As we approach the 50th anniversary of the publication of Betty Friedan’s feminist magnum opus, The Feminine Mystique, we can have a perspective on feminism that was largely unavailable heretofore.
And that perspective doesn’t make feminism look good. Yes, women have more opportunities to achieve career success; they are now members of most Jewish and Christian clergy; women’s college sports teams are given huge amounts of money; and there are far more women in political positions of power. But the prices paid for these changes — four in particular — have been great, and outweigh the gains for women, let alone for men and for society.
Advertisement
The first was the feminist message to young women to have sex just as men do. There is no reason for them to lead a different sexual life than men, they were told. Just as men can have sex with any woman solely for the sake of physical pleasure, so, too, women ought to enjoy sex with any man just for the fun of it. The notion that the nature of women is to hope for at least the possibility of a long-term commitment from a man they sleep with has been dismissed as sexist nonsense.
As a result, vast numbers of young American women had, and continue to have, what are called “hookups”; and for some of them it is quite possible that no psychological or emotional price has been paid. But the majority of women who are promiscuous do pay prices. One is depression. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat recently summarized an academic study on the subject: “A young woman’s likelihood of depression rose steadily as her number of partners climbed and the present stability of her sex life diminished.”
Long before this study, I had learned from women callers to my radio show (an hour each week — the “Male-Female Hour” — is devoted to very honest discussion of sexual and other man-woman issues) that not only did female promiscuity coincide with depression, it also often had lasting effects on women’s ability to enjoy sex. Many married women told me that in order to have a normal sexual relationship with their husband, they had to work through the negative aftereffects of early promiscuity — not trusting men, feeling used, seeing sex as unrelated to love, and disdaining their husband’s sexual overtures. And many said they still couldn’t have a normal sex life with their husband.
The second awful legacy of feminism has been the belief among women that they could and should postpone marriage until they developed their careers. Only then should they seriously consider looking for a husband. Thus, the decade or more during which women have the best chance to attract men is spent being preoccupied with developing a career. Again, I cite woman callers to my radio show over the past 20 years who have sadly looked back at what they now, at age 40, regard as 20 wasted years. Sure, these frequently bright and talented women have a fine career. But most women are not programmed to prefer a great career to a great man and a family. They feel they were sold a bill of goods at college and by the media. And they were. It turns out that most women without a man do worse in life than fish without bicycles.
The third sad feminist legacy is that so many women — and men — have bought the notion that women should work outside the home that for the first time in American history, and perhaps world history, vast numbers of children are not primarily raised by their mothers or even by an extended family member. Instead they are raised for a significant part of their childhood by nannies and by workers at daycare centers. Whatever feminists may say about their only advocating choices, everyone knows the truth: Feminism regards work outside the home as more elevating, honorable, and personally productive than full-time mothering and making a home.
And the fourth awful legacy of feminism has been the demasculinization of men. For all of higher civilization’s recorded history, becoming a man was defined overwhelmingly as taking responsibility for a family. That notion — indeed the notion of masculinity itself — is regarded by feminism as the worst of sins: patriarchy.
Men need a role, or they become, as the title of George Gilder’s classic book on single men describes them: Naked Nomads. In little more than a generation, feminism has obliterated roles. If you wonder why so many men choose not to get married, the answer lies in large part in the contemporary devaluation of the husband and of the father — of men as men, in other words. Most men want to be honored in some way — as a husband, a father, a provider, as an accomplished something; they don’t want merely to be “equal partners” with a wife.
In sum, thanks to feminism, very many women slept with too many men for their own happiness; postponed marriage too long to find the right man to marry; are having hired hands do much of the raising of their children; and find they are dating boy-men because manly men are so rare.
Feminism exemplifies the truth of the saying, “Be careful what you wish for — you may get it.”
— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host and columnist. He can be contacted through his website, www.dennisprager.com.
Allow me to add my own "legacies of feminism" during the last 40 years:
1) Increased divorce rate.
2) Increased abortion rate.
3) Increase in single motherhood.
All of these were championed by feminists as "empowerment". But tell me, what father in his right mind would want these three things for his own daughter?
Please visit my YouTube channel (and friends listed there) at External Link
Thank you. Someone has finally spoken the truth about our culture and the sad road that we have taken with its consequences. Unfortunately, I don't think anything can put us back on the right track. I think that the inevitable consequence of this foolish and destructive course will only end in the death of our civilization. Maybe some other culture will learn from this mistake. I hope so for the sake of marriage and children.
