Girls

It's been ages since I've posted on here, so there's probably no one out there anymore, but today I had a thought.  This is a thought that's taken some developing, so here it is, ready to come, ready or not.

The idea of "smashing gender stereotypes" is so old that it appears to be new again.  I was reminded of this as my 2-year-old daughter listened to my Strawberry Shortcake record from 1983 or so, which made fun of the boys wanting to help the girls carry their heavy baskets.  Strawberry Shortcake was the strong, independent girl who didn't need any help from boys.  And then I just saw this video, advertising the new "engineering" girls' toy, Goldieblox.  Aside from the fact that none of those 8-year-old girls know what a record player is, let alone who the Beastie Boys are, I think I get the message.  Baby dolls and pink things are for dumb girls who are stuck in the past, while smart girls want to be engineers.

Growing up I was one of those girls in that advertisement.  I liked science, and did not do dolls.  Every one of my heroes, from Strawberry Shortcake to Orphan Annie to Rainbow Brite told me that this was the way to go.  Even Barbie taught me that, way before Goldieblox.  In college I went into a scientific field where the men outnumbered women at least 10:1, sometimes more.  However, somewhere in there, I realized that I missed out on something.

God made me a girl, and there wasn't much I could do to change that.  This left me, at base, with an insecurity that needed to be dealt with, and I wasn't at peace until it was.  It wasn't until I realized that I could be a geologist, rock hammer in hand, smashing things in the field and be a lady at the same time that I was really secure in who I was made to be.  I wish someone told me you can be both: you can train to be a godly wife and mother, loving your femininity, and at the same love science, building, being dirty and outside, etc.

That's the problem with marketing to little girls the way Goldieblox does.  We've all been here before, and what we're doing is teaching girls that in order to be smart and brave they must despise being feminine and maternal.  This is not an either/or decision.  My little girl loves pink and babies and Disney princesses.  However, she is also intelligent (at 2 years old she can assemble simple Lego sets) and loves books, and I don't see any reason for teaching her that those desires are in competition.

Feminism and Consumerism

Another result of this movement away from the land was the rise of feminism.  In her book The Feminization of American Culture, Ann Douglas describes the rise of modern feminism through analyzing 19th century women novelists.  In a rapidly industrializing economy upper-class women felt the need to justify their increasingly ample leisure time.  These ladies had the old-world benefits of servants, along with the new-world benefits of automation, which left them with a lot of time on their hands.  Douglas traces this movement from production to consumerism while analyzing Harriet Beecher Stowe's novels:

"In the newly commercialized and urbanized America of the middle decades of the nineteenth century, the woman consumer, Stowe demonstrates, is more important, more indispensable, than the woman producer; luxury items can and must function as necessities.  With her usual acumen, Stowe had grasped the actual meaning of the sentimental heroine and her crucial role in the rise of consumer culture."

This older feminism eventually gave rise to the newer feminism.  The sentimental idealization of women's roles included the idealization of any office they could hold.  Anything a mother did for her children was excused for sentimental reasons, and Douglas cites at least one early feminist who joined combat in the Civil War as a Mother to her country.

For the first time in history people were not measured and counted by what they could produce, but by what they could consume. Many children in a home was, until recently, considered a blessing.  Those little ones would grow the farm and provide for the community and their parents as they grew, more little producers eventually made more wealth for everyone.  Now many people forgo the privilege of having children because they don't want to raise little consumers who will take from their parents.  As Wendell Berry noted, "the present natural ambition of the U.S. is unemployment.  People live for weekends, or vacations, or retirement; moreover, this ambition seems to be classless, as true in the executive suites as on the assembly lines."

Well-Behaved Women Don't Invent History

So I've been having fun continuing the project of my massive family tree.  The next step was to do quick internet searches to find historical people in the line and write a short summary of who they were and what they did.  Yes, I know, the internet is full of bad information--but I've mostly just been looking to see if someone was known in history at all.  One thing that I noticed about halfway through the Middle Ages somewhere is that there were some pretty amazing women around then!  Here are some of the more interesting ones (both good and nasty):

Aelia Eudoxia (d. 404): She was the wife of the Eastern Roman Emperor, Arcadius.  She actively supported orthodox, Nicene Christianity and gave money to fund the anti-Arians.  She became an enemy of John Chrysostom when he condemned women's lavish dresses and parties, because she thought she was being targeted.  She had him exiled twice.  During his second exile she bled to death after miscarrying her seventh child.

Aelia Eudocia (401-460):  She was a servant who had been deprived of her father's inheritance by her evil brothers.  She went to court in Constantinople to plead her case, and her persistence attracted the attention of the emperor Theodosius' sister, Pucheria.  Pucheria hired her as a lady-in-waiting and taught her manners, introducing her to her brother.  Eudocia and Theodosius II were married and she became empress.

