tie in with the "freedom of choice" agenda which includes an emphasis on abortion. When feminists like these go this far, they are ready to part company with any Biblical teaching of chastity and any that may weigh heavily against any right to abortion.

We might gather a small amount of consolation from the fact that Canada is dealing with this same radical form of feminism ever so much as America. Writing nearly ten years ago, Steele says until the middle 1980s the Canadian and United States feminist movements were studied as if one phenomenon, that is until the Canadian movement pushed ahead. American feminist leaders now study the tactics of their Canadian sisters, such as Doris Anderson, "mother" of the Canadian feminist movement and editor from 1958 to 1977 of Chatelaine, a prime source of feminist ideology. Celebrations have broken out all over Canada over feminist accomplishments, Steele tells us, and American sisters have congratulated their sisters up north for, among others things, Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This bans discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, age, or mental handicaps. However there is a wolf in sheep's clothing here. The additional subsection (2) clause, usually omitted in media reports, states that discrimination is permissible if in a program designed to help the disadvantaged. Steele hears one American feminist ask why there is no resistance to feminism in Canada. Canadian men seem "marvelously acquiescent and conciliatory," she says. Now may not be the time to be that easy-going.

Steele would agree with Denfeld that it is only recently that the feminist movement has become so hate-filled because Steele features a chapter on "evolution and patriarchy." Surprisingly, throughout history, women have done rather well. Female pharaohs once ruled Egypt and there were powerful queens in Greece and female tribal leaders in Britain and Gaul. Many women even owned their own land. In America, men often supported women in their efforts which often centered on social issues like voting and slavery. It is only lately that feminist women have driven such a wedge between them and men.

Women must achieve equality with men. But who wants equality with animals. I don't wish to be his equal. I'm already better than he is.

That quotation is from HERizons, a national feminist magazine published in Winnipeg and partially funded by federal agencies. I can imagine what fun legislators would have attaching their notions of "hate-speech" to these words, but somehow you never hear "hate-speech" attached to such words as these. Apparently the emphasis on hatred toward men is not so recent at all because in the 1960s, branches of SCUM (the Society for Cutting Up Men) were organized from coast to coast. This hatred finds its center in a notion that, as Naomi Wall would later say, present society is "a system that depended for its survival on the exploitation of women - as homemakers, as sex objects, as submissive and dependent pillars of the family." We should be able to understand the feminist motive now because if a person sees himself or herself as being held captive, he or she will naturally vent hatred toward the captor. Women are seen as those held captive toward men much like the Israelites were held captive by the Egyptians. Unlike the Israelites, today's feminists cannot summon a plague or two or part the Red Sea to lead their sisters to freedom. If they could launch plagues at men, oh what plagues they would launch!

"Liberation" became the battle cry of feminists. This continued liberation has caused a "society in limbo" as Steele would say in a chapter title later in her book. The sexes have become alienated. No longer are the men the "bread winners" who come home to take care of wife and children. Women are now supposed to be independent and men are too quick to learn this lesson. I would suspect that most of us know of a man who has impregnated a woman who has been left to mother the child after he departs. Why should a man worry about providing for his wife when marriage is seen as a cage or trap for women. The fairer sex has also become less fairer because women have taken the initiative in sexual encounters and often been sexual predators. Violence by women has increased and so has divorce precisely during the turbulent periods of the sexual revolution and the change from social-issues feminism to liberationist man-hating feminism. This may be because feminists are trying to change what is unchangeable, much like pushing against an immovable object. As far as the hate-filled rhetoric, some do get sick of it all. Bonnie Kreps, a former Chatelaine columnist, resigned from the Toronto New Feminists and retired to a 17-year-old marriage and motherhood. She was sick of the hate-filled speeches and was somehow considered "liberal" because she refused to believe that half the human race was innately bad. Some actually do wake up from the feminist malaise, but many do not.

Humanism, if it is to be successful, must reach the children who are most vulnerable and impressionable. Too many adults still cling to "fundamentalism," which means rigid Biblical standards of conduct and thought. Radical feminism seeks out the colleges. Sommers is, or was at the time of her writing, an associate professor of philosophy at Clark University. Specializing in moral theory, Sommers should be exceptional at her critiques of feminist theory. She cites polls similar to the ones Denfeld cites which show that most women do not consider themselves feminist. Since "gender feminists" lack a grass roots coalition, Sommers says, and are unable to affect the proper social change, they feel there is a media backlash against them. What is clear is that they "stole feminism," and this is the idea upon which Sommers hangs the theme of her book.

Chapter one begins with Sommers attending a feminist conference celebrating the work of Carolyn Heilbrun who touts Marilyn French's The War Against Women as a book that "lays out women's state in this world - and it is a state of siege." Heilbrun most likely had a successful career at Columbia, the school from whence she was retiring, but felt much more could have been done. "In life . . . women who speak out usually end up punished or dead. I'm lucky to escape with my pension and a year of leave," she told the New York Times. There are enormously more women professors now than before but that didn't seem to impress Heilbrun who snapped, "Female doesn't mean feminist." The rest of the day was spent listening to the tales from women who felt besieged. Even Gloria Steinem was there and offered suggestions to deal with "patriarchal schools" which was an "underground system of education" in which a women could perhaps exchange her services for, perhaps, lessons in Latin American History. Sommers thinks Steinem would have women set up centers for training political organizers. She [Sommers] doesn't think it's really that bad and concludes:

For whom do these "engaged and enraged" women at the conference speak? Who is their constituency? It might be said that as academics and intellectuals they speak for no one but themselves. But that would be to mistake their mission. They see themselves as the second wave of the feminist movement, as the moral vanguard fighting a war to save women. But do American women need to be saved by anyone?

Just how bad can it be? Sommers tells of Annie Ballad, a 1988 graduate of Harvard who felt a terrible contradiction between her private life and what she was learning in her feminist studies. She had been persuaded that every time her boyfriend penetrated her, he was raping her, a feeling that almost led her to a nervous breakdown. She was cognitively aware enough to realize what was happening and successfully deprogrammed herself out of her feminism. And here in this essay we've come full circle from Denfeld speaking that heterosexuality was what really troubled gender feminists (or second wave feminists) to Sommers giving us a practical example of the results of this attitude.

What the second wave radical feminists really want is a new form of utopia - one that either eliminates men altogether and replaces it with a lesbian dominated culture or leaves men around while women dominate virtually every cultural activity. These feminists have been hurt in their past, somehow, and seek revenge. That's really it in a nutshell and nothing will dissuade many of them. Following the Biblical example, they should forgive men for not all men are the monsters these feminists suppose. They won't though, and thus they show the dangers of unspent anger. The shame is that they are ruining our culture and thus possibly undermining years of feminist progress. That, unfortunately, is the price of an anger that may never die.