Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
While I had been noodling away on a book for years, it wasn't until the federal government put it out there plainly that "religion is women's enemy" (specifically, Christianity's view of human sexuality), that I simply had to sacrifice a summer to get a book out while the conversation was still hot.
The reason the "war on women" debate took off ... the reason why even seasoned politicos like, well, Politico, continue to be surprised at the persistence of the fight over abortion and even over the legacy of the pill, is that these really are proxies for the question of the meaning and purpose of women's lives. I acknowledge right up front that some women came -- and continue to come -- to the abortion and contraception debates from the perspective of legitimate fears regarding male dominance and even violence where sex is concerned. Addressing their concerns requires a different approach than I would take with the more typical supporters of the claim that Christianity harms women in the sexual arena. I think this latter group is still in the grip of the notion that breaking old sexual taboos is freedom, for women in particular who were, in the past, punished more than men for committing the same behaviors.
The thoughts/questions I wish to propose for comment today are this: where is their evidence? And why do they continue to attract adherents without it?
I am in the midst of writing a much longer law review article about this subject (for the Villanova Law Review, 2013), but here's the source of my comments: the data seem to show that women are worse off insofar as sexual intimacy, marriage, economics, and even happiness are concerned, since the late 1960s and 1970s. Their happiness levels have declined not only absolutely, but also as compared to men. Women today are also experiencing more sexually transmitted diseases, more non-marital parenting, less marriage overall, later marriage, greater difficulties conceiving, more unintended pregnancies, more abortions, and more cohabitation (when studies continually show they like cohabitation less than men like it, and a lot less than women like marriage). This is not junk, but rather mainstream law and economics, sociology and psychology stuff (I'll be summarizing it at womenspeakforthemselves.com in the near future, in advance of the law review piece).
So what's the claim on the other side? Well, I'm guessing it is reduced to this: being able to express oneself sexually, however one wishes, is freedom, and more and more so as we get better at controlling the consequences so that they are fewer and fewer (e.g. with more antibiotics, more readily available and effective birth control, cheaper abortion ,etc).
I maintain not only as a matter of my faith (we are after all, created in the image of a Trinitarian, socially, eternally loving-in-communion God), but also and fully as a matter of reason that: we are made for relationships and that all efforts to deny this are intrinsically harmful to woman, and the human family. Marriage and children are the fundamental forms of relationship for most people, though of course not for all. Efforts to deny or downgrade them are intrinsically suspicious, especially regarding women, who are, very likely, quite relationally-oriented.
The "War on Women" rhetoric might be right, in other words, save that the shoe is on the other foot.
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
Helen Alvare, Guest Contributor:
...
The thoughts/questions I wish to propose for comment today are this: where is their evidence? And why do they continue to attract adherents without it?
...
Who needs evidence? It's all emotional. That's why it appeals mostly to the young, and those who've never matured intellectually.
May '10
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
Helen Alvare, Guest Contributor:
So what's the claim on the other side? Well, I'm guessing it is reduced to this: being able to express oneself sexually, however one wishes, isfreedom ....
We are all free to make ourselves miserable.
Mar '12
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
St. John of the Cross, Precautions
As St. Paul writes:
Jun '11
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
Helen, this is a well written, thoughtful piece, and your logic is impeccable. Which is another way of saying, "Prepare to be excoriated by the Lefto-Feminist Revolutionary Guard."
Jun '12
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
I sent a link to this to my nearly 20 y/o college daughter. She is a thoughtful person, full of compassion for others. She is at the point in her life that this well meaning emotion can lead to disasterous consequences. She has, so far, not travelled the "women's rights equals becoming as base as the most base of men" road, and I hope reading something like this keeps her on the right path. Thanks Helen.
Jun '10
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
In a short article entitled "We Have No 'Right to Happiness'" that appears in God in the Dock, C.S. Lewis wrote:
He wasn't suggesting the state control extra-marital affairs. He was talking about a society that, for the most part, views infidelity as morally neutral, kind of like modern American society.
May I also suggest Mary Eberstadt's Adam and Eve After the Pill, which addresses this issue and many others that relate to the downstream social pathologies that have been wrought by the sexual revolution.
May '12
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
I will be following this for a few days.
As I get older (more mature), I have come to recognize that the closer we align ourselves with eternal values and principles, the happier the person is. This is hard. It takes a continual conscious effort. There is so much benefit to chastity before marriage and fidelity after. Yet it requires so much more self control and self sacrifice. So much unhappiness (even ruin) comes into our lives when we come up short in this area. And inside --- we know this. Yet, all to often, we follow the way of the natural world.
Much of the unhappiness in the world is because too many of us believe/perceive that if we only have the world's idea of x or y or z, that it will make us happy. Acceptance of the virtues of self-reliance, service, family, friendship, thrift, kindness, humility, education, etc. (although to many appear "boring"), they also are so much more lasting and uplifting.
In short: Too much of the 60's feminist movement was based on un-supported assumptions. It was drawn to the "new shiny object" instead of the stabalizing un-noticed truth.
May '11
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
I'm not going to defend feminists or the liberal woman's empowerment movement or whatever it's called. BUT...
Helen Alvare, Guest Contributor: I think this latter group is still in the grip of the notion that breaking old sexual taboosis freedom, forwomen in particular who were, in the past, punished more than men for committing the same behaviors.
...where is their evidence? And why do they continue to attract adherents without it?
You have a religion that tells women to submit to their husbands, that not having intercourse with their husband is a mortal sin and advocates against birth control.
There are women in Middle Eastern countries who, today, are being stoned to death for breaking religious, cultural and by theocratic extension, legal norms for simply talking to another man and being accused of adultery.
And you are asking why some women may see breaking traditional sexual standards as a greater freedom?
