April 28, 1997
In all of the madness that rose from the Sixties, America lost on many fronts. Poverty rose amongst blacks and Hispanics. Illegitimacy rates rose among educated whites, along with divorce rates. Educational standards fell, though a new Cabinet Department was established in 1978 to appropriate and oversee even more money for public education. Abortion rates rose and (thankfully) stabilized towards the end of the Eighties. Crime rates rose, as punishment declined and activism on behalf of criminals prospered. However, one damning proposition rose out of the new age, and its manifestation so coyly hides its existence.
This notion, though not stated directly, is that culture is even more male-driven than it ever has been before. Granted, more single women are working for higher pay, and they enjoy greater liberty than ever. Yet the latent subservient role can be found in nearly every one of the "accomplishments" feminists have cited in recent times. As the sexualization of society increased, a woman's femininity diminished until, now, women are told that there should be no fundamental difference between males females. Since sexuality is a male-dominated area (because of stronger libido, less self-control, and other factors), the sexual revolution has had the effect of relegating women into roles of inferiority.
The rise of single motherhood is touted as a great new dimension of female individualism, but here it is quite obvious that women are not making progress but in fact are having to work harder while men can do as they please. Women are required to work from nine to five and then raise a child, make dinner, and pay the bills at the same time absent fathers can sire more children and then escape the burdens of family and married life. In this regard, men are allowed to become sexual animals while women must pick up the pieces and face the stains of the burden of child-rearing. How, in any way, can this be considered a progression from the past? It seems that the Hindu practice of purdah (the seclusion of women from society) granted more liberties than does the alleged freedom of single parenthood.
Another area in which women are being molded to suit the sexual interests of males is in the decline of teenage chastity. Though about half of all young ladies aged seventeen admit to being virgins, that amount is a horrid reflection of the destruction of innocence, especially for females. Only fifty percent? The sexual revolution has produced a huge amount of casualties, especially amongst young girls. Most girls lose their virginity between the ages of thirteen and seventeen, and typically the male who robs them of such a virtue is anywhere from two to five years older then the girl. Not to mention the criminal implications such an act carries in some states, the fact that the male partners are older indicates that boys might very well hold on to virginity longer, opting at an older age to seek a young female partner.
A Harris poll from 1986 showed that 73 percent of girls and 50 percent of boys felt pressured to have sex. This is a clear indicator that girls are being forced to have sex by everyone - their friends, who tell fictional, glamorous stories; counselors, who tell them that sexual urges cannot be controlled; and by males, who constantly harrass them. The only more harmful influences come from the parents, who express moral ambivalance because they are either afraid to appear judgmental or they believe the new age explanation that times have changed and so have teens.
Cohabitation presents another threat to feminine rights. Ninety percent of all cohabitators expect to marry, but only half of all live-together couples choose to marry. Of these, 57 percent fail in the same timeframe that 30 percent of conventional marriages break down. Since the man usually instigates the relationship, he usually will end it or, if his girlfriend leaves him, will have no regrets about the whole affair. There is no experience gained through these wannabe unions, only cynicism and heartbreak. Once more, liberation has dampered a female's aspirations to achieve love. By placing the focus of courtship on raw sexuality, educators have invariably handed the keys to the relationship to the male partner, who on average knows fewer inhibitions and boundaries.
In any case, young females are neither encouraged to remain virginal nor encouraged to resist temptation. The boys will be boys, goes the story, and the girls cannot control their lust. In other words, the girls are too naive to reject sexual offerings from boys. Thus, the Left has indoctrinated girls into a confusing culture of wanton sexuality, where the male-centric sexual relationship is cleverly disguised as a part of the sexual liberation of women. Women are trained to loathe men and to think of themselves as independent; only the reverse is true. At the expense of feminine independence, men are allowed to live carelessly.
In the 1960's, Jayne Mansfield and Marilyn Monroe epitomized the subservient female, all lust and dependent on men. In today's world, Thelma and Louise are the counterparts, as facetious as this seems. Thelma and Louise are not liberated from male dominance, but rather from feminine individuality. The indoctrinated women view themselves as having complete control of their sex lives and as having no need for men save for the occasional amourous interlude. However, by taking the accountibility from men, they have in fact only liberated men from sexual responsibility. As with the other failures of the Sixties revolution, a segment of the population that was supposed to be saved only was firmly shackled in the name of freedom.