Sexual Revolution: A Successful Movement That's Failed Women
By: Andrea Mew (The Federalist)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Has the sexual revolution failed? That was the question posed to all in attendance of The Free Press's first live debate held in downtown Los Angeles last Wednesday — one deemed "a clash of female titans." In one corner sat pop musician Claire Boucher, popularly known as Grimes, along with ex-Muslim podcast host Sarah Haider, both taking the position that the sexual revolution succeeded. On the other side sat British author Louise Perry and "Red Scare" podcast co-host Anna Khachiyan, who both argued its failure.
Ultimately, the audience decided the cultural moment did in fact deliver on the liberating promises it made to women: The sexual revolution promised to free women from oppressive stereotypes that locked us out of many educational and career opportunities and forced us to act as sexual gatekeepers in a world where chastity, marriage, and motherhood were expectations rather than choices.
As a member of the Gen Z generation who attended the debate, I agree. But that doesn't mean I'm OK with the resulting effects.
Indeed, not only did the sexual revolution succeed, but it triumphed in a massive overcorrection of our sexual culture. As a result, today's current generation of young women are left to navigate through its wreckage.
This movement for sexual empowerment has been exceedingly effective. Think back to its original goal. Feminists yearned to sever the act of sex from the process of reproduction. Feminists sought to redefine marriage from its institutional model predicated on obligation to one's family to a romantic model placing emotion on a high pedestal.
What transpired was, as Perry has explained, a dechristianizing of the West. We've dissolved the sanctity of holy matrimony for a narcissistic quest for radical self-love. Relationships between men and women that lack commitment or even a baseline understanding of serving one another with joy are unfulfilling. They render us addicted to a drug-like sense of validation, of which we're given regular hits within the internet's self-obsessed attention economy.
The Gender Wars Are Bad for Everyone
We've effectively desexed women, pulling us further and further away from centuries of evolution and human nature in order to level the biological playing field. Now, women are snatching up college degrees at higher rates than men and achieving financial independence outside of marriage.
You'd think men would love the results of a sexual revolution since it empowered consequence-free sex, sans commitment. But even this has backfired, and now men are feeling increasingly subordinated to women. No amount of risk-free sex can sweeten this proverbial deal with the devil where we've fundamentally disavowed gender norms and elevated women above men at their own behest.
Men are no longer required to cultivate masculine virtues. Commitment, self-control, and a duty to provide and protect are effectively discouraged by the proliferation of casual sex. In essence, we're rewarding men with intimate access to our bodies and asking for nothing in return. If we no longer gatekeep our sexuality, and contraceptives or abortions reduce the risk involved with promiscuous behavior, is it any wonder why many modern men turn toward a life of hedonistic pleasure, finding it in porn, pop culture, or weed?
The sexual revolution led to an over-feminization of the Western world. If speech offends us, we lean on the feminine trait of agreeableness and silence it. To raise up the "weaker" sex, we rely on dogmatic diversity and inclusion agendas in lieu of merit. To repress the "oppressor" sex, men must self-flagellate and become their weakest selves.
Destroying Women's Health and Happiness
It would be naive for me to assert that things are all peachy keen for the female sex. By rejecting or outright erasing womanhood in an effort to increase sex neutrality, we're actively working against our reproductive health in ways that could cause temporary or even permanent damage. I would know; I've spent several years trying to fix my fertility after the Nexplanon birth control implant threw my hormones totally out of whack.
Furthermore, what good does it do to relentlessly egg on women to close the gender pay gap when we simultaneously haven't fostered a more child-friendly culture? Big government makes big promises to increase access or decrease costs associated with childcare, like with the Biden administration's recent executive order for subsidized childcare centers. But all that a one-size-fits-all system will really do is introduce bureaucracy as the next member of your family unit. That's not what most women want.
During the debate, Grimes emphasized that the sexual revolution has been both a cultural and technological phenomenon. From hormonal birth control to dating apps, we've introduced several advancements in technology that have shocked America's Judeo-Christian tradition. But our advancements in "complementary social technology," as Grimes put it, have not yet caught up. In other words, America lacks the social infrastructure to make childrearing more convenient and more affordable.
We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Traditional basics may seem like a bore, but as Perry pointed out, we might all be a bit happier if we lived more normal lives. Studies consistently show that women who embrace motherhood and marriage have some of the biggest happiness dividends and that married men are twice as happy as their unmarried peers.
Good old-fashioned family values may not have enticed Gen Xers or Millennials whose concept of adulthood was shaped by shows like "Sex and the City," but my generation — the "Zoomer" generation — has a unique opportunity to reset the battering ram that the sexual revolution has had on our culture.
