Posted on 11/01/2011 6:36:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
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.
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.
The human species is no longer ‘special’.
The civil, advanced natural order of male protecting the female; mother of his offspring has morphed into packs of hyenas.
God is not amused.
There are layers of deception and destruction involving feminism.
Ultimately, it is Luciferian in origin, seeking the destruction of the family, God’s first created human institution.
But then there are the communists, also seeking the same destruction of traditional families, which are an impediment to their goals.
Then the man hating fems, working for both of the above, whether they know it or not. Some man “wronged” them in their lifetimes, and they seek societal revenge, justifying it as a civil rights movement.
Then there are the true deceived sheep, who actually think it IS a civil rights movement.
Be careful what you wish for bump
Another reason is the current state of divorce laws and the family court system. Put simply, for a man to marry these days carries large risks. Meanwhile, men can get many of the benefits of marriage outside of marriage. For many, marriage seems like a unattractive deal.
Absolutely.
Stay home moms used to be the norm. Homes and kids were clean, the family was healthy, the schools stuck to academics, and the neighborhoods were safe because there was a mom behind every door. Jobs were plentiful, because only one member of the family had to work.
Taxes were much, much lower, so dad brought home most of his paycheck. Welfare was minimal, and seeking work was required. That made the whole community strong.
Today, a woman is left alone to work two jobs and do everything herself. The kids are being raised by the indoctrinators in the unionized schools, and they're growing up to be self centered animals. They're sickly, and dumber than a box of rocks.
Most woman have to collect some type of public check (which is why they're a democrat voting block), because they can't give 100% to a job.
Their homes are a mess. There's a 50% divorce rate because the woman expects the man to do what she used to do, but not all men choose to do mommies work as well as their own.
The neighbor hoods have become hunting grounds for every perve known to man. Kids cannot safely play outside anymore.
It's a mess. Mommy is no longer home. She's too busy slaving away just to survive, and spending what she makes (if she actually has a job) on herself to make herself feel better about what she's become.
The stay home moms are the ones who have it made. They're the ones who didn't fall for the big lie. They're happy, their kids are happy, their husbands are happy, and everything is fine.
I've worn both shoes. It wasn't long before the "liberated" shoes came off! I'l choose staying home and caring for my family anyday!
One would presume the men are having sex with women for the most part. If women abstain, I guess by default, men will abstain as well.
I would add a fifth awful legacy of feminism: the concurrent masculinization of women. While men are encouraged to become more like women, women are encouraged to become more like the characteristics that we are told to disdain in men. To be more aggressive and less nurturing. Consider the issue of abortion. It is not normal for a mother to order the violent death of her unborn child. But that is exactly what Feminism tells women to do. Killing their child is touted as a “right” that is to be exercised without so much as a blip on the woman's emotional radar screen.
I’ve chosen to stay home, too. It’s been a blessing to my family and to me.
“Stay at home moms use to be the norm”.
I remember vividly going to a “mother’s group” social after deciding to stay home with my first. Many different conversations were going on... politics, socio-economic, etc... After about an hour, I mentioned staying home. There was sort of a hush.... One woman said to me, “I thought you were smarter than THAT. Why would you choose to be trapped in the house all day with a kid?” Dang... what do you even begin to say?! What annoys me about feminists is how they portray women. Stay at home types (like me) are viewed as “whores with uteruses who are too stupid to realize that we are imprisoned by the myth that children benefit from us”. So many women don’t have the choice that I did... they have to work period. I feel so sorry for them because they are being robbed by something so special, so wonderful.. that I can hardly describe it.
I couldn’t agree with this article more. I have had many discussions with my 18 year old daughter about the choices that I’ve made over my life. I grew up being fed the women’s lib line of bull. I went to college, chose to work outside the home, got married and had a family, and continued to work out side the home.
In light of my own life experience, I would like to add one more problem created by the women’s lib movement: It has created a large population of women who have so many roles and responsibilities (ie., being a wife, mother, employee, volunteer, etc...) that it’s difficult to enjoy or excell at any of their roles.
JMHO, of course...
For the first legacy I completely agree that demeaning the concept of marriage and promoting promiscuity has been disastrous. How could condemning women to single motherhood, where they have to do all the work without the possibility of a committed relationship, possibly “empower” them? The Sexual Revolution has brought us nothing except generations of fatherless children and an explosion of STDs. The feminists did have a point when they pointed out the double standard that punished promiscuous women more than it did promiscuous men. Unfortunately they chose to lower the standards for women rather than raise them for men. I’m glad I’ve never had premarital sex. I would never be able to respect myself if I did.
I’m not so sure about the second legacy. Couples who rush into marriage without really getting to know one another are often unhappy and are more likely to divorce. There needs to be a happy medium between expecting people to get married in their 40’s and expecting people to get married in their teens. Teenagers and some early twenty-somethings are simply not yet mature enough to understand the importance of commitment.
As for the third legacy I agree that a two-parent family with one parent staying at home is the ideal family structure but I don’t see why it always has to be the woman that stays home. It all depends on the individual: some men are naturally more caring and nurturing than some women. To me which parent stays home is a private matter between husband and wife that should be decided based on the preferences, earning potential, and individual temperaments of both. And not everyone has to have a family. Remaining single, celibate, and sane has worked for me, even though I can understand why some people would want the companionship of marriage.
Since liberalism, demonstrably, is satanic in origin,
there is no reason for anyone to assume that there is anything that wouldn’t be detrimental to the well being of “imageo dei” in the ideology.
Feminists devalued the roles of mums who stay at home — they are not just “housewives” — it is a full-time job. And a very important one, in many ways more important than the bread-winner. The mom is the axis of the family, she provides instruction, she raises the children (and the husband!) and she is the bedrock of society.
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.
