Why Today’s Girls Might Not Want to Be Girls

 

After reading Susan Quinn’s post about saving our children, I may have an answer to the problem of girls not wanting to be girls. I wonder if the problem is not that they don’t want to be girls, but that they aren’t keen on the feminist’s vision of what girls must be today. Perhaps they are not eager to be an engineer, or a carpenter, or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

Today’s society has nearly totally bought into the feminist version of females, who not only successfully compete with men in the job market, but are simply better than men in all walks of life. Girls are told that they must go to college, get a good job, and advance in their careers to become the head of something. Girls have it drummed into them from childhood that they can be anything they want to be, and if they don’t get there it’s men’s fault, or society’s fault. Girls are told, in school and subliminally in advertising, that getting married, having children, and raising them to be productive members of society is not making use of their best talents-that can only happen when they have a degree and a job on Main Street or Wall Street.

Maybe today’s girls actually want to have a boyfriend (or two), meet Mr. Right, get married, and be a full-time Mom. Maybe they see what society insists they must want, and turn away from that future. They are very conflicted when what they actually want for their lives is continually talked down by the wider society.

I have always thought that the version of feminism that denigrates men, idolizes women with high-level jobs, and values being a mother to a family much less than paid work, has had a negative effect on society. This level of feminism has led to disastrous consequences for many middle-class men, who see themselves as subservient to women, and devalued; which leads to “diseases of despair”, drug use, and increased suicide.

Maybe Feminism itself is the cause of today’s girls not wanting to be girls.

Published in Culture
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 42 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    Podkayne of Israel (View Comment):

    Wait, what’s unwomanly about carpentry? It’s visual, it’s tactile, and it’s creative, even if it does involve constructing and assembling things. It seems to use the same skill set as sewing.

    My late wife was into carpentry. I got her a router for her birthday one year because she wanted one.

    • #31
  2. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    My thoughts are more inline with Unsk. Sexual mores no longer really exist anymore. When society can’t give people coherent guidelines in how to respond to sexual situations and feelings, people search for ways to signal and manage their sexual confusion to others. For many going trans enables them to avoid the hypercharged casual hookup culture.

    • #32
  3. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Podkayne of Israel (View Comment):

    ” Perhaps they are not eager to be an engineer, or a carpenter, or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.”

    Wait, what’s unwomanly about carpentry? It’s visual, it’s tactile, and it’s creative, even if it does involve constructing and assembling things. It seems to use the same skill set as sewing.

    Nothing really, but most women are not inclined to be carpenters.  The issue with most “male-dominated” occupations, including the construction trades and high-level corporate jobs is that the majority of women prefer different lines of work.  The patriarchy doesn’t insist that women become teachers, hairdressers, or human-resource specialists, but many women gravitate there.  The patriarchy doesn’t any longer “keep women down” in the corporate world, like everyone loves to think.  Maybe women just don’t aspire to the CEO position in the first place.  The mode of thinking is still feminist-that the reason there are not more women in the C-suite is because society is keeping them down.

    • #33
  4. John Racette Inactive
    John Racette
    @JohnRacette

    Spot on, baby!

    • #34
  5. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Podkayne of Israel (View Comment):

    ” Perhaps they are not eager to be an engineer, or a carpenter, or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.”

    Wait, what’s unwomanly about carpentry? It’s visual, it’s tactile, and it’s creative, even if it does involve constructing and assembling things. It seems to use the same skill set as sewing.

    Perhaps the issue isn’t the process, per se, but rather the goal. The product of sewing is, most often, something worn on the body, placed on the bed, or hung over the windows as part of home décor. It’s personal. In contrast, the product of carpentry is most often a portion of a structure or a piece of furniture. Furniture might have a personal quality to it, particularly if decorated with throw pillows and other sewn things, but it’s still a thing in a sense that a dress or shirt is not.

    I know some people who sew custom sails for sailboats. They’re men, and they make things.

    • #35
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    I’m reminded of something I found a while back, in a discussion about computer programming:

     

    For example, does anyone know of a framework author/architect that is female? The people that come up with Jini, or Ruby on Rails, or Hibernate, or the like. I can’t recall a single female author of groundbreaking ideas, either theoretical or practical.

    There are profound differences between men and women in world view and mode of thought. These are evident from the literature they create, the literature they consume and the way they comport themselves over the spans of their careers.

