Feminism and the Family

I have for quite some time considered myself a feminist, although I don’t think that I have seriously considered what that means. I suppose that I have subconsciously defined feminism in the same way as historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich: “A feminist is a person who believes in equality between the sexes, who recognizes discrimination against women and who is willing to work to overcome it.” Who could argue with that?

But many people whom I love and respect have negative feelings about feminism, sometimes intensely so. And feminism is also quite unpopular. A 2015 Vox poll found that only 18 percent of Americans call themselves feminists. In a 2016 YouGov poll, the percentage was only slightly higher (26 percent).

I read Mona Charen’s new book, Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense, because I wanted to better understand why so many people are reluctant to support (or, in some cases, are highly critical of) feminism.

At its core, Sex Matters is a blistering critique of the dominant perspectives in our culture regarding various issues related to sex, sexuality, and the family (a critique with which I largely agree). To the extent that feminism has contributed to that perspective, Sex Matters is also a critique of feminism.

Charen is not wholly opposed to feminism. She acknowledges, for example, that “[f]eminism deserves credit for helping women get the vote, securing equal pay, and obtaining full civil and political rights,” which she calls “unmixed blessings.” However, Charen argues that the feminist movement “took a disastrous wrong turn when it rejected the family as a prison for women.” She also believes that feminists “took another wrong turn” by endorsing the sexual revolution.

Sex Matters was eye opening for me in many ways. For example, I wasn’t aware of the degree to which some influential feminists have spoken out (and continue to speak out) against the traditional nuclear family. Charen summarizes and critiques several of the books that played an important role in the feminist movement, such as Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch, Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex, and Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics. I haven’t read any of those books, but based on Charen’s description, an important theme throughout them appears to be that the family is oppressive.

Like Charen, I strongly disagree with that idea. I acknowledge that, as Charen puts it, “men have frequently controlled and even stunted their daughters and wives, out of a misguided belief in male superiority.” This certainly needed to change, but condemning the nuclear family in general was a terrible (and unnecessary) way to bring about that change.

I was also surprised by the extent to which some influential feminists have endorsed casual sex and the resulting hookup culture that is so prevalent on today’s college campuses (and elsewhere). Charen calls “no strings attached” sexuality “debased and unnatural, especially for women,” and I wholeheartedly agree.

I wonder how representative these views about the family and sexuality are. Most of the feminists I know personally don’t consider the traditional nuclear family to be oppressive and don’t support casual sex or the hookup culture. Of course, most of the feminists I know personally are members of my church, and I suspect that has a tempering influence.

Sex Matters includes a chapter summarizing the scientific research supporting the intuitive (but also controversial, at least in some circles) idea that women and men are different, and not just because they’re socialized differently. I’ve long been skeptical of the idea that all sex differences are socially constructed, so I found this chapter to be informative but not necessarily surprising.

I understand, however, why acknowledging that there are innate differences between the sexes makes people uncomfortable. This raises the question: What does it mean for women and men to be equal?

Sheryl Sandberg has said: “A truly equal world would be one where women ran half our countries and companies and men ran half our homes.” Is this the only (or best) way to think about equality? Does equality mean sameness?

Charen doesn’t think so. She believes that, “on average, women tend to be more inclined to choose children over work than men.” Charen presents evidence (such as this survey) showing that affluent women (who are less constrained in their choices by financial necessity) “are more likely than working-class women to define their ideal work situation as one offering part-time or no work when their children are young.”

If Charen is correct about women’s preferences, shouldn’t those preferences be respected? Thinking about that question raises a broader question about the relative value of working outside the home compared to raising children. It seems to me that, generally speaking, our modern culture seems to overvalue the former and undervalue the latter.

Charen says, “I cannot count how many times I’ve asked women what they do and seen them look down sheepishly and confess, ‘I’m just a mom.’ When I’ve responded that their work is incredibly important, they’ve often thanked me profusely, adding that I was the first person to react that way.” But why should women be embarrassed about the choice to stay at home and raise their children? Why is working outside the home considered more important or meaningful than raising children?

Personally, I agree with Charen: “The best and most important sources of identity, meaning, and joy, for men and women, are to be found not in the world of work but in our homes and families.” This is what leaders of my church have been saying for several decades now, and Charen helped me gain a greater appreciation for their wisdom.

Charen herself made the choice to cut back on work so that she could devote herself more fully to raising her children. She has no regrets. “I am infinitely richer for making the decisions I made,” she says. And by “richer,” she obviously isn’t referring to money.

But I know quite a few feminists who would say similar things, which is one of the reasons why I don't see Sex Matters as a critique of feminism per se. Rather, I think it is a critique of a radical approach to feminism. In a recent column The Salt Lake Tribune's Holly Richardson said: “There are a number of definitions of feminism, some of which I agree with and some I do not.” I feel similarly, and Sex Matters helped me better understand some of the definitions of feminism that I do not agree with.

Reading Sex Matters didn't change my inclination to call myself a feminist. But I will probably take greater care to make sure it’s understood that I don’t consider the traditional nuclear family to be oppressive (quite the opposite) and I support traditional notions of chastity and fidelity. I also honor and respect those women, like my own wife, who have chosen to devote themselves to raising children. I understand that Charen calls herself an “equity feminist.” Perhaps I will adopt that label for myself as well.