We don't have to settle for a life of unfulfillment, where instead of celebrating our femininity we are embittered by it. We don't have to devour subversive messaging that preys on women's insecurities and standardizes unhealthy extremes just because the media shove it down our throats in music and movies. We don't have to accept the leftist narrative, which damages our mental health and isolates us from objective biological truth and common sense.
America doesn't need a "return to tradition," in the sense that we should walk back women's hard-fought gains for equality under the law. We need a return to the tradition of freedom — and sexual liberation won't grant us that. It instead ensnares us in a toxic cycle of disappointment. It's up to us to adopt healthy boundaries and practice what would actually be a fulfilling act of radical self-love: unapologetically rejecting the sexual revolution.
By: Andrea Mew September 19, 2023
Tags
Who is online
406 visitors
My question has been answered:
"We don’t have to settle for a life of unfulfillment, where instead of celebrating our femininity we are embittered by it. We don’t have to devour subversive messaging that preys on women’s insecurities and standardizes unhealthy extremes just because the media shove it down our throats in music and movies. We don’t have to accept the leftist narrative, which damages our mental health and isolates us from objective biological truth and common sense."
What do you have against strong educated women?
What question?
Why some women have no need of certain 'men'?
Oddly, or ironically , enough CNN just showed two back to back stories that cast a type of light on what this article proposes (all out return to "femininity) as a societal goal.
The first story was about Haley VanVoorhis, the first woman to play college football in a non kicking position.
In this screen shot we see defensive back VanVoorhis about to take down the opposing QB at the end of a safety blitz.
Haley VanVoorhis plays Division III football for Shenandoah University in the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.
-
The other story was about the retirement, today (will play her last game), of women's soccer star Megan Rapinoe. During her time on the USA women's national team women's soccer, and women's sports have taken a large leap forward in terms of visibility and media coverage. The women's soccer team is one of the most successful teams the US has had recently in any major sport.
If the society followed the plea of the seeded article there would be no young women pursuing and achieving THEIR dreams of competing in high level sports. VanVoorhis would be told to make dinner for her man and keep the house clean, (delivering newspaper and slippers for the male breadwinner optional.) And Rapinoe , with her purple tinged hair and her same sex orientation would be considered a weirdo on the far fringes of polite society.
What would we be then, on the whole, better or worse?
Women who want to be "feminine" and subservient to men, and to the strictures of the Abrahamic religions , are free to do so now. They dont need a "return" to whatever way they want to live their lives, they can do it with no need for permission from any one on "the left".
And the women who want to live another way are free to do their thing. This is freedom, which I thought conservatives want.
Who's telling women they can't play soccer? Why is pointing out their measurable unhappiness so threatening to you?
Women were more satisfied and happier in the 70s than they are today. Talking about the reasons isn't taking away anyone's freedom.
Why do you think anything about this story is threatening to me?
It is the Vic's of the world, and maybe you, who seem to be threatened by non traditional womens roles in society. Vic has , on a number of occasions, lamented that we are not in the 1950's where the little lady brought her man his slippers and pipe.
Only on occasion do we hear of someone other than a "Christian" woman talking about how unhappy women in general are today. The writer of this article mentions more than once that today's situation ignores biblical standards for the sexes. So what? We dont live in a theocracy.
You seem very aggrieved by it and think its part of a plot to take away woman's freedom.
n occasion do we hear of someone other than a "Christian" woman talking about how unhappy women in general are today
So the left doesn't want to talk about the reality in front of them and sticks to pushing it's imaginary utopia? That never happens...
That women are more unhappy than they were is well documented. Do you think pushing them to play football with men will cure that?
Spot on John, spot on!
Some 'men' prefer to live in a time that never was.
We live in a different reality as John says than do the 'Vics of the world and maybe you Sean'
Well documented that the 'women are more unhappy now'????? What documentation? What women are we referring to - All women????
Try dealing in reality.
No one is 'pushing these women' to do anything - they are doing what they want to do, not what some 'men' want them to do, or think they should be doing.
You and Vic appear to be aggrieved regarding strong and educated women
Also, John, we're obviously not the ones threatened by strong and educated women.
It appears that certain 'men' have a problem with strong and educated women.
I was watching an All In The Family episode not long ago. It is from the early 1970's, basically 50 years ago. Archie Bunker has a medical issue and needs to be treated . He becomes appalled to find out that one of the attending doctors is a woman.
That is the way it was then. And that was 15 or 20 years AFTER the "idyllic" era of the 1950's many of the proponents of a return to masculine dominance want to return to.
As you may know, I worked at the University of Maryland for many years and worked with the medical students, 3rd and 4th years, in the School of Medicine. In my years there, almost 19 in my last position at the University of Marland, the last several years there was a strong trend of women over men going to medical school, some years it's different, but many years there are more women than men.