    The archetypal chick flick – Gone with the Wind – is described in its own advertising as a searing tale of passion in a world gone mad. Essentially, it’s about the feelings of the protagonist in a world that is utterly beyond the protagonist’s control. If a Mills and Boon novel has a happy ending, it’s provided by the intervention of a man. At no point does a woman attempt to change her world. She adapts to it, cries about it, or waits for a man to change it for her.

    Men, by contrast, write about almost nothing but taking control of their world, and the mechanics by which this is attempted.

    Another fundamental difference is the list thing. Men teach one another the mechanism, the distilled principle, because there is less to remember and it has to be taken in context anyway. Women want a fixed context and rote instructions. If you try to teach them the principles instead, they don’t listen and they get angry, saying “I don’t care why, I just asked you to tell me what to do.” If you give them a list of steps it must be exhaustive like a computer program because (also like a computer program) if context changes breaking the procedure or if anything has been omitted, blame is ascribed to the writer of the procedure.

    A direct consequence of this intellectual inflexibility is that women do not create tools. They can be taught to use them, often very well, provided that the use of the tool can be described as lists of steps – programs!

    Visit a craft shop like Spotlight. It will be crawling with women who think they are creative. In fact all they ever do is stick glitter to boxes, or cut cloth according to a plan that was almost certainly created by a man, before stitching it together using a sewing machine definitely both invented and made for them by men.

    Some of them will vary the patterns, but creation ex nihilo is a behaviour exhibited almost exclusively by men.

    I suppose you could say that women play god using the thing between their legs, whereas men use the thing between their ears. Probably this is enculturated behaviour. Possibly it is an artefact, in men, of the inability to play god the easy way; certainly many of us see our creations as children of sorts.

    • #36
  7. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Podkayne of Israel (View Comment):

    ” Perhaps they are not eager to be an engineer, or a carpenter, or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.”

    Wait, what’s unwomanly about carpentry? It’s visual, it’s tactile, and it’s creative, even if it does involve constructing and assembling things. It seems to use the same skill set as sewing.

    There’s carpentry, and there’s carpentry.  When I was young, framing houses, we used to carry 24′ trusses into the house and stick them up on the walls by ourselves.  I don’t think many women have the upper body strength for that.

    • #37
  8. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Marjorie Reynolds (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I wonder how much girls today know about the feminist movement and the propaganda it put out? I wonder if that information is considered so archaic and useless, at least to some.

    I’d say none of them. I know I didn’t.

    I mentioned before that I’d noticed something changed from when I was in my early 20’s in the 2000’s and around about 5 or 6 years ago, definitely pre 2016. I remember having a conversation around 2011 or 2012 even remarking that the feminists of the 70’s were probably not very happy with the way feminism was currently perceived and with emphasis young women had on beauty and hooking up etc.
    I started noticing the why I need feminism posts on Facebook maybe around 2014. There was a distinct change in the conversation around feminism then that’s just just gotten more loud and shrill.

    All your notions seem true to me.

    The conversations around feminism are indeed loud and shrill. Also they are contradictory at times, like when feminists applaud little 7 year old boys wearing dresses and makeup but think young women should avoid either of those things.

    They also turn a blind eye to their leaders hypocrisy. This is one of many blonde white women celebrating with Kamela, with POC there only as busboys and wait staff:

    • #38
  9. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Z in MT (View Comment):
    For many going trans enables them to avoid the hypercharged casual hookup culture.

    But isn’t random sex alot more fun than getting your genitals cut?

    • #39
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Z in MT (View Comment):
    For many going trans enables them to avoid the hypercharged casual hookup culture.

    But isn’t random sex alot more fun than getting your genitals cut?

    Never having done either, I couldn’t say.

    • #40
  11. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Z in MT (View Comment):
    For many going trans enables them to avoid the hypercharged casual hookup culture.

    But isn’t random sex alot more fun than getting your genitals cut?

    I think a lot would depend on a person’s psyche. 

    • #41
  12. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Podkayne of Israel (View Comment):

    ” Perhaps they are not eager to be an engineer, or a carpenter, or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.”

    Wait, what’s unwomanly about carpentry? It’s visual, it’s tactile, and it’s creative, even if it does involve constructing and assembling things. It seems to use the same skill set as sewing.

    There’s carpentry, and there’s carpentry. When I was young, framing houses, we used to carry 24′ trusses into the house and stick them up on the walls by ourselves. I don’t think many women have the upper body strength for that.

    Then we’d climb up on the walls and toenail them in.  This was before the widespread use of hurricane clips.

    • #42
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.