Far right family values (and divorced) radio host Dennis Prager is down on what he calls "feminism." To the rest of us it's called "not discriminating against, or looking down on, women." I really don't need to quote more than this second paragraph of his essay.
Yes, women have more opportunities to achieve career success; they are now members of most Jewish and Christian clergy; women’s college sports teams are given huge amounts of money; and there are far more women in political positions of power. 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.Yes, sure we discriminate less against women in employment and at the university level, and sure, more women (still far too few) are elected politicians who bring a much needed feminine perspective to, oh, I don't know, issues affecting 50% of the population who are women. But.... But? There's a "but" to not discriminating against women? That's like saying there's a "but" to letting blacks marry whites. There really is not "but." Non-discrimination is an inherent good. Period. You simply do not get to talk about the relative merits of discriminating against women (or anyone else for that matter).
But just for the fun of it, let's visit Prager's list of grievances of how discriminating less against women has brought upon us the end of all times.
1. Women are having more sex out of marriage, just like men have always done, and that's making women depressed. Yeah right. Check out this quote and see if you can find the 3rd grade logical fallacy in it.
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.”Yes it's none other than my favorite, post hoc ergo proper hoc - aka after it, therefore because of it. Women have sex, women are depressed, so sex is causing depression. Maybe. Or maybe women who are more depressed go out and have more sex to try to feel better. Kind of an obvious point lost on Prager. And certainly not a good reason to start discriminating against women again.
2."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. "
Uh, it's called mid-life crisis, and pretty much all of us going through it if were in any way self-aware. Honestly, other than Steve Jobs, who goes to their death bed thinking their job changed the world? I think some political activists can, but really, what percentage of people overall? Thus, I'm sure anyone working for a living has ennui around age 45. I do. And I didn't "chose" to forgo marriage. And with marriages breaking up at a rate of around 50% in this country, are we really to believe that single women would be happier with a divorce or to, and joint custody, under their belts? Really?
3. Nannies. Prager is upset that women are working outside the home. I'm only partially sympathetic with him on this one. Yes, I think it might be better for children to grow up with at least one part at home all the time. But welcome to America - very few of us have the money to quit our jobs and take care of the kids full time. Even if Prager were right, this isn't the fault of feminism, it's the fault of the current structure of the American economy that makes it impossible for the majority of people to afford raise kids on income.
4. The emasculation of men. Seriously.
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.And you can't be honored without demeaning someone else's existence? I realize that for the religious right, and far too many republicans, the very definition of their faith and their politics is based on who they hate and wish to oppress. But suggesting that men can't accomplish anything noteworthy as father, provider or anything else in life simply because women get a chance to do it too, is ludicrous. Again, I feel like we're talking to 3rd graders here, but your value and worth as a human being is not measured by comparing yourself to others. It's by comparing yourself to yourself. By looking at the talents, and crosses, you've been given, and seeing what you make of them.
