HAS FEMINISM MADE GOOD ON ITS OWN PROMISES?

In the distant primordial past, men took care of women, and mothers took care of children. Men produced, women reproduced.

That basic social contract was simple as it was profound: Men were responsible for protecting and providing for the family. And women took care of the childbearing and childrearing part. It was the proto-nuclear family.

That social arrangement allowed the human species to multiply and thrive. It worked so well that over the last 100,000 years, homo sapiens spread from Africa to the farthest reaches of the world.

So what would happen if that ancient social contract were radically reworked over the course of a few decades?

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it was men who decided one day to abandon the old ways. What would the new social contract look like? Bear with me as I lay it out.

First, let’s pretend that some wondrous invention relieves men of the obligation to provide for and protect their families – no more demands to work sunrise to sunset or to fend off the ever-lurking saber-tooth tiger.

Next, some mad scientist comes along and clones a female uterus. So now men have the choice to become pregnant and bear children.

Actually, that idea is not as outrageous as it sounds. Biomedical cloning has advanced much farther than most persons realize -- scientists have already proven they can sustain a uterus outside a woman’s body (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html). Now, some say it’s just a matter of time until we begin implanting wombs in men.

As improbable as the previous three paragraphs may sound, what I have just described is the social equivalent of what has happened to women over the past 44 years.

Because on May 21, 1960, the FDA approved Enovid as the first birth control pill. In addition, lower mortality rates of their offspring allowed women to conceive only two or three children without threatening the survival of the species. Anthropologist Lionel Tiger argues that those two medical advances liberated women from their biological destinies much more than feminism every could.

In 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision took things even further by granting women legal control over reproduction. And three years later in Danforth v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court ruled that a wife could obtain an abortion even without consulting her husband. In his dissent from that landmark opinion, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the State should recognize “that the husband has an interest of his own, which should not be extinguished by the unilateral decision of the wife." In other words, Rehnquist was saying that this decision was tantamount to the biological disenfranchisement of fathers. Now, women were no longer bound by the age-old social obligation to bear and raise children. Instead, women were encouraged to pursue fame and fortune.

This had the unfortunate effect of displacing men from their traditional roles as provider and protector. Dislocated from their traditional family roles, many men became dispirited and marginalized. Many younger men opted out of marriage altogether.

In hindsight, we now see that we have engaged in an extraordinary social experiment. The rapid rise in divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and fatherless families reveal the effects of altering that timeless social contract.

And women are discovering that the provider/protector role is more onerous than they had imagined. Working the corporate grind is not as glamorous as Cosmo once made it out to be.

And our children – does anyone truly believe that a child prefers to come home from school, only to find a note from mom with preparation instructions for tonight’s microwaveable meal?

To be sure, dramatic reductions in infant mortality rates have thankfully relieved women from the burden of non-stop procreation. So this essay is not a sentimental appeal for a return to the days of rigid and outmoded sex roles.

Rather, this column is a call for an honest appraisal of whether feminism has fulfilled its own promises of creating a kinder, gentler, and more egalitarian society – not just for women, but for men and children, as well.

Yeah, right. Women's lib is all about logic and empowerment and advancing women's rights. /sarcasm

So why did Kerry pick Edwards?

Qualifications? Intelligence? Experience in national politics? Experience in international politics? Previous positions and public policies?

Nope.

Kerry (a liberal extremist and feminist supporter), picked Edwards ONLY because Edwards can get the women's vote - because Edwards LOOKS PRETTY!

Now while I am opposed to the radical feminism of the modern day era that intends to emasculate men...

The reason it worked like this for 100,000 years is because the women were the ones who produced the milk! Technology has allowed for men to partake in the feeding of the young. Not to mention the part that allows the man to actually *GASP* cook and clean up after them. Also, given that most of the "producing" doesn't entail bringing down a 1000 lb beast, the woman can actually bring home a paycheck and take care of (produce) for the family.

