Has Sexual Liberation Made Women Happy?
Has the sexual revolution made women happier? That's the question the fiercely intelligent Mary Eberstadt addresses in a Wall Street Journal column from this past weekend:
This brings us to Myth No. 4, which is perhaps the most interesting one of all: The sexual revolution has made women happier.
Granted, happiness is a personal, imponderable thing. But if the sexual revolution has really made women as happy as feminists say, a few elementary questions beg to be answered.
Why do the pages of our tonier magazines brim with mournful titles like "The Case for Settling" and "The End of Men"? Why do websites run by and for women focus so much on men who won't grow up, and ooze such despair about relations between the sexes?
Why do so many accomplished women simply give up these days and decide to have children on their own, sometimes using anonymous sperm donors, thus creating the world's first purposely fatherless children? What of the fact, widely reported earlier this week, that 26% of American women are on some kind of mental-health medication for anxiety and depression and related problems?
Or how about what is known in sociology as "the paradox of declining female happiness"? Using 35 years of data from the General Social Survey, two Wharton School economists, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, made the case in 2009 that women's happiness appeared to be declining over time despite their advances in the work force and education. . . .
It is always hard to disentangle the weeds from the plants in such a large field. But if the sexual revolution has made women so happy, we can at least ask what it would look like for them to be unhappy. A broader inquiry might yield some results worth thinking about, in contrast to the shortsighted political theatrics over a supposed "war on women."
Eberstadt's argument goes against the grain and is provocative. The popular perception of the sexual revolution is that it's been good for women--that it's empowered and liberated them. That message carries the day in the popular culture, where the "strongest" and most "independent" women are defined by two attributes that have historically been associated with men: stunning career success and emotionally disconnected, promiscuous sexual relations. Here's just a small sample of pop's sexually loose and "empowered" heroines: Meredith Grey in Grey's Anatomy, Carrie Bradshaw in Sex and the City, Chelsea Handler in Chelsea Lately, and the various character in The Vagina Monologues. Because these "pop feminists," as I call them in my book, appear happy, most real-life women--especially young women--assume that acting like their on-screen heroines will make them happy, too.
But it doesn't work that way, as Eberstadt implies and as I've concluded after interviewing college women who participate in the "hook up" culture of casual sex. To give you a sense of how powerfully Eberstadt's column resonated with readers, just consider that it's currently the top-read article on the Wall Street Journal website and has garnered over 1,000 Facebook "likes." Meanwhile, a rejoinder column by novelist Ann Patchett that also appeared in the Wall Street Journal-- "Has the Sexual Revolution Been Good For Women: Yes"--is not even registering as one of the top-five most-read WSJ articles today, and it's only been "liked" by 418 people.
That's because most women, whether they're willing to admit it or not (and most aren't), have come to realize that living out the dictates of the sexual revolution does not empower them, but turns them into sex objects. What else could you conclude when a show like Lifetime's "Dance Moms" sexualizes a group of eight-year-girls who are dancing burlesque with nude-colored bras on, as if they're topless? Or when pimps, who have been so inspirational in shaping the aesthetic of rap, barcode prostitutes with tattoos as their property? Or from the opening scene of Bridesmaids--a movie that, in my view, shows just how awful sexual liberation has been for women. In that scene, "[expletive]-buddies" Annie and Ted have sex and then exchange these words:
Ted: I'm just, you know, I just have a lot coming up at work.
Annie: Oh!
Ted: And . . . and . . . and I just, I don't wanna make promises I can't keep. You know what I mean?
Annie: Mmm.
Ted: I know you do.
Annie: Yeah. We're on the same page. I mean, I'm not looking for a relationship right now either. Let's just say that, I just . . . whatever you wanna . . . I can do, you know? I'd rather just . . . I like simple. I'm not like other girls, like; 'be my boyfriend!' Unless you were like; 'yeah!'. Then I'd be like; 'maybe'.
Ted: But that's not on.
Annie: I don't want that either.
Ted: I don't either . . . .
Ted: Wow, this is so awkward. I really want you to leave, but I don't know how to day it without sounding like a [expletive].
Later that morning, Annie tells her best friend Lillian about hooking up with Ted:
Lillian: What did you do last night?
[she doesn't reply but gives Lillian a look]
Lillian: You are not telling me something.
