ProWomanProLife

  • The Story
  • The Women
  • Notable Columns
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / All Posts / All about Betty

All about Betty

September 20, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek 1 Comment

A commentary today for your reading pleasure on Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique. (Just as I head out the door to a REAL Women conference here in Ottawa. How fitting!) I have read Betty, and found her largely absurd. (It’s the “motherhood as waste of human self” that stuck with me–now really. How did she teach that one to her daughter? But I digress.)

I continue to ponder how those second wave feminists took off–while being so anti-woman in many regards. And I think it has to do with this quote below–from the piece in the New York Sun that I’m linking too.

But her essential point was both down-to-earth and true: Postwar America had taken the ideal of femininity to absurd extremes. Women in the ’50s were encouraged to be childlike, passive, dependent, and “fluffy” (Friedan’s word).

When I look at the magazines in the grocery style aisle, I can’t help but think they are still, for all their “tough working women” rhetoric, consigning women to a “fluffy” bucket. And if not a fluffy bucket–they are certainly defining women in one way, and one way only.

I do believe women are happy and fulfilled where they are free to do what they want to do. The thought I have is that the current wave of feminism (and I lose track, so many of them crash into the shore) is as condemning, as unfriendly, as dictatorial as anything Friedan herself experienced.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Betty Friedan, Christina Hoff Summers, The Feminine Mystique

Comments

  1. Frost says

    October 3, 2008 at 8:32 pm

    … “I can’t help but think they are still, for all their “tough working women” rhetoric, consigning women to a “fluffy” bucket. And if not a fluffy bucket–they are certainly defining women in one way, and one way only.”
    Not sure who “they” are in this sentence, and haven’t studied any grocery store magazines lately, but have some notion of the genre. I suspect the authors of this “defining” (of women) are mostly men, leading women on to embrace a certain manner and lifestyle, ultimately for the hedonistic benefit of other men. E. g., it’s not a secret that homosexual also-men are over-represented in the female fashion industry that advertises heavily in those magazines. And the name of their game is hedonism.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssby feather

Notable Columns

  • A pro-woman budget wouldn't tell me how to live my life
  • Bad medicine
  • Birth control pills have side effects
  • Canada Summer Jobs debacle–Can Trudeau call abortion a right?
  • Celebrate these Jubilee jailbirds
  • China has laws against sex selection. But not Canada. Why?
  • Family love is not a contract
  • Freedom to discuss the “choice”
  • Gender quotas don't help business or women
  • Ghomeshi case a wake-up call
  • Hidden cost of choice
  • Life at the heart of the matter
  • Life issues and the media
  • Need for rational abortion debate
  • New face of the abortion debate
  • People vs. kidneys
  • PET-P press release
  • Pro-life work is making me sick
  • Prolife doesn't mean anti-woman
  • Settle down or "lean in"
  • Sex education is all about values
  • Thank you, Camille Paglia
  • The new face of feminism
  • Today’s law worth discussing
  • When debate is shut down in Canada’s highest places
  • Whither feminism?

Categories

  • All Posts
  • Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
  • Charitable
  • Ethics
  • Featured Media
  • Featured Posts
  • Feminism
  • Free Expression
  • International
  • Motherhood
  • Other
  • Political
  • Pregnancy Care Centres
  • Reproductive Technologies

All Posts

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in