Dennis Prager is a Dolt (Feminism’s Awful Legacies Edition)

Ah, Dennis Prager.  I will confess, Dennis, that I have listened to you on the radio before.  And some of your study of theological topics can be pretty darned interesting.  But as soon as you start applying those topics to contemporary social topics, you tend to  go off the deep Right end.

For example, feminism … and your essay: Four Legacies of Feminism: They have made life — and life for women — worse.

Hmmmm. Well, that’s a provocative subtitle.  Let’s see why you think that, Dennis.

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the publication of Betty Friedan’s feminist magnum opus, The Feminine Mystique, we can have a perspective on feminism that was largely unavailable heretofore.

True.  As time goes by, we can see how feminism as a movement has evolved, how the role of women in society has changed, etc.

Of course, with the longer-term perspective, we tend to lose sight of how things were before the feminist movement. Approximately a third of the US population is 50 years of age or older.  Assuming 65 as the cutoff (i.e., 15 years old when Friedan’s book came out, and so able to remember something coherent about the pre-feminist society), that drops down to about 15% of the population.

So for most people, remembering how things were back then is more of an academic study.

Dennis Prager is 63.

And that perspective doesn’t make feminism look good.

Ruh-roh!

Yes, women have more opportunities to achieve career success; …

Though still fewer than men.

… they are now members of most Jewish and Christian clergy; …

Though notably not in some denominations, particularly in conservative ones, and in some there are still glass ceilings as to how high they can go.

… women’s college sports teams are given huge amounts of money; …

Though less than men’s college sports teams.

and there are far more women in political positions of power.

Though fewer than there are men. For example, they make up 17% of the House of Representatives and, coincidentally, of the US Senate.

But the prices paid for these changes — four in particular — have been great, and outweigh the gains for women, let alone for men and for society.

So I guess we should limit their careers, kick them out of the clergy, marginalize their sports teams, and boot ’em from Congress.  For their own good, let alone for the good of men and society.

(Is it okay if they keep the vote, Dennis?)

The first was the feminist message to young women to have sex just as men do. There is no reason for them to lead a different sexual life than men, they were told. Just as men can have sex with any woman solely for the sake of physical pleasure, so, too, women ought to enjoy sex with any man just for the fun of it.

Dennis conflates a number of threads in the feminist movement together into something a bit simplistic.  The feminist view of gender roles for sex is, to simplify it a different, “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”  If it’s okay for men to sleep around, then it’s okay for women, too.

One may question the pros and cons of sexual promiscuity, but the rejection here was the pre-feminist idea that women needed to stay wholesome and virginal (and ignorant and apprehensive about sex), while it was nudge-nudge-wink-wink for guys to sow their wild oats (but only with women who were thus, by definition, “loose” and certainly  not someone you’d bring home to your parents).

The notion that the nature of women is to hope for at least the possibility of a long-term commitment from a man they sleep with has been dismissed as sexist nonsense.

It’s not clear to me that all or most women are more fundamentally yearning for a long-term commitment than, say, men are, or that where that’s so it’s not still a sign that our society, fifty years after Friedan’s book, doesn’t still have an influence on what women expect (and what is expected of them) vs. men.

(One analogy that comes to mind is that black slaves were freed roughly 150 years ago.  The Civil Rights movement welled up 50 years ago.  Anyone who thinks we have shed the cultural and subcultural trappings of black/white racial prejudice and conflict, and have entered a post-racial era, has blinders on. Cultural changes don’t happen over night, no matter how dramatic the differences are for women today vs. the early 60s.)

As a result, vast numbers of young American women had, and continue to have, what are called “hookups”; and for some of them it is quite possible that no psychological or emotional price has been paid. But the majority of women who are promiscuous do pay prices. One is depression. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat recently summarized an academic study on the subject: “A young woman’s likelihood of depression rose steadily as her number of partners climbed and the present stability of her sex life diminished.”

What’s the basis of that depression, Dennis?  Is it exclusive to women?  Is it driven by some inherent genetic factor, or some spiritual difference between men and women, or is it a result of a culture that still expects women to be less promiscuious than men and to be seeking long-term relationships.

You note that some women “quite possibly” aren’t affected.  Does that mean they get a pass from you on their behavior?