Annie: I . . . I hung out with Ted, for like, a little bit.
Lillian: I knew it!
Annie: We had . . . we had . . . fun. It was fun.
Lillian: Here's what I don't like about it; you hate yourself after you see him. Everytime. And then we go through this and you feel like [expletive]. And it's almost like you're doing it because you feel bad about yourself.
Not quite as empowering as the feminists would have us believe.
- Comment (91)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
May '11
Re: Has Sexual Liberation Made Women Happy?
Larry, I wasn't being sarcastic although I know that is always hard to tell with me. Someone smarter than I recently wrote here that it is remarkable how undignified an act containing the supreme dignity of humanity can be. My point is that the availability of sexual information, (remember when the headlines on the Cosmopolitan cover at the grocery store check out were covered up?) hasn't seemed to lead to more meaningful intimacy.
Jan '12
Re: Has Sexual Liberation Made Women Happy?
iWc
On the contrary!!! Irresponsibility breeds irresponsibility. And parents who put up with an adult child in the house also tolerate hookups. · 2 hours ago
I don't want to get this thread too off topic, but I don't think it's fair to say everyone in that age range living at home is irresponsible, especially considering the state of the economy. Futhermore, historically, families tended to stay much closer together than is expected today. It was not uncommon for adult children to live with their parents, especially if they weren't married, but even married children would sometimes live with one set of parents, sometimes out of necessity but other times simply because they liked being close to their family. I have run across this in my research. Evidently, it still happens today: see Madcap's post #50.
Jan '11
Re: Has Sexual Liberation Made Women Happy?
Joseph Stanko
Tom Meyer
Why does that necessarily follow?
Because you said there's a " significant moral gap" between them, and a significant moral gap implies at least one of the two things is wrong. There is no moral gap between two licit, laudable actions.
That's why I listed four things.
Jun '10
Re: Has Sexual Liberation Made Women Happy?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wasn't implying that you were being sarcastic.
I guess what was going through my mind was that these stories make their ways onto mainstream outlets and I can just see the cynical side of them being exploited and I kind of just know that the higher aspects of marital bliss and intimacy are never addressed. Actually, I'm glad that they publish the study and that you passed it on. I find great delight in the complexities of human interactions and the ties that cross-bind us in so many ways.
At root, we are centered around the family and at that center is this pair, the parents who experience something really very wonderful together.
Mar '12
Re: Has Sexual Liberation Made Women Happy?
Joseph Stanko
Larry Koler
Most important: the raw statistical chance of a first marriage enduring is around 75%.
Is that because people who get divorced once often get remarried and divorced several times, and that drives the overall divorce rate up?
Yes. First marriages fail about 40% of the time, second marriages about 2/3 of the time, and third marriages about 3/4 of the time. People who are bad at marriage once tend to be bad at it multiple times.
But withing first marriages, odds of divorce vary wildly. If both the man and the woman are white and college educated, for instance, the odds of divorce are quite slim. I actually ran my husband and I thorough some scholar's calculator at some point (both with college degrees, me 21 at the time of marriage, him 24, assuming we were both white because Asian-white couples were too few to quantify), and even with our youth as a significant negative factor, our odds of divorce were under 20%
Jun '10
Re: Has Sexual Liberation Made Women Happy?
Tom Meyer
Joseph Stanko
Tom Meyer
Why does that necessarily follow?
Because you said there's a " significant moral gap" between them, and a significant moral gap implies at least one of the two things is wrong. There is no moral gap between two licit, laudable actions.
That's why I listed four things. · 1 hour ago
You said "I think the moral, emotional, and physical gaps between all of these is significant." I took "all" to mean there were gaps between each term, 4 terms and 3 gaps, with a moral gap between each.
But I'm not trying to misconstrue what you said, just trying to understand. In particular, I'm curious if you draw a line somewhere between the 4 terms and say one side is wrong and the other acceptable. It sounds like you are now saying Drunken Hook-ups and Casual Sex with Acquaintances or Friends are wrong (in different degrees), Committed, Non-Marital Relationships are fine, and Marriage is even better.
Is that it, or am I still misreading you?
May '10
Re: Has Sexual Liberation Made Women Happy?
