To the political Left, abortion rights ARE "women's rights," as simplistic and inane as that may be. Abortion rights are called “women’s rights” because abortion on demand is such a central part of what was a generation ago, called the “sexual revolution.”
In the 1960s new contraceptives (the pill, etc.), coupled with abortion on demand made the "sexual revolution" possible because it apparently "liberated women" from the fear of unwanted pregnancy resulting from casual sex.
Of course, with the tens of millions of abortions done since Roe was passed, apparently abortion has morphed into a sort of "back-up contraception."
Previous to the "sexual revolution" BOTH men and women had to consider the possibility of a lifetime commitment to a child and a permanent link to each other (like it or not) before engaging in sexual relations.
It was a ponderous consideration for both sides and families and society vigorously sought to protect a woman's honor and reduce her vulnerabilities via "shotgun weddings” (which were far more prevalent) among families back then and strict child support laws enacted by governments.
All of this served to force people to consider sex a byproduct of commitment to family, but that was too restrictive for Leftists, who saw "the patriarchal family" as one of the pillars that held the "oppressive Western culture" (with its emphasis on private property rights, market-based economies, individual liberties and personal responsibility) together.
The problem was that, as it existed, Western culture had succeeded in delivering the MOST prosperity to the MOST people.
What those opposed to property rights, market-based economies and individualism sought to do was to fight for FREEDOM FROM personal responsibility (“license”), in the name of “freedom.”
The “non-conformist” movement that began in the 1950s against Western “Corporate culture” pretended to be a “freedom” movement – “the freedom to be one’s self” – but it was really an ill-conceived movement to free people from the rigid confines and responsibilities of the corporate culture (work and life), which was one of the things that produced so much of the prosperity that Western cultures enjoyed.
The sexual revolution was even more important, because it freed people from an even more basic responsibility, the responsibility for caring for and respecting their own bodies.
A woman’s “reputation” became a mere joke, to the point, where today, young women can scarcely imagine a time when families sent teens who got pregnant away “with family” for extended periods, or kept them secluded claiming they’d come down with “infectious mononucleosis” in order to shield those girls (and their families) from public scorn and ridicule.
In so doing, the “sexual revolution” reduced the unwanted and unplanned for results of casual sex, all those unwanted babies, now referred to as “fetuses,” to mere refuse/garbage.
The “sexual revolution” was and remains a direct assault on Western culture.
It has been embraced by so many people because most of us have, within us, a libertine streak, that finds the “if it feels good, do it” mantra to be attractive, especially when “doing it” comes with absolutely “no strings attached.”
Today, people who embrace abstinence and eschew casual sex out of “self-respect,” are considered “prudes” and worse, religions which vainly preached against casual, irresponsible sex have seen the size of their congregations shrink. The huge decrease in Church attendance that preceded the Evangelical and “Born Again” movement was certainly related to society’s changing view of casual sex.
In divorcing sex from family-life, it further divorced individuals from personal responsibility and the problem with undermining personal responsibility is that without personal responsibility (accountability) there is no real SELF OWNERSHIP.
And that was the real, primary goal of the “sexual revolution.”
In the 1960s new contraceptives (the pill, etc.), coupled with abortion on demand made the "sexual revolution" possible because it apparently "liberated women" from the fear of unwanted pregnancy resulting from casual sex.
Of course, with the tens of millions of abortions done since Roe was passed, apparently abortion has morphed into a sort of "back-up contraception."
Previous to the "sexual revolution" BOTH men and women had to consider the possibility of a lifetime commitment to a child and a permanent link to each other (like it or not) before engaging in sexual relations.
It was a ponderous consideration for both sides and families and society vigorously sought to protect a woman's honor and reduce her vulnerabilities via "shotgun weddings” (which were far more prevalent) among families back then and strict child support laws enacted by governments.
All of this served to force people to consider sex a byproduct of commitment to family, but that was too restrictive for Leftists, who saw "the patriarchal family" as one of the pillars that held the "oppressive Western culture" (with its emphasis on private property rights, market-based economies, individual liberties and personal responsibility) together.
The problem was that, as it existed, Western culture had succeeded in delivering the MOST prosperity to the MOST people.
What those opposed to property rights, market-based economies and individualism sought to do was to fight for FREEDOM FROM personal responsibility (“license”), in the name of “freedom.”
