I tend to agree with this article. One issue I have, however, is that some of the quotes from the new feminist, Alice Von Hildebrand, seem to still place men and women in competition, something I’d really like to avoid. See this:
Women, she said, are not called to be “productive” in this material way, but every woman, whether married or unmarried, is “called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother.” “She knows intuitively that to give, to nurture, to care for others, to suffer with and for them – for maternity implies suffering – is infinitely more valuable in God’s sight than to conquer nations and fly to the moon.”
She identifies something men can’t do, which is mother, and then declares that to be an elevated thing over and above all the contributions men make to our society. That doesn’t sound right to me and indeed, seems to keep to the ruts that traditional feminism formed, only choosing to change the reasons why women are better than men. What am I missing?
But in general, on the damage that old-school feminism has done to women, men and relationships–well, I see that very clearly. I should pick up one of Alice Von Hildebrand’s books. So much to read, so little time.
by 
Andrea:
Only because you asked, I’ll weigh in that perhaps you missed the fact that if we take that quote as it stands (or even include the paragraph that precedes it in the article), AvH is not comparing women to men, but the sorts of acts to which women are naturally inclined to the sorts of acts to which men are supposedly inclined — act to act, not person to person.
Keeping in mind that in second- and third-wave feminism, the “rules” of patriarchy are still tacitly accepted, since feminists are trying to get women to deny the reality of the differences between the genders and usurp the place of men albeit in the same patriarchal power roles, we can posit that AvH is trying to say one of two things here:
(1) that the “acts of virtue” to which a woman is naturally inclined (according to AvH) are “infinitely more valuable” than the sorts of acts to which men are naturally inclined;
or even (2) that the “acts of virtue” to which a woman is naturally inclined (according to AvH) are “infinitely more valuable” than the sorts of acts to which second- and third-wave feminists wish women would incline themselves.
Note that while (1) does seem to have a hint of “competition” between the sexes (or at least the proper acts of the sexes as AvH sees it), I think (2) is arguably a better (and at least a more charitable) reading. And (2) doesn’t even make reference to men except by way of the second- and third-wave feminists’ adoption of traditionally male “natural acts” (conquering and what have you) as their own goal for women. Thus, AvH is probably trying to engage feminists on their own terms (which seek to “masculinize” women) rather than spark “competition” between the genders.
As a postscript, somewhat in support of reading (2), I will add that AvH does not seem to evaluate in this article whether or not “conquer[ing] nations and fly[ing] to the moon” are valid examples of the types of acts to which men are naturally inclined. But even if they’re not, her argument according to reading (2) would hold even more so, a fortiori. Also I should add that I’ve never read anything she’s written other than this, so I could be completely wrong here.
But you asked.
Thanks, William. I did ask. Interesting. These ideas sounds reasonable to me!