Basina de Thuringia:  She left her husband and went to Gaul (France), where she proposed to the King of the Franks and he married her.  She is known for saying, "I want to have the most powerful man in the world, even if I have to cross the ocean for him."  She is the mother of Clovis, the first Frankish king to convert to Christianity.

Theodelinde of Bavaria (570-625):  Married to the King of the Lombards, but when he died she chose to marry his brother, making him king.  She worked hard to restore orthodox/Nicene Christianity to primacy in Italy, fighting against Arianism.  She built many churches in Lombardy and Tuscany, including a cathedral.

Fredegonde (543-597):  A servant and mistress of the Frankish king Chilperic I.  After he murdered his wife she became queen.  She had one brother-in-law assassinated and made attempts on the life of her other two brothers-in-law.  When her husband mysteriously died, she took his money and her infant son and took refuge in a cathedral in Paris.  She had her infant nephew killed so that her son would inherit his lands.  Gregory of Tours says that she was "ruthlessly murderous" and "sadistically cruel" with "few rivals in monstrousness."  She may be the source of the evil stepmother in Cinderella fables.

Emma Welf of Altorf (d. 875):  Wife of the German King Louis.  She led an army against insurrectionists who tried to capture her husband.  The traitor was so frightened by the arrival of the queen at the battle lines that he fled to exile.  She had seven children.

Gisele, Princess of France (820-876):  Youngest daughter of the French Louis I and named after Charlemagne's sister (her aunt).  She was known for her piety and virtue and was the sole educator of all nine of her children.

Oxburth of Wight (810-835):  She was the mother of Alfred the Great who said she was "a religious woman, noble both by birth and by nature."

One of the bumper stickers that I despise the most is "Well-Behaved Women Don't Make History."  I've always tried to come up with a witty comeback for that one, and my husband finally helped me come up with one: "Well-Behaved Women Don't Invent History."  These Ancient and Medieval women were anything but pushovers and pawns.  They influenced entire nations and empires--either by their righteousness or wickedness.  Many of them even converted their husbands through their examples of faithfulness, or were only known because their powerful children praised them, like Alfred the Great's mother.  I'm not sure of the definition of "well-behaved" would be, but hopefully the feminists aren't asking for another Fredegonde.

We Girls Can Do Anything! Right, Barbie?

The above line was probably my most cherished slogan song from childhood.  I didn't really get what it meant, I just liked Barbie dolls.  Now I get the irony (at least in connection to Barbie dolls): girls can do whatever they want, but they will most likely never look like a Barbie!

This was the type of feminism I saw as a child.  It was like the American dream--you can do anything you set your mind to--tailored for elementary-age girls.  As I got older I realized that there were other types of women who were called "feminists" and they looked nothing like Barbie!  Stereotypically they were about despising what would be considered "traditional" female rolls.  I did some reading by the founding feminists, including some of Simone de Beauvoir, who was essentially an existentialist (Jean-Paul Sartre was her lifelong boyfriend).  Most modern, university professor-type feminists would point to her or someone closely associated to her as the founder of feminism.  My mother-in-law, a self-described feminist, says that de Beauvoir is one of her favorite authors (and she is also a former university professor).

De Beauvoir clearly despises women's traditional roles, and for the most part, ends up despising women, but it seems as though feminism has changed a lot in the last 60 years or so since her writing.  When I had my firstborn son, my mother-in-law (and her feminist friends) fiercely defended my right to be a stay-at-home mom--because of their feminism!  This was definitely the last place I had expected to be supported in my convictions, but that's because feminism has become a Barbie feminism--girls can do whatever they want.  If I want to be a stay-at-home mom, then I should.  If I want to be CEO of a company, then I should.

Is this feminism anymore?  I think in their denunciations of Sarah Palin, liberal feminists are revealing their true positions.  They don't like her using the "feminist" label because she's not a secular liberal.  All this really shows is that feminism is quite dead.  There is no place for a woman anymore to despise her biology and still claim to speak for women (even Hillary Clinton is a mom)!  However, secular liberalism is most definitely not dead--although it is terminally ill.  Current feminists claim that their label can only be used for those women who also subscribe to a liberal, secular social policy--those are the only real feminists.

So, ladies, take heart!  Although the smaller idol of feminism has been toppled, the larger idol of secular humanism is about to fall--even now the axe is laid to the foot of it!  This has the worshippers worried and they are crying out louder to their god, cutting themselves and moaning like the priests of Baal.  What an encouragement to continue in our works as godly women, not wearying of doing good.  God is blessing the work of our hands, and as David knew, it doesn't matter that Goliath is big--he just makes a louder noise when he falls!