You Don't Get to Keep The Sexual Revolution And Give Back the Sex
The Wall Street Journal recently ran a mini-symposium on whether or not the sexual revolution was good for women, a massive topic to be addressed in relatively brief op-eds. I think Hanna Rosin did a pretty good job with “yes” side, and was hoping for a thought-provoking view from someone more skeptical. I’ve never heard of Mary Eberstadt before this, but it’s difficult to imagine a “no” response that better evades the central question at play in the debate.
I’ll skip the first three myths Eberstadt lays out, even though I have plenty to argue with about those. (Her contentions, all of which are directed toward demonstrating that the “war on women” is a myth: All women aren’t liberals, lots of Christians besides the Catholic Church care about contraception, and social issues aren’t going away.) The real evasion comes in Myth #4: “The sexual revolution has made women happier.”
It’s possible that this is actually a myth propagated by people on the other side of the question from Eberstadt, but I’ve never heard it from any of the liberal women I read regularly on these issues. They would argue, as Rosin does in her piece, that women are on balance better off than they were before the sexual revolution. But Hanna explicitly wrestles with the fact that women do not seem to be happier now than they were before, and I’ve never heard a prominent feminist defend the sexual revolution on the shallow grounds that it made women happier. It gave them more of a say over their bodies and lives, and freed them to become, as they are now in certain demographics, more educated and higher earners than men. By making the question about “happiness,” Eberstadt has avoided the much more substantive, much more difficult question: overall, are women more free to lead lives they choose and find meaningful than they were before? Are they more able to do so without facing cultural disdain and male harassment? If the answer to those is yes, and it obviously is, I’m much less concerned about whether they are significantly more “happy.”
I don’t believe the happiness question is irrelevant, even if it is thorny. (What is happiness? Are conservative religious women more likely to delude themselves about their choices making them happy? Who says the most satisfying life is necessarily the most traditionally “happy?” Etc, etc.) But there is a reason anti-feminists, conservatives and other traditionalists always jump right away to happiness. Partly because the studies are in their favor, and partly because they don’t want to face the more telling question. Because it’s pretty self-evident that women are better off than they were in 1950. You’re free to think it’s better to have a society where women have less choice about what to do with their lives, less ability to support themselves without a man, and less ability to pursue the education and career opportunities they clearly excel at, but you’d be in a fractional minority of even conservative women.
The reason conservatives don’t want to admit this obvious reality in public is what is behind the profound change, the profound improvement, in women’s standing in such a short period of time: the breaking away from traditional ideas about gender roles and sexual morality. This is in large part thanks to the pill, but it’s much more than that. As Hanna puts it, it is all thanks to “the ability to have temporary, intimate relationships that don’t derail a career. Or to put it more simply, to have sex without getting married.” You cannot have one without the other: if you continue to protest women’s ability to have sex with who they want without getting married or to limit the size of their family so that they are able to do other things with their lives, you have to reject the relational, education, professional and economic benefits as well.
Obviously, the subject of marriage and childbearing is complicated, and there are many factors beyond mores that impact it. But the central question at play here, outside of the complex economic questions involved in the current state of marriage, is whether the gains that came from the decline of traditional gender roles were worth it. And what traditionalists must be pressed to admit is that the positive changes the sexual revolution wrought would not be possible in a world where women must marry the first man they want to have sex with or are at constant risk of becoming pregnant. In that sense, the people who want to keep the gains of the sexual revolution but roll back their conditions of possibility are rightly said to be waging a “war on women.”
I often wonder how many men who decry feminine promiscuity go out on the weekends and desperately try to get women to fuck them.
— Freddie · Mar 27, 05:48 PM · #
i think there’s a theoretical argument that women could go have careers, and all the other beneficial liberatory steps that came with the 1960s…and just not have premarital sex. unrealistic given human nature, but that argument is out there.
— jc · Mar 27, 06:10 PM · #
Well, you’re obviously not an Aristotelian. Aristotle would say that what’s the good of having choices and careers if you’re actually less happy? Happiness is the ultimate good, as far as life on this earth is concerned. If you’re actually happier under certain conditions, why should it matter that you have less “choice” as to your “career”?
— Anon · Mar 27, 10:45 PM · #
That is a flagrant misreading of Aristotle.
— Freddie · Mar 28, 02:34 PM · #
I cannot be accused of being Aristotelian in almost any sense, but yeah, what Freddie said.
