Has anyone else noticed that feminists now seem to be backing-away in disgust from the phrase “have it all”?
There once was a time in the past, perhaps a decade ago, when feminists seemed to have no problem whatsoever with being continuously associated with three little words that would later come to haunt the movement:
“Have it all.”
Now, it seems, feminists wish to say feminism has nothing to do with the concept WHATSOEVER.
What a stunning volte-face, is it not? What a sharp turn of events, eh? It’s reminiscent of how the CPUSA stopped endorsing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact one day after the start of Operation Barbarossa.
Now, suddenly, “Have it hall” has nothing to do with feminism whatsoever.
Exhibit A: Rebecca Traister, one of Salon.com’s most reliable gender warriors:
“…my proposal is this: We should immediately strike the phrase “have it all” from the feminist lexicon and never, ever use it again.
Here is what is wrong, what has always been wrong, with equating feminist success with “having it all”: It’s a misrepresentation of a revolutionary social movement. The notion that female achievement should be measured by women’s ability to “have it all” recasts a righteous struggle for greater political, economic, social, sexual and political parity as a piggy and acquisitive project.”
This sounds oddly stung, hurt and defensive, does it not? Almost as if she’s realized that such a pledge can never be delivered.
Well, to paraphrase the bald-headed hard-ass “Stinger” from the movie “Top Gun:” Feminists’ egos have been writing checks their bodies can’t cash.
And, really, when you think about it, “Have it all” encapsulates one of the many ludicrous long-made promises that feminism can never bring to fruition.
Feminism says: If only men would stop being oppressive bastards, women could earn 23 cents more on the job! Without working harder, longer or differently!
Feminism swears up and down: If only men would do half of all the housework, women would be be free to become SuperMom, CEOs!
Feminism pledges: If only men would stop being attracted to beauty and fertility, every woman could successfully pair with wealthy, high-status men! Hypermagy for everyone!
Feminism proclaims: If only birth control pills were free, chocolate-covered peanut-brittle would rain-down from the sky!
And all women would have to do is to tilt their faces skyward, open their mouths and chew.
Well, what has become clear is that feminism has spent years promising unlimited free lunches without ever heeding the question of who would need to pick-up the tab. The reason for that is, in their view, the limitless bank account of Male Privilege is what would eventually cover that bill in the long run.
Well, sorry. Turns-out that the big treasure chest of Male Privilege won’t cover it.
Well, my dears, I’m sorry to say it: People, especially lots of formerly-hoodwinked and now-grown-up women, are increasingly starting to see that these checks cannot possibly be cashed.
So how are we to comprehend these feminists who are now vehemently disavowing the easy-to-remember riposte “Have it all” which they had no discomfort with early in the last decade?
I would argue that they have started to understand that they’ve now been found out. They know they’ve been peddling snake oil all of these years. They know the false front can no longer be held-up. The raw lie has been laid bare as reality has crashed-in through the wall like an anthropomorphic Kool-Aid Pitcher.
Now that even a feminist poster-girl for success like Anna-Lousie Slaughter has caught-on to the lie? Now, feminists are now looking to duck and cover. They’re putting as much distance between themselves and “Have it all” as much they humanly can.
So, just as how the chocolate rations in the novel ’1984′ had always been going-up, feminism had always been against making optimistic proclamations of: “You can have it all!”
Hell, after one of your biggest lies had suddenly become exposed, wouldn’t you suddenly start looking for cover?