The psychological immaturity sanctioned/promoted by the Left, what Sartre would have deemed existential dysfunction, is no more evident than in the writings of some of the most revered of modern Feminists.
In a 1978 work entitled “Fat is a Feminist Issue,” Susie Orbach invokes the notion of “thin privilege.” It is a notion of no more merit than that of White privilege. The basic premise of the book is that Men who prefer Women of a particular body type are somehow oppressing those who fail to conform to their standards. It is, apparently, one of the ways in which we Males attempt to keep Women subservient. Orbach is a Lesbian who frankly admits she does not understand how Heterosexuality works. But does this in any way entitle her to dismiss Heterosexuality as a Patriarchal Construct and those physical qualities so enchanting to most Men as mere arbitrary political ploys? While standards of Female beauty may vary somewhat around the world, I can testify unequivocally as a heterosexual male that my preference for certain feminine attributes is encoded in every cell in my body, indeed that the allure of Beautiful Women is the most powerful instinctual force in the lives of most Male members of the species.
Orbach’s hypothesis is an early example of what has become widely accepted today in certain circles, the notion that Gender is not biologically determined but merely a matter of choice. It is a notion clearly designed to banish the charge that Homosexuality is a “deviation” from Evolution’s plan. The paradox, of course, is that it is in fact such a deviation while in no way reflecting anything about one’s worth as a human being. The historical vilification of gay people was a product not of their degenerate moral status but of the xenophobic intolerance of the straight majority and, admittedly, straight men in particular, an intolerance which continues to be institutionalized in the cultures of many foreign regimes. At the same time, however, the impulse to deny the Biological Basis of Gender is simply absurd.
It is an impulse rooted in the Egalitarian compulsion to demonize every standard, intellectual, moral and aesthetic, endorsed by traditional Western Humanism, on the grounds that such standards are arbitrary and divisive. Just as the notion that Enlightenment Rationalism is in any way more valid than the superstitions of certain primitive Cultures is now denounced as a matter of racial arrogance, so the fact that I find Vivien Leigh inestimably more attractive than Eleanor Roosevelt is apparently a product of my patriarchal insensitivity!
Naomi Wolf’s 1991 work “The Beauty Myth” more or less supports this hypothesis. While I don’t disagree with her denunciation of the unrealistic standards set by the beauty industry, I would argue that the vast majority of Men are in no way obsessed with the emaciated waifs often featured there, indeed that most Men find the vast majority of Women appealing. Moreover it is inarguable that the complex relationship between the sexes cannot be comprehended by the simplistic Power Paradigm used by the Left to explain virtually every aspect of the human condition. A man complimenting a woman on her physical beauty may be engaging in a crass act of objectification or taking the first, reverential step towards a prolonged, meaningful relationship. And if predatory men have both power and money at their disposal in their attempts to manipulate women, beautiful women have no less potent a weapon in their arsenal to manipulate men. Clearly the characters of the individuals involved in every relationship are of preeminent importance. Clearly all interactions between the sexes need to be seen within the context of the living moment.
In defining Women who are not physically beautiful, who are perhaps obese, as Victims of arbitrary male expectations, each of the aforementioned books contributes to their dysfunction. A variation of “progressivism’s” insistence that we are all morally indistinguishable is the equally specious notion of limitless possibilities, the widespread sentimental belief that each of us can be whatever we want to be whatever the limitations imposed on us by Nature. It is a lie that has come to saturate our culture. While obviously we must each aspire to be the best we might be, we are all, both Men and Women, beset by limitations of one sort or another, dealing with this reality being a fundamental moral/existential obligation. Yes, there are remnants of “patriarchal” attitudes within the West that need to be amended, but the notion fostered by both Orbach and Wolf that unattractive Women are somehow the Victims of an Injustice is detrimental to that very self-awareness which would seem essential to a happy, meaningful life.
Socrates famously said the unexamined life was not worth living. Sartre saw honest self-appraisal as essential to an “authentic” existence. More recently Nathaniel Brandon argued in “The Psychology of Self-Esteem” that submitting to one’s status as a Victim rather than taking charge of one’s life is actually a form of slavery. Black “conservatives” make the same argument, suggesting that the “progressive” narrative of White oppression actually prevents Blacks from getting on with their lives. While Naomi Wolf seems to have evolved since the writing of her 1991 book, now referring to herself as a libertarian, “The Beauty Myth” did in fact enslave Women in the very same way, suggesting those among them who succumbed to bulimia or anorexia in their efforts to please Men were not victims of their own immaturity and lack of self-awareness but rather of the cruel male propensity to find some women more beautiful than others.