Decades of “girl power” have failed to raise girls’ self-esteem, a study finds. Girls are still more relational than boys, less mindful of accomplishments than boys, so they’re hurt more by a busted romance.
Jill Filipovic doubles down: “Quit teaching girls to define themselves by their romantic relationships.” She wants “more funding for a diversity of educational programs including art and music” to focus girls away from the mating instinct. Writing as if a massive social engineering effort hasn’t been underway since the ’60s to “[shift] assumptions around female identity,” she recommends “policies allowing women to be equal players at work.”
In all, she gets the problem, its cause, and the solution wrong.
Female sexual nature is more discerning than male sexual nature. She chooses the father of her children, whom she will depend on to support her and her children. This difference is incompatible with gender sameness, the Marxist wing of feminism.
Filipovic blames the lack of progress towards pie-in-the-sky androgyny on the America of her imagination:
American girls grow up in a culture where women are ornamental, and a very particular type of woman with a very particular type of body is used to represent sex itself in advertisements for everything from cars to web-hosting.
She’s kidding herself if she thinks women by now aren’t 100 percent complicit in this profit scheme. Danica Patrick appears half-naked in GoDaddy commercials because she chooses to. Miley Cyrus twerks on stage because she chooses to. Miriam Weeks stars in porn films because she chooses to.
They enjoy being desired. They feel “empowered” by it. Empowerment by any means is what Filipovic’s ideological forebears fought for. The logical consequences of empowerment are raising expectations unrealistically high and marginalizing the less powerful (i.e., less pretty girls). Surely Filipovic is not suggesting modesty!
But girls also hear that they are the gatekeepers to sex, that having sex too soon or with too many people will leave them damaged, and that men don’t respect the women who sleep with them. Sex, girls learn, is a thing boys want and girls have, but the girls aren’t supposed to give it up too easily – and that sex isn’t about their own desires, anyway.
Tellingly, none of which Filipovic tries to refute. They are lies by virtue of their association with the false construct of the observable universe. They can’t possibly be a posteriori, surviving in the subconscious through 50 years of activist tomfoolery.
Women, being more discerning, are the gatekeepers. They’re not “supposed to give it up too easily,” because that leads to problems—once corrected by shotgun weddings, now compounded by abortions, child support orders, and welfare.
Finally, the last line confirms Filipovic’s view of sex as utilitarian and transactional, not primarily in the context of a capacity to love that God has written is in every girl’s and boy’s heart.
Related: “Girl power.”