to act in behalf of Japanese, rather thannof American, interests. Whatever one’snviews on the purely economic issues,nthe dangers of allowing people whosenloyalties lie overseas to control Americannpolicy are obvious. Money goesnnot just to politicians but to those whoninfluence their thinking: “there is anhuge pool of academics and think-tanknoccupants in Washington whose billsnare paid in full or in part by thenJapanese and who always have a friendlynopinion ready to offer.” The veryninfluential Institute for InternationalnEconomics is now heavily financed bynJapanese funds. Its head, Fred Bergsten,noften referred in the 1970’s tonJapanese “mercantilism.” He doesn’tndo that anymore.nThe philosophy of individualismnmeans that many government officialsnhave no trouble rationalizing workingnfor foreign interests. Thus Eric Garfinkel,na deputy assistant director ofncommerce and trade entrusted withndevising policy to protect the Americannmachine tool industry, left thenReagan administration to go to worknfor a law firm representing the Japanesenmachine tool industry. RobertnWatkins, of the Commerce Department,nwas sending resumes to Japanesenauto manufacturers at the same time asnhe was involved in negotiations overnauto parts import policy. It follows thatnif nations do not matter in trade, thennneither does national loyalty. And it isnthe corrosive effect of this kind ofnthinking that is the most dangerousndevelopment of all.nWilliam R. Hawkins writes fromnKnoxville, Tennessee.nNot CommunismnBut Feminismnby Nicholas DavidsonnThe Feminist Takeover: Patriarchynto Matriarchy in Two Decadesnby Betty SteelenGaithersburg, Maryland: HumannLife International; 192 pp., $9.00nNews of strange doings up northnhas begun to travel south of thenborder. Last year, a University of Torontonmathematics professor was convictednof “sexual harassment” for allegedlynstaring at a part-time female student innthe university pool. In Weak Link,nBrian Mitchell reports that the Canadiannmilitary is now 9.2 percent female,nbarely behind the U.S. military at 10.3npercent.nAccording to Betty Steele, housewife,njournalist, and author of ThenFeminist Takeover, Canadian feministsnhave now progressed beyond thenAmerican feminists who originally inspirednthem and are in the process ofninstituting a full-fledged “matriarchy.”nAt a time when some conservatives arencomplacently basking in the demise ofncommunism in Eastern Europe, Mrs.nSteele warns that we are rapidly destroyingnfreedom at home. AlthoughnMrs. Steele’s main focus is on hernnative Canada, most of her argumentnis equally applicable to the UnitednStates.nUp to the publication of BettynFriedan’s The Feminine Mystique inn1963, says Mrs. Steele, “the largestnproportion of middle-class women onnthis continent were living in peace innwhat they believed to be a normal,ntraditional, worthwhile lifestyle.” BettynFriedan’s book took the lead in convincingnwomen that housewives werenworthless — “house slugs,” in a phrasenthat became popular in the Canadiannmedia. Taught that their traditionalnlifestyles were symptoms of “male oppression,”nuncounted numbers ofnwomen proceeded to destroy their relationshipsnwith men, avoiding marriagenif single or divorcing their husbands ifnmarried. Instead of traditional femininenpursuits, they threw themselvesninto Betty Friedan’s “new life plan fornwomen,” a cloning — and, very often,na caricature — of the male careeristnlifestyle.nTaught that they were “oppressors”nresponsible for the ills of society andnthe crimes of history, men simplyncrumpled. In this climate of contemptnfor femininity and hostility to men, theneradication of sex roles rapidlynemerged as a primary goal of publicnpolicy. No longer would “house slugs”ndominate the women’s magazines. Nonlonger would physically demanding occupationsnbe staffed primarily by men.nUnlike the United States, Canadanactually passed an equal rights amendment.nAs a result, the Canadian constitutionnnow prohibits discriminationnnnbased on race, ethnic origin, religion,nsex, age, and mental or physical handicap.nAn additional clause specifies that,ndespite this prohibition, discriminationnis allowed in favor of the “disadvantaged.”nFemale careerism and childhoodndaycare are thus effectively constitutionalized.nThere is now a Canadian cabinetnministry on the Status of Women. Anseparate, thirty-member “National AdvisorynCouncil on the Status of Women”nhas an annual budget of $2.4nmillion. Every Canadian province hasnbeen furnished with a “Women’s Directorate,”na government agency devotednto implementing the feministnagenda. The Ontario Women’s Directorate,nfor example, has a staff of 51nand an annual budget of $8 million.nCanadian feminist organizationsnhave achieved outstanding success innsecuring government funding. Mrs.nSteele’s information in this area isnespecially impressive: “The NationalnAction Committee on the Status ofnWomen, the country’s largest feministnlobby group, receives $300,000 fromnthe Secretary of State; the Congress ofnLearning Opportunities for Women,n$189,000; the Canadian Research Institutenfor the Advancement of Women,n$295,000; the National Associationnof Women and Law, $100,000,”nand so on.nAlthough Mrs. Steele maintains thatnfeminism now enjoys even greater influencenin Canada than in the U.S., itncan fairly be doubted whether there isnmuch substantive difference. To takenjust a few examples: under both Reagannand Bush, the Justice Departmentnhas initiated numerous “sex discrimination”ncases that go far beyond anythingnrequired by existing statutes —nmost recenfly against the Virginia MilitarynInstitute. The U.S. Department ofnDefense has been placed under thenoversight of DACOWITS, a committeenof feminist activists. In 1980-1981,nthe National Organization for Womennreceived $595,961 from the Departmentnof Education alone, and overnforty state governments now includenWomen’s Divisions.nIn Canada as in the United States,naffirmative action and comparablenworth legislation is now widespread.nCorporations are required to endorsenand enforce “equal opportunity.”nBusiness is thus forcibly enlisted in thenNOVEMBER 1990/37n
January 1975July 26, 2022By The Archive
Leave a Reply