Ever since the debacle of Geraldine Ferraro’s vice-presidential candidacy in 1984, I had been convinced that the American electorate would never let a woman anywhere near the presidency.  Thus I never doubted that Obama would defeat Hilary for the Democratic nomination, and John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate seemed to me downright suicidal.  And when it became clear that Hilary would be the candidate this time around, my thought was, “Well, at least that means we’ll have a Republican president this time.”

But I have begun to fear that even misogyny will not save us this time.  “America will never elect a woman president” has come into conflict with “When you want to push something through that really hurts women, get a woman to promote it.”  Like Alice in the garden of Looking-glass House, feminists always seem to be walking in the opposite direction from where they really meant to go.

Islam is surely the worst thing for women since the witch persecutions in Europe.  Yet it seems lately that whenever Islamic purposes are to be furthered, some perky if empty-eyed female is always there to give a pleasant spin on it.  

Actually I first noticed something like this pattern in the ‘70’s, though it’s only recently that it seems to be pursued as a systematic strategy.   I think that this pattern has, in fact, shaped the recent wave of feminism.   A look back at the early days of the current feminism -- the era of Ms. -- may help us to understand the bizarre twists that movement has taken recently.

I believe that what the majority of women want most is a faithful husband who will provide for them and a stable environment in which to raise their children.  But in the feminism of the 70’s this basic desire of the majority of women was delegitimized.   It just wasn’t cool to want a husband, a house, and children, unless of course you were also pursuing a career (and sending the kids to daycare).   Love between a man and a woman wasn’t even to be mentioned.  

I tried to discuss this with academic feminists, and generally got the fishy stare.  One of them sat back and looked at me for a moment and then said, “I just want to raise my daughters.”   I understood she meant that to raise her daughters she needed her job, and to keep her job she needed to toe the feminist party line.

How did this happen?  Briefly, I believe that ‘70’s feminism was a vector of the painful experiences of the ‘sixties -- the decade of “sexual liberation.”    Almost everyone had been sexually involved with a man who failed to commit to them, and though this was supposed to be “freedom,” it hurt.  Traditionally, to put it crudely, virginity has been one of the few high cards women could bring to the sexual negotiating table, and now this valuable property had been confiscated from them by a cultural decree that it was not proper to value and hang onto it.

Feminism is often blamed for the breakup of the family.  But ‘70’s feminism was preceded by the “love” generation of the ‘60’s.  And that was preceded by the founding of Playboy magazine, which gave cultural legitimacy to the exploitation and devaluation of women.  Most people weren’t yet ready to be totally cynical, so “The Playboy Philosophy” soon acquired a veneer of “liberation” and associated itself with all sorts of movements to overthrow the “establishment,” presumably with the aim of creating something better, though such intentions soon dissipated with the potsmoke.

I read feminism as a response to this situation, though of course it was not the right reaction.  The right reaction would have been for women to realize that they had been had, in all senses of the expression, by the “sexual revolution,” and try to think of ways of bringing men back to their sense of responsibility.   But the pain of rejection is hard to own up to, because one’s pride is involved.  Much easier to cry “sour grapes” and let off steam by demanding compensation in some other form.  Even if it’s not what you want, even if getting it is going to hurt you more.   And especially if in the short term you are going to be rewarded for doing so.

Thus in the ‘seventies “feminists” were prominent in the move for “no fault divorce.”

No fault divorce?  Gimme a break.  Aside from illness or acts of God, when we see that something bad has happened we generally look around to see who is at fault, so as to compensate those who have been damaged and make sure that those contemplating similar faulty conduct will think twice.  When we see kids growing up without fathers or shuttled between two warring homes (for the consequences thereof, see David Popenoe’s book Life Without Father), something bad has happened.  

In the law when something bad has happened, it is customary to ask: cui bono?  Who benefited?    So who was the beneficiary in this massive home-wrecking operation that took place over the ‘60’s and ‘70’s?

Well, Islam is going to be the beneficiary, because these changes have evidently rendered America incapable of defending itself.  But the ones who benefited in the short term were, I believe, commercial interests.

To a great extent the changes were not brought about not by human intentions.  They were the automatic results of technology, the increasing size of commercial operations, and the increasing mobility of the population.  In the ‘50’s I remember concern being voiced over the breakup of communities, which preceded the breakup of the family.   It turns out that the nuclear family is not stable in isolation.  It requires the support of a community.   

But advertising and commercial media also played an important role.  Two can live as cheaply as one, but the admen do not want you to live cheaply.  They do not want you to be wise, because wisdom often results in sales resistance.   They do not want you to stick to one thing, they want you to keep throwing things out and buying new ones.  In other words, by the nature of their occupation they have to play to human weakness.  And one human weakness is that of men’s commitment to the family, which human groups have had to devote some effort to shoring up.

Women, of course, are also weak, especially without men.   Without a faithful man and a community that supports their needs, it seems you can do with women (a lot of them, anyway) pretty much what you want.  Including turning them into mouthpieces for Islam.

The moral, I believe, is that rather than make feminists a scapegoat, conservatives should consider what is at the root of all this.  In fact, liberals generally, with all their idiocies, should not be made scapegoats for the general failure to find a response to the massive social changes that have been brought about by the Industrial Revolution.   Nothing is going to survive the Islamic onslaught, unless people in its path can figure how to rebuild community.

Esther Cameron is the founder and editor of The Deronda Review, www.derondareview.org.