Like I said, we're not the ones threatened by strong and educated women.
I'm sure all decent educated women steer clear of today's gop/gqp/republiCONS/CONServatives and would find the 'men' sorely lacking in all areas.
I'm one of those men that went for years without a physical or having a family doctor. It took a severe medical crises to see the error of my ways. I learned that many practises aren't interested in taking on a Medicare patient. I finally found a practice, further from home than I liked but willing to add a Medicare patient. One of the physicians there is a Black female. When asked if I had a preference, I asked that she be my routine doctor.
My reasoning was, a Black female likely had to be better than the white males around her to get her license. I've been very happy with this selection and my wife is now a patient there. The doctor has an additional advantage over a male doctor, slender fingers make the prostate exam less uncomfortable.
“Women have traditionally reported higher levels of happiness than men, but they are now reporting happiness levels that are similar or even lower than those of men . The relative decline in well‐being holds across various datasets, and holds whether one asks about happiness or life satisfaction”
I haven’t read this yet but will try today. Anyone have survey comparing liberal with conservative woman on the happiness scale?
Marriage is not for everyone and never has been.
The seeded article would make women who dont want to get married or have children societal outcasts.
This has been going on forever and a day throughout our history.
It is completely foolhardy to enter into a legal relationship with anyone unless there is an equal partnership and equal rights.
Some of the best pre-marriage advice ever is to negotiate your divorce and write a pre-nup before getting married because it will most likely be the only time both parties will treat the other one fairly. For some reason, some men view a marriage certificate as a document of ownership and begin treating their spouse as the person who is responsible for fulfilling all of their physical and emotional needs.
Being childfree is becoming widely accepted among the younger generation. The happiest people are childfree.
It is the men, at the top of society's economic pyramid scheme, that are demanding that women have a duty to produce more consumers, soldiers, work slaves and religious adherents.
That sort of narcissism doesnt do a thing for me.
-
About the 4 minute mark she goes into what I consider a bizarre reason for not wanting kids, although it is one that we hear fairly often. That is, to spare the unborn from having to live in such a horrible, problem filled world. The key is the word "them" which implies existence. But children that are never conceived or born are not "them", they are not even a potentiality. They are a talking point.
"I'm doing my unconceived and unborn child a favor by not bringing them into this world" is a ridiculous argument. You can't do a favor for someone that doesnt exist.
Isn't it a major problem that some people feel they have a right to demand that other people have "reasons" for choosing a childfree life that make sense to them?
Besides risking their physical and mental health just going through a pregnancy, a woman then has to nurture and guide a child to adulthood. That is a huge responsibility that too many people, who have children, can't do.
No woman should have to justify (or ever state) their reasons for remaining single or choosing childfree. It is really no one else's business on any level.
It does not matter if the reasons make sense to another person in a society where people have the freedom to choose the path they want to take as long as they aren't harming others.
I dont have any problem with any of her reasons for not wanting kids. Thats her business. She did come off to me as a narcissist though.
And the idea that it is better to not have kids , because you will be happier if you dont, is eventually an existential threat to the future of the human race.
The human race is going to add a few more billion people in the not-too-distant future so our number is going to exceed 10 billion.
Although, I really don't understand why it matters to the planet if humans exist or why some humans are so concerned about what happens in a few hundred or thousand years.
We can't change the past or control the future.
Note: Our sun will burn out in a few billion years. Our planet will be uninhabitable long before then.
It is more likely to be men who are unhappy because they are single.
An area where we agree
In Conclusion:
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/65037746/GettyImages_1154309583.0.jpg)
The point here, made by a woman is that Feminists got a bit more than they bargained for and that is the reason for their unhappiness. Not many got the point here. Others seem to have forgotten that there are only two genders, and they are different both physically and emotionally.
The other issue that is not mentioned here is the way the left hijacked the feminist movement. There is a reason why some of these indoctrinated college women are so extreme on the issue of abortion. Just yesterday, I heard Ronna McDaniel say that the DNC spent $350 million defining the Republicans stance on abortion, not their position, but where they claim Republicans stand on the issue. We know of the democrats important constituencies. Certain groups such as Black Americans vote for the democrats in the 90-percentile range. Those college educated single women happen to be their most prized voting constituency.
How crazy has it become?
We learned a lot in the past 6 years.
It has become demeaning to women.
Once again, anti-feminists show us that they have poor opinions of men.
Shouldn't men strive to be decent people because being decent is its own reward? The ones I know overwhelmingly do.
In essence, this statement seems to put the burden of "raising" decent men on the shoulders of their potential sexual partners. Somehow, it's made out that women are responsible for the bad behavior of men.