The Clare Spark Blog

December 27, 2012

“Come home, alpha female!”

Filed under: Uncategorized — clarelspark @ 9:38 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

Image (44)[Before you read this blog see]

Kay S. Hymowitz wrote a provocative essay in City Journal last week, suggesting that “alpha females” were staying home to raise their kids by choice, not because they had necessarily hit the glass ceiling.  See

Ms.  Hymowitz, availing herself of statistics, partly addressed the most vexed questions in the feminist movement (I have blended her concerns with my own):

Are women physiologically different than men, with aptitudes for motherhood and child-rearing that are unique to her gender?  Or is that a male myth that aims to keep female competition “barefoot and pregnant”?

Is there, or is there not a glass ceiling that accounts for the paltry number of female top leaders in corporate America?

Do recent developments in child development suggest that the infant-mother bond is central to healthy child development, hence the handing off of infants to nannies, day care providers, or even husbands, may have long term effects on the child, and not to its benefit?

In recent years, I have spent much time looking back on my life as a wife and mother (1959-1971), and even further back on my experience of the nuclear family, torn apart by World War 2 (and then a painful divorce in 1957), widespread ignorance about child-rearing in my parents second generation of Jewish immigrants, even among educated professionals.

I go back and forth in viewing my past achievements, sometimes viewing myself as an underachiever, sometimes as a woman who “had it all.” From that unstable, very shaky viewpoint, I say this with some certainty) :

THERE IS NO EARTHLY FAME THAT CAN SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF RAISING HEALTHY, CREATIVE, AND INDEPENDENT CHILDREN.  There is no more challenging task, yet the position of women in a man’s world tends to underestimate the difficulties that all women face in reaching such a goal. (The intelligent, ambitious woman is not only viewed as masculine and freakish, but she may view herself through the eyes of jealous males, even as a successful mother. There are men who resent the attention and libido that mothers lavish upon their young.)

I refer not only to the skills associated with child-rearing, but the necessity to know oneself and one’s limitations, for instance, unresolved conflicts regarding siblings and parents that suddenly pop up when confronting archetypal events in the life of the child. It is disconcerting to notice that one is turning into one’s mother or father, even as we imagine that we have surpassed them and have not made their cloddish mistakes.

Everyone knows the pangs of middle and old age: loss of energy, aches and pains, the realization that one may die at any time, the loss of dear ones, the perhaps neurotic wish to go back and repair all the errors of youth.

Let us pretend that the Mother knows herself, is empathic with the needs of growing children, and has all the necessarily skills to raise that healthy and creative child. But what about “independence?” We don’t even agree on what independence means, let alone whether it is a value worth striving for, or if attained, whether we and/or our children will be deemed demonic and strange for non-conformity. I will say this for my own imperfect mother: she was no lefty, but while I (once) was, she told me to put up a fence around my psyche and fend off aggressors. I bless her memory for that injection of courage.

My family, ca 1942

My family, ca 1942

The Progressives, male and female alike, put great emphasis on the power of statistics. There was an assumption that once faced with the facts, people would do the right thing for themselves and for “the public interest.”  Kay S. Hymowitz probably believes she has written a helpful article that will assuage the guilt of the intelligent would-be alpha female who stays home to raise her own children.  In the view of this (maybe) alpha female, she has mostly started a conversation that will agitate us without end.

In a hyper-modern, hyper-speedy society, are we archaic or enlightened?

Clare, Ron Loeb, kids ca 1971

Clare, Ron Loeb, kids ca 1971

September 4, 2012

Links to some blogs on feminism

Crone with fruit (includes material on gender roles) (retitled Limbaugh v. Fluke) (retitled Film noir decoded)

Hecate Crone

September 1, 2012

Sex, sex, and less sex

Shulamith Firestone

[For a related blog see]