— David Sessions · Mar 28, 03:39 PM · #
Man, I don’t know if it’s even a misreading, dude, it’s just wrong. Aristotle, for example, sings the praises of Priam’s acknowledged morality and nobility, and well, Priam’s road didn’t exactly leave him “happy.”
— Kieselguhr Kid · Mar 29, 12:41 AM · #
David,
To bring you up to speed on Professor Eberstadt, this is a good longer piece of hers:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/07/002-the-vindication-of-ihumanae-vitaei-28?vm=r
As for your comments, I would just argue a modified version of what “jc” said. In other words, sign me up for the limited, guerrilla warfare campaign against women — I think some of the changes implemented since the 1920s (when women got the vote…which I’m not sure was a great idea, but I guess I can live with it) are worth keeping but yes, when you throw out the sexual revolution certain options to women will be limited and I would argue that these limited options are both good for women and good for society.
— Fake Herzog · Mar 29, 03:17 AM · #
I’m not sure you’re telling traditionalists anything they don’t already know. They argue for traditional morality, for older conceptions of gender and sexuality, not because they particularly enjoy complaining about progressive culture, but because they believe the organization of society connected with traditional ways of doing things is, in fact, more conducive to human flourishing. When they criticize the sexual revolution, they do so with the understanding that the status quo in the sexual division of labor is unsustainable (because it denies the reproductive nature that messily breaks out of technological and political mastery in the form of family, and consequently social, decay), and that one manifestation of this is the relative misery it can, and does, induce. They would recognize that the cat is out of the bag as far as women’s increased economic opportunities and their increased autonomy, and (at least those wishing to get a foot in the door politically) would seek to make their proposals as compatible that reality as possible.
However, you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the traditionalist critique if you think the relative happiness of women after the sexual revolution is a diversion from “the central question at play in the debate.” At the basis of their argument is an anthropology in which man is naturally social because his nature is limited and he must depend on others to flourish. They oppose rationalistic schemes precisely because they ignore this nature, and because they tend to atomize society rather than to strengthen the social bonds traditionalists believe are important. On this account, it comes as no surprise that a technology (the pill) which suppresses nature and encourages the illusion of control should result in less happiness, for precisely the reason that it leads to greater autonomy and sets sexual desire against reproduction.
Advocates of the sexual revolution, according to traditionalists, set themselves against humanity in arguing that women and men can lead long sexual careers without children and without marriage, have a rich and long working career, and have a happy family all at the same time. When it turns out, again unsurprisingly, that all these things are not really possible, some people become unhappy. Because people are rational animals, and not just minds in space, some part of them will always escape from ideologies which deny the body. Alienation of our reproductive nature through the pill may lead to a measure of equality, but it will always come at the cost of that reproductive nature. The pill and the sexual revolution it enabled did not really “give women more of a say over their bodies and their lives,” it suppressed their bodies and their reproductive natures and thereby decreased their ability to flourish as women.
— Corey · Mar 29, 03:43 AM · #
All of that just to say: traditionalists are citing happiness research because it bears out what they’ve been saying about people’s natures, and the harm done when we pretend women and men are exactly the same (even if some technology might be able to suppress a large part of that sexual nature) and when we pretend there’s such a thing as sex without consequences. People (men and women… it still takes two to tango, after all) inevitably become unhappy when the promises made to them by the sexual revolution cannot be fulfilled because of a recalcitrant reality.
— Corey · Mar 29, 04:00 AM · #
“The pill and the sexual revolution it enabled did not really “give women more of a say over their bodies and their lives,” it suppressed their bodies and their reproductive natures and thereby decreased their ability to flourish as women.”
While I’m not exactly sure I agree with the “sexual freedom is the root of all female advancement” argument, the above pretty much cyrstalizes what’s wrong with conservatives on this subject. If you believe women are primarly nothing more than incubators and should just accept that as their lot in life, you pretty much do have to drastically restrict their material, intellectual and emotional freedom to make that stick.
Mike
— MBunge · Mar 29, 04:20 PM · #
Corey,
Wow. You should have your own blog…two great comments. Well done.
Mike,
“If you believe women are primarly nothing more than incubators and should just accept that as their lot in life, you pretty much do have to drastically restrict their material, intellectual and emotional freedom to make that stick.”