I ran across this the other day. It seems relevant:
All theological language is necessarily analogical, but it
was singularly unfortunate that the Church, in speaking of
punishment for sin, should have chosen the analogy of criminal
law, for the analogy is incompatible with the Christian belief
in God as the creator of Man.
Criminal laws are laws-for, imposed on men, who are already
in existence, with or without their consent, and, with the
possible exception of capital punishment for murder, there is
no logical relation between the nature of a crime and the
penalty inflicted for committing it.
If God created man, then the laws of man's spiritual nature
must, like the laws of his physical nature, be laws-of--laws,
that is to say, which he is free to defy but no more free to
break than he can break the law of gravity by jumping out of
the window, or the laws of biochemistry by getting drunk--and
the consequences of defying them must be as inevitable and as
intrinsically related to their nature as a broken leg or a
hangover.
(1/2)
Edited on March 27, 2012 at 7:07amMay '10
Re: Has Sexual Liberation Made Women Happy?
To state spiritual laws in the imperative--Thou shalt love
God with all thy being, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself--is simply a pedagogical technique, as when a mother
says to her small son, "Stay away from the window!" because the
child does not yet know what will happen if he falls out of it.
... W. H. Auden (1907-1973)
In other words, by violating God's design, the sexual revolution doomed all who bought the package to be crushed under the inevitable consequences. As it says, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7
(2/2)
Edited on March 27, 2012 at 7:08amJan '11
Re: Has Sexual Liberation Made Women Happy?
Joseph Stanko
You said "I think the moral, emotional, and physical gaps betweenallof these is significant." I took "all" to mean there were gaps between each term, 4 terms and 3 gaps, with a moral gap between each.
But I'm not trying to misconstrue what you said, just trying to understand. In particular, I'm curious if you draw a line somewhere between the 4 terms and say one side is wrong and the other acceptable. It sounds like you are now saying Drunken Hook-ups and Casual Sex with Acquaintances or Friends are wrong (in different degrees), Committed, Non-Marital Relationships are fine, and Marriage is even better.
Is that it, or am I still misreading you?
Very close.
I'd put drunken hook-ups in the immoral category, though I think they're more more foolish than anything else. The middle two I do not believe to be either intrinsically moral or immoral; it depends on the people involved. Good marriage is the most admirable sexual relationship and should be an ideal almost everyone should work toward.
Edited on March 27, 2012 at 7:03amJun '10
Re: Has Sexual Liberation Made Women Happy?
Tom Meyer
What exactly are the "dictates" of the Sexual Revolution? Is there a warning label on condoms I've missed that says "Only be to be used for empty, hedonistic, and immediate gratification. Not to be combined with love, affection, or commitment at any level"?
One of the things I hope you address in your book is the wide swarth of behaviors among singles somewhere between the false dichotomy of chastity and triple-digit hook-ups. Just as social conservatives are often (wrongfully) stereotyped as shame-ridden sexophobes, there's an equally-misleading tendency to describe all other behaviors as different only in degree.
Hmm. So based on this starting point, I expected you were going to make a case that there is a difference in kind between committed, exclusive (but not married) sexual relationships and the "empty, hedonistic, and immediate gratification" of triple-digit hook-ups.
In fact you seem to be confirming what you initially called "misleading," that the different behaviors on your spectrum differ only in degree, with an ideal that we should strive for at one end and "foolish" at the other where the steps in between differ only in degree, not in kind.
Jan '11
Re: Has Sexual Liberation Made Women Happy?
Joseph Stanko
Tom Meyer
One of the things I hope you address in your book is the wide swarth of behaviors among singles somewhere between the false dichotomy of chastity and triple-digit hook-ups. Just as social conservatives are often (wrongfully) stereotyped as shame-ridden sexophobes, there's an equally-misleading tendency to describe all other behaviors as different only in degree.
Hmm. So based on this starting point, I expected you were going to make a case that there is a difference inkindbetween committed, exclusive (but not married) sexual relationships and the "empty, hedonistic, and immediate gratification" of triple-digit hook-ups.
In fact you seem to be confirming what you initially called "misleading," that the different behaviors on your spectrum differ only in degree, with an ideal that we should strive for at one end and "foolish" at the other where the steps in between differ only indegree, not inkind.
My bad for being unclear; response forthcoming.