Jewish World Review May 14, 1999 /28 Iyar 5759
(JWR) ---- (http://www.jewishworldreview.com)
To many feminists such as Backlash author Susan Faludi, she’s a renegade who lent her voice to reactionary attacks on feminism as anti-family and anti-male. To many conservatives such as writer F. Carolyn Graglia, she is a harpy who denigrated homemakers and undermined the family.
Two new books, Betty Friedan: Her Life by Judith Hennessee and Betty Friedan and the Making of “The Feminine Mystique” by Daniel Horowitz, are likely to reignite the controversy over Friedan’s legacy. They’re not likely to make Friedan a happy woman.
Horowitz, a University of Massachusetts scholar, disputes Friedan’s claim that pre-Feminine Mystique, she was an apolitical housewife whose feminist awakening was the result of her suburban captivity; in fact, she had been a left-wing activist until the early 1950s, writing for the newspaper of a communist-controlled labor union and often focusing on women’s issues. These radical ties, which Horowitz seems to regard as something to be proud of, are more likely to be seen as compromising her and her ideas.
Does this make Friedan’s feminism part of some subversive plot? Hardly.
By the time she wrote The Feminine Mystique, Horowitz acknowledges with some chagrin, Friedan had abandoned the class-warfare rhetoric for essentially American concerns with individual achievement and identity. He also shows that female discontent with domesticity and aspirations outside the home were already evident in American culture — even in the women’s magazines that Friedan blasted as peddlers of the “mystique” — before the book was published. This may somewhat diminish Friedan’s stature as a pioneer, but it also shows that she did not, as Graglia and others ridiculously contend, single-handedly lure millions of happy housewives out of their homes.
From the beginning, Friedan cautioned against “sex/class warfare” rhetoric that rejected the family and assailed men as oppressors. Long before the phrase “victim feminism” was coined, she deplored the “wallowing in the victim state” under the guise of addressing violence against women. In her 1980 book The Second Stage, she wrote that the only way for the women’s movement to regain its relevance was to focus on balancing career and family and extending more flexible options to women and men alike.
Some responses to The Second Stage, which Hennessee surveys, show what kind of mentality Friedan was up against. John Leonard, the more-feminist-than-thou chief cultural correspondent for the New York Times, charged that she advocated “licking the hand that batters you.” Another reviewer, Angelina Goreau, found an ironic contradiction between Friedan’s defense of men and the fact that her husband had failed to pay child support after their divorce.
In fact, Friedan should have been commended for refusing to project the antagonism between herself and her ex-husband onto all male-female relations. (Perhaps the violence in Friedan’s marriage — in which she was often the aggressor as well as the victim — made her realize that domestic abuse is not a simple men-bad, women-good issue.)
Friedan had her share of dubious ideas. But on the threshold of the 21st century, the
women’s movement suffers badly from its rejection of her agenda of equal partnership with
05/07/99: Littleton lesson: Even in tragedy there's 'gender politics'