The “non-conformist” movement that began in the 1950s against Western “Corporate culture” pretended to be a “freedom” movement – “the freedom to be one’s self” – but it was really an ill-conceived movement to free people from the rigid confines and responsibilities of the corporate culture (work and life), which was one of the things that produced so much of the prosperity that Western cultures enjoyed.
The sexual revolution was even more important, because it freed people from an even more basic responsibility, the responsibility for caring for and respecting their own bodies.
A woman’s “reputation” became a mere joke, to the point, where today, young women can scarcely imagine a time when families sent teens who got pregnant away “with family” for extended periods, or kept them secluded claiming they’d come down with “infectious mononucleosis” in order to shield those girls (and their families) from public scorn and ridicule.
In so doing, the “sexual revolution” reduced the unwanted and unplanned for results of casual sex, all those unwanted babies, now referred to as “fetuses,” to mere refuse/garbage.
The “sexual revolution” was and remains a direct assault on Western culture.
It has been embraced by so many people because most of us have, within us, a libertine streak, that finds the “if it feels good, do it” mantra to be attractive, especially when “doing it” comes with absolutely “no strings attached.”
Today, people who embrace abstinence and eschew casual sex out of “self-respect,” are considered “prudes” and worse, religions which vainly preached against casual, irresponsible sex have seen the size of their congregations shrink. The huge decrease in Church attendance that preceded the Evangelical and “Born Again” movement was certainly related to society’s changing view of casual sex.
In divorcing sex from family-life, it further divorced individuals from personal responsibility and the problem with undermining personal responsibility is that without personal responsibility (accountability) there is no real SELF OWNERSHIP.
And that was the real, primary goal of the “sexual revolution.”
8 comments:
In so doing, the “sexual revolution” reduced the unwanted and unplanned for results of casual sex, all those unwanted babies, now referred to as “fetuses,” to mere refuse/garbage...brilliant post my friend...When will the pendulum swing back ??
"When will the pendulum swing back ??" (Angel)
Good question.
I don't see any signs of it doing so, yet.
Sadly, JMK, you're right. On the post on no signs that the pendulum is swinging back. That's why I say conservatives need to be proactive and retake the transmitters of culture--entertainment, academia, news--that shape peoples' attitudes. So long as we allow the transmitters of culture to be controlled by the left our society will continue to suffer the consequences of the sexual revolution.
Oops! That should read "On the post AND on no signs..."
"That's why I say conservatives need to be proactive and retake the transmitters of culture--entertainment, academia, news--that shape peoples' attitudes." (Seane-Anna)
<
<
I agree, with reservations Seane-Anna.
I wholeheartedly agree that the MSM should be run by more mainstream and more right-of-center people, BUT, I've always discounted media influence and continue to do so.
The Left misguidedly seeks to silence the likes of Talk Radio's Conservative talkers and FoxNews because they believe they've "brainwashed gullible people into becoming more Conservative."
That is not so.
America has ALWAYS been a Right-of-Center country. The reason the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly and other Conservatives have been successful is NOT because of their Public Relations skills, "their ability to con their listeners/viewer" or their "slick charisma," it's BECAUSE their message (their CONSERVATIVE message) resonated with the American people.
It's not that any Americans were CONVERTED, it's that Conservative Americans sought out and chose to support voices they could identify with.
I believe that reckless and irresponsible Conservatives COULD turn off many Americans if they violated the public trust the way the Liberal MSM has done.
P.S. I do agree with the heart of your viewpoint - the MSM SHOULD be far more Conservative than it currently is to reflect the American people.
There is no question that the sexual revolution did a lot of harm. We now have abortion on demand, no fault divorce, gay marriage and rampant sexually transmitted diseases. Unfortunately, it is going to be difficult to reverse these unfortunate trends.
If AIDS could not end the sexual revolution, I have my doubts that laws will be able to do much to improve morals. What we need is a personal moral and spiritual revolution that changes hearts and lives. It will take time but I think we can create a society that is more moral and just than we have today.
"I have my doubts that laws will be able to do much to improve morals." (RightDemocrat)
Well, the track record on legislating morality is pretty bad all around.
One thing that motivates many people to immoral or even amoral behavior is the insipid, yet pervasive view that "Everybody else is doing it too."
The problem there is that that "view" is really just an excuse for getting over at other people's expense.
I think the "Bratton era" (the Police Commissioner in Guiliani's 1st term) showed at least a partial answer - if the law is to be useful at all, it will have to get much tougher with offenders than it has to date.
Post a Comment