There is a hauntingly good post at the New Yorker this week. John Cassidy asks the question “Why Republican Women Vote for Santorum” and offers up an amazingly insightful and frightening response from one of his commenters:
About women supporting Santorum: I too find this baffling, and can only attribute it to some form of Stockholm Syndrome. As someone who grew up among born-again and evangelical Christians in Appalachia, I would hypothesize that women who have accommodated themselves to living an evangelical lifestyle have nothing to gain from questioning the premises of Christian patriarchy. Their lives are more comfortable, less fraught with domestic conflict, if they simply decide to be happy and make the most of their assigned roles. Although to a feminist the trajectory of their lives seems constrained, on a day-to-day basis evangelical women feel productive and empowered by playing a dynamic role in their churches and schools, from which they derive a potent sense of community. Nor are they necessarily barred from having a job. They have avenues for self-expression such as crafts, baking, or book clubs. (If your first reaction is to disdain these, then unless you’re a professional artist you probably have too high an opinion of your own creative outlets.) In fact, when I recall the women I grew up under, they didn’t think men were superior at all; they took the patronizing attitude that men were to be indulged in their masculine delusions. It would be elitist/snobby/condescending/wrong to view such women as passive or merely subservient. How many of us want to challenge the social constructs within which we have created active lives that are reckoned as meaningful? At any rate, this is my best effort to make sense of the women’s vote, which is otherwise unfathomable and preposterous to me.
—CWolfe
Personally, I lay this at the door of the more radical aspects of 2nd Wave feminists, whose zeal to hermetically seal women away from their everyday realities, their faiths, their families, the men they loved and their histories was so hyperbolic that they succeeded in demonizing the whole movement for a great many people.
We left these women behind out of an intolerance for their realities and a disdain for their capacity to endure and succeed within a very narrow world-view. Now, we’re inheriting the wages of that elitism and snobbery. They were too absolutist, in too much of a hurry, and to unwilling to even contemplate the positive sides of these women’s lives.
When Margaret Atwood wrote The Handmaid’s Tale, little did she know how close to many women’s lived-reality her fiction was straying. But her ending was unbelievable and exemplary of many urbane, educated and sophisticated women’s answers to these issues.
Personally, I’m a staunch atheist, but I’ve lived long enough in deeply religious cultures to know you can’t demand a woman purge herself of all the structures of her life before she is welcomed into the arms of feminism.
We left these women behind with a sneer. And this is what we’ve inherited.
When approaching the issue from a geographical, as opposed to theological or cultural perspective, we might increase our chances for examining this. But where do we begin? Before drawing any conclusions, I think we have yet to build the foundation needed to understand ‘Feminism’ today, productively. In fact, to realize a starting point would be ideal. I don’t know about you all, but I’m still trying to find, or to hear, a solid premise. One common denominator stands out, regardless: it is the duality between social sanction and political sanction, the former holding more power over what is happening to women, today.
Whatever it is about the feminine dynamic, yes, I find its paradox more confusing than the political cuckoldry from Washington D.C. — and that speaks volumes towards, if you will pardon my use of indecorous vernacular, ‘how f***ed the issue of C***s & P*****s, two-tits-a-hole-and-a-heartbeat, has been vajazzled.’
The whole entire point of the feminist movement in the West was to eradicate the political sanctions which did not allow women to vote, own property or retain their own personal wealth/off-spring when divorcing a husband. So, once that was accomplished, the issue became one of eradicating the social sanctions which kept women from having equal rights with men, professionally and privately.
And so, having badly summarized almost two centuries of women’s rights, or what we call Feminism, where are we? Kinda back where we started, ironically, if you consider the reality. I mean, we are trying to examine the issue of the women’s vote and the social constructs which figuratively demand she bind her feet or waist-train to fit a corset!
Why? Society has changed. But the social sanctions which once proved to be obstacles have been replaced with new ones. Plus, the indomitable force of the female gender to render herself and others of her sex bound and gagged. I don’t think it has anything to do with religion or politics and everything to do with how terrified we are of human individualism. If someone from a different microcosm of existence threatens the moral construct of another, what happens?
The same, damn, redundant animosity engages and off we go. Addicted to whatever classification has been given towards what is right and wrong, how and why, without any formal basis of logic to understand the paradox, this still remains the opiate of the masses.
Read some Kipling. Think about Mary Shelley. In fact, I’m sorry, Mary, we have utterly failed your brave precedence.
MY VAGINA WILL NOT BE VAJAZZLED! And I shall leave it at that.
~*gidgie
**DISCLAIMER** What you have just read was written by a citizen of the USA, a High Anglican Protestant, Conservative, Self-Proclaimed Afeminist Millennial, Size 36-C or 48-42-52 (cm.)
The more radical elements of 2nd wave feminists also managed to drive away many of the men from more conservative roots that might have supported them. I grew up in moderate Republican suburbia and didn’t appreciate being told I was a ‘latent rapist’ in college because I had a penis (in person, to my face).
It actually got to the point, on my liberal campus in the late 80’s, where I’d just say, “yep, men are scum” so I could end discussions in the dorms and the classrooms. By conceding that I, and all my fellow men, were awful human beings, I ended the debate immediately. I had to do this a few times a month.
Needless to say, this pushed me to the political right for several years…
Stockholm Syndrome? Ouch. That argument sounds all too close to how some people disdain female submissives. Like, ‘I don’t understand it, therefore you have a mental problem.’
I don’t think her point was really about mental illness. Her point was that people come to a point of comfort and security in the world they know, no matter how restrictive or how male dominated.
The issue of D/s is pretty drastically different. That is a negotiation.
Oh, I agree, D/s is not Stockholm Syndrome at all, but I think neither is a Republican/fundamentalist beliefs. Although the latter part of the paragraph did a good job of attempting to understand the other side, I felt like the first part, by mentioning Stockholm Syndrome at all, was already dismissive :-/
I am friends with a mom of four who home schools and lives a very pious life. I don’t talk politics with her, but I would not be surprised to find out she votes Republican or supports Santorum. But I also know, for sure, that she is smart and strong and chose her life. She CAN change it, but she is happiest this way.
And despite core differences in our beliefs, in many, many ways, our lives are the same. We get up, take care of our children and our husband. We clean the house. We cook. Maybe we work, maybe we don’t. In our spare time, she goes to church group, I type smut at my computer. You know, potato/potahto. 🙂
If I want her to respect my lifestyle choices as being totally 100% sane, then I have to respect hers just as much. No need to bring Stockholm into it.
I’m afraid you’re never going to get me to the point where I’m going to think it is ever okay or not self-destructive for women to vote for a man like Santorum.
It’s just not going to happen. Ever. 😀
Your point about missing them and leaving them behind is very well taken. The first rule of reaching people is to meet them where they are and bring them along, not to shout at them from over there where you want to them to go/be.
Perhaps there is still time, but there may not be the will.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. Disdain is a serious problem with leftist liberals on so many issues, not just feminism, but racial equality, the fight for LGBT equality, and so on. If you’re not on board with them, you’re just an uneducated idiot. They forget that they too were once racist asshats and homophobic jerks.
If we could just say and know the truth that women were/are complicit in centuries of patriarchal societies, then it stands to reason that all of those justifications are actually fair points. There is so much to be said for so much of what is looked down upon. And really, that’s a terribly hypocritical side of feminism.