Response To A Young Feminist: Motherhood Can Be Radical

Warning: DOMDocument::loadHTML(): ID i4c-dialogs-container already defined in Entity, line: 33 in /home/customer/www/ on line 37

Ooh! Game on!

Recently in my wanderings, I read an article titled The Degradation of Feminists. Written by a young nursing student who approached Feminism from a beginner’s standpoint, she doesn’t come with the conventional Lib/Rad paradigm.

Layna Guillory argues that modern Feminism focuses on emulating the advantages of men and neglects the advantages women naturally possess. Others have observed this, and it’s not without merit. Layna begins by suggesting that Feminism has certain “drawbacks” but that she thinks the best of everyone involved. I wish I shared her optimism.

She describes how in the past Feminism was about attaining rights and equal treatment, but that it has lost its way since women “aren’t mistreated like that anymore.”

Which, of course, gives me pause. I’m honestly happy for her if she hasn’t been mistreated because of her sex. Assault statistics say different, and that’s just here in our oh-so-civilized Western country. Anita Raj of the University of California recently found that upwards of 80% of women experience some kind of sexual harassment. 90% of rape victims are women.

It extends to well-paid celebrities like Michelle Williams, who discovered she was being paid significantly less than her male co-stars. The entire #MeToo thing is dedicated to exposing and eradicating the remaining undertow of objectification and devaluing women experience in our daily lives.

Layna also suggests that the credibility of real experiences of everyday sexism is damaged by what she calls “outrageous claims” of systemic


You have to look at the big picture!

bias. Her example is the tendency for workplaces to be uncomfortably cold for women but not men. The linked article from the Washington Post is a lighthearted commentary on the subject, “the gender divide, thermostat edition.” A tongue-in-cheek nibble that assumes the truth of its subject. Because it is true.

It’s not a grand conspiracy. Most men just have certain details and motivations in common, so they behave similarly. They set the temperature for their own comfort and it doesn’t occur to them that anyone else might feel differently. Because they pride themselves on their rationality, you know.

To say nothing of how the phases and rhythms of women’s lives just aren’t built into the fabric of those workplaces. On-site childcare is essentially unknown, and the United States is the only Western country that lacks a national provision for maternity leave. Or how the entire system of Education – College – Career and finally maybe a family is completely upside down for women’s reproductive lives. I seriously cannot believe we would have set things up this way.

But according to a Huffington Post article Layna quotes, the ranks of Feminists have dwindled 20% in the past 25 years. She believes this is because the public has “conflicting feelings” about a movement which she says has become about lockstep advancement of ideology instead of freedom of thought.

To support this she brings up Kerstjen Nielson, the Senator who was run out of a restaurant by angry patrons because she supported President Trump’s immigration policy. Which is a terrible policy. Layna argues that other women should have come to her defense and their silence demonstrates how Feminism only applies to those who toe the party line.

Ms. Nielson is in Congress because of Feminism, she got to espouse her arguably despicable opinion thanks to Feminism. To borrow from Voltaire, we will defend your right to your opinion, but we completely disagree.

Water Cooler1

There has to be a better way to do this!

And besides, we don’t want extra credit just for being women, do we? Ms. Nielson is a person with an awful opinion.

All of this is to say that Feminism has a political agenda and those who don’t fit are excluded. She approaches it from a funny angle but I think I understand why she feels that way. I have noticed the same thing, there has been a lot of redefinition in Leftist politics recently and I am not on board with all of it. Personally I think Feminism has been pushed to be so inclusive – Of trans people, of men, and we better watch we are intersectional every second! – that it has been robbed of any potency to serve the people it was originally supposed to inspire. Many young women don’t seem to connect with what they are seeing.

And who can blame them? The movement supposedly about women’s humanity is spending time affirming just about everybody but us? Layna falls short of bringing home why it is that Feminism has fallen prey to groupthink — Power, of course. As with anything, it eventually found a niche in the status quo. Feminism is enjoying patting herself on the back for divorce and bank accounts. She has gotten pretty good at playing the boys’ game with them.

