Fascinating article, which according to the range of comments has touched nerves right and left. It does not seem to be a radical suggestion that over the past 30 years or so, women have become slightly more empowered to decline sex when it does not appeal to them. And yet, both men and women seem to be sensitive about the issue, attaching all kinds of other political baggage to this particular observation. I do understand all those defensive postures, and share some of them myself.
And I confess my honest responses may also be cranky and unpopular. For example, I acknowledge that we white American feminists seem to circle endlessly around what tend to be first-world problems, and white feminism has to be repeatedly called out for its ignorance of how much more gender inequality damages the great majority of women who are non-white, non-privileged, etc. My perspective is constantly whipsawing my feelings: on the one hand, I am outraged that the country that says it’s the most free and the most egalitarian still really is NOT; on the other hand, I am grimly aware that the women in this country may need to take responsibility for their own destiny, (without whining, cupcake). See? I can’t say either of these things at the dinner table without ticking someone off.
However, my own political “analysis” is far simpler. First, it could just be a pendulum swing, as we see in all cultures.
But as someone who lived through the era of “sexual liberation” promised by the pill and the counterculture, I suspect that women actually got scammed. Yes, it was lovely to be able to have plenty of sex without the consequence of pregnancy. However, few women realized that they were at the same time forfeiting the power they had wielded in the past — the power of granting or withholding their sexual favors. In return for giving up this specious, demeaning “power,” we thought we would gain equal autonomy, equal wages, equal consent, equal respect. Instead, while none of these gains have fully manifested yet, it appears that the expectations now placed on women have doubled and tripled from those in our mothers’ generation.
One commenter alludes to the traditional expectation that women be loving, supportive, nurturing, and never nag. We’d all love to be those things, and hope that our partners would be the same. But those low expectations and narrow standards could made a thinking woman crazy and miserable if she could not get out of the kitchen enough to contribute to the wider world. But now? Now she must have a job — a great job; AND raise children effortlessly and brilliantly; AND ensure that the household runs cleanly and efficiently; AND remain toned, tanned, depilated, trimmed, coutured, coiffed, and very thin.
In return, she has far less chance her partner will stay with her; she still does not make a full dollar; she may have a high-powered job that entails harassment that she still cannot avoid or report; and so on. None of these developments are aphrodisiac in the least. Please don’t take it personally. This situation reflects the unintended consequences of a movement that we hoped would make both men and women happier. So yes, gentlemen, if many women today sound angry, resentful, and bitter, it’s because they are.
And, frankly, when the gentlemen complain that this anger only makes the women undesirable, that’s hilarious. It’s just as wryly amusing as when an ultra-privileged woman “Just. Can’t. Even.” Each one deserves a big, Southern, “Bless your heart!” And each one needs to realize that when something sounds too good to be true (complete sexual freedom! parties all the time!) it generally is.
So I don’t know how all this gets sorted out. But I do hope we can all stay friends, at least.
Wait, did I say something wrong?