Long before this study, I had learned from women callers to my radio show (an hour each week — the “Male-Female Hour” — is devoted to very honest discussion of sexual and other man-woman issues) that not only did female promiscuity coincide with depression, it also often had lasting effects on women’s ability to enjoy sex. Many married women told me that in order to have a normal sexual relationship with their husband, they had to work through the negative aftereffects of early promiscuity — not trusting men, feeling used, seeing sex as unrelated to love, and disdaining their husband’s sexual overtures. And many said they still couldn’t have a normal sex life with their husband.

Aside from noting that callers to your radio show might be a self-selected group (of folks who believe as you do, who have similar cultural and religious values as you do, and thus might have more baggage in this area), I would offer up in contrast the pre-feminist model of women who ought have no experience in sex before marriage, who in fact ought to see it primarily as a marital duty, and for whom, in fact, any pleasure taken in marital sexual acts would be seen as sinful, a negative, or unthinkable.

Is that a preferable attitude to foster?

Are there differences, broadly speaking, between men and women in this area?  I’ll also say “quite possibly,” though it’s clearly not a clear-cut XX vs XY trait.  There is obviously variation, especially since sex and relationships are not solely an autonomic activity but involve human cognition, judgment, and emotions.  It may be that it is advisable, in broad terms, for women to be less promiscuous than men — but, if so, that’s a pragmatic judgment.

And, honestly, I’m way too leery of those on the Right in the “culture wars” driving the point forward, as then the tendency is not only to turn it from the pragmatic to the moral, but to use that as a club for making other distinctions about how women “ought” to behave and how what they “should” be allowed to do.

Yes, I’m looking at you, Dennis. Because, as we move on …

The second awful legacy of feminism has been the belief among women that they could and should postpone marriage until they developed their careers. Only then should they seriously consider looking for a husband. Thus, the decade or more during which women have the best chance to attract men is spent being preoccupied with developing a career. Again, I cite woman callers to my radio show over the past 20 years who have sadly looked back at what they now, at age 40, regard as 20 wasted years. Sure, these frequently bright and talented women have a fine career. But most women are not programmed to prefer a great career to a great man and a family. They feel they were sold a bill of goods at college and by the media. And they were. It turns out that most women without a man do worse in life than fish without bicycles.

And there we go.  Women are “programmed” (I gather genetically) to prefer  a “great man and a family,” so the suggestion that they might seek a career is against their “programming” and can only lead to heart-ache and empty lives. That’s a lovely sentiment, Dennis.

I don’t take away from the angst and unhappiness of those women in their 40s who suddenly think that perhaps life has passed them by and that they need to find a mate. I would suggest that there are men who are in the same boat.  I would also suggest that people got depressed and unhappy with their  life choices (or lack thereof) before The Feminine Mystique.

I would also suggest that 50 years is a short time to have reached a new balance point in this area, and that we as a culture are continuing to figure out different life courses to take.  We may see more early marriage again some day, with a commitment to mutual careers.  We may see more house husbands as the Baby Boomers who grew up with “Father Knows Best” and “The Brady Bunch” pass into their elder years.  We may see more couples looking for ways to have it all.

What I don’t think is that we’ll return to that “Father Knows Best” and “Brady Bunch” time when the vast majority of women went to college (if they went to college) primarily for their MRS. degree, settled down, kept house and produced babies, while hubby went to the factory or the office.

And I think that’s a good thing.  It might have been simpler, but it was also stultifying.   If a woman chooses that as the arc of her life, I think that’s fine if it fulfills her and makes her happy — even if there’s a chance that, like the women described above, she gets into her 40s and thinks of paths not taken.

But you’ve done nothing to convince me, Dennis, that the “old-fashioned way” is best, or should be the primary (let alone sole) option women should see for their lives.

And, by the way, Dennis, what to your mind is the ideal age for women to marry.  If they’re not going to pursue a career, should they go to college, anyway?  Or perhaps they should get married straight out of high school.  Is high school even necessary, Dennis?

