Here We Go Again…

I was considering ignoring this pathetic piece of drivel from the Atlantic‘s Elizabeth Wurtzel, but–why not?–I haven’t ranted in a while, so here goes:

The piece is the usual feminazi crap, full of passive aggressive attacks on those who’ve made choices that are different from her own and pseudo-intellectual navel-gazing that substitutes for real introspection among her type.  This particular passage stood out, though, because it highlights just what is wrong with postmodern feminism, and the Fellowship of the Perpetually Aggrieved at large (emphasis mine):

I have to admit that when I meet a woman who I know is a graduate of, say, Princeton — one who has read The Second Sex and therefore ought to know better — but is still a full-time wife, I feel betrayed. I‘m not much of a moralist — I have absolutely no right to be — but in the interest of doing what’s right both for me personally and for women generally, I have been strict with myself about earning my keep. For the longest time I would not date anyone who would now be called a one-percenter because money and power are such a potent combination, and if I am going to be bossed around, I don’t want that to be the reason. When it’s come up, I have chosen not to get married. Over and over again, I have opted for my integrity and independence over what was easy or obvious. And I am happy. I don’t want everyone to live like me, but I do expect educated and able-bodied women to be holding their own in the world of work.

For those keeping score, that’s twenty times she referred to herself in that paragraph.  Twenty. Times.  See, this is what separates the FPA from the rest of us normal people: it’s all about them.  Everything is viewed through their narcissistic lens.  If they don’t understand it, then it must be wrong.  If they don’t like it, then it must be immoral.  If they themselves would not make a particular choice, then no one else should make that choice, either.

Let’s take a look at the other gems hidden in this paragraph alone:

I have to admit that when I meet a woman who I know is a graduate of, say, Princeton — one who has read The Second Sex and therefore ought to know better…

That, my friends, is pure, unadulterated, intellectual snobbery.  In her world, intelligence is determined by whether or not one has gone to the ‘correct’ school (since only Ivy Leagues produce smart people apparently; I guess we who attended state school and community college just don’t know any better).  Enlightenment is determined by whether or not one has read the ‘right’ books (I read Feminine Mystique and found it a colossal pile of excrement–does that count?).  Anyway, onward:

I’m not much of a moralist — I have absolutely no right to be — but in the interest of doing what’s right both for me personally and for women generally, I have been strict with myself about earning my keep.

Hear that, comrades?  Never mind the needs of your children or your own proclivities!  Comrade Wurtzel has spoken! We must all take the time to consider what spoiled, myopic little girls may think of our life choices before we make them!  Because, feminism!!! Grrrl power!!! Mädchen über alles!!!  It is the moral* choice, comrades!

When it’s come up, I have chosen not to get married. Over and over again, I have opted for my integrity and independence over what was easy or obvious.

Got that, fellow married women?  According to Ms. Wurtzel, we have no integrity!  All of that delayed gratification, putting the interests of the marriage and family above the interests of the individual–completely worthless!  We’re just dependents, like helpless children!  It’s not like we’re actually participating in anything important, like social justice or gender equality or publishing our narcissistic screeds in the Atlantic!  And marriage is sooooo easy, too!  Ms. Wurtzel’s never been married herself, but I’m sure she knows all about it, better than we poor saps who are actually experiencing it, anyway!

I don’t want everyone to live like me, but I do expect educated and able-bodied women to be holding their own in the world of work.

So, to summarize: if a woman stays home, she’s either an uneducated rube or a traitor to her sex.  If a woman stays home, she’s either incapacitated or a traitor to her sex.  Nannies and housekeepers earn money, and therefore are in the world of work and are worthy of respect.  Women who keep their own house and raise their own children without bringing in an outside paycheck are not worthy of respect, because they are either feeble morons or traitors.  Got it.

What’s particularly rich is the first part of that last sentence–“I don’t want everyone to live like me.”  I wonder if she wrote that sentence with a straight face, oblivious to the complete hypocrisy of writing such a thing when she spends the entire article patiently explaining to us proles in flyover country exactly why we ought to live like her.  If she had an ounce of real introspection, if she made the slightest attempt to see herself in a clear, objective light, then perhaps she would have realized what her column says about her: namely, that she’s a self-absorbed, totalitarian bitch.

*Even though Comrade Wurtzel would never debase herself by identifying herself as <gasp> a moralist, because that would be going against the All-Holy Matriarchy, or something.  So her expressed morals (i.e. “doing what’s right”) regarding whether or not to earn a paycheck were she married?–it’s totally not an expression of morals.**

**Yeah, I don’t get it either.