Not every woman enjoys the kind of marital bliss everyone is so eager to praise here. So why anyone would be surprised when women advocate the freedom to break from those traditions is beyond me. Whether you agree with them or not.
May '10
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
Mar '12
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
Submission out of love is different from submission out of fear. Christianity ask for the prior, Islam the latter.
May '11
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
So prior to laws that provided equal protection for women (or at least the enforcement of them), you're telling me that every woman that was beaten and abused by her husband simply submitted to her husband out of love?
I've listened to countless preachers dance around Ephesians 5:24. I'm pretty sure they didn't have to dance around it much 60 or so years ago.
Jun '11
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
Mr. Bildo:
There are women in Middle Eastern countries who, today, are being stoned to death for breaking religious, cultural and by theocratic extension, legal norms for simply talking to another man and being accused of adultery.
And you are asking why some women may see breaking traditional sexual standards as a greater freedom?
Unless I've completely misread her post, I believe Ms. Alvare is speaking principally about Western society, and specifically about American women. And unless you can point me to any place in this entire country where Biblical submission is defined as permitting women to be stoned to death for adultery, then your argument is utterly inapposite.
Your women's studies professor may have convinced herself that we must mandate birth control and celebrate abortions or else be consigned to a world in which women will be forced to wear burquas. But I hope as a faithful Ricochet member that you have the ability to clear your head of such nonsense.
Feb '11
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
I am a proud woman. I am the mother of six children, and I am blessed with fertility. The cultural meme that fertility must be controlled or it is a curse insults me as a woman. It insults my husband to teach him that he should expect me to be always sexually available to him, even if we are avoiding pregnancy. My fertility is not a sickness -- I choose not to poison or mutilate my body for sexual convenience because I am more than the sum of my lady parts -- I am a creature made for love and respect.
Mr. Bildo's comments miss completely any thread or shred of Catholic theology on sexuality and love.
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
Regularly, discussions about healthy sexuality, marriage and family lives for women-- which discussions offer favorable commentary about Christianity's approach -- garner the "sometimes-religion-oppresses-women" or "religion-licenses-male oppression" responses. It would be difficult to argue with those responses, as far as they go. In fact, I think JPII was right in 1995 and again in 2000 when he offered apologies for any part Christianity had played in such oppression. I can personally testify to a few relevant incidents on my way through a graduate theology program. But these are not all there is. Arguing for religious freedom or allowing religious contributions in the public square, is not equivalent to abandoning reasonable judgments that "X" religious practice violates women's human rights, but "Y" does not, even if both are advanced by someone in the name of religion. Looking at the claimed authority supporting the practice, examining its real world effect upon women, considering whether the religion in question has repudiated it, or explained themselves....all these are the kind of fair and reasonable inquiries that a serious investigator would launch.
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
To Patrickb63: thanks for the note regarding sending it to your daughter. It would not be an overstatement to say that "I live for that." I.e....this is the group apparently most vulnerable and it is an honor for me to be allowed to address them.
Jun '11
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
Hey, we men need affirmation. And as long as you're handing it out, I sent it not only to my two daughters, but to several nieces as well....
Oh wait, the need for affirmation isn't oppressive, is it??
May '11
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
Colin B Lane
...I believe Ms. Alvare is speaking principally about Western society, and specifically about American women. And unless you can point me to any place in this entire country where Biblical submission is defined as permitting women to be stoned to death for adultery, then your argument is utterly inapposite.
I never made that argument and I didn't compare Christianity to Islam, nor would I. However, Western women watch the news. They see the way women are treated in other countries and I'm betting it has some effect on their worldview? When you see other countries persecuting Christians, do you not worry about those things happening in your own country? Not a perfect comparison, but the point is perception.
For crying out loud, I'm not a liberal and I'm sure as hell not a feminist. I'm just not as shocked as some of you as to why women might feel the way they do on this particular subject.
Inasmuch as I agree with the substance of Ms. Alvare's claims that marriage is a positive, especially for women, I can't agree with her assertion that any notion otherwise has no perceptible basis.
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
Ah, now I see more clearly Mr. Bildo. I didn't understand your last nuance, so please forgive me, and thank you for pointing it out. I did try to anticipate your "no perceptible basis" objection with my statement above that :
I acknowledge right up front here that some women came and continue to come to the abortion and the pill debates from the perspective of legitimate fears regarding male dominance and even violence where sex is concerned. Addressing their concerns requires a different approach from the approach I would take with the more typical supporters of the claim that Christianity harms women in the sexual arena. I think this latter group is still in the grip of the notion that breaking old sexual taboos is freedom...
I do not disagree with you that some have experienced marriage as oppressive in fact, and I did try to demonstrate that above. I am saying only that wholesale, un-nuanced claims that sexual expression, per se, equals freedom do not have a perceptible basis. And when it comes to marriage, I would rather try to help improve the institution, than do as some do(not you) by suggest it is MOSTLY terrible.
Dec '10
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
Helen,
Exactly. I've been waiting to read your post for 40 years. I am of a different faith than you but not a different belief on this subject.
Regards,
Jim
May '11
Re: Maybe the "War on Women" Language Isn't Hyperbole
Mama Toad: I am a proud woman. I am the mother of six children, and I am blessed with fertility. The cultural meme that fertility must be controlled or it is a curse insults me as a woman. It insults my husband to teach him that he should expect me to be always sexually available to him, even if we are avoiding pregnancy. My fertility is not a sickness -- I choose not to poison or mutilate my body for sexual convenience because I am more than the sum of my lady parts -- I am a creature made for love and respect.
Mr. Bildo's comments miss completely any thread or shred of Catholic theology on sexuality and love.
I meant no offense to you. I was not attacking Catholicism.