Lies, Damn Lies and the Sexual Revolution

I read with great interest two columns in the Wall Street Journal, each answering the question: Has the Sexual Revolution Been Good for Women?

Mary Eberstadt, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a consulting editor to Policy Review says no. Ann Patchett is the author of six novels, including the best-selling "State of Wonder" and "Bel Canto" says yes. So who is right?

Both women are well educated, both are successful and both have benefitted from living in America, a nation that respects women’s rights and provides women with equal justice under the law.

May I suggest that both are right and both are wrong?

Mary approaches the question from an analysis of the politics (the war on women) and outcomes; Ann approaches it emotionally and as an ongoing utopian opportunity with serious wrinkles.

Mary states, “The sexual revolution has transformed economics, culture and law...What we know as the "social issues"—abortion, gay marriage and the rest—are here to stay, and we'll be dealing with them for generations to come. In fact, one might even predict that these vexing issues will outlast almost every other controversy burning today."

Mary points out, “Families are smaller, birthrates have dropped, divorce and out-of-wedlock births have soared. Demography has now even started to work against the modern welfare state, which has become harder to sustain as fewer children have been produced to replace aging parents.”

Ann writes, “Here's the thing about revolutions—there is no taking them back...If you feel that the sexual revolution destroyed the American family by giving women power over their reproductive choices, and that power turned daughters and wives, by and large, into a bunch of wanton hussies, well, stew over your feelings all you want, but you might as well give up thinking that it is possible to herd us up and drive us back into the kitchen—which, depending on how many revolutions have offended you, might be a kitchen with a washboard and cake of soap or a smoke house featuring a picture of King George."

Mary suggests that this discussion will not go away, whereas Ann wants it to go away. Ann wants us all move on to the more important issue of creating a greater utopian society.

Ann writes, “When everyone is good and ready, let's supply them [women] with birth control that allows them to decide when and if they want to have children together and, as an extra bonus, protects them from sexually transmitted diseases. We all have our utopian ideals and that's mine."

But who is we and who is responsible to supply “them” with birth control? That is the fundamental question. Is birth control good or bad for society?

Who is responsible for having a baby, the man, the woman, both together as a family or someone else? I raise this question because not having a baby brings with it no emotional, social or financial burden. This is not to say that aborting a baby does not have serious negative demographic consequences for society as Ann points out.

The family has evolved over the centuries as the best structure for the protection of its members. The family is the most effective way of protecting cultures from extinction. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of Great Britain, expressed it best by writing, “The family is the building block of society. It is a nursery, a school, a hospital, a leisure center, a place of refuge and a place of rest. It encompasses the whole of the society. It fashions our beliefs; it is the preparation for the rest of our life.”

Both Mary and Ann recognize this. Ann states, “There are plenty of things that people call progress which I believe are destroying the fabric of the American family: social networking, for example." So what is Ann’s solution to this problem? “Let me tell you how I deal with aspects of progress that are personally distasteful to me: I do not participate in them," writes Ann.

One of the other things that Ann does not participate in is having a family.

Mary writes, “Why do so many accomplished women simply give up these days and decide to have children on their own, sometimes using anonymous sperm donors, thus creating the world's first purposely fatherless children? What of the fact, widely reported earlier this week, that 26% of American women are on some kind of mental-health medication for anxiety and depression and related problems?" [My emphasis]

Can our uniquely American society and culture survive without the family? I believe that is the proper question to ask ourselves. I believe the answer to that question, from a male perspective, is a resounding NO!