Is your characterization of what conservatives believe about women fair? How does one even begin to restrict a woman’s emotional freedom? Force her to take soma? Your false characterization of what conservatives “believe” pretty much crystalizes what’s wrong with liberals on this subject.
— Fake Herzog · Mar 29, 07:29 PM · #
“Is your characterization of what conservatives believe about women fair?”
How can any reasonable person interpret…
“The pill and the sexual revolution it enabled did not really “give women more of a say over their bodies and their lives,” it suppressed their bodies and their reproductive natures and thereby decreased their ability to flourish as women”
…as anything other than an expression that “woman = incubator”? That women are biologically consigned to play only a certain role in life and any attempt to expand their personal horizons beyond that harms “their ability to flourish as women?” Note the emphasis on “flourish as women” as opposed to “flourish as human beings”.
Mike
— MBunge · Mar 29, 08:23 PM · #
Mike- You read too much into what I wrote. I did not say that women are reducible to their biology, nor did I say that their biology is reducible to maternity. On the contrary, I merely wished to point out that the pill only “expands personal horizons” for women (in the way Mr. Sessions has described) at the cost of a coming to terms with a comprehensive view of their nature, which includes not only sexual and economic desire, but also motherhood. When I say that suppression of reproductive nature may limit women’s ability to flourish qua woman, I only mean to say that the consumption and sex that the pill enabled do not capture everything it is to be a woman (or to be a man, for that matter). Motherhood, too, does not fully encompass womanhood, but traditionalists (such as Mary Eberstadt, who I’m surprised Mr. Sessions has never heard of considering the topics he writes on) have been arguing for some time that denigrating and artificially suppressing motherhood is to detract from womanhood. It’s a part of their greater criticism of the modern delusion of mastery over nature and the sovereign will. If women are less happy now, with greater economic and sexual opportunity, then this could be one explanation (and it would also explain why Eberstadt thinks happiness research is important- this was the main point of my post, not a defense of traditionalism).
If you’re interested in an elaboration of what I’ve posted, see the “conservative” feminist work of Jean Bethke Elshtain, especially well-known (and controversial) essay, “Antigone’s Daughters.”
— Corey · Mar 29, 10:47 PM · #
Ask a woman, sometime, how often she is commanded by complete and total strangers to “smile more.” That’s just one way that the permissible emotional expression of women is circumscribed by patriarchy.
— Chet · Mar 30, 02:11 AM · #
Corey,
“On the contrary, I merely wished to point out that the pill only “expands personal horizons” for women (in the way Mr. Sessions has described) at the cost of a coming to terms with a comprehensive view of their nature, which includes not only sexual and economic desire, but also motherhood”
One could argue that modern birth control methods, along with economic opportunities for women, are what are allowing women to “come to terms with a comprehensive view of their nature”. Taking the pill for a while does not preclude motherhood at some later time, after all.
“Motherhood, too, does not fully encompass womanhood, but traditionalists (such as Mary Eberstadt, who I’m surprised Mr. Sessions has never heard of considering the topics he writes on) have been arguing for some time that denigrating and artificially suppressing motherhood is to detract from womanhood.”
Either those traditionalists also believe that “denigrating and artificially suppressing” women’s sexual and economic desires detracts from womenhood as well, or they don’t. The first cases vitiates much of the argument against the pill. The second case is evidence for mbunge’s “women as incubators” charge.
— Ratufa · Mar 30, 02:52 AM · #
“Mike- You read too much into what I wrote.”
Dude, I seriously suggest you discuss these issues with actual women. Not reading the work of conservative feminists but talking to/interacting with the flesh and blood kind. They don’t even have to be liberals. Just people with two X chromosomes who could let you know what it’s like to hear someone pontificate on “womanhood”.
Much like with conservatives on race, it’s difficult to get down to the philosophical argument because the rhetoric gets in the way.
Mike
— MBunge · Mar 30, 03:22 PM · #
“Incubator” is an odd word choice. What if we used “mother” instead?
My mom had a PhD and a long professional career, and I’m sure she could have advanced farther in the workplace if she had never had a family, but I sincerely doubt she would be happier now for it. There’s a reason the saying “no one is on their deathbed wishing they had spent more time at work” is a cliche, because it’s largely true!
The social conservative argument is that people (and society as a whole) are better off when stable two-parent households are encouraged. By removing societal restrictions that “regulated” the sexual marketplace for thousands of years, we’ve made that more difficult. The Sexual Revolution promoted individual freedom at the cost of stable families.