Don't confuse feminism with the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution was started in the early 1960s by men (eg, Hugh Hefner) for men. Some of its concepts ultimately applied to women (eg, Erica Jong in the 1970s). But if anything, with the rising divorces, out of wedlock children, homosexuality and increasing economic inequality, and men abandoning traditional roles, feminism was something that helped protect women and their children from the unreliability of men (something that predates feminism). I shudder to think where we would be today in this world of sexual objectification and high divorce rates if women did not have their own careers, income and education. As for lack of virility among men, may I suggest that anyone who is concerned about it hit the gym.
Don't kid yourself. The 'pill' and feminism contributed GREATLY to the destruction of the family and marriage. The 'sexual revolution' was aided and abetted by feminism and women's willingness to embrace irresponsible behavior. Men are not the instigators of divorce. Over two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women who overwhelmingly reap the financial benefits. 'Fatherless' children don't exist because men want to abdicate their roles.
So, you're telling me that 'Our Bodies, Our Selves' wasn't some kind of feminist screed? There's too much evidence against you. It is the feminist methodology which makes men the ultimate bad guy. The healthier members of our society aren't buying into it. I hope that men hold their ground, refuse to respond to the sleep around culture that young women are selling these days, and hold out for real women who honor their bodies and their unique ability to bear and raise children. Women were once much more respected by men as a treasure, able to give them a family. Now they are looked at as a means of relieving sexual tension and an emotional risk to be avoided.
Thank God I've raised my older sons to wait until they meet a real woman. Thank God I've raised my daughter to know that she's a treasure and if a man loves her he can get on his knee and offer her a ring.. Marriage is a promise. You're only as good as your word. My husband and I and our kids understand this. I've been happily married for 25 years. My husband and I have worked hard to insure the same for our kids.
Ultimately, the source is less important than the obvious fact that feminist values are an ugly destructive force in our society.
You are trying to confuse men having a uniquely honored role in society based on responsibility and accomplishments as tantamount to the amount of testosterone in their veins?
While I agree with nearly all of the author's points, I'd like to ad an caveat to his "working in the home" argument. While foregoing a career - or merely a job outside the home - is certainly important during the time when children need personal attention and are in the home for most of the day, the fact that modern conveniences make homemaking a walk in the park next to what it used to requires, argues that once the children are of a certain age, it is not necessarily good for the spouse to stay at home without working. These days,staying at home after the children leave is essentially a vacation, and when one spouse has to work to support the other's ease, it doesn't bode well for the relationship. Certainly women who are older will have a harder time finding "fulfilling" work, but after all, most of us don't find such work. We work to put food on the table.
This is an interesting point that I haven't considered before, though it makes perfect sense. I've even observed it in my own parents. After my sister and I left the house (and really, once we were in high school), my mother's responsibilities as a homemaker were reduced to nearly nothing, whereas my father continued to work the same long hours he always had. It did stir some resentment, though I doubt that anyone was able to articulate exactly what it was about. It would be interesting to read more studies and analyses of how modern technologies have impacted gender roles, relationships, family life, etc.
I think this is a good point that a couple would need to address, and idle hands of either sex are likely to find trouble.
There are other options than work, depending on the family's finances, such a grandchilren or volunteering or helping the husband's career in some way.
"But the majority of women who are promiscuous do pay prices . . . [T]hey had to work through the negative aftereffects of early promiscuity — not trusting men . ."
And after many years of failed hookups, that lack of trust will turn into a deep sense of grievance -- all men will wrong them -- and resentment. You see it in the 30 and 40 year olds women who are still single. The good men were pretty much all taken in their 20s. All that's left are lousy prospects, and it's readily apparent. Too bad ladies. You were lied to, indoctrinated, and failed by someone -- a mother, teacher, counselor -- with really bad ideas. If it's any consolaton, boys were lied to as well, who happily bought into the idead you could have sex with no deep meaningful relationship or friendship with a woman. And a lot of those boy-men are still running around feeling empty, but not knowing quite why.
I agree with much of what Mr. Prager writes, and I, too, have been contemplating the changes to the male/female dynamic as a result of feminism.
I take one exception to Mr. Prager's column however - after reading a few good analyses on some of the Men's Rights blogs, I'm convinced that today's young men aren't choosing to "boy-men," or as some feminist writers and cultural conservatives suggest, refusing to "grow up," or "man up."
Today's young men are still men, they're just men who have responded to the incentives they face. If they've chosen not to be masculinized because it doesn't get them much in terms of either sex, or employment, well, why should they pay the price for masculinization, which does, after all, pose risks in terms of stress, competition with other men, etc.?
The bottom line is that humans, particularly males (who excel in solving puzzles and in competing) respond to incentives. Men have been given disincentives to be masculine, to seek long-term relationships, to strive for professional recognition or progress, to want marriage, and to want children. Men have come to recognize that the feminist jihad of bearing false witness isn't something they can beat head-on, so they are engaging in the perfectly logical strategy of passive-aggression.