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by American Infidel on March 27, 2012 at 10:17am: Brenda, I guess you did not count me as a woman. I very much am! Elaine is right: G-d, not women, instituted the covenant of marriage. Also, I was shocked at your ignorance of Roe v. Wade, which was a Supreme Court case. Abortion was NEVER made legal by any state or by the US Congress at any time in our history. What made abortion legal, and was also totally against the will of the American people at the time, was the Supreme Court case known as Roe V. Wade. The "Jane Roe" in the case was Norma McCorvey, a young single expectant mother who was used by the Left as their Trojan Horse in a case to the Supreme Court, as a backdoor way to legalize abortion against the will of the American people, without having to go though Congress. They won the case, and abortion was legalized in this country. 53 million innocent Americans have been murdered in their mother's wombs since that day, January 22, 1973. They have been murdered by being scalded to death with saline, vacuumed out like so much carpet dirt, or by being dismembered, with the abortionist yanking off their appendages one by one, complete with yanking off their heads from their tiny bodies, all done without anesthesia, of course. After seeing how she had been used by the Left, Norma McCorvey, the original plaintiff in the case, apologized to her daughter (the one she thought she wanted to abort) when she was old enough to understand, and she and her now-grown daughter have spoken out against abortion at literally thousands of churches all over the US. Norma McCorvey has spent her life trying to undo what she was tricked into doing back in 1973.

Comment by Elaine West on March 26, 2012 at 3:57pm: Brenda, this may surprise you but, I believe that "Women's Liberation" was attained on the backs of the physical strength of our society - THE MALE PSYCHE!

It is necessary that there be testosterone in our society to protect and defend the home, community, nation and our way of life. By neutering our MALES, we have said "We no longer need the strength of mind and body which is provided by the MALES".

Females are different from males for a purpose: because both strengths are necessary to cause mankind to prevail in this environment.

AND, you are wrong - women didn't institute the contract of marriage - God did in his infinite wisdom and knowledge of his own creation. "What God has joined, let not man put asunder".

I was also raised in the days before liberation, saw my mother work so very hard and my father kill himself at 48 trying to provide for his family. This was pre-technology; a time when agriculture was the means to an end and people lived or died by the sweat of their brows.

Times have changed. Choices can be made and the family can survive without such hard work on anyone's part. THE GOVERNMENT AND HIGHER EDUCATION HAVE SHOWN OUR CHILDREN THAT THEIR BEST CHOICE WOULD BE TO GO AGAINST THE HEALTHY FAMILY.

Comment by Stephen Gabrielson on March 25, 2012 at 3:14pm:      Children need a devoted Mother and Father to raise them property, morally, and intellectually. If they can afford to have a child, they should raise the child; if not, they should wait until they are able to take care of the child or adopt instead of having someone else care for the child. Progressives today say its ok to raise a child with one parent or two gay parents (especially if someone else is footing the bill and caring for the child). Sorry, that does not work.

     Take a look at the drop out rates in High Schools and the state our children are in. Look at the inner cities where a Mom gets pregnant out of wedlock, the father takes off, and our children end up raising children. Mom demands that society feed her, her children, housing, medical, tranporation, etc. instead of demanding that the Dad who impregnated her be fully responsible to take care of the child or have the child taken away from them and into an orphanage or foster home until the child is adopted or until the Mother and Father of that child are able to properly care for that child. What does this child learn from this, being raised by a single mother? That it's acceptable to get pregnant out of wedlock and have the government feed and raise the child instead of demanding that the father take care of the child, be there for the child unless he is working full time to financially support the child. How is this working out?

     Society has decayed because Mom wants out of the house, which is her right, leaving the children to fend for themselves. Well, look at the children today? Is this better America? Mom and Dad working hard, children left behind. Without the parents taking responsibility and raising the child properly, morally, and intellectually, the children will suffer as a result, as clearly evidenced today with the severe decay of moral values. What's more important: money or a child who is raised properly to become a productive member of society? Answer today: I want my independence and let society raise my children and pay for it instead of telling me to be personally responsible for raising my own child. And we wonder what happened to the morals and ethics in our society.