Layna touches on this by saying that she feels the basic differences between men and women have lost meaning “in the last couple decades.” Rather than the Great Leftist Redefining, I think she is referring to the irony of Feminism’s tendency to downplay aspects that make a person uniquely female. We may have gotten good at playing with the boys, but it’s still their game. Imitating them has long been an effective method for getting things done.

She says Feminism disappoints her because it doesn’t pay attention to “one of women’s biggest advantages over men,” childbirth. This hit me hard after my recent adventure with Freud. If Womb Envy is the common motivator that makes most men silently complicit in (or blissfully blind to) female oppression, it makes sense to combat it by going to the source.

She who controls the children controls the future!No Man Exists

Layna argues, “Should women ignore many of their strengths just to play on a man’s court?” And of course I want to shout NO! This is exactly what I have been trying to get at – If we succeed in *Smashing The Patriarchy*  then what do we replace it with? How do we move the game to a more even playing field?

And I’m gonna say it again, slaying the men and keeping a few as breedstock is not a practical solution. I understand we’re angry but I can’t believe this has been the only solution raised. Seriously, anyone who can find me another I will send you a personal thank-you letter.

Obviously parenthood isn’t for everyone. But if you find yourself in the position of being a straight girl with RadFem leanings, please don’t let the lack of coverage in this area deter you. It’s not quite the windswept plain it appears. For one thing, RadFemMothering exists on Reddit. Admittedly it’s pretty quiet there, I truly wonder if this is a new angle on the question before us.

I also recently read that until a child is born, the labor share of most couples is about even. But once the first child comes along, suddenly the woman finds herself doing over 70% of the home labor and it never evens back out. I think we are doing ourselves a multi-dimensional disservice in not focusing on childbearing as a key component in our strategy.

Liberal Feminists want to keep changing the rules on the men’s court to help even out the game. Radical Feminists want to move to a more equal arena. We want to help build it. One tier of this has to be the foundational social structure that is the maternal relationship.

For so long De Beauvoir has set the tone, with her screeds of disgust at lust and orgasm and childbirth. Intellectual asceticism is all well and good but it’s limited by its very nature. Many women are mothers, and if anybody is having a baby it’s going to be a woman. Maybe it’s time to take back the womb. Raise children with a strong foundation in Feminism and equality. Make the world that much better by ensuring at least a few decent people live in it.


  1. Oops.. I meant to say I agree that decent parenting can act as a key long-term strategy for change, something people always end up discussing and suggesting after anything bad comes in news. I just want to add that decent parenting should not necessarily be coming from women, but from men as well. And the fact that the share of contribution in childcare drastically changes once the child is born is itself an outcome of a system of gender inequality. It's not some natural exogenous constant. While this outcome can be used for a long-term social change (where such drastic gendered changes won't take place in general), it can't be pitched as beneficial to gender equality or an even playing-field anyway.

    • BrazenShe -

      Oh goodness, yes, I meant to imply that the unequal burden is not a good thing at all. I certainly don’t believe that men are somehow incapable of caring for small children. I have seen it! LolI meant to say that, while this state of affairs is lopsided, we can use it to our advantage and that of future generations.

  2. Darion -

    I totally agree. 5 month pregnant radical feminist here, and the discourse is so dry for me. A lot of our RadFem sisters also seem to have staunch anti-child feelings because of their repulsion to men and the imbalance that has always resulted from reproduction. So, it's hard to have legitimate conversation that doesn't divulge into 'don't have kids'. I'll check that Reddit out. - Darion

    • BrazenShe -

      So glad it resonated with you! Yeah, I sympathize with the women who just can’t deal with men, it’s hard! But imagine if more of their mothers were RadFems who taught them to interrogate the gendered crap society feeds them. I feel like most men never fully develop because of all the energy they devote to suppressing their emotions. It’s a losing game for everyone.

Leave a Comment