The third sad feminist legacy is that so many women — and men — have bought the notion that women should work outside the home that for the first time in American history, and perhaps world history, vast numbers of children are not primarily raised by their mothers or even by an extended family member. Instead they are raised for a significant part of their childhood by nannies and by workers at daycare centers. Whatever feminists may say about their only advocating choices, everyone knows the truth: Feminism regards work outside the home as more elevating, honorable, and personally productive than full-time mothering and making a home.

I think that there have been feminists who have seen home-making / mothering as a less “elevating, honorable, and personally productive” option.  I think those feminists are wrong.  But I think they are right if it’s the only option that’s being offered, or that society is willing to accept.

If a woman chooses to be a home-maker and full-time mother, more power to her. If she chooses not to, more power to her, too.

If she and her mate have kids, then they have some hard decisions to make.  Day care and nannies and the like aren’t ideal, and I do believe that parenthood has to be the first career of all parents. It’s something Margie and I have struggled with — and been able to find some ways to make it work. At least, our daughter doesn’t seem to be damaged goods from our decisions in that area.

The other thing I’ll note, Dennis, is that it is increasingly difficult in our society to make do with just a single income, both from a stability standpoint (one paycheck is much more fragile a lifeline in our current economic clime) and from a cultural aspect in terms of the costs of things.  Of course, what things we consider necessary in our lives is a lot fancier than lived with in the early 60s, and it’s arguable that maybe we should seek a simpler, less expensive life if it means that one or the other parent can stay home with the young’uns.

I just don’t agree that parent has to be, by default and design and cultural diktat the mother.

Which, of course brings us to your last “awful legacy, Dennis …

And the fourth awful legacy of feminism has been the demasculinization of men. For all of higher civilization’s recorded history, becoming a man was defined overwhelmingly as taking responsibility for a family. That notion — indeed the notion of masculinity itself — is regarded by feminism as the worst of sins: patriarchy.

There are some zany feminists out there, Dennis, who consider holding a door open for someone to be an attack by the patriarchy. If we’re going to bring them into the debate, then we should bring some of the conservative “Quiver-full” types as counter-arguments for your appeal to tradition.

We may debate over whether “taking responsibility for a family” has been the classic tradition foor being a man “for all of higher civilization’s recorded history.”  But I’ll suggest that taking responsibility for a family doesn’t have  to mean patriarchy — unless by “taking responsiblity” you mean “taking control.”

Men need a role, or they become, as the title of George Gilder’s classic book on single men describes them: Naked Nomads. In little more than a generation, feminism has obliterated roles. If you wonder why so many men choose not to get married, the answer lies in large part in the contemporary devaluation of the husband and of the father — of men as men, in other words. Most men want to be honored in some way — as a husband, a father, a provider, as an accomplished something; they don’t want merely to be “equal partners” with a wife.

That’s … lovely, Dennis. Men don’t want to “merely” be an “equal partner”?  Gee, I guess that does sound like patriarchy. If they can’t be in charge, in control, the paterfamilias, then they’re going to take their cultural ball and go and sulk?

Let me clue you in on something, Dennis.  I love being an equal partner with my wife.  I don’t command her (even lovingly), nor does she command me.  We collaborate.  We help each other.  We nag each other. We honor each other as spouses, as parents, as providers, as accomplished and participating in our family and in our raising of a fine daughter.

There are things we each take a primary lead in, but that’s based on  personal inclination and physical capability and compromise.  It’s not built on Men Do This, Women Do That, and That’s What Higher Civilization Is All About.

And, somehow, I don’t feel devalued.  I don’t feel like a “naked nomad,” bereft of any role that includes my being the head honcho, the big cheese, the sole breadwinner, the king on his throne.

Does that mean I’m a demasculinized victim of feminism, Dennis?

In sum, thanks to feminism, very many women slept with too many men for their own happiness; postponed marriage too long to find the right man to marry; are having hired hands do much of the raising of their children; and find they are dating boy-men because manly men are so rare.

Feminism exemplifies the truth of the saying, “Be careful what you wish for — you may get it.”

In sum, Dennis, you think that women should be innocent virgins when they marry their husbands at a suitably young age, devote themselves to home-making and rearing the kids, and let their husbands control them and the household.

Dennis, you exemplify the truth that feminism was not only desperately needed when Betty Friedan published her book, but it still has a long way to go, baby.

Dolt.