Anne does indeed give up her inferior gift for a superior one. She gives up mere writing for another form of creativity - child raising.

This sort of feminism that suggests that the skillful, even masterful, raising of children in a creative and energetic environment is somehow inferior to scribblings and publishings or, even worse, the accumulation of money, has poisoned minds long enough.

Perhaps it was originally a sort of deception practiced upon men more than women - think of Danglers in The Comte of Monte Cristo, who preferred money to his spouse and child - but feminism of this sort is an amazing extension of this malaise of the spirit.

We can see it as well in the corrupted academy, where the publishing of articles has supplanted the teaching of vital students as the signature mark of excellence. What a way to devalue humanity! What a way to devalue the signature accomplishments not only of prior generations and the prospects of future generations, but also largely of women, who have traditionally been among the ranks of teachers - if not for the more advanced students, certainly for the vast majority of students at least sometime in their careers.

So, Anne of Green Gables extends her embrace of the Adamic task - naming - to 'being fruitful' in more ways than can flow from a pen. She pursues productivity in a way that isn't exactly immortal immediately, but in a way that will organically and vitally continue to produce and reproduce.

In this, she is to be scorned? For participating in a way that women singularly can express a uniquely feminine creativity (stepping away from some of the debates of this morning over all sorts of recently modified 'gender identity')?

No, certainly not. She is an 'actualized woman' if there ever was one. Creative as a child, creative before children, creative in children, creative of children. Imago dei, indeed.

Well said, sir.

"Anne does indeed give up her inferior gift for a superior one. She gives up mere writing for another form of creativity - child raising."

Well, aside from your points about base commerce, which I tend to agree with - you are truly overlooking one, very potent area in which Feminism could have benefitted Anne, had it been around 100 years ago -

She would not have had to chosen one form of creativity (writing) over another one (child raising). Sure, it's still not easy, today, to be an artist and a mother - yet many great writers do it all the time.

If your only point, then, is that Anne's writing was "inferior", that is something taken on faith, more or less. LM made Anne admit to this - but only after she was married. Considering the times, I don't put much into this confession of Anne's. I think she shelved her writing because she had to.

Feminism, the best of it - would have Truly presented Anne with a way to keep on writing - and having babies - had she so desired OR completely give up writing for the babies OR completely give up the babies for the writing.

That's 3 valid choices Anne would have had, were she of today's times and not from 100 years ago.

I'm not sure that feminism has created any of the benefits you ascribe to it in this case. It seems to me that if parents can devote more time to work and the arts and still raise children today, it is more because of fossil fuels and home appliances than any social structure or value system.

Even today, I'm not sure that anyone can by fiat create 100 hours in the day. There are some tasks, and some kinds of workers, who are pretty much all or nothing. Some people starve when they work manically, and unless they are provided providentially with food by some caring person, so that it appears at their shoulder at timely intervals, they will simply work until collapse ... we cannot pretend that this kind of work can be made compatible with any kind of parenting, let alone what we might consider a healthy family relationship.

But that's the extreme case. In more moderate cases, the issue becomes that being a mother back then involved lots more 'actual work.' That is, changing diapers didn't involve disposables - and it invovled a washboard. Clothing required darning, washing dishes ... involved lots of time drawing water in many cases. There is no simple way to make space in such a life, without servants. After all, that's how the other authors and artists managed.

What an excellent discussion! I am so sick of the shallow interpretation of the words feminism and feminist that tends to predominate nowadays, making them in most cases into rebukes or castigations rather than the expressions of pride and self-respect that they should be!

I also think that a misunderstanding of feminism often causes great unhappiness in women of limited abilities, which is to say most of us, who feel that they ought to be able to do everything. Anne was not oppressed by this miscomprehension, and had a clearer vision of her abilities and desires. She is certainly not to be pitied for not living in the modern age!

Anne does indeed give up her inferior gift for a superior one. She gives up mere writing for another form of creativity - child raising.

So, Anne of Green Gables extends her embrace of the Adamic task - naming - to 'being fruitful' in more ways than can flow from a pen. She pursues productivity in a way that isn't exactly immortal immediately, but in a way that will organically and vitally continue to produce and reproduce.

No, of course not.

But it is Adam's task after all. So if it is so preferable, so important, why don't men do it? Why do the same people who write this stuff, mock men who do choose to stay home?

Why does the stay at home parent always have to be a woman?

Why is it so important that a woman do it up until you divorce her - when men in general don't pay child support or take primary responsibility for their kids?

All we need to do after all is have the child. Why don't you stay home? We've done it - we've got it down. You take over.

And Montgomery knows the cost of this lack of choice. She has at least one scene in one of the married books where Anne almost dies in childbirth. Another scene where a woman is nursing a comatose husband who used to be a beast. She's well aware of what Anne would have risked with anyone other than Gilbert.

Child rearing is important - but men who say it most, seem to do it least.

And kudos for reducing Anne's writing to mere scribblings. Because of course, that's all a girl like Anne would have been capable of, right? Unless you think about the fact that Montgomery was married and had children and managed to write these books.

Feminism wasn't created to dispose of child rearing. Feminism came about because not all men provide for their wives and children and women needed better choices.

Well, hey, if you want to club me over the head for not writing on a totally different topic, ...

I've publically stated my views on the responsibilities of men; particularly with regard to the family. If anyone has taken a strong stance on the standards that need to be enforced for fatherhood (as well as motherhood), that person would be me. I could recite some of my positions, but suffice it to say they are sufficiently draconian.

I do believe that women have certain unique childrearing responsibilities - notably pregnancy and nursing - that cannot and will not be assumed by men. These also enforce certain breaks in certain kinds of labor, which is too dangerous and physically demanding for a pregnant woman or nursing mom. So be it.

I also don't have a solution for the financial issues that have been raised over time, such that a traditional lifestyle in which both parents hover about the home - subsistance farming, for example - is generally impractical. Now, for most families, at least one person works outside the home; even doctors and dentists, who typically kept their office at home, cannot do that effectively anymore. At the same time, perhaps, in some other jobs, the pendulum is swinging back so that a father can be working productively and still spend substantial time around the home. This is something to applaud and encourage, in my mind. When it isn't possible, fathers need to arrange their schedules in a delicate balance between financial needs and parenting.

I'm not holding up a double standard in this fashion. If you want to catch me being illiberal about something, you can say that I leave no room for transgender and all that - and I'll agree. I'm also plenty illiberal on other topics; but I'm downright progressive on how much fathers need to do as parents.

Feminism, as you say, shouldn't dispose of child rearing. It's the false feminism that elevates all other kinds of work above this that is hideously deformed.