Le Changing Femme
Years ago I saw a commercial for Secret, a deodorant for ladies. Its tagline was, “Strong enough for a man … but made for a woman.” I got the advertiser’s point: this product was powerful enough to cover the repugnant scents of working men, but it was specially designed for women. Just recently I saw Secret’s new ad, which had the following tagline: “Strong enough for a woman.”
To clarify, I don’t have a problem with deodorant for men or woman. The less smell, the better. What irked me about the commercial was the philosophical movement that birthed the idea that women could use men’s deodorant. Put differently, the historical distinction between masculine and feminine has been tossed on the trash heap of history known as common sense.
You’ve heard the argument before: For thousands of years, men and women filled widely different roles according to their unique design. Men were stronger, more logical and more aggressive. So their natural spheres of activity included hunting, farming, fighting and governance. Women were weaker but more domestic and relational. Their natural spheres of activity included childbearing, childrearing and household maintenance. There is no defense needed for these gender-based activities; they are merely historical observations.
In American history, female roles did not change considerably until the Civil War. When the men went away to battle, their wives were forced to learn many occupational skills traditionally known only to men. With these new abilities, women carried a lot of the male burden to provide and protect their families. This happened again during World War I. It is not surprising that within two years of this war, women secured their constitutional right to vote (19th Amendment, 1920). After all, their expanding responsibilities earned them greater dignity and rights, right?
Voting rights – yes. Human dignity – no. A woman’s dignity is signed, sealed and delivered, just like men’s, since both are God’s most prized creation. But suffrage and dignity are not my concerns. My beef is what the Women’s Lib movement did to the female mind. In a chorus of deceptive praise, it convinced her that because she can work alongside men, she is his equal in every respect. She can think like he thinks. She can work like he works. She can lead like he leads. She can even wear his deodorant.
I liked the old Secret commercial because it recognized the obvious: men were stronger, women more delicate. The new ad reflects the egalitarianism of Women’s Lib, which does not like to admit social, emotional or physical distinctions between the sexes. It prefers to blur their differences in its aim to one-up the male race. But Secret is only one advertiser among many that diminishes men and elevates women. It’s no longer about equality with men but superiority over them.
The changing roles of women concern me, namely because their families suffer when they fill the roles historically reserved for men. (That’s another topic altogether.) But the changing mind of women bewilders me, because it has turned reality on its head. It believes women are essentially men without the annoyance of a Freudian libido. However, common sense tells us otherwise. It says: We cannot wear each other’s deodorant.