Be masculine in appearance? Earn false abuse charges where courts assume you must be the abuser because you're stronger. Response? De-emphasize the masculine.
Succeed in the workplace? Get false harrassment charges. Response? Eschew the employment structures that allow for such things (corporate/government) or join a protected class: bisexual, transgendered, etc.
Get married? Lose 50% of your wealth when your wife gets a 7 year itch and decides to leave because that's what her gf did. Watch your alimony payments fund her new lifestyle of promiscuity as she parades a stream of young men into what was your marital bed, possibly exposing your children to them. Response: Don't marry.
Have children? Lose custody of them after divorce, when your ex-wife (as many women do) file for strategic restraining orders, and bring false charges of neglect against you as legal leverage. Response: don't have children.
Let's be honest: the young guys are the smart ones in this situation. Only an idiot would pursue the traditional paths of male virtue in our current society, where it's overwhelmingly likely that their efforts will be undermined and rendered largely disadvantageous.
This is assuming that you marry a secular, atheist, nihilistic woman.
I married a Christian woman who understands her Biblical role (and relishes it). Consequently, we don't argue over sex or money. What a concept! 13 years and going strong. I have my role and she has hers. It works, just like it has worked for thousands of years (before feminism).
Feminists need to be ostracized by marriage-material men. They must be shunned and stigmatized with the Scarlet Letter of "F" on their foreheads.
Men, for the sake of our civilization and our future, reject women who espouse feminist attitudes. Tell them you want a real woman, not an imitation man.
Unfortunately, there are even Christian women who have been infected, albeit subliminally, with the attitudes of feminism, thinking that even though the children are gone from home and the housekeeping is light, their spouse must both bring home the bacon and do 50% of the housework. The church needs to press the image of the woman of Proverbs 31:28, whose diligence and hard work caused her children, and her husband I suspect, to rise up and call her blessed.
Nine years and going strong. Three kids (1,3,5), a home and a good education and job. She writes for fun and gardens. I come home to hear the kiddos squeal when I walk in the door. Sure we have struggles, but we're united and we work through them. Forget this feminist garbage.
Your point is interesting when you put in terms of the motivation to defend one's home and country. Historically men have been motivated to join the military in no small part because they felt that their homes, their families and their country were worth defending. It's a big deal to ask a man to risk his life for you. You'd better be worthy of his sacrifice if you're to bear no shame in it.
I know that feminists will exclaim that there are also women in the military, but demographically they are a much smaller number, and they are not given the really heavy duty jobs that only men can do. If you think that men and women are physically equal then explain to me why there are no women in the NFL
I almost never disagree with Prager, and while I agree with many of the observations noted here, I do believe that women rightfully wanted to be able to pursue career goals. I am a 47 year old attorney that chose to stay home with my children after several years of working. Now that my children are 15 and 13, I am increasing my work load, and am lucky to be able to work mostly from home. However, if I did not have a career to return to, I would find myself pretty bored and lonely, as my kids are involved in many activities and sports, keeping them busy sometimes from 6 am until 7:30 at night. That is not to say I regret my choice. But if I had not established myself somewhat before I had kids, I would be lost right now.
While there are clearly a number of societal problems that probably stem most directly from the sexual revolution, the news is not all bad. The bloom is off the rose of promiscuity and many young people, male and female, are making a different choice. Women today I think face less stigma when they have their children, and they can have them earlier without completely dismantling their careers. Wanting to work part time is not frowned upon as it once was. Having a "career" is not the end all and be all of a person's identity for women or men. But an identity independent of the role as wife an mother is important for women, just as having an identity independent of husband and father is important to men, including Mr. Prager. Although men appear to be somewhat unclear about their role and that is a problem, a lot of men are now in a position to spend more time with their children when they are young, something my father was never able to do.
I admire the path you've taken. As I wrote in my early post, in this day and age, after the children are able to function on their own (and that's a good thing to do even in their teens), homemaking is so easy a job that most up-till-then non-working spouses should find work that contributes more to the couple's income. I've met far too many women who have essentially retired from any work after the children leave, and who let their husbands support them in their leisure. That's not healthy for either party, especially when, by and large, the neighborhoods these days are empty of adults during daylight hours.
I couldn't agree more. Some women in my neighborhood hang around the park or go to Starbucks after they drop the kids off, sometimes moving right into the lunch hour. With swiffers, and dishwashers, and microwaves, housework is simply not a full time job when the kids can do their homework themselves, get to and from activities, etc. To add insult to injury a signficant amount of this leisure time is, on occasion, spent male bashing. I don't think this is healthy for anyone, including the women who think they are having a good time.
Thank you for providing one of a very few balanced views of this topic. I'll only add, in support, a quote from one of the English language's great novels:
"Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex."
