HANNA ROSIN in a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal, part of a series on the sexual revolution, continues with her familiar talking point, first popularized in her Atlantic magazine essay, “The End of Men.” According to Rosin, women are more powerful than men today and they should thank the sexual revolution for that.
There’s one problem with Mrs. Rosin’s thesis. Women aren’t all that powerful (in the sense Mrs. Rosin means, which is the power of money and career), and they certainly aren’t more powerful than men.
Take away all the billions of dollars in government support for single mothers, the affirmative action programs, the Equal Employment Opportunity suits, the other civil rights threats backed up by a powerful bureaucratic machine, the prisons for men raised in fatherless homes, the confiscatory family courts, the second income jobs that take opportunities from zero-income homes – take it all away and women are just as dependent as they ever were. Take away the massive investment that women once put into producing the next generation and preparing it for responsibility and hard work – and you have declining prospects, not an era of growth.
And once those subsidies for feminist autonomy disappear – and someday they will, Mrs. Rosin, because the well is running dry — women who trumpet their power over men and talk of free sex as if it is inconsequential for most women will lose all their glamour in the eyes of other women. They will be relics of the Age of Feminist Tyranny, listened to by no one.
By the way, you would think Mrs. Rosin was talking about women acquiring power to do interesting things, not sit in offices all day away from the stream of life.
Here she is on promiscuity:
Women these days understand that their sexual freedom—even if it causes them some amount of heartache—is necessary for their future success. As an in-depth 2004 study of the hookup culture by University of Michigan researcher Elizabeth Armstrong showed, women are not, as the stereotype goes, always pining for marriage while the men turn them away; quite the opposite. Women use their temporary college relationships as a “delay tactic,” Ms. Armstrong writes, because their immediate priority is setting themselves up for a career. Thanks to the sexual revolution, they can have relationships—and maybe some drama—through their 20s and early 30s and not get tied down with a husband and babies. If the price is a little more heartache, so be it. These days women have a lot more important things on their horizon.
— Comments –
Daniel S. writes:
The Aristotelian in me cannot help but despise all of this nonsense. All I can ask is what is the proper and natural telos of a woman? Is it unchecked sex and a corporate career? Or is it something else entirely?
Josh F. writes:
Rosin is no woman. She espouses a certain “nature” that has female SEXUAL autonomy as its “highest” value and this is definitely not woman’s nature. But if you actually read between the lines then one can get a better grasp of this “nature” that Rosin espouses. Such as, what would female sexual autonomy look like in its “purest” form? Autonomous sex? Sex without attachment to anything? Sex that rejects all impediments to its expression? Self-sexualizing? Is this not the end game? As in, Rosin is selling self-sexualization as the path to success. Yet, self-sexualization is self-annihilation. Meaning, females who embrace self-sexualization (radical sexual autonomy) WILL NEVER BE ABLE to be a TRUE woman. They will simply not possess a woman’s nature. But because we are all under the power and influence of “radical autonomy,” these females are still able to stake claim to being such a higher level human construct while rejecting AND destroying the particular characteristics that define the “woman” construct.
Ergo, de facto female dykes and genuine dykes ARE “women.” Their “nature” is equal to woman’s nature. Rosin thus becomes a “woman” that all decent men can truly despise. The domino effect can be predictably speculated.
John Purdy writes:
Hanna Rosin claims: …women are more powerful than men today and they should thank the sexual revolution for that.
Here are two brief thought experiments I came across decades ago that demolished feminism’s claims of equality for me.
Experiment 1: all the men on earth disappear leaving only women and girls behind. The modern world women depend upon would disintegrate in a matter of weeks. No plumbers, electricians or auto mechanics. No primary resource extraction, almost no transportation, enormous reduction in agricultural production, not much of a fire department. Almost no brain surgeons. The list is endless. For men in the opposite situation there would be a shortage of nurses, GPs and waitresses – a serious problem but not an existential crisis.
Experiment 2: all men on earth repudiate equality before the law for women. What could women do? Without the support of their male allies, precisely zero! a handful of female police and military personnel would be left over, easily mopped up.
Doesn’t sound like equality and independence, does it? Sounds more like 100 percent dependence to me.