Comment by Brenda Joyce Shumway on March 25, 2012 at 1:25pm: First, there are only 5 women and now 6 with me who commented on this article! And, since it dealt with whether or not the female population's "liberation" has been good or bad, I found it interesting that the majority of comments were made by men who have never and will never be female. Since marriage was instituted by females to help them protect, shelter, and feed their children, the basic concept of being married for that reason is very sound reasoning. I grew up to adulthood during the '60s and was amazed that Roe v. Wade ever passed Congress in 1973. Until then, women had no choice in the matter except celibacy. Of course, the family unit makes any society more stable, giving constant support and education to the children of any nation. There is much less stress on a mother to just provide for herself and her children if she has a husband that does not do his fair share of supporting their children. Less stress means not only she can be more involved in the children's lives, but also the father. It would be interesting to ask the children of divorce and those whose mothers elected not to marry their fathers and ask them whether they would prefer to have 2 parents or just the one. Our society can survive without the family unit but it will always be much harder on any child who then may not have the parental, educational, and emotional opportunities available to the child who does have both parents. I saw what my mother went through before our "liberation" with more job opportunities open to them, and what was expected of a woman during the '50s, '60s for that generation. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. So, divorce is much more common and stay-at-home moms are in the minority, at least now we have the choice (if it is possible economically) to either work or stay home rearing children, or having no children. So I definitely feel it has been a very good thing!

Comment by Barry Gabrielson on March 25, 2012 at 11:36am: Chidlren need a devoted Mother and Father to raise them property, morally, and intellectually.

Progressives today say its ok to raise a child with one parent or two gay parents. Sorry, that does not work.

Look at the drop out rates in High Schools. Look at the inner cities where a Mom gets pregnant out of wedlock, the father takes off. Mom demands that society feed her, her children, housing, medical, tranporation, etc. What does this child learn from this, being raised by a single mother? Thats acceptable, to get preg out of wedlock, have the government feed and raise the child. How is this working out?

Society has decayed because Mom wants out of the house, which is her right, leaving the children to fend for themselves. Well, look at the children today? Is this better America? Mom and Dad working hard, children left behind. Whats more important, money or a child who is raised properly, to become a productive member of society. Answer today, I want my idependence, let society raise my children. And we wonder what happened to the morals in our society.

Comment by Gail Cohen on March 25, 2012 at 11:27am: Women were sold a bill of goods as part of their "liberation" - more women were getting educated and in better jobs - but that was not enough - the progressives wanted them to act as irresponsible as men do sexually - women were a control on that - and without that control the society decays - and has decayed.

Comment by Barry Gabrielson on March 25, 2012 at 11:13am: look at the Divorce rate here in the US over the years. Also, look at the marriage rate going down each year.

So many young men see what happens in a dirorce, same with girls. Men see that Dad is the loser, thrown out of his own house that he paid for, courts hold him accountable to work, pay his bill when he is thrown out, pay for his wife, if she does not work, pay for the children. 60% of the wealth the father earned is now gone, many dollars go toward paying laywers on both sides. He works to pay her lawyer who wants him destroyed.

Once the children are born and Mom does not work, she is in full control. If the husband does not keep in line, he is done, Alimony and Child Support. It does not matter in court who destroyed the marriage, does not matter at all. All the court cares about is who earns the money, that person (Male or Female) gets screwed.

The person who stays home and raises the children has the control. That should not be. No one should have more control in the marraige, should be 50/50. Courts dont see this this way.

So a young son grows up loving his father and mother. Mother is not happy in the marriage since Dad holds in the financial responsibility in the marriage. She wants to spend spend spend, go on more and more vacations they cant afford, wants the big house, new carss, furniture, etc. If Dad says no, he is done. The courts show how to deal with this sitution. A lawyer will tell her client, "You have a gold mind here". You dont need him, you get Alimony, Child Support, your children and you can stay home, let him pay for medical, dental, everything. You can have full control on where you want to spend the money. So getting a Divorce is a financial gain, you get 100%, throw him out, let him leave along, destroy him financially. The person who does not work has this control. So a young son grows up and see how courts destry the wage earner, can and will destroy him emotionally and financially. They grow up now and say, "This can also happen to me". I can work all my life, put money away, be a good husband and father, then one say, she filed for Divorce and my life in ruined. No thank you. Ask many young sons from divorced marriages if they want to get married when the court are out to screw them. So why is marriage % going down each and every year. Has to do with the Courts, the laws that screws one side and rewards the other. Until this changes, divorce rate goes up, marriage rate goes down.

