The consequence of the sexual revolution was the abandonment of marriage, childlessness, and the denial of male and female roles, writes Tímea Hajdú on the Neokohn portal.
During the 20th century, as a result of world wars, technological development and various movements, the position of women in Western societies changed positively. By virtue of the law, they were enabled to be protected from violence, both in marriage and in other contexts. They were given the freedom to have any career open to them, and many lived by it. However, parallel to the positive developments, negative processes also started.
The sexual revolution of the 1960s promised to liberate women from the "constraints of the century." Nearly sixty years later, the question arises, did it make women (or men) happy?
There have never been so many single, so many childless, so many single parenting, and so many divorced women in history.
According to progressive feminists, the problem is that there is still not enough equality in the Western world. However, more and more people, many of them feminists, are proclaiming that the real problem was the sexual revolution and the distortions and bad ideas that came from it. Mary Harrington , who calls herself a "reactionary feminist", claims that much of what we consider today as "progress" in relation to the sexes or in the position of women cannot be called development at all.
Return to marriage
An important part of the feminist movement of the sixties was the "liberation of the body", which included abortion and sexual liberalization. Louise Perry , a British writer, shows in her book "The Case Against The Sexual Revolution" that "sexual liberation", i.e. the increase in casual relationships, is clearly harmful for women. Perry said on Jordan Peterson's podcast that the percentage of women who are not harmed by the Tinder culture is very low. According to Mary Harrington, women's attitudes were changed by the advent of the birth control pill, which eliminated the risk of unwanted pregnancy. However, this also removed the necessary sense of danger.
According to Louise Perry, it is not fashionable to say this today, but there should be limits, especially the sexual impulses of men. According to him, the "metoo" scandal was actually an attempt to bring back the limits in relations between the sexes.
No matter how old-fashioned it may seem, Perry declares, the most ideal for a woman is the institution of marriage.
She argues for monogamous marriage as a feminist, as she describes it as the only institution that has proven over the millennia to provide stability for women, men and children alike. According to Perry, there is simply no better structure, no alternative. This is also proven by Rob Henderson's idea of "luxury beliefs", that although the Western elites promote progressive views, they still marry in the highest proportion of all social strata. A similar view is held by Mary Harrington, who wants to reintroduce the concept of covenant marriage. In an interview, he said that in today's uncertain world, a relationship that is not based solely on emotions can give people the greatest security.
How controversial this view has become in the Western world is best illustrated by the fact that Danny Kruger, a conservative member of the British parliament, recently said at a conference that marriage between men and women is "the only possible basis for a safe and successful society". Conservative British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak distanced himself from the statement, saying he disagreed with it.
The child is a question
According to the two writers, it is not only important to promote marriage, but also for those who can have children.
Mary Harrington said on the Triggernometry podcast that she thinks one of the consequences of the 1960s was that the branch of feminism that emphasized "care" completely overshadowed the freedom-focused feminism. The careerist woman was elevated above the role of mother. According to Harrington, one of the reasons for the slippage is a historical misunderstanding, which wrongly claims that throughout history women have been condemned exclusively to the roles of "birth machines" and "cooks". According to his description, until the industrial revolution, work was built around the home. Since the average person farmed or practiced some craft, everything took place in the home. Women worked in the same way as men, especially jobs related to making clothes. Even when they had small children, the work did not stop, they worked with children on their backs. After the Industrial Revolution took work out of the home and into distant places like factories, life was turned upside down. If the women had to work, they could no longer work from home and take care of the children at the same time. From then on, there was a fight for women to be able to return to the home and take care of the children. One victory of this struggle was the appearance of the "housewife", a very modern phenomenon.
According to Harrington, the ideal would be for work to benefit families, since women today cannot or do not necessarily want to be exclusively housewives.
Louise Perry is also of the view that feminism, especially progressive feminism, has neglected the importance of the mother role. According to him, the reason for this is that motherhood and liberalism are incompatible. In a podcast, he explained this by saying that in liberalism, individual freedom is the priority. However, when a child is born, neither the mother nor her baby is an individual, but a dependent relationship develops. The baby cannot exist without its mother, and the mother almost coexists with her baby in the first few months. Having children also involves giving up one's desires, and this is not a fashionable idea today. According to Perry, modernity simply does not help families, especially because the multigenerational family models that helped raise children have disappeared.
According to the writer, the majority of women who could have children, but do not, regret this decision. There are very few people who have a fulfilling career that makes up for the lack of a family.
Featured Image: Facebook