I have written before about the second wave of feminism, reminding my readers that it was civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s that generated the revolt of young movement women who wanted respect from the emerging male stars, particularly after such notorious remarks as “A woman’s place is on her back.” (Huey Newton) In other words, young women who insisted that “the personal is political” were already anti-imperialists, and had imbibed histories of the U.S. that painted their country as hopelessly opposed to Nature, to native Americans, to (racial) minorities, to gay men and lesbians, to all women, and to the labor movement. But it was sexuality that became the focus of much of their activism, for sex talk sells, and many a new feminist wrote best sellers cursing out men, including those in the white male canon of literary heroes.  Today their ideological offspring are tenured professors in Women’s Studies, in cultural anthropology, in film studies, in the history of science, and in related fields. I don’t know if any of them compares the 1960s-70s culture to the 1920s, when anticapitalism, primitivism and promiscuity were all the rage among expatriates and artists in general, all of whom were in revolt against “the genteel tradition” and their (“Hebraic”) puritan forebears.

Return to my life after I started the radio broadcasts on Pacifica. I did my best to publicize female artists, designers, and writers when I had my radio program. Thanks to the material collected at CalArts, I was able to mount a slide show on sex and violence in the imagery of women artists and photographers that was delivered in numerous prestigious venues during the 1970s. Thoroughly immersed in the writing of the Frankfurt School of critical theory in those days (e.g. Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization), I did not think of the large audiences I was drawing as an audience for pornography, but rather as a symptom of emancipation from old excessively prudish taboos that were better overthrown. I did notice, however, that the New Left men I had met were womanizers, or, if they were New York writers, had numerous failed marriages, and were not faithful to the wife of the moment.

In retrospect, this obliviousness to the value of traditional marriage was widespread among New Age liberals as well as leftists. I remember one psychologist telling me with great confidence that sexual jealously was unhealthy: that the jealous wife was “giving away her power” to the faithless husband and his consorts. That was Gestalt therapy in the late 1960s-early 1970s as practiced in West Los Angeles.

Alexandra Kollontai and comrade

The leftists and liberals mentioned above were no doubt exponents of Alexandra Kollontai’s famous claim that “sex was a drink of water.” I should have recalled Marcuse’s theory of “repressive desublimation”: that sexuality run amok would serve the aims of capitalists selling goods and services. Today, the cult of Beauty is dominant, and woman expend much of their time and resources defending themselves against bad hair, sartorial dowdiness and aging, at the expense of child-rearing, expanding their minds and their general socio-political-economic awareness.

But the second wave feminists were politically aware and media savvy, all right, and many of the artists I championed during my delayed adolescence were exhibitionists defining their “feminist sensibility” as a presentation of female genitalia.  Judy Chicago’s Dinner Party brought her fame, stimulating a cottage industry of feminist art historians who meditate upon her gestures and her contemporaries, some pro, some con. Personally, I rejected her mystical linking of famous women through the ages as pandering, ahistoric, and reactionary.

Dinner Party postcards

But then there were those New York women (Redstockings) influenced by Friedrich Engels and other materialists from the wild male Left. Here is one example from a book that became a must-read for hip women everywhere:

[An excerpt from Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex:]

“So that just as to assure elimination of economic classes requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and, in a temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of control of reproduction: not only the full restoration to women of ownership of their own bodies, but also their (temporary) seizure of control of human fertility – the new population biology as well as all the social institutions of child-bearing and child-rearing. And just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. (A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality Freud’s ‘polymorphous perversity’ – would probably supersede hetero/homo/bi-sexuality.) The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would born to both sexes equally, or independently of. either, however one chooses to look at it; the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally. The division of labour would be ended by the elimination of labour altogether (through cybernetics). The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.”

Sadly, Firestone’s body was found on August 28, 2012, possibly a week after her death in her book-lined East Village apartment in New York City. One report states that she owned many works of the Greek classics. Though she was born into a Canadian Orthodox Jewish family, her rebellion against a religion that supports strong families may have taken her into a paganism that was notoriously misogynistic and revolted by female genitals, despite its proliferation of goddesses. And her obituaries state that she was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The latter is a mental illness that presents itself usually in the early 20s. Firestone was twenty-five when she wrote her famous book. R.I.P. Shulamith Firestone, dead at 67.

March 19, 2012

Links to feminist blogs

Bocklin’s Medusa

Feminist in love series (3 collages):,, (On Shulamith Firestone and second wave feminism) (on the Great Dumbing Down)

Blog at