Comment by Rondo on March 25, 2012 at 9:50am: Well over half of the population of the United States is female. Since we have no laws or practices in tax code that encourage abortion of female babies, I think that the ratio will remain consistent. I also believe that there are ample enough young women who are interested and prefer having a family. Therefore, I could care less about the ones that prefer female bachelorhood.

The real issue is keeping marriages intact. I grew up with early TV shows like "Father Knows Best", "Leave it to Beaver", and "Mayberry R.F.D. with aunt Bee". Along with other shows like "Lassie" and "Make Room for Daddy" the picture I formed of being married was indeed distorted. I have been married more than once and am not married now. I do not blame those shows for my naivety about women. Many other factors played just as big, if not a bigger, part in my perception of marriage including the 50+ year plus marriage of my grandparents and 30+ year marriage of my mom and dad.

As a die hard fan of Ayn Rand's books, I came to know the difference between need and want. Many people (especially young people) need to be married to fulfill chemistry drives and later find that they do not want to be married. All they wanted was a somewhat faithful and attractive mate for a time. The need they had cause them to want a person to live with them and share their bed. They may have thought they wanted to be married, but that was a confusion of marriage and a sex drive.

All of these experiences do not mean marriage is a fad or has become a quaint artifact of a once popular and practical "life style." Some one once suggested to me that our laws were backward. The suggestion was that it should take a lot of time and even some cash to get a marriage license, while getting a divorce (in the case of no kids) should be as simple as filing a single document declaring the marriage over and enumerating any property settlement agreement. There should be no need for lawyers. I am not totally sold on the instant divorce thing, but I do believe in the more difficult entry into marriage one.

All in all I find being married much more comfortable than being single. But, I do not think that comfort is a basis for getting married to anyone. I am not a fan of violence in marriage or elsewhere, but I've noticed that couples that fight (as in throw dishes or other non-lethal objects) and scream and then make up generally have longer lasting and even permanent (life long) marriages.

Our society doesn't teach kids that a constant state of happy is both unrealistic and dangerous. Our scifi novels and movies sometimes show it, e.g. "The Stepford Wives" and "The Truman Show" indict the goofy idea that all is bliss or ever can be in this life. In fact, there are many many themes that state or imply that man (and woman) need the struggle or they lose part of what it means to be imperfectly human.

I hope my kids marry and stay married when the time is right. My oldest already made one mistake and married a second time. But, I think her second one is a permanent one. There is no 50-50 on an on going basis. But, the average at the end of the line (after 30 to 50 years of marriage) should be close to 50-50.

So marriage is natural and not just a life style fad. It is also not a constant state of happy, but neither is being single. Birth control should have made marriage stronger - not weaker. In cases where birth control is blamed for a busted marriage, the shallow analyst who determined the cause to be birth control needs to go back to college and take classes in critical thinking.

as I see it, a Divorcee and Vietnam Vet,

Ron

Comment by Ed Stoneham on March 25, 2012 at 5:22am: Barry,

What you say is golden. I chose the mother of my kids partly on the basis of whether she would make a good stay-at-home mom, and I was not disappointed. Our kids, now self-supporting and accomplished adults, are a real credit to their mom.

Children are our immortality. Until people realize this, the young people choosing partners are going to be making bad choices and big mistakes. We should not be supporting their ignorance with welfare.

Comment by Wordwaryor on March 24, 2012 at 10:50pm: Isn't it sad that with Women's liberation, the MOST dangerous place in America for anyone to be is IN a mother's womb ? And with the high divorce rate, it has NOT served women or children well at all. There are more single parent mothers in our society today, than ever before. Struggling to make ends meet on a single salary. Many forced back into the workforce without training, and with little prospects of getting a good job.

Children living in homes fractured by divorce. Many of them destined to a lifetimes of emotional and social problems. The prospects for law breaking and incarceration increase many fold in some of these children. Single parent families are now the fastest growing segment of our population.

Is this good for America ? NO. Is is good for children ? NO. Has it been good for women ? NO.

‹ Previous
1
2
3
Next ›