The broader point I think this article is trying to make is there are things called “trade-offs”, where two good things come into conflict with each other. Liberty vs. security is a pretty good example; there are no right answers, just a matter of what you value more.
— Jamal · Mar 30, 11:58 PM · #
I am great fan of your blog.Every time i come here i see something very new.Thanks for sharing the information.
— customessays · Mar 31, 01:24 PM · #
The social conservative argument is that people (and society as a whole) are better off when stable two-parent households are encouraged.
But not having a stable two-parent household is almost never a choice. What good does stigma do if it can’t prevent the conditions that lead to the undesirable situation in the first place?
— Freddie · Mar 31, 03:05 PM · #
A couple of years ago I got a summons for not having an NYS registration sticker on my sloop. My reading, and the US Coast Guard’s reading of the statute was that because my boat was a US Coast Guard documented vessel it was except from any state registration requirement; the local constabulary disagreed, and issued me a citation; and so to court I went.
As it happened, we were living on the boat at the time and one of our two Newfoundland dogs had died the night before, so I got to court very early, hoping to quickly dispose of the case so I could return to the boat and dispose of the dog’s body, which we had wrapped in a sheet and removed to the cockpit. It was August and I wanted to get on with the task before the Summer’s heat start to make the task unpleasant.
I arrived at the court house about an hour before they opened their doors, and found a woman already waiting. She was about 80 years old and she told me she’d never received a ticket and had never been in traffic court before and could I tell her what to expect.
As we talked I found out that she was a doctor and also a professor of medicine, with some non-trivial medical discoveries to her credit.
I also found out that her husband was also a doctor, and in fact they had met and married in medical school, an this was notable, because at the time, women med student were unusual, and it was the medical school policy that if a woman student married, she would be expelled.
The rationale for this policy was that if a woman married, she (likely) soon become pregnant and have to drop out of her studies, so expelling women who married was simply opening up a spot to another student that much sooner.
I don’t recall the details of how she and her husband fought this policy, but obviously they were successful. I do recall her telling me that she graduated #1 in her class, and I believe she was telling the truth.
— David Ryan · Mar 31, 08:22 PM · #
“But not having a stable two-parent household is almost never a choice.”
Wait, what?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this some sort of strange post-modern English literature joke that I just don’t understand?
I know your Mom played badminton in the nude, and this obviously screwed you up, but please try harder the next time you get the urge to write something so absurd (and for the record, the choice is with the parents, not the kids — it is the parents who need to start making the right choices).
— Fake Herzog · Mar 31, 08:22 PM · #
Uh, no, it’s a statement in English describing an empirical reality. That’s why it seems so strange to you, Fake Herzog.
— Chet · Apr 1, 12:55 PM · #
Herzog, are you really under the impression that most single parents prefer to be single parents?
Leaving someone who is abusive, physically or emotionally, is not choosing to be a single parent; it’s having the choice made for you. Losing a spouse through death is not a choice. Having the other parent run out on you is not a choice. Removing a child from a household with a partner who is addicted to drugs or alcohol is not choosing to parent alone; it’s having the choice made for you.
— Freddie · Apr 2, 01:17 AM · #
Really cool post! Thanks for sharing.
— essaycapital · Apr 2, 12:26 PM · #
Freddie,
You say,
“Leaving someone who is abusive, physically or emotionally, is not choosing to be a single parent; it’s having the choice made for you. Losing a spouse through death is not a choice. Having the other parent run out on you is not a choice. Removing a child from a household with a partner who is addicted to drugs or alcohol is not choosing to parent alone; it’s having the choice made for you.”
I agree with all of this. Now, what percentage of single parents are single as a result of these situations? Maybe 10? Who knows…but I do know that when the out-of-wedlock birthrate in this country already approaches 50%, the problem we have is not that we have too many widows.
— Fake Herzog · Apr 3, 01:50 AM · #
OK, let me try again: Aristotle would say that happiness is the chief good that we want for itself, not for some further end (chapter 1, Nicomachean Ethics). It makes sense to say that we want careers and choices because those will make us more happy. It does not make sense to say that we want happiness only if it leads to careers and choices, and that we’d be wise to sacrifice some happiness if it gets us further towards the ultimate end of careers and choices. That way of thinking is perverse and weird.
— Anon · Apr 4, 01:31 PM · #