This article is ridiculous!

The reason it worked like this for 100,000 years is because the women were the ones who produced the milk! Technology has allowed for men to partake in the feeding of the young. Not to mention the part that allows the man to actually *GASP* cook and clean up after them. Also, given that most of the "producing" doesn't entail bringing down a 1000 lb beast, the woman can actually bring home a paycheck and take care of (produce) for the family.

Your reasons reinforce the previous article. They simply add more detail and are part of the larger picture. If they were enough by themselves, the current displacement of sex roles would have happened when dairy farming was invented. :-)

Feminism grew directly out of the same Enlightenment theories of individualism which freed a hell of a lot of men from traditional social constraints and arbitrariloy imposed responsibilities.

It's easy to second guess history and play "what if" games. But history is a continuum which is not played out. If anything could act as a real time guide, let's look at those cultures where traditional roles for both men and women (to each other and to society as a whole) haven't changed in centuries. Where the tribe and clan predominate and the individual and individual achievement is scarcely recognized. Are these the kinds of societies people are clamoring to live in? Why are people in droves moving to societies (read Western) where individual freedom is the organizing principle of society? Why aren't droves lining up to live in Iran, Afghanistan, India where rigid social roles are prescribed for everyone (men included)?

Granted, modern Western societies come with their own problems. There is no Utopia. But taken as a whole, I'd rather be living today and in a Western enlightened culture with its focus on individual freedoms rather than in a caste organized society with emphasis on one's proper role in society ... whether for man or a woman.

In the end, it's not about feminism at all. Where on are earth are the most people the most free from tyranny and oppression and the most able to live their lives based upon the principles of free will and self determination? Would any of us, men included, trade those things to live in a different time or in a different society with rigid social roles for everyone?

Proves my point, doesn't it? 8<)

You're a thinking, rational, educated adult.

Yes, Edwards is cute, pretty, photogenic. He ISN'T moral, decent, honest, nor trustworthy of anything.

But, then again, you're not voting based on what he looks like.

You're NOT voting based on a romance novel image of a ravished heroine getting swept off her feet by a dashing con artist/villain.

You/re not a liberal who votes with her emotions based on a fairy's tail.

>Ever heard of a cow?

You must not be a parent, or either you let your wife do all the work. Babies can't drink cow's milk. Goat's milk maybe, but untill the invention of glass or plastic, you had to actually have a way to deliver the milk to the baby. (IE: BOTTLE!)

You remind me of my children who think that something was always here because it's been here since they were born.

>If they were enough by themselves, the current >displacement of sex roles would have happened when dairy >farming was invented. :-)

I will say to you like I said to the other poster, babies can't drink cow's milk. Not untill a year or so out. Not to mention the invention of bottles would be a factor, even if they could drink the goat's milk (an alternative to mother's milk) The invention of the bottle pushed things along, but even that wasn't readily available for cheap untill the later part of the 20th century. The invention of things able to allow the mother (including birth control!!!!) to be able to leave the children to work is what changed the roles. And that doesn't necessarily make them bad.

Again, this is just a distraction! Radical feminism was an overreaction to some things in society that weren't fair. Like a lot of social movements, it promised more than it could deliver.

But the notion that radical feminism "paved the way" for equality b/w men and women is ridiculous! In many communities, men and women were already equal. I'm glad women have more opportunities now than they did, but of course it doesn't solve the problem of how to parent children. Children need parents (mother and father) so everyone can't have the same level of a career at the same time.

That said, many women are no more swayed by a cute candidate pushing a certain political agenda than men are swayed by a cute woman pushing a certain brand of beer! We all can be swayed by a pretty package, and we all can remember: buyer beware!

Feminism was started and promoted by women who were, for the most part, angry, man-hating lesbians as well as communists. Betty Friedan was a communist, and the founders of the "womens' movement" in Berkeley in the late 60s were pretty much all angry homosexuals. This is fact, not conjecture.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.